Level of play

[DarthFed]

By then it was obvious he had issues in the big matches. Just because he clobbered Murray didn't mean he was going to be at that same level in the final. He was already a geriatric and consistency is hardly a given. I did think Fed would come out and play well. Nole came out awful and was gifted the first set. Overall he didn't need to get out of first gear due to Roger's low level.

 

[Mastoor]

^Funny how Federer was geriatric in 2015 to beat Nole and he wasn't in 2017 to win 2 slams. very interesting age reversal.

After Nadal and Soderling in last two weeks, Dominic Thiem also said that he think that Novak’s level of play was higher than anyone else’s and he thinks it was the highest level ever.

Irony is that the first player Nole will play against is his friend Thiem. They are playing at Kooyong probably around 1pm Melbourne time. They may play one more match tomorrow but only if they both rich the final of the tie break ten exhibition that starts 7.30pm. Nole will play against Lleyton and the winner will play better from Pouille v Nadal tiebreak.

 

[Federberg]

^I'm not aware anyone said he's no longer geriatric. We Fedfans are just surfing the wave mate. Good luck trying to harsh our buzz

 

[Mastoor]

^I'm not aware anyone said he's no longer geriatric. We Fedfans are just surfing the wave mate. Good luck trying to harsh our buzz

So he won 2 slam last year and is still considered geriatric? There are no limits in Federer fandom mythomania.

 

[Federberg]

So he won 2 slam last year and is still considered geriatric? There are no limits in Federer fandom mythomania.

Have new rules been created without my knowing? When did 36 year old pro tennis players stop being considered geriatric? By tennis standards even Novak is old, and likely past his physical prime...

 

[Moxie]

Have new rules been created without my knowing? When did 36 year old pro tennis players stop being considered geriatric? By tennis standards even Novak is old, and likely past his physical prime...

Some sports writers do think new rules do apply, and there are any number of articles that claim that Roger has found the "Fountain of Youth."

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1491616/young-guns-sole-worry-federers-fountain-youth/
http://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/news/a16149/roger-federer-adive-young-tennis-players/
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/07/roger-federer-wimbledon-fans-comeback
https://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2013...mmy-robredo-roger-federer-stanislas-wawrinka/

I could go on. Now, surely, this is a rhetorical flourish, a sports cliche. But you have insisted that Roger is better in 2017 than in 2015. You don't like El Dude's numbers on the other thread, "Bursting the Federer Resurgence Bubble." So how do you get to insist that Roger was "geriatric" in 2015, and even more so, now? Obviously, time marches on, I get that. But I'm empathizing (for one moment) with Mastoor's point: if Roger lost to Djokovic in 2014-15, because he was old, how come he wins now? Look, I'm no dummy and I get the fine points and the changes in Roger's game, and the fact that Djokovic was out. But you can't just play the oldster card and then say, Hurray...he's playing great again! I think Mastoor has a claim that he lost because Djokovic was better, in those years.

 

[Horsa]

Some sports writers do think new rules do apply, and there are any number of articles that claim that Roger has found the "Fountain of Youth."

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1491616/young-guns-sole-worry-federers-fountain-youth/
http://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/news/a16149/roger-federer-adive-young-tennis-players/
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/07/roger-federer-wimbledon-fans-comeback
https://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2013...mmy-robredo-roger-federer-stanislas-wawrinka/

I could go on. Now, surely, this is a rhetorical flourish, a sports cliche. But you have insisted that Roger is better in 2017 than in 2015. You don't like El Dude's numbers on the other thread, "Bursting the Federer Resurgence Bubble." So how do you get to insist that Roger was "geriatric" in 2015, and even more so, now? Obviously, time marches on, I get that. But I'm empathizing (for one moment) with Mastoor's point: if Roger lost to Djokovic in 2014-15, because he was old, how come he wins now? Look, I'm no dummy and I get the fine points and the changes in Roger's game, and the fact that Djokovic was out. But you can't just play the oldster card and then say, Hurray...he's playing great again! I think Mastoor has a claim that he lost because Djokovic was better, in those years.

In that case the questions "how old is too old to be a professional tennis player?" & "at what age should tennis players quit their career?" are just matters of opinion. I guess the proper answer then to both questions should be when their health & fitness levels are no longer sufficient even with better care with diet & exercise to play at what is classed as an appropriate level or if they're constantly injuring themselves & having to pull out of matches.

 

[DarthFed]

Yes we have officially gotten to the point where we have to state that 33-34 is ancient for tennis and yes 36 is older than 33-34. Roger has been a tennis geriatric for awhile. Doesnt mean he has to be worthless at tennis but it's also easy to see that he isn't as great as he was when he was in his 20's. Dominating a weak field last year or finishing #3 behind the likes of Andy Murray in this supposed amazing 2015 doesn't prove otherwise. Roger plays amazingly well for a 36 year old. You all may have forgotten but he played amazingly well for a 25 year old too.

 

[Moxie]

Yes we have officially gotten to the point where we have to state that 33-34 is ancient for tennis and yes 36 is older than 33-34. Roger has been a tennis geriatric for awhile. Doesnt mean he has to be worthless at tennis but it's also easy to see that he isn't as great as he was when he was in his 20's. Dominating a weak field last year or finishing #3 behind the likes of Andy Murray in this supposed amazing 2015 doesn't prove otherwise. Roger plays amazingly well for a 36 year old. You all may have forgotten but he played amazingly well for a 25 year old too.

Very cut to the chase. I'll offer a comparison which might be apt: many people have said they'd like to look as good as does Sophia Loren when they're 80, and I have always thought, 'what are the chances, if you didn't look like her when you were 25?'

OK, that was all funny, but it doesn't answer Mastoor's question. Did Roger lose to him in 2015-16 because he was old, as has been posited, or because Djokovic was just better? Personally, I'd go with better "at that time," but he deserves a better answer than "geriatric."

 

[DarthFed]

Very cut to the chase. I'll offer a comparison which might be apt: many people have said they'd like to look as good as does Sophia Loren when they're 80, and I have always thought, 'what are the chances, if you didn't look like her when you were 25?'

OK, that was all funny, but it doesn't answer Mastoor's question. Did Roger lose to him in 2015-16 because he was old, as has been posited, or because Djokovic was just better? Personally, I'd go with better "at that time," but he deserves a better answer than "geriatric."

Of course Nole was better than Roger in 2014 and 2015. Now what Mastoor doesn't want to hear is that 27-28 year old Novak is supposed to be better than 33-34 year old Federer. In his dream world Roger is playing his best ever tennis and it's proof that Nole is greater despite his far inferior resume. And the same holds true for 2017, there is no way Roger at 36 should be destroying everyone in sight. It speaks badly on Nadal and the others that are younger.

 

[Federberg]

Some sports writers do think new rules do apply, and there are any number of articles that claim that Roger has found the "Fountain of Youth."

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1491616/young-guns-sole-worry-federers-fountain-youth/
http://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/news/a16149/roger-federer-adive-young-tennis-players/
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/07/roger-federer-wimbledon-fans-comeback
https://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2013...mmy-robredo-roger-federer-stanislas-wawrinka/

I could go on. Now, surely, this is a rhetorical flourish, a sports cliche. But you have insisted that Roger is better in 2017 than in 2015. You don't like El Dude's numbers on the other thread, "Bursting the Federer Resurgence Bubble." So how do you get to insist that Roger was "geriatric" in 2015, and even more so, now? Obviously, time marches on, I get that. But I'm empathizing (for one moment) with Mastoor's point: if Roger lost to Djokovic in 2014-15, because he was old, how come he wins now? Look, I'm no dummy and I get the fine points and the changes in Roger's game, and the fact that Djokovic was out. But you can't just play the oldster card and then say, Hurray...he's playing great again! I think Mastoor has a claim that he lost because Djokovic was better, in those years.

Lol! Give me a break, if you want to challenge me on that thread then do so. Frankly why you feel you have to be Mrs Protector I don’t quite understand, it’s tiresome. Completely different issue as in that thread an attempt was made to use factual data to claim a factual conclusion, when what was supplied was mere opinion.

Here, as DF pointed out, and as I know you’re smart enough to know, Mastoor is still working on his favourite syllogistic construct. Quite apart from that, you tell me... who has suddenly said Roger is young again? Who? Yet Mastoor implies that we have changed our tune. Again for no other reason than to con more praise for Novak.

If you want to come for me, do so, but ffs enough of this RSPCA stuff..

 

[brokenshoelace]

I read last week that in one of his interviews Rafa mentioned that in several their matches he felt that Nole was unbeatable, while he never felt that Federer was unbeatable when he played against him. That implies that Rafa's impression is that the best of Nole is better than the best of Fedrerer.

Just couple of days later, I read one of Nadal's old archenemies, Soderling saying frankly that the best of Nole is better than the best of Federer.

To me, this along with some Federer's interviews from couple of years ago, was a confirmation of my impression that when Nole plays his best it is on level above everyone else.

Do you know of any other examples of tennis aces comparing levels of play of their rivals?

It's a match-up thing. The best of Djokovic makes him completely unshakable. He hits cleanly off both wings, dictates points, moves amazing, and defends like a maniac. For someone with Nadal's game, there's almost literally not much he can do to trouble him (off of clay), because when you couple Novak's alien return with Nadal's meh serve, Rafa can feel helpless at times.

With Federer, there's at least the illusion of attacking his backhand, and hoping for some unforced errors due to his aggression and old age. As far as which level is higher, there's nothing like Federer's attacking onslaught from 2006 where winners would rain down, especially if his serve is in the zone.

In fact, there's a reason Federer, even at his old age, has gotten the best out of Novak in his best years on more than one occasion.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I would remind you that 1. everyone and their uncle expected Federer to win the Wimbledon finals some other matches they played in 2015 and 2016 and Federer lost 2. soon after Nole's injury, Federer resumed winning slams

I don't know what the first sentence means, at all. As far as the second goes, I'll remind you that Novak played at the Australian Open last year, which Federer won, and continued to play for 6 months after that. He even played at Wimbledon, which Federer won, but there's no denying he was injured there.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Some sports writers do think new rules do apply, and there are any number of articles that claim that Roger has found the "Fountain of Youth."

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1491616/young-guns-sole-worry-federers-fountain-youth/
http://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/news/a16149/roger-federer-adive-young-tennis-players/
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/07/roger-federer-wimbledon-fans-comeback
https://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2013...mmy-robredo-roger-federer-stanislas-wawrinka/

I could go on. Now, surely, this is a rhetorical flourish, a sports cliche. But you have insisted that Roger is better in 2017 than in 2015. You don't like El Dude's numbers on the other thread, "Bursting the Federer Resurgence Bubble." So how do you get to insist that Roger was "geriatric" in 2015, and even more so, now? Obviously, time marches on, I get that. But I'm empathizing (for one moment) with Mastoor's point: if Roger lost to Djokovic in 2014-15, because he was old, how come he wins now? Look, I'm no dummy and I get the fine points and the changes in Roger's game, and the fact that Djokovic was out. But you can't just play the oldster card and then say, Hurray...he's playing great again! I think Mastoor has a claim that he lost because Djokovic was better, in those years.

I don't like posts like this because they ignore the nuances of reality, and I'm not talking about some complicated nuances either. These are things we have all observed, including yourself I'm sure, and have grown to treat them as facts, and rightfully so. Yeah, sure, your above argument does sound like a rebuttal in theory, but it literally ignores the hundreds of matches we've watched Federer play for 5 years between 2010 and 2015, and last I checked, it wasn't just Djokovic and Nadal he was losing to. His results (and level of play) dropped considerably against everyone. Yes, every now and then, he'd play great over a period of a week or two and roll back the years, but for the most part, it was widely accepted that he had gotten old and declined. So, I ask you, his rejuvenation in 2017 invalidates that how exactly? Even the "fountain of youth" argument doesn't hold up, because if he found it, then he found it in 2017, not before.

So yeah, it sounds logical to ask "how come Federer was too old when he was younger?" but we all watched tennis extensively over the past half a decade and we all know the answer to that. He was too old because he was in his mid thirties, playing poorly, suffering with injuries, moving slower, clearly struggling to adapt his game to his physical "limitations" (of course I use that term very lightly), etc...

In 2017, he was fresher, he adapted, he was sharper, he served better, he hit crisper, he played smarter, and he took lots and lots of time off before the year and throughout it. Hope that answers your question.

 

[mrzz]

Is there a vote for best Federer fan out there? I can start campaigning for Broken right now.

 

[Federberg]

Is there a vote for best Federer fan out there? I can start campaigning for Broken right now.

Lol! BS is generally fair in my view. That can sometimes make a fella look like a fan. I often say honest things about Rafa for instance, I mean... the guy is top 2 all time. If I can't find something good to say about him, I can't claim to know or appreciate tennis in my view

 

[Moxie]

I don't like posts like this because they ignore the nuances of reality, and I'm not talking about some complicated nuances either. These are things we have all observed, including yourself I'm sure, and have grown to treat them as facts, and rightfully so. Yeah, sure, your above argument does sound like a rebuttal in theory, but it literally ignores the hundreds of matches we've watched Federer play for 5 years between 2010 and 2015, and last I checked, it wasn't just Djokovic and Nadal he was losing to. His results (and level of play) dropped considerably against everyone. Yes, every now and then, he'd play great over a period of a week or two and roll back the years, but for the most part, it was widely accepted that he had gotten old and declined. So, I ask you, his rejuvenation in 2017 invalidates that how exactly? Even the "fountain of youth" argument doesn't hold up, because if he found it, then he found it in 2017, not before.

So yeah, it sounds logical to ask "how come Federer was too old when he was younger?" but we all watched tennis extensively over the past half a decade and we all know the answer to that. He was too old because he was in his mid thirties, playing poorly, suffering with injuries, moving slower, clearly struggling to adapt his game to his physical "limitations" (of course I use that term very lightly), etc...

In 2017, he was fresher, he adapted, he was sharper, he served better, he hit crisper, he played smarter, and he took lots and lots of time off before the year and throughout it. Hope that answers your question.

I wasn't ignoring any reality, at all. I was merely pointing out that many sportswriters have used the phrase "fountain of youth," so the question of 'who is saying that Roger is "younger" in 2017?' has an answer. (And yes, clearly I was only talking about 2017.) My small attempt was to point out that folks' answer to Mastoor as to Roger losing to him in '14/'15 was the Roger was "geriatric." He wanted to know why that doesn't apply now. I understand Mastoor's agenda. I know how chronology works. Darth did say, above, that Novak was better in '14-'15 than Roger, and I think that's the best that Mastoor's going to get, or deserves.

 

[Moxie]

Lol! Give me a break, if you want to challenge me on that thread then do so. Frankly why you feel you have to be Mrs Protector I don’t quite understand, it’s tiresome. Completely different issue as in that thread an attempt was made to use factual data to claim a factual conclusion, when what was supplied was mere opinion.

Here, as DF pointed out, and as I know you’re smart enough to know, Mastoor is still working on his favourite syllogistic construct. Quite apart from that, you tell me... who has suddenly said Roger is young again? Who? Yet Mastoor implies that we have changed our tune. Again for no other reason than to con more praise for Novak.

If you want to come for me, do so, but ffs enough of this RSPCA stuff..

I'm not protecting anyone except myself from your regular cat-fights with El Dude, speaking of tiresome. And I have no idea what RSPCA means, other than that animal protection league?