DropShotArtist
Banned
Djokovic 2011 would lose to Federer 2007 at AO in 5 set.s
How Much Has Federer Declined From His Prime
- Thread starter Federer20042006
- Start date
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
Not sure you understand what style means.
He is still an aggressive baseliner, who likes to run around the BH and go FH inside out. He also mixes up the S&V, and my and large he is content to chip the return back in play and work his way into a point.
He also still uses that law slice that forces you to net and passes.
Just because the results arent the same doesnt mean the style is different. He is simply physically incapable of hitting as many winners from the back of the court, and he is more error prone because his movement isnt as good as it was before
DropShotArtist
Banned
Oh I understand style alright. When you no longer have the same power you have and can't hit outright winners from nowhere (watch video from 05-06), you have to change 'style' that incorporates more set up shots including dropshots. That's a very big change in style. Additionally he would very often just chip back the return because his ground game was so good before, he could rely on it. The points could go long if they have to. Nowadays if a point goes long he usually loses it, so he's become much more aggressive on ROS. That's a pretty big change in style.
Last edited:
wangs78
Legend
Precisely 10char
LuckyR
Legend
First of all, Roger is losing more matches now than in his "prime". I think his actual game has slipped an infintesimally small amount, certainly of the three factors to explain his increase in losses, it is by far the least important.
The other two are 1) improvements by the other players, esp Nole and to a lesser extent Murray and 2) the aura of invincibility that he enjoyed in his prime. Let's be honest, back in those days, for all matches not against Rafa, he was 80% of the way to winning the match before the first serve was struck. No one (except Rafa) went into those matches with the psychological belief they would win the match and for a mental game like tennis, that makes winning way, way more difficult than without it (even with the same strokes, stamina etc). In fact since his playing days are likely limited, players of all levels are gunning for him now, they know that if they want to tell their grandkids that they beat the GOAT, they have a brief time to accomplish it.
The other two are 1) improvements by the other players, esp Nole and to a lesser extent Murray and 2) the aura of invincibility that he enjoyed in his prime. Let's be honest, back in those days, for all matches not against Rafa, he was 80% of the way to winning the match before the first serve was struck. No one (except Rafa) went into those matches with the psychological belief they would win the match and for a mental game like tennis, that makes winning way, way more difficult than without it (even with the same strokes, stamina etc). In fact since his playing days are likely limited, players of all levels are gunning for him now, they know that if they want to tell their grandkids that they beat the GOAT, they have a brief time to accomplish it.
DropShotArtist
Banned
Oh yeah sure if Beanneteau raised his level consistently enough he too could win 17 slams. 
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
possible, but Djokovic 2011 would beat Federer 2006 at AO
wangs78
Legend
I disagree. Roger's movement in 2004-2006 was exquisite. Even if Nole's movement today is as effective, Roger's more aggressive game style would win it. The problem today is that Roger doesn't get to the ball as well as he used to so it's harder for him to not only defend but also attack as effectively. And in 2013 his serve has been very mediocre.
DropShotArtist
Banned
Maybe, but prime for prime Fed would end up with more slams no question.
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
Yeah, agree, because of Wimbledon. Djokovic has no business vs prime Federer on grass
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
we talking about AO 2011, 2007 and 2006. Federer's form in AO 2006 was not very good
Last edited:
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
I voted a lot. It's clear. The guy just had everything going and simply didn't lose matches. He's doing everything worse than he used to and that's natural.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Yeah but no version of Fed would dominate 2011 Nadal the way Novak did.
Mostly agree, also I'd call it 50-50 at the FO.
From what I've seen so far in 2013 I wouldn't call the decline in his movement slight, I also think Fed plays the percentages more these days, he doesn't blow players away with his shotmaking (not even in early rounds of slams).
zagor
Bionic Poster
Federer for the win!
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Sorry, I think prime Fed would Murder 2011 Novak. No matter the slam. 50/50 at the French when 2011 Federer (past prime) beat undefeated Novak? I'd give Djokovic a 50/50 chance in Australia though more based on his 2012 AO final form than his 2011 AO final form though, he could outlast Federer perhaps.
DropShotArtist
Banned
Well sure. And I really doubt it would be 50-50 at FO. Sure in 2011 Fed played an amazing match to beat Djoker, but still that level was not close to 2005-2007 Fed on clay. Of course at AO Djoker would always have his chances.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Djokovic doesn't like the match up with Federer I think, on 04 - 07 surfaces Federer would be beat him most of the time. Djokovic's peak level only lasted a season as well, Djokovic of 2012 and 2013 so far would lose everywhere but the slowest hardcourts IMO. He'd get wins but the courts at the USO and Wimbledon would be Federer's to lose.
zagor
Bionic Poster
We're all entitled to our opinion.
Fed was overall past his prime in 2011 but I personally believe his 2011 FO performance was one of his best, his endurance wasn't there of course but he hit the ball and served really well that tourney, it's possible lighter balls aided him but his level was very high IMO. Overall I'd say Fed hit his peak on clay the last (in 2006) compare to grass and HC so it's possibly his decline on that surface wasn't of the same rate.
Maybe you're right that Fed would have the edge at the FO but I would consider it a slight edge, Novak can play ball on clay.
Well two times Novak met Fed at AO he beat him in straights, now even if we presume that 2008 and 2011 AO showings were Novak's best to date and that Fed wasn't at his best in those matches Fed should have still taken a set atleast for me to favour him or give him 50-50 peak for peak against Novak at AO (atleast on plexicushion).
DropShotArtist
Banned
Have to agree with you for once.
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
I just watched extended highlights of the 07 Wimby final, and while I know its at the end of his traditional peak, his serve was just amazing.
In fact, his serve was the single reason he won the tournament, I think he out aced Nadal like 25 - 2 or 3, and he had double the unreturned serves
In fact, his serve was the single reason he won the tournament, I think he out aced Nadal like 25 - 2 or 3, and he had double the unreturned serves
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Never thought i'd see the day
lol. Federer was just a scary player, Novak is fresher in the mind, but I wasn't as impressed (or scared) as I was with prime Fed.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
It is so hilarious when these single time examples only seem to apply when in favor of Federer. Many Federer fans argue he would have the edge prime to prime over Kuerten at the French (rotfl but anyway) even though in his prime he got smoked by hip crippled 30% of what he was at the French. A single win by post prime Federer over prime Djokovic is NOT sufficient to say beyond any doubt Federer has some big edge over Djokovic at RG. Djokovic was quite competitive with Federer on clay both when they played another and their general threat on the surface to the tour, even when Roger was closer to his prime than Novak was (08-09), and Djokovic has a good shot to catch or surpass Federer's clay record by the time his career is gone, and is a way bigger threat to Nadal on clay than Federer in his peak of peaks dreamed of being.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Nadal has nothing to do with the argument though because he has more trouble with Djokovic on any surface. Federer has insane clay consistency and reached how many FO finals? And also has scored wins over Rafa on clay, despite it being the worst matchup on tour for him.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
To me, I don't think either has a matchup problem per-say with the other (Federer/Djokovic) it's just about how well they are playing really. Which is pretty unique at the top level.
DropShotArtist
Banned
Let's not forget that USO11 was only won by Djoker due to a massive choke by Fed. Djoker won, but Fed had him beat.
NatF
Bionic Poster
It's not a major matchup issue with Federer and Djokovic like with Federer and Nadal, I just think Federer's variety bothers Djokovic more. I think Djokovic feels very comfortable trading groundstrokes with Nadal.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
You know now that I think about it, Nadal doesn't really have a matchup issue with Djokovic either. When they play on HC's Djoker has a 60/40 advantage i'd say, but Nadal doesn't necessarily hate playing Djokovic either. Federer and Nadal can get Djokovic frustrated in ways most players can't, especially on a consistent basis. Nadal when playing well has Djokovic scrambling from pillar to post, and really doesn't get the credit he deserves for pushing Djokovic to his limits and having a winning H2H. You'd think he's never beat the guy the way people talk on here.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Novak and Rafa's rivalry on hardcourt has been pretty onesided. Most of their pre 2011 matches on hardcourt were straights victories for Novak.
Elite
Semi-Pro
******* is not a typical baseliner. Just no. He still has a lot of variety and exceptional shot selection.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Djokovic has never had a winning head-to-head record against Nadal, neither overall nor in majors. Also, Nadal did stop Djokovic from holding all 4 majors at the same time. Nadal just brings it against his rivals more often than not, 19-10 against Federer, 19-14 against Djokovic and 13-5 against Murray. That's excellent.
Yeah, but Nadal won the big ones like the Olympics and the U.S. Open final.
P
PureTennis
Guest
All true.
And that extreme diet he went on right before AO 2008, in which he lost six or seven pounds, actually helped his forehand (typically his weaskest shot) and improved his movement by orders of magnitude. Gone were the forehand errors of 2004-2007 and the uncharecteristic losses of that same mediocre period.
Posters here even mused that the secret diet increased his speed by half a step and put an end to all of those forehand errors.
He is so much better now!
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
lol that's meaningless, Novak wasn't in top 4 at the time, he was just starting to have a break out season.
With Fed v Novak it really is a toss up. It's so hard to predict who will win.
Everyone says "Oh grandpa Fed had 2 MP against 2011 Novak at USO, imagine what peak Fed would've done to him". And you can see where they're coming from with it. But they forget that peak Fed struggled against 34 year old Agassi at the very same tournament in 2004...
The reverse can be said: "Oh ancient Agassi had peak Fed on the ropes, imagine what peak Novak would do to him".
Regarding the AO; Novak is brutally tough to beat there since it turned plexicushion. Yeah he had a bad 2009 and 2010 but apart from those 2 poor years he has dominated. He's beaten all the top 4 counterparts and never lost to them, Federer twice, Nadal, Murray thrice. Federer did not face such competition when he was winning AO titles, Safin's the only one who played awesome and it was enough to get the job done. But even god mode Safin was not playing as good as Verdasco did in AO09 SF...
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Was it Nadal who beat Noel at the FO 2011 ?
Or is it some other year you are talking of ?
cork_screw
Hall of Fame
Ummmm... the guy is almost 32. Of course he's not going to compare to when he was 26. This is another "no duh" moment on these ridiculous boards.
Feather
Legend
Mustard is right. Nadal prevented Djokovic from holding all four majors at the same time. He beat Djokovic in RG 2012. Djokovic was holding all three majors then. When Roger beat Djokovic at RG2011, he was holding only one major
tennisbuck
Hall of Fame
Who is to say that Nadal wouldn't have beaten nole in the final if Novak had gotten there?
Feather
Legend
I really agree with you. I feel Roger is leagues above Djokovic in clay.
I feel that Rafa was at his best in RG till 2008. He is not the same from 2010. He is on an insanely good level in clay so he can still win in clay even though he is not in the same level. The closest anyone came to beating Nadal playing five full sets on clay is Roger. Rome 2006 final. Roger was really good on clay. He bageled Nadal in Hamburg. It's a phenomenal achievement.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
ok, i forgot that and was assuming a calendar slam. I could not believe Mustard would have made such a gaffe.
Feather
Legend
Read carefully before you quote someone. Neitehr me nor Mustard made any assumptions. We just stated some facts
sportsfan1
Legend
Given that the players say its a game of small margins, maybe it's because Fed has lost some of the belief and players have gotten used to his game, and seeing Haas make a run in Miami and beat Djok on a slow court inspires him?
Federer20042006
Banned
In 2007 Federer lost to Canas twice, Volandri, Nalbandian twice, and Gonzo.
In 2008 he lost to Fish, Roddick, Stepanek, Karlovic, and Simon twice.
A lot of the guys who started to get him on his way down weren't exactly "new blood."
In 2008 he lost to Fish, Roddick, Stepanek, Karlovic, and Simon twice.
A lot of the guys who started to get him on his way down weren't exactly "new blood."
Similar threads
- Poll
