PDA

View Full Version : The end of an era


diggler
08-12-2007, 07:53 PM
With the rise of Nadal and Djokovic, the days of Federer winning 3 slams per year are most likely over. 1 - 2 per year will be the norm.

Federer better be careful to keep his number 1 ranking so he doesn't have to play both Nadal and Djokovic in the same tournament.

Challenger
08-12-2007, 08:00 PM
I don't think Fed's era is completely over, but getting that elusive Grand Slam will only get harder from here on out. I still expect him to get a couple a year though. Djokovic has still yet to prove if he can be a real threat at slams, and Nadal has to show he can still improve on Hard and Grass.

It's to be expected, though. It happens to all great players...you age, and the younger generation take over.

jackson vile
08-12-2007, 08:02 PM
It is to soon to tell, but very very quickly Roger could be ended and GOAT erased as he has not even gotten there yet.

That is what happens when you count your eggs before they are hached LOL:p

soggyramen
08-12-2007, 08:04 PM
Fed was yesterday, Joker and Nadal are now honestly i think Joker will win the us open, federer will maybe win wimbledon another year or two, and nadal will win the french two or more times.

in my opinion we have the King of Grass, Clay, and (what seems to be) the King of Hard Court in the top 3 now.

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic

soggyramen
08-12-2007, 08:05 PM
It is to soon to tell, but very very quickly Roger could be ended and GOAT erased as he has not even gotten there yet.

That is what happens when you count your eggs before they are hached LOL:p

i like my eggs scrambled...like Federer's back hand during the Djokovic match lol

psamp14
08-12-2007, 08:06 PM
the era of federer is not ending anytime soon...most of the tennis world still thinks he's winning the us open this year, but 2008 is more wide open for others to win slams than before....

however federer could still win the grand slam and win the olympics if he schedules timely....and of course when he gets around #13/14 we wont be talking about any end of any eras....except maybe the end of the era of sampras holding the record for the most slams...

es-0
08-12-2007, 08:11 PM
I like how people jump all over Federer after one loss. How many times exactly has Federer lost against Djokovic? I think after a few months and at least one Slam to decide whether Federer is gone or not.

I think he is not.

Challenger
08-12-2007, 08:12 PM
i think Joker will win the us open

As much as I like Djokovic and what he's done so far, slams are still a question mark with him. In the past, he hasn't shown that he can consistently go far in them without wearing out in the end. I think he still needs more endurance and conditioning training before he becomes a legit threat at slams. They're a LOT more demanding than 2-set masters and smaller tournaments.

my_forehand
08-12-2007, 08:14 PM
wow. one match and it's the end of an era?

ben_friendz
08-12-2007, 08:15 PM
only three sets, Fed would wear Djoks game down in five

FedUp
08-12-2007, 08:16 PM
Where's my violin?

FedUp
08-12-2007, 08:17 PM
wow. one match and it's the end of an era?

C'mon guys, this has been discussed over and over again. I guess the other tournaments this year mean nothing. I agree with my_forehand 100%.

edmondsm
08-12-2007, 08:20 PM
You know this guy is the holder of 3 slam titles. He's still the overwhelming favorite going into the USO. I would say that the one who really has to worry is Nadal, who now has yet another dude that can take him out consistently on hard courts.

Challenger
08-12-2007, 08:22 PM
I like how people jump all over Federer after one loss. How many times exactly has Federer lost against Djokovic? I think after a few months and at least one Slam to decide whether Federer is gone or not.

I think he is not.

It's more of how Djokovic beat him than the very fact he beat him. Like Nadal, he's beaten Fed on his own terms. He didn't have to play the greatest match of his life or go all out...just sticking to his game was good enough.

I don't think it marks the end for Fed (Djokovic still has to prove if he can translate this success to slams), but it does signify a more interesting time for tennis. Even if Fed still wins everything under the sun, at least it'll be more competitive with a three man race.

phoony
08-12-2007, 08:23 PM
We all should said thats the end of Roddick instead.

Rickson
08-12-2007, 08:25 PM
With the rise of Nadal and Djokovic, the days of Federer winning 3 slams per year are most likely over. 1 - 2 per year will be the norm.

Federer better be careful to keep his number 1 ranking so he doesn't have to play both Nadal and Djokovic in the same tournament.
Are you kidding? Federer's gonna break Sampras' record in 2008. Greatest of all time and that's that.

127mph
08-12-2007, 08:25 PM
in my opinion we have the King of Grass, Clay, and (what seems to be) the King of Hard Court in the top 3 now.

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic

i disagree, federer is a three time champ at flushing, and this was the first time hes lost in a final on us soil in a long time. before indian wells federer hadnt lost in the us for like 3 years. Federer also holds the most consecutive wins on hardcourt as well as grass. people forget how good federer is on hardcourts. but im not taking anything from novak, hes for sure the 3rd best player in the world, which i thought after wimbledon. he will definatly challange for the us open.

Challenger
08-12-2007, 08:25 PM
We all should said thats the end of Roddick instead.

Wow, bitter much? You can't seem to stop talking about the guy (in a Federer-related thread, no less). Did he bone your girlfriend or something? Sheesh.

snapple
08-12-2007, 08:25 PM
Like Nadal, he's beaten Fed on his own terms.

When has Nadal ever beaten Fed on his own terms?

Challenger
08-12-2007, 08:27 PM
When has Nadal ever beaten Fed on his own terms?

Watch the French Open lately?

snapple
08-12-2007, 08:30 PM
Watch the French Open lately?

That's what you consider on Fed's own terms??? Trading groundstrokes from the baseline on slow red clay. That makes no sense at all.

UW_Husky88
08-12-2007, 08:32 PM
wow look at all the Joker bandwagoners! There are so many threads about this, and really, I think you guys are reading way too much into this loss. Come on, the guy barely beat Federer despite the fact that his backhand, and his whole game in fact was not top notch today. His backhand is for sure his weaker shot, but seriously, its not normally as bad as it was today. He made so many unnecessary mistakes, and all in all, tonight was just not the normal high quality stuff we see from Fed, and he STILL COULD HAVE PULLED IT OUT. Just calm down. Sure people are gaining on fed, but he's still the undisputed number one for a reason. He'll work on his backhand, and he'll be back to normal again.

But I do think that Federer needs to play a few more tune ups than he is. The field is catching up to him, and he already almost lost wimby to nadal because he played almost nothing before. He needs to start being careful, but please. This is still roger's game.

Challenger
08-12-2007, 08:33 PM
That's what you consider on Fed's own terms??? Trading groundstrokes from the baseline on slow red clay. That makes no sense at all.

Maybe you misinterpreted what I said? I think it makes plenty of sense. Rafa beat Fed pretty handily by sticking to his usual style of play (like Djokovic today)...hence, Rafa's own terms.

FarFed
08-12-2007, 08:34 PM
No, I think the end of an era was more like a 29-year old Sampras losing to a 19-year old Federer at Wimbledon 2001 4th Round and then losing badly in Wimbledon 2002 Second Round to a nobody (ironically Swiss) called George Bastl. If that happens to Federer (losing in the 2nd and 4th round of a Grand Slam he's won multiple times in the past) then that's pretty much the curtain call. But losing in the final at Rogers Cup, Montreal? C'mon, be reasonable.
According to me he's got 2 to 3 solid years.

snapple
08-12-2007, 08:39 PM
Maybe you misinterpreted what I said? I think it makes plenty of sense. Rafa beat Fed pretty handily by sticking to his usual style of play (like Djokovic today)...hence, Rafa's own terms.

Yes, sorry I did misinterpret. However, rafa's own terms happen to be Fed's worst terms. What Joker did today to me was so much more impressive - beating Fed on a hardcourt by outplaying him in basically every aspect of the game, rather than simply outlasting him a la Nadal or Canas.

Adrupert
08-12-2007, 08:42 PM
Fed has been struggling as of late, but I'm not sure if its more of because he is mentally not as sharp as before and is faltering as a result or if his indeed just aging. His movement did not look as smooth and what was with his backhand!?!?

Challenger
08-12-2007, 08:44 PM
Yes, sorry I did misinterpret. However, rafa's own terms happen to be Fed's worst terms. What Joker did today to me was so much more impressive - beating Fed on a hardcourt by outplaying him in basically every aspect of the game, rather than simply outlasting him a la Nadal or Canas.

No worries about the misunderstanding...I sort of worded it oddly, anyway.

And as much as I'm impressed with Djokovic's showing today, I wouldn't discount Nadal's achievements either. He has flat out OWNED Federer on clay courts, and at the FO especially. Clay may be Fed's "worst" terms, but even still...he's extremely gifted on that court. If it weren't for Rafa, he'd probably have 3 FO titles under his belt already.

Bjorn99
08-12-2007, 08:57 PM
Lets be honest, to see scrunchty face lose was fun. He is NOT loved, despite the bs charming Gaulois patois. The tennis crowd is tired of him, off with his head.

Challenger
08-12-2007, 09:01 PM
Lets be honest, to see scrunchty face lose was fun. He is NOT loved, despite the bs charming Gaulois patois. The tennis crowd is tired of him, off with his head.

Fed's a weird player for me to follow. On the one hand, I absolutely love watching his artful movement around the court, and his smooth yet dangerous groundstrokes...but, at the same time, I'm deathly bored with his matches unless he's playing Nadal (and now Djokovic). He usually beats players so easily and so swiftly, it gets downright boring to watch.

Now, with some more competition, maybe his matches will be more interesting to watch.

jackson vile
08-12-2007, 09:03 PM
When has Nadal ever beaten Fed on his own terms?

Look at the hard court matches Nadal leads and Miami was so so so close some say a questionable call.

10nisDude~
08-12-2007, 09:05 PM
Yeah this years French Open...roger was more aggressive plus he had a win on clay against nadal so he shud have been more confident and i think nadal shud have won wimbledon hands down next year rafa...

____
08-12-2007, 09:19 PM
The guy's just won a couple of hard court tournaments,not to mention US open. Now someone's already called him "a king of hard court"

thefederman
08-12-2007, 09:20 PM
i disagree, federer is a three time champ at flushing, and this was the first time hes lost in a final on us soil in a long time. before indian wells federer hadnt lost in the us for like 3 years. Federer also holds the most consecutive wins on hardcourt as well as grass. people forget how good federer is on hardcourts. but im not taking anything from novak, hes for sure the 3rd best player in the world, which i thought after wimbledon. he will definatly challange for the us open.

the tournament was played in montreal CANADA. and he will still win the us open

veritech
08-12-2007, 09:34 PM
one loss and all of a sudden the end of an era?

we're probably going to hear the same thing when rafa finally loses one match on clay.

KBalla08
08-12-2007, 09:47 PM
I like how people jump all over Federer after one loss. How many times exactly has Federer lost against Djokovic? I think after a few months and at least one Slam to decide whether Federer is gone or not.

I think he is not.

wow. one match and it's the end of an era?

this is exactly what i was thinking... one lose... wow... what about the TWO loses?!?!?! he suffered at the hands of canas? i think he recovered from those...

phoony
08-12-2007, 10:23 PM
Wow, bitter much? You can't seem to stop talking about the guy (in a Federer-related thread, no less). Did he bone your girlfriend or something? Sheesh.

Then i should said thats the end of American era instead.

robin7
08-12-2007, 10:25 PM
NO, NOT YET, if u r refering to Federer's defeat to Djokovic in Rogers Masters.

Djokovic's win will just put him as one of the favorites in the coming US Open. With Djokovic standing in Federer's way on the hardcourt & Nadal standing on the grass, Federer's dominance will definitely be under threat. Having said that, I'll say Federer still have a few years more to capture Grand Slams with a slower pace but still 1 or 2 GS per year. But one thing for sure, Federer will find himself getting harder & harder to lift another GS, and GS #14 might not come so soon.

Anyway, we'll have wait & see till the US Open.

Purostaff
08-12-2007, 10:25 PM
one loss and all of a sudden the end of an era?

we're probably going to hear the same thing when rafa finally loses one match on clay.

nod.......

Mad iX
08-12-2007, 10:41 PM
End of an era. Lol ...
I wouldnt say that unless Djokovic at least wins a slam. Federer only seems to play his best at the slams anyway.
I'm not doubting Djokovic, but this is premature.

Challenger
08-12-2007, 10:42 PM
Then i should said thats the end of American era instead.

Uh, I don't get it. Are you implying that all of America had their way with your girl? That's some loose broad you got there then.

robin7
08-12-2007, 10:43 PM
I'm deathly bored with his matches unless he's playing Nadal (and now Djokovic). He usually beats players so easily and so swiftly, it gets downright boring to watch.

Now, with some more competition, maybe his matches will be more interesting to watch.
Yup, I totally agreed with u.

I like what Djokovic said during the trophy ceremony after his win over Federer in Montreal, "He can't take everything, somebody else has to win somehow."

phoony
08-12-2007, 11:08 PM
Uh, I don't get it. Are you implying that all of America had their way with your girl? That's some loose broad you got there then.

I didn't said coz of my girl instead but what i mean american tennis are going to end due to too strong challenger and monopolised by the european players.

tsmcauliffe
08-12-2007, 11:23 PM
I didn't said coz of my girl instead but what i mean american tennis are going to end due to too strong challenger and monopolised by the european players.

I still think that your girl got boned by all the Americans.

0d1n
08-12-2007, 11:41 PM
I still think that your girl got boned by all the Americans.

Which Americans, those that can't see or use their p3ckers due to their humongous stomachs ??!? (well...they can see it if they look in the mirror...at least SOME of them).
This is a tennis forum kiddies, stop with the girlfriend stupid allegations and insults or "get outta here" as they say.

Warriorroger
08-12-2007, 11:43 PM
wow. one match and it's the end of an era?


My thoughts exactly, stupid thread.

gerikoh
08-13-2007, 12:02 AM
well, federer wasn't 100% at that time.. and slams matters most with roger.. it's pretty much the same thing that had happened with nadal when he lost to federer in hamburg. and he avenged that loss in the french open where he clearly dominated federer. this just means federer will be training harder.. but it's good to know that there's somebody who could step-up against him :)

ta11geese3
08-13-2007, 01:00 AM
I always used to think that Federer was most vulnerable in a best of 3 match.

Actually, I still do.

rafan
08-13-2007, 01:19 AM
We still have to see Djokovic go to the whole 5 sets over a grand slam fortnight and see how he can cope. Its a long tough trail and it was the making of Nadal who often only starts to warm up after the second set - good luck to him anyway and he is a great young player much needed in the present climate. One day we will need someone to replace Federer as he cannot go on playing this standard for many more years.

my_forehand
08-13-2007, 01:23 AM
why would you need someone to replace Federer? matches with him, aside against nadal and djovokic are so boring. you already know know who's gonna win with fed.

diggler
08-13-2007, 01:26 AM
I started this thread and I think I've been misinterpreted. I didn't say Federer is washed up. I said he could be winning only 1 - 2 slams a year instead of the superhuman 3. My comment was just as much based on the fact that he was very lucky to win Wimbledon.

my_forehand
08-13-2007, 01:39 AM
yeah but 1-2 slams a year is pretty much an era when your winnning the majority of masters and basically every tournament you enter...so..?

vince916
08-13-2007, 02:28 AM
Why cant Fed have a backhand like Gasquet? It awesome to see him put on a backhand clinic like what Gasquet did to Roddick. :(

I can only dream

diggler
08-13-2007, 03:00 AM
yeah but 1-2 slams a year is pretty much an era when your winnning the majority of masters and basically every tournament you enter...so..?


If you win half as many slams as you used to, I think that's a pretty big change. 1 - 2 is still good, but it is still half.

natasha_nana
08-13-2007, 04:32 AM
I always used to think that Federer was most vulnerable in a best of 3 match.

Actually, I still do.

Yes I agree too. As is Nadal...
while all those who beat them in 3 sets, are vulnerable in best of 5.

Which is why the GSs are always a very different picture, and as much as the tune up tournaments before can be good indicators - they aren't the best.

When Nadal lost at Queens, many thought he wouldn't make the Wimbledon finals again...and we all know what happened there.

This is not the end of any era...the end will be when Roger stops averaging 2 slams a year...

my_forehand
08-13-2007, 04:34 AM
Yes I agree too. As is Nadal...
while all those who beat them in 3 sets, are vulnerable in best of 5.

Which is why the GSs are always a very different picture, and as much as the tune up tournaments before can be good indicators - they aren't the best.

When Nadal lost at Queens, many thought he wouldn't make the Wimbledon finals again...and we all know what happened there.

This is not the end of any era...the end will be when Roger stops averaging 2 slams a year...

I couldn't have said it better.

esm
08-13-2007, 05:24 AM
With the rise of Nadal and Djokovic, the days of Federer winning 3 slams per year are most likely over. 1 - 2 per year will be the norm.

Federer better be careful to keep his number 1 ranking so he doesn't have to play both Nadal and Djokovic in the same tournament.

The end of an era?

are you kidding me.... look at the score... 7-6, 2-6, 7-6.

Djokovic needed to win 7-6 to win a set while Fed only needed 6-2 to win a set.

natasha_nana
08-13-2007, 05:41 AM
Djokovic needed to win 7-6 to win a set while Fed only needed 6-2 to win a set.

yes. good point.
And he had what 6 set points in the first set?

theballboy
08-13-2007, 05:47 AM
This match reminds me of the Hamburg final this year.

Everyone was expecting Fed to complete the Grand Slam now that he had beat Nadal on clay, and never looking at the possibility that a win in three sets in a tune up event doesn't mean jack when talking about slams.

urban
08-13-2007, 06:03 AM
Not end of era, but things seem to get tighter at the top. Djokovic's quite easy advancement in the rankings is for me a sign of the quite mediocre status of the 3-10 players in the last years. Guys like Ljubicic, is he playing any more?, Nalbandian, Robredo and others simply don't have it, neither mentally nor technically. Davydenko is good, but is a choker against the big guys. Roddick and Hewitt showed structural limitations in their game, Safin (and Ferrero and Coria) faded away. There was room at the top, and Djokovic used that to his advantage. He has the best hardcourt record this year, by quite a distance. In the semis of the majors there are always the same names. You can make a good bet, on how the semis will look at Flushing. Federer seems to have lost a step, and a bit of his smooth movement, often he plays quite defensively.As i wrote before, his RG showing wasn't as good as last year. Davydenko should have taken their match there. On hard court, his domination has faded this year. I don't buy, that he had no real interest in Montreal, or conserves his energy for the majors. He desperately wanted to stay ahead of Djokovic, to behold the mental edge. Look at the 2000 Canadian open. Safin defeated Sampras there, after saving mps the the final set tiebreaker. And after this breakthrough, he went on to crush Pete at Flushing.

diggler
08-13-2007, 06:54 AM
Does anyone seriously believe Fed will continue to win 3 majors per year after this year?

I will accept even money bets in any currency on that one.

dubsplayer
08-13-2007, 07:03 AM
Does anyone seriously believe Fed will continue to win 3 majors per year after this year?

I will accept even money bets in any currency on that one.

I don't expect him to keep winning 3 majors a year. That he's been able to do that the past few has been in itself simply amazing. And Rafa's complete domination on clay will someday come to an end, too. But none of that means that Joker will begin winning everything in sight, either. It'll become more like previous era where there were more players in the mix - like the early 90's where they was Edberg, Lendl, Becker and the emergence of Sampras & AA.

natasha_nana
08-13-2007, 07:12 AM
Does anyone seriously believe Fed will continue to win 3 majors per year after this year?

I will accept even money bets in any currency on that one.

I think he could, as anything could happen...and unlike many other players (nole and nadal included) injuries and poor fitness do not *touch wood* seem to be plaguing federer. So if anyone could do it, it's him.

But no, I don't seriously believe that he will keep winning 3 per year after 2007.
But I do honestly feel he is still quite likely to win at least 2, next year for sure...after that, it remains to be seen.

david22
08-13-2007, 10:50 AM
Why cant Fed have a backhand like Gasquet? It awesome to see him put on a backhand clinic like what Gasquet did to Roddick. :(

I can only dream

and why can t Gasquet have a forehand like Federer???:sad: :sad:
Actually with a forehand only half as good as Djokovic's forehand ,he would be in the top 3.
His forehand is absolutely horrible and it's probably the main reason(above his mental) which still prevents him to win big titles

Zaragoza
08-13-2007, 10:59 AM
As much as I like Djokovic and what he's done so far, slams are still a question mark with him. In the past, he hasn't shown that he can consistently go far in them without wearing out in the end. I think he still needs more endurance and conditioning training before he becomes a legit threat at slams. They're a LOT more demanding than 2-set masters and smaller tournaments.

Good point. He had to retire twice in the last rounds of Slams (FO 2006, Wimbledon 2007) and the USO semifinals and final are played in back to back days.

Zaragoza
08-13-2007, 11:04 AM
Yes, sorry I did misinterpret. However, rafa's own terms happen to be Fed's worst terms. What Joker did today to me was so much more impressive - beating Fed on a hardcourt by outplaying him in basically every aspect of the game, rather than simply outlasting him a la Nadal or Canas.

I hope you didnīt forget that Nadal is 2-2 against Federer on hardcourts.

fgzhu88
08-13-2007, 11:05 AM
OH my GOD, he beat Federer ONCE!!
omyGODDDD it's armageddon for Federer
Oh my God-----seriously, he's beaten BigFed once out of 5 meetings
GET REAL!!!!!!!!!

drakulie
08-13-2007, 11:23 AM
Fed was yesterday, Joker and Nadal are now honestly i think Joker will win the us open, federer will maybe win wimbledon another year or two, and nadal will win the french two or more times.

in my opinion we have the King of Grass, Clay, and (what seems to be) the King of Hard Court in the top 3 now.

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic

Djokovic is King of hard courts? LMAO!

Warriorroger
08-13-2007, 11:50 AM
OH my GOD, he beat Federer ONCE!!
omyGODDDD it's armageddon for Federer
Oh my God-----seriously, he's beaten BigFed once out of 5 meetings
GET REAL!!!!!!!!!


Yes my thoughts.

MaxT
08-13-2007, 11:52 AM
I think Federer's performance is the result of a calculated decision. He took a long break to gear up for the Open. This is in fact the first of two warmups on the book. Ideally he wants himself to be 80%.

Last year he won this one, and had a dillema for the next, with many saying he tanked. Now he can play as usual this week, and push at the Open.

He actaully looked quite sharp, just not match-tough and consistent. He was making too many errors and had to pull back even on forehands, even so he should have won it (40-0 the first set to lose it, it won't happen that often). So I am disappointed but not worried.

isuk@tennis
08-13-2007, 03:32 PM
one loss and all of a sudden the end of an era?

we're probably going to hear the same thing when rafa finally loses one match on clay.

didn't that already happen at hamburg? :confused:

wangs78
08-13-2007, 04:01 PM
Everyone - STOP talking about the end of the Federer era! Roger is just doing what he has to (that is, not go all out at minor tournaments) so that he's primed for the important ones - in other words, the Grand Slams. You actually see this a lot in sports nowadays. Tiger Woods, for example, plays fewer tournaments then almost all of the top contenders on the PGA. Lance Armstrong, selectively only rode the Tour de France, plus one or two warm up races. Roger's just doing the same thing. If anything, he uses matchups such as these to gauge his opponents.

Now, don't get me wrong! Djokovic has gotten much better this year and he clearly deserves to be in the Top 3 right now. Has he really closed the gap between him and Federer? I don't think so. This guy has potential, no doubt. And he ALSO beat Roddick AND Nadal, who presumably would not be "taking it easy" as I'm claiming that Roger did. So he clearly deserved to win the Rogers Cup and is a legitimate threat to Roger and Rafa in ANY tournament. Also keep in mind the score. Roger stormed through the second set. He just played poorly on some key points. Was this due to a decline in skills? Unlikely. Bad luck? Probably. At any rate, we should all expect Roger to probably win just 6-7 tournaments or so a year going forward, and not 9-10. He is 26 and needs to stay healthy to win 20 Grand Slams ;)

fastdunn
08-13-2007, 04:32 PM
At this point, it is still Federer. No one can serve, hit forehand like him
yet. He is still the man to win slams at fast courts.

It might not be Djokovic after all. There are other young guys lurking.
A group of smashing young talents are maturing(Nadal, Djokovic, Gasquet,
Murray and maybe Baghdatis).

For example, in early 90's, when Edberg was enjoying his #1 status as 26-27 year old,
guys like Chang, Courier, Agassi and Sampras were lurking when they
were like 19-21 year olds.

I don't know it will be like early 90's but I'm pretty sure it won't be
as easy as 2005-2006 for Federer.

diggler
08-13-2007, 05:15 PM
I'm curious how the Aust Open will play out. A faster surface helps Fed over Nadal but probably no help over Djokovic. I didn't see the last tournament so I'm not very qualified to speak on this.

AM28143
08-13-2007, 05:42 PM
For all the criticism and worrying people do about Federer on this board he is still in a very good position to win 3/4 slams once again this year. Which is something that Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe and Lendl never did. Djokovic and Nadal are pushing him this year however, they are still far from catching him. Djokovic played a great match Sunday, but the truth of the matter is Federer played like crap. Furthermore, its was a Master Series event that Federer cares far less about than Novak.

In March when Federer lost back to back tournaments to Canas posters predicted Federer to lose his number one ranking as soon as the end of the year. But Federer persisted and made the finals in Paris and won Wimbledon for the 5th straight time. Posters, as always, flew back to the Federer bandwagon. Two weeks later Djokovic, a better player than Canas, defeats Federer and everyone once again becomes conviced of the Federer downfall. So my point is that this board changes its views about Federer weekly and that people should stabalize thier postions. For an example, if Federer defeats Djokovic in route to a Cincinnati title there will be no doubt that the US Open title is his to win.

The truth is that Federer is just coming off the greatest year of his career and he was destined to slip a little. In addition, young players like Nadal and Djokovic are improving contributing to Federer's slip. However, until someone defeats Federer in Melbourne, London or New York he is still the best and still in the prime of his career.

Bhagi Katbamna
08-13-2007, 05:57 PM
Let's not get carried away after one match fellas.

saram
08-13-2007, 06:09 PM
With the rise of Nadal and Djokovic, the days of Federer winning 3 slams per year are most likely over. 1 - 2 per year will be the norm.

Federer better be careful to keep his number 1 ranking so he doesn't have to play both Nadal and Djokovic in the same tournament.

It's not over. Roger always has extra gears....and he'll just add more if he needs them.

fastdunn
08-13-2007, 06:19 PM
Yep, time and time gain, it always comes down to the finals of slams.

10nisDude~
08-13-2007, 07:39 PM
tru tru...fed hasnt lost to anyone else except to nadal in a slam final...i want to see wut happens if he faces canas at the us open...OOOO I WANT TO SEE THAT

NamRanger
08-13-2007, 08:03 PM
It's more of how Djokovic beat him than the very fact he beat him. Like Nadal, he's beaten Fed on his own terms. He didn't have to play the greatest match of his life or go all out...just sticking to his game was good enough.

I don't think it marks the end for Fed (Djokovic still has to prove if he can translate this success to slams), but it does signify a more interesting time for tennis. Even if Fed still wins everything under the sun, at least it'll be more competitive with a three man race.



It also took Federer making a ton of errors from not only his backhand, but his forehand. He made plenty of silly errors. Federer if he plays his best tennis is lights out, unstoppable. The only players whom I've seen able to keep up Federer playing his best are Safin and Agassi, and that's only when they are playing on the next level, and Federer is barely scratching the surface. Once he steps on the gas pedal, there is NO one that can touch him.

diggler
08-14-2007, 06:30 AM
People talk about this as one match. What about the Wimbledon final? After that performance, would you be confident betting your money on a 6th title? I thought he was very lucky.

Zaragoza
08-14-2007, 06:26 PM
I would say that the one who really has to worry is Nadal, who now has yet another dude that can take him out consistently on hard courts.

For me it´s obvious that Federer has to be more worried than Nadal for a simple reason: Djokovic´s best surface is hardcourts and that´s the surface where Federer usually wins 2 Slams and some Masters Series every year (not Masters Series this year though) to become a solid no. 1.
As for Nadal, Djokovic is still far from him on clay and Nadal can still reach semifinals or quarterfinals on hardcourts and occasionally win some Masters Series like he did in Indian Wells, so Djokovic will not make him lose many ranking points.
If Djokovic confirms on hardcourts what he did last week, Nadal will stay more or less the same, Federer will lose points on hardcourts and Djokovic will get more points so the gap between the 3 will be much closer but Federer has more to lose than Nadal. By the way, Djokovic-Nadal are 2-1 on hardcourts, not the most consistent record if you ask me (Nadal leads 5-2 in head-to-head).

daddy
08-14-2007, 06:36 PM
For me itīs obvious that Federer has to be more worried than Nadal for a simple reason: Djokovicīs best surface is hardcourts and thatīs the surface where Federer usually wins 2 Slams and some Masters Series every year (not Masters Series this year though) to become a solid no. 1.
As for Nadal, Djokovic is still far from him on clay and Nadal can still reach semifinals or quarterfinals on hardcourts and occasionally win some Masters Series like he did in Indian Wells, so Djokovic will not make him lose many ranking points.
If Djokovic confirms on hardcourts what he did last week, Nadal will stay more or less the same, Federer will lose points on hardcourts and Djokovic will get more points so the gap between the 3 will be much closer but Federer has more to lose than Nadal. By the way, Djokovic-Nadal are 2-1 on hardcourts, not the most consistent record if you ask me (Nadal leads 5-2 in head-to-head).

2 of Djokos defeats to rafa were when he was really exausted, french 06, 07 and wimbledon 07. I know they are still defeats, but I firmly believe Djoko has a potential to go far into the wimbledon next year if he keeps his matches prior to the end of the tournament shorter - 5 seters before semis is not the way to win a major. Still rafa and djoko are similar quality on hard court, maybe 55% djoko, 45% rafa. Fed is still the best and for how long, remains to be seen - can be much longer thann we expect it since he is a hard worker and very very motivated once he loses against someone.

lambielspins
08-19-2007, 02:58 PM
Federer will definitely win atleast 4 of the next 5 slams.

Kim
08-19-2007, 04:43 PM
Some people really are morons. By your definition, Sampras' era ended ALL THE TIME even at his peak.

God, Fed loses one match, and its the end of an era. Get a BRAIN.