Is Federer still young enough to compete for Slams?

[calitennis127]

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?

If there is a dramatic drop in results against the same caliber of competition and/or a conspicuous physical decline.

So winning Wimbledon against Nadal in 5 sets one year (2007) and then losing to him in 5 the next year (2008) is not an indicator to me that someone has "declined." Losing to improved competition (e.g. Djokovic at the 2008 Australian Open) also is not an indicator of "decline."

 

[shawnbm]

This discussion reminds me of a wonderful country song by Toby Keith--perfect for the discussion of tennis players and their peak--"I ain't as good as I once was, but I'm as good once, as I ever was." That encapsulates the Cali-Dude chat above IMHO.

 

[Federberg]

If there is a dramatic drop in results against the same caliber of competition and/or a conspicuous physical decline.

So winning Wimbledon against Nadal in 5 sets one year (2007) and then losing to him in 5 the next year (2008) is not an indicator to me that someone has "declined." Losing to improved competition (e.g. Djokovic at the 2008 Australian Open) also is not an indicator of "decline."

For me it's not about losses to Djokovic or Nadal that are relevant, or at least they're not my focus. A guy who was pretty much cleaning up against the entire field was suddenly losing to lower level players at a fairly regular clip. If you don't see the significance of that, I don't know what to say.

Look I'll concede that his losses to Novak and Rafa weren't exclusively because of his dip in form in 2008. Clearly they were getting better, I can't see how anyone could argue that point. If he was losing just to them that's one thing. That's not what happened though..

 

[calitennis127]

For me it's not about losses to Djokovic or Nadal that are relevant, or at least they're not my focus. A guy who was pretty much cleaning up against the entire field was suddenly losing to lower level players at a fairly regular clip. If you don't see the significance of that, I don't know what to say.

Look I'll concede that his losses to Novak and Rafa weren't exclusively because of his dip in form in 2008. Clearly they were getting better, I can't see how anyone could argue that point. If he was losing just to them that's one thing. That's not what happened though..

So who did he lose to besides Djokovic and Nadal that indicated a substantial drop in form in 2008?

 

[calitennis127]

This discussion reminds me of a wonderful country song by Toby Keith--perfect for the discussion of tennis players and their peak--"I ain't as good as I once was, but I'm as good once, as I ever was." That encapsulates the Cali-Dude chat above IMHO.

Sure, but the 2015 US Open Federer had a much bigger task on his hands against Djokovic than the 2005 US Open Federer playing Agassi or the 2006 US Open Federer playing Roddick or the 2004 US Open Federer playing Hewitt. The 2015 level may have even been a little bit better but Fed was going up against a much better opponent.

 

[El Dude]

@calitennis127, in response to your question to @Federberg, I answered that above when I listed the players he lost to in 2004-08. He started losing more frequently to lower caliber players.

As for your question about overall record, is that rhetorical? You can look it up, but here you go:

2006: 92-5 (95%)
2007: 68-9 (88%)
2008: 66-15 (81%)
2009: 61-12 (84%)

Remember, again: Roger lost as many times in 2008 as he did in all of 2004-06 (15).

 

[Federberg]

Sure, but the 2015 US Open Federer had a much bigger task on his hands against Djokovic than the 2005 US Open Federer playing Agassi or the 2006 US Open Federer playing Roddick or the 2004 US Open Federer playing Hewitt. The 2015 level may have even been a little bit better but Fed was going up against a much better opponent.

You base that on the pedigree of Novak. But this sort of comparison never makes sense to me. For example Fernando Gonzalez was playing some of the best tennis I've ever seen when he cut through the field at the AO in (06/07?). But it's easy to say that because Gonzalez was a relative nobody, the level that a Rafa or a Novak or Murray played at any given time was higher. That's not clear to me. Sports are a good deal different that the constant levels we get in video games. Agassi wasn't a scrub in any case, but that's not really the point, such comparisons are not testable

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

How can someone even argue with a straight face that 2008 was Federer at his best.He had loses against people who didn't win against him before or after that year.Clearly mono disrupted his training which showed in his overall level throughout the year.

 

[calitennis127]

@calitennis127, in response to your question to @Federberg, I answered that above when I listed the players he lost to in 2004-08. He started losing more frequently to lower caliber players.

As for your question about overall record, is that rhetorical? You can look it up, but here you go:

2006: 92-5 (95%)
2007: 68-9 (88%)
2008: 66-15 (81%)
2009: 61-12 (84%)

Exactly! If you want to argue that there was a substantial drop in his level simply because he lost an additional 6 matches from 2007 to 2008, that is ridiculous - and that is exactly why I have been right about his ability to win big into his main 30's, while you have been wrong.

Winning matches by a hair and losing matches by a hair does not make you a totally different caliber of player. Federer won a bunch of close matches in 2006 that he lost in 2008. That doesn't mean his level had dropped in 2008.

All you have been proven wrong and you still don't get it.

 

[calitennis127]

You base that on the pedigree of Novak. But this sort of comparison never makes sense to me. For example Fernando Gonzalez was playing some of the best tennis I've ever seen when he cut through the field at the AO in (06/07?). But it's easy to say that because Gonzalez was a relative nobody, the level that a Rafa or a Novak or Murray played at any given time was higher. That's not clear to me. Sports are a good deal different that the constant levels we get in video games. Agassi wasn't a scrub in any case, but that's not really the point, such comparisons are not testable

Except when you disagree with El Dude, in which case your comparisons with the "eye test" make sense.

Do you seriously want to tell me that 2004 Hewitt, 2005 Agassi, and 2006 Roddick were the same caliber of player that Djokovic was in 2015? Are you kidding me? They weren't even remotely in the same ball park. Djokovic was far more athletic than each of them.

 

[calitennis127]

How can someone even argue with a straight face that 2008 was Federer at his best?

By looking at more than just his record and acknowledging that there are other factors at play besides Roger Federer's level, such as the fact that his backhand sucks in long rallies.

He had loses against people who didn't win against him before or after that year.

For reasons other than his level dropping.

 

[britbox]

By looking at more than just his record and acknowledging that there are other factors at play besides Roger Federer's level, such as the fact that his backhand sucks in long rallies.
For reasons other than his level dropping.

I'm thinking you were around the forums back in the day when it was back page news if Federer lost a fricken set, let alone the match. He looked out of sorts at the YEC in 2007 even though he won it... and that translated into a less than stellar 2008. Yeah, people laugh at the mono stuff but there was a noticeable drop-off.

 

[calitennis127]

I'm thinking you were around the forums back in the day when it was back page news if Federer lost a fricken set, let alone the match. He looked out of sorts at the YEC in 2007 even though he won it... and that translated into a less than stellar 2008. Yeah, people laugh at the mono stuff but there was a noticeable drop-off.

Federer won plenty of tight matches in 2006.....I don't consider losing matches 7-5 in the 3rd set instead of winning them 7-5 an indication of a huge drop-off, or necessarily any drop-off, in level.

In 2008 Federer choked against Nadal in Hamburg after having a huge lead. Then he failed to adjust his strategy and got pounded at the French before losing at Wimbledon. His head started spinning and he choked in the 3rd against Simon in Toronto.

These were psychological issues more than physical or skill issues - and that is what the age debate is all about. As you know I have been very critical of Nadal but it is amazing how none of you give him any credit for what happened to Federer in 2008.

 

[Federberg]

Except when you disagree with El Dude, in which case your comparisons with the "eye test" make sense.

Do you seriously want to tell me that 2004 Hewitt, 2005 Agassi, and 2006 Roddick were the same caliber of player that Djokovic was in 2015? Are you kidding me? They weren't even remotely in the same ball park. Djokovic was far more athletic than each of them.

Sigh... the whole thing isn't testable mate. It's not an eye test issue. You're asking us to compare Federer in 2004, 05 and 06 against his form in 2015? He's not a video game character. To be honest I've actually lost the thread of the debate now. Surely this all started because of your "Nalbandian is more talented than god" claim. How did we get here?

 

[britbox]

Federer said himself he didn't get any off-season prep in due to mono and it set him back. Might explain why he was sweating like a rapist against Tipsy at the AO.... but that was down to Nadal too eh?

 

[El Dude]

Exactly! If you want to argue that there was a substantial drop in his level simply because he lost an additional 6 matches from 2007 to 2008, that is ridiculous - and that is exactly why I have been right about his ability to win big into his main 30's, while you have been wrong.

Winning matches by a hair and losing matches by a hair does not make you a totally different caliber of player. Federer won a bunch of close matches in 2006 that he lost in 2008. That doesn't mean his level had dropped in 2008.

All you have been proven wrong and you still don't get it.

This is beyond absurd, @calitennis127. First of all, as someone mentioned - and you yourself have agreed with - tennis is a game of inches; there is a substantial difference between 9 and 15 losses. Maybe not "totally different caliber of player" - but yes, substantially different. Words do matter.

Anyhow, and perhaps more importantly, no one is agreeing with you on this. Every single person, as far as I can tell, who has said anything on this subject agrees that Roger's level dropped from his peak of 2004-07 to 2008 and after. Everyone. I mean, maybe you are some lone holder of truth and should stick to your guns...but on the other hand, considering this is the case, don't you think it is worth asking yourself why? Maybe, just maybe, there's an ulterior motive?

 

[Andy22]

Well clearly nadal beating Federer in two majors in a row got it Federer and started to think about Nadal too much, level started to drop against lower ranked players.The only reason why Federer level drop was The great nadal

 

[DarthFed]

Well clearly nadal beating Federer in two majors in a row got it Federer and started to think about Nadal too much, level started to drop against lower ranked players.The only reason why Federer level drop was The great nadal

Fed had already been straight setted at AO by 20 year old Djokovic and had lost badly to Murray at Dubai and Fish at IW. He even lost to Roddick in Miami, all of those happened before he played Nadal that year. Other atrocious losses (if we don't want to classify Wimbledon 2008 as atrocious) include Stepanek at Rome, Karlovic at Cincy, Blake in straights at the Olympics, Simon twice and Murray an additional two times as well. That isn't all or mostly down to Nadal, it was an enormous drop off in play before and after RG 2008.

 

[calitennis127]

Sigh... the whole thing isn't testable mate. It's not an eye test issue. You're asking us to compare Federer in 2004, 05 and 06 against his form in 2015? He's not a video game character. To be honest I've actually lost the thread of the debate now. Surely this all started because of your "Nalbandian is more talented than god" claim. How did we get here?

I started the thread to discuss Federer and how much age has impacted his level, not the Argentine virtuoso.

 

[calitennis127]

Federer said himself he didn't get any off-season prep in due to mono and it set him back. Might explain why he was sweating like a rapist against Tipsy at the AO.... but that was down to Nadal too eh?

Why does the mono issue explain all of 2008?