Calm down: Federer is 32

Chopin

Hall of Fame
Children of Talk Tennis, I call for a little perspective here. Federer is 32 and Nadal is 27 at the very end of his prime years. Sampras had retired at age 31. The only recent player I can think of winning a slam at 32 is Agassi. This result means little for their legacies.

What will mean something for Nadal is the finals, which weren't tonight (news flash!). Wawrinka has played great tennis this tournament and he has a real shot to upset Nadal. He's been the second or third best player at the last two slams (the U.S. Open and Australian Open). Let's focus on the finals and not the semisfinal.

Full disclosure: I'm tired of Nadal. His time wasting is a violation of the rules and disrespectful to his opponents. His coach admits to communicating with him during the matches, which is also cheating--period. The shuffling of the feet tonight on Federer's serves was also overdone. The staredowns, chest bumps and WWF style celebrations are fatiguing to watch. His endless lobbying for slower courts is self-serving and at a complete disregard for the health of the game.

Wait, wait, let me add: I don't care about the GOAT debate. It's silly and there is no GOAT (how can you compare different eras?). Federer versus Nadal is also dull at this point. It's been dull for a while. I don't care if who you think is better. They each have different strengths and weaknesses. But I do worry about the state of the game. Let's look to the final and hope Stan can make it a great match, which is what our sport needs.
 
Last edited:
Sampras won a slam at 31, Agassi at 32.

In this era where the average age of the top 100 gets older and older you're supposed to stay competitive longer. Ergo: argument invalid.
 
The problem is, this match was exactly like nearly all their others.

This had nothing to do with age. Nadal moonballed to Federer's backhand, served to Federer's backhand, retrieved everything, and passed Federer like it was taking candy from a baby.

Same old, same old.

Nadal is the scourge of tennis.
 

Messarger

Hall of Fame
But isn't Federer's graceful, elegant, fluent, easy on the body playing style suppose to allow him to remain winning majors till 50? That was the vibe from this forum 4-5 years ago.
 

crazyups

Professional
The problem is, this match was exactly like nearly all their others.

This had nothing to do with age. Nadal moonballed to Federer's backhand, served to Federer's backhand, retrieved everything, and passed Federer like it was taking candy from a baby.

Same old, same old.

Nadal is the scourge of tennis.
If Federer can't beat a moonballer then shouldn't he retire? He could try the big bubba.
 
If Federer can't beat a moonballer then shouldn't he retire? He could try the big bubba.
The problem is Nadal is no moonballer....he has the most devastating forehand in the game and hits countless winners.

These images you guys conjure up of Fed as God and Nadal as a pusher are simply delusional and are finally being exposed.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Sampras won a slam at 31, Agassi at 32.

In this era where the average age of the top 100 gets older and older you're supposed to stay competitive longer. Ergo: argument invalid.
Sampras won a Slam at 31 followed by some humiliating losses in Slams in 2001-2002. But wait, Fed also won a Slam at 31.

Agassi won the 2003 AO but look at the draw he had. Federer with his 2013 US Open form would've won that.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Sampras won a slam at 31, Agassi at 32.

In this era where the average age of the top 100 gets older and older you're supposed to stay competitive longer. Ergo: argument invalid.
Not exactly the same.

Fed also won a slam at 31: W 2012

Agassi did win a slam at 32 but look at his draw. He did not play anybody even remotely close to nadal's level
 

oscar_2424

Legend
Children of Talk Tennis, I call for a little perspective here. Federer is 32 and Nadal is 27 at the very end of his prime years. Sampras had retired at age 31. The only recent player I can think of winning a slam at 32 is Agassi. This result means little for their legacies.

What will mean something for Nadal is the finals, which weren't tonight (news flash!). Wawrinka has played great tennis this tournament and he has a real shot to upset Nadal. He's been the second or third best player at the last two slams (the U.S. Open and Australian Open). Let's focus on the finals and not the semisfinal.

Full disclosure: I'm tired of Nadal. His time wasting is a violation of the rules and disrespectful to his opponents. His coach admits to communicating with him during the matches, which is also cheating--period. The shuffling of the feet tonight on Federer's serves was also overdone. The staredowns, chest bumps and WWF style celebrations are fatiguing to watch. His endless lobbying for slower courts is self-serving and at a complete disregard for the health of the game.

Wait, wait, let me add: I don't care about the GOAT debate. It's silly and there is no GOAT (how can you compare different eras?). Federer versus Nadal is also dull at this point. It's been dull for a while. I don't care if who you think is better. They each have different strengths and weaknesses. But I do worry about the state of the game. Let's look to the final and hope Stan can make it a great match, which is what our sport needs.
Take it easy CHopin go play the piano
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Children of Talk Tennis, I call for a little perspective here. Federer is 32 and Nadal is 27 at the very end of his prime years. Sampras had retired at age 31. The only recent player I can think of winning a slam at 32 is Agassi. This result means little for their legacies.

What will mean something for Nadal is the finals, which weren't tonight (news flash!). Wawrinka has played great tennis this tournament and he has a real shot to upset Nadal. He's been the second or third best player at the last two slams (the U.S. Open and Australian Open). Let's focus on the finals and not the semisfinal.

Full disclosure: I'm tired of...
Nicely put Chopin. This match was not any defining moment of either player's career. It's just the first time they've played in a major for ages and it's what the fans want to see even if they don't like the outcome.
 

Roddick85

Hall of Fame
Children of Talk Tennis, I call for a little perspective here. Federer is 32 and Nadal is 27 at the very end of his prime years. Sampras had retired at age 31. The only recent player I can think of winning a slam at 32 is Agassi. This result means little for their legacies.

What will mean something for Nadal is the finals, which weren't tonight (news flash!). Wawrinka has played great tennis this tournament and he has a real shot to upset Nadal. He's been the second or third best player at the last two slams (the U.S. Open and Australian Open). Let's focus on the finals and not the semisfinal.

Full disclosure: I'm tired of Nadal. His time wasting is a violation of the rules and disrespectful to his opponents. His coach admits to communicating with him during the matches, which is also cheating--period. The shuffling of the feet tonight on Federer's serves was also overdone. The staredowns, chest bumps and WWF style celebrations are fatiguing to watch. His endless lobbying for slower courts is self-serving and at a complete disregard for the health of the game.

Wait, wait, let me add: I don't care about the GOAT debate. It's silly and there is no GOAT (how can you compare different eras?). Federer versus Nadal is also dull at this point. It's been dull for a while. I don't care if who you think is better. They each have different strengths and weaknesses. But I do worry about the state of the game. Let's look to the final and hope Stan can make it a great match, which is what our sport needs.
Yes Federer's prime has ended, but even at 32, he can still go deep in slams and can beat anyone when he's playing well, save for maybe Nadal. Let's not take today's result against Nadal as a sign he's no good anymore, he had played a fantastic tournament until today.

I strongly doubt Wawrinka has any chance against Nadal. Perhaps the extra day off will help him, but the H2H is 12-0 and he has never even came close to beating Nadal, I don't see this changing sunday. I think the player that will have done best against Nadal this AO is Dimitrov.

I do agree that Nadal tends to stretch the rules (time violations, coaching). I also don't agree with any of his "tennis political" views either. But at the end of the day, he brings a lot more to the game then he takes away from. He's an incredible competitor and he's became quite a good hard court player for a player that started out as a clay specialist. His match-ups with Federer in the last decade were epic, perhaps not so much now. Same goes for his match up with Djokovic this decade.

I think the GOAT debate is pretty useless and unanswerable for the simple fact that we're trying to compare different generations that aren't comparable for many reasons (equipment, age gaps, surface speed etc...) Everyone will have a different opinion of who the GOAT is, for different reasons and no consensus will ever be made of that, so there's no point arguing about it.
 

jgrushing

Rookie
With razor thin differences in the games of the top players, I think people under-estimate the slight but undeniable advantage that lefties have right out of the gate in every match. Both left-handed and right-handed players play approximately 90% of their matches against righties. Everything is a little different against a lefty, especially one who plays with extreme spin. If you're a player, you know this is true.

Not saying Nadal doesn't have Fed's number completely, but being a lefty is an advantage that Nadal enjoys in 90% of his matches.
 

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
Playing the age card is perfectly legit here.
I always viewed Roger and Rafa as from two diff. eras really.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
The best thing about the GOAT debate when/if Nadal overtakes Federer is the same arguments Fed haters used to show he wasn't GOAT will all then apply to Nadal. :twisted:
 

a10best

Hall of Fame
Eras are in sports is 10 years or more, not under 5 years (4 years 10 months, 5 days to be exact).
Are you at looking at college years to define "era"?
McEnroe - Sampras are different eras
Aikman - Romo is a different era
MJ - Kobe are different eras
Your argument is weak and a huge excuse even though I am a Fed fan.
Fed should have lost to Murray And Tsonga then to strengthen your argument.
 

Smasher08

Legend
Children of Talk Tennis, I call for a little perspective here. Federer is 32 and Nadal is 27 at the very end of his prime years. Sampras had retired at age 31. The only recent player I can think of winning a slam at 32 is Agassi. This result means little for their legacies.

What will mean something for Nadal is the finals, which weren't tonight (news flash!). Wawrinka has played great tennis this tournament and he has a real shot to upset Nadal. He's been the second or third best player at the last two slams (the U.S. Open and Australian Open). Let's focus on the finals and not the semisfinal.

Full disclosure: I'm tired of Nadal. His time wasting is a violation of the rules and disrespectful to his opponents. His coach admits to communicating with him during the matches, which is also cheating--period. The shuffling of the feet tonight on Federer's serves was also overdone. The staredowns, chest bumps and WWF style celebrations are fatiguing to watch. His endless lobbying for slower courts is self-serving and at a complete disregard for the health of the game.

Wait, wait, let me add: I don't care about the GOAT debate. It's silly and there is no GOAT (how can you compare different eras?). Federer versus Nadal is also dull at this point. It's been dull for a while. I don't care if who you think is better. They each have different strengths and weaknesses. But I do worry about the state of the game. Let's look to the final and hope Stan can make it a great match, which is what our sport needs.
Just remember: some of the Nadtrolls were driven into their camp by an obsessive and all-consuming hatred of Federer.

The other thing to point out is that at age 31, Federer was world #1 while Sampras was already falling out of the top 10.

As for this match, given how both players spent the past 12 months, I don't think too much can be read into it about Fred: it's his first GS with a new coach, new racket, new-ish tactics, and new-found health. He had a very good tournament with some very impressive wins. He lost to the current world #1 who is five years younger.

I didn't buy into the hype that Fred was back to playing like it was 2007 because that's not biologically possible. I do think that he's on the right track but he still has plenty of work to do. For example, it's been shown that the average speed of his shots has been slowed down -- likely by the higher tension he's now stringing at. While effective against his other opponents this fortnight, what that does is allow Nads to run down more of his shots

Imo, a better litmus test for Fred will come on the US hardcourts in a month or so. But given his form since the WTF, he's arguably playing like he belongs in the top 3. He'll have his chances in other slams this year.
 

kishnabe

Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah Federer 32 but he was playing well enough to expect a better result. At least should have won a set.

It pretty sad Dimitrov did better even though then Nadal played decent.

****ed that Nadal played so well last night.
 

LoboLaw1984

Rookie
Those of us who actually play tennis can learn a thing or two about mental toughness, tenacity, and determination from Nadal. That being said, let's see if Nadal is still making the semi-finals of majors at age 32.
 

ctoth666

Banned
Sampras won a Slam at 31 followed by some humiliating losses in Slams in 2001-2002. But wait, Fed also won a Slam at 31.

Agassi won the 2003 AO but look at the draw he had. Federer with his 2013 US Open form would've won that.
Sampras never had to play Nadal. That's all I'm going to say about that. Here's the problem: can Fed win more slams? Yes. If he has to play Nadal? No. He won't. And now we can say that it's even statistically improbable. So does that leave an asterisk next to anything he may win in the future? I say no because Nadal is the ultimate opponent. No one has an edge over him on the entire tour, except for Davydenko, but that's because they haven't played recently. The reality is that no one has a match up edge against Nadal, and he's got this combination factors that almost make him unbeatable. And statistically speaking, he's the hardest player to beat of all time, ever, although he may not be the greatest. He just is the impossible challenge. It took a likely doped up, out of this world Djokovic to beat Nadal in 2011-12, and if not for the him having that out of this world run, Nadal would be playing to tie Federer's record this week. And I should be clear that Nadal isn't really playing for anything. He's already won the tournament. It doesn't matter who he plays. He will beat them.
 

*Sparkle*

Professional
People needed to calm down when they presumed that beating a just back from surgery Murray meant he was back to peak form, and would win the whole tournament.
 

Dark Magician

Professional
People needed to calm down when they presumed that beating a just back from surgery Murray meant he was back to peak form, and would win the whole tournament.
This is what worries me too. Murray wasn't at his best. Though, not saying Fed didn't play good.
 

hawk eye

Hall of Fame
Fed is 32? Really? Never read that anywhere, certainly not on these forums.
I always thought he was way older. Well, if he's only 32, then there's no excuse whatsoever.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
The problem is Nadal is no moonballer....he has the most devastating forehand in the game and hits countless winners.

These images you guys conjure up of Fed as God and Nadal as a pusher are simply delusional and are finally being exposed.
Let me get this straight. He hits fewer winners than his semifinal opponent, who played pretty poor, fewer than his quarterfinal opponent, just as many as his 4th round opponent, who is often referred to as 'weaponless' and far fewer than the guy he beat 1, 2, 3 in the third round

Yet he still hits countless winners?

Sure, Nadal's game has more offense than in 2006 (and I'm pleased by that), but his game then and now is build on having the most impenetrable defense in the world of tennis.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Sampras won a slam at 31, Agassi at 32.

In this era where the average age of the top 100 gets older and older you're supposed to stay competitive longer. Ergo: argument invalid.
Fed and Sampras are born exactly ten years apart (12th and 8th of August). So Pete was 31 and a 1 month, when he won the US Open, Fed was 30 and 11 months, when he won Wimbledon. Hardly a difference. + Fed got to no. 1 winning that, Sampras was lurking around 10th. 2003 Aus Open, Agassi had one of the easiest draws ever to win a slam - he didn't lose more than 3 games in a single set from the quarters onwards. Fed would have been able to win that slam as well this year. But he has Nadal, Djoko, Murray etc. to deal with.
 
Your argument is weak and a huge excuse even though I am a Fed fan.
Fed should have lost to Murray And Tsonga then to strengthen your argument.
Call it era or prime, that is just a matter of words. Yes and ofcourse Federer should lose to strengthen his case, he he.
 

Bertie B

Professional
Indeed, Federer is 32 years old.

Unlike Agassi who played with sustained intensity throughout his matches, Federer, after a beautiful first set, (dare I say it) essentially tanks the match...in his matches against Nadal.

Against Tsonga, Murray, Del Potro, & even Djokovic Fed's energy levels are at a constant from start to finish - going for shots, hitting winners, believing in himself win or lose. Against Nadal, from set 2 onwards he capitulates and stubbornly refuses to try to win. This is akin to Patty "I-don't-like-you-so-I-will-tank-this-match" Schnyder's attitude.

The Federer-Nadal rivalry has lost its luster because Federer has reverted to the behavior those who know him speak of; volatile, angry, passive-aggressive. Andre against Sampras in 2001, & 2002 still left is heart on the court despite the previous losses.

Against Nadal, Roger Federer becomes Tankerer. Shame.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
See from this video how Federer's backhand lacks depth and the pace and bounce are perfect for Nadal to drive his forehand. In fact, Nadal couldn't whip his forehand when the slice was good enough. Federer should take notice of that. Djokovic beats Nadal because he gets good depth on his shots. Federer is too obsessed with being the aggressor and just tries to take the ball too early which makes it difficult for him to hit with depth.
 

cork_screw

Hall of Fame
Exactly fed is 32. You people need to put things in perspective. You don't compare super models like Cindy Crawford (now) and compare her to Irina Shayk and jab at Cindy Crawford why she's not getting modeling deals/contracts over Shayk (today) or even compare why who had the better (currently) modeling career. Once you get old, your body declines and you can't do the same things you used to do. If you go back and watch vids of fed back in the early 2000's he played lights out against some really talented opponents. I think this forum is full of young kids who didn't get to really appreciate what fed was when he was in his prime. People forget the past really fast, apparently it happens more so here than other forums.
 

90's Clay

Banned
If Nadal wouldn't have been tormenting Federer for the past 10 years, you would have a point. Unfortunately, Fed has been his lapdog since 2004 before Nadal was barely legal to even get into over/under night clubs.

Age has nothing to do with this rivalry. Pre prime puberty Nadal was beating Peak Fed
 
If Nadal wouldn't have been tormenting Federer for the past 10 years, you would have a point. Unfortunately, Fed has been his lapdog since 2004 before Nadal was barely legal to even get into over/under night clubs.

Age has nothing to do with this rivalry. Pre prime puberty Nadal was beating Peak Fed
Well prime Fed was 5-2 against Nadal off clay.
 
Top