Magnus Norman : Rafa and Roger are playing better now than 10 years ago

[helterskelter]

@Sysyphus

This week's top 100 by age:

19: 1
20: 4
21: 4
22: 2
23: 5
24: 6
25: 5
26: 9
27: 9
28: 8
29: 6
30: 7
31: 7
32: 9
33: 7
34: 3
35: 6 (!)
36: 1
37: 0
38: 1

Teenagers: 1
20-24: 21
25-29: 37
30-34: 33
35+: 8

More players aged 35 or more than 20 or less!

 

[Sysyphus]

I don't think our positions are completely incompatible. We agree that the Lost Boys have been a let down, we also agree that players are at least maintaining a very strong playing level for longer, from what I've seen you think Fedal might be peaking - I'm sceptical. There's room for the overall field to have improved, clearly players are hitting the ball bigger on average from example, but for their to be a similar level at the very top.

IMO Federer was that much of an outlier at the time. I'l reserve judgement until I see more of Federer at Wimbledon but it's clear that in recent years his return on grass is not what it was in say 03-06, it certainly wasn't at that level in 2015 (the last time Federer was playing his best ever tennis). Perhaps Fedr's game is more optimised for HC now, but even there I could only agree that his average level against the field is arguably as good or better than ever. For individual matches and individual sets I would still go back to 2004-2006 to find the best examples of Federer in full flight personally.

I should make clear that I don't think they are "peak" in the meaning that they are at the period of their career where they are best suited to dominate. But do I think they have improved their tennis since, say, 2004 and 2007 respectively? I think that's surely the case. They have adapted to a game that is very visibly different from the one they entered the scene in.

If by some experiment we could let Fed and Rafa be born in, say, 1990, it's very possible that they'd be even better than they are now, due to the physical side of things, but that'll never be more than a thought experiment.

But to reframe it in a way I think makes the whole discussion simpler: does it take an objectively higher level of tennis to achieve e.g., a 85%+ win season today than in 2005? I think very clearly yes.

 

[helterskelter]

Yup, exactly why I wrote 04-06. From 2007 there was a marked difference in his return numbers across the board. His HC numbers bounced back in 2015 but not on grass. I would say that Federer had a very good defensive return and still does, but what he lost was the offensive return (some of that might be mindset). On grass against a strong opponent if you don't create pressure with the return you're likely on the back foot in the rally - more so than other surfaces.

I don't recall his return being a problem on hard courts as early as 2007. Mind you, even in 2007 he was clearly starting to come back to the pack in mid-level events and only dominated in the Slams + WTF. In MS events, his dominant years were 2004-06.

 

[NatF]

I should make clear that I don't think they are "peak" in the meaning that they are at the period of their career where they are best suited to dominate. But do I think they have improved their tennis since, say, 2004 and 2007 respectively? I think that's surely the case. They have adapted to a game that is very visibly different from the one they entered the scene in.

If by some experiment we could let Fed and Rafa be born in, say, 1990, it's very possible that they'd be even better than they are now, due to the physical side of things, but that'll never be more than a thought experiment.

But to reframe it in a way I think makes the whole discussion simpler: does it take an objectively higher level of tennis to achieve e.g., a 85%+ win season today than in 2005? I think very clearly yes.

If their tennis is better what is keeping them from dominating? The reluctance and inability to play a full schedule at their age?

Unless both are able to bring their best in all surfaces and conditions I don't think we can say they're playing their best tennis. Federer has already capitulated on clay. Let's see if they both play well on grass.

I don't recall his return being a problem on hard courts as early as 2007. Mind you, even in 2007 he was clearly starting to come back to the pack in mid-level events and only dominated in the Slams + WTF. In MS events, his dominant years were 2004-06.

Maybe it was more focus in smaller events rather than a decline in his actual return.

 

[NoleFam]

@Sysyphus

This week's top 100 by age:

19: 1
20: 4
21: 4
22: 2
23: 5
24: 6
25: 5
26: 9
27: 9
28: 8
29: 6
30: 7
31: 7
32: 9
33: 7
34: 3
35: 6 (!)
36: 1
37: 0
38: 1

Teenagers: 1
20-24: 21
25-29: 37
30-34: 33
35+: 8

More players aged 35 or more than 20 or less!

Looking at that list at quick glance, you would say more players from age 26-32 are there than any age. That wouldn't have happened 20 years ago. I would be curious to see that same list from 1997.

 

[helterskelter]

@Sysyphus @NoleFam

On another note, I just did a run down of the rankings, and there are just 10 boys aged 17 or under in the top 1,000. Four of those ten are ranked between 801 and 900 and two more between 901 and 1,000. So, there are just four in the top 800. That is a very big change from the 1980s, when three 17-year-olds won a Slam. At the lower end, the change has been slow and steady ever since about 1990, with teenagers being crowded out more and more. (Just one example: Nadal is the only teen Slam finalist since the start of 1991). The big change that's happened in recent years is that men in their early 20s are also doing worse.

@NoleFam www.tennisabstract.com has a breakdown of rankings by age across various years.

Remember that rankings trail results by about half a year, so the age of players in the rankings is always going to be slightly higher than the age of players in the late stages of tournaments.

 

[Sysyphus]

If their tennis is better what is keeping them from dominating? The reluctance and inability to play a full schedule at their age?

Primarily the fact that the whole game has evolved visibly since the mid 2000s of course. The exact same reason why sprinters like Gatlin and Gay recorded their best times years after they won their gold medals. Nothing mysterious about it, happens all the time in sports with objective measurements. It's just that in tennis, where there's not an objective measurement of performance, it's so much easier to get fooled by the result rather than the actual performance.

Fed's 2015 USO run for instance could well have been (and surely was) higher level tennis objectively speaking than what he did 10 years earlier, but that doesn't translate to dominance when the guy he met in the final objectively speaking played a different breed of tennis than anyone did from 10+ years before.

As for Nadal, the first half of his season has been about as dominant result-wise (or more so) than any same part of the season in his younger years.

 

[NoleFam]

@Sysyphus @NoleFam

On another note, I just did a run down of the rankings, and there are just 10 boys aged 17 or under in the top 1,000. Four of those ten are ranked between 801 and 900 and two more between 901 and 1,000. So, there are just four in the top 800. That is a very big change from the 1980s, when three 17-year-olds won a Slam. At the lower end, the change has been slow and steady ever since about 1990, with teenagers being crowded out more and more. (Just one example: Nadal is the only teen Slam finalist since the start of 1991). The big change that's happened in recent years is that men in their early 20s are also doing worse.

@NoleFam www.tennisabstract.com has a breakdown of rankings by age across various years.

Remember that rankings trail results by about half a year, so the age of players in the rankings is always going to be slightly higher than the age of players in the late stages of tournaments.

2007

Top 100
teenagers: 5
32 or older: 6

Top 300
teenagers: 11
32 or older: 16

1997

Top 100
teenagers: 3
32 or older: 2

Top 300
teenagers: 20
32 or older: 4

1987

Top 100
teenagers: 6
32 or older: 2

Top 300
teenagers: 20+
32 or older: 9

Based on this, there are less teenagers at the top of the game every decade than there are players over the age of 32. It was already a noticeable shift in 2007 where there were more players over the age of 32 in top 100 or top 300 than there were teenagers.

 

[NatF]

Primarily the fact that the whole game has evolved visibly since the mid 2000s of course. The exact same reason why sprinters like Gatlin and Gay recorded their best times years after they won their gold medals. Nothing mysterious about it, happens all the time in sports with objective measurements. It's just that in tennis, where there's not an objective measurement of performance, it's so much easier to get fooled by the result rather than the actual performance.

Fed's 2015 USO run for instance could well have been (and surely was) higher level tennis objectively speaking than what he did 10 years earlier, but that doesn't translate to dominance when the guy he met in the final objectively speaking played a different breed of tennis than anyone did from 10+ years before.

As for Nadal, the first half of his season has been about as dominant result-wise (or more so) than any same part of the season in his younger years.

You said they're not in the right stage of their careers to dominate. Seemed like you were talking about something different to the change in tour conditions.

Completely disagree about Federer at the USO in 20105 BTW Objectively speaking I don't think either he or Djokovic played that well in the final - Djokovic didn't even look particularly great in the lead up either IMO.

We have two sets of conventional wisdom here. One is that players do decline as they get older, the other is that the standard of the tennis constantly improves. The average top 100 player most probably hits a bigger ball now but that's not the only way to measure the level of play. I would say that 20-30 years ago the top 100 probably had a higher average net IQ if not outright better volley technique for example. I recently watching Nadal vs Ferrer in Miami in 2005, in that match Nadal's forehand speed was on average right where it has been this year. Maybe he's taking it earlier now as well, though I'm not sure about that - would need to rewatch and look at court positioning.

Now we are seeing some players peaking later in their career e.g. Ferrer and Wawrinka. But we're also seeing players like Berdych and Tsonga declining. The guys peaking later tend to be those that didn't maximise everything when they were younger. Also like I said if they are playing their best tennis at this age then why have some surfaces suffered clear drops in level of play? If technically and even athletically they're at their best then they should be able to compete on all surfaces like did when younger.

 

[cigrmaster]

When evaluating tennis players I always resort to the eye test. To my eyes Fedal are playing some of the best tennis they have in a decade. Both of their backhands have never looked better. Rogers topspin down the line was never this good at any point of his career. He is consistently using top spin on his BH way more than slicing which is a totally new development. He may be a step slower at 35 but his better backhand with the power and consistencyupgrade more than makes up for this.

Nadal has also upgraded his backhand by hitting deeper and with more power. Again as with Fed, this makes up for a little loss of foot speed. Nadal's serve has also improved by a substantial amount giving him more easy points. I understand the point Norman is trying to make and agree with him. I see Fedal playing a better brand of tennis than they have in quite a long time.

 

[donquijote]

I've always thought some posters are wasted here.

Coach Suresh is wasted for sure.

 

[zagor]

Fed's 2015 USO run for instance could well have been (and surely was) higher level tennis objectively speaking than what he did 10 years earlier, but that doesn't translate to dominance when the guy he met in the final objectively speaking played a different breed of tennis than anyone did from 10+ years before.

You're neglecting the so often touted mental aspect of tennis, 2005 USO Fed was fearless because he had a whole career ahead of him, 2015 USO Fed had that small voice in the back of his head reminding him that this might very well be the last slam final he's ever gonna reach. So even if 2015 Fed had objectively higher level (I'll agree for the sake of the argument), he's still not sure money in a direct match-up.

 

[zagor]

You said they're not in the right stage of their careers to dominate. Seemed like you were talking about something different to the change in tour conditions.

Completely disagree about Federer at the USO in 20105 BTW Objectively speaking I don't think either he or Djokovic played that well in the final - Djokovic didn't even look particularly great in the lead up either IMO.

We have two sets of conventional wisdom here. One is that players do decline as they get older, the other is that the standard of the tennis constantly improves. The average top 100 player most probably hits a bigger ball now but that's not the only way to measure the level of play. I would say that 20-30 years ago the top 100 probably had a higher average net IQ if not outright better volley technique for example. I recently watching Nadal vs Ferrer in Miami in 2005, in that match Nadal's forehand speed was on average right where it has been this year. Maybe he's taking it earlier now as well, though I'm not sure about that - would need to rewatch and look at court positioning.

Now we are seeing some players peaking later in their career e.g. Ferrer and Wawrinka. But we're also seeing players like Berdych and Tsonga declining. The guys peaking later tend to be those that didn't maximise everything when they were younger. Also like I said if they are playing their best tennis at this age then why have some surfaces suffered clear drops in level of play? If technically and even athletically they're at their best then they should be able to compete on all surfaces like did when younger.

Yeah, I somehow don't buy that that the average level of grasscourt journeymen and top 10 CC player increased to such a degree to make Nadal and Fed non-factors on grass and clay respectively. Of course we'll see how Nadal does this year at WImbledon.

That said, I don't mind people believing in the theory of drastic tennis evolution every decade (like the nice chap you're replying to in this post). I mind when people apply said theory very selectively when it suits their agenda (I'm sure few people come to mind).

 

[KINGROGER]

Primarily the fact that the whole game has evolved visibly since the mid 2000s of course. The exact same reason why sprinters like Gatlin and Gay recorded their best times years after they won their gold medals. Nothing mysterious about it, happens all the time in sports with objective measurements. It's just that in tennis, where there's not an objective measurement of performance, it's so much easier to get fooled by the result rather than the actual performance.

Fed's 2015 USO run for instance could well have been (and surely was) higher level tennis objectively speaking than what he did 10 years earlier, but that doesn't translate to dominance when the guy he met in the final objectively speaking played a different breed of tennis than anyone did from 10+ years before.

As for Nadal, the first half of his season has been about as dominant result-wise (or more so) than any same part of the season in his younger years.

Haha what

2015 Fed had a good run to the final but his performance is below any of his there between 04-11.

 

[metsman]

Haha what

2015 Fed had a good run to the final but his performance is below any of his there between 04-11.

His level was very high leading up to the finals in 2015 but then again he didn't face anyone in the kind of form to remotely test him. He did in the final (even though Djokovic didn't play that well) and his movement and lack of confidence in his shot-making was thoroughly exposed. 2005 USO Federer was inconsistent the whole tournament and in the final and you can say that 2015 had a better general level against the mugs but does that matter? Neither guy is actually losing to any of those earlier round opponents even if 2015 might win more efficiently while 2005 was clowning around. But against an elite opponent like Djokovic, 2005 is doing better 100 times out of 100 even though his backhand did go MIA for part of that final.

 

[Apun94]

There is truth in this. The game now has the best trainers to avoid career threatening injuries as well as modern medicine. The sport has evolved and what a player may lack in athleticism as they age, they make up for with their supreme tennis skills and tennis IQ. Players are able to play a high level much longer than before and this is more than apparent this year. And in this situation where you have greats like Nadal and Federer who are 31 and 35, still in good shape and playing very well, they are able to maintain their hold on the game for longer and the younger ones will find it harder to break through.

While i absolutely agree that with age, skills and tennis IQ maybe improve, but that may not translate into a better game.
Take Federer and Nadal for example. Yes, they are playing really well at the moment, but (at least in my opinion) they havent gotten better. They have just found other ways to try to compensate for their other receding qualities, (which hasnt made them better players, but well enough to deal with other players)

 

[Gary Duane]

Excerpts from article:

What I learned from a session with Stan Wawrinka's elite super-coach Magnus Norman

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2...an-wawrinkas-elite-super-coach-magnus-norman/

“For sure Rafa is playing better now than 10 years ago. And the same with Roger. You look at pictures from then and they play further back, they play slower. When I played, five years before that, we were also hitting the ball quite hard, but now they’re moving better, taking the ball early, taking time away from the opponent. That’s the evolution of the game.”

An evolution that Norman himself, as much as any of the higher-profile “supercoaches”, has done a great deal to enable.

“Wake Rafa up in the middle of the night and he can hit a forehand because he has done it so many times. It’s different with Roger [Federer]: he just has magic in his hands, so he practises in a less structured way. As a coach, you have to adapt to your player.”

“I think Stan said it best himself,” Norman added, allowing himself one small moment of pride. “When he was asked what I brought to his tennis, he said, ‘Magnus made me a winner’. But it was a lot of luck as well, of course. He had put in many years of hard work and then maybe I came in and said a few things that worked.”



I think @PeterHo @RF-18 may be on the mark with this.

What does he know?

Silly man. He should talk to the experts here who have explained to us why these two players can't possibly be better today.

 

[Apun94]

There is truth in this. The game now has the best trainers to avoid career threatening injuries as well as modern medicine. The sport has evolved and what a player may lack in athleticism as they age, they make up for with their supreme tennis skills and tennis IQ. Players are able to play a high level much longer than before and this is more than apparent this year. And in this situation where you have greats like Nadal and Federer who are 31 and 35, still in good shape and playing very well, they are able to maintain their hold on the game for longer and the younger ones will find it harder to break through.

While i absolutely agree that with age, skills and tennis IQ maybe improve, but that may not translate into a better game.
Take Federer and Nadal for example. Yes, they are playing really well at the moment, but (at least in my opinion) they havent gotten better. They have just found other ways to try to compensate for their other receding qualities, (which hasnt made them better players, but well enough to deal with other players)

 

[NatF]

What does he know?

Silly man. He should talk to the experts here who have explained to us why these two players can't possibly be better today.

Yes it's not like he has a vested interest in a current player that could influence the words he says

 

[Gary Duane]

Yes it's not like he has a vested interest in a current player that could influence the words he says

Well, there is that too...

 

[tennisaddict]

Well, there is that too...

If your student gets beat for the loss of 6 games in a major final you can come up with all kinds of BS.

 

[zagor]

What does he know?

Silly man. He should talk to the experts here who have explained to us why these two players can't possibly be better today.

Yes, we should always defer to authority. Free thinking is an overrated concept.

Experts are never wrong on anything. It is especially evident in tennis when official tennis analysts change their opinion every week and go from writing obituaries for top stars only to praise them as unbeteable demi-gods that will win 5 next slams after one big win.

Annacone said Kyrgios is more talented than Djokovic and Nadal, who am I to argue? The guy coached Fed and Sampras, Kyrgios has more talent in his little finger than those two 10+ slam winning hacks combined. We should just bow down our heads and accept the truth. Wilander said Novak has no weapons? Have to accept that, the guy with no weapons somehow broke Fedal duopoly but Mats is the expert, his opinion (silly me, I meant factual statement) is above any criticism. McEnroe said Donald Young is gonna be a multiple slam winner, that hasn't materialized yet of course but it's only a matter of time (because the expert has spoken).

 

[Sysyphus]

What does he know?

Silly man. He should talk to the experts here who have explained to us why these two players can't possibly be better today.

Yes it's not like he has a vested interest in a current player that could influence the words he says

This is what I love the most every time the sentiment Norman expresses comes up. Fed fans have a rationalization no matter what source the sentiment comes from.

When Magnus Norman is saying it, it's to rationalize the loss of his pupil. When Laver says it, he's senile. When a current player says it, like Berdych, he's just deluding himself to save face. When Pete says Fed is 'almost playing better than ten years ago", they go, "HE SAID ALMOST SO MEANS HE REALLY PLAYED BETTER BEFORE". And if someone like Jonny Mac says it, it's because he's a shill trying to market the sport. But Fed fans know the real truth, which just so happens line up perfectly with what they want to believe as a fan group. No motivated reasoning there.

It's become uncanny at this point.

 

[zagor]

This is what I love the most every time the sentiment Norman expresses comes up. Fed fans have a rationalization no matter what source the sentiment comes from.

When Magnus Norman is saying it, it's to rationalize the loss of his pupil. When Laver says it, he's senile. When a current player says it, like Berdych, he's just deluding himself to save face. When Pete says Fed is 'almost playing better than ten years ago", they go, "HE SAID ALMOST". And if someone like Jonny Mac says it, it's because he's a shill trying to market the sport. But Fed fans know the real truth, which just so happens line up perfectly with what they want to believe as a fan group. No motivated reasoning there.

It's become uncanny at this point.

Now, now, every fan group has an agenda (see how many of the same people that claim Fed is better than ever call Agassi of 2004 and 2005 a washed-up grandpa). Why should I pretend to believe something that I don't? It's not just Fed, I've heard both Agassi and Sampras say they were playing their best tennis in their twilight years (though Sampras flip-flopped after he retired), I disagreed with that as well at the time (and posted such on TW way before Fed was even close to 30). I just don't buy the concept of athletes losing nothing with age/mileage but the game simply passing them by, I think it's a combination of several factors.

Let's put it this way, earlier this year Laver said Fed has an excellent chance to win FO, I said Fed's done as a CC contender (and has been for years). Who turned out to be right here? An internet forum tennis ignoramus who apparently doesn't have a right to an opinion if it doesn't align with the tennis public or a two time CYGS winner?

Heck, Norman in this instance even said Fedal are moving better than ever, am I seriously supposed to take that as gospel? Oh and I'd love as a Fed fan (who isn't a fan of Nadal) to believe that in 2017 AO F Fedal were closer to their best compared to 2009 AO F, it would fit perfectly well with my biases I assure you.

 

[The Green Mile]

Their games have evolved, there is no doubt about it. Whether it's better is still rather subjective. I've also heard some reference better tennis IQ and experience, so now > before. A bit exaggerated IMO, it's not like they were clueless back then. I don't think it would make up the difference in explosiveness and athleticism at all really.

I could see Fed of now only winning on the faster hard-courts against a younger Fed.

 

[metsman]

What does he know?

Silly man. He should talk to the experts here who have explained to us why these two players can't possibly be better today.

if he (or anyone) truly believes that Federer and Nadal are playing better now than their primes then he needs to talk to mental health professionals not armchair tennis experts

 

[abmk]

Now, now, every fan group has an agenda (see how many of the same people that claim Fed is better than ever call Agassi of 2004 and 2005 a washed-up grandpa). Why should I pretend to believe something that I don't? It's not just Fed, I've heard both Agassi and Sampras say they were playing their best tennis in their twilight years (though Sampras flip-flopped after he retired), I disagreed with that as well at the time (and posted such on TW way before Fed was even close to 30). I just don't buy the concept of athletes losing nothing with age/mileage but the game simply passing them by, I think it's a combination of several factors.

Let's put it this way, earlier this year Laver said Fed has an excellent chance to win FO, I said Fed's done as a CC contender (and has been for years). Who turned out to be right here? An internet forum tennis ignoramus who apparently doesn't have a right to an opinion if it doesn't align with the tennis public or a two time CYGS winner?

Heck, Norman in this instance even said Fedal are moving better than ever, am I seriously supposed to take that as gospel? Oh and I'd love as a Fed fan (who isn't a fan of Nadal) to believe that in 2017 AO F Fedal were closer to their best compared to 2009 AO F, it would fit perfectly well with my biases I assure you.

this, this.

Seen any sane federer fan saying AO 17 final was better in quality than AO 2009 because both fedal are closer to their best now than in 2009 ?

hell, seen any insane federer fan say that ?

 

[helterskelter]

Might help to compare to Federer at the 2004 US Open instead, as I think he was on better form then than in 2005.

Though come to think of it, I am not sure he ever put in a great US Open by his standards. His best slam runs were probably 2004 AO, 2007 AO, and all the wimbledons from 2003 through 2006 with the possible exception of 2004 (though I think Roddick played very well in that final so I would include it in the list of Federer' best slam runs).

His level was very high leading up to the finals in 2015 but then again he didn't face anyone in the kind of form to remotely test him. He did in the final (even though Djokovic didn't play that well) and his movement and lack of confidence in his shot-making was thoroughly exposed. 2005 USO Federer was inconsistent the whole tournament and in the final and you can say that 2015 had a better general level against the mugs but does that matter? Neither guy is actually losing to any of those earlier round opponents even if 2015 might win more efficiently while 2005 was clowning around. But against an elite opponent like Djokovic, 2005 is doing better 100 times out of 100 even though his backhand did go MIA for part of that final.

 

[metsman]

Now, now, every fan group has an agenda (see how many of the same people that claim Fed is better than ever call Agassi of 2004 and 2005 a washed-up grandpa). Why should I pretend to believe something that I don't? It's not just Fed, I've heard both Agassi and Sampras say they were playing their best tennis in their twilight years (though Sampras flip-flopped after he retired), I disagreed with that as well at the time (and posted such on TW way before Fed was even close to 30). I just don't buy the concept of athletes losing nothing with age/mileage but the game simply passing them by, I think it's a combination of several factors.

Let's put it this way, earlier this year Laver said Fed has an excellent chance to win FO, I said Fed's done as a CC contender (and has been for years). Who turned out to be right here? An internet forum tennis ignoramus who apparently doesn't have a right to an opinion if it doesn't align with the tennis public or a two time CYGS winner?

Heck, Norman in this instance even said Fedal are moving better than ever, am I seriously supposed to take that as gospel? Oh and I'd love as a Fed fan (who isn't a fan of Nadal) to believe that in 2017 AO F Fedal were closer to their best compared to 2009 AO F, it would fit perfectly well with my biases I assure you.

yeah myself and other Federer fans have stated that the 2017 AO final is like watching the 09 AO final in slow motion but clearly we are all far too biased to accept the obvious fact that 30+ year old tennis players are playing as well as or better than their 20's peak selves for the first time in tennis history.

 

[helterskelter]

In my opinion, it's not just that there is no objective "'measure of level," but that there is no objective "level." We can't measure it objectively, because there is no it to measure. Tennis isn't like running because shots that work against one player will backfire against another. Sure, there is a rough level but it isn't exact and so can't be measured exactly.

Primarily the fact that the whole game has evolved visibly since the mid 2000s of course. The exact same reason why sprinters like Gatlin and Gay recorded their best times years after they won their gold medals. Nothing mysterious about it, happens all the time in sports with objective measurements. It's just that in tennis, where there's not an objective measurement of performance, it's so much easier to get fooled by the result rather than the actual performance.

Fed's 2015 USO run for instance could well have been (and surely was) higher level tennis objectively speaking than what he did 10 years earlier, but that doesn't translate to dominance when the guy he met in the final objectively speaking played a different breed of tennis than anyone did from 10+ years before.

As for Nadal, the first half of his season has been about as dominant result-wise (or more so) than any same part of the season in his younger years.

 

[metsman]

Might help to compare to Federer at the 2004 US Open instead, as I think he was on better form then than in 2005.

Though come to think of it, I am not sure he ever put in a great US Open by his standards. His best slam runs were probably 2004 AO, 2007 AO, and all the wimbledons from 2003 through 2006 with the possible exception of 2004 (though I think Roddick played very well in that final so I would include it in the list of Federer' best slam runs).

04 and 06 were excellent USO runs. Sure in the QF of both years he didn't play his best match but Agassi was still pretty good in 04 and playing well, also the weather made things more complicated and Federer did really well in that match to make it through. 06 vs Blake he didn't play his best match but still not a bad match given that Blake was trying to hit the crap out of the ball all night and it can be hard to play against that type of player. 05 was a little substandard, really inconsistent more than anything because when he was clicking it was unbelievable. 07 was great for the first 5 rounds but the last 2 were a little inconsistent. 08-09 were pretty great USO levels as well for not being at his peak. 2011 he played pretty damn well too for the most part but the movement wasn't quite at the prime level anymore. Same in 2015, to a much more obvious degree.

 

[Sysyphus]

Heck, Norman in this instance even said Fedal are moving better than ever, am I seriously supposed to take that as gospel? Oh and I'd love as a Fed fan (who isn't a fan of Nadal) to believe that in 2017 AO F Fedal were closer to their best compared to 2009 AO F, it would fit perfectly well with my biases I assure you.

Quite clearly what he's doing is comparing his own generation with the modern generation as a whole.... He doesn't specifically say Fedal are moving better than they ever did.

And still we have to distinguish between movement quantity and movement quality, but that's not a debate I'm bothering with here.

As for the rest. Neither Gary nor I remotely suggested that experts can't be wrong, and it's hardly a revelation that they can. That's just a boring straw man. I'm talking about the reasons why people in here invariably will swiftly disregard certain sentiments from 'experts', no matter where it's coming from.

Because let's face it, when e.g., Berdych talks about his first-hand experience with playing Fed before and now, the people who disregard it aren't doing so because they have strong rational reasons for sticking with their preconceived opinion or some unique evidence that Berd doesn't have. No, most people in overwhelmingly predictable ways jump to whatever conclusion suits their own preferred narratives, and they will disregard anything that doesn't fit with it, coming up with dexterous rationalizations: Norman must have vested interests, Berdych is deluding himself, former pros are just shills. And so religious Fed fans stick with this narrative of peak mythical Fed, defending the Hewitts and Roddicks and Baghdatises and teenage Nadal at any opportunity, and whine all over the board about the weak era of Djokovic (and hey, I used to be on this train myself). Whereas religious Djokovic fans jump straight to the opposite conclusion, and will believe that Fed is reaching new peaks till he's 65, and diss the 04–07 era, and think that Hewitt was a 4.0. And the most shocking thing is how predictable it is.

And there's nothing mysterious about it. It's an extremely blatant example of a universal human tendency called confirmation bias. People don't adjust their beliefs according to how the world is; they selectively interpret the world according to what their beliefs are. And that pretty neatly sums up about 95%+ of the fan group disputes on this board.

 

[Sysyphus]

yeah myself and other Federer fans have stated that the 2017 AO final is like watching the 09 AO final in slow motion but clearly we are all far too biased to accept the obvious fact that 30+ year old tennis players are playing as well as or better than their 20's peak selves for the first time in tennis history.

Yes, let's face it. It's actually extremely predictable and a touch sad that you and many fellow religious Fedlots fervently diminish the level of what he's doing this year in order to salvage the narrative of the peak mythical golden days. So it's hardly surprising or an indication of objectivity to see Fed fans talk up the AO 09 and talk down the AO 17.

 

[Gary Duane]

if he (or anyone) truly believes that Federer and Nadal are playing better now than their primes then he needs to talk to mental health professionals not armchair tennis experts

I'm going to pay more attention to him than to anyone in this forum.

 

[metsman]

Yes, let's face it. It's actually extremely predictable and a touch sad that you and many fellow religious Fedlots fervently diminish the level of what he's doing this year in order to salvage the narrative of the peak mythical golden days. So it's hardly surprising or an indication of objectivity to see Fed fans talk up the AO 09 and talk down the AO 17.

How are we fervently diminishing his level by saying it's not as good as his very best? The "peak 35 year old Fedr and peak 31 year old Nadal" crew is the one that requires us to bring up those comparisons anyways and as a result be forced to demean their current level of play; no one would bring it up and would instead whole heatedly be amazed by what Federer and Nadal were doing this year if not for that nonsense (and then in turn that nonsense potentially being used in turn to say that peak Djokovic>peak Fedal). You go ahead and call me a Fed or Fedal fanboy trying to relive the glory days, but then I will call you a Djokorray fanboy trying to prop up their guys by claiming Federer and Nadal are playing their best ever tennis. Bias, existent or non-existent, can be found in pretty much anything anyone says if someone looks hard enough so I wouldn't be so quick to find the biases of others while propping myself up as a bastion of objectivity.

I for one was awestruck by Federer's 2017 AO run and Nadal's run given how their 2016's went, doesn't change the fact that I think the final they played 8 years ago featured both men at a higher capability of play and that peak Djokovic would have wiped the floor with both of them at the 2017 tournament as he was doing before he lost whatever it is that he lost after winning the FO. Any trained monkey could see that.

I'm going to pay more attention to him than to anyone in this forum.

Why you would want to pay attention to anyone's statements (which are by themselves opinions) when trying to form your OWN opinion? What he says is just as irrelevant as what I say in terms of what YOUR opinion should be. Personally, I try to process information first hand before forming an opinion instead of going to second or third hand accounts which introduces multiple levels of bias.

 

[Gary Duane]

Why you would want to pay attention to anyone's statements (which are by themselves opinions) when trying to form your OWN opinion? What he says is just as irrelevant as what I say in terms of what YOUR opinion should be. Personally, I try to process information first hand before forming an opinion instead of going to second or third hand accounts which introduces multiple levels of bias.

I listen to what everyone says and then consider who is saying what.

I think the opinions of Norman are worth listening to. His stance seems to be that tennis is still evolving, and that seems right to me.

At any moment what is happening right now is not understood clearly. I think we can judge 2007 better in comparison to 1997 and 1987 than to 2017.

The biggest question right now is probably: is the change in the age of the players who are dominating at the top a permanent change, or are we presently experiencing an anomaly?

I don't think we will know for another 10 years or so.

 

[metsman]

I listen to what everyone says and then consider who is saying what.

I think the opinions of Norman are worth listening to. His stance seems to be that tennis is still evolving, and that seems right to me.

At any moment what is happening right now is not understood clearly. I think we can judge 2007 better in comparison to 1997 and 1987 than to 2017.

The biggest question right now is probably: is the change in the age of the players who are dominating at the top a permanent change, or are we presently experiencing an anomaly?

I don't think we will know for another 10 years or so.

I think tennis has evolved in terms of playstyle since 2007 or so to some degree (more spin and net clearance primarily although by 2007 tennis was predominantly a baseline-fest as well so the differences aren't huge, 2017 vs 2003-2004 would be a better discussion) but I don't think it's gotten any better. To me, the only times tennis has "gotten better" has been with major technological shifts (wood to graphite, gut to poly)

 

[helterskelter]

04 and 06 were excellent USO runs. Sure in the QF of both years he didn't play his best match but Agassi was still pretty good in 04 and playing well, also the weather made things more complicated and Federer did really well in that match to make it through. 06 vs Blake he didn't play his best match but still not a bad match given that Blake was trying to hit the crap out of the ball all night and it can be hard to play against that type of player. 05 was a little substandard, really inconsistent more than anything because when he was clicking it was unbelievable. 07 was great for the first 5 rounds but the last 2 were a little inconsistent. 08-09 were pretty great USO levels as well for not being at his peak. 2011 he played pretty damn well too for the most part but the movement wasn't quite at the prime level anymore. Same in 2015, to a much more obvious degree.

I would rank 2004 as the best US Open, and you're right that it probably should be included in the list of top runs. I was just being hard on him for the quarter-final, but Agassi did play very well. In 2006, I am fine with his performance in the quarter-final, but I think the final wasn't all that great. Anyway, yeah, still pretty good.

In 2011, he was certainly hitting the ball extremely well. I would put it more as loss of stamina than general movement. I think his movement was okay until he got tired. I'm pretty neutral between Djokovic and Federer so I was happy Djokovic got his first US Open title, but I was pretty confident Federer would have beaten Nadal and so was also disappointed that he didn't get to do so.

One of the reasons I'd put 2009 or 2011 a little lower is that I think closing is key, and for whatever reason he couldn't close out either year. Also @abmk has pointed out that his serving was off in the 2009 final. I personally think his overall level in that match was pretty good for the first three and a half sets.

 

[helterskelter]

I listen to what everyone says and then consider who is saying what.

I think the opinions of Norman are worth listening to. His stance seems to be that tennis is still evolving, and that seems right to me.

At any moment what is happening right now is not understood clearly. I think we can judge 2007 better in comparison to 1997 and 1987 than to 2017.

The biggest question right now is probably: is the change in the age of the players who are dominating at the top a permanent change, or are we presently experiencing an anomaly?

I don't think we will know for another 10 years or so.

Agreed, except I would change "permanent" to "long-term." We know it's not permanent: there have been changes before and there will be changes again. So, it wouldn't be any evidence against the significance of this change if there were another one in 30 or 40 years. But it would be if there were a major change in five years.

For what it's worth, I think that a change in the age of Slam winners is almost inevitable at some point: when this crop of players declines, younger players will vault over the middle-aged players. But the average age of the top 100 is I think not likely to change much for the next 10 years or so.

 

[abmk]

I would rank 2004 as the best US Open, and you're right that it probably should be included in the list of top runs. I was just being hard on him for the quarter-final, but Agassi did play very well. In 2006, I am fine with his performance in the quarter-final, but I think the final wasn't all that great. Anyway, yeah, still pretty good.

In 2011, he was certainly hitting the ball extremely well. I would put it more as loss of stamina than general movement. I think his movement was okay until he got tired. I'm pretty neutral between Djokovic and Federer so I was happy Djokovic got his first US Open title, but I was pretty confident Federer would have beaten Nadal and so was also disappointed that he didn't get to do so.

One of the reasons I'd put 2009 or 2011 a little lower is that I think closing is key, and for whatever reason he couldn't close out either year. Also @abmk has pointed out that his serving was off in the 2009 final. I personally think his overall level in that match was pretty good for the first three and a half sets.

Federer hit 69 winners to 19 UEs in the USO 2006 final. It was a fine performance. He dominated the 1st and 4th sets and the middle 2 sets were close due to Roddick playing really well. The 4th set in particular, he just blitzed roddick.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I don't see the point of trusting all those expurds with their biases and interests and schit-stirring more than a) your own eyes; b) cold hard statisticks. Statistics are unbiased by definition (it's the interpretation that differs). My eyes may not be, but I trust myself to make an honest effort to remove bias as much as possible, while not trusting any experts with that.

 

[-NN-]

An identical set of statistics from 2017 will not mean the same thing as they meant in 2007. They are crafted through different circumstances and contexts.

 

[Backspin1183]

This is good for both Nadal and Federer. If people really think that they are playing better than 10 years ago, it will only help Fedal aura.

 

[Sysyphus]

A same set of statistics from 2017 will not mean the same thing as they meant in 2007. They are crafted through different circumstances and contexts.

are you saying that my off-the-charts dominance ratio in weekend mixers may not be that meaningful

 

[-NN-]

There's no foreplay between the two when they play each other anymore, that's something I've noticed for sure. In the general sense, they are also playing in very clinical fashion (making those first couple of strikes REALLY count), in reaction to a. the way the game is headed and b. to hide some of the aspects of their games that probably actually are declining.

 

[zagor]

Quite clearly what he's doing is comparing his own generation with the modern generation as a whole.... He doesn't specifically say Fedal are moving better than they ever did.

RIght, I misread that part, my bad. I might agree with that actually.

As for the rest. Neither Gary nor I remotely suggested that experts can't be wrong, and it's hardly a revelation that they can. That's just a boring straw man. I'm talking about the reasons why people in here invariably will swiftly disregard certain sentiments from 'experts', no matter where it's coming from.

Oh but they are not infalible and are in fact quite often wrong (even hilariously so in some cases, like 99% of what Wilander says or predicts) is a crucial point here. It means that not everyone who questions their statements should be dismissed out of hand as a deluded fanatic.

I'd wager you yourself disagree with a number of things they say or said at some point, right? Can you claim that your personal biases (presuming you believe you have them of course) play no part in it?

Because let's face it, when e.g., Berdych talks about his first-hand experience with playing Fed before and now, the people who disregard it aren't doing so because they have strong rational reasons for sticking with their preconceived opinion or some unique evidence that Berd doesn't have. No, most people in overwhelmingly predictable ways jump to whatever conclusion suits their own preferred narratives, and they will disregard anything that doesn't fit with it, coming up with dexterous rationalizations: Norman must have vested interests, Berdych is deluding himself, former pros are just shills. And so religious Fed fans stick with this narrative of peak mythical Fed, defending the Hewitts and Roddicks and Baghdatises and teenage Nadal at any opportunity, and whine all over the board about the weak era of Djokovic (and hey, I used to be on this train myself). Whereas religious Djokovic fans jump straight to the opposite conclusion, and will believe that Fed is reaching new peaks till he's 65, and diss the 04–07 era, and think that Hewitt was a 4.0. And the most shocking thing is how predictable it is.

Not everyone fits squarely into that box and by that I mean both fanbases. You're painting with a very wide brush here. Following your logic Novak fans had no reason to say Fed wasn't playing his absolute best career tennis in 2015 yet a number of them did (and still do).

Yes, let's face it. It's actually extremely predictable and a touch sad that you and many fellow religious Fedlots fervently diminish the level of what he's doing this year in order to salvage the narrative of the peak mythical golden days. So it's hardly surprising or an indication of objectivity to see Fed fans talk up the AO 09 and talk down the AO 17.

Peak mythical golden days? LOL, those days were gone by then man FFS, Fed had just gotten clobbered in the 5th set against his main rival (after said rival played a marathon SF to add insult to injury) and was bawling his eyes out in the trophy ceremony. It was one of his absolute worst career losses after being already taken over as the world's best in a previous year. It was not a good time for Fed or his fans to say the least so sorry if I don't buy that they woud have vested interest into hyping/overrating that match even considering everything that followed after in Fed's career.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

That's why Federer lost to Donskoy and Haas.

That just means Haas is playing better than ever too.

 

[merwy]

As I've said countless of times, the sport evolves, players get better. Anyone who can't see this is somewhere up in the clouds. Tennis is, quality wise, at the pinnacle - for Federer to be able to reach slam finals beating elite competition, to win masters, also to win slams, you can't be stuck in 2005. Nadal was stuck in that circle with his uncle and their results failed, until Moya came and now Toni will be gone.

You need to evolve. It is up to the players who get older, to decide if they want to follow the evolution, or get stuck in the old. Clearly federer decided he wanted to keep on going and follow the evolution. Nadal seems to have taken that decision aswell with Moya. And they are bringing results now. Regarding Djokovic we have to wait and see. But important to remember is they are not 24 anymore, where they could play 100 matches a season - now they have to time their best tennis for the tournaments they schedule pre-season.

Wawrinka has played for the past three years, the best tennis of his life, something he never showed when he was younger. There are countless of other examples where today you peak late.

Tennis for the past years and years to come is tougher and better than ever, the sport has never, quality and considering toughness wise, been better than this.

One player peaking late has nothing to do with today's era being stronger or not. Wawrinka is also ranked much higher than he used to be. You think today's level is higher than 2011? It has to be if you insist on tennis constantly improving over time.

 

[-NN-]

I should make clear that I don't think they are "peak" in the meaning that they are at the period of their career where they are best suited to dominate. But do I think they have improved their tennis since, say, 2004 and 2007 respectively? I think that's surely the case. They have adapted to a game that is very visibly different from the one they entered the scene in.

If by some experiment we could let Fed and Rafa be born in, say, 1990, it's very possible that they'd be even better than they are now, due to the physical side of things, but that'll never be more than a thought experiment.

But to reframe it in a way I think makes the whole discussion simpler: does it take an objectively higher level of tennis to achieve e.g., a 85%+ win season today than in 2005? I think very clearly yes.

I think so, but it's also difficult to separate what is simply change and trend and what are holistic evolutions in the game, so actually pinpointing all the elements is difficult. People tend to accept such notions when comparing to 20-30 years ago, as if that's a long enough period to assume things have moved on, but somehow 10 years isn't long enough. Getting into the details would certainly be one heck of a task though, and the course of progression isn't always a smooth and seamless ride (I'd wager).

 

[Sysyphus]

Oh but they are not infalible and are in fact quite often wrong (even hilariously so in some cases, like 99% of what Wilander says or predicts) is a crucial point here. It means that not everyone who questions their statements should be dismissed out of hand as a deluded fanatic.

I'd wager you yourself disagree with a number of things they say or said at some point, right? Can you claim that your personal biases (presuming you believe you have them of course) play no part in it?

Again — no one's suggesting they aren't wrong a lot of the time. As stated, what I'm talking about is the reasons people have for selectively disregarding sentiments such as Norman's here. It very rarely is because of some feat of rationality, but nearly always due to motivated reasoning.

As for myself, quite obviously I will have countless biases myself in various areas of life. In fact, as a proper Fed fan I used to do all the predictable Fed apologetics just like the majority of the most devout Federistas. I'd give Curry the finals MVP. And so on.

Not everyone fits squarely into that box and by that I mean both fanbases. You're painting with a very wide brush here. Following your logic Novak fans had no reason to say Fed wasn't playing his absolute best career tennis in 2015 yet a number of them did (and still do).

Yes, I'm talking about general but pervasive tendencies, and there are exceptions.

Peak mythical golden days? LOL, those days were gone by then man FFS, Fed had just gotten clobbered in the 5th set against his main rival (even though said rival played a marathon SF) and was bawling his eyes out in the trophy ceremony. It was one of his absolute worst career losses after being already taken over as the world's best in a previous year. It was not a good time for Fed or his fans to say the least so sorry if I don't buy that they woud have vested interest into hyping that match even considering everything that followed after in Fed's career.

Yes, that match happened after Fed's best years. The match is however much closer in time to the 'peak mythical golden days' of 04–07, and hence it is propped up in line with the general dictum that the further removed from 04–07 Fed is, the less able a tennis player he most probably is. Something along those lines.

As for not buying the vested interests in these narratives, you guys should ask yourselves this:

Why do such a great number of devout Fed fans end up with the same general conclusions and narratives? E.g., why do @tennisaddict @metsman @abmk @KINGROGER et al. predictably tend to support the same general narrative in questions related to the one in this thread? And why do the squad of @RF-18 @Alien and ABCD and company predictably lean in a completely different direction? Do the two groups have access to different evidence? Or is it rather that they differ in what they want to believe?

The tragic but funny thing is that they will have no problem at all recognizing the the motivated reasoning in the other side. The most fervent Fed fans have no problem seeing the vested reasons for why Djokovic fans have been so keen on pushing the "Federer is better than ever" agenda. Likewise, the fervent Djokovic fans have no problem recognizing the motivated 04–07 apologetics that gets thrown around.

(And yes, before I get accused of high horse and tu quoque and blah blah — naturally I myself have plenty of biases and blind spots like any other)