Why did FEDERER dump ROACH???
- Thread starter wow246
- Start date
Tempest344
Professional
It may have been the other way round
it was after Federer lost to Volandri at Rome
it was after Federer lost to Volandri at Rome
I dont know but have you noticed that since getting rid of Roche, even though he's won 3 grand slams since his level has dropped significantly......like at the Aussie Open 07 it was just phenomenal play, the volandri match might have been a fluke and then at Wimbledon, and the US Open he was great but wasn't quite the same and then in 2008, well we all know what happened.
I really hope the rumours about Cahill are true because we could see a rejuvenated Fed if they are......
I really hope the rumours about Cahill are true because we could see a rejuvenated Fed if they are......
stormholloway
Legend
Sometimes a roach just gets too small. You can burn your fingers if you hang on to it too long.
Oh, you mean Tony Roche? Next time learn a bit more about what it is you're posting about.
Oh, you mean Tony Roche? Next time learn a bit more about what it is you're posting about.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
That's not nice calling him a roach.
So he spelt his name wrong no need to be an *** about it...idiot!
tahiti
Professional
Maybe they had learnt all they could together and it was time to move on. Or personal issues, who knows but it's good if Fed sticks with Cahill the rivalry will improve.
Pity some people can't just take out their frustrations on their partners at home instead of the net in threads!
Pity some people can't just take out their frustrations on their partners at home instead of the net in threads!
tennis_hand
Hall of Fame
u can't deny Roche's effort in helping him winning a few Slams.
But Fed is a talented player and probably he does not listen to his coaches a lot. Sometimes after winning a lot, u get complacent. and then u will fall.
But Fed is a talented player and probably he does not listen to his coaches a lot. Sometimes after winning a lot, u get complacent. and then u will fall.
Clydey2times
Hall of Fame
Unlike most people, I don't think Federer's level has dropped in the slightest. The competition is just much stiffer. Compare his competition today (Mature Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray) to the competition when he dominated (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, and a much less mature Nadal).
There's no comparison. Federer was winning 3 grand slams a year against inferior opposition and, in the case of 2007, Nadal hadn't matured on hard courts, Murray still hadn't matured, and Djokovic was just coming into his own that year.
There's no comparison. Federer was winning 3 grand slams a year against inferior opposition and, in the case of 2007, Nadal hadn't matured on hard courts, Murray still hadn't matured, and Djokovic was just coming into his own that year.
rubberduckies
Professional
They had some issues with Roche's availability and willingness to travel. There were also some issues with money allegedly. Roger said right after announcing Roche's departure that it had gotten to the point where they would spend hours on court and never really say anything to each other. Roger said that he had been wanting to drop Roche for a while and blamed his performance in Rome on the fact that this had be weighing on his mind.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
Dude........some would say "Way Harsh"......but I'm like totally with you on this......
Are you through with the mustard?
Andyk028
Professional
I second that.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Miyagi beats his wife? Not cool.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
wow...
i think you used up your quota for dumb posts for the day. sorry!
the 'inferior opposition' was certainly capable of dealing out ass-whoopings to djokovic and murray from today. hewitt excelled at wearing opponents down, which puts a prime hewitt against what is more and more appearing to be a prime djokovic (since his level has DROPPED this year) hewitt would take it. djokovic just doesnt have the stamina to outlast hewitt, and back then hewitt could trade groundstrokes with anyone. safin would overcome murray from the baseline, as when he played well (in the period you're talking about) he could beat anyone.
roddick was also extremely dangerous, and both he and safin have shown even in the latter stages of their career that they can hang with this so called 'stiff competiion' era.
sorry, you're just ignorant.
Clydey2times
Hall of Fame
So because you disagree, I am somehow dumb for suggesting that today's top players are superior to the one's from a few years ago? I'm sorry, but even before Hewitt's injury the game was passing him by. One look at Roddick's results recently clearly demonstrate that the game has moved on from when he was a player to be feared. Need I even bring up Safin, who was woefully inconsistent?
Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray >>>> Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin.
There's really no comparison.
And I hadn't realised that Roddick was in the latter stages of his career. He's, what, 26 or 27? Hardly Santoro territory. And no, Safin hasn't been able to hang with today's guys. In terms of talent, he's right up there. Talent alone doesn't cut it, however, and his form and consistency put him way below the current crop of top players even when he was in the top 4. He wasn't even close to being consistent enough to beat these guys regularly.
There's a reason that Federer dominated those guys. All you need to do is compare Fed's H2H with them and Fed's H2H with the current crop of top players. That should tell you all you need to know.
And please don't call me dumb and ignorant when you can barely put a sentence together.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
I can tell you're not married! Nothing is worse than taking your frustrations out on your partner or spouse. I'd recommend taking it out on just about anyone else instead... Unless you want to speed up the divorce of course
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Ha ha too bad, 1 year later Federer didn't have anyone to blame his loss to Stepanek on
(unless he blamed it on Mirka, poor thing )
Mungo73
Banned
wrong. Roche dumped Rog.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
COMPLETELY illogical statement. Because if Federer has lost a step, this could be attributed to either losing a step or the competition being better. I think I would rather trust my own eyes or the eyes of commentators and experts that claim that Roger has lost a step, thanks.
So in other words, you still fail to isolate the reason for Federer's decline, so for all of your posturing of superior competition, this still doesn't prove a thing. All you can do is talk around in circles and beg the question.
Roddick may only be 26 or 27, but he's also not as dangerous a player as he was before, and you can clearly see this on the court. His forehand in particular is nowhere near as dangerous; it's pace has dropped, he still hits a number of errors, and it doesn't move around people like it use to. And yet, in his last meeting with one of the "top 4," he beat him (Djokovic).
Safin hasn't won a tournament since 2005 (AO). He's 29 now and says he's going to retire after the end of the year. Trying to claim that Safin "hasn't been able to hang" with these guys when he's been down the last few years that these guys have come up is a circular, begging the question argument.
And let's not forget the fact that tennis players that get to Federer's age frequently see a decline in their abilities anyway. Let's put two and two together before touting that the competition has gotten stiffer ad nauseum.
Clydey2times
Hall of Fame
Like I said, Safin has always been woefully inconsistent. Do you really think it's a coincidence that all of the top players from the era Federer dominated (with the exception of Nadal, who had yet to fully mature on hard and grass) can't even come close to matching their results from a few years ago? You're really grasping at straws.
As early as 2006, guys like Murray (in his first full year on tour) beat 3 of the 4 players mentioned (Hewitt, Roddick, and Federer). It's no coincidence that Federer's dominance ended when Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray matured. It astonishes me that anyone would argue that guys like Ferrero, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick etc. are not inferior to today's top players.
The game is constantly evolving and the standard is improving. You had guys like Hewitt, Roddick, and Ferrero at the top. Federer came along and began to dominate those guys once he matured, making a mockery of that era's standard. Nadal comes along and dominates clay, while Federer mops up everything else in the absence of anyone who can challenge him on hard and grass. Nadal matures on grass and Djokovic matures in general, and later Murray comes into his own. Now Federer has players who can challenge him on all surfaces.
I'm sorry, but I find it laughable that you think a very poor era from a few years ago matches up favourably against today's top players. I really don't care what you say about age etc. It's just nonsense. 26-27 is not old for a tennis player and it certainly is not an age at which a tennis player goes into decline.
By the way, I love how you used Safin's 4 year spell without a title as proof that the standard hasn't improved. Brilliant. Round of applause for that argument.
vtmike
Banned
wrong. Rog dumped Roche.
VivalaVida
Banned
why cant people just answer the poor OP's questions? Do you guys enjoy making fun of him because he spelled roache's name wrong? it is really stupid and doesn't make you any smarter. This is as bad as when people give you grammar lessons on the net for saying "your" rather than "you are".
ShcMad
Hall of Fame
After witnessing Fed's game decline little by little ever since he parted ways with Coach Roche, I'm now convinced that Roche has put some sort of Australian aboriginal curse on Roger. Either that, or he is into voodoo dolls.
To answer the OP's question, these are just mere rumours I heard a long while ago:
-Apparently, Roche was expecting Roger to give him a little bonus money after his grand slam wins. Roche felt that Roger was being a cheapskate.
-Roche wasn't getting along well with Mirka.
To answer the OP's question, these are just mere rumours I heard a long while ago:
-Apparently, Roche was expecting Roger to give him a little bonus money after his grand slam wins. Roche felt that Roger was being a cheapskate.
-Roche wasn't getting along well with Mirka.
Last edited:
koalakoala
Rookie
Roger said in an interview that their relationship had come to a stage where they could practice on court for hours without saying a word - communication break down.
Anyway, I reckon a communication break down takes two parties: While Mr Roche could have no enthusiasm for his job, Roger might sometimes have had too big an ego to turn Roche off?
Anyway, I reckon a communication break down takes two parties: While Mr Roche could have no enthusiasm for his job, Roger might sometimes have had too big an ego to turn Roche off?
ChanceEncounter
Professional
So Safin hasn't won since 2005, before Nadal got really good at hard courts. BEFORE Djokovic and Murray emerged. BEFORE they became known as the big four. And yet, this means that the level of tennis rose and passed him by? Seriously, who's grasping at straws here?
As I said, your argument is begging the question. Please look up what that even means before you try to make an 'argument' against me. I have little patience for people who spew verbal diarrhea and logical fallacies as their 'points.'
It's a very circular argument because Federer may have lost a step and the players may have caught up. It may have been Federer losing a step that allowed the players to catch up, or it may have been the players catching up regardless of how Federer has lost a step. In other words, you can't isolate the variables when several things are happening at once.
Apparently, Clydey2times feels that you can do the mathematically impossible simply because he wishes it.
I can turn it around on you. If you seriously don't think that someone like Hewitt and Safin in their primes could not only hang with the top 4 today, I don't know what to tell you. Didn't you see them take it to Sampras in back to back years at the US Open? The same guy (actually a better guy, because he was definitely aging) that went on to win the Open in 2002? I guess the 90s era was weak too, by this circular logic, and then Hewitt and Safin caught up.
First off, 26-27 is getting old in tennis terms. Only Agassi the ageless wonder had similar success after 26-27 as before (and that's because he never really had a 'prime' because of off-court issues and concentration). Borg declined, Sampras declined, Lendl declined, McEnroe declined. They all did. Tennis is a young man's game.
So, your "argument" consists of begging the question in an attempt to explain how Federer, against the laws of aging and human biology, is somehow not declining, or hasn't declined one bit, and it's the field that's all taken their vitamins and gotten exponentially better simply because you want to ignore all the proper variables and isolate the one you want without any substantiation for it. :?
Brilliant. Round of applause for this joke of an argument. Why do I even bother?
koalakoala
Rookie
Well said. Human beings are evolving (we are not going back to monkeys, are we?).
For Roger, the physical decline can be slowed down but never be reversed. I think while he works hard to keep himself healthy, he should at the same time learn things from the younger generation, e.g. Nadal has a great "for the moment" mentality and Murray can be the most intelligent player.
It takes humility to learn from young guns. I hope AO 2009 can truly humble him. At least it is good sign that he is hiring a coach now.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
Evolution is not a proper argument here. Evolution happens over generations and years. To make a notable human evolution doesn't happen within a single career.
You would make a much better argument to say that technology has improved dramatically since 2004, since technology is evolving much faster than humans are.
Better rackets means faster pace on the ball, which means they have to slow the courts down to keep the game of tennis balanced. This puts extra emphasis on people with great mobility and athleticism, and thus puts more emphasis on, -gasp- young players.
Seriously, name one slam contender that's older than Roger Federer. I dare you to.
Clydey2times
Hall of Fame
I love it when a pseudo-intellectual gets on a roll. It makes taking you down a peg all the sweeter.
Firstly, I am fully aware of what "begging the question" means. Unlike most, I don't confuse it with colloquial or common usage. I know what you mean, and repeating it incessantly does not impress me.
Secondly, standards are constantly rising. It is not a case of Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray remaining at one level and then inexplicably becoming world beaters all of a sudden. The standard has risen gradually. That is why players like Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick can't match their past results. Hewitt obviously suffered from injury in recent years, but you can see that his results gradually declined from the time he was at number 1.
There is no such thing as a "very circular argument". It's either circular or it isn't. There are no degrees of circularity. I thought I'd throw that out there since you seem intent on challenging my knowledge of English usage with your awfully presumptious assertion about my awareness of the phrase "begging the question".
I don't recall ever suggesting that my opinion was tantamount to fact, nor do I recall saying that it is a mathematical certainty. It is merely an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. I am of the opinion that standards have risen and believe that is why Federer's dominance was halted. And I gave my reasons for holding that opinion.
I can turn it around on you. If you seriously don't think that someone like Hewitt and Safin in their primes could not only hang with the top 4 today, I don't know what to tell you. Didn't you see them take it to Sampras in back to back years at the US Open? The same guy (actually a better guy, because he was definitely aging) that went on to win the Open in 2002? I guess the 90s era was weak too, by this circular logic, and then Hewitt and Safin caught up.
Firstly, you can't compare the 90s era to today's. It was a different game, particularly when you take into account racquet technology, the grass at Wimbledon, and the fact that the era was dominated by a different style of tennis.
Secondly, Sampras was past it by that age. He won one more US Open in 2002, but that was hardly expected at the time. He was a shadow of his former self by the time Hewitt, Safin, et al came on the scene. After winning Wimbledon in 2000, it was over 2 years until he won his next title. He slid down the rankings and out of the top 10, losing to guys like George Bastl in the 2nd round of Wimbledon. Are you going to sit there and tell me he was the same player?
No, 26-27 is not getting old. It's not even close to old. A player who is 26 is not on the slide.
And are you trying to tell me that Borg declined at the age of 24? He retired at 26 and in the previous year he only played one tournament. He basically retired in 1981, at the age of 24. You might want to think carefully before you embarrass yourself with your answer to my next question. Are you telling me that Borg was past it by the age of 24?
Lendl declined? He won his last GS at the age of 30. He won 6 of his 8 grand slams AFTER he turned 26. That's some decline. I bet more players wish they could decline like that.
McEnroe won his last grand slam at the age of 25. His lack of success therefater had nothing to do with age. He took a break from tennis, came back briefly and then took another one. He basically gave up his commitment to tennis for several years.
And Pete Sampras was 29 when he began to slide down the rankings in 2000.
Not a single one of those players you mentioned are an example of someone declining at the age of 26-27. Good try, though.
The laws of human biology? I'm pretty sure there's no law stating that athletes decline at the ages of 26-27. I guess this must be how you plan to win the argument, by just making stuff up and hoping I won't notice.
koalakoala
Rookie
I am with you. Sorry I was on the phone when posting just now and my reply was not making sense. The monkey thing was intended to be a joke
What I want to say is that Federer single-handedly pushed tennis to a higher level and everybody has been using him as the benchmark. Young generations are learning from Federer, analyzing his game to death. This, plus the factor that he is in physical decline, makes him less dominant. It is actually a testimony that how superior Federer was. It is a shame that his dominance is now held against him.
Anyway, "the greatest ever" or "weak competition" is always debatable and quite...pointless...
I am far more concerned about how Roger is going to do to stay strong in the coming years. He really needs to change his perspective and play his guts out. I am also looking forward to having Murray and Djoker join as final contenders.
Very exciting moment.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Great posts!
koalakoala
Rookie
27 old is middle age for a tennis player.
Five years later(or even sooner), Nadal, Murray and Djoker will face the decline.
Five years later(or even sooner), Nadal, Murray and Djoker will face the decline.
paulorenzo
Hall of Fame
agreed. no one can really know the absolute reason as to why federer is declining. one's argument can state that the competition nowadays is far greater than that of 2003-2007, which is why federer is not dominating. another can say that federer is not doing too well because he has lost a step due to age, by athletic standards, i'd have to lean towards this a bit more: an athlete can only dominate for so long before his/her body catches up. whether or not it has to do with either his age or the competition of late surpassing him, it would be a tough call to actually choose a definite side to answer why fed hasn't been up to par.
i say its a bit of both.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
Bring it on.
I love when people delude themselves into thinking they're right. It makes it more fun to debunk your broken arguments.
I don't need to "impress" you because I know full well that people won't change on the internet. I'll just embarrass you, use you for cheap entertainment, and move on. Capische?
Really?
Safin is currently No. 25 in the world. Hewitt is currently ranked 70th in the world.
You want to say that the standards have risen so much that 20 people surpassed Safin's ranking in 05? That 60 odd people surpassed Hewitt's level?
You're trying to state that the mid 2000s were so weak that the average journeyman now is better than the top players then? So I'm guess you'll claim that Robby Ginepri can give Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi a beatdown. After all, he's ranked higher than Hewitt...
The game doesn't advance that fast, dude. Pete Sampras in his prime would still be an effective player today.
And just because you have an opinion doesn't mean that it's the right one. Everyone has an opinion. Your substantiation sucks and is not logically valid.
So, care to actually concede a point, or do you want to continue to entertain me with logically invalid 'arguments'?
I didn't say that he wasn't aging, but he did come from just winning Wimbledon, got to the finals of the US Open (two years in a row), and got destroyed by Safin and then Hewitt. Safin was very talented, but in 2000, his game was not as polished as it ended up being. He was always a headcase, but Safin at his best (in 2000) is not as good as Safin at his best later in his career (a la 2005 AO).
Borg began losing to McEnroe with far more regularity. Whether that's an example of decline or the ascension of another player can go either way. That said, I'm not like you where I can pretend to isolate a variable outside of experimental circumstances.
McEroe did decline after 25. Again, it's very convenient of you to claim that he "took a break from tennis" and then, with a questionable cause fallacy, claim that it's because he took a break from tennis. If McEnroe, like Borg, could continue winning at the same rate as they did before, they would still be playing tennis.
With the case of Borg, the majority of his losses to McEnroe came at the tail end of his career, and the same McEnroe began losing as well. Both of them started losing more often and then retired. It's not like they just had a sudden change of heart and jumped to conclusions, that sounds more like you.
As for Pete Sampras, you're not the brightest candle in the chandelier, are you?
The last time Sampras won the US Open, prior to his miracle run in 2002, was 1996, when he was twenty five years old. The last time he won the Aussie Open was 1997, when he was twenty five years old.
In fact, Sampras only won three of his 14 Grand Slams after the age of 27 (Roger Federer's current age), at a rate of less than one win per year, three of them at Wimbledon. Prior to this, he won 11 grand slams in 8 years, at a rate of about 1.4 grand slams per year.
That's not decline? Really? Clearly math isn't your strong suit either, just like logic.
You don't think Tennis is a young man's game? Let me spell out the past few champions at the French Open, shall we?
2008 - Rafa Nadal: 21 years old
2007 - Rafa Nadal: 20 years old
2006 - Rafa Nadal: 19 years old
2005 - Rafa Nadal: 18 years old
2004 - Gaston Gaudio: 25 years old
2003 - Juan Carlos Ferrero: 24 years old
2002 - Albert Costa: 26 years old
2001 - Gustavo Kuerten: 24 years old
2000 - Gustavo Kuerten: 23 years old
1999 - Andre Agassi: 29 years old
1998 - Carlos Moya: 22 years old
1997 - Gustavo Kuerten: 20 yars old
1996 - Yevgeny Kafelnikov: 22 years old
1995 - Thomas Muster: 27 years old
1994 - Sergi Bruguera: 23 years old
1993 - Sergi Bruguera: 22 years old
1992 - Jim Courier: 21 years old
1991 - Jim Courier: 20 years old
Speaking of Jim Courier, he never won a slam after just 22 years of age.
So, you have two examples in the last 18 years of players over the age of 26 winning the French Open. The only one over the age of 27 (Roger Federer's age) is the ageless wonder himself, Andre Agassi.
The average age is 22.56 years. Sounds a lot like a bunch of old men at the country club winning the slams, doesn't it?!
LOL.
There is a law that states that your recovery time gets slower as your body ages. You don't have the same cardiovascular endurance. Your body's capacity for work, for men, peaks in their early to mid twenties and then declines. If you had any understanding of sports medicine, physiology, or kinesiology, you would know this. Tennis is a young man's game.
Again, do you think it's a coincidence that of the quarterfinalists at the Aussie Open, Roger Federer was the oldest competitor?
Do you think it's a coincidence that the average age of French Open champions over the last 18 years is just over twenty-two years old?
Do you think it's a coincidence that as people observe Roger Federer losing a step, that's when the rest of the field catches up to him?
According to you, all of the above is a resounding yes. People don't lose a step at Roger Federer's age. It's just that Roger was beating up on nobodies and now he's not.
Again, you cannot isolate a variable as you please when multiple things are happening at once. This is a mathematical and logical fallacy. The field may be getting better, technology is definitely getting better, tennis is evolving, but at the same time, Roger Federer is getting slower. Thus, how much is the former and how much is the latter?
I don't know, but if you want to claim it's all because players are getting better, you're even dumber than I thought.
So yes, keep spouting off buzzwords like "psuedointellectual" to mask the fact that you have a paper-thin argument, and I'm going to enjoy tearing it apart every time.
Good day.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
I notice you conveniently sidestepped my request, Clydey2times.
Please name a grand slam contender that's older than Roger Federer. Surely if you're still in your prime at 27-28 years old, there would be at least one guy that would be a regular contender, right?
Sorry that it doesn't fit your perfect dream world, but if you can't see Federer is declining, you haven't watched many matches since 2006.
Please name a grand slam contender that's older than Roger Federer. Surely if you're still in your prime at 27-28 years old, there would be at least one guy that would be a regular contender, right?
Sorry that it doesn't fit your perfect dream world, but if you can't see Federer is declining, you haven't watched many matches since 2006.
stormholloway
Legend
This forum is already toxic enough. Must we lower the standards further? And if someone can't spell the man's name properly then it's obvious there's very little he can contribute on the subject.
Clydey2times
Hall of Fame
The reason that Safin is ranked 25th is all down to one win over Djokovic at Wimbledon. As a result, he benefited from Djokovic's seeding and his path to the semis. In previous years he has been ranked in the 70s. I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to prove by using Safin's current ranking in your argument. That players get better with age? He was way out of the top 50 in recent years, yet at the age of 29 he is ranked 25. Good job contradicting yourself.
You're trying to state that the mid 2000s were so weak that the average journeyman now is better than the top players then? So I'm guess you'll claim that Robby Ginepri can give Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi a beatdown. After all, he's ranked higher than Hewitt...
When did I say anything remotely like that? Reading comprehension isn't your strong point. Hewitt is ranked painfully low because of injury. However, even before his injury Federer had started to dominate. Hewitt couldn't come close to matching his previous success. Hewitt was ranked in the top 10 prior to his injury troubles etc. The point I am making is that even with him being in the top 10 it still highlights how the standard had risen since he was world number 1.
He was 29 by that point. The fact that he reached 2 US Open finals is irrelevant, since he lost both convincingly as he was sliding down the rankings. Like I said, he did not win another title for over 2 years. That is a definite decline.
It was clearly a case of McEnroe improving. Borg was in his early 20s. You do not suddenly lose your prime in your early 20s because of the ageing process. The very notion that a player can be over the hill before the age of 25 is absurd.
It has nothing to do with convenience. McEnroe did take a break from tennis when he was in his prime. He took another one shortly after he returned to the tour. Surely a tennis connoisseur like yourself is aware of McEnroe's relationship with Tatum O'Neal, which became a huge distraction? It's pretty well documented.
Frankly, it is idiotic to say that Borg and McEnroe were past it before they reached the age of 25. They hadn't even reached the midpoint of early adulthood. The body does not age that fast
I guess Wimbledon doesn't count? Any old player can win that mickey mouse tournament.
No, it's not a decline. The game was changing, making serve and volley a much tougher style to be successful with. Technology benefited baseliners to the detriment of serve/volleyers. In spite of that, Sampras still managed to win 3 more grand slams. It's not a coincidence that Pete's results dried up as baseliners started to dominate the tour.
It is a case of players improving, with younger, better players coming through. What you are in essence saying is that Jim Courier was over the hill by the age of 21; Kafelnikov and Bruguera were past it by 22; and everyone else was fit for retirement around the age of 23 or 24. You don't seem to have the first clue how the human body works. At the age of, for example, 24 the effect of the ageing process is generally negligible. If we aged as fast as you are suggesting, we would be dead by 40.
I have a healthy understanding of the ageing process. It does not have any notable impact on an athlete who is 24 years of age. You don't seem to grasp how slow the process is. Adulthood begins at 19-20 and the ageing process starts from there. You are telling me that 4 or so years after it begins, an athlete is past their best (you even suggested that 22 is where a player's prime ends in some cases). Utter nonsense.
Was the massive "LOL" necessary? Way to lower the tone by acting like a school kid. I can just imagine Professor Richard Dawkins suddenly exclaiming "LOL" in the middle of a debate.
Again, do you think it's a coincidence that of the quarterfinalists at the Aussie Open, Roger Federer was the oldest competitor?
Do you think it's a coincidence that the average age of French Open champions over the last 18 years is just over twenty-two years old?
Do you think it's a coincidence that as people observe Roger Federer losing a step, that's when the rest of the field catches up to him?
According to you, all of the above is a resounding yes. People don't lose a step at Roger Federer's age. It's just that Roger was beating up on nobodies and now he's not.
Again, you cannot isolate a variable as you please when multiple things are happening at once. This is a mathematical and logical fallacy. The field may be getting better, technology is definitely getting better, tennis is evolving, but at the same time, Roger Federer is getting slower. Thus, how much is the former and how much is the latter?
I don't know, but if you want to claim it's all because players are getting better, you're even dumber than I thought.
So yes, keep spouting off buzzwords like "psuedointellectual" to mask the fact that you have a paper-thin argument, and I'm going to enjoy tearing it apart every time.
Good day.
I'm sure there are some players who are past it by the age of 27. I don't recall ever suggesting otherwise. Those players generally have a much more demanding style of play, however. Federer's style of play is one of the least demanding out there.
Roger Federer is, in my opinion, not one of those players who are a step slower at 27. Your arguments have become gradually more ludicrous. Players past their best by the age of 22? Words fail me. You will likely come back and call that an argument from incredulity. It's not, though. If it wasn't for the massive holes in your arguments keeping me occupied, I would genuinely be at a loss for words.
Haven't I already answered your question on why Federer is the only GS contender at his age? That is precisely what we have been arguing about. The other players from his generation just can't cut it. That's why.
Clydey2times
Hall of Fame
ChanceEncounter, I like how you conveniently ignored the point I answered about Lendl.
tahiti
Professional
I can tell you're not married! Nothing is worse than taking your frustrations out on your partner or spouse. I'd recommend taking it out on just about anyone else instead... Unless you want to speed up the divorce of course
My boyfriend would find out what was really bothering me, calm me down and make me sweet again
Guess I should marry him!Quote "this forum is toxic enough do we have to lower the standard anymore?"
Good question
Tony is a left handed player and maybe Fed had picked up enough on how to play a "left handed" player. Some blame it on the fact that Tony failed to lead Roger to the FO title (swissinfo.ch) others say that Tony couldn't coach full time. Along with the other mentioned reasons here it seems good that this partnership died. Fed has minimal things he can improve and any coach after time would not be able to provide added value to an already all round good player.
RoddickAce
Hall of Fame
Well, Federer is getting older, so that might affect the H2H.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
Then this just helps my point out even more.
First off, if Safin was ranked in the 70s, your argument, essentially, boils down to the field catching up so much that 60 some odd players have emerged since 2005 to get to a level higher than Safin is.
Does that seem realistic to you? Not really. It's pretty obvious that people of Federer's generation are declining.
Your reading comprehension is nothing to write home about.
You don't seem to understand that by claiming something, if something else is the logical deduction of that statement, you are effectively claiming the latter as well as the former. If you want to claim that Hewitt or Safin aren't elite players by virtue of what they are doing currently, then you have to essentially claim that field has improved so much that there are dozens of players that have surpassed their former level.
That argument is ludicrous. Tennis talent doesn't change that quickly. It's obvious that the best players of Federer's generation (Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, et cetera) are declining.
You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either Sampras was declining at 28 years old (same age as Roger Federer), right around 1999 or 2000, or Hewitt and Safin beat a Sampras that was near the level that he used to be.
He can't be declining at 2000 but have no signs of decline in 1998 and 1999. A decline is just that, a decline, it's not dropping off the face of the earth. Federer is declining because he's 27 years old. Pete began declining when he was 27, 28 years old too (1998 to 1999). He was clearly not in his prime by the time that Safin schooled him in 2000.
Either way, you have to concede one of two things then: Federer and his generation is declining, or the field has gotten so much better that 60, 70 players have surpassed the level that it was in the early to mid 2000s. The latter is pretty ridiculous.
Borg lost most of his games against McEnroe in his mid-twenties. He began losing regularly at the age of 24 to 25. He's not "over the hill," but that's usually the end of the years that tennis champions dominate. Look through the history of world #1s and their respective age.
Hell, I'll do it for you, since you're obviously not too good at crunching the numbers:
Let's start with Borg.
Borg first became world #1 at 21 years of age. He held it for a total of 109 total weeks before he ended his reign at world #1 at 25 years of age.
Spaced between this reign, Jimmy Connors was world #1. He served the bulk of his weeks at #1 (160 out of 268) between the ages of 21 and 24. He did serve a couple weeks at #1 again in his thirties, so he gets credit for aging well, but the bulk of his reign was as a young guy.
For the most part, the guy that succeeded him was John McEnroe, who first became world #1 at 21 years of age, and held it for at otal of 170 weeks, ending his reign at 26 years of age.
Then came Ivan Lendl. He first became world #1 at age 22. He held it for a then record of 270 weeks, ending his last reign at age of 30. However, the bulk of his reign came from 1983-1988, when he was 27 to 28 years of age.
During this time, Mats Wilander served as world #1. He served all of his 20 weeks at the top while he was 24 years old.
Then came Edberg. He started his reign in 1990, when he was 24 years old. He never held the world #1 past 1992, when he was 26 years old.
During this tim, Edberg fought for world #1 with Boris Becker. Becker first became world #1 at 23 years of age. He also last held it when he was 23 years of age.
Then came Jim Courier. He first became world #1 at 21 years of age. He held it up to when he was 23 years of age, in 1993.
Also during this time, Pete Sampras emerged. Pete first became world #1 at 21 years of age. He last held world number 1 at 29 years of age. However, Pete held 233 weeks out of his 286 total before his 26th birthday.
Andre Agassi also had a turn at number one. He became #1 first just shy of his 25th birthday. He last held it when he was an astonishing 33 years of age, which is why he's the ageless wonder. I doubt Federer would stack up to Agassi in terms of how well he ages. I doubt Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga, Simon, Delpo, et al will either.
Also during this time, Patrick Rafter seized #1 for a week, he was twenty six.
Marat Safin was also a world #1. He first became #1 at age 20, and then last held it at age 21.
Lleyton Hewitt also served as #1. He first held it at age 20. He last held it at age 22.
Juan Carlos Ferrero served 8 weeks at #1. He did this when he was 23 years old.
Then Andy Roddick was world #1. He first became #1 at age 21, and then lost it before he turned 22.
Then Federer came along. He first became world #1 at age 22, and held it until age 27.
Then we have Nadal, who became #1 at age 22, and he's still 22 and still #1 at the time of this post.
So, excluding Nadal, we have the following ages when players were no longer world #1:
Federer: 27
Rddick: 22
Ferrero: 23
Hewitt: 22
Safin: 21
Agassi: 33
Sampras: 29 (most before 26)
Courier: 23
Edberg: 26
Wilander: 24
Lendl: 30 (most before 27)
Connors: 31 (251 of his 268 weeks at #1 before the age of 27)
McEnroe: 26
Borg: 25
So looking at this list, it doesn't look like Federer is too out of place, huh? Regardless of whether or not these guys 'aged' or the 'field caught up' or whatever justification you want to use, the fact of the matter is that tennis is not dominated by older guys. The best tennis is played by guys in their early to mid twenties!
Fact
Actually, as someone with obviously considerably more knowledge than yourself, I can tell you that a person's cardiovascular health peaks in their late teens and early twenties, and a person's muscular development peaks in their mid twenties. You're welcome to google for scholarly sources to support the claim.
McEnroe and Borg both decided that they should just quit when they were still capable of being their best? You think it's just coincidence that Borg "lost his passion" for tennis after McEnroe spanked him in the 1981 US Open? Or that McEnroe went on his sabbatical after Lendl whooped him in the 1985 US Open?
Really? Conveniently, they both seemed to lose passion for the game after they got their asses kicked. Funny what losing can do to you, huh?
If McEnroe was still in his physical prime, how come he failed to do anything after coming back? Surely he didn't forget how to play tennis. He simply got passed by Ivan Lendl.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
Cont'd:
Here you go again.
First, you clearly claim that Pete was aging in 2000 (when Safin beat him), and 2001 (when Hewitt beat him), but that he wasn't aging in 1998? 1999? Did he suddenly wake up, start losing his hair and more tennis matches? Do you think the body just starts aging overnight? Please.
The fact of the matter is that Sampras's tennis records began to decline in 1998, just like how Roger Federer's record began to decline in 2007/2008. Sampras was 27 in 1998, Federer was 26 in 2007, 27 in 2008. That seems pretty consistent to me.
Do you have to resort to straw man to make a point now?
I have to keep a tally of your logical fallacies, you're really racking them up.
I never claimed that we'd be dead by 40, or that Jim Courier was over the hill by 22. You on the other hand, claim that all of these players met their match against players that got better.
So let me ask you, if players consistently get better every year, what makes Roger's era particularly weak? You claimed he dominated a "weak" era, but you've done nothing to substantiate your argument. It seems, instead, that your primary argument, "the game changes" is one you want to apply to every damn year over the last 18. And I'm sure if I extrapolated farther back, you'd want to apply it to every year of the last 25, 35, hell, before the damn Open Era!
The bottom line is that while aging my be "negligible," any small amount counts when we're talking about the best of the best. A 25 year old won't be able to run around as much as a 22 year old, ceteris paribis. Thus, it makes sense that when similarly skilled, a 22 year old would beat a 25 year old, regardless of era.
I had to laugh at your ridiculous assertion that I resorted to "making stuff up." If you can't keep civil in a debate, I have no reason to do it with you. You clearly have no ability to keep up in an honest debate, and you want to fling mud while you can. As I said, I have no desire to change your opinion, but I'll continue to shred your garbage arguments for sheer entertainment.
You've already committed begging the question, straw man, questionable cause, and hasty generalization fallacies, in addition to just overall poor reading comprehension. Really impressive for just a few posts in.
More straw man. I never stated that players were past their best at 22. I stated that Jim Courier never won a grand slam past 22. Did you fail the SAT reading or something?
Your arguments have been circular the whole way through. Not once did you properly address the point, and you've basically tried to have the best of both sides of your argument, which of course, is impossible.
So now Roger Federer won't age because he has a less demanding style of play? So this means that he won't get a step slower when he's running... how?
Please, that's absurd. So since Roger Federer is a smooth player, it means his cardiovascular strength can't diminish and it won't affect his footspeed! Bravo you.
Ah, but you didn't.
In fact, you conveniently used this argument for the entirety of the last 18 years:
So how is Federer's generation not able to "cut it" when the same trend applied for 18+ years? Are you intentionally stone-walling my argument now just so you can feel good about yourself?
What point about Lendl?
Lendl's prime years, when he was #1 in the rankings, was between 1983 to 1987. Conveniently, this put him at age 23 to 27 years old. Isn't that roughly where Roger Federer is?
When did I say that people past 27 can't win grand slams? Ivan, your crown jewel about being the "exception" to my argument, had his best years right in the breadhouse, during the same years that Federer's best were in.
Convenient, huh?
Inevitably, you'll demonstrate the full breadth of your powers of denial. As well as your magic powers to isolate one thing as the root cause when multiple trends are happening at once.
Here you go again.
First, you clearly claim that Pete was aging in 2000 (when Safin beat him), and 2001 (when Hewitt beat him), but that he wasn't aging in 1998? 1999? Did he suddenly wake up, start losing his hair and more tennis matches? Do you think the body just starts aging overnight? Please.
The fact of the matter is that Sampras's tennis records began to decline in 1998, just like how Roger Federer's record began to decline in 2007/2008. Sampras was 27 in 1998, Federer was 26 in 2007, 27 in 2008. That seems pretty consistent to me.
Do you have to resort to straw man to make a point now?
I have to keep a tally of your logical fallacies, you're really racking them up.
I never claimed that we'd be dead by 40, or that Jim Courier was over the hill by 22. You on the other hand, claim that all of these players met their match against players that got better.
So let me ask you, if players consistently get better every year, what makes Roger's era particularly weak? You claimed he dominated a "weak" era, but you've done nothing to substantiate your argument. It seems, instead, that your primary argument, "the game changes" is one you want to apply to every damn year over the last 18. And I'm sure if I extrapolated farther back, you'd want to apply it to every year of the last 25, 35, hell, before the damn Open Era!
The bottom line is that while aging my be "negligible," any small amount counts when we're talking about the best of the best. A 25 year old won't be able to run around as much as a 22 year old, ceteris paribis. Thus, it makes sense that when similarly skilled, a 22 year old would beat a 25 year old, regardless of era.
I had to laugh at your ridiculous assertion that I resorted to "making stuff up." If you can't keep civil in a debate, I have no reason to do it with you. You clearly have no ability to keep up in an honest debate, and you want to fling mud while you can. As I said, I have no desire to change your opinion, but I'll continue to shred your garbage arguments for sheer entertainment.
You've already committed begging the question, straw man, questionable cause, and hasty generalization fallacies, in addition to just overall poor reading comprehension. Really impressive for just a few posts in.
More straw man. I never stated that players were past their best at 22. I stated that Jim Courier never won a grand slam past 22. Did you fail the SAT reading or something?
Your arguments have been circular the whole way through. Not once did you properly address the point, and you've basically tried to have the best of both sides of your argument, which of course, is impossible.
So now Roger Federer won't age because he has a less demanding style of play? So this means that he won't get a step slower when he's running... how?
Please, that's absurd. So since Roger Federer is a smooth player, it means his cardiovascular strength can't diminish and it won't affect his footspeed! Bravo you.
Ah, but you didn't.
In fact, you conveniently used this argument for the entirety of the last 18 years:
you said:
So how is Federer's generation not able to "cut it" when the same trend applied for 18+ years? Are you intentionally stone-walling my argument now just so you can feel good about yourself?
What point about Lendl?
Lendl's prime years, when he was #1 in the rankings, was between 1983 to 1987. Conveniently, this put him at age 23 to 27 years old. Isn't that roughly where Roger Federer is?
When did I say that people past 27 can't win grand slams? Ivan, your crown jewel about being the "exception" to my argument, had his best years right in the breadhouse, during the same years that Federer's best were in.
Convenient, huh?
Inevitably, you'll demonstrate the full breadth of your powers of denial. As well as your magic powers to isolate one thing as the root cause when multiple trends are happening at once.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
So basically, to recap, you demonstrate your astounding knowledge of players aging, by claiming that Sampras didn't start aging until 2000, but by the US Open 2000, he was already such an old man that a weak player like Safin dominated him at the US Open.
Man, I guess those Greeks age fast, huh?
You also claim that Hewitt and Safin aren't very good players, as evidenced by the fact that (a) Federer dominated them (a circular argument) and (b) they can't do anything against the current field.
I guess Australians and Russians aren't allowed to age, because the fact that they aren't doing well against the current crop of guys is an indictment of their primes.
Guys like Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Sampras, Edberg, Courier all had the bulk of their world #1 success before the age of 26 to 27. I guess the fact that none of them are dominant world #1s after this age has nothing to do with tennis being a young man's game at all, does it? Or how about the fact that Federer's reign and decline from world #1 seems to look just like theirs?
I guess the Swiss aren't allowed to age either.
Lendl had the bulk of his world #1 reign by 27. He had a number of weeks when he was 29 and 30, and that's certainly impressive, but that's also before the arrival of Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, et al. It seems to me that that was a weak era, not Federer's, which follows the natural course of world #1 reigns.
But I guess Czech players age differently.
It's convenient how, despite the large body of evidence I've placed in front of you about how players tend to age at roughly the same era of their lives, you still can't seem to reconcile with the notion that Federer may, in fact, have lost a step which allowed the rest of the field to catch up. I guess you feel aging is something that you can assign arbitrarily.
So, maybe you have some semantic issue with the word "aging." Because, you're right, a 30 year old is hardly old in most contexts, but it's old in the tennis world. Santoro is practically a dinosaur at 36 years young.
But regardless, take a look at the French Open champions. Take a look at the former world #1s. Something is keeping them from being as good as they were by the time they reach 26 to 27.
But shh, it's not aging, not according to Clydey2times!!
Man, I guess those Greeks age fast, huh?
You also claim that Hewitt and Safin aren't very good players, as evidenced by the fact that (a) Federer dominated them (a circular argument) and (b) they can't do anything against the current field.
I guess Australians and Russians aren't allowed to age, because the fact that they aren't doing well against the current crop of guys is an indictment of their primes.
Guys like Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Sampras, Edberg, Courier all had the bulk of their world #1 success before the age of 26 to 27. I guess the fact that none of them are dominant world #1s after this age has nothing to do with tennis being a young man's game at all, does it? Or how about the fact that Federer's reign and decline from world #1 seems to look just like theirs?
I guess the Swiss aren't allowed to age either.
Lendl had the bulk of his world #1 reign by 27. He had a number of weeks when he was 29 and 30, and that's certainly impressive, but that's also before the arrival of Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, et al. It seems to me that that was a weak era, not Federer's, which follows the natural course of world #1 reigns.
But I guess Czech players age differently.
It's convenient how, despite the large body of evidence I've placed in front of you about how players tend to age at roughly the same era of their lives, you still can't seem to reconcile with the notion that Federer may, in fact, have lost a step which allowed the rest of the field to catch up. I guess you feel aging is something that you can assign arbitrarily.
So, maybe you have some semantic issue with the word "aging." Because, you're right, a 30 year old is hardly old in most contexts, but it's old in the tennis world. Santoro is practically a dinosaur at 36 years young.
But regardless, take a look at the French Open champions. Take a look at the former world #1s. Something is keeping them from being as good as they were by the time they reach 26 to 27.
But shh, it's not aging, not according to Clydey2times!!
ChanceEncounter
Professional
And here's the real jewel of your hypocrisy.
You claim that it is "a case of players improving, with younger, better players coming through" for the last 18 years of French Open champions. Yet, somehow, you can arbitrarily state that Federer's era was particular weak?
How is the era weak if it seems to follow the same trend of 18+ years? Simply because you say so?
Please. Your garbage is starting to smell.
You claim that it is "a case of players improving, with younger, better players coming through" for the last 18 years of French Open champions. Yet, somehow, you can arbitrarily state that Federer's era was particular weak?
How is the era weak if it seems to follow the same trend of 18+ years? Simply because you say so?
Please. Your garbage is starting to smell.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
I'm not asking you to name several. I'm asking you to name one. Surely an era is not so weak that, if 27+ year olds were still just as much in their physical primes as 22 year olds, then you could name one guy that's a contender for slams in that age category, right?
I'll even let you name guys before Federer's era. You could name a guy older than Santoro if you want. C'mon, just one name. Clearly, if age is not an issue, the odds that not one guy older than Federer is a contender is astronomical.
Are you trying to imply that Federer happened to play in an era where there was a holocaust of elite tennis players? How clever of you.
One name. That's all I ask. Shouldn't be too hard right? One guy that's a contender. Please. Anywhere from age 27 to infinity.
This seems to be consistent that people of Federer's age start to get older and slower, right?
Nah, couldn't be for Clydey, that would make too much sense!
swedechris
Banned
dumped who..? do you mean coache Roach.. or coach Roche.. ? LOL. did you dump your English classes?
seriously though , i think he needs one. a good one would be Wilander.
seriously though , i think he needs one. a good one would be Wilander.
Oui c'est moi.
Hall of Fame
That guy would be near-last on my 'wish list for Roger'.
Cahill would be a good one........
Similar threads
