Monte Carlo Rolex Masters

[DarthFed]

I think you are looking at things through anti-Swiss colored glasses my friend. Roger simply had a lot more overall game than Sampras, more golf clubs in the bag. And with Sampras he lost motivation a little too early as he has stated before. I think that was the main issue otherwise he probably would've been a lot more consistent his last few years and maybe played longer.

There was no reason to think Roger would be your typical 30+ year old player. You have to adjust expectations a bit but you've wanted to see him fall hard for over a decade and allowed yourself to believe he'd suddenly become a nobody after age 30.

darth my good friend I am with Kieran on this one. To say that Federer should still be better than Murray at age 36 is a stretch somewhat. As for Sampras, I dont think Pete lost his motivation but he didnt pace his schedule or change his serve and volley game to adapt to the change in racket/string technoloy of the late 90's and 2000.

I hear you AP but remember what MJ was like at age 35? Was there any reason to think someone like that was not going to be way beyond your average 35 year old? Now I'm not comparing Fed or anyone else as an athlete to MJ because they fall short, but the fact of the matter is incredibly gifted all-time athletes are still usually going to be above average players well into their 30's. You guys may think I'm harsh or that I'm lying but if you asked me what Roger would be like 6-7 years ago I would've said barring injury he'd still be top 5 no problem and still regularly going deep in slams and possibly winning one here and there. If anything he could've and should've done better these past few years but he is struggling badly in the big moments. Talent is talent, Roger still has a lot of it even if some of his skills have deteriorated and if he wants to play for a few more years he will still be top 10, possibly even top 5. And yes he should be ranked ahead of Murray.

Pete mentioned a bunch of times that he lost a lot of motivation to compete after breaking the record in 2000. The injuries didn't help matters of course but he felt he had nothing left to prove which is understandable.

I think seeing Nadal and now Nole look like threats to Roger's record has helped keep him focused. He can't just look at it and say what do I have left to prove, he has to ask himself is 17 going to be enough?

 

[the AntiPusher]

I think you are looking at things through anti-Swiss colored glasses my friend. Roger simply had a lot more overall game than Sampras, more golf clubs in the bag. And with Sampras he lost motivation a little too early as he has stated before. I think that was the main issue otherwise he probably would've been a lot more consistent his last few years and maybe played longer.

There was no reason to think Roger would be your typical 30+ year old player. You have to adjust expectations a bit but you've wanted to see him fall hard for over a decade and allowed yourself to believe he'd suddenly become a nobody after age 30.

darth my good friend I am with Kieran on this one. To say that Federer should still be better than Murray at age 36 is a stretch somewhat. As for Sampras, I dont think Pete lost his motivation but he didnt pace his schedule or change his serve and volley game to adapt to the change in racket/string technoloy of the late 90's and 2000.

I hear you AP but remember what MJ was like at age 35? Was there any reason to think someone like that was not going to be way beyond your average 35 year old? Now I'm not comparing Fed or anyone else as an athlete to MJ because they fall short, but the fact of the matter is incredibly gifted all-time athletes are still usually going to be above average players well into their 30's. You guys may think I'm harsh or that I'm lying but if you asked me what Roger would be like 6-7 years ago I would've said barring injury he'd still be top 5 no problem and still regularly going deep in slams and possibly winning one here and there. If anything he could've and should've done better these past few years but he is struggling badly in the big moments. Talent is talent, Roger still has a lot of it even if some of his skills have deteriorated and if he wants to play for a few more years he will still be top 10, possibly even top 5. And yes he should be ranked ahead of Murray.

Pete mentioned a bunch of times that he lost a lot of motivation to compete after breaking the record in 2000. The injuries didn't help matters of course but he felt he had nothing left to prove which is understandable.

I think seeing Nadal and now Nole look like threats to Roger's record has helped keep him focused. He can't just look at it and say what do I have left to prove, he has to ask himself is 17 going to be enough?

Good post Darth.. I hear you comparing MJ and Fed.. its good.. and bring up Pete is where the issue with Roger lies.. "Tennis, You Can't Pass the Ball" which is so true. Roger has keep himself in extraordinary condition, I have never seen a tennis player at his age be able substain himself to be near the top. However, back to Pete's statement, its just him. Tennis is such a young man's(woman's also) game. To be able to grind it out for two weeks is such a huge task espeically if there are weather related scheduling issues,(remember 2000 Wimbledon when Pete had to numerous days in a row without practice due to shin splints) and matches that can last up to 4 1/2 hours . All of this can be reallytaxing on a 36 year old body even for someone with Roger's supreme talent.

 

[nehmeth]

Congratulations to Rafa! Better days for his fans!!

celeb::clap

 

[DarthFed]

darth my good friend I am with Kieran on this one. To say that Federer should still be better than Murray at age 36 is a stretch somewhat. As for Sampras, I dont think Pete lost his motivation but he didnt pace his schedule or change his serve and volley game to adapt to the change in racket/string technoloy of the late 90's and 2000.

I hear you AP but remember what MJ was like at age 35? Was there any reason to think someone like that was not going to be way beyond your average 35 year old? Now I'm not comparing Fed or anyone else as an athlete to MJ because they fall short, but the fact of the matter is incredibly gifted all-time athletes are still usually going to be above average players well into their 30's. You guys may think I'm harsh or that I'm lying but if you asked me what Roger would be like 6-7 years ago I would've said barring injury he'd still be top 5 no problem and still regularly going deep in slams and possibly winning one here and there. If anything he could've and should've done better these past few years but he is struggling badly in the big moments. Talent is talent, Roger still has a lot of it even if some of his skills have deteriorated and if he wants to play for a few more years he will still be top 10, possibly even top 5. And yes he should be ranked ahead of Murray.

Pete mentioned a bunch of times that he lost a lot of motivation to compete after breaking the record in 2000. The injuries didn't help matters of course but he felt he had nothing left to prove which is understandable.

I think seeing Nadal and now Nole look like threats to Roger's record has helped keep him focused. He can't just look at it and say what do I have left to prove, he has to ask himself is 17 going to be enough?

Good post Darth.. I hear you comparing MJ and Fed.. its good.. and bring up Pete is where the issue with Roger lies.. "Tennis, You Can't Pass the Ball" which is so true. Roger has keep himself in extraordinary condition, I have never seen a tennis player at his age be able substain himself to be near the top. However, back to Pete's statement, its just him. Tennis is such a young man's(woman's also) game. To be able to grind it out for two weeks is such a huge task espeically if there are weather related scheduling issues,(remember 2000 Wimbledon when Pete had to numerous days in a row without practice due to shin splints) and matches that can last up to 4 1/2 hours . All of this can be reallytaxing on a 36 year old body even for someone with Roger's supreme talent.

That's true and it goes back to the difference I mentioned between Roger's circumstances and Pete's. Pete broke the record and there was no threat in sight to it for the foreseeable future. If you told Pete after his 14th slam that in 5 years some phenom would storm the scene and have 12 slams by the age of 26, things may have been very different. Rafa has been closing in on the record for awhile and now Novak is a legit threat to it. That has rightfully kept Roger motivated for more.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I hear you AP but remember what MJ was like at age 35? Was there any reason to think someone like that was not going to be way beyond your average 35 year old? Now I'm not comparing Fed or anyone else as an athlete to MJ because they fall short, but the fact of the matter is incredibly gifted all-time athletes are still usually going to be above average players well into their 30's. You guys may think I'm harsh or that I'm lying but if you asked me what Roger would be like 6-7 years ago I would've said barring injury he'd still be top 5 no problem and still regularly going deep in slams and possibly winning one here and there. If anything he could've and should've done better these past few years but he is struggling badly in the big moments. Talent is talent, Roger still has a lot of it even if some of his skills have deteriorated and if he wants to play for a few more years he will still be top 10, possibly even top 5. And yes he should be ranked ahead of Murray.

Pete mentioned a bunch of times that he lost a lot of motivation to compete after breaking the record in 2000. The injuries didn't help matters of course but he felt he had nothing left to prove which is understandable.

I think seeing Nadal and now Nole look like threats to Roger's record has helped keep him focused. He can't just look at it and say what do I have left to prove, he has to ask himself is 17 going to be enough?

Good post Darth.. I hear you comparing MJ and Fed.. its good.. and bring up Pete is where the issue with Roger lies.. "Tennis, You Can't Pass the Ball" which is so true. Roger has keep himself in extraordinary condition, I have never seen a tennis player at his age be able substain himself to be near the top. However, back to Pete's statement, its just him. Tennis is such a young man's(woman's also) game. To be able to grind it out for two weeks is such a huge task espeically if thethis re are weather related scheduling issues,(remember 2000 Wimbledon when Pete had to numerous days in a row without practice due to shin splints) and matches that can last up to 4 1/2 hours . All of this can be reallytaxing on a 36 year old body even for someone with Roger's supreme talent.

That's true and it goes back to the difference I mentioned between Roger's circumstances and Pete's. Pete broke the record and there was no threat in sight to it for the foreseeable future. If you told Pete after his 14th slam that in 5 years some phenom would storm the scene and have 12 slams by the age of 26, things may have been very different. Rafa has been closing in on the record for awhile and now Novak is a legit threat to it. That has rightfully kept Roger motivated for more.

This is all true Darth and if Roger just keeps showing up he will eventually make it to another final if someone derails the others members of the big five.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Congratulations to Rafa and his fans. Shame on ESPN not carrying the final.

There should be a new amendment to the constitution saying all ATP 1000 finals shall be broadcast in USA on basic cable tv.

 

[DarthFed]

Good post Darth.. I hear you comparing MJ and Fed.. its good.. and bring up Pete is where the issue with Roger lies.. "Tennis, You Can't Pass the Ball" which is so true. Roger has keep himself in extraordinary condition, I have never seen a tennis player at his age be able substain himself to be near the top. However, back to Pete's statement, its just him. Tennis is such a young man's(woman's also) game. To be able to grind it out for two weeks is such a huge task espeically if thethis re are weather related scheduling issues,(remember 2000 Wimbledon when Pete had to numerous days in a row without practice due to shin splints) and matches that can last up to 4 1/2 hours . All of this can be reallytaxing on a 36 year old body even for someone with Roger's supreme talent.

That's true and it goes back to the difference I mentioned between Roger's circumstances and Pete's. Pete broke the record and there was no threat in sight to it for the foreseeable future. If you told Pete after his 14th slam that in 5 years some phenom would storm the scene and have 12 slams by the age of 26, things may have been very different. Rafa has been closing in on the record for awhile and now Novak is a legit threat to it. That has rightfully kept Roger motivated for more.

This is all true Darth and if Roger just keeps showing up he will eventually make it to another final if someone derails the others members of the big five.

He can make it on his own at Wimbledon and USO. He shows up and plays respectable he should be in the final of both this year again. Certainly he should not lose to Murray or Stan on any fast court. And he shouldn't lose a set to Rafa on grass but he'd probably manage to lose the match somehow. The other 2 slams are off the table.

 

[Riotbeard]

Congrats to Rafa. A bit of competition is just what the clay season needs!

 

[the AntiPusher]

That's true and it goes back to the difference I mentioned between Roger's circumstances and Pete's. Pete broke the record and there was no threat in sight to it for the foreseeable future. If you told Pete after his 14th slam that in 5 years some phenom would storm the scene and have 12 slams by the age of 26, things may have been very different. Rafa has been closing in on the record for awhile and now Novak is a legit threat to it. That has rightfully kept Roger motivated for more.

This is all true Darth and if Roger just keeps showing up he will eventually make it to another final if someone derails the others members of the big five.

He can make it on his own at Wimbledon and USO. He shows up and plays respectable he should be in the final of both this year again. Certainly he should not lose to Murray or Stan on any fast court. And he shouldn't lose a set to Rafa on grass but he'd probably manage to lose the match somehow. The other 2 slams are off the table.

Darth, One day you have to admit that Rafa's topspin and change of pace really causes problems for Roger. Rafa's style of play makes the game uncomfortable for Roger who may appear to be reacting to Rafa's balls instead of attacking. On paper, on fast grass and cement, it would favor Roger but you are discounting what happens once the point turns into a rally of more than 4 balls or strokes. However, I won't debate this with you because we both are stubborn to a fault about this. Good to see you posting again.

 

[Front242]

I think you are looking at things through anti-Swiss colored glasses my friend. Roger simply had a lot more overall game than Sampras, more golf clubs in the bag. And with Sampras he lost motivation a little too early as he has stated before. I think that was the main issue otherwise he probably would've been a lot more consistent his last few years and maybe played longer.

There was no reason to think Roger would be your typical 30+ year old player. You have to adjust expectations a bit but you've wanted to see him fall hard for over a decade and allowed yourself to believe he'd suddenly become a nobody after age 30.

darth my good friend I am with Kieran on this one. To say that Federer should still be better than Murray at age 36 is a stretch somewhat. As for Sampras, I dont think Pete lost his motivation but he didnt pace his schedule or change his serve and volley game to adapt to the change in racket/string technoloy of the late 90's and 2000.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that Federer at 36 should be better than Murray. Federer plays attacking tennis, has a much better tennis IQ, has a way better serve, especially 2nd serve and has far better shot making skills, whereas Murray is naturally a defensive pusher and aggressive tennis doesn't come naturally to him. The few times he does employ this style he can be very adept at it but he soon reverts back to his plan A, which is push the ball over the net, and wait for the opponent's errors, run down everything and get frustrated when losing. That's why he's no Roger Federer and why even Federer at 36 should still be better.

 

[El Dude]

A nitpick: Roger is not 36. He's 34, turns 35 in August.

 

[DarthFed]

This is all true Darth and if Roger just keeps showing up he will eventually make it to another final if someone derails the others members of the big five.

He can make it on his own at Wimbledon and USO. He shows up and plays respectable he should be in the final of both this year again. Certainly he should not lose to Murray or Stan on any fast court. And he shouldn't lose a set to Rafa on grass but he'd probably manage to lose the match somehow. The other 2 slams are off the table.

Darth, One day you have to admit that Rafa's topspin and change of pace really causes problems for Roger. Rafa's style of play makes the game uncomfortable for Roger who may appear to be reacting to Rafa's balls instead of attacking. On paper, on fast grass and cement, it would favor Roger but you are discounting what happens once the point turns into a rally of more than 4 balls or strokes. However, I won't debate this with you because we both are stubborn to a fault about this. Good to see you posting again.

They do cause problems, major problems, and I'd be delusional to deny that. However, the problems are significantly less off clay, especially if we are talking a fast, low bouncing surface. On paper Roger should have never lost to Nadal on grass or been close to it IMO. I don't think he lost that match due to not being able to handle the topspin, he lost it by coming out weak as hell and making a ton of errors throughout. The 2008 RG drubbing was in the back, front, and center of his mind. Roger's also lost to Nadal at tournaments like Dubai, Cincy, and YEC. Now the last 2 of those were during the dreadful 2013 but still...matches he shouldn't be losing to Rafa. History plays a role and it always will.

 

[the AntiPusher]

A nitpick: Roger is not 36. He's 34, turns 35 in August.

AND you KNOW DIS, MAN!!:snicker You know how us Rafa fans will try to make ole Roger look to be as geriatric as possible

 

[Front242]

A nitpick: Roger is not 36. He's 34, turns 35 in August.

Sure, but next year I'd still expect him to be better than Murray for all the reasons above. Roger's game never has and never will revolve around physicality so getting older has less of an impact on a guy like him than a guy running all over the place like a gazelle.

 

[Kieran]

Actually, Roger's game is very physical. He serves with pace, he races to the net, sharp reflexes require strength and timing, coordination, bending the knees, back twists to get pace on the backhand, it's all aggressive and determined. He ain't no lady out there. This stuff contains a tremendous amount of wear and tear, especially at his age, and with his amount of matches played, in huge pressure situations, going deep week in and week out, season after season, surface after surface...

 

[DarthFed]

A nitpick: Roger is not 36. He's 34, turns 35 in August.

Well aware, I was just pointing out that Roger should still be superior to Murray for the foreseeable future. First he should start by getting back to #2, I've seen him behind the likes of Murray for far too long.

 

[10isfan]

As much as I would love to extrapolate Fed's performance into the future, I think that is risky. Overcoming injuries and recovering from matches get much harder as the body ages. Wimby 2014 was the last time I thought he could win a major so I no longer count on anything. I just want to enjoy his beautiful game for as long as he is able to play.

I also think FO 2016 is the last major Nadal has a good chance of winning. Let's see whether he can do it. Thiem and Djoke will be extra motivated to beat him there.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Actually, Roger's game is very physical. He serves with pace, he races to the net, sharp reflexes require strength and timing, coordination, bending the knees, back twists to get pace on the backhand, it's all aggressive and determined. He ain't no lady out there. This stuff contains a tremendous amount of wear and tear, especially at his age, and with his amount of matches played, in huge pressure situations, going deep week in and week out, season after season, surface after surface...

This is true, Roger's game is somewhat physical but not punishing like Rafa. Now let's break down Roger's matchup problem with Rafa, the Nadal heavy topspin ball that bounces high into Roger's body and BH. Roger's is forced to be on his back foot and able only able to block the ball back (this occurs over 45 % of the time). This means that he is on the defensive and Rafa takes the ball to the other part of the court for a fh winner or he sends another topspin high bouncing ball that pulls Roger even further out of position. This breaks down Roger and he usually isnt able to recover. Against other opponents Roger can drive his bh dtl or cc.

 

[Front242]

Actually, Roger's game is very physical. He serves with pace, he races to the net, sharp reflexes require strength and timing, coordination, bending the knees, back twists to get pace on the backhand, it's all aggressive and determined. He ain't no lady out there. This stuff contains a tremendous amount of wear and tear, especially at his age, and with his amount of matches played, in huge pressure situations, going deep week in and week out, season after season, surface after surface...

I'd love to see some stats on the time spent on court between him and Nadal. Despite Nadal being off court a few months and being 5 years younger, I'd hazard a guess Roger has still done less mileage. Roger's matches are way, way faster due to how he plays and also no stalling. So the wear and tear is a lot less than you think, though clearly it's up there.

 

[Kieran]

Actually the stalling helps a player cope with wear and tear.

I'd love to see stats that tell how long Federer has been on court compared to someone like Sampras, who basically checked out on clay and considered any point where he had to hit a second serve to be a long rally. Still, Pete was worn out aged 27, 28. The fact is, playing tennis at the top level is a mental and physical grind. For all of them, but especially those players who are at the top of the tree, constantly fending off other monkeys...