Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
The number of people here who proclaim that old age is a myth in the sport of tennis is genuinely astounding and I can't even tell if some of them are trolling or just serious. Either way, this new claim is not even used to herald some scientific breakthrough or other useful developments. In fact, it's only used to bring down one specific player and to pump up the resumes of two other players. For those who are on the fence about it, here's why I find this argument fundamentally flawed and I hope people can understand it and have a rational discussion about it. For the record, I'll mostly be talking about Federer since his age is brought up so much more often than anybody else's.
Let me divide this up into different arguments. It'll be long. You can just read the bold parts if you don't have too much time for this.
1. You can't get away with "because he said so".
Federer said he was playing better than ever in 2015. He also said the same thing in Dubai this year, IIRC. Based on his statements, it seems logical that Federer was playing at his absolute best throughout the 2015 season. Thus, Djokovic proves that he's better than peak Federer which adds more to his claim of GOAThood. Again, nothing too wrong with Djokovic fans proclaiming him to be the GOAT, but this argument is possibly the weakest one out there to prove that Federer got better as he aged.
Federer said the same thing in a Reddit AMA back in May of 2013 when he was reeling from losses to Benneteau, Berdych, Nishikori, and Nadal twice.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ederer-according-to-a-reliable-source.651184/
He would later lose to Stakhovsky, Brands, Delbonis, and Robredo in the second half of the season. Yet... he claimed that he could beat his 2007 self, who had won three Grand Slams, two Masters 1000 titles, and the Masters Cup. Perhaps he did get better but the field was so strong that he only managed to win one title. Come on. You can't possibly admit that he was telling the whole truth there. If you do think 2013 Federer was better than 2007 (or earlier versions of) Federer I give you props for consistency but you're so far off the mark.
2007 Federer was impossibly better than 2013 Federer based on nearly every statistic out there and you'd have to perform a ton of mental gymnastics to prove otherwise. The only other alternative is that Ferrer, Del Potro, and Murray achieved greater 2013 YE rankings than Federer because they happened to be better players than Peak Federer. And if you want to treat Federer as a Ferrer-esque player, then you're basically submitting yourself to utter ridicule.
Given that we can't even trust Federer to rate his 2013 season properly, I think we should take his other comments with a grain of salt. Don't give me his words. Give me the stats (and a little bit of context in the mix as well so it's not all cherrypicking). I think that he was trying to keep his hopes up when he made those statements. Federer has become more of a PR guy later in his career so it makes sense that he would say things like this to reassure his fans (and keep confident). He didn't need to say things like this back in 2004-2007 when his success was already speaking for itself. It was only when his results went down a little that he decided he needed to tell us that he was at his peak.
He shouldn't have to tell us he's in the best form of his career. Let his tennis do the talking and then see if his words are accurate. We call that fact-checking and if you want to be more credible, then I would strongly consider making that a habit.
2. Movement is underrated.
While some of us disagree with the notion that Federer overall has declined over time, it's indisputable that his movement has taken a hit. The natural response: so what? His serve has improved, his backhand has improved, his volleys have improved, etc. Movement is just another one of those player qualities, right?
Absolutely not.
Movement is one of the most essential qualities of a player, if not the most essential. You've got a good forehand? A strong backhand? None of that matters if you can't set up the shot first. Ask Wawrinka. His shots have always been punishing, but his movement needed some major work early in his career. Magnus Norman came on the team and fixed that problem up the best way he could and suddenly he was consistently making those powerful DTL winners. Nowadays, his movement has declined due to age and injuries which is why Norman can't do a whole lot this time around.
It's the same with literally every other player. Tired old legs have given out and aging players have a hard time running around the way they used to. Thus, they can't set up as many good shots as they used to. The resourceful players try to compensate for their lack of movement by building up on other areas of their game or even switching to completely different playstyles, as Federer showed us two years ago. It slows down decline for some time but players rarely ever revert back to their prime forms, except for the occasional short burst of energy (after which a disappointing tournament will nearly always come into play).
I doubt that Federer would have captured his 2017 AO-Sunshine Double level if he hadn't been coming back from a six-month layoff. The rest paid off and it shows why his results later in the season were decidedly lackluster (although still better than some of his other seasons).
Tennis is a physical sport first and foremost. You may know through tactics and knowledge of the game exactly what you're going to do but if you don't have the tools to execute it, then the mythical powers of experience are suddenly dwarfed.
3. Modern players are not the same as players from the past... but...
I've heard of the argument that players today have better conditioning and other factors that enable them to play at a high level into their 30s. It's true, but this doesn't mean the same as "Players play better in their 30s". It just means that they can keep playing at a high level into their 30s. It doesn't compare their results now to their results back then at all. Unless statistics proves that tennis players peak in their 30s (which hasn't been done yet), that statement carries no weight. It's not good enough.
I keep seeing these stats that talk about more players being in the top 100 aged 30 or older than there ever has been. That says exactly what we're all thinking: tennis players can still play well in their 30s, now more so than ever. But this says absolutely nothing about those same players peaking in their 30s. The people who bring up these figures as evidence are just jumping to conclusions. Players today just have more longevity than they used to. But that's where it ends.
Let's look away from Federer and the rest of the Big 3 for a quick second. Murray, Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych, Gasquet, Robredo, Simon, and many other players are declining (or have already thrown in the towel). These players are all in their 30s. How come this peak argument doesn't apply to them? By the logic of these God-given stats and mathematics, these players should be at their best. But they're not. That's all I need to see to let me know that these stats don't say anything about late-career peaks. That should end the discussion.
4. Maybe it's not because he's peaking.
Maybe it's because the next gen has proven to be incredibly lackluster. Djokovic literally just won Wimbledon while playing at around 80% of his capabilities. Nadal had his worst clay season since 2016 and Fognini was the only person outside the Big 3 to actually take advantage of it. Federer has managed to be at world number 3 with around 2000 points ahead of the next guy even though he only won one Masters event and made it to one slam final. That's honestly pretty telling of the entire tour ranked below number 3. The bar is really low, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
At this point in time, the next gen would have taken over the older guys like Borg and McEnroe did in the late-70s, then Lendl, then Sampras and Agassi, then Federer, and then Nadal and Djokovic. All of the above players are ATGs. Now tell me: Do you see any "taking over" going on at the moment? When was the last time we saw this happening? 2008???
5. Why not just look at the results?
When "tennis evolutionists" make the case that players are regularly peaking in their 30s, they use every metric available, such as the very objective (/s) H2Hs, weak eras, and player statements. You know the one thing these theorists always manage to leave out in their arguments? The actual results. This is the stat that is (usually) the most objective in terms of comparing the same player over time. Let me help these guys out and use results to back up their claims.
Federer of 2019 with one Masters 1000 title and one Slam final is a better player than Federer of 2006 with three Slams, the WTF, four Masters 1000 titles, and one extra Slam final.
Or... I guess not. This is the biggest obstacle these guys have to face when they're trying to prove that Federer is at his peak at age 38. The actual results and the season statistics are locking horns against them. Just prove to us that the bolded statement is correct and I can forget this entire thread. That's all.
I sincerely apologize for the long post. This is just a topic that really needs clarifying.
Let me divide this up into different arguments. It'll be long. You can just read the bold parts if you don't have too much time for this.
1. You can't get away with "because he said so".
Federer said he was playing better than ever in 2015. He also said the same thing in Dubai this year, IIRC. Based on his statements, it seems logical that Federer was playing at his absolute best throughout the 2015 season. Thus, Djokovic proves that he's better than peak Federer which adds more to his claim of GOAThood. Again, nothing too wrong with Djokovic fans proclaiming him to be the GOAT, but this argument is possibly the weakest one out there to prove that Federer got better as he aged.
Federer said the same thing in a Reddit AMA back in May of 2013 when he was reeling from losses to Benneteau, Berdych, Nishikori, and Nadal twice.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ederer-according-to-a-reliable-source.651184/
He would later lose to Stakhovsky, Brands, Delbonis, and Robredo in the second half of the season. Yet... he claimed that he could beat his 2007 self, who had won three Grand Slams, two Masters 1000 titles, and the Masters Cup. Perhaps he did get better but the field was so strong that he only managed to win one title. Come on. You can't possibly admit that he was telling the whole truth there. If you do think 2013 Federer was better than 2007 (or earlier versions of) Federer I give you props for consistency but you're so far off the mark.
2007 Federer was impossibly better than 2013 Federer based on nearly every statistic out there and you'd have to perform a ton of mental gymnastics to prove otherwise. The only other alternative is that Ferrer, Del Potro, and Murray achieved greater 2013 YE rankings than Federer because they happened to be better players than Peak Federer. And if you want to treat Federer as a Ferrer-esque player, then you're basically submitting yourself to utter ridicule.
Given that we can't even trust Federer to rate his 2013 season properly, I think we should take his other comments with a grain of salt. Don't give me his words. Give me the stats (and a little bit of context in the mix as well so it's not all cherrypicking). I think that he was trying to keep his hopes up when he made those statements. Federer has become more of a PR guy later in his career so it makes sense that he would say things like this to reassure his fans (and keep confident). He didn't need to say things like this back in 2004-2007 when his success was already speaking for itself. It was only when his results went down a little that he decided he needed to tell us that he was at his peak.
He shouldn't have to tell us he's in the best form of his career. Let his tennis do the talking and then see if his words are accurate. We call that fact-checking and if you want to be more credible, then I would strongly consider making that a habit.
2. Movement is underrated.
While some of us disagree with the notion that Federer overall has declined over time, it's indisputable that his movement has taken a hit. The natural response: so what? His serve has improved, his backhand has improved, his volleys have improved, etc. Movement is just another one of those player qualities, right?
Absolutely not.
Movement is one of the most essential qualities of a player, if not the most essential. You've got a good forehand? A strong backhand? None of that matters if you can't set up the shot first. Ask Wawrinka. His shots have always been punishing, but his movement needed some major work early in his career. Magnus Norman came on the team and fixed that problem up the best way he could and suddenly he was consistently making those powerful DTL winners. Nowadays, his movement has declined due to age and injuries which is why Norman can't do a whole lot this time around.
It's the same with literally every other player. Tired old legs have given out and aging players have a hard time running around the way they used to. Thus, they can't set up as many good shots as they used to. The resourceful players try to compensate for their lack of movement by building up on other areas of their game or even switching to completely different playstyles, as Federer showed us two years ago. It slows down decline for some time but players rarely ever revert back to their prime forms, except for the occasional short burst of energy (after which a disappointing tournament will nearly always come into play).
I doubt that Federer would have captured his 2017 AO-Sunshine Double level if he hadn't been coming back from a six-month layoff. The rest paid off and it shows why his results later in the season were decidedly lackluster (although still better than some of his other seasons).
Tennis is a physical sport first and foremost. You may know through tactics and knowledge of the game exactly what you're going to do but if you don't have the tools to execute it, then the mythical powers of experience are suddenly dwarfed.
3. Modern players are not the same as players from the past... but...
I've heard of the argument that players today have better conditioning and other factors that enable them to play at a high level into their 30s. It's true, but this doesn't mean the same as "Players play better in their 30s". It just means that they can keep playing at a high level into their 30s. It doesn't compare their results now to their results back then at all. Unless statistics proves that tennis players peak in their 30s (which hasn't been done yet), that statement carries no weight. It's not good enough.
I keep seeing these stats that talk about more players being in the top 100 aged 30 or older than there ever has been. That says exactly what we're all thinking: tennis players can still play well in their 30s, now more so than ever. But this says absolutely nothing about those same players peaking in their 30s. The people who bring up these figures as evidence are just jumping to conclusions. Players today just have more longevity than they used to. But that's where it ends.
Let's look away from Federer and the rest of the Big 3 for a quick second. Murray, Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych, Gasquet, Robredo, Simon, and many other players are declining (or have already thrown in the towel). These players are all in their 30s. How come this peak argument doesn't apply to them? By the logic of these God-given stats and mathematics, these players should be at their best. But they're not. That's all I need to see to let me know that these stats don't say anything about late-career peaks. That should end the discussion.
4. Maybe it's not because he's peaking.
Maybe it's because the next gen has proven to be incredibly lackluster. Djokovic literally just won Wimbledon while playing at around 80% of his capabilities. Nadal had his worst clay season since 2016 and Fognini was the only person outside the Big 3 to actually take advantage of it. Federer has managed to be at world number 3 with around 2000 points ahead of the next guy even though he only won one Masters event and made it to one slam final. That's honestly pretty telling of the entire tour ranked below number 3. The bar is really low, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
At this point in time, the next gen would have taken over the older guys like Borg and McEnroe did in the late-70s, then Lendl, then Sampras and Agassi, then Federer, and then Nadal and Djokovic. All of the above players are ATGs. Now tell me: Do you see any "taking over" going on at the moment? When was the last time we saw this happening? 2008???
5. Why not just look at the results?
When "tennis evolutionists" make the case that players are regularly peaking in their 30s, they use every metric available, such as the very objective (/s) H2Hs, weak eras, and player statements. You know the one thing these theorists always manage to leave out in their arguments? The actual results. This is the stat that is (usually) the most objective in terms of comparing the same player over time. Let me help these guys out and use results to back up their claims.
Federer of 2019 with one Masters 1000 title and one Slam final is a better player than Federer of 2006 with three Slams, the WTF, four Masters 1000 titles, and one extra Slam final.
Or... I guess not. This is the biggest obstacle these guys have to face when they're trying to prove that Federer is at his peak at age 38. The actual results and the season statistics are locking horns against them. Just prove to us that the bolded statement is correct and I can forget this entire thread. That's all.
I sincerely apologize for the long post. This is just a topic that really needs clarifying.
