PDA

View Full Version : What is happening to Fed is normal for any past great.


GameSampras
03-28-2009, 11:13 AM
All the tennis greats , IMO, have stages.

1. The rise. Here is when the player makes his mark one day (as Fed did in 03 Wimbledon). He began to put it all together and reaches his prime.

2. Domination. This is when a player is in the 'middle' of their primes and making a name for themselves and obliterating everything and challenge put in front of them.

3. Step off the gas. This is when the player is still in his prime but priorities have changed and the day in day out grind has taken second place to the record books, slams etc...

4. Decline. This is when the player has lost physical abilities and/or is burnt out and is unable to produce his best.


When a great player is in stages 1 and 2, they go 'all out' on every tournament, they give it 100% everyday. They are trying to make a name for themselves.

In stage 3, a player is STILL in his prime but has already accomplished a lot and is now pacing himself, concentrating on the recordbooks. Federer is here!

Stage 4 is where the player is done, a 'shell' of himself. This would be Pete Sampras around 01-02 where he went around 1.5 years without winning a single title and was pushing 30 or 31. Or Andre from 05 on.. Federer HASN'T GOTTEN HERE YET..


So had Nadal or Murray or DJoker not have have emerged, Roger would've STILL started to lose more and more but, at slams, he'd be the same old Federer. He would've won 08 AO, Wimbledon and US Open and 09 AO. He would've also won a few masters in 08 and probably IW 09. . Again you saw this with others.

He is in stage 3 AND facing better rivals so you see what you see. Those losses to Nadal in slam finals could've EASILY happened between 04-06. Fed has upped his play in slams, same as in past, but Rafael has taken his level to a level no other player in the past was able to attain. Novak Djokovic's play at AO 08 was also a higher level of tennis than anything Fed's old rivals were able to produce. Federer had his chances to beat Novak, had he serve dout the first set and he has been close to Nadal..


the biggest difference.. Nadal has primed and tweaked his game to the point where Fed just could not stop the inevitable really and with Djoker and Murray into the mix, they present a more formidable challenge than those at the top 04-06

Lotto
03-28-2009, 11:30 AM
I totally agree to be honest. I wouldn't be surprised if he breakd Sampras' record this year. The only person that can really challenge Roger at the slams is Rafa. I dont care what people say about Murray, he doesn't have it yet at the slams and I dont see him winning one this year. He does have his number in the masters and smaller tourneys though. Djokovic has troubled him once, at AO 08 and he beat him but he's been in terrible form recently.

We still have a lot to see from Roger imo.

RoddickAce
03-28-2009, 11:42 AM
Nice post, and this is why I think Jimmy Connors is such a great player, even when he's reached stage 4, he's still in there fighting and never giving up.

Andyk028
03-28-2009, 11:49 AM
I agree with your "stage" theory..but to say Nadal has primed is a falicy. Look at his hardcourt game so far and compare it to last year. Im waiting to see what Nadal will bring to the table after Wimbledon.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 11:50 AM
I agree with your "stage" theory..but to say Nadal has primed is a falicy. Look at his hardcourt game so far and compare it to last year. Im waiting to see what Nadal will bring to the table after Wimbledon.


Nadal has primed to the point where he will either remain at this level, even INCREASE this level or drop off either significantly or slowly. He did win the AO lets not forget. Before this year or last, that never would have been possible. Even if he can never manage the USO he still has HC titles and a HC slam to his name. You cant erase that

kungfusmkim
03-28-2009, 11:51 AM
TOTALLY AGREE. great post!

edmondsm
03-28-2009, 11:55 AM
Yes. Good post. The "Federer is done" people are not students of tennis history. No way was Fed going to win 95% of his matches until he was 30. He will continue at a top 5 level for quite a while I think, but the only thing he is done doing is winning 2-3 slams a year.

cucio
03-28-2009, 11:59 AM
You forgot step 5: making public predictions about current slam finals and failing. Borg, Becker et al. are in that stage.

All-rounder
03-28-2009, 11:59 AM
its nice to see people with sense of the game and not talk out their behind GREAT POST!!!

Andyk028
03-28-2009, 12:03 PM
Nadal has primed to the point where he will either remain at this level, even INCREASE this level or drop off either significantly or slowly. He did win the AO lets not forget. Before this year or last, that never would have been possible. Even if he can never manage the USO he still has HC titles and a HC slam to his name. You cant erase that

what?

Im saying that Rafael Nadal has improved his Hardcourt game drastically. With that being said, I'm interested in seeing if he also increased his oncourt longevity for a single season. So I'm not exactly sure what I'm trying to erase.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 12:06 PM
what?

Im saying that Rafael Nadal has improved his Hardcourt game drastically. With that being said, I'm interested in seeing if he also increased his oncourt longevity for a single season. So I'm not exactly sure what I'm trying to erase.

He increased it pretty well last year. His peformance at the USO and AO improved. Far better than when he was losing to the likes of Ferrer and Youzhny. He won the olympics etc. Now he has already won the AO and Indian Wells. I would assume he will keep his streak going on HC's. Im not sure he can win the USO. It depends on the draw and what the seeds will be there.

If Murray falls into Fed's bracket somehow. Nadal has a great chance of reaching the USO finals. I think Nadal can handle Djoker at the USO

rubberduckies
03-28-2009, 12:36 PM
You forgot step 5: making public predictions about current slam finals and failing. Borg, Becker et al. are in that stage.

Like when Borg predicted that Nadal would win Wimbledon in 2008 and said that he was unlucky not to win it the year before?

Seems spot on to me.

edmondsm
03-28-2009, 01:18 PM
He increased it pretty well last year. His peformance at the USO and AO improved. Far better than when he was losing to the likes of Ferrer and Youzhny. He won the olympics etc. Now he has already won the AO and Indian Wells. I would assume he will keep his streak going on HC's. Im not sure he can win the USO. It depends on the draw and what the seeds will be there.

If Murray falls into Fed's bracket somehow. Nadal has a great chance of reaching the USO finals. I think Nadal can handle Djoker at the USO

I think Nadal needs to try and avoid the medium-slow hardcourts more and more. These are the courts where he can get engaged in long rallies that take a toll on his legs. He has plenty of game to beat anybody on a fast hardcourt, so I think he needs to avoid tournaments like Canada masters from now on.

cucio
03-28-2009, 01:22 PM
Like when Borg predicted that Nadal would win Wimbledon in 2008 and said that he was unlucky not to win it the year before?

Seems spot on to me.

Nope, when he said Federer would win RG.

clayman2000
03-28-2009, 01:23 PM
Nope, when he said Federer would win RG.

So becuase his prediction was off by one more match it means that old legends never pick right

BreakPoint
03-28-2009, 01:45 PM
Wait, was it also normal for all the past greats to catch mono at the peak of their careers which side-tracked them for a year and they were never the same again since?

Federer is CLEARLY not the same player that he was before getting mono. He is slower, his footwork is sloppier, he makes many more errors, his backhand is inconsistent, he misses easy volleys, he doesn't serve as well, he's not as aggressive, etc. This could be due to the lack of training and physical conditioning during his illness or the residual effects of his illness since the mono virus never leaves your body, who knows? But many athletes who have had mono report that they were never the same again since and it took a very, very long time to fully recover from mono and its after-effects, if ever. :(

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 01:46 PM
Wait, was it also normal for all the past greats to catch mono at the peak of their careers which side-tracked them for a year and they were never the same again since?

Federer is CLEARLY not the same player that he was before getting mono. He is slower, his footwork is sloppier, he makes many more errors, his backhand is inconsistent, he misses easy volleys, he doesn't serve as well, he's not as aggressive, etc. This could be due to the lack of training and physical conditioning during his illness or the residual effects of his illness since the mono virus never leaves your body, who knows? But many athletes who have had mono report that they were never the same since and it took a very, very long time to fully recover from mono and its after-effects, if ever. :(

Oh come on!!! LOL.. Fed's mono is long gone:) At least any major symptoms of it. Has mono caused his BH to deteriorate? How about his mental toughness on big points and blowing leads?

BreakPoint
03-28-2009, 01:50 PM
Oh come on!!! LOL.. Fed's mono is long gone:) At least any major symptoms of it. Has mono caused his BH to deteriorate? How about his mental toughness on big points and blowing leads?
Yes, because of his poor footwork now.

Yes, because if you no longer trust your body, you lose your mental desire to fight.

icedevil0289
03-28-2009, 01:50 PM
Yes, because of his poor footwork now.

Yes, because if you no longer trust your body, you lose your mental desire to fight.

oh god:roll:

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 01:53 PM
Yes, because of his poor footwork now.

Yes, because if you no longer trust your body, you lose your mental desire to fight.

How do u explain Fed never taking a break from tour or reaching slam after slam final? Does his mono only kick in when Nadal is on the other side of the net? I dont get it

Cesc Fabregas
03-28-2009, 01:55 PM
Wait, was it also normal for all the past greats to catch mono at the peak of their careers which side-tracked them for a year and they were never the same again since?

Federer is CLEARLY not the same player that he was before getting mono. He is slower, his footwork is sloppier, he makes many more errors, his backhand is inconsistent, he misses easy volleys, he doesn't serve as well, he's not as aggressive, etc. This could be due to the lack of training and physical conditioning during his illness or the residual effects of his illness since the mono virus never leaves your body, who knows? But many athletes who have had mono report that they were never the same again since and it took a very, very long time to fully recover from mono and its after-effects, if ever. :(

He didn't have serious mono like Ancic stop making excuses for him.

klementine
03-28-2009, 01:56 PM
I really want Federer to break Sampras' record, but I just don't see it happening. He needs one to tie and two to break.

Maybe becoming a father will re-focus Roger, but two slams and nearing the age of 30, is a little too much IMO.

Sure, Agassi did it--won slams after 30 and actually improved his game-- but Federer has been so good for so long that you cannot compare him to Agassi in that respect. Agassi was not that great for most of his career-- not focused-- not hungry-- for years. Federer, on the other hand, has almost a decade, of improving, striving, staying motivated, staying hungry-- the mental aspect of being willing to learn and re-learn and staying motivated-- will be the biggest hurdle for Federer to overcome-- not his opponent opposite court.

cucio
03-28-2009, 01:59 PM
So becuase his prediction was off by one more match it means that old legends never pick right

They are not particularly good at it, given that they know things we don't.

BreakPoint
03-28-2009, 02:03 PM
How do u explain Fed never taking a break from tour or reaching slam after slam final? Does his mono only kick in when Nadal is on the other side of the net? I dont get it
He did take a break from the tour. He hardly played at all between the AO and Indian Wells last year. He can still get to the Slam finals, but not win them. (The only reason he won the US Open last year was because Djokovic and Murray totally choked.) He only got to the AO final this year because Berdych totally choked.

Federer went from cleaning Roddick's, Nadal's and Ferrer's clock at the '07 Master's Cup in Nov. '07 to never being the same player again after getting mono in Dec. '07.

Look at who's beaten him since getting mono: Roddick, Fish, Blake, Simon, Stepanek, Karlovic, etc. These guys couldn't touch him before mono.

BreakPoint
03-28-2009, 02:04 PM
He didn't have serious mono like Ancic stop making excuses for him.
You mean because you are both Federer's and Ancic's personal physician and have thoroughly examined both of them? :-?

icedevil0289
03-28-2009, 02:05 PM
He did take a break from the tour. He hardly played at all between the AO and Indian Wells last year. He can still get to the Slam finals, but not win them. (The only reason he won the US Open last year was because Djokovic and Murray totally choked.) He only got to the AO final this year because Berdych totally choked.

Federer went from cleaning Roddick's, Nadal's and Ferrer's clock at the '07 Master's Cup in Nov. '07 to never being the same player again after getting mono in Dec. '07.

Look at who's beaten him since getting mono: Roddick, Fish, Blake, Simon, Stepanek, Karlovic, etc. These guys couldn't touch him before mono.

seriously? It had nothing to do with the fact that roger actually played well? Stop with the mono crap. Its annoying.

tudwell
03-28-2009, 02:11 PM
I really want Federer to break Sampras' record, but I just don't see it happening. He needs one to tie and two to break.

Maybe becoming a father will re-focus Roger, but two slams and nearing the age of 30, is a little too much IMO.

Sure, Agassi did it--won slams after 30 and actually improved his game-- but Federer has been so good for so long that you cannot compare him to Agassi in that respect. Agassi was not that great for most of his career-- not focused-- not hungry-- for years. Federer, on the other hand, has almost a decade, of improving, striving, staying motivated, staying hungry-- the mental aspect of being willing to learn and re-learn and staying motivated-- will be the biggest hurdle for Federer to overcome-- not his opponent opposite court.
He's 27! He's got three years left before he's thirty.

And he's made the last four slam finals, and 14 of the last 15 slam finals. But somehow his level of play is suddenly going to drop and he wont' squeak out two more slams?

TheNatural
03-28-2009, 03:00 PM
good post. Feds stages could have come a year of 2 earlier if Nadal didn't bust his knee at Wimbledon 07/carry that injury into US open 07, and sacrifice US open 08 by Winning the Olympics.

All those other losses for Fed in 08 during non slams may well have been viewed as normal by fans had Nadal not busted his knee in 07.

icedevil0289
03-28-2009, 03:03 PM
good post. Feds stages could have come a year of 2 earlier if Nadal didn't bust his knee at Wimbledon 07/carry that injury into US open 07, and sacrifice US open 08 by Winning the Olympics.

All those other losses for Fed in 08 during non slams may well have been viewed as normal by fans had Nadal not busted his knee in 07.

wow. :roll:

tudwell
03-28-2009, 03:04 PM
good post. Feds stages could have come a year of 2 earlier if Nadal didn't bust his knee at Wimbledon 07/carry that injury into US open 07, and sacrifice US open 08 by Winning the Olympics.

All those other losses for Fed in 08 during non slams may well have been viewed as normal by fans had Nadal not busted his knee in 07.
Yes, it really is a shame Nadal hasn't learned how to run around on a tennis court without his knees falling off every other match.

ChanceEncounter
03-28-2009, 03:05 PM
He's 27! He's got three years left before he's thirty.

And he's made the last four slam finals, and 14 of the last 15 slam finals. But somehow his level of play is suddenly going to drop and he wont' squeak out two more slams?
27 is already in the latter stages of "middle age" for a tennis player. He's going to turn 28, and the players that are at the top now are 4, 5 or more years younger than him.

This is natural progression. Tennis is always going to be a sport for young men.

tudwell
03-28-2009, 03:08 PM
27 is already in the latter stages of "middle age" for a tennis player. He's going to turn 28, and the players that are at the top now are 4, 5 or more years younger than him.

This is natural progression. Tennis is always going to be a sport for young men.
Yeah, I know he's getting older, but people saying "He's almost thirty!!!!!1!!!omg!!!" just seem a tad ridiculous. Even if he doesn't win a slam after thirty, he's got 10 more opportunities to prove himself.

ChanceEncounter
03-28-2009, 03:13 PM
Yeah, I know he's getting older, but people saying "He's almost thirty!!!!!1!!!omg!!!" just seem a tad ridiculous. Even if he doesn't win a slam after thirty, he's got 10 more opportunities to prove himself.
He's still getting to the semifinals or better at every slam. The fact that he has some difficulty with some elite players who are substantially younger than him doesn't mean that he's not getting older and declining.

For what it's worth, Sampras was showing a similar train of decline.

Zaragoza
03-28-2009, 04:25 PM
How many years are there usually between steps 1 and 3? I think more than 4-5 years.

ksbh
03-28-2009, 05:31 PM
ROFL X 125! When Federer retires in say 2012, I won't be surprised if Breakpoint attributes it to the mono that affected Federer 4 years ago!

oh god:roll:

Nuke
03-28-2009, 05:34 PM
Nadal has primed to the point where he will either remain at this level, even INCREASE this level or drop off either significantly or slowly.
So let me get this straight: Nadal will either stay at this level, or maybe get better, or maybe get worse? Brilliant! You seem to have hit the nail right on the head. :)

BreakPoint
03-28-2009, 05:40 PM
ROFL X 125! When Federer retires in say 2012, I won't be surprised if Breakpoint attributes it to the mono that affected Federer 4 years ago!
When did Ancic get mono? Like 3 years ago? Has he fully recovered? Has he ever been the same since? He was ranked #7 in the world before he got mono.

JoshDragon
03-28-2009, 07:44 PM
All the tennis greats , IMO, have stages.

1. The rise. Here is when the player makes his mark one day (as Fed did in 03 Wimbledon). He began to put it all together and reaches his prime.

2. Domination. This is when a player is in the 'middle' of their primes and making a name for themselves and obliterating everything and challenge put in front of them.

3. Step off the gas. This is when the player is still in his prime but priorities have changed and the day in day out grind has taken second place to the record books, slams etc...

4. Decline. This is when the player has lost physical abilities and/or is burnt out and is unable to produce his best.


When a great player is in stages 1 and 2, they go 'all out' on every tournament, they give it 100% everyday. They are trying to make a name for themselves.

In stage 3, a player is STILL in his prime but has already accomplished a lot and is now pacing himself, concentrating on the recordbooks. Federer is here!

Stage 4 is where the player is done, a 'shell' of himself. This would be Pete Sampras around 01-02 where he went around 1.5 years without winning a single title and was pushing 30 or 31. Or Andre from 05 on.. Federer HASN'T GOTTEN HERE YET..


So had Nadal or Murray or DJoker not have have emerged, Roger would've STILL started to lose more and more but, at slams, he'd be the same old Federer. He would've won 08 AO, Wimbledon and US Open and 09 AO. He would've also won a few masters in 08 and probably IW 09. . Again you saw this with others.

He is in stage 3 AND facing better rivals so you see what you see. Those losses to Nadal in slam finals could've EASILY happened between 04-06. Fed has upped his play in slams, same as in past, but Rafael has taken his level to a level no other player in the past was able to attain. Novak Djokovic's play at AO 08 was also a higher level of tennis than anything Fed's old rivals were able to produce. Federer had his chances to beat Novak, had he serve dout the first set and he has been close to Nadal..


the biggest difference.. Nadal has primed and tweaked his game to the point where Fed just could not stop the inevitable really and with Djoker and Murray into the mix, they present a more formidable challenge than those at the top 04-06

I agree, although if it hadn't been for Nadal, Federer would have been the undisputed GOAT.

egn
03-28-2009, 07:57 PM
Brilliant post game only disagreement Is Fed 08 does not win 3 slams. 2 max..not 3 though. He loses that AO to Tsonga. but the stages are right on and amazing excellent post =]

veroniquem
03-28-2009, 09:59 PM
seriously? It had nothing to do with the fact that roger actually played well? Stop with the mono crap. Its annoying.
I so agree with you, I'd really love to see a Federer thread not turned into a mono thread after 3 posts. That is so annoying and everything has already been said on the subject!

veroniquem
03-28-2009, 10:21 PM
Yeah, I know he's getting older, but people saying "He's almost thirty!!!!!1!!!omg!!!" just seem a tad ridiculous. Even if he doesn't win a slam after thirty, he's got 10 more opportunities to prove himself.
There are only 4 players in recent tennis history who won several slams after the age of 27:
- Agassi won 3 slams at 29 (RG, USO and AO), 1 AO at 30 and another AO at 32.
- Lendl won RG and USO at 27, 1 AO at 28 and 1 AO at 29.
- Connors won 1 W at 29, 1 USO at 30 and his last USO at 31.
- Sampras won W at 27, another W at 28 and a USO at 31.
Let's see if Federer can enter this (short) list of "old" slam winners!

danb
03-28-2009, 10:35 PM
I am a Rafa fan but I still think Fed has at least 1 more slam left in him. Maybe two.

Phil
03-28-2009, 10:45 PM
This just in: Federer has been diagnosed with an especially virulent form of mono...it's called "Rafamurrayitis" and it's affected Federer in the standard way-he has become the PRISON PUNK of two certain rivals...

Federer will ALWAYS be considered one of the all-time greats after what he's achieved in the past five years, but...his stock has "dropped" a bit after being made Rafa's and Andy's prison bride. Really, the "other" all time greats, like Sampras and Laver, would have NEVER let that happen. Never. Of course they played guys who gave them fits, but in the end, they usually found a way to overcome them, like the champions they were.

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
03-28-2009, 10:46 PM
I think the supposed step 5 takes places not necessarily because these past players or champions thrust in from their current lives to voice their opinions about tennis nowadays, but because media pursuits and confronts them regarding predilections. Plainly out and out in all aspects of tennis, whatever and whoever is current covering tennis events wants to seek out past players to get their opinions on what is going on now and how they think will do the best, etc. The ones who chose to answer to these medias and say, then fall into the pattern of being "consultants" or whatever title you want to call it, will continue to voice more and more predilections.

These former players opinions, in actuality, are no greater or lesser than anyone elses in the outcome. Only the current players now will win or lose dependent on the event, their health and various factors. Its just part of the aura to ask past players to remark on whats going on today and give their perspectives. Some formers are more in media, or in coaching, for example, so we can name them, but many of the past greats remain fairly frugal with their comments. Or conversely, at certain points in time, media goes really bonkers trying to get a certain former players point of view on an international level, say a Michael Stich, and then you have a lot of people really attempt to crufix him for giving his opinions. Its a lose/lose situation in some ways unless this former player always chooses the right one who eventually wins.

BreakPoint
03-28-2009, 10:51 PM
This just in: Federer has been diagnosed with an especially virulent form of mono...it's called "Rafamurrayitis" and it's affected Federer in the standard way-he has become the PRISON PUNK of two certain rivals...

Federer will ALWAYS be considered one of the all-time greats after what he's achieved in the past five years, but...his stock has "dropped" a bit after being made Rafa's and Andy's prison bride. Really, the "other" all time greats, like Sampras and Laver, would have NEVER let that happen. Never. Of course they played guys who gave them fits, but in the end, they usually found a way to overcome them, like the champions they were.
Yes, and Federer did figure out a way to overcome Hewitt, Agassi, Henman, Nalbandian, etc., and it's not like Federer has never beaten Nadal nor Hewitt.

BTW, Sampras and Laver also never got mono at the peak of their careers. :shock:

Phil
03-28-2009, 10:58 PM
Who said anything about Hewitt? The two players I mentioned are MURRAY and Nadal, and yes, he's beaten Nadal, but not in a while. You wouldn't expect him to be oh and whatever against him...that doesn't mean he isn't Rafa's prison bride...he is.

Why use "mono" as an excuse? Even Federer isn't using it as an excuse, so how do you even KNOW this is the root of his problem? Are you privvy to his medical records? No, I didn't think so.

The fact is, Federer is good enough to beat pretty much anyone else on the tour, but not Rafa. Not at all. Is THAT due to "mono"? Sounds like a pretty lame excuse to me. What I SEE, is that Federer doesn't have an answer (the correct one, at least) to Nadal's game. This is not due to the after effects of "mono". To say so is an insult to the two players who have figured out how to beat Fed consistently.

BreakPoint
03-28-2009, 10:58 PM
I so agree with you, I'd really love to see a Federer thread not turned into a mono thread after 3 posts. That is so annoying and everything has already been said on the subject!
Well, how can anyone start a thread about the decline of Federer without mentioning the effect of getting mono at the peak of his career had on starting his said decline?

He went from being virtually guaranteed to break Sampras' Grand Slam record by a wide margin to being questionable if he ever will virtually overnight. That doesn't just happen all on its own without some catastrophic event occurring.

BreakPoint
03-28-2009, 11:04 PM
Who said anything about Hewitt?
You stated that Federer didn't have the ability to figure out opponents that gave him fits unlike Sampras and Laver did. That's just not true. Federer has figured out how to beat many opponents that used to beat him all the time. After he figured them out, he never lost to them again ever. He just hasn't figured out Nadal and Murray yet. Although he has given both quite a beating at times.

Why use "mono" as an excuse? Even Federer isn't using it as an excuse, so how do you even KNOW this is the root of his problem? Are you privvy to his medical records? No, I didn't think so.

If he never got mono, then of course that could never be used as an excuse. But the fact is that he did.

Mansewerz
03-28-2009, 11:06 PM
Laver played in a time where the physicality of the game was not as intense as it is today. He also played a style that gave itself to longevity. Federer plays a more movement based style. Sampras was in between, but more towards Federer. Even then, Sampras had a nearly unbreakable serve.

Phil
03-28-2009, 11:19 PM
You stated that Federer didn't have the ability to figure out opponents that gave him fits unlike Sampras and Laver did.
No, I said that Federer doesn't have the ability to figure out two SPECIFIC opponents, Murray and Nadal. I even mentioned them by name, so anything else is just you making something up.

That's just not true. Federer has figured out how to beat many opponents that used to beat him all the time. After he figured them out, he never lost to them again ever. He just hasn't figured out Nadal and Murray yet. Although he has given both quite a beating at times.
At this point in his career, it doesn't look like he'll figure out Nadal. I don't see it happening. In fact, where Nadal once only dominated Federer on clay, now he's beating him on grass and hard courts. Sounds like Fed's just on the verge of figuring him out!

If he never got mono, then of course that could never be used as an excuse. But the fact is that he did.
So this is a ready-made excuse for *******s like yourself? Okay, I see that. Again, you overlook the fact that Nadal is a great player who has passed passed the Fed in the fast lane. And this is coming from someone who doesn't enjoy watching Nadal play at all...but that's beside the point. The results speak for themselves.

BreakPoint
03-28-2009, 11:46 PM
At this point in his career, it doesn't look like he'll figure out Nadal. I don't see it happening. In fact, where Nadal once only dominated Federer on clay, now he's beating him on grass and hard courts. Sounds like Fed's just on the verge of figuring him out!
Right before he got mono, Federer thrashed Nadal on hardcourts at the '07 Master's Cup, 6-4, 6-1. And I am of the opinion that had Federer never got mono in '08, he would have beaten Nadal for the third straight time in a Wimbledon final. Breaking Borg's five straight record was too important to Roger.

So this is a ready-made excuse for *******s like yourself?
It's not an "excuse". It's a fact. Federer got mono.

Where's Ancic today? He was #7 in the world before right he got mono.

Phil
03-28-2009, 11:55 PM
Right before he got mono, Federer thrashed Nadal on hardcourts at the '07 Master's Cup, 6-4, 6-1. And I am of the opinion that had Federer never got mono in '08, he would have beaten Nadal for the third straight time in a Wimbledon final. Breaking Borg's five straight record was too important to Roger.
Pure speculation. Nadal ALMOST beat Fed in 2007 Wimbledon (and without the mono). It was only a matter of time before he gave up his title.

It's not an "excuse". It's a fact. Federer got mono.
But you are using it as an excuse for him losing to Nadal. Face it: he is losing to Nadal because Nadal is a better player now. Fed is NOT losing to other players consistently (other than Murray). He's still beating them. Why is it that he ONLY has the lingering effects of mono when he plays Nadal/Murray?:???:

Where's Ancic today? He was #7 in the world before right he got mono.
What does that have to do with anything? Is every case of mono identical and is every person's reaction to it identical? If so, Doctor, then maybe you have a case here, but since you're just talking out of your a** and making excuses for Fed, I doubt I'll be requiring your medical services.

devila
03-29-2009, 12:04 AM
Canas beat Federer 2 years ago. I remember
the clowns like Pat McEnroe and Drysdale crying with mock outrage. Talk about living vicariously through an unimportant
tennis player. He was simply outsmarted on hardcourts.

Annoying rabid Fed fan, indeed.

BreakPoint
03-29-2009, 12:07 AM
But you are using it as an excuse for him losing to Nadal. Face it: he is losing to Nadal because Nadal is a better player now. Fed is NOT losing to other players consistently (other than Murray). He's still beating them. Why is it that he ONLY has the lingering effects of mono when he plays Nadal/Murray?:???:

Not true. Since getting mono, Federer has lost to many guys that he usually beats just about every time, like Djokovic, Roddick, Blake, Fish, Karlovic, Stepanek, etc. He even lost to Simon TWICE.

tahiti
03-29-2009, 02:25 AM
All the tennis greats , IMO, have stages.

1. The rise. Here is when the player makes his mark one day (as Fed did in 03 Wimbledon). He began to put it all together and reaches his prime.

2. Domination. This is when a player is in the 'middle' of their primes and making a name for themselves and obliterating everything and challenge put in front of them.

3. Step off the gas. This is when the player is still in his prime but priorities have changed and the day in day out grind has taken second place to the record books, slams etc...

4. Decline. This is when the player has lost physical abilities and/or is burnt out and is unable to produce his best.

Nice post and I agree with most except the argument that Fed would have still started to lose if the stronger competition hadn't arrived. One's period of dominance is dominated by who arrives on the scene. And if it's someone "better" then the dominance fades and the logical step is then no. 3. So I agree in part, but just not about the transition from 2 - 3.

devila
03-29-2009, 02:37 AM
He lost because he's overrated. Roddick was in an even worse fitness and emotional level when Federer took advantage of the weak era's players. Safin and Hewitt rarely hurt Federer since 2004.

BorisBeckerFan
03-29-2009, 02:48 AM
Pete sure ended he's career nicely for being in decline. I agree his game had declined but was still able to summon slam winning tennis at the end. I hope Fed can somehow do the same.

P_Agony
03-29-2009, 03:19 AM
Good post, but it seems to me Fed has reached step 4 already. He's not what he used to be anymore. The new version of Federer is slower, makes a lot of errors, has much less "juice" on his strokes, and his backhand breaks down faster than ever. This is still enough to get the "W" against most players, but not against Nadal and Murray. I still think Federer can beat them both, on any surface, as I believe Federer's A game is better than Nadal's A game or Murray's A game. But for that to happen he needs to get his old form back (we saw it a few times in 2008 - like in that Basel final and the US Open semi-final and final, and the Stepanek match) and he needs to believe in himself. Until then, he will continue to lose to Nadal and Murray and it'll spread to other players pretty quickly.

P_Agony
03-29-2009, 03:27 AM
good post. Feds stages could have come a year of 2 earlier if Nadal didn't bust his knee at Wimbledon 07/carry that injury into US open 07, and sacrifice US open 08 by Winning the Olympics.

All those other losses for Fed in 08 during non slams may well have been viewed as normal by fans had Nadal not busted his knee in 07.

Nadal didn't sacrifice the US Open. He lost because he wasn't good enough at this specific event, end of story. He was getting killed by Murray, who then got killed by Federer. That is why I believe this US Open is the greatest example of how Federer's problem with Nadal is mental.

P_Agony
03-29-2009, 03:30 AM
He did take a break from the tour. He hardly played at all between the AO and Indian Wells last year. He can still get to the Slam finals, but not win them. (The only reason he won the US Open last year was because Djokovic and Murray totally choked.) He only got to the AO final this year because Berdych totally choked.

Federer went from cleaning Roddick's, Nadal's and Ferrer's clock at the '07 Master's Cup in Nov. '07 to never being the same player again after getting mono in Dec. '07.

Look at who's beaten him since getting mono: Roddick, Fish, Blake, Simon, Stepanek, Karlovic, etc. These guys couldn't touch him before mono.

Really? so by that logic, the only reason Nadal won the AO is because Federer choked (and in fact won more points at the end, despite barely winning any in the 5th). Truth is, Nadal won fair and square, just like Fed won the US Open fair and square.

The mono thing is over. Fed himself keeps saying he's feeling fine and is excited to play. Federer got through the AO and USO because he's the better player on crucial poinst. That is all the matters, right? The crucial points, the ones which determine who wins eventually. Berdych was leading by two sets, and Federer was playing his D- game, and managed to turn it around despite not finding form. That's a quality of a cahmpion - getting the "W" even if you're far from your best. Djokovic in fact played very well in the semi final of the US Open, took a set and gave Federer a hard time. Federer just brought his B+ game that day and that was enough to beat the Joker.

JoshDragon
03-29-2009, 09:03 AM
Really? so by that logic, the only reason Nadal won the AO is because Federer choked (and in fact won more points at the end, despite barely winning any in the 5th). Truth is, Nadal won fair and square, just like Fed won the US Open fair and square.

The mono thing is over. Fed himself keeps saying he's feeling fine and is excited to play. Federer got through the AO and USO because he's the better player on crucial poinst. That is all the matters, right? The crucial points, the ones which determine who wins eventually. Berdych was leading by two sets, and Federer was playing his D- game, and managed to turn it around despite not finding form. That's a quality of a cahmpion - getting the "W" even if you're far from your best. Djokovic in fact played very well in the semi final of the US Open, took a set and gave Federer a hard time. Federer just brought his B+ game that day and that was enough to beat the Joker.

The only reason that Federer beat Berdych at the Australian Open was because Berdych defeated himself. Berdych, started to play poorly in the third set, he wasn't able to hold onto his serve and started making UE.

Nadal_Freak
03-29-2009, 09:05 AM
Yeah it's called getting old. It happens to everyone. He should prepare for his life after tennis though it looks like he is already doing this summer.

miniRafa386
03-29-2009, 09:08 AM
All the tennis greats , IMO, have stages.

1. The rise. Here is when the player makes his mark one day (as Fed did in 03 Wimbledon). He began to put it all together and reaches his prime.

2. Domination. This is when a player is in the 'middle' of their primes and making a name for themselves and obliterating everything and challenge put in front of them.

3. Step off the gas. This is when the player is still in his prime but priorities have changed and the day in day out grind has taken second place to the record books, slams etc...

4. Decline. This is when the player has lost physical abilities and/or is burnt out and is unable to produce his best.


When a great player is in stages 1 and 2, they go 'all out' on every tournament, they give it 100% everyday. They are trying to make a name for themselves.

In stage 3, a player is STILL in his prime but has already accomplished a lot and is now pacing himself, concentrating on the recordbooks. Federer is here!

Stage 4 is where the player is done, a 'shell' of himself. This would be Pete Sampras around 01-02 where he went around 1.5 years without winning a single title and was pushing 30 or 31. Or Andre from 05 on.. Federer HASN'T GOTTEN HERE YET..


So had Nadal or Murray or DJoker not have have emerged, Roger would've STILL started to lose more and more but, at slams, he'd be the same old Federer. He would've won 08 AO, Wimbledon and US Open and 09 AO. He would've also won a few masters in 08 and probably IW 09. . Again you saw this with others.

He is in stage 3 AND facing better rivals so you see what you see. Those losses to Nadal in slam finals could've EASILY happened between 04-06. Fed has upped his play in slams, same as in past, but Rafael has taken his level to a level no other player in the past was able to attain. Novak Djokovic's play at AO 08 was also a higher level of tennis than anything Fed's old rivals were able to produce. Federer had his chances to beat Novak, had he serve dout the first set and he has been close to Nadal..


the biggest difference.. Nadal has primed and tweaked his game to the point where Fed just could not stop the inevitable really and with Djoker and Murray into the mix, they present a more formidable challenge than those at the top 04-06

right on.

except i think that federer is at the end of his stage 2, for slams that is

BreakPoint
03-29-2009, 10:25 AM
Really? so by that logic, the only reason Nadal won the AO is because Federer choked (and in fact won more points at the end, despite barely winning any in the 5th). Truth is, Nadal won fair and square, just like Fed won the US Open fair and square.

Big time. Federer could hardly get a first serve in for the entire match and he choked big time in the 5th set. Nadal was nowhere near his best in the AO final so it was a great opportunity for Federer to beat Nadal in a final, but sadly he choked away that opportunity. The only one who played even worse than Nadal in that final was Federer. A classic match that was not.

BreakPoint
03-29-2009, 10:27 AM
Yeah it's called getting old. It happens to everyone. He should prepare for his life after tennis though it looks like he is already doing this summer.
Nobody gets that old that quickly overnight.


This is more like what happened:

He went from being virtually guaranteed to break Sampras' Grand Slam record by a wide margin to being questionable if he ever will virtually overnight. That doesn't just happen all on its own without some catastrophic event occurring.

JoshDragon
03-29-2009, 12:03 PM
Big time. Federer could hardly get a first serve in for the entire match and he choked big time in the 5th set. Nadal was nowhere near his best in the AO final so it was a great opportunity for Federer to beat Nadal in a final, but sadly he choked away that opportunity. The only one who played even worse than Nadal in that final was Federer. A classic match that was not.

You must have been watching a different match. The final was great. Yeah Federer definitely faded at the end but it was still a classic match, almost as good as the Wimbledon final.

BreakPoint
03-29-2009, 12:07 PM
You must have been watching a different match. The final was great. Yeah Federer definitely faded at the end but it was still a classic match, almost as good as the Wimbledon final.
Either you have not been watching tennis for very long or you don't know how to analyze a tennis match. All the stats will tell you that this was far, far from a high quality match.

If you want to see a great match, watch the previous round between Nadal and Verdasco.

icedevil0289
03-29-2009, 12:17 PM
Either you have not been watching tennis for very long or you don't know how to analyze a tennis match. All the stats will tell you that this was far, far from a high quality match.

If you want to see a great match, watch the previous round between Nadal and Verdasco.

or the gonzo/gasquet match.

OddJack
03-29-2009, 01:20 PM
Why did you retract from your Nadal comment? Nadal has primed and peaked. Why? It's simply impossible for him to keep this up at this level for too long, physically.. this is his stage 2 right now as described in your thread, Domination. He is dominating right now, Clay, hard and last Grass, all his. But do you really think his domination is going to last 3 years, or even 2 years? 2009 will be his year of domination and then... we will have the quick and abrupt arrival of the stage 3 in 2010. This is the rule of the nature and he is only human. Faster you rise faster you fall. And you know what? for a fighter like him it's going to be tough, very tough. When the muscles and bones would not respond and bandages and tapes would not hold. Expect frustrations and lots of disparate looks at his box and uncle toni. The FO will be the toughest and the first sign for beginning of the end. And you know what... Murray will be right there, like a vulture on the carcass. And as Nadal's stage two ends, his has just started.

JoshDragon
03-29-2009, 02:07 PM
Either you have not been watching tennis for very long or you don't know how to analyze a tennis match. All the stats will tell you that this was far, far from a high quality match.

If you want to see a great match, watch the previous round between Nadal and Verdasco.

So you wouldn't consider this to be a great match? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo44ycnkbrE

Bud
03-29-2009, 02:11 PM
Why did you retract from your Nadal comment? Nadal has primed and peaked. Why? It's simply impossible for him to keep this up at this level for too long, physically.. this is his stage 2 right now as described in your thread, Domination. He is dominating right now, Clay, hard and last Grass, all his. But do you really think his domination is going to last 3 years, or even 2 years? 2009 will be his year of domination and then... we will have the quick and abrupt arrival of the stage 3 in 2010. This is the rule of the nature and he is only human. Faster you rise faster you fall. And you know what? for a fighter like him it's going to be tough, very tough. When the muscles and bones would not respond and bandages and tapes would not hold. Expect frustrations and lots of disparate looks at his box and uncle toni. The FO will be the toughest and the first sign for beginning of the end. And you know what... Murray will be right there, like a vulture on the carcass. And as Nadal's stage two ends, his has just started.

Nadal will dominate for at least 2 more years... probably more.

Bud
03-29-2009, 02:19 PM
Nadal has primed to the point where he will either remain at this level, even INCREASE this level or drop off either significantly or slowly. He did win the AO lets not forget. Before this year or last, that never would have been possible. Even if he can never manage the USO he still has HC titles and a HC slam to his name. You cant erase that

Assuming he stays relatively injury-free... IMO, Nadal will increase to 9-10 titles per year for 2-3 years then start slowly tapering off to 6-8 titles annually for a couple years... then gradually back away from tennis due to his body breaking down, prematurely. I predict he'll retire by age 30.

vtmike
03-29-2009, 02:27 PM
So you wouldn't consider this to be a great match? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo44ycnkbrE

When you see that match again, Fed was actually playing better than Nadal except in the fifth when he just chocked!

TheNatural
03-29-2009, 03:51 PM
This really should be the 3rd year of Nadals domination. He would have won the AO, Wimbledon and US Open in 07 if he Wasnt injured in each one of those.


Why did you retract from your Nadal comment? Nadal has primed and peaked. Why? It's simply impossible for him to keep this up at this level for too long, physically.. this is his stage 2 right now as described in your thread, Domination. He is dominating right now, Clay, hard and last Grass, all his. But do you really think his domination is going to last 3 years, or even 2 years? 2009 will be his year of domination and then... we will have the quick and abrupt arrival of the stage 3 in 2010. This is the rule of the nature and he is only human. Faster you rise faster you fall. And you know what? for a fighter like him it's going to be tough, very tough. When the muscles and bones would not respond and bandages and tapes would not hold. Expect frustrations and lots of disparate looks at his box and uncle toni. The FO will be the toughest and the first sign for beginning of the end. And you know what... Murray will be right there, like a vulture on the carcass. And as Nadal's stage two ends, his has just started.

icedevil0289
03-29-2009, 04:02 PM
This really should be the 3rd year of Nadals domination. He would have won the AO, Wimbledon and US Open in 07 if he Wasnt injured in each one of those.

hahahaha!:lol: That was a good one.

Mansewerz
03-29-2009, 04:26 PM
You must have been watching a different match. The final was great. Yeah Federer definitely faded at the end but it was still a classic match, almost as good as the Wimbledon final.

Yes serving under 60% is great....

TheNatural
03-29-2009, 04:37 PM
maybe it should even have been the 4th year of Nadals dominance this year when you consider that Nadal also had to miss the 2006 Australian Open and Nadal had a 4-2 record v Fed in 2006 including a win over Fed on hard courts in the Dubai final not too long after the Australian Open.


hahahaha!:lol: That was a good one.

icedevil0289
03-29-2009, 04:39 PM
maybe it should even have been the 4th year of Nadals dominance this year when you consider that Nadal also had to miss the 2006 Australian Open and Nadal had a 4-2 record v Fed in 2006 including a win over Fed on hard courts in the Dubai final not too long after the Australian Open.

oh dear.:roll:

JoshDragon
03-29-2009, 04:46 PM
When you see that match again, Fed was actually playing better than Nadal except in the fifth when he just chocked!

He was in some parts. Although Nadal, was able to out-do Fed during the most important points of the match.

vtmike
03-29-2009, 04:46 PM
This really should be the 3rd year of Nadals domination. He would have won the AO, Wimbledon and US Open in 07 if he Wasnt injured in each one of those.

This really is the 4th year of your idiotic posts on this forum since you joined in Jan 2005! The next stages for you are,
3. Step off the gas &
4. Decline

The sooner you decline, the sooner there will be some sanity restored on this forum!

Mansewerz
03-29-2009, 04:49 PM
maybe it should even have been the 4th year of Nadals dominance this year when you consider that Nadal also had to miss the 2006 Australian Open and Nadal had a 4-2 record v Fed in 2006 including a win over Fed on hard courts in the Dubai final not too long after the Australian Open.

Federer should then have 5 TMCs because of the ankle injury in 2005 and he should have 14 gs titles since he had mono in AO 2008.

TheNatural
03-29-2009, 04:50 PM
you're well into stage 5 or 6, rapidly DECAYING. :)

This really is the 4th year of your idiotic posts on this forum since you joined in Jan 2005! The next stages for you are,
3. Step off the gas &
4. Decline

The sooner you decline, the sooner there will be some sanity restored on this forum!

TheNatural
03-29-2009, 05:04 PM
Watch it again. Nadal was always in control and Fed was getting killed out there and playing catch up all match and in every set. It was just a few very uncharacteristic lapses form Nadal which actually let Fed stay in the match. After Nadal creamed Fed in the 3rd set breaker, Nadal eased off and let the 4th set slide, then he continued the 5th like it was a continuation of the 3rd set breaker and totally dominated.

When you see that match again, Fed was actually playing better than Nadal except in the fifth when he just chocked!

vtmike
03-29-2009, 05:51 PM
you're well into stage 5 or 6, rapidly DECAYING. :)

Thats fine...because I never was dominating in terms of posting senseless junk unlike you! So you are still the king of pathetic, meaningless posts! Enjoy your glory days...because pretty soon you won't even have that!

vtmike
03-29-2009, 05:53 PM
Watch it again. Nadal was always in control and Fed was getting killed out there and playing catch up all match and in every set. It was just a few very uncharacteristic lapses form Nadal which actually let Fed stay in the match. After Nadal creamed Fed in the 3rd set breaker, Nadal eased off and let the 4th set slide, then he continued the 5th like it was a continuation of the 3rd set breaker and totally dominated.

See the second & fourth sets closely again...he was also very close in the third set which he should've won...fifth was just a disaster

TheNatural
03-29-2009, 06:10 PM
Don't lose your cool. No need to get all flustered and personal on a tennis forum. Stick to the tennis ;-)

Thats fine...because I never was dominating in terms of posting senseless junk unlike you! So you are still the king of pathetic, meaningless posts! Enjoy your glory days...because pretty soon you won't even have that!

BreakPoint
03-29-2009, 06:33 PM
So you wouldn't consider this to be a great match? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo44ycnkbrE
No, I wouldn't. I've already stated that. This is the match we've been discussing all along.

BreakPoint
03-29-2009, 06:37 PM
Yes serving under 60% is great....
I think Federer's first serve percentage for the match was only around 50% (although it seemed and felt like it was only 10% or so), and was as low as 27% in one set.

Mansewerz
03-29-2009, 07:05 PM
I think Federer's first serve percentage for the match was only around 50% (although it seemed and felt like it was only 10% or so), and was as low as 27% in one set.

Yea, the first serve was a big deal in that match. I just wanted to yell at the screen "Roger, get your serve in!"

It got Rafa off the hook many times.

TheNatural
03-29-2009, 07:45 PM
Mabe if Fed had attacked more and made quick backhand return winners or early winners instead of chasing Nadal's shots during so many long rallys then he would have had enough energy and leg drive to hit more serves in.

Yea, the first serve was a big deal in that match. I just wanted to yell at the screen "Roger, get your serve in!"

It got Rafa off the hook many times.

BreakPoint
03-29-2009, 07:48 PM
Mabe if Fed had attacked more and made quick backhand return winners or early winners instead of chasing Nadal's shots during so many long rallys then he would have had enough energy and leg drive to hit more serves in.
Or maybe Federer's bad back finally got to him after 7 straight matches in the intense Melbourne summer heat?

TheNatural
03-29-2009, 07:54 PM
Mabe the del Porto and Roddick matches took Fed to his physical limits?

It would not surprise me if Feds whole body was feeling bruised and battered after a few sets v Nadal after the marathon amount of chasing and scrambling he did versus Nadal.:)

Or maybe Federer's bad back finally got to him after 7 straight matches in the intense Melbourne summer heat?

BreakPoint
03-29-2009, 08:01 PM
Mabe the del Porto and Roddick matches took Fed to his physical limits?

Huh? What are you talking about? Both of those matches were cakewalks for Federer but that doesn't mean that he didn't have to strain his back serving in those matches, and especially also during the Berdych match.

OddJack
03-29-2009, 10:59 PM
This really should be the 3rd year of Nadals domination. He would have won the AO, Wimbledon and US Open in 07 if he Wasnt injured in each one of those.

Woulda shoulda? Roger woulda shoulda have 18 majors and one calendar slam if Nadal woulda shoulda been injured. This makes no sense, numbers talk dude.

tudwell
03-29-2009, 11:15 PM
Guys, he's just trolling, looking for a rise. Ignore him and he'll go away.

fednad
03-30-2009, 06:44 AM
Alright, trolling is happening here.
Good to see that the troll is having a field day

fastdunn
03-30-2009, 10:40 AM
I haven't read this whole thread but it's a bit early to call it a "decline" for a man who reached last 4 straight slam finals. So far it's a "let-down" or something like that.

Nadal beats him more but if you think about it, it was pretty much same situation in Federer's prime.

I would call it Federer's decline if guys like Murray and Djokovic beats (healthy) Federer more often at slams. That's a clear decline.