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

[DeShaun]

What?

Maybe in that it is a bit more low bouncing but the speed is medium at best and frankly quite slow. Nadal made a final here for goodness sake, how can it possibly be fast? :?

I meant that O2 is low bouncing...like the old OZ court (plexicushion?). Balls stay lower on those surfaces. So piercing flattish shots are favored over rolling sick angles that kick like a mule, and it's harder to spread the court in the O2 but easier to penetrate.

 

[Tropikal_Knights]

Mentally yes. Physically no. And sadly in tennis the latter is more important at the top level.

has lost a step but still giving a tough fight to the so called younger lot.

Most graceful and athletic though.....

 

[Sartorius]

Does Fed's expanded "tennis bag" include netting or hitting long (what were before)routine running FHs? Or struggling with journeymen in early Wimbledon rounds? How about losing matches when he's 2-0 love up? He could have certainly done without those new additions.

No, it doesn't include those. What you are talking about is tennis skills plus physical aspect of the game. Federer's running forehand has certainly deteriorated. His stamina and consistency over a long match surely is suspect compared to before. When I say "tennis bag" I meant the most basic technical elements of the game. In that sense Federer is a better tennis player than before, and he's more experienced now. At least that's what I understand when Cahill and Federer himself says so.

 

[hyperwarrior]

The big difference is in Federer's movement. That is the root of all the problems. He is a lot less fluid, explosive, and athletic now than he was in his prime, and that results in a significantly worse baseline game. His forehand's backswing has been abbreviated to compensate for the decline in movement (so he can take it even earlier to compensate for the lack of movement) but this results in a shot with less spin, power, and consistency. Serve has definitely improved, backhand I think has improved technically but may be worse overall due to the reduced movement.

Good analysis. This is a great observation that I shared with you. His forehand backswing is a little more compact than it used to be. Althought he has lost a bit in the physical department, I think he gained a lot for anticipation and his serve is better than ever.

 

[ctoth666]

It's simply untrue. Here's how it breaks down for me: Federer has absolutely improved several areas of his game. This is a natural part of aging and gaining experience and honing certain skills. But that does not make him a superior player. Federer is not as good as he once was because of his movement. This effects his ability to retrieve balls and put defensive pressure on his opponents and extend rallies and get around his backhand to hit forehands etc. Despite whatever gains he has made in the rest of his game, he simply cannot bridge this gap. In addition, he seems to rise to the occasion less often and definitely forfeits leads more often than he once did.

 

[Surecatch]

It's not so ridiculous, actually. He has adjusted his game perfectly over the years as his career has warranted and while it's true that he is a smudge slower, the adjustments he makes for it do pretty much offset it. And there is no question that his serve is much more of a weapon now. To say it in black and white terminology of "better" is too limiting though. Think of it this way...if he had made no adjustments to his game between about '07 and now, he wouldn't be nearly as effective in '13 as he actually is. So the biggest weapon in the game, the serve...he is better. He has matured in his mental game, preparation, and experience...

It's really not out of the realm. It's also difficult to say do because he is not as dominant now as then, but then the field is much stronger now too, which skews perception.

 

[forzamilan90]

Prime Fed would annihilate current Fed. I don't know what Cahill, who usually is legit, was thinking saying that. Prime Fed played with great speed, great urgency, the way he stroke the ball he just took the game to you, like Agassi said there was nowhere to go, just completely overwhelm you both on the forehand and backhand side (I still think his prime backhand is better than his current backhand, way more powerful). How the f*** can a 31 year old Federer be better than his prime form? It's a ludicrous notion.

 

[oneness]

I think Cahill was probably saying more that he wouldn't place much stock in the WTF match as an indicator of how Fed and Nadal will match up in the majors (since the WTF is a totally slow, dead court that doesn't take spin at all, unlike the surfaces the majors are played on). And he was actually right, Fed gave Nadal the beatdown of his life at 2011 WTF and a few months later was beaten at AO (albeit via choke).

If he meant it that way then he should have said it that way, every match counts regardless of conditions. I could say Nadal beating Fed on high bouncing outdoor surface has no bearing on how he'll do against Fed indoors (or even pre-2002 fast grass) but it would still be ridiculous of me to say that their matches in say Miami or Monte Carlo shouldn't count.

Context, Zagor, context. Cahill was talking about this in the AO preview segment. He must've thought, folks who are listening will understand, without him having to expand. He just meant it doesn't count towards the AO prediction.

 

[veroniquem]

In terms of level, he's pretty close to 2007 and he's probably better than 2008. To me, the main difference is consistency. He's more liable to having an off day now.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

In terms of level, he's pretty close to 2007 and he's probably better than 2008. To me, the main difference is consistency. He's more liable to having an off day now.

LOL, nice one. Atleast you didn't suggest Federer was peaking right now.

 

[90's Clay]

Prime Fed would annihilate current Fed. I don't know what Cahill, who usually is legit, was thinking saying that. Prime Fed played with great speed, great urgency, the way he stroke the ball he just took the game to you, like Agassi said there was nowhere to go, just completely overwhelm you both on the forehand and backhand side (I still think his prime backhand is better than his current backhand, way more powerful). How the f*** can a 31 year old Federer be better than his prime form? It's a ludicrous notion.

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


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

 

[Cup8489]

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


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

Riiight, you know much more about Federer's game than Agassi.

The things you say, really make me wonder what goes thru your head.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

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


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

Agassi said Federer>Sampras. No need to feel butthurt about it now.

 

[90's Clay]

Riiight, you know much more about Federer's game than Agassi.

The things you say, really make me wonder what goes thru your head.

What the hell are you talking about? "Nowhere to go" vs. Roger?? I believe Nadal REFUTED that claim. As he has proven time and time again for YEARS.



Agassi played Fed tough (despite ailing physical health and slowing down). Agassi could barely barely even win a SET at the USO vs. Sampras and that was when Agassi was much closer to his prime.. Hell he almost beat a Prime-Close to Peak Fed at the USO

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

What the hell are you talking about? "Nowhere to go" vs. Roger?? I believe Nadal REFUTED that claim. As he has proven time and time again for YEARS.



Agassi played Fed tough (despite ailing physical health and slowing down). Agassi could barely barely even win a SET at the USO vs. Sampras and that was when Agassi was much closer to his prime.. Hell he almost beat a Prime-Close to Peak Fed at the USO

Let's make it simple, aight?

17>14
302>286
7=7
5=5
4>2
1>0
6>5

And most importantly, Sampras sucked on Clay. Like, he was totally irredeemably pathetic on Clay. 5 wins and 6 losses in his last six appearances there? :lol:

 

[RAFA2005RG]

LOL!

So why can't Federer play until he's 80, then? He just keeps getting better and better, after all. He's a better player now, at 31, than he was at 24-25, when he was winning 3 slams per year and the number of matches he lost per year was something you could count on one hand. Imagine how good he'll be in another 6-7 years! Or another 55?

Every single analyst on ESPN claims Federer is better now than ever. It's hilarious. This is the same guy they were gushing about nonstop 6-7 years ago. Now, as it turns out, he's even better than he was back then, but Djokovic and Murray and Nadal and Del Potro and Berdych are just too good.

Well, Federer didn't look great vs Tomic, that's for sure. Tomic didn't even do anything special, yet Federer needed a close tie-breaker to win the 2nd set, and only one break in the 1st set. 3rd set obviously Tomic was a broken man. Good chance Federer doesn't even reach the semis with this kind of form.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Well, Federer didn't look great vs Tomic, that's for sure. Tomic didn't even do anything special, yet Federer needed a close tie-breaker to win the 2nd set, and only one break in the 1st set. 3rd set obviously Tomic was a broken man. Good chance Federer doesn't even reach the semis with this kind of form.

How's Rafa doing in his quarter?

 

[mental midget]

What the hell are you talking about? "Nowhere to go" vs. Roger?? I believe Nadal REFUTED that claim. As he has proven time and time again for YEARS.

totally agree. it's like how jordan demonstrated that when you're elevating with the ball and a defender steps up, you need to switch hands mid-flight and finger roll it in off the backboard.

 

[RAFA2005RG]

How's Rafa doing in his quarter?

Preparing for 3 events in February. Certainly a lot better than what Federer is about to experience. Unless losing is a good thing.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Preparing for 3 events in February. Certainly a lot better than what Federer is about to experience. Unless losing is a good thing.

Losing is better than not showing up

 

[sureshs]

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

 

[Homeboy Hotel]

Preparing for 3 events in February. Certainly a lot better than what Federer is about to experience. Unless losing is a good thing.

Nadal's last facebook update didn't sound good:

"Trying to Practice"

 

[zam88]

Well, Federer didn't look great vs Tomic, that's for sure. Tomic didn't even do anything special, yet Federer needed a close tie-breaker to win the 2nd set, and only one break in the 1st set. 3rd set obviously Tomic was a broken man. Good chance Federer doesn't even reach the semis with this kind of form.

Maybe not, but it's somewhat ludicrous that he has to win 3 golden sets and 72 consecutive points to garner some respect.

He played a guy in that guy's home country with the crowd behind him at night and won in straights... worst case scenario he would've won in 4 sets.


Federer is rarely a guy who blows guys out like Nadal and Djokovic do.

He definitely took a page from Sampras as regards to energy conservation. Hold serve, break when the game comes to you.

That strategy is one of many reasons why he's on the court and you have had to fap to old RG footage for the last 7 months.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

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

If 22 year-old Federer only made it to #2 in 2003 and 31 year-old Federer made it to #1 in 2012, is 2003 a stronger era than 2012?

 

[smoledman]

Nadal's last facebook update didn't sound good:

"Trying to Practice"

 

[Homeboy Hotel]

What's up?

 

[forzamilan90]

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


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

Do you get off on trying to sound like a know it all smarta$$? Agassi said what he said, and we have video evidence, results, etc. to prove how awesome Fed was. Stop trying to bring him down every single opportunity, please. It's getting to the point where every time you say something we have to quote you and try to not to tell you to go to a mental institution, it's getting preposterous.

 

[Smasher08]

His skill, technique, mind control, experience are better.
But as his age now, he is a little bit slower and weaker.

Yep, tactically, technically, and strategically he's better than ever. His age means he's lost a tiny but of quickness, foot speed, and flexibility -- in addition to some back and hip issues.

Personally I think his performance defeating Djoker at RG '11 was the greatest all-around match he's ever played.

 

[NatF]

Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Saffin all in their peak are a much much tougher prospect than anyone in the top 10 apart from the Big 4. The era's aren't too dissimilar in terms of strength.

 

[DRII]

Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Saffin all in their peak are a much much tougher prospect than anyone in the top 10 apart from the Big 4. The era's aren't too dissimilar in terms of strength.

Psyche!

haven't you learned anything by now?

 

[NatF]

Psyche!

haven't you learned anything by now?

You don't think those 5 I mentioned would be a more daunting prospect in the quarters than say Almagro or Tsonga etc...?

 

[Paullaconte1]

Hi think he is not better than 6-7 year ago, but he is definitely better than 2/3 years ago.

 

[90's Clay]

Do you get off on trying to sound like a know it all smarta$$? Agassi said what he said, and we have video evidence, results, etc. to prove how awesome Fed was. Stop trying to bring him down every single opportunity, please. It's getting to the point where every time you say something we have to quote you and try to not to tell you to go to a mental institution, it's getting preposterous.

We also have video evidence SHOWING Nadal whipping on Fed for years at the slams. :shock:


Like I said.. Andre was wrong. Since Nadal PROVED he was wrong.

 

[forzamilan90]

We also have video evidence SHOWING Nadal whipping on Fed for years at the slams. :shock:


Like I said.. Andre was wrong. Since Nadal PROVED he was wrong.

The Nadal thing has been beaten to death,, and is a unique situation. Prime Fed>Current Fed. Agassi wasn't wrong in his assessment. That is all.

 

[sportsfan1]

Depends what they mean as better. He'll have more skills, knowledge, experience & tactics now than he had back then, it's just that his body lets him down more often than it would have in the past.
Fed in 2006 for instance played 97 matches, back in the days of 5 set masters finals, and still managed to win 12 tournaments throughout the year. Last year Fed played 83 matches, his highest since 2006, and looked completely gassed post-Cincinnati.

This is a good observation, hopefully his reduced schedule this year will help him (win more Grand slams). But it could go either way.

 

[abmk]

We also have video evidence SHOWING Nadal whipping on Fed for years at the slams. :shock:


Like I said.. Andre was wrong. Since Nadal PROVED he was wrong.

only at RG .... can you imagine what nadal would do to pete on clay ? massacre would not be enough to describe !

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

only at RG .... can you imagine what nadal would do to pete on clay ? massacre would not be enough to describe !

Sampras's record at the French Open in his last six appearances there is 5 wins and 6 losses. To ask Nadal to play him on Clay would be an insult to Nadal. Maybe Ferrer will do.

 

[President]

only at RG .... can you imagine what nadal would do to pete on clay ? massacre would not be enough to describe !

90's Clay thinks that Sampras would MASSACRE 2 time Wimbledon champ and 3 time finalist Nadal on grass, but then turns around and says 1 time RG Semifinalist Petros Sampras has a "punchers chance" against Nadal at the French Open...:-?

 

[90's Clay]

only at RG .... can you imagine what nadal would do to pete on clay ? massacre would not be enough to describe !

Only at RG what? Hes 2-0 vs. Fed on hard courts at the slams as well.

 

[90's Clay]

90's Clay thinks that Sampras would MASSACRE 2 time Wimbledon champ and 3 time finalist Nadal on grass, but then turns around and says 1 time RG Semifinalist Petros Sampras has a "punchers chance" against Nadal at the French Open...:-?

Sampras has more of chance vs. Nadal on clay then the latter (especially if its played on todays clay.. Yea you know where Slow lug Isner took Nadal to 5?)

Pete beat guys like Courier and Bruguera, Muster, Agassi, Kafelnikov on clay, yet you tell me 92-96 Sampras wouldn't have a puncher's chance on any given occasion?

Pete's a big server.. Theres ALWAYS a chance to take Nadal out when you got the best 2nd serve in history and the best serve placement in history

 

[smoledman]

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

 

[abmk]

Only at RG what? Hes 2-0 vs. Fed on hard courts at the slams as well.

one of them was at age 30+ ...sampras @ 29 was losing to todd martin @ the AO, someone who he had owned before and ended the year 2001 @ #57 ......

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Pete's a big server.. Theres ALWAYS a chance to take Nadal out when you got the best 2nd serve in history and the best serve placement in history

 

[abmk]

Sampras has more of chance vs. Nadal on clay then the latter (especially if its played on todays clay.. Yea you know where Slow lug Isner took Nadal to 5?)

Pete beat guys like Courier and Bruguera, Muster, Agassi, Kafelnikov on clay, yet you tell me 92-96 Sampras wouldn't have a puncher's chance on any given occasion?

Pete's a big server.. Theres ALWAYS a chance to take Nadal out when you got the best 2nd serve in history and the best serve placement in history

no, he wouldn't have a chance at all ... Its as close to zero as it gets in tennis ...

isner's serve on clay is by some distance better than pete's and that was a 1R match .... in the later stages of a tourney, nadal is far less susceptible .. he'd simply massacre pete

bruguera, muster were wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy below par when pete beat them ... courier was almost done being a threat ... agassi and kafelnikov are good, but not great on clay ...

if you think sampras has a better chance on clay ( making only one semi @ RG ) vs nadal than nadal on grass ( two time champion and three time finalist @ wimbledon) vs sampras, you have serious problems ....

 

[President]

Sampras has more of chance vs. Nadal on clay then the latter (especially if its played on todays clay.. Yea you know where Slow lug Isner took Nadal to 5?)

Pete beat guys like Courier and Bruguera, Muster, Agassi, Kafelnikov on clay, yet you tell me 92-96 Sampras wouldn't have a puncher's chance on any given occasion?

Pete's a big server.. Theres ALWAYS a chance to take Nadal out when you got the best 2nd serve in history and the best serve placement in history

You are ridiculous man...you hype Sampras as some unbeatable grass god who a 2 time Wimbledon champion and grass great himself would have no chance against. Then you turn around and say that Sampras (who is way less accomplished on clay than Nadal is on grass) has a decent shot against Nadal on clay (who is better on the surface by some distance than Sampras on grass). Do you not see the problem here?

 

[mental midget]

Sampras has more of chance vs. Nadal on clay then the latter (especially if its played on todays clay.. Yea you know where Slow lug Isner took Nadal to 5?)

Pete beat guys like Courier and Bruguera, Muster, Agassi, Kafelnikov on clay, yet you tell me 92-96 Sampras wouldn't have a puncher's chance on any given occasion?

Pete's a big server.. Theres ALWAYS a chance to take Nadal out when you got the best 2nd serve in history and the best serve placement in history

you realize that by filtering out facts that don't support your presuppositions your're putting yourself in a position where you can never learn anything new? you are truly stuck, unfortunately, in the 90's. say hi to chandler and monica for us.

 

[90's Clay]

You are ridiculous man...you hype Sampras as some unbeatable grass god who a 2 time Wimbledon champion and grass great himself would have no chance against. Then you turn around and say that Sampras (who is way less accomplished on clay than Nadal is on grass) has a decent shot against Nadal on clay (who is better on the surface by some distance than Sampras on grass). Do you not see the problem here?

Ummm when did I say Pete's chances would be "great" or even "decent" I said he would just have a puncher's chance.

Try and read next time

 

[TMF]

Ummm when did I say Pete's chances would be "great" or even "decent" I said he would just have a puncher's chance.

Try and read next time

Nadal is a much better grass player than Pete on clay. I think you are in denial that Nadal has a much greater chance of beating Pete on grass than Pete beating Nadal on clay.

 

[President]

90's clay..why do you hate Federer so much? What about him irritates you so much or is it just that you would hate anybody who broke Petros' records?

 

[90's Clay]

Nadal is a much better grass player than Pete on clay. I think you are in denial that Nadal has a much greater chance of beating Pete on grass than Pete beating Nadal on clay.

Depends on the speed of course.

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