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

[zagor]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'd say movement (especially to the right) and return of serve, Fed used to be able to frustrate any big server by getting crazy amount of balls back.

[Relinquis]

well. there is some truth to this. he is mentally very strong now and seems to dismantle his opponents with strategy as much as with his brilliant shotmaking and seemingly effortless movement.

can anyone here be so kind to pull up the win-loss statistics for the past few year so we can do a comparison by year? the empirical evidence might surprise us.

[President]

Originally Posted by zagor

I'd say movement (especially to the right) and return of serve, Fed used to be able to frustrate any big server by getting crazy amount of balls back.

I think that is a function of his loss of explosiveness(IMO due to mono) though, he isn't as quick to get the racquet on the ball.

[Cesc Fabregas]

I thought Federer's movement was great today.

[Sartorius]

Originally Posted by 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.

This pretty much. Federer's "tennis bag" (what he can do, how well he does it) is bigger and better: I think this is what Cahill and Federer himself is referring to. But his consistency has naturally suffered.

A lot of people talk about Federer's superior game in his heyday and with good reason; but they overlook the fact that what made him successful was ultimately his ability to play well (use his tennis bag to its fullest so to speak) almost all the time, during a match and during an entire year.

[Onehandedbackhand]

Originally Posted by zagor

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

If they are named Federer, they are.

He's got more in him. How many? We don't know.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Onehandedbackhand

If they are named Federer, they are.

Not really, since Fed turned 30 he won one slam, all of the other slam winners in that period were players in their early or mid 20s, in fact Fed was the oldest Wimbledon winner in the last 40+ years so more of an anomaly than anything else.

Originally Posted by Onehandedbackhand

He's got more in him. How many? We don't know.

Has nothing to do with my (indirect) question, if it's common sense for player to play their best tennis in their 30s then why are the vast majority of slam winners in the Open Era players in their early to mid 20s?

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Relinquis

well. there is some truth to this. he is mentally very strong now and seems to dismantle his opponents with strategy as much as with his brilliant shotmaking and seemingly effortless movement.

can anyone here be so kind to pull up the win-loss statistics for the past few year so we can do a comparison by year? the empirical evidence might surprise us.

If we solely go by win-loss statistics and/or # of titles won one might conclude that Nadal's best year is 2005 so obviously a flawed method.

However if we go that way Fed's winning % was 84%, 83% and 84% last 3 years (2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively) while in his "glory" days (say 2004-2006 as a 3 year period) his winning % was 93%, 95% and 95%.

So 83,66 % average in last 3 years and 94,33 % in those years he was supposedly a worse player.

Originally Posted by President

I think that is a function of his loss of explosiveness(IMO due to mono) though, he isn't as quick to get the racquet on the ball.

It's possible, whatever the reason it's one of the biggest differences IMO compared to his best days.

That coupled with his worse movement (which in turn also makes his transition from defense to offense worse than what it once was) made him much more vulnerable to big hitters these days even though he was considered to be a nightmare match-up for that style of play in his best years.

[Gonzalito17]

Further proof that Djokovic has upraised tennis to a new higher level and is the actual ultimate GOAT.

[abmk]

only two things he's improved is getting free points off his serve ( he was slightly more clutch back then ) and tactics at times ( not always )

anyone who thinks he's improved his bag of "tricks" is sorely mistaken ...

for example, there is this wide misconception amongst many that he developed his dropshot in 2009

look @ the 2 drop shots vs safin in 2005 after 3:10 for example :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEeyM3KFovk

somewhere in the match , there's also a BH lob hit on the rise with the flick of the wrist ...

also these 2 drop shots ( one of them in an exo in 2007 )


Federer's virtuoso drop shots against Sampras and Agassi

all the shots were jaffas ...

[pvaudio]

Age related areas have affected him: explosiveness, outright power and range. The thing is, he's so dedicated to the sport that he's tried to up his skills in other areas to offset this. So, he now has a brutal slice, he now uses the drop shot like a master, his serve is actually feared and he constructs points based on how he wants them to go rather than just being able to win them. On that basis, he is a better player now than he was in his prime.

[kalyan4fedever]

Cahill or whoever said that is simply stupid, if he wins they praise and say he is the best now than he was when in his actual prime, if he loses the same ones say he should retire, media is bs.

[pvaudio]

Originally Posted by Sartorius

This pretty much. Federer's "tennis bag" (what he can do, how well he does it) is bigger and better: I think this is what Cahill and Federer himself is referring to. But his consistency has naturally suffered.

A lot of people talk about Federer's superior game in his heyday and with good reason; but they overlook the fact that what made him successful was ultimately his ability to play well (use his tennis bag to its fullest so to speak) almost all the time, during a match and during an entire year.

This is exactly what I was getting at. He's got more tools at his disposal, but he's no longer has the stamina be it mental or whatever to have them all up and running day after day and against anyone.

[above bored]

These comparisons are always a bit redundant because there are no constants to measure against. The tour is always improving, so logically Federer will have had to improve to remain competitive. At the same time he will not have improved as much as he would have if he were 5 or 10 years younger. So comparing an improved older version of himself to a younger version not privy to later developments in the game is silly. It's not a scientific comparison that can take account of all the variables or keep the environment controlled.

Clearly, the younger version of Federer, as he hit his prime, would be better than the current version if he had the same opportunity to develop during this period, but that does not mean that the younger version was better than the older version isolated from their respective times. The same applies to all other players capable of achieving similar results later in their career that they were able to achieve at their prime age.

[vive le beau jeu !]

Originally Posted by zagor

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.

it's almost a religious belief for some people...

[90's Clay]

Hes overall worse then he was from 2005-2006. But this younger field of players on the rise is making Fed much BETTER and effective then he truly is


When a Mug like Tomic is getting all this hype, thats when you know the sport is DEAD and they are just trying to latch on to the first little bit of hype they can from a player that has a little charisma

They are trying to do everything they can to hype the younger generation of guys up at all costs even with their LACK of talent. Tomic or Raonic or Dimitrov couldn't even lace prime Hewitt's or Roddick's or Safin's, Nalbandians, shoes. Hell they couldn't even lace Davydenkos

[Sid_Vicious]

That is why I lol when people talk about how awesome Cahill is. Fck that guy. He sucks.

[President]

Originally Posted by Sid_Vicious

That is why I lol when people talk about how awesome Cahill is. Fck that guy. He sucks.

Overall I think he's a very good commentator, who do you think is better on American TV? Other than Goodall and Koening.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Hes overall worse then he was from 2005-2006. But this younger field of players on the rise is making Fed much BETTER and effective then he truly is


When a Mug like Tomic is getting all this hype, thats when you know the sport is DEAD and they are just trying to latch on to the first little bit of hype they can from a player that has a little charisma

They are trying to do everything they can to hype the younger generation of guys up at all costs even with their LACK of talent. Tomic or Raonic or Dimitrov couldn't even lace prime Hewitt's or Roddick's or Safin's, Nalbandians, shoes. Hell they couldn't even lace Davydenkos

LOL so true. I have never seen such a pitiful group of up and comers, both men and women, in all my years following tennis. Donald freaking Young was the youngest player in the top 100 a couple years ago, and he was already 21 (and not very good at all to put it mildly).

[Sid_Vicious]

Originally Posted by President

Overall I think he's a very good commentator, who do you think is better on American TV? Other than Goodall and Koening.

I am not saying they should fire him. He is a decent commentator (I was being to harsh,perhaps) , but he is not awesome or some sort of tennis guru. He has his annoying moments. I've seen him commentate some of Nadal's matches and he sounded like his pants were around his ankles. It reminded me of PMac acting like a fed fanboy in the booth.

I prefer BG. He spends a lot of timing ranting about useless stuff, but at least he does not deliver huge monologues about how classy, amazing, sexy, and talented Federer/Nadal/Djokovic are.