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

[abmk]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Depends on the speed of course.

Fast Grass- Nadal has 0 percent chance
90s French- Pete has a 20 percent chance (Rafa wouldn't be able to generate the same topspin as he does now
Slow grass- Nadal has maybe a 10-15 percent chance
Today's French- Pete has maybe a 35-40 percent chance (Its easier for big hitter today at the French then it was in the 90s when the French was Monte Carlo Slow)

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

[abmk]

this is how it would be in reality :

at any french open , sampras : 0 %

wimbledon in the 90s , nadal : 15-20%

wimbledon in the 2000s , nadal : 40%

[President]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Today's French- Pete has maybe a 35-40 percent chance (Its easier for big hitter today at the French then it was in the 90s when the French was Monte Carlo Slow)

Wow Pete Sampras with a 35-40% chance at RG against Rafael Nadal...and Nadal who has actually won the tournament twice with a 0% chance at Wimbledon.

[smoledman]

90's clay has a bee in his bonnet about Federer. Something about Roger rubs him the wrong way, big time.

[abmk]

^^

maybe he means a 9-10 year old nadal

except for borg, I don't see anyone having more than 30% chance vs rafa @ RG ...

[NLBwell]

No question Federer at his peak was better than Federer now past his peak. I agree with Cahill in that he is probably a better "player." He's smarter, more rounded, and can execute more strategies. Even Cahill, however, said Federer was 1/4 step slower. Yes, he is slower and has less stamina - including recovering from earlier matches. I don't think his serve is as clutch, either. These things reduce his ability to win matches, even though his game may be technically better.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Depends on the speed of course.

Fast Grass- Nadal has 0 percent chance
90s French- Pete has a 20 percent chance (Rafa wouldn't be able to generate the same topspin as he does now
Slow grass- Nadal has maybe a 10-15 percent chance
Today's French- Pete has maybe a 35-40 percent chance (Its easier for big hitter today at the French then it was in the 90s when the French was Monte Carlo Slow)

[winstonplum]

I don't care if he's better or not. The Federer I saw in the first two set last night was spectacular. Best backhand slice in tennis, bar none. No one's even close. And that forehand squash shot--just sick. I mean, I don't think I've seen a player use that shot over and over more effectively in one match. And Tomic isn't a mug. He was playing great tennis in those first sets. He was broken in the first game of the match and then it was tight, tight, tight through the breaker.

I do believe Fed's competition is tougher now, but who cares? I was glad Nadal got Berdych and 1.0 Nole in 2010. Does that make those slams hollow? Don't make me laugh. A slam, is a slam, is a slam, just like Gertrude Stein said.

[Federer20042006]

If he's a better player now, why aren't they gushing over his actual shot making as much now as they did back then? Hmmmmm.

This "possibly the greatest player of all-time" guy has somehow NOT been the #1 player in the world the vast majority of the time since Rafa took it from him in 2008, but he's a better player now than in 2004-2007.

In-form Safin needed 9-7 in the 5th to dispatch of Federer in the 2005 AO, but clearly he was no Berdych, who took him out in 4 in Wimbledon 2010 and US Open 2012.

Federer needed to come back from 2 sets down against Falla in 2010 Wimbledon, and the same against Benneteau in 2012 Wimbledon...but he's a better player now.

Thank God. Federer 2004-2007 would've probably lost to Falla and Benneteau at Wimbledon, then. It's only logical.

[Candide]

Cahill knows his stuff. I would say that Fed's peak began in 2012 and will go till 2016 - just in time for Rio.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by President

Well I'd have to watch his commentary of that match again to remember the context in which he said it, its been a while.

I don't exactly remember the context either so maybe you're right.

Originally Posted by President

I don't think he meant it as you are taking it though, maybe you are overly defensive when it comes to Federer vs Nadal.

Never denied I'm a Fed fan

However, I don't like commentators acting like fanboys in general, the only commentator I really like to listen to is a Serbian fellow named Viskovic.

[joeri888]

Originally Posted by winstonplum

I don't care if he's better or not. The Federer I saw in the first two set last night was spectacular. Best backhand slice in tennis, bar none. No one's even close. And that forehand squash shot--just sick. I mean, I don't think I've seen a player use that shot over and over more effectively in one match. And Tomic isn't a mug. He was playing great tennis in those first sets. He was broken in the first game of the match and then it was tight, tight, tight through the breaker.

I do believe Fed's competition is tougher now, but who cares? I was glad Nadal got Berdych and 1.0 Nole in 2010. Does that make those slams hollow? Don't make me laugh. A slam, is a slam, is a slam, just like Gertrude Stein said.

Good post from not fed's biggest fan. QFT

[Defcon]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Agassi was 34 plus years old at that time with a bad back and slowing down.. And even then, Agassi took Fed to 5 sets one slam and played him tough in the other (Despite playing 3 straight five setters prior to meeting Fed in the finals).


Agassi was wrong on that one. There was some place to go vs. Roger (Hasn't Nadal proved this his ENTIRE Career and Nole has proven and Murray later on), but when you are ailing physically like Andre was and aging rapidly, it may feel that way.

Nadal has a freak matchup with Fed - extreme left topspin more than anyone else, and hitting 99% to Feds backhand. That's not a 'place to go', that's an anomaly which was not to be repeated by anyone else.

If nadal was a righty, he'd lose 99% of his matches vs Fed, there's no doubt about that at all.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

In-form Safin needed 9-7 in the 5th to dispatch of Federer in the 2005 AO, but clearly he was no Berdych, who took him out in 4 in Wimbledon 2010 and US Open 2012.

You must have not been paying attention, people talk all the time how Berdych's highest level is the best ever and how he could have completely dominated the game if he was more dedicated .

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

Federer needed to come back from 2 sets down against Falla in 2010 Wimbledon, and the same against Benneteau in 2012 Wimbledon...but he's a better player now.

Thank God. Federer 2004-2007 would've probably lost to Falla and Benneteau at Wimbledon, then. It's only logical.

Oh no doubt, from 2004-2007 Fed dropped 2 sets combined in the 1st week of Wimbledon, Benneteau and especially grasscourt beast Falla must be 10x better than those clowns the lesser version of Fed faced in 2004-2007.

[Defcon]

People need to watch some videos of prime Fed - he used to rip the ball off both wings and was ultra aggressive, it was news when he lost games. Today Fed is more rounded and wiser, his defensive game has some new shots maybe, but he also needs to use it a lot more. The forehand is no longer the lethal shot it used to be - Fed used to routinely end the point at will and almost never ever lost the advantage I n a fh exchange. Now he spins it in much more often than ripping it.

Another difference is the passing shots, Feds used to regularly hit those magic passers that made everyone go oooh, but now he's not fast enough and many times will hit it back for an easy putaway.

Clutch serving is another area where Fed is not as good. They used to compare him to Sampras for the ability to hit aces when down. Not anymore. But the bp conversion has always been poor I think.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Agassi was 34 plus years old at that time with a bad back and slowing down.. And even then, Agassi took Fed to 5 sets one slam and played him tough in the other (Despite playing 3 straight five setters prior to meeting Fed in the finals).


Agassi was wrong on that one. There was some place to go vs. Roger (Hasn't Nadal proved this his ENTIRE Career and Nole has proven and Murray later on), but when you are ailing physically like Andre was and aging rapidly, it may feel that way.

I actually agree with this, I think Agassi's perspective was skewered by him facing Fed in his 30s (even if Agassi was the best player in his 30s I've ever seen, his highest level of play was in 1995 and 1999), while I do think Fed is a better overall player than Sampras (by a small margin, they're close) there's little doubt in my mind Fed would have been an easier match-up for peak Agassi than Sampras.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by smoledman

Maybe Fed is better then he was in 2006, but the field has gotten more better then his own improvement which is why he's not dominating the game utterly.

No doubt about it son.

Somewhat off topic but it will be amazing to see how much Nadal will improve his mental strength, BH and tactics by the time he reaches his peak at the age of 30, of course given that the field gets stronger/game evolves every year those improvements still might not be enough to make him a "part of the equation".

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Today's French- Pete has maybe a 35-40 percent chance (Its easier for big hitter today at the French then it was in the 90s when the French was Monte Carlo Slow)

In 9 attempts, Federer and Djokovic, both of whom are far superior to Pete on clay, couldn't even take Nadal to a 5th set at the French.

Yet you believe that 2 out of every 5 times, Sampras would win against him.

In short, what the hell is wrong with you?

[merlinpinpin]

As Cahill would tell you, that's what great players do--they get better with age, always. It's a shame actually that Laver is not planning a comeback, he wouldn't lose a match in like forever with his much-improved game. The only ones who would have been able to stand against him would have been Tilden and Gonzales, had they been alive.

Although I guess he would be shooled at Wimbledon by 152-year old William Renshaw, whose improvements would be too many to list in a blank version of the Bible.

Or.

You can also keep an open mind and see that, although today's Federer is more canny than he was at the time, he would stand no chance at all against a 6/7-year earlier version of himself (playing on the same form on the day, of course). Just like Nadal at 31 would have no chance at all against Nadal at 24 or 26.

Oh, and today's Laver would lose to 1968's Laver 100 times out of 100, I would bet Cahill's house on that.

[TennisLovaLova]

Originally Posted by sureshs

If Fed is a better player now and losing to Murray, Djokovich and Nadal, does it mean his Slams were mostly in a weak era?

Federer bagled those 3 guys and won gs during this alleged strong era, so...