The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[brokenshoelace]

I was following the argument in the Wimbledon Preview Talk thread, which started with Darth stating (once again) that Roger never should have lost the 2008 final to Rafa. He mentioned along the course of the conversation that Roger was the clear favorite, which Broken disputed. My memory also was that there was a lot of discussion that Rafa would get it done that year.

Here is a link to historical odds. They list 2.00 for Rafa v. 1.75 for Roger. I think that's pretty close.

Also, The Guardian article after the semis, which states: "While Federer's progress to the second Sunday has been serene, however - he has yet to drop a set - overcoming the final hurdle promises to be a whole lot more difficult. Blocking his path is the muscular form of Rafael Nadal, Federer's conqueror in the recent French Open final and the man tipped by many to end his championship hegemony."

Rather than rely on dueling memories, I thought I would offer some actual context from the time before that final was played. While ending Roger's run of 65 match wins on grass was note-worthy, it was not unforeseen that Rafa had a good chance of doing it, so that doesn't quite rise to the level of "upset," or, perhaps, depending on how one defines "upset." In any case, there is nothing but fannishness in saying that Federer never "should" have lost to Nadal in that match. Rafa was the better player in that period of time. And reading back historically, Roger was actually playing very well on grass, so it isn't just that he was generally crap that first half of 2008.

We don't have to start this conversation all over again, but I thought I should put this post where it belongs, respecting the other thread.

Thought so. Cheers.

 

[Kieran]

[split] The Ultimate FEDAL Thread

^ Right so just 'cos a player has always beaten another means they should never lose to that player? Good one. Keep smoking the good stuff and remind yourself of Stan Wawrinka.

Or you can remind yourself of Roger Federer and tell yourself that H2H means feck all the next time he faces Rafa...

 

[the AntiPusher]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

^ Right so just 'cos a player has always beaten another means they should never lose to that player? Good one. Keep smoking the good stuff and remind yourself of Stan Wawrinka.

Or you can remind yourself of Roger Federer and tell yourself that H2H means feck all the next time he faces Rafa...

Again , the preacher needs an Amen

 

[Front242]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

^ Right so just 'cos a player has always beaten another means they should never lose to that player? Good one. Keep smoking the good stuff and remind yourself of Stan Wawrinka.

Or you can remind yourself of Roger Federer and tell yourself that H2H means feck all the next time he faces Rafa...

And you can tell yourself it's a very physically challenging sport with a 5 year difference having a huge impact. Stan is not much older than the guys he's beaten to win his slams and the head to head didn't mean a whole lot at this year's RG final now did it?

 

[Kieran]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

^ Right so just 'cos a player has always beaten another means they should never lose to that player? Good one. Keep smoking the good stuff and remind yourself of Stan Wawrinka.

Or you can remind yourself of Roger Federer and tell yourself that H2H means feck all the next time he faces Rafa...

And you can tell yourself it's a very physically challenging sport with a 5 year difference having a huge impact.

The 5 year difference between Nadal and Federer has had no effect on their H2H - not even when Rafa was only 17...

 

[Front242]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

Or you can remind yourself of Roger Federer and tell yourself that H2H means feck all the next time he faces Rafa...

And you can tell yourself it's a very physically challenging sport with a 5 year difference having a huge impact.

The 5 year difference between Nadal and Federer has had no effect on their H2H - not even when Rafa was only 17...

Sure. Keep telling yourself that. You realize that in men's tennis these days 29 can still be one's prime but aside from Serena Williams, 34 most definitely is not.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

And you can tell yourself it's a very physically challenging sport with a 5 year difference having a huge impact.

The 5 year difference between Nadal and Federer has had no effect on their H2H - not even when Rafa was only 17...

Sure. Keep telling yourself that. You realize that in men's tennis these days 29 can still be one's prime but aside from Serena Williams, 34 most definitely is not.

Yeah, this is the sort of stuff you all tell yourselves over on wodgerfederer.com, so you can sleep at night. A phony excuse, because Nadal has been beating him since he was a yellowhorn kid rookie on the tour. It has nothing to do with Federer being 5 years older, quit that one, please, it's just total horse radish...

 

[Front242]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

The 5 year difference between Nadal and Federer has had no effect on their H2H - not even when Rafa was only 17...

Sure. Keep telling yourself that. You realize that in men's tennis these days 29 can still be one's prime but aside from Serena Williams, 34 most definitely is not.

Yeah, this is the sort of stuff you all tell yourselves over on wodgerfederer.com, so you can sleep at night. A phony excuse, because Nadal has been beating him since he was a yellowhorn kid rookie on the tour. It has nothing to do with Federer being 5 years older, quit that one, please, it's just total horse radish...

Sigh. You just don't get it, do you? The head to head was only 8-6 in Nadal's favour till 2007 and it's no secret that Federer's prime years were behind him from 2008 onwards. And the big lead Nadal had over Roger during Roger's prime at the beginning was down to Nadal being better on clay. During Roger's prime he was better on grass and he got that back to 8-6 before 2007. It's not rocket science. So, yes, 5 years is a huge gap. Roger's best years are long behind him and when his prime ended and Nadal's began things only got worse.

Oh and ps: if it is indeed horse radish then please tell me how Djokovic beating Nadal at RG is any different. One is in his prime now, the other isn't. Yes, the age gap is closer there but due to the way Nadal played all these years his body is older and more banged up. Otherwise smear your horse radish all over a tasty sandwich and munch it down 'cos you can't have it both ways.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

Sure. Keep telling yourself that. You realize that in men's tennis these days 29 can still be one's prime but aside from Serena Williams, 34 most definitely is not.

Yeah, this is the sort of stuff you all tell yourselves over on wodgerfederer.com, so you can sleep at night. A phony excuse, because Nadal has been beating him since he was a yellowhorn kid rookie on the tour. It has nothing to do with Federer being 5 years older, quit that one, please, it's just total horse radish...

Sigh. You just don't get it, do you? The head to head was only 8-6 in Nadal's favour till 2007 and it's no secret that Federer's prime years were behind him from 2008 onwards. And the big lead Nadal had over Roger during Roger's prime at the beginning was down to Nadal being better on clay. During Roger's prime he was better on grass and he got that back to 8-6 before 2007. It's not rocket science. So, yes, 5 years is a huge gap. Roger's best years are long behind him and when his prime ended and Nadal's began things only got worse.

Oh and ps: if it is indeed horse radish then please tell me how Djokovic beating Nadal at RG is any different. One is in his prime now, the other isn't. Yes, the age gap is closer there but due to the way Nadal played all these years his body is older and more banged up. Otherwise smear your horse radish all over a tasty sandwich and munch it down 'cos you can't have it both ways.

You're not serious, right? I mean, you're not. Right? :laydownlaughing

Novak beating Rafa at RG? Have you noticed that Rafa has not been himself since he returned? Has this skipped your attention?

As for the rest of it, Roger's five years caught up with him very rapidly from when it was 8-6 heading into 2008, because the next five went to Rafa - before Roger won three slams out of four, starting with RG in 2009. :cover

It has nothing to do with an age gap. This is just a recent myth that Fedfans have tried to shoehorn into the argument, because the H2H causes them problems. It's the same way they used to always mention clay, as if it wasn't a proper surface. In fact, Rafa has beaten Roger on all surfaces at the majors, including grass, but you never hear us trying to asterisk any of Rogers wins over Rafa (mainly because there hasn't been many of them :snicker)...

 

[Front242]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

Yeah, this is the sort of stuff you all tell yourselves over on wodgerfederer.com, so you can sleep at night. A phony excuse, because Nadal has been beating him since he was a yellowhorn kid rookie on the tour. It has nothing to do with Federer being 5 years older, quit that one, please, it's just total horse radish...

Sigh. You just don't get it, do you? The head to head was only 8-6 in Nadal's favour till 2007 and it's no secret that Federer's prime years were behind him from 2008 onwards. And the big lead Nadal had over Roger during Roger's prime at the beginning was down to Nadal being better on clay. During Roger's prime he was better on grass and he got that back to 8-6 before 2007. It's not rocket science. So, yes, 5 years is a huge gap. Roger's best years are long behind him and when his prime ended and Nadal's began things only got worse.

Oh and ps: if it is indeed horse radish then please tell me how Djokovic beating Nadal at RG is any different. One is in his prime now, the other isn't. Yes, the age gap is closer there but due to the way Nadal played all these years his body is older and more banged up. Otherwise smear your horse radish all over a tasty sandwich and munch it down 'cos you can't have it both ways.

You're not serious, right? I mean, you're not. Right? :laydownlaughing

Novak beating Rafa at RG? Have you noticed that Rafa has not been himself since he returned? Has this skipped your attention?

As for the rest of it, Roger's five years caught up with him very rapidly from when it was 8-6 heading into 2008, because the next five went to Rafa - before Roger won three slams out of four, starting with RG in 2009. :cover

It has nothing to do with an age gap. This is just a recent myth that Fedfans have tried to shoehorn into the argument, because the H2H causes them problems. It's the same way they used to always mention clay, as if it wasn't a proper surface. In fact, Rafa has beaten Roger on all surfaces at the majors, including grass, but you never hear us trying to asterisk any of Rogers wins over Rafa (mainly because there hasn't been many of them :snicker)...

Well not to get you started on all the silliness about "luck" but even so Federer I'll fully admit Roger would've clearly had a harder time winning RG 2009 if Nadal had been in the final, Wimbledon 2009 could've been another final between them quite possibly if Nadal had played but that still doesn't mean Federer wasn't outside his prime.

You realize the nonsense part here is that you can obviously still win slams outside your prime as Roger did at Wimbledon 2012 but he WAS still well outside his prime?! Yes, the age gap is very significant. You just like to think otherwise and make it all about Nadal's superiority but anyone with half a brain will tell you 5 years difference in a very physically demanding sport is huge. And think for one second why so many have retired years before Roger has. Not just because of injury but because they were no longer in their prime and no longer contending to win the big titles. That fact that Roger made 2 straight Wimbledon finals at his age is very impressive but he's not winning them is he? And why's that do you think? 'cos he's old for a tennis player maybe and miles past his prime? Yes, I hear you say? Well, yes is the answer. Actually you didn't say that, you probably just think everyone that beats him is miles better despite being much younger :cover

 

[the AntiPusher]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

Sure. Keep telling yourself that. You realize that in men's tennis these days 29 can still be one's prime but aside from Serena Williams, 34 most definitely is not.

Yeah, this is the sort of stuff you all tell yourselves over on wodgerfederer.com, so you can sleep at night. A phony excuse, because Nadal has been beating him since he was a yellowhorn kid rookie on the tour. It has nothing to do with Federer being 5 years older, quit that one, please, it's just total horse radish...

Sigh. You just don't get it, do you? The head to head was only 8-6 in Nadal's favour till 2007 and it's no secret that Federer's prime years were behind him from 2008 onwards. And the big lead Nadal had over Roger during Roger's prime at the beginning was down to Nadal being better on clay. During Roger's prime he was better on grass and he got that back to 8-6 before 2007. It's not rocket science. So, yes, 5 years is a huge gap. Roger's best years are long behind him and when his prime ended and Nadal's began things only got worse.

Oh and ps: if it is indeed horse radish then please tell me how Djokovic beating Nadal at RG is any different. One is in his prime now, the other isn't. Yes, the age gap is closer there but due to the way Nadal played all these years his body is older and more banged up. Otherwise smear your horse radish all over a tasty sandwich and munch it down 'cos you can't have it both ways.

Federer prime years was behind him, come on Front, can you hear your self. Roger has made a least 7-8 grand slam finals afterwards 2008, so he was still in his prime til 2012. Front give it a rest guy, I doubt that Darthfed would agree , well on second thought Darthfed is gonna give zero percent credit to any win or h2h Rafa has over the beloved Federer, IMO

 

[Front242]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

Yeah, this is the sort of stuff you all tell yourselves over on wodgerfederer.com, so you can sleep at night. A phony excuse, because Nadal has been beating him since he was a yellowhorn kid rookie on the tour. It has nothing to do with Federer being 5 years older, quit that one, please, it's just total horse radish...

Sigh. You just don't get it, do you? The head to head was only 8-6 in Nadal's favour till 2007 and it's no secret that Federer's prime years were behind him from 2008 onwards. And the big lead Nadal had over Roger during Roger's prime at the beginning was down to Nadal being better on clay. During Roger's prime he was better on grass and he got that back to 8-6 before 2007. It's not rocket science. So, yes, 5 years is a huge gap. Roger's best years are long behind him and when his prime ended and Nadal's began things only got worse.

Oh and ps: if it is indeed horse radish then please tell me how Djokovic beating Nadal at RG is any different. One is in his prime now, the other isn't. Yes, the age gap is closer there but due to the way Nadal played all these years his body is older and more banged up. Otherwise smear your horse radish all over a tasty sandwich and munch it down 'cos you can't have it both ways.

Federer prime years was behind him, come on Front, can you hear your self. Roger has made a least 7-8 grand slam finals afterwards 2008, so he was still in his prime til 2012. Front give it a rest guy, I doubt that Darthfed would agree , well on second thought Darthfed is gonna give zero percent credit to any win or h2h Rafa has over the beloved Federer, IMO

Are you for real AP? Federer's prime was till 2012. :cover

 

[the AntiPusher]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

Sigh. You just don't get it, do you? The head to head was only 8-6 in Nadal's favour till 2007 and it's no secret that Federer's prime years were behind him from 2008 onwards. And the big lead Nadal had over Roger during Roger's prime at the beginning was down to Nadal being better on clay. During Roger's prime he was better on grass and he got that back to 8-6 before 2007. It's not rocket science. So, yes, 5 years is a huge gap. Roger's best years are long behind him and when his prime ended and Nadal's began things only got worse.

Oh and ps: if it is indeed horse radish then please tell me how Djokovic beating Nadal at RG is any different. One is in his prime now, the other isn't. Yes, the age gap is closer there but due to the way Nadal played all these years his body is older and more banged up. Otherwise smear your horse radish all over a tasty sandwich and munch it down 'cos you can't have it both ways.

Federer prime years was behind him, come on Front, can you hear your self. Roger has made a least 7-8 grand slam finals afterwards 2008, so he was still in his prime til 2012. Front give it a rest guy, I doubt that Darthfed would agree , well on second thought Darthfed is gonna give zero percent credit to any win or h2h Rafa has over the beloved Federer, IMO

Are you for real AP? Federer's prime was till 2012. :cover

First , if I recall Federer beat Djokovic at 201 RG semi and took a set off Rafa in the finals
2012 was IMO the end of Roger Federer prime years, he dispatched Murray at Wimbledon, made the gold medal round at the Olympics, , had a decent US open and probably won the WTF over the other 3 of the big Four

 

[Front242]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

Federer prime years was behind him, come on Front, can you hear your self. Roger has made a least 7-8 grand slam finals afterwards 2008, so he was still in his prime til 2012. Front give it a rest guy, I doubt that Darthfed would agree , well on second thought Darthfed is gonna give zero percent credit to any win or h2h Rafa has over the beloved Federer, IMO

Are you for real AP? Federer's prime was till 2012. :cover

First , if I recall Federer beat Djokovic at 201 RG semi and took a set off Rafa in the finals
2012 was IMO the end of Roger Federer prime years, he dispatched Murray at Wimbledon, made the gold medal round at the Olympics, , had a decent US open and probably won the WTF over the other 3 of the big Four

Of course on their day any old player can have a good tournament. Look at Connors at 39 at the USO in 1991. But that's the exception rather than the rule and Roger beat Murray again this year but lost in the final to Novak two years in a row. Given we know how good he was in his prime on grass, you'd have to think the fact that he's 34 in a few days has more than just a bit of an impact on those results. Roger won a set in a final? Wow, he must definitely still be in his prime! Seriously, read back what you're typing. He won a set at Wimbledon too this year in the final but did he win it? No. His prime ended years ago.

 

[the AntiPusher]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

Are you for real AP? Federer's prime was till 2012. :cover

First , if I recall Federer beat Djokovic at 201 RG semi and took a set off Rafa in the finals
2012 was IMO the end of Roger Federer prime years, he dispatched Murray at Wimbledon, made the gold medal round at the Olympics, , had a decent US open and probably won the WTF over the other 3 of the big Four

Of course on their day any old player can have a good tournament. Look at Connors at 39 at the USO in 1991. But that's the exception rather than the rule and Roger beat Murray again this year but lost in the final to Novak two years in a row. Given we know how good he was in his prime on grass, you'd have to think the fact that he's 34 in a few days has more than just a bit of an impact on those results. Roger won a set in a final? Wow, he must definitely still be in his prime! Seriously, read back what you're typing. He won a set at Wimbledon too this year in the final but did he win it? No. His prime ended years ago.

Front you stated that Fed was last in prime years 2008, well he could only manage to win less than 6 games against Rafa at RG 2008 but he was able to do better in 2011 RG final
, feel me .

 

[Front242]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

First , if I recall Federer beat Djokovic at 201 RG semi and took a set off Rafa in the finals
2012 was IMO the end of Roger Federer prime years, he dispatched Murray at Wimbledon, made the gold medal round at the Olympics, , had a decent US open and probably won the WTF over the other 3 of the big Four

Of course on their day any old player can have a good tournament. Look at Connors at 39 at the USO in 1991. But that's the exception rather than the rule and Roger beat Murray again this year but lost in the final to Novak two years in a row. Given we know how good he was in his prime on grass, you'd have to think the fact that he's 34 in a few days has more than just a bit of an impact on those results. Roger won a set in a final? Wow, he must definitely still be in his prime! Seriously, read back what you're typing. He won a set at Wimbledon too this year in the final but did he win it? No. His prime ended years ago.

Front you stated that Fed was last in prime years 2008, well he could only manage to win less than 6 games against Rafa at RG 2008 but he was able to do better in 2011 RG final
, feel me .

AP, don't be dense. It's well known and painfully obvious Roger played complete crap in that 2008 final. :cover

 

[Moxie]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

Are you for real AP? Federer's prime was till 2012. :cover

First , if I recall Federer beat Djokovic at 201 RG semi and took a set off Rafa in the finals
2012 was IMO the end of Roger Federer prime years, he dispatched Murray at Wimbledon, made the gold medal round at the Olympics, , had a decent US open and probably won the WTF over the other 3 of the big Four

Of course on their day any old player can have a good tournament. Look at Connors at 39 at the USO in 1991. But that's the exception rather than the rule and Roger beat Murray again this year but lost in the final to Novak two years in a row. Given we know how good he was in his prime on grass, you'd have to think the fact that he's 34 in a few days has more than just a bit of an impact on those results. Roger won a set in a final? Wow, he must definitely still be in his prime! Seriously, read back what you're typing. He won a set at Wimbledon too this year in the final but did he win it? No. His prime ended years ago.

I agree completely that at 33 Roger is no longer in his "prime years" (which I think can be distinguished from "peak," even though Fed's game and health have kept him at a good level (except 2013) even as he begins to decline. Someone as great and as motivated as Roger can have good results even against the best in the world. However, it's ridiculous to claim that Roger was no longer in his prime when he was only 26-27 (2008,) or even in 2009. The thinking from some Fed fans is that 'how can Roger be in his prime if Rafa was beating him so much in 08?' But Rafa was hitting a 'peak' at that point, and that's the difference. It defies logic to say that anyone (who is healthy)who wins his first Major at nearly 22 is past his prime at 27. Saying the H2H is about the age gap is rewriting history, even if you skip anything past 2009.

End-of-Year 2006, (when they were 20 & 25) it was 6-2 in favor of Nadal, including 2 Majors to 1.
EOY 2007, 8-6, (3-2 in Majors.)
EOY 2008, 12-6 (5-2 in Majors.)
EOY 2009, 13-8. (I mention 09 because they were 22 & 27 the only matches they played.)

You can't staunch the bleeding by pretending that Roger was old and washed up by 2008, or however you want to coach it. It's always been a difficult match-up for Roger, and the worst of the damage was done before Roger hit even plateau years, much less decline.

(And someone will likely want us to take this to the Fedal thread. Sorry...I know we can't help ourselves. :snicker)

 

[Front242]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

Btw, I said his prime actually ended in 2007 and not 2008. His prime was 2004-2007. This is widely considered his prime by most. 2012 being the end of his prime I heard tonight for the first time.

 

[Front242]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

First , if I recall Federer beat Djokovic at 201 RG semi and took a set off Rafa in the finals
2012 was IMO the end of Roger Federer prime years, he dispatched Murray at Wimbledon, made the gold medal round at the Olympics, , had a decent US open and probably won the WTF over the other 3 of the big Four

Of course on their day any old player can have a good tournament. Look at Connors at 39 at the USO in 1991. But that's the exception rather than the rule and Roger beat Murray again this year but lost in the final to Novak two years in a row. Given we know how good he was in his prime on grass, you'd have to think the fact that he's 34 in a few days has more than just a bit of an impact on those results. Roger won a set in a final? Wow, he must definitely still be in his prime! Seriously, read back what you're typing. He won a set at Wimbledon too this year in the final but did he win it? No. His prime ended years ago.

I agree completely that at 33 Roger is no longer in his "prime years" (which I think can be distinguished from "peak," even though Fed's game and health have kept him at a good level (except 2013) even as he begins to decline. Someone as great and as motivated as Roger can have good results even against the best in the world. However, it's ridiculous to claim that Roger was no longer in his prime when he was only 26-27 (2008,) or even in 2009. The thinking from some Fed fans is that 'how can Roger be in his prime if Rafa was beating him so much in 08?' But Rafa was hitting a 'peak' at that point, and that's the difference. It defies logic to say that anyone (who is healthy)who wins his first Major at nearly 22 is past his prime at 27. Saying the H2H is about the age gap is rewriting history, even if you skip anything past 2009.

End-of-Year 2006, (when they were 20 & 25) it was 6-2 in favor of Nadal, including 2 Majors to 1.
EOY 2007, 8-6, (3-2 in Majors.)
EOY 2008, 12-6 (5-2 in Majors.)
EOY 2009, 13-8. (I mention 09 because they were 22 & 27 the only matches they played.)

You can't staunch the bleeding by pretending that Roger was old and washed up by 2008, or however you want to coach it. It's always been a difficult match-up for Roger, and the worst of the damage was done before Roger hit even plateau years, much less decline.

(And someone will likely want us to take this to the Fedal thread. Sorry...I know we can't help ourselves. :snicker)

Yeah, and what does the massive drop from 2007 to 2008 tell you other than what I said about his prime ending in 2007 and what I posted already about most of the Nadal wins being on clay at that point? 6 of the 8 wins in that period up to 2007 for Nadal were on clay where he's clearly better. Then Roger got that back to 6-8 pretty pronto.

 

[Moxie]

RE: Bet-At-Home Open Hamburg

Of course on their day any old player can have a good tournament. Look at Connors at 39 at the USO in 1991. But that's the exception rather than the rule and Roger beat Murray again this year but lost in the final to Novak two years in a row. Given we know how good he was in his prime on grass, you'd have to think the fact that he's 34 in a few days has more than just a bit of an impact on those results. Roger won a set in a final? Wow, he must definitely still be in his prime! Seriously, read back what you're typing. He won a set at Wimbledon too this year in the final but did he win it? No. His prime ended years ago.

Front you stated that Fed was last in prime years 2008, well he could only manage to win less than 6 games against Rafa at RG 2008 but he was able to do better in 2011 RG final
, feel me .

AP, don't be dense. It's well known and painfully obvious Roger played complete crap in that 2008 final. :cover

It is "well-known and painfully obvious" only to Federer fans. Saying it over and over doesn't make it "well-known" to the rest of the world. A lot of people, including sportswriters and tennis experts reckon that was one of the greatest matches ever played, and Roger did his part in the drama. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, you (and on this matter, Darth, too,) like to say that if Rafa won, his opponent must have been utter crap. What is well-acknowledged is that Roger was more lack-luster than Nadal in the first two sets, though there were plenty of exciting points and games. But he found his fight and his best tennis by the 3rd, especially after the rain delay. That match was a thrill ride, with great tennis produced on both sides of the net. Just not often enough from Roger's side, for your taste. If you can say that a player past his prime can still have some great days, then it has to be fair to say that a player still in his prime can have a match where his not his best, gets out-played, but that doesn't, by definition, make him out of his prime. Anymore than beating Djokovic in 2011 RG, or whatever, means that Roger was prime. Only "vintage."