PDA

View Full Version : Is Fed still in his physical prime?(poll coming up)


kraggy
04-22-2009, 09:53 AM
Since there has been so much discussion on this I thought I would do a poll to see the forum general opinion.

THIS IS ONLY A POLL THREAD . DON'T TURN THIS INTO A DISCUSSION, we have enough of those threads and every ******* , ******* and *********** will swoop in like a vulture on the African Savannah.

Factors to consider:

1) Performances over the past year (objective- results based)
2) Performances over the past year (subjective - does he look as good as he did before)
3) Change in Competition - Is the current competition better/worse/the same
4) Mental Issues - No one can deny that he is having some mental blocks. How much of his results are because of these?

Clydey2times
04-22-2009, 09:55 AM
Yes, he is. Mental issues and change in competition are the main factors.

Leublu tennis
04-22-2009, 10:12 AM
I think its just a natural physical decline and, because the decline is now so noticeable, the mental factor starts to come into play. The net result is down, down, and down we go.

Gugafan_Redux
04-22-2009, 10:18 AM
It's a young man's game. Always has been. Winning majors in the later year like Pete and Andre for example, is the exception not the norm.

Bud
04-22-2009, 11:04 AM
I think its just a natural physical decline and, because the decline is now so noticeable, the mental factor starts to come into play. The net result is down, down, and down we go.

Bingo! :twisted:

Tennis_Bum
04-22-2009, 11:10 AM
It's a young man's game. Always has been. Winning majors in the later year like Pete and Andre for example, is the exception not the norm.

I agree but Fed is looking for pathetic lately. His tummy is getting bigger. I don't think he trains hard enough anymore. If he trained hard as Agassi did, he would have a chance to win slam, but as for now, he may as well pack it in. Unless he starts to train hard again.

Yes, it's tough to win slams in your later years, but I think players now are much more fit and can really hit mean balls, relative to players in the past. It just seems today players are bigger, stronger and faster. Not necessarily better players or play better games then players in the past but physically speaking, they are just seem to be fitter and stronger athletes. So Agassi and Sampras, to me only, didn't have to face the same players as today. Again, today players are fitter and stronger, but not necessarily better than those of the past because they play a different game now.

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 11:21 AM
Its all mental.

He needs a shrink.

GameSampras
04-22-2009, 11:41 AM
Slam results indicate he is still in his physical prime. Mentally.. Well thats another story. If reaching every slam final isnt considered a player's "prime" then I dunno what the hell is

Cyan
04-22-2009, 12:21 PM
Yes he is , his losses are mainly because his opposition has caught up. If it wasn't for Nadal, Fed would have won the last 4 slams in a row! Hello........ FO 2008, Wimbledon 2008, USO 2008, AO 2009. That is the last 4 slams Fed would have won if not for Nadal. A player that is past his physical prime does not reach the last 4 slam finals in a row.

P_Agony
04-22-2009, 01:14 PM
Slam results indicate he is still in his physical prime. Mentally.. Well thats another story. If reaching every slam final isnt considered a player's "prime" then I dunno what the hell is

It's isn't for Federer. A slam final is considered a "weak" result for him. Did you see his movement lately? His forehand? Did you see his serve %? Where are all the aces he used to hit on BPs? How come they turned into double faults? If you really think Fed is in his prime you are in denial.

Lsmkenpo
04-22-2009, 01:31 PM
In nearly every sport in the world athletes reach their physical prime at around 27 years old, tennis is no exception, the difference is mental focus, when players are young their only focus is tennis, Andy Murray doesn't even have a drivers license let alone a new wife and a kid on the way , Federer's focus is not as strong mentally as it once was that tends to happen to all champions once they have been at the top of their game for years that is the difference between him and the young players, physically he is still at his peak.

Nadal_Freak
04-22-2009, 01:36 PM
He still is in his prime. His competition got tougher though.

OrangePower
04-22-2009, 01:43 PM
Physically, he is at 90% of his prime. Mentally, maybe at 60%. So the mental factor is much more significant than the physical factor, but nevertheless, he is no longer still in his physical prime.

prosealster
04-22-2009, 02:07 PM
It's isn't for Federer. A slam final is considered a "weak" result for him. Did you see his movement lately? His forehand? Did you see his serve %? Where are all the aces he used to hit on BPs? How come they turned into double faults? If you really think Fed is in his prime you are in denial.

I agree, he is definitely not in his prime. Most evidently on his movement I think. It's just that he was so far above the competition even when he clearly deteriorated, he is still making finals and winning them....

He is not in denial, he is just a *********** :evil:

All-rounder
04-22-2009, 02:14 PM
He still is in his prime. His competition got tougher though.
You consider him in his prime just because he makes slam finals

Jay_The_Nomad
04-22-2009, 03:26 PM
Over the hill this guy.

Something was seriously wrong with his health last year... he looked too skinny.
I suspect Mirka stole all his food.

egn
04-22-2009, 03:44 PM
Yes he is and competition and mental issues are a problem. Fed is still in his prime even if it is the end of it most likely but to say he is not is pretty odd. Fed is not peaking anymore prime does not mean Fed needs to win 3 slams a year. 2003 and 2008 were prime years for Fed. Hell Lendl's prime in my opinion started in late 82 and ended in 90. He didn't win slams in 82, 83 or 88 and only had 2 multi slams year..Federer is still capable of winning slams and being a top 5 player, it is impossible to make claims he is not in his prime. He is not playing the abosulte best he can but he is still capable of top level play. Federer's pre prime years are 98-02 but he is now playing well in his prime.

03 (prime)
04-06 (peak)
07-09 (prime)

In 2007 Fed was not playing like 2006 but still pulled out 3 slams, because he still had not had his confidence broken. The biggest factor I feel for Fed's apparent decrease in results is Nadal. Mentally and physically Nadal is currently superior to him and this leaves Fed more vulnerable. Nadal knocked him off his pedestal and is not going to just give it back, Fed has not had to work like this before. A disadvantage that I feel comes with being so dominate, Sampras when he lost the number 1 didn't stress because he had been in situations where he lost it and had to work to gain it back. Fed has not experienced this. I think Fed's overall performance has come due to a shock to him as he is not the man on top anymore, Nadal is that man. He has placed too much pressure on himself over the past 4 years and right now is in a meltdown. If Fed snaps out of it I think we can see him make good runs and score some wins against the top 4 outside of that probably not happening.

dincuss
04-22-2009, 03:56 PM
I think he might not be in the physical shape he used to be, but hes not in bad shape, C'mon guys, hes a world class athlete.

veroniquem
04-22-2009, 04:45 PM
Slam results indicate he is still in his physical prime. Mentally.. Well thats another story. If reaching every slam final isnt considered a player's "prime" then I dunno what the hell is
Winning them.

veroniquem
04-22-2009, 05:00 PM
I agree, he is definitely not in his prime. Most evidently on his movement I think. It's just that he was so far above the competition even when he clearly deteriorated, he is still making finals and winning them....

He is not in denial, he is just a *********** :evil:
He was "so far above" some of the competition, guys like Roddick and Davydenko. Fed was never "so far above" Nadal even at his best in 2005 or 2006. Murray has also been a problem to him right away (2006, 2007). Fed should have anticipated that those guys were not gonna go away and that the problems would get worse, he should have worked to adjust his game to the new opponents as early as 2006, even though everyone thought he was unbeatable, he should have known better. Now Nadal and Murray have gotten a big edge on him and I feel it's too late to try and counteract.

GameSampras
04-22-2009, 05:15 PM
It's isn't for Federer. A slam final is considered a "weak" result for him. Did you see his movement lately? His forehand? Did you see his serve %? Where are all the aces he used to hit on BPs? How come they turned into double faults? If you really think Fed is in his prime you are in denial.

Its not weak since he is losing to who? A peak Nadal? A player who has always given him trouble. Other than the AO loss against Djoker which he had mono

GameSampras
04-22-2009, 05:21 PM
Winning them.

Against a Peak Nadal? Fat chance. Pre puberty Nadal was on the of the only ones beating Fed when he was at his peak. Even back in 06 when Fed went 92-5 or whatever it was.

LanceStern
04-22-2009, 10:02 PM
If people think he's in his physical prime...

He moves slower, swings the racket slower, had so much trouble with the forehand and serve. I don't know how his game declined so immediately, but it's still good enough to beat everybody but the other 3 Top Dogs.

Wawrinka was just "another one of those days"

papucla10
04-22-2009, 10:16 PM
He is just 27 is nothing physical everything is Mental.

paulorenzo
04-22-2009, 10:22 PM
Slam results indicate he is still in his physical prime. Mentally.. Well thats another story. If reaching every slam final isnt considered a player's "prime" then I dunno what the hell is

so, by this logic, sampras was in his prime in 2000, right? which was a better year for sampras than fed's 2008 year.
he was in 2 slam finals, won one of them, was in the semifinals of the AO but lost in 5 sets, semifinal in the masters tournament compared to federer(who didn't even go pass round robin), and actually won a master's shield. but it was far from prime sampras. anyone who thinks these were the years of sampras's prime is pulling at very fine, brittle straws.

competition to me always changes, but it doesnt necessarily mean it's better. faces within the top ten constantly change, but the hype/hope that comes with each new batch is in one accord. last year, the top ten was "deep", filled with future champions, or so it seemed, but what happened? Tsonga got injured, people figured out how to play simon, del potro lost fire although he resurged, ferrer lost fire period, youhzny, tursinov, etc. who stayed among the top aside form the top 4? Roddick and davydenko. players from federer's generation.
i do not think the competition outside the top 4 got better per se, but just a new, fresh batch of players arrived, replacing most of the older players.

Bloodshed
04-22-2009, 10:28 PM
To me, Fed seems a tad slower now for court coverage, hitting with his forehand /backhand than what he used to (probably why he shanks much more now than before).

I'd say the competition in general was stronger back at his prime days (with the exception of Nadal and Murray) but the biggest problem now is that he has a mental block against those 2 guys that normally he never used to have with anyone else at the time. I mean sure Safin beat him at the classic AO 04 SF and he would loose to Gasquet at Monte-Carlo in the QF but he always managed to have his revenge and beat them comfortably afterwards without ever doubting himself.

Now everytime he faces Nadal or Murray, he doubts his abilities, he's lacking confidence in his shots and he crumbles under pressure (something he rarely did between 04-07). I'm hoping it's something Federer will fix in the longrun.

rafan
04-22-2009, 11:01 PM
I notice he has far less luck with placing his balls now. Whereby in the past you could be certain that he had a winner, now its quite a surprise to see that he hasn't delivered. His serve lets him down also - this used to be his great chance of a revival in the past, when a point or two down. Something I noticed when he was playing last, he had a slight pot - is he training as much I wonder?

devila
04-22-2009, 11:29 PM
He was suddenly old and frail after the loss against Djokovic last year. lol
I wish I could get to lucky semis and finals, lose them, also win lucky semis and finals against fat, disinterested opponents, and still pretend I'm at a higher intellectual standard than all players in history.
He was dominated on hardcourts and clay by Canas and Volandri, so the bad fitness excuse is weak.

Not winning Slams means you were outsmarted....not because you suddenly declined in a few month's time. He got the lucky US Open, with great gifts from Roddick and Djokovic. Get over it, spoiled, delusional people.

mandy01
04-22-2009, 11:46 PM
He was suddenly old and frail after the loss against Djokovic last year. lol
I wish I could get to lucky semis and finals, lose them, also win lucky semis and finals against fat, disinterested opponents, and still pretend I'm at a higher intellectual standard than all players in history.
He was dominated on hardcourts and clay by Canas and Volandri, so the bad fitness excuse is weak.

Not winning Slams means you were outsmarted....not because you suddenly declined in a few month's time. He got the lucky US Open, with great gifts from Roddick and Djokovic. Get over it, spoiled, delusional people.....says one of the biggest trolls in the forum.. :mrgreen:

paulorenzo
04-22-2009, 11:53 PM
He was suddenly old and frail after the loss against Djokovic last year. lol
I wish I could get to lucky semis and finals, lose them, also win lucky semis and finals against fat, disinterested opponents, and still pretend I'm at a higher intellectual standard than all players in history.
He was dominated on hardcourts and clay by Canas and Volandri, so the bad fitness excuse is weak.

Not winning Slams means you were outsmarted....not because you suddenly declined in a few month's time. He got the lucky US Open, with great gifts from Roddick and Djokovic. Get over it, spoiled, delusional people.

among the many things that are arguable in your statement, shouldn't the fact that he lost to volandri and canas speak for the fact federer had lousy fitness at the time?

devila
04-23-2009, 12:04 AM
2007--A time when he won over and over? Including a Nadal beatdown.

paulorenzo
04-23-2009, 12:24 AM
He was suddenly old and frail after the loss against Djokovic last year. lol
I wish I could get to lucky semis and finals, lose them, also win lucky semis and finals against fat, disinterested opponents, and still pretend I'm at a higher intellectual standard than all players in history.
He was dominated on hardcourts and clay by Canas and Volandri, so the bad fitness excuse is weak.

Not winning Slams means you were outsmarted....not because you suddenly declined in a few month's time. He got the lucky US Open, with great gifts from Roddick and Djokovic. Get over it, spoiled, delusional people.

2007--A time when he won over and over? Including a Nadal beatdown.
how does that enhance your argument at all? please explain. are you saying volandri and canas are better players?
are you saying federer was lucky his whole career?
again, please explain.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
04-23-2009, 12:37 AM
I think its just a natural physical decline and, because the decline is now so noticeable, the mental factor starts to come into play. The net result is down, down, and down we go.

Well said,agree.

devila
04-23-2009, 12:53 AM
He didn't decline physically and mentally until he lost more than 5-6 matches a year.
Federer had a week vacation in the 2007 Wimbledon joke. This looked like the 2002 Hewitt Wimbledon celebration.
Nadal still had 15-40 on Federer's serve and Federer whined about Nadal's correct line call challenge in the 5th set ("it's killing me").
He had free walkovers in the 2004 US Open, and 2008 Indian Wells quarterfinal. He was sooo sick and tired.

He faced match points 3 years ago on grass versus Rochus.

He needed Roddick's chokes on 3 match points in Shanghai, and at Wimbledon.
Federer was down 0-40 in the 3rd set in the '06 US Open final against a clowning Roddick.

Kiefer choked while serving 30-0 5-4 in the Wimbledon 4th set.
Soderling choked on match point on Halle grass.
Ramirez-Hidalgo choked twice while serving 5-2 and 5-4 on clay.
All long before Federer's disastrous decline to #2.

paulorenzo
04-23-2009, 01:10 AM
He was suddenly old and frail after the loss against Djokovic last year. lol
I wish I could get to lucky semis and finals, lose them, also win lucky semis and finals against fat, disinterested opponents, and still pretend I'm at a higher intellectual standard than all players in history.
He was dominated on hardcourts and clay by Canas and Volandri, so the bad fitness excuse is weak.

Not winning Slams means you were outsmarted....not because you suddenly declined in a few month's time. He got the lucky US Open, with great gifts from Roddick and Djokovic. Get over it, spoiled, delusional people.

2007--A time when he won over and over? Including a Nadal beatdown.

He didn't decline physically and mentally until he lost more than 5-6 matches a year.
Federer had a week vacation in the 2007 Wimbledon joke. This looked like the 2002 Hewitt Wimbledon celebration.
Nadal still had 15-40 on Federer's serve and Federer whined about Nadal's correct line call challenge in the 5th set ("it's killing me").
He had free walkovers in the 2004 US Open, and 2008 Indian Wells quarterfinal. He was sooo sick and tired.

He faced match points 3 years ago on grass versus Rochus.

He needed Roddick's chokes on 3 match points in Shanghai, and at Wimbledon.
Federer was down 0-40 in the 3rd set in the '06 US Open final against a clowning Roddick.

Kiefer choked while serving 30-0 5-4 in the Wimbledon 4th set.
Soderling choked on match point on Halle grass.
Ramirez-Hidalgo choked twice while serving 5-2 and 5-4 on clay.
All long before Federer's disastrous decline to #2.

all this says volumes about how strong a player roger was in tight situations back in the day, and how much he differs then from now. from winning 3 slams in 2007 and the year end masters title, to losing 3 slams in a row, and not even making the semis in the yearend masters. big difference in a very short time. he has declined in a big way.
he doesn't seem to find the ability to keep his mental game going when odds fall against him.

Joseph L. Barrow
04-23-2009, 09:33 AM
Tennis is a sport that breaks you down physically at a younger age than most, due to its long season and intense, grinding schedule, with dominant guys like Federer playing upwards of 80 matches a year, along with the fact that most of these guys have been keeping up a full routine since they were about 12 years old. Federer, in his prime, was able to maintain an almost unnatural level of play for a seemingly unnaturally long amount of time unbroken because of his combination of incredible talent, incredible skill, outstanding confidence and poise, and his astoundingly perfect health, being seemingly impervious to sickness or injury, never once missing a Slam, retiring from a match or even withdrawing during an event. Over the last year-and-a-half or so, now, things have really started catching up with him, with his severe illness in early '08 followed by chronic back problems suffered later in the year and purportedly continuing into this one.

These kinds of problems prevent you from maintaining the freakish physical conditioning and sharpness of form Federer used to demonstrate, and they crop up more and more as you get into your later 20s with year upon year of that grinding schedule wearing at you. Combine that with his development of mental weaknesses and the improvement in his competition, and it becomes pretty clear-cut why Federer can't dominate tennis anymore.

GameSampras
04-23-2009, 02:48 PM
I will agree that the game is more taxing on the body today than it was in Laver or Emerson or Budge's day. But its not like its impossible to be successful and still at least semi dominate into later stages of the career. Many players have done it. 27 years old, is no spring chicken in tennis but I dont think its "old" by any means.

tudwell
04-23-2009, 03:11 PM
Physically, he's fine. He just needs to pull his head out of his butt and grow a pair of Wilanders when he plays Nadal.

Sincerely,
Roger's biggest fan

Bassus
04-23-2009, 03:46 PM
Sadly, he is most likely past his physical prime. That is the brutal truth of tennis. Players peak from about 22-26, and then it is decline.

Agassi is the only exception I can think of, as he peaked at age 29. But of course he was less devoted to tennis in his early-mid 20s, so his peaking at a later age may have been solely a result of that.

But Federer is definitely not over the hill yet. His problem is as much mental now. Mentally speaking, he has been completely broken and dominated by Nadal, and I think that has served to finally spill over to Federer's play against other players. I really think if he had not choked against Nadal in this year's AO final, then he would have played much better in the events after. I think he has lost a lot of confidence. The AO final seems to have been especially devestating and has taken a lot out of him.

tennis-hero
04-23-2009, 03:48 PM
IF he can learn anything from Andy roddick

its push push and PUSH for your life against Nadal on clay, and it will eventually wear Nadal down enough to be broken

Lsmkenpo
04-23-2009, 03:54 PM
Tennis is a sport that breaks you down physically at a younger age than most, due to its long season and intense, grinding schedule, with dominant guys like Federer playing upwards of 80 matches a year, along with the fact that most of these guys have been keeping up a full routine since they were about 12 years old. Federer, in his prime, was able to maintain an almost unnatural level of play for a seemingly unnaturally long amount of time unbroken because of his combination of incredible talent, incredible skill, outstanding confidence and poise, and his astoundingly perfect health, being seemingly impervious to sickness or injury, never once missing a Slam, retiring from a match or even withdrawing during an event. Over the last year-and-a-half or so, now, things have really started catching up with him, with his severe illness in early '08 followed by chronic back problems suffered later in the year and purportedly continuing into this one.

These kinds of problems prevent you from maintaining the freakish physical conditioning and sharpness of form Federer used to demonstrate, and they crop up more and more as you get into your later 20s with year upon year of that grinding schedule wearing at you. Combine that with his development of mental weaknesses and the improvement in his competition, and it becomes pretty clear-cut why Federer can't dominate tennis anymore.

I don't believe tennis is any where close to being as taxing physically as pro basketball or pro football on the human body, and 27 is considered prime age in those sports. I believe the let down is mental in tennis not physical.

tudwell
04-23-2009, 04:00 PM
IF he can learn anything from Andy roddick

its push push and PUSH for your life against Nadal on clay, and it will eventually wear Nadal down enough to be broken

I agree. Federer should aspire to replicate Roddick's clay-court prowess.

prosealster
04-23-2009, 04:06 PM
He was "so far above" some of the competition, guys like Roddick and Davydenko. Fed was never "so far above" Nadal even at his best in 2005 or 2006. Murray has also been a problem to him right away (2006, 2007). Fed should have anticipated that those guys were not gonna go away and that the problems would get worse, he should have worked to adjust his game to the new opponents as early as 2006, even though everyone thought he was unbeatable, he should have known better. Now Nadal and Murray have gotten a big edge on him and I feel it's too late to try and counteract.

fed was >4000 points above nadal (almost doubled nads) in 2006 I can recall, and he pretty far ahead in 2005 I can recall...How is that not so far above?? Close matches between them was because Nad is just a bad match up for fed.. Just like sampras had a losing h2h against paul haarhuis..but no one would disagree that pete is light years ahead of paul....

prosealster
04-23-2009, 04:11 PM
I don't believe tennis is any where close to being as taxing physically as pro basketball or pro football on the human body, and 27 is considered prime age in those sports. I believe the let down is mental in tennis not physical.

well..have u ever played elite level in both sports?? singles tennis is predominately a running game, and regarding the hitting component, your reflex, reaction time all decline before mid 20s...hence 27 is not prime age for tennis... in basketball and football....u have team mates to cover for each other, so that no one is sprinting constantly...they peak later because the game awareness takes time to develop...

Bassus
04-23-2009, 06:04 PM
I don't believe tennis is any where close to being as taxing physically as pro basketball or pro football on the human body, and 27 is considered prime age in those sports. I believe the let down is mental in tennis not physical.


Football...no, but tennis has got to be more punishing physically than basketball.

GameSampras
04-23-2009, 06:06 PM
Tennis is more taxing than Basketball, baseball definitely . The main 3 sports (Basketball, Football, baseball) have off seasons where a player can heal etc. Tennis is all year round. No offseason.

Players in basketball dont even hit their primes until their late 20s.

DarthFed
04-23-2009, 06:15 PM
Tennis is more taxing than Basketball, baseball definitely . The main 3 sports (Basketball, Football, baseball) have off seasons where a player can heal etc. Tennis is all year round. No offseason.

Players in basketball dont even hit their primes until their late 20s.

More importantly they don't have a team to pick up the slack when they have brain cramps...it's all them

It's why i love this sport

Lsmkenpo
04-23-2009, 06:51 PM
well..have u ever played elite level in both sports?? singles tennis is predominately a running game, and regarding the hitting component, your reflex, reaction time all decline before mid 20s...hence 27 is not prime age for tennis... in basketball and football....u have team mates to cover for each other, so that no one is sprinting constantly...they peak later because the game awareness takes time to develop...

Bunch of BS, I played all 3 sports at a high level, tennis is not anywhere close
to being as strenuous as basketball or football physically, the NBA plays an 82 game schedule and NBA players are some of the best conditioned athletes in the world.

No pro tennis player is anywhere close to being as physically conditioned as any NBA or NFL player, tennis can not compare to either, and it is a joke to think otherwise.

Regarding the hitting aspect of the sport it is much harder to hit a baseball and most major league batters hit their prime after 27 so that blows your theory to shreds.

Tennis players lose their mental edge as they get older, priorities change and their focus suffers, younger players like Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic can concentrate 24-7 on their game, Federer has more to deal with off the court than the young guys do right now, that is one of the major reasons his game has declined this year.

LanceStern
04-23-2009, 07:12 PM
This comment never happened

Lsmkenpo
04-23-2009, 07:13 PM
You're trying to say BASEBALL is more strenuous than tennis? Standing and hitting the ball and running a short distance... compared to on average 2 hours but up to 4 - 5 hours of nonstop moving, approaching, hitting and serving?

Never said baseball was more strenuous,I said basketball and football.

The baseball comment was in regards to hand eye coordination declining after 27 years old, baseball hitters blow that theory out of the water.

VictorS.
04-23-2009, 07:17 PM
Bunch of BS, I played all 3 sports at a high level, tennis is not anywhere close
to being as strenuous as basketball or football physically, the NBA plays an 82 game schedule and NBA players are some of the best conditioned athletes in the world.

No pro tennis player is anywhere close to being as physically conditioned as any NBA or NFL player, tennis can not compare to either, and it is a joke to think otherwise.

Regarding the hitting aspect of the sport it is much harder to hit a baseball and most major league batters hit their prime after 27 so that blows your theory to shreds.

Tennis players lose their mental edge as they get older, priorities change and their focus suffers, younger players like Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic can concentrate 24-7 on their game, Federer has more to deal with off the court than the young guys do right now.


It's interesting that this is brought up. I currently play a lot of basketball & tennis at a fairly high level. The other day a former NBA player came to the basketball gym to get a pick-up run against fairly decent competition. This guy is in his mid 30s....has probably played countless games & has even endured some surgeries as well. I saw this guy play up close in his prime (early mid 20s). Honestly, watching him now....I maybe saw a 10 percent dip in level, & that's being generous. The guy was still super springy & quick. Perhaps his vertical wasn't quite up to par however he was not at all ground bound.

I think if an athlete takes care of his body & works hard. They can evolve into a better athlete in a different kind of way. Tennis is obviously tough because of the strenuous travel schedule & lack of an off-season. However, I remember the Chicago Bulls of the mid 90s. They had three of the best, well-conditioned athletes basketball had ever seen (MJ, Pip, Rodman). All three were well into their 30s. Pippen & Rodman were extremely strong. And we know about MJ...

LanceStern
04-23-2009, 07:18 PM
I thought I didn't post that. Because I went back and saw you said basketball and football.

Pretend that was never said

Lsmkenpo
04-23-2009, 07:28 PM
Tennis doesn't have much of an off season but there is a lot of time between tournaments, and you can make your own schedule, you don't have that luxury in any other major pro sport, except perhaps boxing.

Plenty of great boxers over 27 and IMO they are the best conditioned athletes of any pro sport. If hand eye coordination and reflexes of athletes declined so bad after 27, boxing would be totally dominated by young fighters and that is not the case.

King of Aces
04-23-2009, 08:21 PM
From the TTW official doctionary:

Out of Prime

-noun-

1.Excuse for Federers losses in 2009

prosealster
04-24-2009, 02:51 AM
Bunch of BS, I played all 3 sports at a high level, tennis is not anywhere close
to being as strenuous as basketball or football physically, the NBA plays an 82 game schedule and NBA players are some of the best conditioned athletes in the world.

No pro tennis player is anywhere close to being as physically conditioned as any NBA or NFL player, tennis can not compare to either, and it is a joke to think otherwise.

Regarding the hitting aspect of the sport it is much harder to hit a baseball and most major league batters hit their prime after 27 so that blows your theory to shreds.

Tennis players lose their mental edge as they get older, priorities change and their focus suffers, younger players like Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic can concentrate 24-7 on their game, Federer has more to deal with off the court than the young guys do right now, that is one of the major reasons his game has declined this year.

What evidence do u have calling what i say a bunch of BS?? have u played in both ATP and NBA??

Sure NBA play 82 games....but how long are each game?? subs?? team-mates sharing the load? indoor air-con condition??

Hitting baseball is not harder than tennis at elite level....the ball is bigger, it's pitched to you instead of with a racket, comes to you within a certain area, you hit it before it bounce(once the ball bounces...it brings a whole new dimention into it...just look at the size of cricket bats)

so only tennis players lose their mental edge but not athletes in other sports?? that's the sole explaination for their decline?? none of the basketball players have any other focus in life??

and why does your post sound aggro?? we r just having a discussion here? was it because I asked whether u reached elite level?? maybe u just didnt get to high enough level in tennis to appreciate the difficulties...

fps
04-24-2009, 03:05 AM
I know very little about American Football, but it seems to me the demands placed on the body are so completely different from tennis that they are not really worth comparing. Also, isn't the average American Football career something like 3.5 years now? I read that in a newspaper here in England. This would suggest the time gap between getting on to the big stage as a player and taking your leave is far less than being a top tennis player.

Comparing a team game with an individual's game is difficult. Sure, for instance, Jordan Pip and Rodman may have been 3 of the best conditioned guys out there. But if there could only be one player at number one in the world, one position everyone wanted, suddenly being amazingly conditioned for your game isn't enough- you would have to be better conditioned than everyone else out there. just as Nadal is right now.

edit: for what it's worth I think, age-wise, Federer should still be in his physical prime, and needs a fresh training regime to get back some of that footspeed. the reality of all those years on court, however, means we can't possibly tell what his condition is. we can't even imagine the hours of stress those knees have taken, no matter how smooth a mover he is.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-24-2009, 05:02 AM
It's isn't for Federer. A slam final is considered a "weak" result for him. Did you see his movement lately? His forehand? Did you see his serve %? Where are all the aces he used to hit on BPs? How come they turned into double faults? If you really think Fed is in his prime you are in denial. Exactly how often do we have to remind them of this point. Have they ever considered Fed is so good even when he is past his prime he is still good enough to reach GS finals. Or is it that the competition is now weaker so its easier for a past-prime Fed to make finals? Got to be one of these two because if you look at how he played in 04-06 its far better then this.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-24-2009, 05:06 AM
From the TTW official doctionary:

Out of Prime

-noun-

1.Excuse for Federers losses in 2009
From the TTW official dictionary:

Tired

-noun-

1. When Nadal loses.

Seriously if you think Fed is still in his prime I wonder what you thought of him in 06. Super-prime x10 maybe?

King of Aces
04-24-2009, 05:19 AM
Seriously if you think Fed is still in his prime I wonder what you thought of him in 06. Super-prime x10 maybe?

I think he still lost to Nadal even though Nadal was a newbie.

Joseph L. Barrow
04-24-2009, 01:48 PM
Tennis doesn't have much of an off season but there is a lot of time between tournaments, and you can make your own schedule, you don't have that luxury in any other major pro sport, except perhaps boxing.
No, there isn't really "a lot" of time between tournaments, at least if you're a consistent top player- there are a lot of stretches during the tennis season where there will be two Masters Series tournaments run back-to-back, where a guy will have just played five matches in the last week, then get on the plane to the next tournament and play five more starting two days later.



Plenty of great boxers over 27 and IMO they are the best conditioned athletes of any pro sport. If hand eye coordination and reflexes of athletes declined so bad after 27, boxing would be totally dominated by young fighters and that is not the case.
Well, ideally boxers should be the best-conditioned all-around athletes, but you wouldn't know it to see a lot of today's heavyweights.

Anyway, boxing is a sport which a lot of guys come to later on- that is, although they're a minority, you'll see a fair number of world champions and elite contenders who didn't box until they were in their late teens or even into their 20s. Rocky Marciano, the only undefeated heavyweight champion in history, didn't box at all until he was 23. Since boxing is a sport which depends a lot more on strictly natural, instinctive skills, it is more something you can pick up on later, while tennis consists largely of motions and muscle memory which are pretty much entirely of an acquired nature, making it just about impossible to take up the sport at a real late age and seriously compete with top guys who've been working at it since they were young kids.

There are some guys with a real natural knack for throwing and avoiding hard punches without formal training or practice, because these skills are, at least in part, engrained naturally in the human makeup and come into play in real life (there are even some guys who take up boxing with no amateur experience at all and are able to compile impressive winning records on the professional level), whereas you will never find someone who can simply pick up a tennis racket and instinctively know what to do correctly enough to be able to take up training for it and match people who've been at it since a young age. A side effect of this is that you have a fair number of professional boxers with a relatively small amount of wear and tear at a relatively advanced age, while tennis players on the upper-tier pro level are pretty much all guys who'd been grinding away at the sport year-in, year-out for a solid decade or so before they even joined the pro circuit. In addition, modern-day boxers typically only fight a couple times a year; back in days of yore when boxers would fight every couple weeks and maintain such a grueling schedule for years on end, boxing was more of a young man's sport, in which the majority of champions were in their early-to-mid twenties and 30-year-olds were typically past their primes, but nowadays they fight at such a relatively infrequent rate that they are able to maintain basically the same level of performance for a much longer time period.

Now, tennis is clearly a sport in which most guys are on the downhill before the end of their twenties and don't come back from it. There are exceptions, like Agassi, but the overall trend is clear and undeniable. "Tennis players become distracted" is a rather strange argument, as it should be equally applicable to athletes of any sport- is there some kind of tennis player gene that causes a personality defect other athletes don't have? Every sport has its own optimal age for peak performance, and it varies from sport to sport and event to event- mile runners peak in their early twenties, while marathon runners don't reach their best until their thirties. In professional tennis, the majority of champions' best days are in their early to mid twenties, and then they taper off physically and mentally as they approach 30.

King of Aces
04-24-2009, 02:07 PM
He was "so far above" some of the competition, guys like Roddick and Davydenko. Fed was never "so far above" Nadal even at his best in 2005 or 2006. Murray has also been a problem to him right away (2006, 2007). Fed should have anticipated that those guys were not gonna go away and that the problems would get worse, he should have worked to adjust his game to the new opponents as early as 2006, even though everyone thought he was unbeatable, he should have known better. Now Nadal and Murray have gotten a big edge on him and I feel it's too late to try and counteract.

You complete me. ;)

LanceStern
04-24-2009, 02:09 PM
I'm 100% sure Fed can handle Murray on Clay and Grass

and can handle Nadal on hard court and grass.

So it's not too late

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 02:13 PM
fed was >4000 points above nadal (almost doubled nads) in 2006 I can recall, and he pretty far ahead in 2005 I can recall...How is that not so far above?? Close matches between them was because Nad is just a bad match up for fed.. Just like sampras had a losing h2h against paul haarhuis..but no one would disagree that pete is light years ahead of paul....
Nadal was #2 all these years and beating Federer several times a year, getting closer and closer all the time and increasing his push for the W title every year. I call that "not far above".

King of Aces
04-24-2009, 02:16 PM
I'm 100% sure Fed can handle Murray on Clay and Grass

and can handle Nadal on hard court and grass.

So it's not too late

Mentally I am afraid it is. If he does not take a mental break he is in deep sheet.

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 02:17 PM
I'm 100% sure Fed can handle Murray on Clay and Grass

and can handle Nadal on hard court and grass.

So it's not too late
Federer can handle Nadal on hard court? Currently? You're delusional. Federer had a hard time handling Nadal on hard court when Rafa was 17! And I don't see it getting any better. On grass Fed has been handling Nadal less and less until last year when Nadal handled him. You think the trend is gonna reverse itself? On what basis exactly? As for Murray on clay, let's see how it plays out this year (first year Murray has been playig well on clay), it will be interesting but the one thing we can say so far is that in the first master of the season on clay (a master in which Federer had made the final for several years), Fed hasn't played well enough to test his skills vs either Djoko or Murray.

prosealster
04-24-2009, 03:45 PM
Nadal was #2 all these years and beating Federer several times a year, getting closer and closer all the time and increasing his push for the W title every year. I call that "not far above".

As I said, H2H is not a good indicator (without going into the much debated if nad has consistently made to more non clay final blah blah), as I illustrated by using the pete haarhuis example...nad beat fed as a 17 yo, but no body would disagree that fed was a much better tennis player than nad...even though say in 2006, fed lost more than won again nad, he was 4000 points ahead in the ranking, that's equivalent of them playing 4 slams, and fed wining every single one of them while nad goes out every 1st round. you may choose to disagree, but to me, that shows fed was a much better tennis player than nad

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 03:54 PM
Are people still trying to figure out if Fed is still in his prime? How many idiots venture these boards. Or do people just not want to accept the fact Nadal is better than Fed so they need to make excuses why Fed has been beaten so many times by Nadal at the slams?


Ok ask yourself... Exactly how many times has Fed lost early when its mattered most? How many times in the last year or so has Fed lost to someone at the slams to someone other than Nadal? Djokovic?


Take Nadal out of the equation, Fed is still on par to win as many slams a year these days as he did before.


How is this so difficult to comprehend people? You really think Fed would have lost to Verdasco at the AO? You really think Fed would have lost to someone else at Wimbeldon other than Nadal? Fed won the USO last year. Why? Because Nadal wasnt there in the final. He destroyed Murray and Djoker and made them look like High school players.


Hewitt is washed up. Safin is washed up. Nalbandian washed up. Blake is washed up. A player who reaches every slam final ISNT!!!. Nor is a player that does that.. past his prime.


The only slam Fed has lost this past year was at the AO because he was suffering from mono.


Quit with the Fed is washed up excuses. Washed up players dont consistently make slam finals PEOPLE!!!


Nadal has just gotten better overrall . Thats all . End of story. Nothing else needs to be discussed of this issue. When Fed starts losing BEFORE THE FINALS at least, then we will talk "passed prime." When Fed actually starts losing to someone other than Nadal at the slams, then will discuss, "past prime." When Fed starts losing in the 1st week of the slams than we will discuss "Past prime." But so far he is beating 99.999999 percent of the field at the slams on a consistent basis

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 03:54 PM
And now Nad is almost 5000 points above Fed which means he is far above Fed. What is your point exactly?
(answer to prosealster)

flyer
04-24-2009, 03:58 PM
he still moves just fine, certainly above average speed/defense/athleticism/etc.....the problem for him now is nadal, djokovic, and murray are faster, play better defense, so they kind of make him look slower

fps
04-24-2009, 04:05 PM
Are people still trying to figure out if Fed is still in his prime? How many idiots venture these boards. Or do people just not want to accept the fact Nadal is better than Fed so they need to make excuses why Fed has been beaten so many times by Nadal at the slams?


Ok ask yourself... Exactly how many times has Fed lost early when its mattered most? How many times in the last year or so has Fed lost to someone at the slams to someone other than Nadal? Djokovic?


Take Nadal out of the equation, Fed is still on par to win as many slams a year these days as he did before.


How is this so difficult to comprehend people? You really think Fed would have lost to Verdasco at the AO? You really think Fed would have lost to someone else at Wimbeldon other than Nadal? Fed won the USO last year. Why? Because Nadal wasnt there in the final. He destroyed Murray and Djoker and made them look like High school players.


Hewitt is washed up. Safin is washed up. Nalbandian washed up. Blake is washed up. A player who reaches every slam final ISNT!!!. Nor is a player that does that.. past his prime.


The only slam Fed has lost this past year was at the AO because he was suffering from mono.


Quit with the Fed is washed up excuses. Washed up players dont consistently make slam finals PEOPLE!!!


Nadal has just gotten better overrall . Thats all . End of story. Nothing else needs to be discussed of this issue. When Fed starts losing BEFORE THE FINALS at least, then we will talk "passed prime." When Fed actually starts losing to someone other than Nadal at the slams, then will discuss, "past prime." When Fed starts losing in the 1st week of the slams than we will discuss "Past prime." But so far he is beating 99.999999 percent of the field at the slams on a consistent basis

it's not the end of the story, especially if you look at the evidence of the dwindling of past great players past the age of 26/7, and when you consider that a past his prime federer could very well still be good enough to take out the entire field except nadal. it's not an argument that can be conclusively won, inspiring as your burst of rhetoric was.

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 04:10 PM
it's not the end of the story, especially if you look at the evidence of the dwindling of past great players past the age of 26/7, and when you consider that a past his prime federer could very well still be good enough to take out the entire field except nadal. it's not an argument that can be conclusively won, inspiring as your burst of rhetoric was.

People make it seem like Fed has just started losing to Nadal all of a sudden.


Newsflash people: Fed has ALWAYS had problems with Nadal. Peak Fed was losing to pre pubescent Nadal 4-5 years ago. Why is it so difficult to comprehend that Fed might be even more trouble now that Nadal has improved while Fed hasnt.


Im not denying that Fed's play hasnt dropped a bit. But you can still drop in play and still be in your prime. There is a difference between Prime and Peak.




Do you realize that if Nadal were stiill just a "great clay court player" that Fed would still win 3 of the 4 slamss? Like I said.. Take Nadal out of the equation and Fed is still a 3 slam a year player.


If No Nadal... Disregarding the AO where Fed had mono, Fed wins French Open last year, Wimbeldon and the USO. There is your 3 slams last year.


And Fed this year wins the AO.


Thats pretty pretty dang good dont you think? Pretty good for a player past his prime. I dont put much emphasis on Fed losing these small tourneys. Since Fed is at the point in his career, where who cares he doesnt win Dubai, Indian Wells, Miami etc.
Fed has been there done that. But when it comes to the slams, Fed still turns it up a notch and defeats everyone put in his way not named Nadal

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 04:14 PM
People make it seem like Fed has just started losing to Nadal all of a sudden.


Newsflash people: Fed has ALWAYS had problems with Nadal. Peak Fed was losing to pre pubescent Nadal 4-5 years ago. Why is it so difficult to comprehend that Fed might be even more trouble now that Nadal has improved while Fed hasnt.


Im not denying that Fed's play hasnt dropped a bit. But you can still drop in play and still be in your prime. There is a difference between Prime and Peak.




Do you realize that if Nadal were stiill just a "great clay court player" that Fed would still win 3 of the 4 wimbeldons? Like I said.. Take Nadal out of the equation and Fed is still a 3 slam a year player.


If No Nadal... Disregarding the AO where Fed had mono, Fed wins French Open last year, Wimbeldon and the USO. There is your 3 slams last year.


And Fed this year wins the AO.


Thats pretty pretty dang good dont you think? Pretty good for a player past his prime. I dont put much emphasis on Fed losing these small tourneys. Since Fed is at the point in his career, where who cares he doesnt win Dubai, Indian Wells, Miami etc.
Fed has been there done that. But when it comes to the slams, Fed still turns it up a notch and defeats everyone put in his way not named Nadal
I'm not so sure Fed would have beaten Djoko at RG 2008...

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-24-2009, 04:21 PM
Are people still trying to figure out if Fed is still in his prime? How many idiots venture these boards. Or do people just not want to accept the fact Nadal is better than Fed so they need to make excuses why Fed has been beaten so many times by Nadal at the slams?


Ok ask yourself... Exactly how many times has Fed lost early when its mattered most? How many times in the last year or so has Fed lost to someone at the slams to someone other than Nadal? Djokovic?


Take Nadal out of the equation, Fed is still on par to win as many slams a year these days as he did before.


How is this so difficult to comprehend people? You really think Fed would have lost to Verdasco at the AO? You really think Fed would have lost to someone else at Wimbeldon other than Nadal? Fed won the USO last year. Why? Because Nadal wasnt there in the final. He destroyed Murray and Djoker and made them look like High school players.


Hewitt is washed up. Safin is washed up. Nalbandian washed up. Blake is washed up. A player who reaches every slam final ISNT!!!. Nor is a player that does that.. past his prime.


The only slam Fed has lost this past year was at the AO because he was suffering from mono.


Quit with the Fed is washed up excuses. Washed up players dont consistently make slam finals PEOPLE!!!


Nadal has just gotten better overrall . Thats all . End of story. Nothing else needs to be discussed of this issue. When Fed starts losing BEFORE THE FINALS at least, then we will talk "passed prime." When Fed actually starts losing to someone other than Nadal at the slams, then will discuss, "past prime." When Fed starts losing in the 1st week of the slams than we will discuss "Past prime." But so far he is beating 99.999999 percent of the field at the slams on a consistent basis So what do you call how he played in 2006 because it was 10x better then this? Look at his first serve percentage, average first serve speed, number of backhand/forehand winners, number of UEs. They will paint a picture that he played a hell of alot better back then. Have you thought maybe he is so good he can still reach these finals in his past-prime stage and/or the competition is just too weak and practically only one person can beat him at slams?

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 04:26 PM
So what do you call how he played in 2006 because it was 10x better then this? Look at his first serve percentage, average first serve speed, number of backhand/forehand winners, number of UEs. They will paint a picture that he played a hell of alot better back then. Have you thought maybe he is so good he can still reach these finals in his past-prime stage and/or the competition is just too weak and practically only one person can beat him at slams?



2006 was Fed's peak year. A player's peak doesnt last forever. 2006 for Fed was one of the most dominant years a player ever had outside of McEnroe. Did u really expect Fed to duplicate that type of success year in year out? It just doesnt happen. But since Fed didnt duplicate that again, should we say Fed is past his prime? No.

prosealster
04-24-2009, 04:26 PM
And now Nad is almost 5000 points above Fed which means he is far above Fed. What is your point exactly?
(answer to prosealster)

the point is that he was a much better tennis player despite the h2h... nad's got great results in the last 12 months, and people talked about how bad fed's result been, and like u said, he is far above fed at the moment with only 5000 point lead....i said 'only' because under the ranking system they used before 2009, nad would 'only' be about 2500 points ahead, that's what made fed's lead of 4000 hard to argue against (that he is far above the rest of his competition)!!

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 05:34 PM
I look at Roger now as how Pete was from his mid 20s on. I think Roger is finally beginning to prioritize. But it may be too little too late.


Sampras from his mid-late 20s on was not interested in looking to win every tournament he entred nor was on top of his to do list. He began to just play for the slams and collect as many as he could. Roger is finally beginning to think like that I believe. He is not going to be as consistent week in week out anymore because he is now a player that plays for the slams. Meaning he probably wont kick into that extra unless its at the slams. Im sure he wont kill himself just trying to win Dubai or Monte Carlo or Cincy etc.


But as I mentioned it may be too late for Fed. I think he is mentally burned out with the grind of the tour and now some fresh faces have began to emerge, Fed is now feeling the heat and pressure more. I think he did too much in a condense period of time. There was nowhere to go but down. I think we are seeing that today. Roger was at the highest level of play. I mean you couldnt get more dominant. Biut he is paying for it now. 27 years old and he can barely win tourneys these days against the top players. Whereas in Pete's case, he was smarter I believe. He paced himself. Thats a big reason why Pete went out on top winning a slam at 31. Roger probably wont even make it to 31 in tenis

Bassus
04-24-2009, 05:44 PM
I look at Roger now as how Pete was from his mid 20s on. I think Roger is finally beginning to prioritize. But it may be too little too late.


Sampras from his mid-late 20s on was not interested in looking to win every tournament he entred nor was on top of his to do list. He began to just play for the slams and collect as many as he could. Roger is finally beginning to think like that I believe. He is not going to be as consistent week in week out anymore because he is now a player that plays for the slams. Meaning he probably wont kick into that extra unless its at the slams. Im sure he wont kill himself just trying to win Dubai or Monte Carlo or Cincy etc.


But as I mentioned it may be too late for Fed. I think he is mentally burned out with the grind of the tour and now some fresh faces have began to emerge, Fed is now feeling the heat and pressure more. I think he did too much in a condense period of time. There was nowhere to go but down. I think we are seeing that today. Roger was at the highest level of play. I mean you couldnt get more dominant. Biut he is paying for it now. 27 years old and he can barely win tourneys these days against the top players. Whereas in Pete's case, he was smarter I believe. He paced himself. Thats a big reason why Pete went out on top winning a slam at 31. Roger probably wont even make it to 31 in tenis

Do you really think Sampras victory in the 2002 US Open was due to pacing himself better?

I think he just got his old magic back, and for whatever reason did not come up lame in the final like he did the previous two years.

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 06:06 PM
Do you really think Sampras victory in the 2002 US Open was due to pacing himself better?

I think he just got his old magic back, and for whatever reason did not come up lame in the final like he did the previous two years.

I do... Even though Pete didnt win any major for almost 2 years, he came awfully close quite a bit and he still had the game to manage the slams which is why he kept playing even when he had the slam record and could have retired during that time. I dont think Roger will be playing slam winning tennis at 30. He may prove me wrong but I could see Roger retiring in 2 years time depending on different factors. He may just call it quits if he feels he cant win a slam anymore

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 06:18 PM
the point is that he was a much better tennis player despite the h2h... nad's got great results in the last 12 months, and people talked about how bad fed's result been, and like u said, he is far above fed at the moment with only 5000 point lead....i said 'only' because under the ranking system they used before 2009, nad would 'only' be about 2500 points ahead, that's what made fed's lead of 4000 hard to argue against (that he is far above the rest of his competition)!!
I still don't see a point to all this. Of course prime Fed was better than non prime Nadal (although never on clay). Prime Nadal is better that current Fed and pre prime Nadal was also light years better than pre prime Fed. But I don't see where that leads us. If your point is that Federer is a better player than Nadal generally speaking, it is not at all obvious. Nadal has a better winning percentage over his career than Fed and has a winning head to head over practically everyone. The worst of his losing head to heads is something like 2-3 to Blake. Federer lost 13 times to Rafa and 6 times to Murray. Nadal is on the verge of breaking Federer's master shield record at only 22. Of course he still only has about half the slams but agewise, he definitely has a headstart. He has also won slams on hard court, clay and grass which Fed hasn't done. He has the longest streak on 1 surface ever and he's certainly gonna continue breaking records in the next few years.

tennis-hero
04-24-2009, 06:30 PM
I still don't see a point to all this. Of course prime Fed was better than non prime Nadal (although never on clay). Prime Nadal is better that current Fed and pre prime Nadal was also light years better than pre prime Fed. But I don't see where that leads us. If your point is that Federer is a better player than Nadal generally speaking, it is not at all obvious. Nadal has a better winning percentage over his career than Fed and has a winning head to head over practically everyone. The worst of his losing head to heads is something like 2-3 to Blake. Federer lost 13 times to Rafa and 6 times to Murray. Nadal is on the verge of breaking Federer's master shield record at only 22. Of course he still only has about half the slams but agewise, he definitely has a headstart. He has also won slams on hard court, clay and grass which Fed hasn't done. He has the longest streak on 1 surface ever and he's certainly gonna continue breaking records in the next few years.

hah, how can Nadal have been pre prime when he posted his best clay court results in 2006

zero wins, we've already argued this before, but he got bagled in 2007, and even hewitt wrestled with him, and he got destroyed in 2008

so it doesn't matter

this year, Djokovic choked away a guaranteed win

so either Nadal isn't as invincible as you make out, or that he hasn't improved as much as everyone likes to say- if anything- federer has declined and everyone else sucks

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-24-2009, 06:31 PM
2006 was Fed's peak year. A player's peak doesnt last forever. 2006 for Fed was one of the most dominant years a player ever had outside of McEnroe. Did u really expect Fed to duplicate that type of success year in year out? It just doesnt happen. But since Fed didnt duplicate that again, should we say Fed is past his prime? No. With the way he is playing, yes. It really has nothing to do with results but more with the high quality and consistency they are playing with and anyone with half a brain on these forums would say that Fed is not playing anywhere near the same as he was between 04-07.

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 06:36 PM
With the way he is playing, yes. It really has nothing to do with results but more with the high quality and consistency they are playing with and anyone with half a brain on these forums would say that Fed is not playing anywhere near the same as he was between 04-07.

Fed is still kicking it into that extra gear at the slams though . You have to look at the slam results. They show Fed can defeat any player today not named Nadal when it matters most.. He has proven this.


Of course Fed isnt the same week in out week out player he was. I didnt expect him to be as he gets older and his priorities change. But he has shown he can still play at that high level when a slam is on the line . Does he have to win every tourney now to be considered in his prime. Sampras won 1 slam in 98 at 27 years of age and that year is still regarded as Pete's prime. Fed won one in 08 and reached the final of two others only losing to Nadal and just reached the AO final losing to Nadal in 5. You have to look at the slam results. Thats the biggest reason Fed continues to play Im sure . To break the slam record. What else is there left for Fed to do? Besides win the French and break the slam record. Hes pretty much accomplished everything else there is to accomplish other than the 6 year end Number 1 record held by Sampras. But that probably wont be broke for a long time

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-24-2009, 06:48 PM
Fed is still kicking it into that extra gear at the slams though . You have to look at the slam results. They show Fed can defeat any player today not named Nadal when it matters most.. He has proven this.
I get that point you are making but if you include this as Fed's prime then 04-07 is like a super prime. Prime is the best period a player can play at a high quality. Just because Fed's past-prime is good enough to be a prime of another player doesn't mean it is his prime and its not. His prime was 04-07 not 04-09 as he is not playing his best tennis, even at grand slams, in the last one and a half years.

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 06:52 PM
I get that point you are making but if you include this as Fed's prime then 04-07 is like a super prime. Prime is the best period a player can play at a high quality. Just because Fed's past-prime is good enough to be a prime of another player doesn't mean it is his prime and its not. His prime was 04-07 not 04-09 as he is not playing his best tennis, even at grand slams, in the last one and a half years.

I look at that more as a players peak. Not really prime. But thats me. The highest level Roger could attain was in 2006. Roger even in 07 wasnt playing his best tennis either yet he still managed 3 slams. He had a few uncharactierstic losses in 07 that he didnt have in 06. Who did he lose to in 06? I think only young Nadal and one match to a young Murray. In 07 he lost to Canas twice I think , a young Djoker, younger Nadal. Fed doesnt play at the highest level with regularity that he used to but he can still play at that high level when he has to and a major is on the line. Time will tell I guess. We'll see how he does at the next 3 slams. I doubt Fed will have much success at the meaningless ( to him) smaller tourneys this year. His priority is not one those tourneys and you can tell obviously. He lost to Wawrinka at the Monte Carlo.. Lets see if he loses to an inferior clay courter at the French.

luckyguy
04-24-2009, 10:51 PM
nice one, i agree

I look at that more as a players peak. Not really prime. But thats me. The highest level Roger could attain was in 2006. Roger even in 07 wasnt playing his best tennis either yet he still managed 3 slams. He had a few uncharactierstic losses in 07 that he didnt have in 06. Who did he lose to in 06? I think only young Nadal and one match to a young Murray. In 07 he lost to Canas twice I think , a young Djoker, younger Nadal. Fed doesnt play at the highest level with regularity that he used to but he can still play at that high level when he has to and a major is on the line. Time will tell I guess. We'll see how he does at the next 3 slams. I doubt Fed will have much success at the meaningless ( to him) smaller tourneys this year. His priority is not one those tourneys and you can tell obviously. He lost to Wawrinka at the Monte Carlo.. Lets see if he loses to an inferior clay courter at the French.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-24-2009, 10:57 PM
I look at that more as a players peak. Not really prime. But thats me. The highest level Roger could attain was in 2006. Roger even in 07 wasnt playing his best tennis either yet he still managed 3 slams. He had a few uncharactierstic losses in 07 that he didnt have in 06. Who did he lose to in 06? I think only young Nadal and one match to a young Murray. In 07 he lost to Canas twice I think , a young Djoker, younger Nadal. Fed doesnt play at the highest level with regularity that he used to but he can still play at that high level when he has to and a major is on the line. Time will tell I guess. We'll see how he does at the next 3 slams. I doubt Fed will have much success at the meaningless ( to him) smaller tourneys this year. His priority is not one those tourneys and you can tell obviously. He lost to Wawrinka at the Monte Carlo.. Lets see if he loses to an inferior clay courter at the French. I agree about 07 I almost left it out. But If he played at the quality he played at between 04-06/07 he would win alot more and have already haven beaten Sampras record. Since USO 07 the only time he has played at his 04-06 form is at the USO 2008.

LanceStern
04-24-2009, 11:36 PM
07 he had more uncharacteristic losses than you could count. People (including me) were nervous:

Nadal (x3)
Canas (x2)
Nalbandian (x2)
Djokovic (x1)
Volandri (x1)
Gonzalez (x1)

prosealster
04-25-2009, 12:43 AM
I still don't see a point to all this. Of course prime Fed was better than non prime Nadal (although never on clay). Prime Nadal is better that current Fed and pre prime Nadal was also light years better than pre prime Fed. But I don't see where that leads us. If your point is that Federer is a better player than Nadal generally speaking, it is not at all obvious. Nadal has a better winning percentage over his career than Fed and has a winning head to head over practically everyone. The worst of his losing head to heads is something like 2-3 to Blake. Federer lost 13 times to Rafa and 6 times to Murray. Nadal is on the verge of breaking Federer's master shield record at only 22. Of course he still only has about half the slams but agewise, he definitely has a headstart. He has also won slams on hard court, clay and grass which Fed hasn't done. He has the longest streak on 1 surface ever and he's certainly gonna continue breaking records in the next few years.

as far as I am concerned, we r not discussing fed's achievement vs nads at particular age nor who will win against each other in their prime. I thought we r discussing about whether fed is 'far above' the rest of competition back in 05 or 06 (as I stated in my first post that u responded to)

I am not here to argue who's the better tennis player, coz i think we'll have to wait till both of them r done and then look at their achievements...

devila
04-25-2009, 02:08 AM
Federer relies too much on hitting the lines and retrieving from the baseline. His liabilities are exposed 5 feet behind the baseline and on his backhand side at net.
He misses if the ball is slow to his forehand corner. That's why players who don't have to rely on speed and chasing will last longer than him at the top 5.