PDA

View Full Version : Wow is he slower...


wy2sl0
10-20-2012, 08:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldxmlg5XKUg

That is some lightning movement from both guys.

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 08:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldxmlg5XKUg

That is some lightning movement from both guys.



He's 31 now,but I think he still moves pretty well for his age.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 08:18 PM
Possibly my favorite match. The only time God-mode Federer was defeated.

cc0509
10-20-2012, 08:26 PM
He's 31 now,but I think he still moves pretty well for his age.

But nowhere near as well as he did in 2003-2007. :cry:

Clarky21
10-20-2012, 08:32 PM
But nowhere near as well as he did in 2003-2007. :cry:



True. Nadal doesn't move anywhere near as well as he used to either,so I know how you feel.

NadalDramaQueen
10-20-2012, 08:42 PM
It would still be the Roger and Rafa show if they played how they used to. Everyone fades. It is too bad.

Sid_Vicious
10-20-2012, 08:44 PM
Possibly my favorite match. The only time God-mode Federer was defeated.

I disagree. That was not god-mode Federer. I don't understand why people always say that about this match. If that was god-mode Federer, can someone explain the 60 unforced errors, the pathetic body language (especially in the 5th set, Federer behaved Murray-esque at times), the horrendous serving he was doing in the 5th set (Federer was hitting the ball into the center of the net at times), and double faulting to hand Safin the break in the 5th set? Federer got lucky that Safin produced some laughably bad tennis to get broken.

Also, Federer gave Safin credit for playing well, but in the same breath he implied that he was not at his best because he was suffering from a nasty foot blister. Federer's reaction after missing that tweener pretty much showed how fearful he was to going to a 5th set. He probably knew that Safin would have the edge in that case.

NadalDramaQueen
10-20-2012, 08:46 PM
I disagree. That was not god-mode Federer. I don't understand why people always say that about this match. If that was god-mode Federer, can someone explain the 60 unforced errors, the pathetic body language (especially in the 5th set, Federer behaved Murray-esque at times), the horrendous serving he was doing in the 5th set (Federer was hitting the ball into the center of the net at times), and double faulting to hand Safin the break in the 5th set? Federer got lucky that Safin produced some laughably bad tennis to get broken.

Also, Federer gave Safin credit for playing well, but in the same breath he implied that he was not at his best because he was suffering from a nasty foot blister.

I agree, but you have to watch the full match to pick up on that, not just the highlights. So much information is lost over the years.

Sid_Vicious
10-20-2012, 08:52 PM
I agree, but you have to watch the full match to pick up on that, not just the highlights. So much information is lost over the years.

Yes, I agree dude.

I have seen so many amazing highlight reels from the 2005 USO that I thought Federer was playing impeccable tennis. It was not until recently that I watched the entire SF between Federer and Hewitt again. Federer was shanking so hard it was hilarious at times; he was not nearly as impressive as the highlights showed him to be.

stringertom
10-20-2012, 09:01 PM
Wow! What a surprise he's not as speedy at 31 vs. 23. I'm so shocked. Still he's faster than almost everyone else on tour! Now that's a statement on his uniqueness.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 09:14 PM
I disagree. That was not god-mode Federer. I don't understand why people always say that about this match. If that was god-mode Federer, can someone explain the 60 unforced errors, the pathetic body language (especially in the 5th set, Federer behaved Murray-esque at times), the horrendous serving he was doing in the 5th set (Federer was hitting the ball into the center of the net at times), and double faulting to hand Safin the break in the 5th set? Federer got lucky that Safin produced some laughably bad tennis to get broken.

Also, Federer gave Safin credit for playing well, but in the same breath he implied that he was not at his best because he was suffering from a nasty foot blister. Federer's reaction after missing that tweener pretty much showed how fearful he was to going to a 5th set. He probably knew that Safin would have the edge in that case.

You don't hit the lines without making unforced errors along the way. Federer was worried because it was probably the only time he was playing at his best and still being contested, not because he was playing badly. I've seen the whole match quite a few times, I'm not basing my opinion off the highlights. And God-mode doesn't mean you don't make any mistakes, it's just that he was good in all departments of the game for all or most of the match.

About his blister, well, that's an excuse. He still played very well. He was beaten by the better player on the day.

NadalDramaQueen
10-20-2012, 09:19 PM
You don't hit the lines without making unforced errors along the way. Federer was worried because it was probably the only time he was playing at his best and still being contested, not because he was playing badly. I've seen the whole match quite a few times, I'm not basing my opinion off the highlights. And God-mode doesn't mean you don't make any mistakes, it's just that he was good in all departments of the game for all or most of the match.

About his blister, well, that's an excuse. He still played very well. He was beaten by the better player on the day.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I certainly didn't think i was seeing Fed's god mode when I watched the match live. It was a good match though, no doubt. Just for the record, I don't really care about making excuses either. You win and you lose, for many reasons. The result is all that matters.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 09:27 PM
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I certainly didn't think i was seeing Fed's god mode when I watched the match live. It was a good match though, no doubt. Just for the record, I don't really care about making excuses either. You win and you lose, for many reasons. The result is all that matters.

Not saying it was one of his best-played matches. Just that he didn't do anything particularly wrong. I'm sure he was happy with the match he played.

abmk
10-20-2012, 09:51 PM
Yes, I agree dude.

I have seen so many amazing highlight reels from the 2005 USO that I thought Federer was playing impeccable tennis. It was not until recently that I watched the entire SF between Federer and Hewitt again. Federer was shanking so hard it was hilarious at times; he was not nearly as impressive as the highlights showed him to be.

federer was playing by some distance better at the AO in 2005 than he was in the SF/F of the USO in 2005 ....

the SF vs safin was easily the best ever that he's played and still lost .... the way federer/safin were painting the lines, you are bound to have some unforced errors .... that was one match which showcases almost the whole of federer's arsenal ..and I've watched the whole match atleast 3-4 times ...

the only match which comes remotely close in which he played well and still lost is the rome 2006 final vs nadal ....

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 09:54 PM
federer was playing by some distance better at the AO in 2005 than he was in the SF/F of the USO in 2005 ....

the SF vs safin was easily the best ever that he's played and still lost .... the way federer/safin were painting the lines, you are bound to have some unforced errors .... that was one match which showcases almost the whole of federer's arsenal ..and I've watched the whole match atleast 3-4 times ...

the only match which comes remotely close in which he played well and still lost is the rome 2006 final vs nadal ....

Oh yeah, that's 1 one 2 favorite Claycourt matches. Pity we don't have 5 setters in Masters finals anymore.

Dark Victory
10-20-2012, 10:00 PM
Rewatched this match again lately.

An absolute skills contest.

Federer wasn't shanking or making UE because he was playing conservatively and messing up (like he's used to doing NOW), no, it was because he was swinging for the fences and was extremely aggressive through out.

Safin outplayed him on a handful of crucial points.

joeri888
10-20-2012, 11:32 PM
If you compare Fed to the field, I think he actually is helped by the slowed courts. He couldn't keep this up nowadays. No way. But against Nadal and Djokovic, it would still help him relatively. He would be a lot more prone to upsets though against Tsonga, Berdych, etc.

abmk
10-20-2012, 11:35 PM
If you compare Fed to the field, I think he actually is helped by the slowed courts. He couldn't keep this up nowadays. No way. But against Nadal and Djokovic, it would still help him relatively. He would be a lot more prone to upsets though against Tsonga, Berdych, etc.

maybe in best of 3, but not in best of 5 , it'd be tough for the big hitters to keep it up in a best of 5 .... federer dominated berdych easily upto 2008 ...... barely losing sets on any sort of court ...

zagor
10-20-2012, 11:41 PM
True. Nadal doesn't move anywhere near as well as he used to either,so I know how you feel.

No, you certainly don't, just as it's true that Fed fans don't know how Nadal fans feel in terms of their favourite player's (prolonged) absence from the game because of injuries it's also true that at this point in time Nadal fans still don't know how Fed fans feel regard their favourite player's decline in physical part of the game (despite the Fed hating experts on this forum who claim that Fed's playing as good as ever).

When Nadal has a slamless year and/or gets near 30 while the fans of other players claim he's as good as ever but can't handle the new strong competition, only then will you find out.

zagor
10-20-2012, 11:45 PM
maybe in best of 3, but not in best of 5 , it'd be tough for the big hitters to keep it up in a best of 5 .... federer dominated berdych easily upto 2008 ...... barely losing sets on any sort of court ...

Fed was actually 8-1 against Berdych until 2010 but of course we have people now claiming Berdych was always a nightmare match-up for Fed and similar nonsense.

Obviously, Fed couln't possibly be past his prime in 2010, no, his prime has to last 8+ years while fragile as flower Rafa overall had about a year and a change of prime/peak tennis, what a warrior.

Nathaniel_Near
10-20-2012, 11:53 PM
Ah, the good old myth which is the 2005 AO semi, one of the most overrated matches of all time.

Nathaniel_Near
10-20-2012, 11:55 PM
No, you certainly don't, just as it's true that Fed fans don't know how Nadal fans feel in terms of their favourite player's (prolonged) absence from the game because of injuries it's also true that at this point in time Nadal fans still don't know how Fed fans feel regard their favourite player's decline in physical part of the game (despite the Fed hating experts on this forum who claim that Fed's playing as good as ever).

When Nadal has a slamless year and/or gets near 30 while the fans of other players claim he's as good as ever but can't handle the new strong competition, only then will you find out.

Quoted. For. Truth.

Steve0904
10-21-2012, 12:08 AM
It's quite evident that he's slower now than he was in this video. I mean who wouldn't be? That's the problem I have with people saying he's playing as good as ever. He might not have lost his talent, but he's certainly lost some footspeed. That's the first thing that declines for a pro tennis player.

joeri888
10-21-2012, 12:26 AM
maybe in best of 3, but not in best of 5 , it'd be tough for the big hitters to keep it up in a best of 5 .... federer dominated berdych easily upto 2008 ...... barely losing sets on any sort of court ...

So? Fed has declined massively since then. That's what I'm saying. Slow courts have prolonged Fed's time at the top, because his shotmaking can make up for his decline in movement since this video.

abmk
10-21-2012, 12:40 AM
Ah, the good old myth which is the 2005 AO semi, one of the most overrated matches of all time.

don't quite think so ........ it was/is the best match I've seen ...

The 1980 and 2008 wimbledon finals while by some distance inferior quality-wise, are rated/talked about more .......

abmk
10-21-2012, 12:43 AM
So? Fed has declined massively since then. That's what I'm saying. Slow courts have prolonged Fed's time at the top, because his shotmaking can make up for his decline in movement since this video.

the problem with this argument is that while chances of hard hitters taking out the present day fed increase on faster surfaces, they still are more inconsistent than fed/nadal/djoker/murray and will be behind them in the rankings ...

what that would also mean is chances of nadal/djoker/murray getting upset also increase ...... also the chances of federer beating them ....

so, no , slower courts haven't prolonged federer's stay at the top .....

abmk
10-21-2012, 12:50 AM
Fed was actually 8-1 against Berdych until 2010 but of course we have people now claiming Berdych was always a nightmare match-up for Fed and similar nonsense.

Obviously, Fed couln't possibly be past his prime in 2010, no, his prime has to last 8+ years while fragile as flower Rafa overall had about a year and a change of prime/peak tennis, what a warrior.

but of course .... nadal is undefeated when he wins ...... vamos ...:)

Wilander Fan
10-21-2012, 02:15 AM
If you compare Fed to the field, I think he actually is helped by the slowed courts. He couldn't keep this up nowadays. No way. But against Nadal and Djokovic, it would still help him relatively. He would be a lot more prone to upsets though against Tsonga, Berdych, etc.

I have to disagree. A lot of players have caught up to fed on clay and slow hard courts. On fast hard court and indoor, Fed is still dominating.

wy2sl0
10-21-2012, 04:21 AM
From what I saw, I notice Fed still owns fast courts indoors; mostly because he is the first one to go for the winner straight out, or put the opponent in a compromised position - the other top 3 don't do that as often.

I would argue that Federer hasn't remained at the top because of the slower courts, rather he is still at the top because he is just that good.

At the end of the day they are playing a simple game in physics terms. You swing a racquet to hit a ball. A great singer can sing anything, a great tennis player can play anywhere and be great.

Paullaconte1
10-21-2012, 06:02 AM
Roger was incredibly slow in Shanghai (but he wasn't fit at al).

Rafa was incredibly faster when he was 18 years old if you compare with his prime.

NamRanger
10-21-2012, 06:10 AM
Ah, the good old myth which is the 2005 AO semi, one of the most overrated matches of all time.



Like that Wimbledon 2008 final where Federer was doing everything in his power to hand the match to Nadal and Nadal still choked, and nearly lost the match despite Federer playing completely subpar?

Clarky21
10-21-2012, 06:21 AM
No, you certainly don't, just as it's true that Fed fans don't know how Nadal fans feel in terms of their favourite player's (prolonged) absence from the game because of injuries it's also true that at this point in time Nadal fans still don't know how Fed fans feel regard their favourite player's decline in physical part of the game (despite the Fed hating experts on this forum who claim that Fed's playing as good as ever).When Nadal has a slamless year and/or gets near 30 while the fans of other players claim he's as good as ever but can't handle the new strong competition, only then will you find out.


Yes,I do. I have watched Nadal decline in speed and movement over the years just as Fed fans have watched him do the same. Not sure what there is to argue here other than you just liking to be contrary for no reason.


And this coming from you is mighty hilarious. You were preaching about how Nadal never played better all throughout last year when anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together could obviously see otherwise. As a matter of fact,your ridiculous trolling of Nadal match threads saying how he was at his peak(:lol:)was the brunt of several jokes at your expense.

NamRanger
10-21-2012, 06:21 AM
Yes,I do. I have watched Nadal decline in speed and movement over the years just as Fed fans have him do the same. Not sure what there is to argue here other than you just liking to be contrary for no reason.



Declines in speed and movement, proceeds to have record year. Classic Nadal decline year.

Clarky21
10-21-2012, 06:30 AM
Declines in speed and movement, proceeds to have record year. Classic Nadal decline year.



Do you think Nadal is as fast or moves as well now as he did just a few years ago? If you say yes then there is no hope for you.

And Fed is still winning slams/masters tournaments at 31,and had a d*mn good year this year. Does that mean he hasn't lost any speed and that his movement is good as ever?

Steve0904
10-21-2012, 07:23 AM
Do you think Nadal is as fast or moves as well now as he did just a few years ago? If you say yes then there is no hope for you.

And Fed is still winning slams/masters tournaments at 31,and had a d*mn good year this year. Does that mean he hasn't lost any speed and that his movement is good as ever?

I understand that you've watched Nadal decline a little bit. He's lost speed as well, and I am glad that Federer stays healthier than Nadal because I don't know what it's like to watch my favourite player be out for 6 months + and miss slams. I think that's what zagor was trying to say. Nadal fans don't truly know how Federer fans feel, just as the opposite is true. They will only truly know when Nadal nears/hits 30 (if he gets that far) and people start saying he should retire after every match he loses, or he has a slamless year, or he gets beaten pretty regularly by players that are 5-6 years younger than him, and fans of those players will say what Nadal and Djokovic fans are saying now.

They will talk about how Nadal can't handle the competition, and they will likely talk about how Nadal won all his slams in a "weak" era because in said era only the top 4 even had a realistic chance to win. They will also probably say that Nadal is just a glorified clay courter, and other disrespectful things even though the man is an all time great with 11 slams. They'll probably dismiss the fact that Nadal is past his prime as well, and just say age is a sad excuse. This should all sound pretty familiar actually. In fact, all of that stuff has been said, but it will get worse when the coming generation starts beating Nadal fairly regularly.

And as I said above, I truly won't know how Nadal fans feel unless Federer is out with an injury for an extended period of time, or misses slam(s).

90's Clay
10-21-2012, 07:30 AM
God dang.. Safin may have had the best "top A-game" there ever was. You can't play much better then Roger did there in Australia in 2005 and it still wasn't enough

rovex
10-21-2012, 07:30 AM
Safin retired in 2009 he certainly wouldn't be any faster.

90's Clay
10-21-2012, 07:35 AM
Unless you are some genetic cyborg like Laver.. Chances are you won't move as well at 31 years of age

NadalDramaQueen
10-21-2012, 08:33 AM
God dang.. Safin may have had the best "top A-game" there ever was. You can't play much better then Roger did there in Australia in 2005 and it still wasn't enough

You have no shame, but that is alright. I understand that you must cling to anything you can get.

Let's face it, everyone. Nadal is faster than he ever was. Federer is playing ten times better than he did when he was dominating everyone. Both players have improved to such an extent that they wouldn't lose a single game to their old selves in their best statistical seasons.

We could also accept the truth and realize that those two may be the best who have ever lived. No one will win many slams with the two of them playing at their best.

That includes Sampras, 90's clay. ;)

wy2sl0
10-21-2012, 08:34 AM
Also want to play devils advocate.

Here is Federer at his best (movement wise) in 2012. Unreal point.

http://youtu.be/SQZAS_PmdW8?t=8m8s

Another:

http://youtu.be/SQZAS_PmdW8?t=11m57s

http://youtu.be/SQZAS_PmdW8?t=14m15s

NadalDramaQueen
10-21-2012, 08:36 AM
Also want to play devils advocate.

Here is Federer at his best (movement wise) in 2012. Unreal point.

http://youtu.be/SQZAS_PmdW8?t=8m8s

I love the huge smile on that rather pretty woman in Fed's box.

TTMR
10-21-2012, 09:43 AM
Fed was actually 8-1 against Berdych until 2010 but of course we have people now claiming Berdych was always a nightmare match-up for Fed and similar nonsense.

Obviously, Fed couln't possibly be past his prime in 2010, no, his prime has to last 8+ years while fragile as flower Rafa overall had about a year and a change of prime/peak tennis, what a warrior.

According to Federer fans, Federer's decline began in 2007, coming off his prime from 2004-2006. During this decline period, Federer has won 8 of his 17 majors. In other words, Federer won 47% of his major titles during his decline. Also, according to Federer fans, Federer must have been a better tennis player in 2010 than in 2012 by virtue of him being closer to his prime, despite a much worse match record and fewer titles won.

I must also add, I am tired of this place, this "Nadal Warehouse". All I ever read about is ceaseless Nadal glorification: 'Nadal god mode this' and 'Nadal is GOAT' that, and endless Federer bashing hate threads twisting his words and actions into those of pure malevolence. I am sick of people undermining the achievements of players who excel off of clay. It's as if only slow clay courts count as genuine tennis surfaces in their minds. I just wish there were a few diehard Federer fans to counterbalance the huge Nadal bias here.

NadalDramaQueen
10-21-2012, 10:20 AM
According to Federer fans, Federer's decline began in 2007, coming off his prime from 2004-2006. During this decline period, Federer has won 8 of his 17 majors. In other words, Federer won 47% of his major titles during his decline. Also, according to Federer fans, Federer must have been a better tennis player in 2010 than in 2012 by virtue of him being closer to his prime, despite a much worse match record and fewer titles won.

I must also add, I am tired of this place, this "Nadal Warehouse". All I ever read about is ceaseless Nadal glorification: 'Nadal god mode this' and 'Nadal is GOAT' that, and endless Federer bashing hate threads twisting his words and actions into those of pure malevolence. I am sick of people undermining the achievements of players who excel off of clay. It's as if only slow clay courts count as genuine tennis surfaces in their minds. I just wish there were a few diehard Federer fans to counterbalance the huge Nadal bias here.

Fed won 11 slams in four years, and one in 2003. The other five came in a period of five years after 2007. It is pretty obvious that 2003-2007 was his prime. 2007 is just pointed out as the start of Fed losing more matches than usual although he was still successful at the main events. 2008 would likely have been similar had there been no issues with his health.

I used to think that you were a decent troll, but you are just a broken record living off of a couple of clever posts you made some time ago. You need some new material. You're well out of your prime and your decline has been rapid.

Emet74
10-21-2012, 10:32 AM
I love the huge smile on that rather pretty woman in Fed's box.

Yes, she's lovely; that's Ester, wife of Roger's best friend Reto who's next to her in the white shirt and sunglasses.

--

Fed played well in the Safin match but he had major physical problems there as well; the inflammation in his feet which lead him to "compensate" by trying to change his movement and wound up with major nerve pain in his arm by the 4th/5th sets. He was worked on by the trainer on court, and Peter Lundgren who was coaching Safin at the time was chatting during the match how he could tell Roger's feet were hurting by how he was moving.

Fed was dogged by foot inflammation for much of the rest of 2005, tho' it never came back as badly as in the Safin match.

--

As for the topic, yeah he's slowed down :(

I don't move the way I did in my twenties either, that's life -

NamRanger
10-21-2012, 11:36 AM
Do you think Nadal is as fast or moves as well now as he did just a few years ago? If you say yes then there is no hope for you.

And Fed is still winning slams/masters tournaments at 31,and had a d*mn good year this year. Does that mean he hasn't lost any speed and that his movement is good as ever?



Nadal declined in 2009 and proceeds to have a record year in 2010. Classic logic. Seriously, you and namelessone would go toe to toe in a contest of who has more logical fallacies.

Clarky21
10-21-2012, 12:00 PM
Nadal declined in 2009 and proceeds to have a record year in 2010. Classic logic. Seriously, you and namelessone would go toe to toe in a contest of who has more logical fallacies.



And according to *******s,Fed's decline began in 2007 yet he went on to win 8 more slams after that. That's one impressive decline from the Swiss Maestro.

Mighty Matteo
10-21-2012, 12:05 PM
Federer really declined in 2008. since then, he has only won 5 slams. only...

NamRanger
10-21-2012, 12:07 PM
And according to *******s,Fed's decline began in 2007 yet he went on to win 8 more slams after that. That's one impressive decline from the Swiss Maestro.


He started a very slow decline in 2007, but was certainly healthy enough to compete in 2008. The mono hit him hard in 2008 which disrupted his season, and 2009 was the first one where he was really healthy again. After that, he has never been the same Federer. His movement, his firepower, and overall game has taken a pretty big step backwards overall. He wins mostly on cunning, guile, and superior tactics.


You don't go and have record years after "declining." Period. It doesn't happen. You can try and keep it up, but you and namelessone among various other Nadal fans have constantly made a complete fool out of yourselves. Not even Benhur who adamantly defends Nadal fans would ever agree with your ridiculous assertion. Nadal hasn't declined one bit until maybe very recently.

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 12:19 PM
And according to *******s,Fed's decline began in 2007 yet he went on to win 8 more slams after that. That's one impressive decline from the Swiss Maestro.

Federer's prime was from 2004-2007. It might have carried over to the early part of 2008 but his mono stopped that. Nadal's prime has been from 2007-2011, being interrupted from time to time by his injuries.

Steve0904
10-21-2012, 12:24 PM
It is true that Fed started losing to guys he normally wouldn't in 2007, like Canas twice, Volandri, Nalbandian played two great matches to beat, but he doesn't count because Fed's lost to Nalbandian before. His other somewhat surprise loss was to Gonzalez, but his decline didn't start in 2007, it started with the mono he got in 2008 I would say.

zagor
10-21-2012, 12:27 PM
Yes,I do. I have watched Nadal decline in speed and movement over the years just as Fed fans have watched him do the same.

Not nearly to the same degree.

Not sure what there is to argue here other than you just liking to be contrary for no reason.

My argument is pretty straightforward, again, I'm guessing you and the rest of the Vamos brigade will understand it much better in a few years.

And this coming from you is mighty hilarious. You were preaching about how Nadal never played better all throughout last year when anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together could obviously see otherwise.

Of course, because making 3 slam finals a year and 7 finals in a row is below norm for Nadal and such a clear sign of massive decline, right?

As a matter of fact,your ridiculous trolling of Nadal match threads saying how he was at his peak(:lol:)was the brunt of several jokes at your expense.

This coming from you is indeed mighty hilarious.

Clarky21
10-21-2012, 12:27 PM
He started a very slow decline in 2007, but was certainly healthy enough to compete in 2008. The mono hit him hard in 2008 which disrupted his season, and 2009 was the first one where he was really healthy again. After that, he has never been the same Federer. His movement, his firepower, and overall game has taken a pretty big step backwards overall. He wins mostly on cunning, guile, and superior tactics.


You don't go and have record years after "declining." Period. It doesn't happen. You can try and keep it up, but you and namelessone among various other Nadal fans have constantly made a complete fool out of yourselves. Not even Benhur who adamantly defends Nadal fans would ever agree with your ridiculous assertion. Nadal hasn't declined one bit until maybe very recently.



Do you think Nadal is as fast and agile as he was in 2008 in 2009? How about now? For you to say that Nadal hasn't declined until "very recently" is absurd. He has been in decline for the past 3 years now.


No foolish *******s on here,though. Those *******s who insist that their guy was in decline from 2007-now,even while he was still racking up titles,and winning 8 more slams in the process. Nothing more foolish than that.

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 12:28 PM
It is true that Fed started losing to guys he normally wouldn't in 2007, like Canas twice, Volandri, Nalbandian played two great matches to beat, but he doesn't count because Fed's lost to Nalbandian before. His other somewhat surprise loss was to Gonzalez, but his decline didn't start in 2007, it started with the mono he got in 2008 I would say.

Federer in 2007 was in his prime. I was just saying Federer in 2005 was better than Federer in 2007, despite having won 1 Grand Slam less.

zagor
10-21-2012, 12:46 PM
According to Federer fans, Federer's decline began in 2007...

Right, since we're generalizing here, according to Nadal fans, Nadal's massive decline began in 2011 when he was aged 24 so he got Fed beat in that regard.

...coming off his prime from 2004-2006.

Hey, that's 3 whole years buddy, that's almost double the amount of Rafa's supposed peak/prime (middle of 2008, beginning of 2009 and 2nd half of 2010).

Before 2008 Rafa was a baby of course (and even in 2008 he was still a baby on HC) and after 2010-> massive decline.

During this decline period, Federer has won 8 of his 17 majors. In other words, Federer won 47% of his major titles during his decline.

I know, Fed's a living legend, as if we needed anymore proof.

Also, according to Federer fans, Federer must have been a better tennis player in 2010 than in 2012 by virtue of him being closer to his prime, despite a much worse match record and fewer titles won.

Actually, Fed's level of play in 2010 AO and 2010 WTF is better by a fair margin than anything he showed this year.

However, if # of non-slam titles is such an important indicator, we can agree Nadal's 2005 is his best career year, right? Highest # of titles won and best winning percentage (match record).

Baby Rafa FTW!

I must also add, I am tired of this place, this "Nadal Warehouse"

I feel your pain bro.

All I ever read about is ceaseless Nadal glorification: 'Nadal god mode this' and 'Nadal is GOAT' that...

Yeah, it's getting a bit tiresome, the disrespect tennis greats like Borg and Rosewall get from Nadal fans is downright pathetic.

and endless Federer bashing hate threads twisting his words and actions into those of pure malevolence.

Indeed, Nadal fans here have over the years shown tendency to overanalyze Fed's interviews/statements. Not to mention the weak era threads, Mirka bashing, even insulting his two daughters, horrible stuff.

I am sick of people undermining the achievements of players who excel off of clay. It's as if only slow clay courts count as genuine tennis surfaces in their minds.

Oh definitely, poor indoor specialist like that Federer guy can't catch a break around here, haven't you heard? The only reason he won Wimbledon was because of the roof, apparently it helped the aggressive first strike player which looking at Wimbledon tradition is really a travesty, I hope they ban the roof next year and slow down the courts/balls some more so we can see some genuine Spartan tennis with atleast 20 breaks of serve.


I just wish there were a few diehard Federer fans to counterbalance the huge Nadal bias here.

There are many Fed fans around here actually, one of the main reasons this place seems to be crawling with Nadal fans is because they're very vocal and a number of them have a dozen or so accounts (Bullzie and LOLville come to mind immediately, of course there's also the Dork Knight) while Fed fans usually stick to one account (crazy I know).

Sid_Vicious
10-21-2012, 12:48 PM
lol. Dork Knight. I like that.

zagor
10-21-2012, 12:52 PM
lol. Dork Knight. I like that.

I actually like Batman comics (well some of them atleast), I just can't stand that poster that has been constantly coming back under different usernames for years now and spew the same crap each time.

Sid_Vicious
10-21-2012, 01:02 PM
I actually like Batman comics (well some of them atleast), I just can't stand that poster that has been constantly coming back under different usernames for years now and spew the same crap each time.

he's the troll TTW deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So, we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent provocateur. A prolific troll. A Dork Knight.

Steve0904
10-21-2012, 01:26 PM
Federer in 2007 was in his prime. I was just saying Federer in 2005 was better than Federer in 2007, despite having won 1 Grand Slam less.

Yes, I thought that was obvious, but I can see how that might go over more than a couple heads on this board.

Prisoner of Birth
10-21-2012, 01:37 PM
Yes, I thought that was obvious, but I can see how that might go over more than a couple heads on this board.

It did go over No1e's.

Steve0904
10-21-2012, 01:40 PM
It did go over No1e's.

That's not surprising at all. It could've went through it just as fast because I'm pretty sure his head is hollow.

90's Clay
10-21-2012, 02:00 PM
You have no shame, but that is alright. I understand that you must cling to anything you can get.

Let's face it, everyone. Nadal is faster than he ever was. Federer is playing ten times better than he did when he was dominating everyone. Both players have improved to such an extent that they wouldn't lose a single game to their old selves in their best statistical seasons.

We could also accept the truth and realize that those two may be the best who have ever lived. No one will win many slams with the two of them playing at their best.

That includes Sampras, 90's clay. ;)



What is this nonsense you just posted... :shock: Fed is playing 10 times better then he did when he was dominating everyone in 2005 and 2006? Nadal is faster now then he ever was? Can Nadal even RUN right now? He hasn't played a match in damn near 5-6 months.


ROFL.. nadal the best there ever was.. . Hes the best clay court player ever. But far from the best ever in general (at least at this point)

NadalDramaQueen
10-21-2012, 02:06 PM
What is this nonsense you just posted... :shock: Fed is playing 10 times better then he did when he was dominating everyone in 2005 and 2006? Nadal is faster now then he ever was? Can Nadal even RUN right now? He hasn't played a match in damn near 5-6 months.

No sarcasm detector? I'm just glad that you think it is nonsense.

wy2sl0
10-21-2012, 03:18 PM
When Fed was defending his best surface - ala Wimbledon and the US Open - he was at another level obviously than he is now. Nadal didn't even start doing well at HC slams until the late 00's right?

I think for sure Nadal is a better all around player now than 6 years ago - but he isn't physically a better athlete.

10is
10-21-2012, 03:18 PM
federer was playing by some distance better at the AO in 2005 than he was in the SF/F of the USO in 2005 ....

the SF vs safin was easily the best ever that he's played and still lost .... the way federer/safin were painting the lines, you are bound to have some unforced errors .... that was one match which showcases almost the whole of federer's arsenal ..and I've watched the whole match atleast 3-4 times ...

the only match which comes remotely close in which he played well and still lost is the rome 2006 final vs nadal ....

Well said! It's the only match that I recall from his prime that I didn't feel upset about him losing.

10is
10-21-2012, 03:22 PM
When Fed was defending his best surface - ala Wimbledon and the US Open - he was at another level obviously than he is now. Nadal didn't even start doing well at HC slams until the late 00's right?

I think for sure Nadal is a better all around player now than 6 years ago.

He may be a more well-rounded player now but I still contend he was a better hard court player (despite not having won a hardcourt GS) back in 2005/2006. Barring the serve, his movement, speed and shot making were a lot more ferocious back then, belieing the "baby Rafa" myth trolls like to perpetuate. Not only were the courts faster, but the hard-court competition was also a lot better at that time.

NadalAgassi
10-21-2012, 03:24 PM
Fed was actually 8-1 against Berdych until 2010 but of course we have people now claiming Berdych was always a nightmare match-up for Fed and similar nonsense.

Obviously, Fed couln't possibly be past his prime in 2010, no, his prime has to last 8+ years while fragile as flower Rafa overall had about a year and a change of prime/peak tennis, what a warrior.

LOL well the ****s do the same but in even more extreme reverse. Nadal was supposably in his prime way back in 2005 even though he was losing 3rd or 4th round of most non clay slams, wouldnt make a hard court slam semi until 2008, and was losing every non clay to any decent flat ball hitter Berdych, Blake, Youhzny, anyone who played that way and wasnt a crap pro basically. Yet he is still at his peak today supposably, and will remain so for years to come, especialy if Djokovic starts beating him regularly again. Meanwhile Federer was only in his prime from 2004-2007, immediately being a rickety old man at the generic age of 26 way past his prime once Nadal and Djokovic begin beating him in 2008. However if you remind of the Kuerten Roland Garros match, and the Wimbledon match vs Nadal in 2007 (despite Federer winning a match that proves Nadal can bully and completely dominate prime Federer from his domain, the baseline, on a grass court) and his prime is suddenly cut down to 2005 and 2006, basically a 1 and half or 2 year prime now. All this said and ****s trying laud Federer on this forum as having the best longevity of any player in history. :)

wy2sl0
10-21-2012, 03:25 PM
He may be a more well-rounded player now but I still contend he was a better hard court player (despite not having won a hardcourt GS) back in 2005/2006. Barring the serve, his movement, speed and shot making were a lot more ferocious back then, belieing the "baby Rafa" myth trolls like to perpetuate. Not only were the courts faster, but the hard-court competition was also a lot better at that time.

I didn't watch tennis back in 05/06 so I can't really speak on it from a yearly perspective but from the youtube matches I have seen I understand where you are coming from. I think most players 20-25 are playing their best tennis, especially from that era (Roddick 02-06, Hewitt 00-04).

NadalAgassi
10-21-2012, 03:28 PM
don't quite think so ........ it was/is the best match I've seen ...

The 1980 and 2008 wimbledon finals while by some distance inferior quality-wise, are rated/talked about more .......

The best match quality wise ever was the 1996 ATP World Championships final between Sampras and Becker.

wy2sl0
10-21-2012, 03:28 PM
LOL well the ****s do the same but in even more extreme reverse. Nadal was supposably in his prime way back in 2005 even though he was losing 3rd or 4th round of most non clay slams, wouldnt make a hard court slam semi until 2008, and was losing every non clay to any decent flat ball hitter Berdych, Blake, Youhzny, anyone who played that way and wasnt a crap pro basically. Yet he is still at his peak today supposably, and will remain so for years to come, especialy if Djokovic starts beating him regularly again. Meanwhile Federer was only in his prime from 2004-2007, immediately being a rickety old man at the generic age of 26 way past his prime once Nadal and Djokovic begin beating him in 2008. However if you remind of the Kuerten Roland Garros match, and the Wimbledon match vs Nadal in 2007 (despite Federer winning a match that proves Nadal can bully and completely dominate prime Federer from his domain, the baseline, on a grass court) and his prime is suddenly cut down to 2005 and 2006, basically a 1 and half or 2 year prime now. All this said and ****s trying laud Federer on this forum as having the best longevity of any player in history. :)

I have said it before. Unless you have had a serious case of Mono you can't speak on it - you are never the same again. I was out of commission for a year, lost weight, and my immune system has been f*cked ever since. Soderling is essentially finished completely from the same thing. The fact that Fed came back and won a slam that year is a testament to his ability, just like Nadal coming back after his knees falling apart. 08 Wimbledon was not Federer's greatest level I think that is pretty obvious.

10is
10-21-2012, 03:30 PM
^Well said wy2sl0!

Federer20042006
10-21-2012, 03:33 PM
In-form Safin had the greatest backhand of all-time. That thing is downright terrifying.

Clarky21
10-21-2012, 03:56 PM
He may be a more well-rounded player now but I still contend he was a better hard court player (despite not having won a hardcourt GS) back in 2005/2006. Barring the serve, his movement, speed and shot making were a lot more ferocious back then, belieing the "baby Rafa" myth trolls like to perpetuate. Not only were the courts faster, but the hard-court competition was also a lot better at that time.


You can keep repeating this nonsense if you like,but it certainly doesn't make it true.

Towser83
10-21-2012, 05:37 PM
You can keep repeating this nonsense if you like,but it certainly doesn't make it true.

when was his hardcourt prime? 2008-2010?

I'd personally say 2009-2012 but who knows if it's ended or not when he hasn't played for 4 months.

He did great in making the finals of IW,Miami, USO 2011 and AO 2012- his hardcourt game was good but mentally he wasn't his best. You need both to win the big matches.

NadalAgassi
10-21-2012, 05:44 PM
His hard court prime was definitely 2008-current. The idea his best hard court tennis was in 2005 is something only a laughable and braindead troll would try and argue. Of course he isnt unbeatable on hard courts even in his hard court prime, nobody said he was.

Towser83
10-21-2012, 05:50 PM
LOL well the ****s do the same but in even more extreme reverse. Nadal was supposably in his prime way back in 2005 even though he was losing 3rd or 4th round of most non clay slams, wouldnt make a hard court slam semi until 2008, and was losing every non clay to any decent flat ball hitter Berdych, Blake, Youhzny, anyone who played that way and wasnt a crap pro basically. Yet he is still at his peak today supposably, and will remain so for years to come, especialy if Djokovic starts beating him regularly again. Meanwhile Federer was only in his prime from 2004-2007, immediately being a rickety old man at the generic age of 26 way past his prime once Nadal and Djokovic begin beating him in 2008. However if you remind of the Kuerten Roland Garros match, and the Wimbledon match vs Nadal in 2007 (despite Federer winning a match that proves Nadal can bully and completely dominate prime Federer from his domain, the baseline, on a grass court) and his prime is suddenly cut down to 2005 and 2006, basically a 1 and half or 2 year prime now. All this said and ****s trying laud Federer on this forum as having the best longevity of any player in history. :)

well nadal fans/fed haters always laughed at 2004-2007 being a very small period but then call Nadal's prime 4 months in 2008, and about the same in 2010. less than a year in total, and his hardcourt prime was only in that 2010 4 month period. Nadal though is a more upand down player so it is harder to say his prime and peak.

What I would say is as he has been pretty much unbeatable from 2005 Nadal was pretty much in his prime on clay from 2005 to now, because although he didn't have a great 2009 clay season, and 2011 was ropey too, he still mostly won, so it's hard to say he was not in his prime. Mainly he's so good on clay that prime or non prime doesn't even really enter it until he has 2 terrible clay season back to back. Generally though I'd say his playing level on clay was best from 2006-2008. But the other years are then like Fed's 2007 season where he still is prime but not quite as high as the other years. On grass his prime came a bit later, 2007 - whenever (was last year a slight blip? who knows) on hardcourt I'd say from 2009 - 2012.

For Federer it's generally 2004 - 2007, though 2007 showed a definite tail off in form, so I don't feel bad that Nadal took Federer to a 5th set at Wimbledon. With the loss to Guga, I don't think fed started to hit his clay prime til 2005 (2005-2009 possibly - 2009 wasn't a great RG and 2008 was terrible but overall he still played fairly good on clay those years) and Guga is a great clay player, not a mug. So again that's not a loss i feel the need to defend.

0d1n
10-22-2012, 02:37 AM
So? Fed has declined massively since then. That's what I'm saying. Slow courts have prolonged Fed's time at the top, because his shotmaking can make up for his decline in movement since this video.

I'm sorry but this statement doesn't make any sense. The slower the surface, the more movement/stamina/physical fitness oriented the tennis becomes.
It is on FASTER surfaces that shotmaking can make up for decline in movement...not on slow surfaces.
I know this from personal experience as well as watching others play...so the bolded part seems very counter intuitive to me.

Nathaniel_Near
10-22-2012, 03:49 AM
I'm sorry but this statement doesn't make any sense. The slower the surface, the more movement/stamina/physical fitness oriented the tennis becomes.
It is on FASTER surfaces that shotmaking can make up for decline in movement...not on slow surfaces.
I know this from personal experience as well as watching others play...so the bolded part seems very counter intuitive to me.

I certainly agree that Joeri's statement is basically incorrect. I'm sure all those who have played a considerable amount of tennis will disagree with it as well.

kragster
10-22-2012, 04:09 AM
I'm sorry but this statement doesn't make any sense. The slower the surface, the more movement/stamina/physical fitness oriented the tennis becomes.
It is on FASTER surfaces that shotmaking can make up for decline in movement...not on slow surfaces.
I know this from personal experience as well as watching others play...so the bolded part seems very counter intuitive to me.

Doesn't it depend on your comparative advantage vs the opponent? So against a guy like berdych/delpo/Tsonga the slower surfaces help you get to their bigger shots as you have more time than you would on a faster surface. Feds comparative advantage is not just his offensive skills but also his defense. However vs Nadal/djoko/Murray where Feds comparative advantage is purely offensive skills, slower surfaces hurt him.

Dark Magician
10-22-2012, 04:21 AM
Doesn't it depend on your comparative advantage vs the opponent? So against a guy like berdych/delpo/Tsonga the slower surfaces help you get to their bigger shots as you have more time than you would on a faster surface. Feds comparative advantage is not just his offensive skills but also his defense. However vs Nadal/djoko/Murray where Feds comparative advantage is purely offensive skills, slower surfaces hurt him.

Yeah but then it would have a disadvantage to most Pros except Berdych/Delpo/Tsonga not just Federer. On top of that all the 3 arent that consistent!

roberttennis54
10-22-2012, 04:21 AM
I'm sorry but this statement doesn't make any sense. The slower the surface, the more movement/stamina/physical fitness oriented the tennis becomes.
It is on FASTER surfaces that shotmaking can make up for decline in movement...not on slow surfaces.
I know this from personal experience as well as watching others play...so the bolded part seems very counter intuitive to me.

This is true, but depends on who you are playing. Against big power players like Berdych, Tsonga etc it hurts him now. Since he can no longer track down their shots, does not return as well and is not es explosive. It often comes down to breakers. You are right though it hurts him more in general.


The 2005 Australian Open was a great match. Very high quality. Safin was really a complete player back then. Even so Federer should have probably won the match in 4 sets and was very unlucky not to. The deciding factor in the fifth set was fitness. Federer did not have the legs in the fifth or else it would have been closer.

Watch a Federer vs Gonzalez match or against Ancic at Wimbledon to see just how much his speed has deteriorated. He is no where near as quick as he once was.

zagor
10-22-2012, 11:12 AM
he's the troll TTW deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So, we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent provocateur. A prolific troll. A Dork Knight.

LOL :)

LOL well the ****s do the same but in even more extreme reverse. Nadal was supposably in his prime way back in 2005 even though he was losing 3rd or 4th round of most non clay slams, wouldnt make a hard court slam semi until 2008, and was losing every non clay to any decent flat ball hitter Berdych, Blake, Youhzny, anyone who played that way and wasnt a crap pro basically. Yet he is still at his peak today supposably, and will remain so for years to come, especialy if Djokovic starts beating him regularly again.

Don't see how that is more extreme reverse, say Fed fans claim Nadal's prime started in 2005 and is still lasting, Nadal fans claim Fed's prime started and is still lasting to this day.


Meanwhile Federer was only in his prime from 2004-2007, immediately being a rickety old man at the generic age of 26 way past his prime once Nadal and Djokovic begin beating him in 2008.

But once again, that's still 4(!) whole years :).

What's this coming down to basically is, ****s are saying Nadal's prime has lasted 8 years (and counting), Fed's prime was 4 years and Fed massively declined at the age of 26-27.

***** on the other hand are claiming Fed's prime has lasted 10 years, Nadal's prime was a year and and some change and that he massively declined at the age of 24-25. it's clear who's worse :)

However if you remind of the Kuerten Roland Garros match, and the Wimbledon match vs Nadal in 2007 (despite Federer winning a match that proves Nadal can bully and completely dominate prime Federer from his domain, the baseline, on a grass court) and his prime is suddenly cut down to 2005 and 2006, basically a 1 and half or 2 year prime now.

Yes, but 2 year prime >>> 4 months of 2008, 6 months of 2010 and 1 month of 2009 of prime tennis.

I can't accept a 1 and a half year prime regarding Fed because I've never seen a Fed fan claim Fed wasn't in his prime in both 2005 and 2006.

All this said and ****s trying laud Federer on this forum as having the best longevity of any player in history. :)

Have to agree on that one, even looking at the Open Era alone, Agassi, Connors and Laver clearly outclass him in that regard (especially if Wimbledon 2012 turns out to be his last slam).