This is the beginning of The Decline

[DarthFed]

As I said in the Shanghai thread, I think his motivation dipped a bit after the US Open - that must be really demoralizing. Roger will remain an elite player as long as he can find that motivation. He doesn't have anything to prove, so to go out there week after week and train and perform at the level he needs to must be difficult.

As for "the decline," others have already said it but it should be re-emphasized. "The decline" started years ago. He absolute peak was 2006. 2007 was a fraction of a step down (compare win-loss %, although he did just as well at Slams). 2008 was marred by mono and Rafa's rise and even though he returned to #1 in 2009 he wasn't quite as good as he had been a couple years prior, plus Rafa, Novak, and Andy had all risen to elite level. All factors taken into account, I think "the decline" really became noticeable in 2010.

I think he'll prepare for 2016 like has any other year, but with even greater determination and a sense of urgency. I'm not sure how this will impact his play. Roger does best when he's come and cool, not when he's stressed and pressed. If he can maintain his Zen-like demeanor, he will remain a challenger at most Slams.

As of this writing, it would be hard for him to win the Australian Open or French Open - there are half a dozen or so players that are favored over him at either tournament. But if he's in similar form next summer, only Novak is the clear favorite over him at Wimbledon or the US Open, or the Olympics for that matter.

2016 is a huge year for both Roger and Rafa. If Rafa can't find his dominant clay form, and if Roger goes another Slamless season, I wouldn't be surprised to see both hang up their racquets.

Good post.

But what complicates things is that there was chatter, loads of it, that Federer was quicker, stronger, and more penetrating than in his glory years.

I don't believe, as others are suggesting, that is "decline" began in2007/2008. The competition improved dramatically from 2008-2011. Because Rafa, Murray, and Nole all had far more flaws in their game at the onset, they had much more room for improvement.

People subscribing to that "better than ever" theory are either the media or people with an agenda to make Roger look bad. Even this summer he still looked a lot slower than his prime when he was lightning quick.

Roger plays a more aggressive game now and for the most part serves better than he did for much of his peak. So when Roger is on fire he is still going to decimate just about everyone, just in a different way than he did for much of his prime. But the argument stops there as that does not make up for the loss in quickness which has led to his forehand being far less lethal and his defense far less effective. And that doesn't even mention the loss in endurance, if it goes to a long 4 against anyone good he is in trouble. If it gets to 5, forget about it.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

As I said in the Shanghai thread, I think his motivation dipped a bit after the US Open - that must be really demoralizing. Roger will remain an elite player as long as he can find that motivation. He doesn't have anything to prove, so to go out there week after week and train and perform at the level he needs to must be difficult.

As for "the decline," others have already said it but it should be re-emphasized. "The decline" started years ago. He absolute peak was 2006. 2007 was a fraction of a step down (compare win-loss %, although he did just as well at Slams). 2008 was marred by mono and Rafa's rise and even though he returned to #1 in 2009 he wasn't quite as good as he had been a couple years prior, plus Rafa, Novak, and Andy had all risen to elite level. All factors taken into account, I think "the decline" really became noticeable in 2010.

I think he'll prepare for 2016 like has any other year, but with even greater determination and a sense of urgency. I'm not sure how this will impact his play. Roger does best when he's come and cool, not when he's stressed and pressed. If he can maintain his Zen-like demeanor, he will remain a challenger at most Slams.

As of this writing, it would be hard for him to win the Australian Open or French Open - there are half a dozen or so players that are favored over him at either tournament. But if he's in similar form next summer, only Novak is the clear favorite over him at Wimbledon or the US Open, or the Olympics for that matter.

2016 is a huge year for both Roger and Rafa. If Rafa can't find his dominant clay form, and if Roger goes another Slamless season, I wouldn't be surprised to see both hang up their racquets.

Good post.

But what complicates things is that there was chatter, loads of it, that Federer was quicker, stronger, and more penetrating than in his glory years.

I don't believe, as others are suggesting, that is "decline" began in2007/2008. The competition improved dramatically from 2008-2011. Because Rafa, Murray, and Nole all had far more flaws in their game at the onset, they had much more room for improvement.

People subscribing to that "better than ever" theory are either the media or people with an agenda to make Roger look bad. Even this summer he still looked a lot slower than his prime when he was lightning quick.

Roger plays a more aggressive game now and for the most part serves better than he did for much of his peak. So when Roger is on fire he is still going to decimate just about everyone, just in a different way than he did for much of his prime. But the argument stops there as that does not make up for the loss in quickness which has led to his forehand being far less lethal and his defense far less effective. And that doesn't even mention the loss in endurance, if it goes to a long 4 against anyone good he is in trouble. If it gets to 5, forget about it.

Then what accounts for the post match comments by Lopez, Wawrinka, and several others that they felt his speed was as good or better than his "prime"?

Federer on him self, 2015 level:

“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practised for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.”

 

[El Dude]

Federer on him self, 2015 level:

“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practised for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.”

The bold part is simply not true. He also doesn't move as well.

That said, I think he's better in some ways but overall he's about 90% of the player he was in his prime.

 

[Front242]

Poor Roger is going senile and delusional if he thinks his forehand is as good as ever. :cover

 

[DarthFed]

Good post.

But what complicates things is that there was chatter, loads of it, that Federer was quicker, stronger, and more penetrating than in his glory years.

I don't believe, as others are suggesting, that is "decline" began in2007/2008. The competition improved dramatically from 2008-2011. Because Rafa, Murray, and Nole all had far more flaws in their game at the onset, they had much more room for improvement.

People subscribing to that "better than ever" theory are either the media or people with an agenda to make Roger look bad. Even this summer he still looked a lot slower than his prime when he was lightning quick.

Roger plays a more aggressive game now and for the most part serves better than he did for much of his peak. So when Roger is on fire he is still going to decimate just about everyone, just in a different way than he did for much of his prime. But the argument stops there as that does not make up for the loss in quickness which has led to his forehand being far less lethal and his defense far less effective. And that doesn't even mention the loss in endurance, if it goes to a long 4 against anyone good he is in trouble. If it gets to 5, forget about it.

Then what accounts for the post match comments by Lopez, Wawrinka, and several others that they felt his speed was as good or better than his "prime"?

Federer on him self, 2015 level:

“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practised for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.”

It might seem that way to some of his opponents since he is moving forward more but just look at his movement side to side, he is not as quick particularly to the forehand.

As for Roger's comments a lot of that has to do with keeping a competitive edge. Sampras said something similar near the end of his career or even just after but that's just delusional talk. No great athlete is going to say, "I feel older, I don't move as well as I did 10 years ago, I'm not what I once was, etc." Some of his comments are arguably true, specifically the serve and net play. But in the end it doesn't make up for what he's lost from the baseline and even his return of serve.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

People subscribing to that "better than ever" theory are either the media or people with an agenda to make Roger look bad. Even this summer he still looked a lot slower than his prime when he was lightning quick.

Roger plays a more aggressive game now and for the most part serves better than he did for much of his peak. So when Roger is on fire he is still going to decimate just about everyone, just in a different way than he did for much of his prime. But the argument stops there as that does not make up for the loss in quickness which has led to his forehand being far less lethal and his defense far less effective. And that doesn't even mention the loss in endurance, if it goes to a long 4 against anyone good he is in trouble. If it gets to 5, forget about it.

Then what accounts for the post match comments by Lopez, Wawrinka, and several others that they felt his speed was as good or better than his "prime"?

Federer on him self, 2015 level:

“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practised for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.”

It might seem that way to some of his opponents since he is moving forward more but just look at his movement side to side, he is not as quick particularly to the forehand.

As for Roger's comments a lot of that has to do with keeping a competitive edge. Sampras said something similar near the end of his career or even just after but that's just delusional talk. No great athlete is going to say, "I feel older, I don't move as well as I did 10 years ago, I'm not what I once was, etc." Some of his comments are arguably true, specifically the serve and net play. But in the end it doesn't make up for what he's lost from the baseline and even his return of serve.

I think it is very difficult to compare Sampras to Federer. Sampras, by his own admission, had little interest in improving at that stage of his career. He was interested in "maintaining". The last 3 years of his career saw him take some pretty bad losses. Of course there a few brilliant flashes like his finale at the Open.

Good points about Rog moving forward more.

I still think his BEST play in 2015 was some of his highest level tennis, ever.

 

[Front242]

He has played very well in certain matches this year, no doubt about it. His performance against Murray at Wimbledon was mighty impressive and recently beating Kevin Anderson 6-1 6-1 was an insanely good result given Anderson's serve. That match in particular showed how devastating his new trick SABR can be. Anderson was really bewildered. That was SABR V1.0 at it's finest: the sneak attack by Roger and not the V2.0 Sayonara, Adios, Bye, Roger that he displayed at Shanghai! Needs to reinstall the old driver and go back to V1.0 pronto

 

[DarthFed]

Then what accounts for the post match comments by Lopez, Wawrinka, and several others that they felt his speed was as good or better than his "prime"?

Federer on him self, 2015 level:

“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practised for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.”

It might seem that way to some of his opponents since he is moving forward more but just look at his movement side to side, he is not as quick particularly to the forehand.

As for Roger's comments a lot of that has to do with keeping a competitive edge. Sampras said something similar near the end of his career or even just after but that's just delusional talk. No great athlete is going to say, "I feel older, I don't move as well as I did 10 years ago, I'm not what I once was, etc." Some of his comments are arguably true, specifically the serve and net play. But in the end it doesn't make up for what he's lost from the baseline and even his return of serve.

I think it is very difficult to compare Sampras to Federer. Sampras, by his own admission, had little interest in improving at that stage of his career. He was interested in "maintaining". The last 3 years of his career saw him take some pretty bad losses. Of course there a few brilliant flashes like his finale at the Open.

Good points about Rog moving forward more.

I still think his BEST play in 2015 was some of his highest level tennis, ever.

The Wimbledon semi was up there but that was mainly due to what was almost certainly the best he has ever served. The rest of his game was very good too but his serve was out of this world that day.

Aside from that as I mentioned earlier it is about how much more aggressive he is playing. On days that he is sharp against 2nd or 3rd tier players he might beat them more convincingly than he would've 10 years ago, but that doesn't mean he's a better player overall. Basically there are more weaknesses now, consistency, stamina-wise and game-wise and that's what makes him a lesser overall player. It's natural at 34 years old.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

He has played very well in certain matches this year, no doubt about it. His performance against Murray at Wimbledon was mighty impressive and recently beating Kevin Anderson 6-1 6-1 was an insanely good result given Anderson's serve. That match in particular showed how devastating his new trick SABR can be. Anderson was really bewildered. That was SABR V1.0 at it's finest: the sneak attack by Roger and not the V2.0 Sayonara, Adios, Bye, Roger that he displayed at Shanghai! Needs to reinstall the old driver and go back to V1.0 pronto

Haha. very well said.

I still think there is going to be a physical decline slowly but surely, that will seem him looking slower an slower and less able to penetrate with his groundies on slower surfaces. Even fi he had beaten Ramos I would have been distressed.

 

[Front242]

Don't get me wrong, it's a very bad loss to Ramos no matter how well Ramos was playing (especially since Ramos won 3 games in 3 sets in their only other encounter) but I don't expect a drastic change in level from Roger next year. Most likely he won't make 2 straight slam finals again next year but with Roger you never know what's around the corner.

 

[Front242]

Another thing is this: people quite rightly point out how incredibly difficult it must be for Roger to remain focused and motivated at this stage of his career, but the other way to view that is this is a greedy man who wants to win everything (not greedy enough for my liking or he would've stepped his game up on the break point conversion) so I doubt very much he wants his last years on tour to be remembered as if he wasn't trying, didn't care anymore, etc. He'll want to finish on a high note. I'd argue that has to mean winning a slam but even without that, he'll want to continue schooling as many of the younger guys as long as he can.

 

[DarthFed]

Agreed Front. The other thing which I've stressed for years now is "forward thinking" And that means Roger has had the greatest career to date. If there is such a thing as GOAT he is the best candidate as of now. But Rafa is not far behind and Nole is not far behind Rafa. Roger getting to 19 would've put the big record out of reach for the other 2 IMO. So in essence Roger still does have a lot to play for, he is playing to protect his records.

This is something that was not on Sampras' radar and a mere 7 years after he retired his slam record was broken and he was left wishing he had stayed motivated a bit longer. If Roger retires at 17 and the jungle boy or Djoker overtake him I'm sure he'd have a lot of regrets no matter what he says in interviews.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Another thing is this: people quite rightly point out how incredibly difficult it must be for Roger to remain focused and motivated at this stage of his career, but the other way to view that is this is a greedy man who wants to win everything (not greedy enough for my liking or he would've stepped his game up on the break point conversion) so I doubt very much he wants his last years on tour to be remembered as if he wasn't trying, didn't care anymore, etc. He'll want to finish on a high note. I'd argue that has to mean winning a slam but even without that, he'll want to continue schooling as many of the younger guys as long as he can.

If he does not win a slam it is ok with me provided he takes the gold at Rio.

 

[Front242]

I personally couldn't give much of a toss about the Olympics as far as tennis is concerned. Of course gold is better than nothing but I'd actually sooner rather he even won the WTF this year to be honest. Winning more there is another record he could hold onto a bit longer though realistically Novak will more than likely end his career with more there given Roger's age.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

But, gold at rio would not probably happen as the finals is a 5-set match.

 

[Why So Serious?]

The USO final loss hurt. Nadal is one his way back. Djokovic is extremely dominant. I think he is heading for a slump at the very least.

 

[Kirijax]

The USO final loss hurt. Nadal is one his way back. Djokovic is extremely dominant. I think he is heading for a slump at the very least.

It will be very interesting to see how Federer does in the WTF, where he has always done well.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

The USO final loss hurt. Nadal is one his way back. Djokovic is extremely dominant. I think he is heading for a slump at the very least.

It will be very interesting to see how Federer does in the WTF, where he has always done well.

Even if he does well, it will to me not be an indicator of what 2016 will bring. It is fast, indoors, and a place where he can hold serve in 70 seconds. It is where he has delivered some his biggest beat downs...Murray Nadal..bagels and breadsticks any one?

 

[Kirijax]

The USO final loss hurt. Nadal is one his way back. Djokovic is extremely dominant. I think he is heading for a slump at the very least.

It will be very interesting to see how Federer does in the WTF, where he has always done well.

Even if he does well, it will to me not be an indicator of what 2016 will bring. It is fast, indoors, and a place where he can hold serve in 70 seconds. It is where he has delivered some his biggest beat downs...Murray Nadal..bagels and breadsticks any one?

No argument there. I was thinking what if he loses out in the RR of the tournament? Then maybe Fed fans might be a bit worried about 2016.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

It will be very interesting to see how Federer does in the WTF, where he has always done well.

Even if he does well, it will to me not be an indicator of what 2016 will bring. It is fast, indoors, and a place where he can hold serve in 70 seconds. It is where he has delivered some his biggest beat downs...Murray Nadal..bagels and breadsticks any one?

No argument there. I was thinking what if he loses out in the RR of the tournament? Then maybe Fed fans might be a bit worried about 2016.

If THAT happens..well then..that will be an eye opener for even the true believers.

In the past, former dominant players who failed to get out of RR play generally were recognized as close to retirement.