Originally Posted by Federer20042006
What's interesting is Djokovic and Murray are aging better than Federer did. I've always thought Federer's physical decline in 2007 onward was more noticeable than it should have been at his age, and this is reinforcing that belief. Djokovic and Murray are moving as well as they ever have...while Federer in 2007 was already a little more sluggish than before. And in 2008, it was night and day.
Unless Djokovic/Murray age rapidly in the next year or so, they're going to be better players at 26-30 than Federer was at the same age, which is bizarre.
People thinking Federer's a better player now than in his prime just make me laugh. I mean, really? Do you think if today's Federer entered the scene back then, the commentators would be ooing and ahing all over the place, as if they'd seen the Messiah of tennis?
"Wow! OK, so he can't hit a running forehand to save his life, he's below average for a Top 10 player in the return game, he gets overpowered by the big hitters and frustrated by defensive players, and there are numerous guys quicker and who hit bigger than him...but he might be the greatest player ever?"
All you have to do is take one look at his shot selection now and realize the guy's just not the same player. "Open court? Nah, I'll just hit it right back at him and let him pass me instead."
I'm not even particularly entertained by Federer matches anymore. He looks so stiff. There's no fluidity at all to his game anymore. He's a smart server with solid enough ground strokes to bother most.
We don't know that yet, and I would lean towards saying no anyway. Djokovic and Murray's primes started 2 years later than Federer's did age wise, and after Fed turned 26 he has since won 6 slams. There's absolutely nothing suggesting to me yet that Djokovic and Murray are aging better than Federer did, and I doubt there will be with their styles of play.