King Fed and The Pretenders to the Throne

[Steffi-forever]

Originally Posted by zagor

Yes, come real competition and we get a 31 year old brokeback Fed reaching #1 and winning Wimbledon, God forbid he ends the year #1, it would officially be one of the weakest years in the Open Era.

Say what you will about him but no way would 25-26 Fed allow some old fart to win Wimbledon and reach #1 under his watch.

33 years old Agassi was number 1 at the US Open 2003 and Federer was number 2 at 22.

At 22 years old, Federer won Vienne, Masters, Australian Open, Dubai, Indian Wells, Hamburg, Halle, Wimbledon, Gstaad, Toronto.

I think a 22 yo Fed was better than 25/26 yo Djokovic/Nadal.

And I think that a 30 yo Fed is better than a 33 yo Agassi.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

I think Federer's netplay only got worse around 2009 or so. Though he did hit terrible approach shots in the RG 2008 final. But his volleying was very good during the Wimbledon final the same year.

I remember matches from 2004-2005 when his volleying was fantastic. In fact, that 2006 Rome final he won about 16-17 points at the net with supreme net play. I remember rooting for Nadal and thinking he wasn't hitting his passing shots too well, but Federer's play was scary.

Not that I disagree, Fed's netplay didn't disappear completely but I think he neglected that part of his game once he started spanking everyone (except Nadal)from the baseline.

It's been quite a while since I've seen Fed play at the net as well as he did against Murray in this year's Wimbledon final, I don't mean just the statistics (net approaches, percentage won) but the fact that on big points he pulled off some sick volleys.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

And his backhand was actually very good - one of the best one handers on tour - during his prime. He doesn't trust it now which is why on break points he gives up court position to play forehands and that doesn't bode well against Djokovic/Nadal.

Of course his BH was always a good shot (great at completmenting the rest of his game), people who think that nowadays his BH is so much improved never watched the guy at 2007 AO for example.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

This Wimbledon he actually used it really well in the semi-final and final, much like he did in his prime and which is what took Djokovic's belief away.

Yeah, his BH held up well but personally I was always of the opinion that Fed's FH significantly deteriorated he got older, far more than his BH (which actually stayed surprisingly well).

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

That said, I don't think 2006 Federer would wipe the floor with 2012 Federer.

We disagree, I think it would be a fairly routine win for 2005-2006 Fed, 2012 Fed would at best force one tiebreak which he would lose (Fed was probably the best tiebreak player of all time during his peak).

I could see a score like 6-3 7-6 6-4 happening.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

Tennis doesn't work like that.

Actually, in some cases it does, if a certain player faces an opponent who plays his own game better than him, he's left without options.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

2012 Federer would still hold serve easy and would potentially need one good return game to win a set.

First of all, no one held serve easy against 2005-2006 Fed (the amount of serves he would get back in those days was amazing), secondly 2005-2006 Fed was far more clutch than 2012 Fed, I sincerely doubt that one good return game would ever happen.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

2006 Federer was a consistent and better returner but 2012 Fed is more experimental and that has worked to his advantage.

Experimental never really worked all that well against peak Fed, mainly due to his anticipation and reaction time.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

2Have a look at one tape of Nadal from 2006 and notice how immensely he has changed his game and elevated his level. Now if say Nadal retired from 2006-2012 and came back next year playing like he does now, who would you favour in a match between the two today? If you read the opinions of most Federer fans right now, they will choose Nadal to win by a landslide (logically speaking) since Fed is old, in decline etc etc and Nadal is so much better than he was when he was beating prime Federer.

Now you're talking about something completely different, I never denied that hypothetically a lesser version of Fed could get better or equal results against a specific opponent if he used better tactics/gameplan to counter that opponent's game compared to a better version of Fed who stubbornly tried to play that opponent the way he plays everyone else.

That's an entirely different scenario.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

But tennis doesn't work like that. That's why the Nadal fans gloating about how the H2H will only get worse from 2009 onwards were wrong. It's been pretty even since.

The last time Fed beat Nadal in a slam was 2007, that's what matters in their H2H the most.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

That gives me an idea. I'll write a piece titled "Why the H2H didn't get worse" and post it tomorrow.

If you want to give more ammunition to "Fed is playing better than ever but he can't handle strong era/only dominated because of a weak era" whiners around here, be my guest.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Steffi-forever

33 years old Agassi was number 1 at the US Open 2003 and Federer was number 2 at 22.

At 22 years old, Federer won Vienne, Masters, Australian Open, Dubai, Indian Wells, Hamburg, Halle, Wimbledon, Gstaad, Toronto.

I think a 22 yo Fed was better than 25/26 yo Djokovic/Nadal.

And I think that a 30 yo Fed is better than a 33 yo Agassi.

Read the post I responded to and you will understand why I responded in such a manner.

[Feather]

Originally Posted by zagor

Yes, come real competition and we get a 31 year old brokeback Fed reaching #1 and winning Wimbledon, God forbid he ends the year #1, it would officially be one of the weakest years in the Open Era.

Say what you will about him but no way would 25-26 Fed allow some old fart to win Wimbledon and reach #1 under his watch.

And no way 25-26 year old Roger lose to below 100 ranked players in second round at Wimbledon.

[Sentinel]

Originally Posted by Feather

And no way 25-26 year old Roger lose to below 100 ranked players in second round at Wimbledon.

On any surface (in any slam)

[illkhiboy]

Originally Posted by zagor

Not that I disagree, Fed's netplay didn't disappear completely but I think he neglected that part of his game once he started spanking everyone (except Nadal)from the baseline.

It's been quite a while since I've seen Fed play at the net as well as he did against Murray in this year's Wimbledon final, I don't mean just the statistics (net approaches, percentage won) but the fact that on big points he pulled off some sick volleys.

Not entirely sure why his net play went down but you're probably right that he neglected it because his ground game was so good. And the effects started showing in later years.

Originally Posted by zagor

Of course his BH was always a good shot (great at completmenting the rest of his game), people who think that nowadays his BH is so much improved never watched the guy at 2007 AO for example.

Yeah.

Originally Posted by zagor

Yeah, his BH held up well but personally I was always of the opinion that Fed's FH significantly deteriorated he got older, far more than his BH (which actually stayed surprisingly well).

Really? I agree his forehand has become more erratic over the years but I'd say it's partly due to the pressure he puts on it because of his weakening backhand.

Now he's certainly improved his shoulder-high backhands, which is why he's been able to keep up with Nadal. But generally he has little confidence in the shot on crucial points. I've been noting that on important points, he makes an extra effort to avoid hitting backhands.

Notice how often these days in general Federer hits an awkward forehand when running around his backhand. He barely gets to it and sort of pushes it back into the court just to ensure he doesn't spray an error from the backhand wing. I hardly ever remember him doing that in his prime. He either ran around his backhand and hit a punishing forehand, or just played his backhand.

I also think the reason Federer won his Wimbledon match against Djokovic is because he started doing something with his topspin/drive backhands instead of just rallying with it. That used to be his game in his prime.

People say his backhand sucked because he used to make errors with it. Even in the 2005 US Open final against Agassi, he had about 20 errors to Agassi's 7 at one time. That was pretty bad actually but it was okay because when he did get a chance, he was making Agassi pay off either wing and hence keeping Agassi uncomfortable (remember Agassi saying later that with Federer there was no where to go to?).

In the last two US Open semis against Djokovic once the match got to 5-5 in the fifth, I suspected it'd get ugly and it did. Fed sprayed backhand error after error and succumbed easily.

Yes, his forehand is a bit erratic today but boy, on a medium to fast surface his serve-forehand combination is still the best in the game. That's why it's so hard to beat Federer even to this day, and why he reigns king indoors. He often doesn't have to play many backhands in a row.

Originally Posted by zagor

We disagree, I think it would be a fairly routine win for 2005-2006 Fed, 2012 Fed would at best force one tiebreak which he would lose (Fed was probably the best tiebreak player of all time during his peak).

I could see a score like 6-3 7-6 6-4 happening.



Actually, in some cases it does, if a certain player faces an opponent who plays his own game better than him, he's left without options.

Now that I know what exactly you're arguing, I don't really disagree. I haven't thought much about this hypothetical match-up and you're probably right...

Originally Posted by zagor

First of all, no one held serve easy against 2005-2006 Fed (the amount of serves he would get back in those days was amazing), secondly 2005-2006 Fed was far more clutch than 2012 Fed, I sincerely doubt that one good return game would ever happen.

Yes prime Federer was super clutch. But that performance against Benneateau wasn't too bad was it?

By the way, it's true that Federer was the king of breaking serves in 05-06 but Federer didn't give Djokovic much of a chance to break him in their Wimbledon match either. But aside from a few exceptions, what you're saying is largely true.

Originally Posted by zagor

Now you're talking about something completely different, I never denied that hypothetically a lesser version of Fed could get better or equal results against a specific opponent if he used better tactics/gameplan to counter that opponent's game compared to a better version of Fed who stubbornly tried to play that opponent the way he plays everyone else.

That's an entirely different scenario.

Yeah now I remember you realize this concept: that just because 2005 Agassi was pushing Federer in the US Open final doesn't mean we can make silly extrapolations based on that result. Sorry for confusing you with Nadal-Agassi types

Originally Posted by zagor

The last time Fed beat Nadal in a slam was 2007, that's what matters in their H2H the most.

Yeah but that's not the point. Federer's results against Nadal in Slams in 08/09/11/12 did not change in proportion to how their games respectively changed.

Originally Posted by zagor

If you want to give more ammunition to "Fed is playing better than ever but he can't handle strong era/only dominated because of a weak era" whiners around here, be my guest.

Their understanding of tennis is too shallow for me to truly care.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

Not entirely sure why his net play went down but you're probably right that he neglected it because his ground game was so good. And the effects started showing in later years.

Well, every player to some degree is a product of his own era and ever since the early 2000s the conditions (surface speeds, balls used etc.) have changed in such a way that almost every court out there today favours a baseliner.

We mustn't forget, tennis has a pretty short off season (if you can even call it that way) and just the way sport is organized there is precious little time for players to work on improving themselves so maybe Fed chose to concentrate on improving those elements of the game which he thought were best suited for modern conditions.

Now I think Fed's greatest strength in any era would have still been his ability from the baseline but there's no doubt in my mind that had he played in the say 90s he would have been much more of an all-court player.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

Really? I agree his forehand has become more erratic over the years but I'd say it's partly due to the pressure he puts on it because of his weakening backhand.

I don't mean erratic exactly but it just seemed to me like he hit it with more power and that Fed was just overall much more of a shotmaker off that wing. Rarely I see him today (even against lower ranked players) hit unexpected incredible FH winners out of nowhere, these days much more often he works the point until he gets a ball he wants and only then he attacks.

What I mean to say, you don't see him hit FHs like these anymore:

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

I know, Agassi was old etc. but thing is I don't see him hit these kind of FHs even against low ranked journeymen/qualifiers he plays in early rounds and compared to them Agassi was still good enough to reach a slam final.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

Now he's certainly improved his shoulder-high backhands, which is why he's been able to keep up with Nadal. But generally he has little confidence in the shot on crucial points. I've been noting that on important points, he makes an extra effort to avoid hitting backhands.

But BH was always Fed's weaker wing and given that his confidence is far from what it used to be (which is perfectly normal, your confidence is sky high when you're dominating the game) that just might be a consequence of that, not the shot itself being worse.

It may also be due to Fed losing a step and his running FH being worse than before so he's more vary of being pinned down the BH corner. His movement to the right used to be better by a fair margin, ever since 2010 it seems to be me like more and more players try the same pattern of working Fed's BH followed by going to his FH which results in them getting a weak reply or an error from Fed.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

Notice how often these days in general Federer hits an awkward forehand when running around his backhand. He barely gets to it and sort of pushes it back into the court just to ensure he doesn't spray an error from the backhand wing. I hardly ever remember him doing that in his prime. He either ran around his backhand and hit a punishing forehand, or just played his backhand.

Well it may be a combination of what I said above or maybe you're right and his BH has gotten weaker, but even if that's the case I still feel that his FH deteriorated more, it's just that at his peak it was (IMO) the best FH of all time so even if declines by a fair margin it would still be one of the best in the game.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

I also think the reason Federer won his Wimbledon match against Djokovic is because he started doing something with his topspin/drive backhands instead of just rallying with it. That used to be his game in his prime.

That's hardly anything new, Fed's slice always used to bother Novak to some degree and that is magnified on grass so it's hardly surprising he varied his BH so much against him.

Funny thing is, in Fedal match-up all people talk about is Nadal's lefty high bouncing FH to Fed's BH but they neglect the fact that one of Fed's best shots (even if people don't realize it)-his slice doesn't work against Nadal at all, honestly Nadal kills the ball off slice possibly better than any other player I've ever seen.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

People say his backhand sucked because he used to make errors with it. Even in the 2005 US Open final against Agassi, he had about 20 errors to Agassi's 7 at one time. That was pretty bad actually but it was okay because when he did get a chance, he was making Agassi pay off either wing and hence keeping Agassi uncomfortable (remember Agassi saying later that with Federer there was no where to go to?).

I haven't seen that match (in whole) in quite a while but IIRC it was a DTL BH winner that changed the momentum in Fed's favour in that match when it was 1 set all and Agassi was up a break.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

In the last two US Open semis against Djokovic once the match got to 5-5 in the fifth, I suspected it'd get ugly and it did. Fed sprayed backhand error after error and succumbed easily.

That was more a mental meltdown than due to any deficiency/weakness in Fed's game.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

Yes, his forehand is a bit erratic today but boy, on a medium to fast surface his serve-forehand combination is still the best in the game. That's why it's so hard to beat Federer even to this day, and why he reigns king indoors. He often doesn't have to play many backhands in a row.

Oh I agree that Fed's 1-2 punch is still the best in the game but his rally FH? As I said at his peak I consider Fed's FH to have been the best ever but right now I'd say Nadal has the better FH overall.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

Now that I know what exactly you're arguing, I don't really disagree. I haven't thought much about this hypothetical match-up and you're probably right...

Well, we'll never know either way.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

Yes prime Federer was super clutch. But that performance against Benneateau wasn't too bad was it?

Sure, Fed showed some grit to come through that one but it was his own fault he allowed it to get so close, peak Fed would not have been looping FHs in the middle of the court for Bennetau to crush them for whole 2 sets before getting his sh!t together. He would have not allowed Bennetau to dictate.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

By the way, it's true that Federer was the king of breaking serves in 05-06 but Federer didn't give Djokovic much of a chance to break him in their Wimbledon match either. But aside from a few exceptions, what you're saying is largely true.

Well, Fed was serving exceptionally well against Novak, I was especially impressed with his 2nd serve, he hit some nasty kickers (not just against Novak, he hit a couple of huge ones on crucial points against Benneteau as well).

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

Yeah now I remember you realize this concept: that just because 2005 Agassi was pushing Federer in the US Open final doesn't mean we can make silly extrapolations based on that result. Sorry for confusing you with Nadal-Agassi types

Sure, however that Agassi performance only further convinced me that all this "evolution of the game" is largely nonsense that media talking heads like Mcenroe spout in order for the audience to feel specially privileged for watching the bestest level of tennis ever.

Not to mention, that as we've seen recently, 31 year old Fed getting back to #1 and winning Wimbledon.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

Yeah but that's not the point. Federer's results against Nadal in Slams in 08/09/11/12 did not change in proportion to how their games respectively changed.

I can definitely see your point, we could also use their most recent FO final which played off very similar to all of their other FO encounters (save 2008 one)as further evidence of that, though there were some specific circumstances because FO that year used different lighter balls which obviously suited Fed's game.

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

Their understanding of tennis is too shallow for me to truly care.

Sure, though it's get rather annoying after a while, for a Fed fanboy like myself of course.