PDA

View Full Version : At 30: Decline or NOT


Boricua
03-02-2012, 08:41 AM
Hewitt, Roddick Nalbandian are stii good players but dont dominate as when they were 24 or 25. On the other hand guys like Federer, Fish (not 30 yet I think, have to check) and in the past Agassi, Laver and Connors , to name three, were still at the top at that age. Why is this so? Any opinions?

I think it has to do a bit with injuries which affect confidence and the overall physical conditioning and rhythm.

TMF
03-02-2012, 08:46 AM
Yes. Fed is at his peak and Nadal has declined.

Next question....

Tammo
03-02-2012, 08:48 AM
Fish and Fed are still "young" 30 yo. Nalbandian and Hewitt were hampered by many injuries. Roddick IMO never really dominated the sport at 25, sure he got to a few slam finals, and semis, but just couldn't push himself to the top.

NadalAgassi
03-02-2012, 09:14 AM
Fish is obviously a late bloomer. Or maybe it just shows how much he wasted his physial prime years by benig lazy. One or the other.

Nathaniel_Near
03-02-2012, 09:16 AM
Yes. Fed is at his peak and Nadal has declined.

Next question....

Lol. end of thread.

monfed
03-02-2012, 10:03 AM
Now playing - Let's get ******** by the Black Eyed Peas.

jackson vile
03-02-2012, 10:16 AM
Hewitt, Roddick Nalbandian are stii good players but dont dominate as when they were 24 or 25. On the other hand guys like Federer, Fish (not 30 yet I think, have to check) and in the past Agassi, Laver and Connors , to name three, were still at the top at that age. Why is this so? Any opinions?

I think it has to do a bit with injuries which affect confidence and the overall physical conditioning and rhythm.

Those guys have declined to a great degree, however Roddick took a lot more time than Safin and Hewitt. The problems with Safin and Hewitt is that they became injured rather early in their careers, and could have done much more and stayed around much longer at a higher level.

jackson vile
03-02-2012, 10:17 AM
Fish and Fed are still "young" 30 yo. Nalbandian and Hewitt were hampered by many injuries. Roddick IMO never really dominated the sport at 25, sure he got to a few slam finals, and semis, but just couldn't push himself to the top.

At what age did Fish have his best year?

devila
03-02-2012, 06:29 PM
roddick who?

joeri888
03-03-2012, 01:18 AM
Federer has declined massively. Comparable to Roddick or Nalbandian or Hewitt. He was just THAT much better than everyone else.

Fish is a moron who didn't know he had to train hard to fullfill potential until he turned 29.

THUNDERVOLLEY
03-03-2012, 03:47 AM
OP: History already proves 30 and over players doing what matters most--winning majors--is rare in Open Era tennis, and considering Federer has failed to win a major in two years, he has much standing in the way of his chances of winning more than one more--if that.

PollyBallGirl
03-03-2012, 04:53 AM
Yes. Fed is at his peak and Nadal has declined.

Next question....

But nadal played federer at the 2009 australian open an federer won more points than nadal. Now at 2012 australian open they played and nadal won in 4 sets! Nadal is further ahead of federer now than he was 2009.

floridatennisdude
03-03-2012, 04:59 AM
Federer has declined massively. Comparable to Roddick or Nalbandian or Hewitt. He was just THAT much better than everyone else.

Fish is a moron who didn't know he had to train hard to fullfill potential until he turned 29.

Fed is 30-2 since the USOpen...if that is a "massive decline" what would be a minor decline?

joeri888
03-03-2012, 05:22 AM
Fed is 30-2 since the USOpen...if that is a "massive decline" what would be a minor decline?

Averaging 2 slams a year would be ā minor decline. 2008- Jan 2010 was minor decline

jackson vile
03-03-2012, 03:25 PM
Fed is 30-2 since the USOpen...if that is a "massive decline" what would be a minor decline?

Good point, the problem is that one set criteria has not been set. That is why the whole decline arguments are as bad as the GOAT arguments.

That certainly does not look like someone out of their prime.

Really what we should do is post various records and score ect without the players name, and you have to guess who is playing at their peak, prime, or decline.

Cup8489
03-03-2012, 03:39 PM
Fed is 30-2 since the USOpen...if that is a "massive decline" what would be a minor decline?

Well, since he didn't win the AO, it's still not his best. His best allowed him to win the biggest tournaments on the calendar. Sure, he's 30-2 since the USO last year, but one of those losses came at the biggest tournament SINCE the open.. in Australia. He's won 3 500 titles, 1 1000 title, and the WTF. But NOT a major... hence the decline. He's not winning the very biggest titles when in his prime he would.

Cup8489
03-03-2012, 03:40 PM
Good point, the problem is that one set criteria has not been set. That is why the whole decline arguments are as bad as the GOAT arguments.

That certainly does not look like someone out of their prime.

Really what we should do is post various records and score ect without the players name, and you have to guess who is playing at their peak, prime, or decline.

That's a stupid idea. It's not all about statistics. It's about which titles they would be winning in their peak, and if they're still able to win them with the same frequency now as in their peak. Since Federer cares the most about majors, and he's not won a major in two years, he's not at his prime, and thus has declined.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand that. You don't really get alot of the things people say.

zagor
03-03-2012, 04:00 PM
Good point, the problem is that one set criteria has not been set. That is why the whole decline arguments are as bad as the GOAT arguments.

That certainly does not look like someone out of their prime.

Really what we should do is post various records and score ect without the players name, and you have to guess who is playing at their peak, prime, or decline.

Great suggestion, so if some random xy player for example reaches 7 finals in a row and 4 slam finals in a row (both for the first time in his career) how could anyone really claim said player is playing sloppy/subpeak/flat/uninspired tennis, isn't serving as well as before or getting to the balls he used to and such?

DjokovicForTheWin
03-03-2012, 04:19 PM
LOLLLLLL, poor LOLville just keeps getting owned.

Cup8489
03-03-2012, 04:32 PM
LOLLLLLL, poor LOLville just keeps getting owned.

I just wanna know what drugs he's on, they seem to give a pretty bad trip and I'd like to avoid them.

kishnabe
03-03-2012, 06:06 PM
At what age did Fish have his best year?
How many years of top ten tennis has Fish had?

How many years he wasn't overweight?

kishnabe
03-03-2012, 06:09 PM
Great suggestion, so if some random xy player for example reaches 7 finals in a row and 4 slam finals in a row (both for the first time in his career) how could anyone really claim said player is playing sloppy/subpeak/flat/uninspired tennis, isn't serving as well as before or getting to the balls he used to and such?

:lol:.....Pure Ownage....

powerangle
03-04-2012, 01:01 AM
Great suggestion, so if some random xy player for example reaches 7 finals in a row and 4 slam finals in a row (both for the first time in his career) how could anyone really claim said player is playing sloppy/subpeak/flat/uninspired tennis, isn't serving as well as before or getting to the balls he used to and such?

Lookin forward to LOLville's response to this one. :)

stringertom
03-04-2012, 02:00 AM
Great suggestion, so if some random xy player for example reaches 7 finals in a row and 4 slam finals in a row (both for the first time in his career) how could anyone really claim said player is playing sloppy/subpeak/flat/uninspired tennis, isn't serving as well as before or getting to the balls he used to and such?

That's when said "random xy player" decides to suit up and play instead of taking six weeks off to lick his wounds, no?

jackson vile
03-04-2012, 10:16 AM
That's a stupid idea. It's not all about statistics. It's about which titles they would be winning in their peak, and if they're still able to win them with the same frequency now as in their peak. Since Federer cares the most about majors, and he's not won a major in two years, he's not at his prime, and thus has declined.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand that. You don't really get alot of the things people say.

http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa331/jacksonvile/GlennCry.gif


Stop crying so much, no one ever said that Federer did not ever decline. I am not saying Federer is playing his peak tennis.

The whole point of that post is to draw reaction from the my fans, you guys need to either decide if numbers are all they are cracked up to be or not?

kiki
03-04-2012, 10:17 AM
Hewitt, Roddick Nalbandian are stii good players but dont dominate as when they were 24 or 25. On the other hand guys like Federer, Fish (not 30 yet I think, have to check) and in the past Agassi, Laver and Connors , to name three, were still at the top at that age. Why is this so? Any opinions?

I think it has to do a bit with injuries which affect confidence and the overall physical conditioning and rhythm.

Ask Laver,Ashe,Newcombe,Rosewall,Connors, Sampras or Agassi if 30 means decline or not.It is just a matter of having talent or not.Journeymen like thsoe mentioned didnīt have 20% of the talent of a Laver or a Rosewall.Thus, never did anything good at 30.

jackson vile
03-04-2012, 10:21 AM
The whole point is that the age argument does not hold much validity especially where Federer was such a "late bloomer" and won the majority of his wins against a top 5 that 1)did not know how to play him 2) was seriously injured and/or inconsistent or 3) that simply posed zero threat at all.

Even Federer himself anlong with other great current and past tennis players have admitted that today tennis players are even greater than they were before.

There are only 2 guys consistently defeating Federer, that is it. And if the players of today are greater than that of yesteryear how could it be logically possible for a severly declined past his peak and past his prime Federer to remain in #3 spot and possibly grab #2 or 1 rank?

You want to talk about failed logic, there you go. Perfect example right there.





How many years of top ten tennis has Fish had?

How many years he wasn't overweight?

papertank
03-04-2012, 11:54 AM
I don't think age has as much to do with it as some people think. It depends much more on other factors, such as how taxing someone's style of play is on their body, how much matches they've played, and how many injuries they've faced. It's true that anyone's body will inevitably start to decline as they get older, but in the vast majority of cases age is not the reason for decline. That's why players like Mardy Fish and David Ferrer are doing better than ever at 30, while players like Roddick and Nalbandian are faltering. Age is not a defining factor at 30.

devila
03-04-2012, 12:54 PM
roddick's is a childish, predictable useless "style" on and off court, and no one can help him when the tennis and female relationships fail him.
he and his family are still denying that.

fish lived with roddick and his mother but everyone gave roddick praise and millions in endorsements. it backfired in the usa team's face.

THUNDERVOLLEY
03-04-2012, 01:05 PM
Since Federer cares the most about majors, and he's not won a major in two years, he's not at his prime, and thus has declined.
.

All so true. Federer is facing his own decline and history relevant to his age, and if his form of the past two years holds at the majors, he will be just another in a long line of older players who could not join that very short list of 30 and over players to win majors. How is that not clear to his defenders is odd.

Cup8489
03-04-2012, 01:12 PM
http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa331/jacksonvile/GlennCry.gif


Stop crying so much, no one ever said that Federer did not ever decline. I am not saying Federer is playing his peak tennis.

The whole point of that post is to draw reaction from the my fans, you guys need to either decide if numbers are all they are cracked up to be or not?

Isn't that pretty much what you're saying here, just a few posts later?:

The whole point is that the age argument does not hold much validity especially where Federer was such a "late bloomer" and won the majority of his wins against a top 5 that 1)did not know how to play him 2) was seriously injured and/or inconsistent or 3) that simply posed zero threat at all.

Even Federer himself anlong with other great current and past tennis players have admitted that today tennis players are even greater than they were before.

There are only 2 guys consistently defeating Federer, that is it. And if the players of today are greater than that of yesteryear how could it be logically possible for a severly declined past his peak and past his prime Federer to remain in #3 spot and possibly grab #2 or 1 rank?

You want to talk about failed logic, there you go. Perfect example right there.

Hmm.

More ridiculous contradictions from LOLville. No surprises there. And just found another gem of you claiming no decline. when you just said to me you've never said he wasn't.


Here we go with fans claiming that he was declining at an even earlier age. After defeating Murray, we can see that this is not true at all.

Make up your mind, LOLville.

zagor
03-04-2012, 01:31 PM
All so true. Federer is facing his own decline and history relevant to his age, and if his form of the past two years holds at the majors, he will be just another in a long line of older players who could not join that very short list of 30 and over players to win majors. How is that not clear to his defenders is odd.

Pay closer attention, it is not his "defenders" that are claiming Fed hasn't declined but rather some of his most vile detractors. To the vast majority of Fed fans here, it is very clear Fed has declined.

Overall anyone who has followed modern tennis and has any clue whatsoever aboiut the game is well aware of the fact that tennis greats are usually long past their best at the age that Fed is now.

THUNDERVOLLEY
03-05-2012, 03:16 PM
Pay closer attention, it is not his "defenders" that are claiming Fed hasn't declined but rather some of his most vile detractors.

I disagree. If you search various threads (the threads that were not deleted), some of the worst Federates piled on the "he's not in decline/he'll win more slams" arguments. It is this group that's on the defensive with the mere mention of Federer being years past his prime.

Overall anyone who has followed modern tennis and has any clue whatsoever aboiut the game is well aware of the fact that tennis greats are usually long past their best at the age that Fed is now.

Agreed--history backs that up with so few able to win majors past 30--which is why its so strange that certain Fed fans act as though Federer is playing as he was five years ago, and he's out of the reach of age.

rst
03-05-2012, 09:15 PM
History already proves 30 and over players doing what matters most--winning majors--is rare in Open Era tennis,.....

history proves it....what are the reasons for the decline?? physical wear and tear solely?? hormones after 30??

can game strategy be elevated?? and additional finesse shot added or a more wholitc approach to the game applied that wasnt done in earlier years??