Roger's decline can be very clearly explained by one thing

[stringertom]

Originally Posted by IvanAndreevich

Looking at the stats, it's his return of serve that's declined. He's SECOND in % of service games won. Come on!

The problem is that he's 17th in returning the FIRST serve.

He used to dominate big servers like it's nothing.

The Tsonga QF Wimby match stats back your claim...1 BP per match doesn't cut it. It seems as though that issue has been addressed since then.

[varsity8993]

It's nothing that complicated. Try having kids and staying as focused on ANYTHING as before you had them. And as your kids get older and you have to worry about more things like their education, health (vaccines, diet, athletics, etc. all rolled into one), finances (well, not so much in Fed's case).... it only gets harder.

I don't even think about starting new businesses anymore now that I have kids, just maintaining my current business interests and giving time to my kids is full time as it is.

It's a testament to his pure talent and drive (even fading drive) that he still is near the top of the game.

[IvanisevicServe]

Originally Posted by nikdom

Do you think Nadal hits with the same abandon that he had when he was a 18 yr old pirate-in-waiting?

If you watch those very videos, notice how slow his opponents are moving and reacting to his shotmaking. Players are better today having had yo improve to meet the bar that Roger set.

All that matters is how he is doing with respect to the competition today. Point me to any other player from Rogers generation who is doing better.

I'm not seeing Roger attempt and make the same types of shots he made in 03-06, though. It's Roger who's not reacting as well. The Federer we've seen since the 2007 Australian Open is mostly a "game plan" guy. He only rarely hits the "inventive" shot, or goes up a gear and starts blasting the ball from mid-air. He doesn't have as much variety as before. I mean, he still has some variety, but it seems much more contrived now.

The wrist flicks and carved backhand drop shots out of nowhere from before have been replaced with predictable forehand drop shots and "squash" shots, when he's on the full stretch.

Stylistically, he's just different. He still gets strong results with this new style, but for whatever reason, he has been a different player from 2007 on. That doesn't necessarily mean if he were playing his old style that he'd be dominating like before...but he'd be more fun to watch IMO.

[nikdom]

Originally Posted by IvanisevicServe

I'm not seeing Roger attempt and make the same types of shots he made in 03-06, though. It's Roger who's not reacting as well. The Federer we've seen since the 2007 Australian Open is mostly a "game plan" guy. He only rarely hits the "inventive" shot, or goes up a gear and starts blasting the ball from mid-air. He doesn't have as much variety as before. I mean, he still has some variety, but it seems much more contrived now.

The wrist flicks and carved backhand drop shots out of nowhere from before have been replaced with predictable forehand drop shots and "squash" shots, when he's on the full stretch.

Stylistically, he's just different. He still gets strong results with this new style, but for whatever reason, he has been a different player from 2007 on. That doesn't necessarily mean if he were playing his old style that he'd be dominating like before...but he'd be more fun to watch IMO.

Sure. But here is a healthy dose of reality from an unlikely source on this phenomenon of not playing as freely once the weight of certain expectations set in and a player's game matures -

“Is much easier when you are a teenager, I think. When you have 17 or 18, everything is easier. You play with no pressure. You can win, you can lose, everything is fine. That's a different mentality. You can play more aggressive. For everybody is the same history I think, no?

When you arrive, you hit all the balls like crazy and without think, without pressure. When you are there (indicating at a high level) you start to think a little bit more about you have to play this shot, you have to play another shot, I can't lose this match, I have to win this match for sure.

That’s a little bit more problems. When you are coming up, you play quarterfinals perfect; you play semifinals fantastic; you play final very good; and if you win, is unbelievable. So when you are there, you play quarterfinals, say, Well, is good. Is not my tournament, but you are going back very happy at home.

So that is different view and different perspective of the game. So the pressure is higher when you are in the top. Seems like can be a different thing, but believe me, that's what happen.” - Rafael Nadal (stealing this from Tignor's article where he quoted this)

Take the teenager part out (since its about Nadal in his early stages - when he was a teenager) and supplant it with Roger's ascent.

[nikdom]

^^ Btw, I'm not arguing with you that vintage Roger wasn't more fun to watch. Just saying that as far as a realistic career is concerned, this talk of decline is really overblown when he really is the only credible threat to the current prime players.

[NadalAgassi]

I agree his decline is overblown. He is past his prime but not enormously weaker either. That said Federer in his prime would never end a year 1-4 against Djokovic. Federer has none of the matchup problems with Djokovic that Nadal has, and is just a better player if both are in their primes, especialy on any medium to fast court (Djokovic might be slightly better on rebound ace, and close to the same level on clay).

[OTMPut]

Originally Posted by varsity8993

finances (well, not so much in Fed's case)....

beg to differ. different kinds of problems. at different level.

[stringertom]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I agree his decline is overblown. He is past his prime but not enormously weaker either. That said Federer in his prime would never end a year 1-4 against Djokovic. Federer has none of the matchup problems with Djokovic that Nadal has, and is just a better player if both are in their primes, especialy on any medium to fast court (Djokovic might be slightly better on rebound ace, and close to the same level on clay).

Rebound Ace? Fed won on that twice at AO'04 & '06. I think you mean Plexicushion that the Aussies installed in '07. Djok's advantage will be determined by how fast the committee decides to make the Plexicushion.

[IvanisevicServe]

Originally Posted by stringertom

Rebound Ace? Fed won on that twice at AO'04 & '06. I think you mean Plexicushion that the Aussies installed in '07. Djok's advantage will be determined by how fast the committee decides to make the Plexicushion.

3 times - 04, 06, and 07.

[snark]

Originally Posted by OTMPut

beg to differ. different kinds of problems. at different level.

You seriously think that Fed has a problem with finances at any level??

[chrischris]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I agree his decline is overblown. He is past his prime but not enormously weaker either. That said Federer in his prime would never end a year 1-4 against Djokovic. Federer has none of the matchup problems with Djokovic that Nadal has, and is just a better player if both are in their primes, especialy on any medium to fast court (Djokovic might be slightly better on rebound ace, and close to the same level on clay).

Quite overblown.

[maruzo]

I spray myself with a touch of Eau de Fed and cleanse myself with the nutriting milk from FairMirka's breasts. Then i pray mightily hard for the Fed Express to once again bring the rain and dominate ATP for the coming year.

[stringertom]

Originally Posted by IvanisevicServe

3 times - 04, 06, and 07.

My bad...thought the change came a year earlier.

[CDestroyer]

Feds decline can be defined as one thing, his win loss record at the end of the 2011 season. 22 - 0

Great thread OP! Just kidding, you couldn't possibly be more wrong more often.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by CDestroyer

Feds decline can be defined as one thing, his win loss record at the end of the 2011 season. 22 - 0

Great thread OP! Just kidding, you couldn't possibly be more wrong more often.

22-0? Really?

[stringertom]

Originally Posted by Polaris

22-0? Really?

Methinks 22-0 will happen somewhere in the early rounds of AO'12 if he plays and wins Doha.

So weird...notice the time stamp: 2:22am.

[power level 800]

Decline? After the U.S. Open Federer went undefeated for the remainder of the year. Something the best 8 mens in tennis couldn't accomplish this year. IMO it's just might be a little bit too soon to say.

[stringertom]

Originally Posted by power level 800

Decline? After the U.S. Open Federer went undefeated for the remainder of the year. Something the best 8 mens in tennis couldn't accomplish this year. IMO it's just might be a little bit too soon to say.

The easy definition of "decline" used by most posters on TT is in number of major titles. When the bar is set so high, any dropoff is magnified.

I think Fed did have a plateau in '10, with the losses in major QFs to Sod & Berd. In great fashion, he addressed that issue with his alliance with P'Cone. The Renaissance began with USO SF MPs vs Djok, not converted but proof he was just about there after only two months together. The Fall swing was outstanding and things looked great til the AO'11 SF. That's when the Djok juggernaut commenced. Djok will not sneak up on Fed in '12. I hope his training regimen is focused on developing what he needs to get over the small humps he stumbled on in '11. He's still right there!