Cahill: Federer is a better player now than he was 6-7 years ago

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Federer20042006, Jan 19, 2013.

  1. DeShaun

    DeShaun Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    2,837
    I meant that O2 is low bouncing...like the old OZ court (plexicushion?). Balls stay lower on those surfaces. So piercing flattish shots are favored over rolling sick angles that kick like a mule, and it's harder to spread the court in the O2 but easier to penetrate.
     
    #51
  2. Tropikal_Knights

    Tropikal_Knights Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    188
    Mentally yes. Physically no. And sadly in tennis the latter is more important at the top level.

    has lost a step but still giving a tough fight to the so called younger lot.

    Most graceful and athletic though.....
     
    #52
  3. Sartorius

    Sartorius Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,471
    No, it doesn't include those. What you are talking about is tennis skills plus physical aspect of the game. Federer's running forehand has certainly deteriorated. His stamina and consistency over a long match surely is suspect compared to before. When I say "tennis bag" I meant the most basic technical elements of the game. In that sense Federer is a better tennis player than before, and he's more experienced now. At least that's what I understand when Cahill and Federer himself says so.
     
    #53
  4. hyperwarrior

    hyperwarrior Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    887
    Good analysis. This is a great observation that I shared with you. His forehand backswing is a little more compact than it used to be. Althought he has lost a bit in the physical department, I think he gained a lot for anticipation and his serve is better than ever.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2013
    #54
  5. ctoth666

    ctoth666 Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    827
    Location:
    Woodstock, CT
    It's simply untrue. Here's how it breaks down for me: Federer has absolutely improved several areas of his game. This is a natural part of aging and gaining experience and honing certain skills. But that does not make him a superior player. Federer is not as good as he once was because of his movement. This effects his ability to retrieve balls and put defensive pressure on his opponents and extend rallies and get around his backhand to hit forehands etc. Despite whatever gains he has made in the rest of his game, he simply cannot bridge this gap. In addition, he seems to rise to the occasion less often and definitely forfeits leads more often than he once did.
     
    #55
  6. Surecatch

    Surecatch Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    631
    It's not so ridiculous, actually. He has adjusted his game perfectly over the years as his career has warranted and while it's true that he is a smudge slower, the adjustments he makes for it do pretty much offset it. And there is no question that his serve is much more of a weapon now. To say it in black and white terminology of "better" is too limiting though. Think of it this way...if he had made no adjustments to his game between about '07 and now, he wouldn't be nearly as effective in '13 as he actually is. So the biggest weapon in the game, the serve...he is better. He has matured in his mental game, preparation, and experience...

    It's really not out of the realm. It's also difficult to say do because he is not as dominant now as then, but then the field is much stronger now too, which skews perception.
     
    #56
  7. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,516
    Prime Fed would annihilate current Fed. I don't know what Cahill, who usually is legit, was thinking saying that. Prime Fed played with great speed, great urgency, the way he stroke the ball he just took the game to you, like Agassi said there was nowhere to go, just completely overwhelm you both on the forehand and backhand side (I still think his prime backhand is better than his current backhand, way more powerful). How the f*** can a 31 year old Federer be better than his prime form? It's a ludicrous notion.
     
    #57
  8. oneness

    oneness Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    Messages:
    663
    Context, Zagor, context. Cahill was talking about this in the AO preview segment. He must've thought, folks who are listening will understand, without him having to expand. He just meant it doesn't count towards the AO prediction.
     
    #58
  9. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    30,972
    Location:
    New York
    In terms of level, he's pretty close to 2007 and he's probably better than 2008. To me, the main difference is consistency. He's more liable to having an off day now.
     
    #59
  10. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    LOL, nice one. Atleast you didn't suggest Federer was peaking right now.
     
    #60
  11. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,346
    Agassi was 34 plus years old at that time with a bad back and slowing down.. And even then, Agassi took Fed to 5 sets one slam and played him tough in the other (Despite playing 3 straight five setters prior to meeting Fed in the finals).


    Agassi was wrong on that one. There was some place to go vs. Roger (Hasn't Nadal proved this his ENTIRE Career and Nole has proven and Murray later on), but when you are ailing physically like Andre was and aging rapidly, it may feel that way.
     
    #61
  12. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,251
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Riiight, you know much more about Federer's game than Agassi.

    The things you say, really make me wonder what goes thru your head.
     
    #62
  13. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Agassi said Federer>Sampras. No need to feel butthurt about it now.
     
    #63
  14. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,346


    What the hell are you talking about? "Nowhere to go" vs. Roger?? I believe Nadal REFUTED that claim. As he has proven time and time again for YEARS.



    Agassi played Fed tough (despite ailing physical health and slowing down). Agassi could barely barely even win a SET at the USO vs. Sampras and that was when Agassi was much closer to his prime.. Hell he almost beat a Prime-Close to Peak Fed at the USO
     
    #64
  15. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Let's make it simple, aight?

    17>14
    302>286
    7=7
    5=5
    4>2
    1>0
    6>5

    And most importantly, Sampras sucked on Clay. Like, he was totally irredeemably pathetic on Clay. 5 wins and 6 losses in his last six appearances there? :lol:
     
    #65
  16. RAFA2005RG

    RAFA2005RG Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,250
    Well, Federer didn't look great vs Tomic, that's for sure. Tomic didn't even do anything special, yet Federer needed a close tie-breaker to win the 2nd set, and only one break in the 1st set. 3rd set obviously Tomic was a broken man. Good chance Federer doesn't even reach the semis with this kind of form.
     
    #66
  17. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    How's Rafa doing in his quarter?
     
    #67
  18. mental midget

    mental midget Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,434
    totally agree. it's like how jordan demonstrated that when you're elevating with the ball and a defender steps up, you need to switch hands mid-flight and finger roll it in off the backboard.
     
    #68
  19. RAFA2005RG

    RAFA2005RG Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,250
    Preparing for 3 events in February. Certainly a lot better than what Federer is about to experience. Unless losing is a good thing.
     
    #69
  20. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Losing is better than not showing up :)
     
    #70
  21. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,069
    If Fed is a better player now and losing to Murray, Djokovich and Nadal, does it mean his Slams were mostly in a weak era?
     
    #71
  22. Homeboy Hotel

    Homeboy Hotel Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    2,781
    Location:
    London
    Nadal's last facebook update didn't sound good:

    "Trying to Practice"
     
    #72
  23. zam88

    zam88 Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,341
    Maybe not, but it's somewhat ludicrous that he has to win 3 golden sets and 72 consecutive points to garner some respect.

    He played a guy in that guy's home country with the crowd behind him at night and won in straights... worst case scenario he would've won in 4 sets.


    Federer is rarely a guy who blows guys out like Nadal and Djokovic do.

    He definitely took a page from Sampras as regards to energy conservation. Hold serve, break when the game comes to you.

    That strategy is one of many reasons why he's on the court and you have had to fap to old RG footage for the last 7 months.
     
    #73
  24. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    If 22 year-old Federer only made it to #2 in 2003 and 31 year-old Federer made it to #1 in 2012, is 2003 a stronger era than 2012?
     
    #74
  25. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,412
    Location:
    USA
    [​IMG]
     
    #75
  26. Homeboy Hotel

    Homeboy Hotel Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    2,781
    Location:
    London
    #76
  27. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,516
    Do you get off on trying to sound like a know it all smarta$$? Agassi said what he said, and we have video evidence, results, etc. to prove how awesome Fed was. Stop trying to bring him down every single opportunity, please. It's getting to the point where every time you say something we have to quote you and try to not to tell you to go to a mental institution, it's getting preposterous.
     
    #77
  28. Smasher08

    Smasher08 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    4,110
    Location:
    The 6
    Yep, tactically, technically, and strategically he's better than ever. His age means he's lost a tiny but of quickness, foot speed, and flexibility -- in addition to some back and hip issues.

    Personally I think his performance defeating Djoker at RG '11 was the greatest all-around match he's ever played.
     
    #78
  29. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,841
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Saffin all in their peak are a much much tougher prospect than anyone in the top 10 apart from the Big 4. The era's aren't too dissimilar in terms of strength.
     
    #79
  30. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,446
    Psyche!

    haven't you learned anything by now?
     
    #80
  31. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,841
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    You don't think those 5 I mentioned would be a more daunting prospect in the quarters than say Almagro or Tsonga etc...?
     
    #81
  32. Paullaconte1

    Paullaconte1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    309
    Hi think he is not better than 6-7 year ago, but he is definitely better than 2/3 years ago.
     
    #82
  33. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,346
    We also have video evidence SHOWING Nadal whipping on Fed for years at the slams. :shock:


    Like I said.. Andre was wrong. Since Nadal PROVED he was wrong.
     
    #83
  34. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,516
    The Nadal thing has been beaten to death,, and is a unique situation. Prime Fed>Current Fed. Agassi wasn't wrong in his assessment. That is all.
     
    #84
  35. sportsfan1

    sportsfan1 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,830
    This is a good observation, hopefully his reduced schedule this year will help him (win more Grand slams). But it could go either way.
     
    #85
  36. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    only at RG .... can you imagine what nadal would do to pete on clay ? massacre would not be enough to describe ! :oops:
     
    #86
  37. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Sampras's record at the French Open in his last six appearances there is 5 wins and 6 losses. To ask Nadal to play him on Clay would be an insult to Nadal. Maybe Ferrer will do.
     
    #87
  38. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,000
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    90's Clay thinks that Sampras would MASSACRE 2 time Wimbledon champ and 3 time finalist Nadal on grass, but then turns around and says 1 time RG Semifinalist Petros Sampras has a "punchers chance" against Nadal at the French Open...:-?
     
    #88
  39. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,346
    Only at RG what? Hes 2-0 vs. Fed on hard courts at the slams as well.
     
    #89
  40. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,346

    Sampras has more of chance vs. Nadal on clay then the latter (especially if its played on todays clay.. Yea you know where Slow lug Isner took Nadal to 5?)

    Pete beat guys like Courier and Bruguera, Muster, Agassi, Kafelnikov on clay, yet you tell me 92-96 Sampras wouldn't have a puncher's chance on any given occasion?

    Pete's a big server.. Theres ALWAYS a chance to take Nadal out when you got the best 2nd serve in history and the best serve placement in history
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2013
    #90
  41. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,412
    Location:
    USA
    Maybe Fed is better then he was in 2006, but the field has gotten more better then his own improvement which is why he's not dominating the game utterly.
     
    #91
  42. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    one of them was at age 30+ ...sampras @ 29 was losing to todd martin @ the AO, someone who he had owned before and ended the year 2001 @ #57 ......
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2013
    #92
  43. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    [​IMG]
     
    #93
  44. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    no, he wouldn't have a chance at all ... Its as close to zero as it gets in tennis ...

    isner's serve on clay is by some distance better than pete's and that was a 1R match .... in the later stages of a tourney, nadal is far less susceptible .. he'd simply massacre pete

    bruguera, muster were wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy below par when pete beat them ... courier was almost done being a threat ... agassi and kafelnikov are good, but not great on clay ...

    if you think sampras has a better chance on clay ( making only one semi @ RG ) vs nadal than nadal on grass ( two time champion and three time finalist @ wimbledon) vs sampras, you have serious problems ....
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2013
    #94
  45. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,000
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    You are ridiculous man...you hype Sampras as some unbeatable grass god who a 2 time Wimbledon champion and grass great himself would have no chance against. Then you turn around and say that Sampras (who is way less accomplished on clay than Nadal is on grass) has a decent shot against Nadal on clay (who is better on the surface by some distance than Sampras on grass). Do you not see the problem here? :confused:
     
    #95
  46. mental midget

    mental midget Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,434
    you realize that by filtering out facts that don't support your presuppositions your're putting yourself in a position where you can never learn anything new? you are truly stuck, unfortunately, in the 90's. say hi to chandler and monica for us.
     
    #96
  47. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,346


    Ummm when did I say Pete's chances would be "great" or even "decent" I said he would just have a puncher's chance.

    Try and read next time
     
    #97
  48. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,230
    Nadal is a much better grass player than Pete on clay. I think you are in denial that Nadal has a much greater chance of beating Pete on grass than Pete beating Nadal on clay.
     
    #98
  49. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,000
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    90's clay..why do you hate Federer so much? What about him irritates you so much or is it just that you would hate anybody who broke Petros' records?
     
    #99
  50. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,346
    Depends on the speed of course.

    Fast Grass- Nadal has 0 percent chance
    90s French- Pete has a 20 percent chance (Rafa wouldn't be able to generate the same topspin as he does now
    Slow grass- Nadal has maybe a 10-15 percent chance
    Today's French- Pete has maybe a 35-40 percent chance (Its easier for big hitter today at the French then it was in the 90s when the French was Monte Carlo Slow)
     

Share This Page