Is Federer still young enough to compete for Slams?

[Federberg]

Federberg, some people only see stat sheets (which is no one I know of), some (like you) only the eyeball test and only look to stats to confirm their beliefs. Smart people take both into account.

Yes you're very smart mate. Very smart indeed

 

[Busted]

I voted for #4. Clearly Nadal, Djokovic and Murray's bodies are all really 55 even if their birth dates say they're 31 and 30... Been saying those 3 need to shorten points for 5-6 years now. Somewhere on this board is an old post of mine from 2014 or 2015 where I said flat out that Djokovic's body would give out before he turned 30 and he'd have the same kind of slump Nadal was mired in at at the time. Yep...I'm patting myself on the back. Even Stevie Wonder saw these injuries coming for these 3 "baseline warriors." Meanwhile Roger had a freak accident away from the courts and came back from injury looking fresh as a daisy...

 

[calitennis127]

No I actually gave you an explanation. Dodgy footwork. You asked for something more specific than that and I couldn't give it to you. It's very easy to see why players like Canas and Simon, retrievers, would cause Roger a real problem. They keep him out long enough for his game to implode. It's not rocket science. When you ask me to delve into the specifics of the footwork issue, that's where I can't give you further detail

Okay Federberg - so you're saying that Federer's footwork was good enough to go up 3-1 in the 4th set on Simon and to be 1 point away from getting a double break, but not good enough to win?

Federberg and El Dude - can you please explain to me based on this video why Federer was so much better in 2006 than in 2008?

 

[Ricardo]

Okay Federberg - so you're saying that Federer's footwork was good enough to go up 3-1 in the 4th set on Simon and to be 1 point away from getting a double break, but not good enough to win?

Federberg and El Dude - can you please explain to me based on this video why Federer was so much better in 2006 than in 2008?

This video shows exactly that, his fh broke down so much even Koenig called it his Achilles heel. That wasn’t the case in 2006.

 

[El Dude]

The short answer, @calitennis127 , without even watching the video, is that you can't look only at one match, as if a single match can be representative of a whole year. One of the differences between a player in their peak years (Roger's 2004-07) and later plateau/prime years (2008 and on) is the frequency with which that player can reach their best form. What makes Roger's 2004-07 span so great isn't only the level he was able to attain, but the consistency he could reach it. Roger has played brilliant tennis since then, but never so consistently.

This is why I question the idea that Roger is playing as well now as he ever was. Maybe in a limited context, but is he playing 90+ matches on all surfaces? No. He's figured out a schedule that allows him to find a good form more frequently than he was in 2013-16, but he's not the machine he was in 2004-07.

Actually, this is a major part of aging in all sports: The older you get, the harder it is to not only maintain your skills--because of wear and tear and aging in general--but also to maintain the mental edge. Think of a hangover in your early 20s versus a hangover ten years later...it is a whole different ball-game (and don't even get me started on hangovers in your 40s! One of the many reasons I don't drink as much as I did in my 20s).

 

[I.Haychew]

Okay Federberg - so you're saying that Federer's footwork was good enough to go up 3-1 in the 4th set on Simon and to be 1 point away from getting a double break, but not good enough to win?

Federberg and El Dude - can you please explain to me based on this video why Federer was so much better in 2006 than in 2008?

Highlights aren't indicative of an entire match.

 

[calitennis127]

The short answer, @calitennis127 , without even watching the video, is that you can't look only at one match, as if a single match can be representative of a whole year. One of the differences between a player in their peak years (Roger's 2004-07) and later plateau/prime years (2008 and on) is the frequency with which that player can reach their best form.

But I don't think Federer failing to win a 5-set classic against Nadal at Wimbledon or failing to win a point to go up double break against Simon in Toronto is an indicator that Federer was not "reaching his best form." We are talking about such tiny, miniscule margins that to speak in broad strokes about a decline over one point going this or that way does not make much sense.

Look at 2006 - in Rome Federer beat Nalbandian in a 3rd set tiebreak 7-5. He also beat Roddick in Shanghai after saving two match points. Does the fact that he saved match points against Roddick in 2006 but lost a tight third set in Toronto to Simon in 2008 mean that he was worse in 2008?

I think you are stretching the significance of just a few points here and there to draw wildly exaggerated conclusions. In 2006 Federer did not win every match 6-1, 6-2.

What makes Roger's 2004-07 span so great isn't only the level he was able to attain, but the consistency he could reach it. Roger has played brilliant tennis since then, but never so consistently.

How was he not consistent in 2008?

This is why I question the idea that Roger is playing as well now as he ever was. Maybe in a limited context, but is he playing 90+ matches on all surfaces? No. He's figured out a schedule that allows him to find a good form more frequently than he was in 2013-16, but he's not the machine he was in 2004-07.

Sure, but most of the time that he plays with his limited schedule, he is able to play at or close to the level he has always played at, and the discussions of his "aging" have been excessive.

Do you really think Federer produced a lower level of tennis in the 2015 US Open final than he did in 2008 when he won it? He played fantastically in 2015 but Djokovic was so good that day that it didn't matter. The 2015 Djokovic was better than any player Federer beat in the US Open final from 2004 to 2008 and you fail to take that into account.

 

[britbox]

Nalbandian was an outstanding volleyer. I'm not sure what you are talking about there.

I forgot how much I love reading your Nalbandian crap... welcome back.

 

[Federberg]

I think you are stretching the significance of just a few points here and there to draw wildly exaggerated conclusions.

Lol! Aren't you the one doing that? The rest of us are pointing out his performance of seasons if not years. You're posting videos of individual matches

 

[shawnbm]

Looking back years from now, I question if Roger and his team may regret he did not move to a slightly larger racquet years earlier in order to stay on par with Nadal, Novak, Andy and the rest. He played with that smaller, more unforgiving racquet all the way up until 2014 (maybe early 2015) if memory serves. He has done better since then except for the bad year of 2016 when injury and surgery struck him down. No shame in losing to Novak in those finals and they were competitive--Roger just wasn't as sharp as Nole in those. Nole deserved to win.

 

[britbox]

Looking back years from now, I question if Roger and his team may regret he did not move to a slightly larger racquet years earlier in order to stay on par with Nadal, Novak, Andy and the rest. He played with that smaller, more unforgiving racquet all the way up until 2014 (maybe early 2015) if memory serves. He has done better since then except for the bad year of 2016 when injury and surgery struck him down. No shame in losing to Novak in those finals and they were competitive--Roger just wasn't as sharp as Nole in those. Nole deserved to win.

Probably... I think he's attributed the change of racquet favourably in a few interviews/pressers.

 

[Federberg]

Looking back years from now, I question if Roger and his team may regret he did not move to a slightly larger racquet years earlier in order to stay on par with Nadal, Novak, Andy and the rest. He played with that smaller, more unforgiving racquet all the way up until 2014 (maybe early 2015) if memory serves. He has done better since then except for the bad year of 2016 when injury and surgery struck him down. No shame in losing to Novak in those finals and they were competitive--Roger just wasn't as sharp as Nole in those. Nole deserved to win.

Possibly, but 20/20 hindsight is a futile thing. The guy was dominating to such an extreme degree, that it's natural human nature to persist with what has worked in the past. Not everyone has the Tiger Woods constant game reconstruction mentality.

My suspicion in any case is that there were likely other reasons that Roger could have argued for his failures to compete effectively with the other top guys that would have made it difficult to pin point larger racquet head sizes as an advantage. How many times did he write off his chances because his back or conditioning wasn't optimal in the barren years? It wouldn't shock me if years from now, Roger attributes as much of his recent successes to his aggressively shorter playing schedule as to the change in racquet head size

 

[shawnbm]

In terms of playing style, his hitting over and driving the backhand return against Nadal and others has been the thing that stands out the most, surely many agree. I have voiced that view since 2009; he should drive the backhand return back rather than slice it so much. I am glad he is doing that more these days, as it has reaped dividends in terms of setting up the forehand and other shots to attack and end points faster.

 

[Federberg]

In terms of playing style, his hitting over and driving the backhand return against Nadal and others has been the thing that stands out the most, surely many agree. I have voiced that view since 2009; he should drive the backhand return back rather than slice it so much. I am glad he is doing that more these days, as it has reaped dividends in terms of setting up the forehand and other shots to attack and end points faster.

oh I agree absolutely. That seems obvious to me. But I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Roger is likely to have a slightly different take on all this. I try not to underestimate the ego of a champion. He's going to attribute a lot of his success to his better health, which I'm guessing he'll say is because of his reduced scheduling. To me, it's obvious that his superior backhand has completely changed his court positioning. He no longer has to camp out on the ad side to hit those forehands

 

[calitennis127]

Lol! Aren't you the one doing that? The rest of us are pointing out his performance of seasons if not years. You're posting videos of individual matches

Because ultimately it comes down to individual matches. I see no evidence of decline in overall quality of play in Federer from 2006 to 2008.

In 2006 he saved a match point against Roddick in Shanghai. In 2008 he was up 3-1 in the third set on Simon and lost on break point. This doesn't mean he was a worse player in 2008. Those points could have easily gone the other way.

 

[Federberg]

Because ultimately it comes down to individual matches. I see no evidence of decline in overall quality of play in Federer from 2006 to 2008.

In 2006 he saved a match point against Roddick in Shanghai. In 2008 he was up 3-1 in the third set on Simon and lost on break point. This doesn't mean he was a worse player in 2008. Those points could have easily gone the other way.

I'm genuinely curious about your constant focus on individual matches. Let me try asking a question to try to understand how you're thinking about this issue....

Imagine a player. Let's say he's top 20. Over a 3 year period, his record is:

• year 1 40(w)ins 20(d)defeats

• year 1 45(w)ins 23(d)defeats

• year 1 20(w)ins 39 (d)defeats

I know, I know that means the guy plays every week. But let's not belabour that. My question is, is it unreasonable to look at the data in the 3rd year and deduce that there's been a dip in form? I don't get how you think focussing on individual matches tells you anything about the guy's form. You can have an off day and just bomb. But over a season you would expect performance output to be fairly stable, i.e, the outliers wash.

You mention Roddick years before in your response about Simon. What on earth does that have to do with anything? These guys aren't robots. I don't get it...

 

[El Dude]

@calitennis127, that was an odd response above - because you complained about me "stretching the significant of a just a few points" and then did just exactly that. As @Federberg pointed out.

Further, I am not making "wildly exaggerated conclusions." The numbers don't lie: Roger was at his best in 2004-07, with 2006 being his best overall year, and a significant dip in 2008. You can see this on the surface, but also by digging deeper. Does anyone other than you disagree with that?

This doesn't mean that he hasn't been able to play brilliant tennis since then - we've all seen it, especially over the last year or so. But the point is that when he was 24-25 he was able to find his best more consistently.

Or we can look at Rafa. Still a great player, still capable of demolishing an opponent on clay or hitting a ridiculous down-the-line forehand. But is he as consistently great as he was in 2008-2013? No way.

Remember when you were 25 and you could pretty much eat or drink anything you want, and be no worse for wear for it? Not so much the case at 35, or even 30. The body changes - it doesn't bounce back as quickly, and requires more care. It doesn't mean that a 35 year old cannot be fit or perform at a high level, but that the window narrows.

 

[calitennis127]

I'm genuinely curious about your constant focus on individual matches. Let me try asking a question to try to understand how you're thinking about this issue....

Imagine a player. Let's say he's top 20. Over a 3 year period, his record is:

• year 1 40(w)ins 20(d)defeats

• year 1 45(w)ins 23(d)defeats

• year 1 20(w)ins 39 (d)defeats

I know, I know that means the guy plays every week. But let's not belabour that. My question is, is it unreasonable to look at the data in the 3rd year and deduce that there's been a dip in form?

Yes, but going by your example Federer's 2008 as compared to 2006 or 2007 would have been more like 38 wins and 24 defeats.

 

[calitennis127]

@calitennis127, that was an odd response above - because you complained about me "stretching the significant of a just a few points" and then did just exactly that. As @Federberg pointed out.

Further, I am not making "wildly exaggerated conclusions." The numbers don't lie: Roger was at his best in 2004-07, with 2006 being his best overall year, and a significant dip in 2008. You can see this on the surface, but also by digging deeper. Does anyone other than you disagree with that?

What was Federer's overall record in 2007 versus 2008 and 2009?

 

[Federberg]

Yes, but going by your example Federer's 2008 as compared to 2006 or 2007 would have been more like 38 wins and 24 defeats.

You haven't answered the question. We're not talking Federer in my scenario. I'm just trying to establish a baseline. At what point do you take notice of a significant change in form?