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

[Federer20042006]

LOL!

So why can't Federer play until he's 80, then? He just keeps getting better and better, after all. He's a better player now, at 31, than he was at 24-25, when he was winning 3 slams per year and the number of matches he lost per year was something you could count on one hand. Imagine how good he'll be in another 6-7 years! Or another 55?

Every single analyst on ESPN claims Federer is better now than ever. It's hilarious. This is the same guy they were gushing about nonstop 6-7 years ago. Now, as it turns out, he's even better than he was back then, but Djokovic and Murray and Nadal and Del Potro and Berdych are just too good.

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

LOL!

So why can't Federer play until he's 80, then? He just keeps getting better and better, after all. He's a better player now, at 31, than he was at 24-25, when he was winning 3 slams per year and the number of matches he lost per year was something you could count on one hand. Imagine how good he'll be in another 6-7 years! Or another 55?

Every single analyst on ESPN claims Federer is better now than ever. It's hilarious. This is the same guy they were gushing about nonstop 6-7 years ago. Now, as it turns out, he's even better than he was back then, but Djokovic and Murray and Nadal and Del Potro and Berdych are just too good.

even fed himself said that he is now better then ever. but I don't really believe that. he aged better than anyone in the history of Tennis in his Age and he has declined very Little but I do think he lost half a step compared to his best years

[augustobt]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

even fed himself said that he is now better then ever. but I don't really believe that. he aged better than anyone in the history of Tennis in his Age and he has declined very Little but I do think he lost half a step compared to his best years

Do you really expect him to say "well, I'm past my prime"?

[namelessone]

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

LOL!

So why can't Federer play until he's 80, then? He just keeps getting better and better, after all. He's a better player now, at 31, than he was at 24-25, when he was winning 3 slams per year and the number of matches he lost per year was something you could count on one hand. Imagine how good he'll be in another 6-7 years! Or another 55?

Every single analyst on ESPN claims Federer is better now than ever. It's hilarious. This is the same guy they were gushing about nonstop 6-7 years ago. Now, as it turns out, he's even better than he was back then, but Djokovic and Murray and Nadal and Del Potro and Berdych are just too good.

You have to understand this from their POV. What would they gain if they said the truth, that Fed is worse than years ago? On TV things(and people) always get bigger,better and so on. Nothing gets worse. No commentator wants to say "now we bring you the Fed-player x match, Fed, a great champion,not what he used to be, but we hope that you stay with us throughout the broadcast".

They do the same thing when they hype players that have barely proven a thing.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

LOL!

So why can't Federer play until he's 80, then? He just keeps getting better and better, after all. He's a better player now, at 31, than he was at 24-25, when he was winning 3 slams per year and the number of matches he lost per year was something you could count on one hand. Imagine how good he'll be in another 6-7 years! Or another 55?

Every single analyst on ESPN claims Federer is better now than ever. It's hilarious. This is the same guy they were gushing about nonstop 6-7 years ago. Now, as it turns out, he's even better than he was back then, but Djokovic and Murray and Nadal and Del Potro and Berdych are just too good.

Media heads, what else do you expect them to say? Especially now that Fed recently reclaimed #1 and won Wimbledon, saying otherwise would go against their "game always improves" BS they sell to their shee- I mean audience , I guess Kimiko Date also must be playing amazing given that in her 40s she isn't exactly getting blown away by all these amazing evolved players of today.

You don't need to watch Fed matches against the other big 3 to see how much he declined as a player (those guys would be a match for him even at his best), just watch his match against Tomic that is going on right now, his movement, transition from defense to offense just plain sucks compared to his best days.

[joeri888]

Originally Posted by namelessone

You have to understand this from their POV. What would they gain if they said the truth, that Fed is worse than years ago? On TV things(and people) always get bigger,better and so on. Nothing gets worse. No commentator wants to say "now we bring you the Fed-player x match, Fed, a great champion,not what he used to be, but we hope that you stay with us throughout the broadcast".

They do the same thing when they hype players that have barely proven a thing.

Agreed. Hes Talking out of his *** of course.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

even fed himself said that he is now better then ever. but I don't really believe that.

So did Agassi and Sampras at similar ages, they're champs, they're not going to say I'm past my best.

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

he aged better than anyone in the history of Tennis in his Age and he has declined very Little but I do think he lost half a step compared to his best years

Laver won a Calendar Grand Slam at the age of 31, Agassi won 5 slams at the age of 29+ and reached a USO final at the age of 35, Rosewall and Pancho also by all accounts had an amazing longevity etc.

It's not a knock on Fed, he's playing in what is probably the most grueling era ever but he didn't age as well as those guys did.

[TheFifthSet]

Ridiculous claim. The only thing that is arguably better is the serve (although I feel it is more prone to breaking down under pressure now).

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by namelessone

You have to understand this from their POV. What would they gain if they said the truth, that Fed is worse than years ago? On TV things(and people) always get bigger,better and so on. Nothing gets worse. No commentator wants to say "now we bring you the Fed-player x match, Fed, a great champion,not what he used to be, but we hope that you stay with us throughout the broadcast".

They do the same thing when they hype players that have barely proven a thing.

Yep. This one right here.

[smoledman]

Originally Posted by zagor

So did Agassi and Sampras at similar ages, they're champs, they're not going to say I'm past my best.



Laver won a Calendar Grand Slam at the age of 31, Agassi won 5 slams at the age of 29+ and reached a USO final at the age of 35, Rosewall and Pancho also by all accounts had an amazing longevity etc.

It's not a knock on Fed, he's playing in what is probably the most grueling era ever but he didn't age as well as those guys did.

Those guys didn't play in the most physical era ever.

[loci]

federer does some things differently from 2007. his strokes have gone through some tweaks and he's exploiting different angles especially on the backhand side. he's obviously not in his prime, but still it doesn't mean that he hasn't made some adjustments tactically (mentally, intellectually) to compensate for a slight erosion in physical ability and how that might manifest itself on the tennis court. i've often wondered that if he had made the choice to inject some of that wisdom earlier from 2005-2008, the contests on clay between him and nadal might have been different. in his prime, he relied too often on trying to match nadal physically as if he were a brute instead of playing smarter tennis. anyway, all great athletes go through this stage. i think of michael jordan in the last few years with the bulls. he became smarter and held off on the physical antics, managing his energy more efficiently, but make no mistake, he could still show off the repertoire (sky, dunk and dazzle) when he wanted to.

[ShoeShiner]

His skill, technique, mind control, experience are better.
But as his age now, he is a little bit slower and weaker.

The court surfaces are high bounce and slow too.

[Apun94]

I dont know if Fed is overall a better player or not but he has certainly improved in some areas and has declined in others.
His BH, Serve(more consistent first serve and a better second serve), tactics and mental strength have certainly improved since his prime.
His FH(consistency wise), movement and consistency have declined, no doubt.

[Hood_Man]

Depends what they mean as better. He'll have more skills, knowledge, experience & tactics now than he had back then, it's just that his body lets him down more often than it would have in the past.
Fed in 2006 for instance played 97 matches, back in the days of 5 set masters finals, and still managed to win 12 tournaments throughout the year. Last year Fed played 83 matches, his highest since 2006, and looked completely gassed post-Cincinnati.

[Bad_Knee]

Experience, more mental game etc.... etc....

Whatever.

Ask yourself this, Fed 05 vs Fed 13, who wins? Even if Fed 13 knows what's coming, there's nothing he can do about it, once he has got that ball back, another one is fired cross court with ridiculousness pace, and all Fed 13 can do is a little chip back, if anything at all.

No one will ever play tennis as good as that ever ever again, the problem is a lot of people posting on these boards now never even saw it, so they think it's some sort of exaggerated myth. I assure you, it's not.

[Onehandedbackhand]

I agree with Roger because it's common sense.

When you are young and insanely good, you have an invincibility about you that makes you feel unstoppable. It allows you to hit one of Roddick's nuclear serves back at his feet, but it also allows him to lose to really stupid people from time to time(a few have been mentioned).

Roger's not going to lose to those stupid people anymore. At an older, more mature age, he understands everyone's dangerous, and he's going to prepare for everyone.

That's what makes him better.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Apun94

I dont know if Fed is overall a better player or not

Oh but I do, he's much more sloppy, subpeak, uninspired and flat these days compared to his best years when he was reaching 7+ finals in a row.

Originally Posted by Apun94

His BH, Serve(more consistent first serve and a better second serve)

Actually, his BH was at his best in 2007 which was 6 years ago so no.

Serve, probably, that's his biggest weapon nowadays.

Originally Posted by Apun94

tactics and mental strength have certainly improved since his prime.

Tactics? Yes.

Mental strength? Hell no.

Originally Posted by Apun94

His FH(consistency wise), movement and consistency have declined, no doubt.

His FH declined in power, not just consistency.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Onehandedbackhand

I agree with Roger because it's common sense.

Yeah, it's common sense which is why the vast majority of slam winners in the Open Era are 30+ year old players, right?

[President]

The big difference is in Federer's movement. That is the root of all the problems. He is a lot less fluid, explosive, and athletic now than he was in his prime, and that results in a significantly worse baseline game. His forehand's backswing has been abbreviated to compensate for the decline in movement (so he can take it even earlier to compensate for the lack of movement) but this results in a shot with less spin, power, and consistency. Serve has definitely improved, backhand I think has improved technically but may be worse overall due to the reduced movement.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Bad_Knee

Ask yourself this, Fed 05 vs Fed 13, who wins?

Depends on the surface, on slow HC and grass Fed 05 would beat Fed 13 like a red headed stepchild, on clay and indoors for example it could be closer.