Originally Posted by Bobby Jr
Dubious call bolded. His winner to unforced error ratio was 1.6 to 1 which is very good by most match standards for an attacking player. Anything better than 1.5:1 should be considered good. By comparison it is three times as good as Andy Murray's ratio in the US Open final earlier (which was a pitiful 0.55 to 1 ratio... he made close to twice as many errors as he hit winners!)
Likewise, you say he has aged significantly and it's affected his tennis. Fair enough. How does that reconcile with him having the best year in the last three? Does ageing only apply when the results don't stack up?
Federer may have gone two years without a slam but as of now he's only gone one slam without winning a slam. He also won the last Masters 1000 series tournament he played - beating the world #2 and handing him a bagel set in the process - and has won three of the last five M1000 tournaments he entered.
If this is him "ageing significantly" then he's going to be in contention for the major titles for a little while yet.
It just seems like simple genetics and the life cycle that a player cannot keep up the standard of his mid 20s into his 30s.
That's not me smiting Federer, just stating a fact of life.