Federer-Connors: Who would have the h2h advantage

metsman · Feb 28, 2017

-NN- said:
Duncan better for longer, but more fortunate in terms of career and franchise. At peak, Garnett is as good.. maybe more productive. Has edges in PER and across the main stats line from about 23-30 years of age. Could have won more rings. On court impact across their best periods is very close.

Garnett's offense suffered in the playoffs, Duncan's didn't and his 03 playoff run was titanic and blows away anything Garnett ever did in the playoffs including 08. That alone puts him over. Garnett was probably the slightly better regular season player I agree.

metsman · Feb 28, 2017

-NN- said:
I think LeBron is more Mr.Everything than MJ. MJ did his job and was dominant but LeBron tries to do everything and guard everyone which is why teams completely collapse after he leaves them (not so with MJ). I actually see this as a weakness in LeBron because it means too many things run through him which kind of oppresses teammates. At the same time, he makes teammates better but it has to be his way. I find LeBron to be paradoxical.. and one of the greatest ever.

Many use this as an argument about how LeBron is more valuable to a team than Jordan but I don't see it the same way. My interpretation is quite different.

I'll take LeBron over Jordan if I were starting a team. I'd take Jordan over LeBron on a team that is just that 1 player away. Overall, Jordan is still the greatest for me, but unlike many that's subject to change.

metsman · Feb 28, 2017

KG1965 said:
... Dominique W., Ewing, Nash....

lol how do you leave out Barkley. To me he's easily the best player ever without a ring.

KG1965 · Mar 1, 2017

metsman said:
lol how do you leave out Barkley. To me he's easily the best player ever without a ring.

Oooooooops.
It's true.... Charles the myth.

90's Clay · Mar 1, 2017

metsman said:
I'll take LeBron over Jordan if I were starting a team. I'd take Jordan over LeBron on a team that is just that 1 player away. Overall, Jordan is still the greatest for me, but unlike many that's subject to change.

Who is gonna change it? Kobe couldn't come close. Lebron has squandered too many finals away that he should have won and he is already been in the league 15 seasons. and needs all this help to put around him. . Durant/Curry don't have a chance.

No one will ever touch MJ. He was the epitome of basketball perfection. No weakness.

metsman · Mar 1, 2017

90's Clay said:
Who is gonna change it? Kobe couldn't come close. Lebron has squandered too many finals away that he should have won and he is already been in the league 15 seasons. and needs all this help to put around him. . Durant/Curry don't have a chance.

No one will ever touch MJ. He was the epitome of basketball perfection. No weakness.

LeBron blew 1 final he should have won, that's the only reason they aren't neck and neck. But the Warriors are a better team than Jordan ever beat, so if LeBron does it again, and keeps being an elite player for 3 more years it'll be a debate it because he'll have a huge longevity edge.

90's Clay · Mar 1, 2017

metsman said:
LeBron blew 1 final he should have won, that's the only reason they aren't neck and neck. But the Warriors are a better team than Jordan ever beat, so if LeBron does it again, and keeps being an elite player for 3 more years it'll be a debate it because he'll have a huge longevity edge.

Warriors blew a 3-1 lead in the finals. Inexcusable. Jordan also had a FAR heavier competition in the East than anything Lebron has had to deal with. The East hasn't even been strong since the Jordan/Bulls dynasty days. Bad Boy Pistons, Magic, Knicks etc.

I dont think the Bulls would have much trouble with a soft team like the Warriors though. Pippen/Jordan/Another wing player would shut down the 3 ball and play them tight. How are they gonna score beyond that??

hoodjem · Mar 1, 2017

KG1965 said:

Bahrami's mustache could beat them all.

hoodjem · Mar 1, 2017

pc1 said:
Players like Laver and Ashe used to clap in watching Nastase's matches. Even they were stunned by Nastase's technical genius. The thing is that Nastase often tried to toy with his opponents and it's hard to regain your concentration at times.

Nastase, could compare with virtually any player technically. I think for example he was superior to Gonzalez technically and perhaps Rosewall because he could hit topspin off both sides. Nastase's shot repertoire seemed unlimited.

Nastase was a brilliant shot-maker.

Technically, yes. I would agree. Mentally, no.

jrepac · Mar 1, 2017

metsman said:
And mastered by Federer as well, except he also put spin on the ball which is ridiculous.

I don't see Connors bothering peak Fed in any case (beyond the usual amount of any ATG against any other). He has advantages over Agassi but Agassi has a much better forehand and probably a more punishing second serve return, and I don't see Connors putting Federer on his heels as much as Agassi did.

Baloney. Agassi hit a lot of short balls in his rallies. Good pace, but short. that never hurt Fed. Not sure why you are so hung up on "spin" on the ball. It's not like Connors didn't square off against guys who hit with spin...and pace. If anything, Fed would have to play a non-conventional game, slicing the hell out of his shots to take the pace OFF the ball. Fed's best shot...his forehand, would be challenged. If anything, Fed's backhand slice would be more of a weapon against Connors. Connors FIRST serve return was the weapon against the big servers...not sure if he could read the Fed serve (who knows), but if so, there would be a lot of pressure on Fed. Really, similar to the pressure a Nadal would apply/create, mentally on Fed. Does Fed have the superior tools? Sure, no question. But, it's not open and shut by any stretch.

Limpinhitter · Mar 1, 2017

KG1965 said:
Federer with modern racket vs Connors with T2000 6-0 6-0 6-0 on grass, on hc, on carpet, on red clay, on har tru.

Don't underestimate the T2000. It was a cannon.

abmk · Mar 2, 2017

jrepac said:
Baloney. Agassi hit a lot of short balls in his rallies. Good pace, but short. that never hurt Fed. Not sure why you are so hung up on "spin" on the ball. It's not like Connors didn't square off against guys who hit with spin...and pace. If anything, Fed would have to play a non-conventional game, slicing the hell out of his shots to take the pace OFF the ball. Fed's best shot...his forehand, would be challenged. If anything, Fed's backhand slice would be more of a weapon against Connors. Connors FIRST serve return was the weapon against the big servers...not sure if he could read the Fed serve (who knows), but if so, there would be a lot of pressure on Fed. Really, similar to the pressure a Nadal would apply/create, mentally on Fed. Does Fed have the superior tools? Sure, no question. But, it's not open and shut by any stretch.

not even close to the pressure nadal can create.

nadal FH to fed's BH -> big weapon, not like connors' FH to fed's BH
his return off fed's slice blasting it for winners >>> connors' struggling with slice

nadal's serve >> connors' serve
nadal's ability to get back so many balls >> connors'

the only things connors has over nadal is return, BH and net game and neither of them are enough to come close to the pressure nadal puts on federer , considering all of the above.

metsman · Mar 3, 2017

abmk said:
not even close to the pressure nadal can create.

nadal FH to fed's BH -> big weapon, not like connors' FH to fed's BH
his return off fed's slice blasting it for winners >>> connors' struggling with slice

nadal's serve >> connors' serve
nadal's ability to get back so many balls >> connors'

the only things connors has over nadal is return, BH and net game and neither of them are enough to come close to the pressure nadal puts on federer , considering all of the above.

yup another important factor, Connors hated junk/slice. Fed's peak short slice would drive him insane.

MathGeek · Mar 3, 2017

What era equipment? I think each could win depending on the era of the equipment used.

pc1 · Mar 3, 2017

abmk said:
not even close to the pressure nadal can create.

nadal FH to fed's BH -> big weapon, not like connors' FH to fed's BH
his return off fed's slice blasting it for winners >>> connors' struggling with slice

nadal's serve >> connors' serve
nadal's ability to get back so many balls >> connors'

the only things connors has over nadal is return, BH and net game and neither of them are enough to come close to the pressure nadal puts on federer , considering all of the above.

I'd still love to see that match. I think you're right overall with your analysis but I still think the rallies would be amazing.

70後 · Mar 3, 2017

I don't think Federer has played many people like Connors style of rally and volley.

Lets say racquet wise they meet in the middle somewhere in the 80's, it still wouldn't be easy for either to figure the other guy out.

jrepac · Mar 4, 2017

metsman said:
yup another important factor, Connors hated junk/slice. Fed's peak short slice would drive him insane.

abmk said:
not even close to the pressure nadal can create.

nadal FH to fed's BH -> big weapon, not like connors' FH to fed's BH
his return off fed's slice blasting it for winners >>> connors' struggling with slice

nadal's serve >> connors' serve
nadal's ability to get back so many balls >> connors'

the only things connors has over nadal is return, BH and net game and neither of them are enough to come close to the pressure nadal puts on federer , considering all of the above.

Connors is not Nadal and their strokes are quite different. Connors forehand is not the great weakness you seem to think it is. Prime Connors could get back just as many balls as Nadal, he played Borg and Vilas for God's sake. You also greatly underestimate the Connors backhand. It was one of the best two handers, ever, it's not even debatable. He could open up the court with it immediately, putting an opponent on the defensive...or allowing him to come into net quickly. Rather than looking to grind it out with Fed, a losing proposition, it would be more about 'first strike' opportunities. Connors and Nadal are two of the most intense battlers to ever step on the court. Both are pressure players....they eat it up. But, they did play quite differently.

abmk · Mar 4, 2017

jrepac said:
Connors is not Nadal and their strokes are quite different. Connors forehand is not the great weakness you seem to think it is. Prime Connors could get back just as many balls as Nadal, he played Borg and Vilas for God's sake. You also greatly underestimate the Connors backhand. It was one of the best two handers, ever, it's not even debatable. He could open up the court with it immediately, putting an opponent on the defensive...or allowing him to come into net quickly. Rather than looking to grind it out with Fed, a losing proposition, it would be more about 'first strike' opportunities. Connors and Nadal are two of the most intense battlers to ever step on the court. Both are pressure players....they eat it up. But, they did play quite differently.

I agree connors BH was arguably the best in business, but he couldn't get back as many balls as nadal.

and my point stands : with his game, connors' cannot put federer under pressure anywhere near as nadal did.

abmk · Mar 4, 2017

pc1 said:
I'd still love to see that match. I think you're right overall with your analysis but I still think the rallies would be amazing.

yeah, the rallies would be good, no doubt.

jrepac · Mar 10, 2017

abmk said:
I agree connors BH was arguably the best in business, but he couldn't get back as many balls as nadal.

and my point stands : with his game, connors' cannot put federer under pressure anywhere near as nadal did.

maybe, maybe not. But Fed can crack under pressure. That's been proven. He's not the iceman Borg was, by any stretch. bold shotmaking (ala Djokovic) can rattle him...you make it sound like he's impervious. I think that's been disproven.

abmk · Mar 10, 2017

jrepac said:
maybe, maybe not. But Fed can crack under pressure. That's been proven. He's not the iceman Borg was, by any stretch. bold shotmaking (ala Djokovic) can rattle him...you make it sound like he's impervious. I think that's been disproven.

no, he's not impervious, but I don't think Connors is one who is suited to rattle him at all. At his peak, Fed would just like the kind of ball that Connors gives him.

Mac/Borg/Sampras to name a few are better suited.
Even Becker/Edberg on the faster courts.

Deleted member 307496 · Mar 10, 2017

90's Clay said:
How do you think this rivalry would have played out prime for prime

Federer would have the edge, although Connors would score a few memorable victories.

I imagine they'd be in the vein of Hewitt's 2003 Davis Cup win, Connors would need to dig pretty deep to take out Fed.

Waspsting · Mar 26, 2017

I'd expect Federer to have a healthy plus.

Connors was a product of his time (as is everyone, I suppose). The racket technology limited the power one could get on groundstrokes to the extent that his famous backhand could outdo most right handers' forehands.

Even with those rackets, I doubt his backhand could match Federer's forehand. And with modern equipment, that'd be doubly the case.

On the Connors forehand vs Federer backhand side of things, Federer's high quality slicing and Connors' supposed weaknesses against such stuff would likely give Federer the edge.

He's done this particularly well against Andy Murray - when the backhand exchange starts going against him, he'll slice as a way to effectively 'reset' the rally, and with Connors' flat hitting style, I imagine it'd work too.

Nothing in Connors' serve to be too troubling and when Connors gets stuck into Federer's 2nd serves, the ensuing ground game should favour Federer as outlined above.

Connors' biggest advantage probably his indomitable spirit. In conjunction with Federer's (relative) fragility in this area, I would expect Connors to pull out the odd surprise win when he seems to have no business doing so - like Tokyo 84 vs Lendl or Wimbledon 82 and Wembley 81 vs McEnroe

pc1 · Mar 26, 2017

abmk said:
no, he's not impervious, but I don't think Connors is one who is suited to rattle him at all. At his peak, Fed would just like the kind of ball that Connors gives him.

Mac/Borg/Sampras to name a few are better suited.
Even Becker/Edberg on the faster courts.

McEnroe 1984 against Federer on any surface would be fun to watch.

Another match that would be fun would be peak Lendl against Federer because they are both great groundstrokers with superior serves. Lendl's consistency and power would be interesting against Federer. I think on today's grass Lendl would be fine also. Two of the greatest forehands of all time hitting crosscourt to hit other would be a fun watch.

jrepac · Mar 26, 2017

Waspsting said:
I'd expect Federer to have a healthy plus.

I would expect Connors to pull out the odd surprise win when he seems to have no business doing so - like Tokyo 84 vs Lendl or Wimbledon 82 and Wembley 81 vs McEnroe

I think you (and others) underestimate Connors' skills considerably. Through '84, he was at the very top of the game. His backhand, at its best, broke down the formidable Lendl forehand in 2 USO finals. Not to mention the Wimbledon semi they played. On fast surfaces, he was very effective and not to be taken for granted. His return was the very best of the day. Lendl and Mac did not just walk out there assuming they would win during those years (81-84).....they expected a tussle. To assume he could not pressure Fed in any way, seems absurd to me. Still, I'd love to see Mac v. Fed....'84 Mac would rattle him in a way he'd be completely unaccustomed to.

Waspsting · Mar 26, 2017

jrepac said:
I think you (and others) underestimate Connors' skills considerably.... To assume he could not pressure Fed in any way, seems absurd to me.

You might be right.

In my head, I had the h2h figure at around 15-10 in Federer's favour... but reading my original post again, it sounds like I meant 15-5.

Where I'm really sticking my hand up and owning up to messing up is the time period I was thinking of for Connors. The OP said "prime for prime". For Connors, that'd be 74-78... I was thinking of him a bit later than that (as you've identified correctly during his tussles with Lendl and McEnroe).

---

I'll stand by the analysis of the game though. It seems to me the chief battle ground here would be Connors BH vs Federer FH.

A good forehand is always better than a good backhand. I speculate it was less the case with wooden rackets, but still true.

---

You watched Connors play right?

Tell me, did he ever run around his backhand to hit a forehand?
I'm assuming he never ran around his forehand to hit a backhand? (has anybody, ever?)

Connors seems a odd player to me. Beyond the obvious not having seen him play but on video clips, the description of his play.

Almost everyone I know whose backhand is the stronger wing wears down and pressures their opponents in cross court backhand rallies (as opposed to the forehand being stronger, in which case the best players really blow through their opponents). But Connors seems to be of the 'blow through the opponent' type?

That'd be tough for even a right handed backhand stronger wing player, but for a leftie... it definitely feels alien to me

asif · Mar 27, 2017

connors is known to have had insane longevity but quite honestly id still expect 35 year old federer to peak peak connors

we wont see another federer

thrust · Apr 1, 2017

NatF said:
Federer would have the edge IMO. Massive lefty spin and/or great defensive ability is generally what bothers Federer. Being a superb player and a great competitor Connors would get plenty of wins but I think his flat hitting wouldn't trouble Federer too much.

I agree. After last night's match between Nick and Roger, I have finally come to the conclusion that Federer is The GOAT. His play this year, especially for a 35 year old, has been incredible! His serve, backhand, forehand, net play, overhead, half volleys, and reflexes show that he is probably the most complete great player of all time.

NatF · Apr 1, 2017

thrust said:
I agree. After last night's match between Nick and Roger, I have finally come to the conclusion that Federer is The GOAT. His play this year, especially for a 35 year old, has been incredible! His serve, backhand, forehand, net play, overhead, half volleys, and reflexes show that he is probably the most complete great player of all time.

You going to change your mind if Nadal wins tomorrow?

I do think Federer is overall the best play ever considering his all round game, peak play and longevity. Achievements wise what he's doing this year is pretty incredible. I hope he can keep it going long enough to give himself a chance at a couple more slams.

thrust · Apr 1, 2017

pc1 said:
A couple of matches. One match where he crushed a young Borg in the YEC. I think Borg won five games in three sets.

Another was a brilliant match against Newcombe on grass in the YEC in 1974 in the semifinals.

Players like Laver and Ashe used to clap in watching Nastase's matches. Even they were stunned by Nastase's technical genius. The thing is that Nastase often tried to toy with his opponents and it's hard to regain your concentration at times.

Nastasse, could compare with virtually any player technically. I think for example he was superior to Gonzalez technically and perhaps Rosewall because he could hit topspin off both sides. Nastase's shot repertoire seemed unlimited.

One or two of forty plus year Rosewall's last big wins was against Nastasse. In another match Ken forty or so year old was kicking Nastasse's butt for a set and a half until Ille went on a temper tantrum , decided to quit and had to be talked into competing for 20 minutes or so. Before Nastasse agreed to continue, Ken officially could have walked off as the winner, but being the extraordinary gentlemen he was Ken agreed to continue. Unfortunately, Ken was so pissed off he lost concentration and the match. Fortunately, Nastasse lost the final the next day. That was the most disgusting display by a player and officials I have ever seen in tennis. Nastasse had a great game, but as a sportsman, was the most disgusting pig I ever saw on a tennis court.

pc1 · Apr 1, 2017

NatF said:
You going to change your mind if Nadal wins tomorrow?

I do think Federer is overall the best play ever considering his all round game, peak play and longevity. Achievements wise what he's doing this year is pretty incredible. I hope he can keep it going long enough to give himself a chance at a couple more slams.

Thing is that a lot of great players have been playing the last decade or so. You can make a good argument that Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are in the top ten of all time. Arguments can be made for any of these guys as a possible GOAT. It is quite possible in my opinion Federer can win a few more majors before he's done.

pc1 · Apr 1, 2017

thrust said:
One or two of forty plus year Rosewall's last big wins was against Nastasse. In another match Ken forty or so year old was kicking Nastasse's butt for a set and a half until Ille went on a temper tantrum , decided to quit and had to be talked into competing for 20 minutes or so. Before Nastasse agreed to continue, Ken officially could have walked off as the winner, but being the extraordinary gentlemen he was Ken agreed to continue. Unfortunately, Ken was so pissed off he lost concentration and the match. Fortunately, Nastasse lost the final the next day. That was the most disgusting display by a player and officials I have ever seen in tennis. Nastasse had a great game, but as a sportsman, was the most disgusting pig I ever saw on a tennis court.

I saw that match. Rosewall was clearly bothered by Nastase's antics.

thrust · Apr 1, 2017

NatF said:
You going to change your mind if Nadal wins tomorrow?

I do think Federer is overall the best play ever considering his all round game, peak play and longevity. Achievements wise what he's doing this year is pretty incredible. I hope he can keep it going long enough to give himself a chance at a couple more slams.

I will not change my mind if Nadal wins tomorrow, as I never considered Rafa equal to Roger off clay. Laver used to be my #1, now Roger is. Longevity wise, Roger is closing in on Rosewall as the longevity GOAT.

pc1 · Apr 1, 2017

thrust said:
I will not change my mind if Nadal wins tomorrow, as I never considered Rafa equal to Roger off clay. Laver used to be my #1, now Roger is. Longevity wise, Roger is closing in on Rosewall as the longevity GOAT.

The other guy in the equation is Novak Djokovic. If he gets his game back he's can still do extremely well.

What impresses me so much about Federer recently is how he has tweaked his game to improve his offensive backhand and his volleying plus little things here and there that may somewhat make up his loss of a step or two due to age.

NatF · Apr 1, 2017

pc1 said:
Thing is that a lot of great players have been playing the last decade or so. You can make a good argument that Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are in the top ten of all time. Arguments can be made for any of these guys as a possible GOAT. It is quite possible in my opinion Federer can win a few more majors before he's done.

I don't think there's any argument for Djokovic or Nadal as GOAT

They're clearly below Federer all time at the very least. I guess you could argue they're the top 3 all time together but I don't really believe that the 3 greatest would all appear so close together. Not when Djokovic/Nadal both have some way to go compared to some others careers wise IMO. Neither are necessarily done though.

thrust said:
I will not change my mind if Nadal wins tomorrow, as I never considered Rafa equal to Roger off clay. Laver used to be my #1, now Roger is. Longevity wise, Roger is closing in on Rosewall as the longevity GOAT.

Fair enough. I doubt Federer will play quite as long as Rosewall but up to the same age Federer is probably the better player. Can he make 2 slam finals at 39 though? Hard to say. I think the overall depth of competition is higher now and it's easier to be blown off the court.

pc1 · Apr 1, 2017

NatF said:
I don't think there's any argument for Djokovic or Nadal as GOAT They're clearly below Federer all time at the very least. I guess you could argue they're the top 3 all time together but I don't really believe that the 3 greatest would all appear so close together. Not when Djokovic/Nadal both have some way to go compared to some others careers wise IMO. Neither are necessarily done though.

Fair enough. I doubt Federer will play quite as long as Rosewall but up to the same age Federer is probably the better player. Can he make 2 slam finals at 39 though? Hard to say. I think the overall depth of competition is higher now and it's easier to be blown off the court.

Federer still has the great power at a late age and his movement at age 35 is excellent.

NatF · Apr 1, 2017

pc1 said:
Federer still has the great power at a late age and his movement at age 35 is excellent.

Federer's timing is maybe his greatest strength. To take the groundstrokes of today on the rise so consistently is marvellous. And yeah he still moves great, he's one of the best movers on tour at this age, his footwork is second to none.

WCT · Apr 1, 2017

SO many balls he takes on the rise. You don't do that nowdays without fantastic hand/eye. Last night, on one passing shot, Kyrgios went right at him. ESPN said it was 108 MPH. He basically just hit a forehand as hard as he could right at Federer at the net. Yet, he handled that pace relatively easily. He didn't look awkward or rushed with the volley.

Very, very talented player. Amazing at 35. You write players off, but you never know with guys that good.

NatF · Apr 2, 2017

@thrust Fed GOAT

pc1 · Apr 2, 2017

NatF said:
@thrust Fed GOAT

I wonder if Federer is playing at the highest level ever for a 35 year old at this moment. The year of course isn't close to being over yet so I shouldn't think out loud this way but right now I feel it's possible. Contenders for the 35 year old title would be Rosewall and that's about it. Gonzalez was retired in 1963. Laver was great but he didn't win a major. Tilden had a bad year in 1928 for him although his 37 year old season was great for any player.

6-3 6-0 · Apr 2, 2017

pc1 said:
I wonder if Federer is playing at the highest level ever for a 35 year old at this moment. The year of course isn't close to being over yet so I shouldn't think out loud this way but right now I feel it's possible. Contenders for the 35 year old title would be Rosewall and that's about it. Gonzalez was retired in 1963. Laver was great but he didn't win a major. Tilden had a bad year in 1928 for him although his 37 year old season was great for any player.

What do you think about Agassi? He reached the USO final at 35 and lost in a 5 setter against prime Fed.

Waspsting · Apr 2, 2017

pc1 said:
Gonzalez was retired in 1963...

I didn't know that.

I do know he was a semi-finalist at the first open Grand Slam (French Open 1968) at age 40 and beat Jimmy Connors in the final of Los Angeles on hardcourt in 1971 (Gonzales aged 43, Connors would have been 19)

6-3 6-0 said:
What do you think about Agassi? He reached the USO final at 35 and lost in a 5 setter against prime Fed.

Federer's playing much better than Agassi did at the same age. His run to the final was a surprise one, where as Federer seems to genuinely be the best player in the world right now.

Agassi has one Open Era longevity record that Federer is in the running to equal/pass. Agassi played Slam finals 15 years apart. Fed's on 14 right now

I remember watching a number of Agassi-Federer matches in the period 2003-05. Federer always won but there usually wasn't a whole lot between them from the baseline.

Federer, when asked about his tactics of coming to net frequently in one particular match even said he did so because, "... it was pretty clear who was better from the back of the court". This surprised the interviewer, Jim Courier, who asked, "Are you saying you think Agassi was the better player from the baseline?". Federer replied, "I think so, yeah".

70sHollywood · Apr 3, 2017

pc1 said:
I wonder if Federer is playing at the highest level ever for a 35 year old at this moment. The year of course isn't close to being over yet so I shouldn't think out loud this way but right now I feel it's possible. Contenders for the 35 year old title would be Rosewall and that's about it. Gonzalez was retired in 1963. Laver was great but he didn't win a major. Tilden had a bad year in 1928 for him although his 37 year old season was great for any player.

If you are just limiting it to when they were 35 then I think he definitely is. Rosewall turned 35 in 1969, which was one of his worst years.

35+ it is a 3-way fight. Tilden 1930/1931, Rosewall Wimbledon 1970-WCT 1972 and now Federer.

Segura had some great wins at 36/37.

NatF · Apr 3, 2017

pc1 said:
I wonder if Federer is playing at the highest level ever for a 35 year old at this moment. The year of course isn't close to being over yet so I shouldn't think out loud this way but right now I feel it's possible. Contenders for the 35 year old title would be Rosewall and that's about it. Gonzalez was retired in 1963. Laver was great but he didn't win a major. Tilden had a bad year in 1928 for him although his 37 year old season was great for any player.

Yeah I expect Federer is. I doubt any player at 35 has played this well consistently. I'd put this Federer up against most others in their primes.

pc1 · Apr 3, 2017

70sHollywood said:
If you are just limiting it to when they were 35 then I think he definitely is. Rosewall turned 35 in 1969, which was one of his worst years.

35+ it is a 3-way fight. Tilden 1930/1931, Rosewall Wimbledon 1970-WCT 1972 and now Federer.

Segura had some great wins at 36/37.

I was just limiting it to age 35 to turn 36.

Federer will be 36 this year in August and Rosewall would be 36 in November 1970 so I picked 1970 for Rosewall also. Tilden could challenge with his year in 1929 when he won the US Nationals and five tournaments in total. I made a mistake and used 1928 which was a bad year for Tilden.

pc1 · Apr 3, 2017

6-3 6-0 said:
What do you think about Agassi? He reached the USO final at 35 and lost in a 5 setter against prime Fed.

Agassi was having some back problems already. He was good but a shadow of what he used to be. I think Federer's playing much better now.

NatF · Apr 3, 2017

pc1 said:
Agassi was having some back problems already. He was good but a shadow of what he used to be. I think Federer's playing much better now.

TBH Agassi played about average for his losing efforts in slam finals in that 2005 final - it was certainly better than the 1990 final, around the same as his 1995/2002 finals there, despite being generally long gone from his peak.

pc1 · Apr 3, 2017

NatF said:
TBH Agassi played about average for his losing efforts in slam finals in that 2005 final - it was certainly better than the 1990 final, around the same as his 1995/2002 finals there, despite being generally long gone from his peak.

The 1990 final was funny in that I think Agassi was almost in awe of the way Sampras was playing. I got the impression he was thinking "What the heck is going on here?" He was shocked.

NatF · Apr 3, 2017

pc1 said:
The 1990 final was funny in that I think Agassi was almost in awe of the way Sampras was playing. I got the impression he was thinking "What the heck is going on here?" He was shocked.

It's funny that Agassi was the favourite in every meeting but never went 5 sets even. Only in the 2001 encounter did he actually play his best.

pc1 · Apr 3, 2017

NatF said:
It's funny that Agassi was the favourite in every meeting but never went 5 sets even. Only in the 2001 encounter did he actually play his best.

Never thought Agassi could compare with Sampras mentally. I used to get the impression that Agassi never felt he could come back against a player of Sampras' level.

Federer-Connors: Who would have the h2h advantage

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

New User

Legend

Bionic Poster

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Professional

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

6-3 6-0

Guest

Hall of Fame

70sHollywood

Guest

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads