Djokovic: "Roger is playing the best tennis of his career now"

[GingerRafa]

Reaaaally, Novak??

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Hasn't it been established that Djokovic actually said something else?

 

[Sir Percival Blakeney]

This thread :lol:

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

No, Gimeno improved so much. Now competition is so tough and improved that they are playing higher than peak Fedal. Evolution.

Fedal now just can't win when they finally have some competition.

So we know that their slam count is inflated and that Nole is the real deal.

Who did Fedal have to play? Only each other really. Before 2011 Murray and Djokovic were bad.

So, Fedal only had to play each other. Djokovic had to play big 3 for every slam and now he is proving he can dominate vs peak Berdych too.

That's why Djokovic is the goat and Fedal are just inflated. Now that Djokovic and his era elevated their games, Fedal can't do anything.

this is a lie.

in fedal`s era you have guys like safin, hewitt, nalbandian, ancic, ferrero, moya, coria, agassi, davydenko, roddick, blake and many others too, who were much better players than the current field!!

after 2009, you only have 3 guys on top and the rest of the field was garbage.

and now, it`s only 2 players or one only.

DJOKO NEVER COULD BREAK FEDAL IN THEIR PEAKS, even IN HIS BEST YEAR HE SUFFERING TO BEAT FEDERER AND THAT FEDERER WAS FAR OF HIS 2012 LEVEL OR EVEN 2014!!!

in 2013, the worst year of fed`s career, he played 2 matches and novak needed 3 sets to beat that very bad federer and with chokes from the swiss, he suffered even with 2013 roger.

and nadal after 7 months without play, beated him in RG AND US OPEN and was nº1 again.

murray???? murray never was a problem for fedal in slams

 

[D.Nalby12]

this is a lie.

in fedal`s era you have guys like safin, hewitt, nalbandian, ancic, ferrero, moya, coria, agassi, davydenko, roddick, blake and many others too, who were much better players than the current field!!

after 2009, you only have 3 guys on top and the rest of the field was garbage.

and now, it`s only 2 players or one only.

DJOKO NEVER COULD BREAK FEDAL IN THEIR PEAKS, even IN HIS BEST YEAR HE SUFFERING TO BEAT FEDERER AND THAT FEDERER WAS FAR OF HIS 2012 LEVEL OR EVEN 2014!!!

in 2013, the worst year of fed`s career, he played 2 matches and novak needed 3 sets to beat that very bad federer and with chokes from the swiss, he suffered even with 2013 roger.

and nadal after 7 months without play, beated him in RG AND US OPEN and was nº1 again.

murray???? murray never was a problem for fedal in slams

This is an epic waste of time. He don't believe in single word he has posted above.

 

[Mainad]

this is a lie.

in fedal`s era you have guys like safin, hewitt, nalbandian, ancic, ferrero, moya, coria, agassi, davydenko, roddick, blake and many others too, who were much better players than the current field!!

after 2009, you only have 3 guys on top and the rest of the field was garbage.

and now, it`s only 2 players or one only.

DJOKO NEVER COULD BREAK FEDAL IN THEIR PEAKS, even IN HIS BEST YEAR HE SUFFERING TO BEAT FEDERER AND THAT FEDERER WAS FAR OF HIS 2012 LEVEL OR EVEN 2014!!!

in 2013, the worst year of fed`s career, he played 2 matches and novak needed 3 sets to beat that very bad federer and with chokes from the swiss, he suffered even with 2013 roger.

and nadal after 7 months without play, beated him in RG AND US OPEN and was nº1 again.

murray???? murray never was a problem for fedal in slams

Au contraire, I think he was a bit of a problem for peak Nadal at 2008 USO and 2010 AO!

 

[MichaelNadal]

Au contraire, I think he was a bit of a problem for prime Nadal at 2008 USO and 2010 AO!

Fixed it for you

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Do we do this on a match to match basis now? Because typically 2008 and 2010 are considered peak years for Nadal.

Well prime for prime/peak, those are still nice victories for Murray. 2010 Nadal was certainly not peak at the time given what had happened in 2009, still don't really see why he had to retire from that match though.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Do we do this on a match to match basis now? Because typically 2008 and 2010 are considered peak years for Nadal.

Well prime for prime/peak, those are still nice victories for Murray. 2010 Nadal was certainly not peak at the time given what had happened in 2009, still don't really see why he had to retire from that match though.

It was close to peak Nadal, but he was gassed in the 08 USO semis for obvious reasons. Beating him was still a huge acheivement, no doubt, but he wasn't at his "peak" in that match. Same for the 2010 AO coming off losing to Davy in Doha after having MP's and not winning a set in the 09 WTF.

 

[Steve0904]

Well, Mustard says 4 months in 2008 is Nadal's peak, so I guess we should use that then.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Well, Mustard says 4 months in 2008 is Nadal's peak, so I guess we should use that then.

Rafa breaks all the traditional tennis rules, even when it comes to how his peak is defined. A bit like this guy:

 

[veroniquem]

Hasn't it been established that Djokovic actually said something else?

No, Djoko said: Fed is playing some of his best tennis. And he is (or at least he was before clay season kicked off) but Fed fans can't stand the idea that Fed is playing well. They desperately want him to be playing the worst he ever has. Go figure.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Lol @ "playing best tennis" and he lost to Seppi (against whom he hadn't lost a match) at the grand slam where he made 11 consecutive SFs :lol:

Some desperate glory hunters trying to prop up Federer to not make it look weak :lol:

 

[veroniquem]

Well, Mustard says 4 months in 2008 is Nadal's peak, so I guess we should use that then.

On clay, he had lots of peaks lol. 2008 was his grass peak for sure and 2013 was his hard peak (2005 was his indoor peak )

 

[veroniquem]

Lol @ "playing best tennis" and he lost to Seppi (against whom he hadn't lost a match) at the grand slam where he made 11 consecutive SFs :lol:

Yep but other than that, he reached final in all hard court events he entered and won 2 out of 3.

 

[BringBackSV]

One's peak is any match they win and none of their losses.

 

[NatF]

Yep but other than that, he reached final in all hard court events he entered and won 2 out of 3.

A 250 and a 500...what a peak.

 

[Dilettante]

Yes just like M Night Shyamalan is currently making the best movies of his career.

hahaha Ouch

 

[veroniquem]

A 250 and a 500...what a peak.

But final of WTF, final of IW, win at Shanghai. Not too shabby. About the best after Djoko.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

No, Djoko said: Fed is playing some of his best tennis. And he is (or at least he was before clay season kicked off) but Fed fans can't stand the idea that Fed is playing well. They desperately want him to be playing the worst he ever has. Go figure.

Oh I think they are very happy to see him playing well. I just pointed out that Djokovic said something else than what was stated originally.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

But final of WTF, final of IW, win at Shanghai. Not too shabby. About the best after Djoko.

Aging Federer is not shabby, and no. two in the world, that is cool.

 

[NatF]

But final of WTF, final of IW, win at Shanghai. Not too shabby. About the best after Djoko.

Indeed, good level of play. But best play can't be separated from the slams, a Federer who cannot compete in best of 5 is not playing peak tennis.

 

[veroniquem]

Indeed, good level of play. But best play can't be separated from the slams, a Federer who cannot compete in best of 5 is not playing peak tennis.

It can be separated, why not? It is possible to play very well in best of 3 and not in best of 5. I believe Fed is at that stage of his career (everywhere except grass because points are so short on grass). It's a physical issue. His technique is as sound as ever.

# of slam finals since 2013: 1
# of masters/WTF finals since 2013: 9

Big difference.

 

[NatF]

It can be separated, why not? It is possible to play very well in best of 3 and not in best of 5. I believe Fed is at that stage of his career (everywhere except grass because points are so short on grass). It's a physical issue. His technique is as sound as ever.

# of slam finals since 2013: 1
# of masters/WTF finals since 2013: 9

Big difference.

Because when you're as great as Federer you're measured by your success in majors not 250's and 500's or even masters. The guy has 17 majors, made 23 SF in a row etc...for a guy like that to be bounced so easily at the USO and AO, not peak tennis.

 

[veroniquem]

Because when you're as great as Federer you're measured by your success in majors not 250's and 500's or even masters. The guy has 17 majors, made 23 SF in a row etc...for a guy like that to be bounced so easily at the USO and AO, not peak tennis.

But majors are more taxing physically. There is nothing he can do about it. Or rather yes, there is something: be as competitive in best of 3 as he possibly can and get a firm hold on the #2 DESPITE the decline in slams. And he's doing it. That is not impressive? Man, I'm really gonna start thinking I'm more of a Fed fan than you are...
At least I can appreciate what he's doing right now at the age of 33 for what it's worth!

 

[FedTheMan]

But majors are more taxing physically. There is nothing he can do about it. Or rather yes, there is something: be as competitive in best of 3 as he possibly can and get a firm hold on the #2 DESPITE the decline in slams. And he's doing it. That is not impressive? Man, I'm really gonna start thinking I'm more of a Fed fan than you are...
At least I can appreciate what he's doing right now at the age of 33 for what it's worth!

Lol! No you aren't/don't Vero. Look, you are a Fed hater. Please do not fool yourself. Just accept it and the forum will be a better place.

OT: Fed is playing pretty well as Novak said and I still believe that he can win a last GS..hopefully this Wimbledon!

 

[Netspirit]

He has not won a slam in 3 years, and the one before that was more than 5 years ago.

 

[NatF]

But majors are more taxing physically. There is nothing he can do about it. Or rather yes, there is something: be as competitive in best of 3 as he possibly can and get a firm hold on the #2 DESPITE the decline in slams. And he's doing it. That is not impressive? Man, I'm really gonna start thinking I'm more of a Fed fan than you are...
At least I can appreciate what he's doing right now at the age of 33 for what it's worth!

Are stamina and physicality not attributes usually associated with peak tennis? :lol:

So first you want to separate performance in best of 5 and best of 3 to say Federer is playing his best tennis, now apparently stamina and physicality aren't something to consider about ones peak tennis?

:lol:

I admire what Federer is doing, that doesn't mean I'm going to lie through my teeth about how well he is playing compared to his best years.

 

[RF-18]

Federer is at his peak.

Got nearly breadsticked by Schwartzmen.

 

[Feather]

But majors are more taxing physically. There is nothing he can do about it. Or rather yes, there is something: be as competitive in best of 3 as he possibly can and get a firm hold on the #2 DESPITE the decline in slams. And he's doing it. That is not impressive? Man, I'm really gonna start thinking I'm more of a Fed fan than you are...
At least I can appreciate what he's doing right now at the age of 33 for what it's worth!

Has it ever occured to you that best of three matches without a day's gap is not that different from best of five matches with a day's rest? I felt he was gassed by the time he reached the finals of the masters. I felt it in Canada and Cincy finals especially though he won one. I am NOT finding excuses for his losses at the finals like a fan boy. Think about it, Roger wins a B05 in straight sets he gets a day's rest. He wins a masters B03 in three sets, he plays the very next day. Of course, five sets matches at this age will almost certainly screw him up for the next match

We, Federer fans all appreciate what he is doing at this age. I am more than happy with his showings in the masters which exceeded my own expectations. However, to seperate Roger's performance in slams from masters and say Roger is playing the best Tennis of his life is actually a comment not worth responding and lol worthy

 

[cc0509]

Has it ever occured to you that best of three matches without a day's gap is not that different from best of five matches with a day's rest? I felt he was gassed by the time he reached the finals of the masters. I felt it in Canada and Cincy finals especially though he won one. I am NOT finding excuses for his losses at the finals like a fan boy. Think about it, Roger wins a B05 in straight sets he gets a day's rest. He wins a masters B03 in three sets, he plays the very next day. Of course, five sets matches at this age will almost certainly screw him up for the next match

We, Federer fans all appreciate what he is doing at this age. I am more than happy with his showings in the masters which exceeded my own expectations. However, to seperate Roger's performance in slams from masters and say Roger is playing the best Tennis of his life is actually a comment not worth responding and lol worthy

LOL. She likes to bring up all of these stupid stats that nobody gives a crap about. The only indicator that shows where Federer's level is now compared to the past is his consistency or lack of it at the slams. That is when you can judge whether a great player has declined or not. Going from winning three slams a year or a couple of slams a year to winning 1 slam in the last five years tells us all we need to know about Federer's decline (or any great player's decline for that matter.) The rest is all BS and agendas talking. Yes, he can still do well at best of three tournaments. That is because: A) he is an all time great and B) the competition currently sucks.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Djokovic in 2015:

% service games won: 89
% return games won: 36

Federer in 2015

% service games won: 92
% return games won: 33

Well that settles it, looks like Federer has been playing at a level similar to Djokovic this year. It all makes sense to me now.

Addendum: Federer won in Istanbul, but his % of service games won went from 92 to 91, and his return games from 33 to 31.

I guess he should have just stayed home, to preserve those statistics. Clearly his year just got worse because of this win.


#lunacy #insanity #otherwordsthataresynonymouswiththefirsttwo #howyoulikingmyAngieBimpression #imdrunkoff151

 

[TheFifthSet]

So, to summarize:

1) veroniquem doesn't believe a word she's saying

2) its demonstrably clear that Federer is not even close to replicating the form he exhibited in his prime

3) Bo5 stopped mattering, I guess

4) DJOKOVIC'S WORDS WERE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT

But, 10/10 for dragging this out for 17+ pages, 'Nique. This was some of your best work.

 

[TennisLovaLova]

another proof that Djokovic knows nothing about tennis because he's just a triathlete with a 100inch sq stick
overrated pusher should stop talking and thank Roger for getting old

 

[jg153040]

Novak didn't say anything like that. But, even if he did, is that so terrible?

He is human, so he would praise Fed to make himself look a bit better? Is that such a crime?

Didn't anyone here ever praise himself a little too much at any point in their lives? Why would you expect that those guys wouldn't be humans?

 

[dondropshot]

That's called, appropriately, a backhanded compliment. To the GOAT of backhanded compliments. ;9)B

 

[veroniquem]

Are stamina and physicality not attributes usually associated with peak tennis? :lol:

So first you want to separate performance in best of 5 and best of 3 to say Federer is playing his best tennis, now apparently stamina and physicality aren't something to consider about ones peak tennis?

.

That is not my point at all. My point is that Fed is currently posting much better results in best of 3 than in best of 5 (on hard) because stamina and endurance are less of a factor in best of 3. It is possible to play at a high level but to get tired in longer matches.

 

[veroniquem]

LOL. She likes to bring up all of these stupid stats that nobody gives a crap about. The only indicator that shows where Federer's level is now compared to the past is his consistency or lack of it at the slams.

How is that relevant in any way to his perfs in best of 3? I am pointing out how good his perfs in best of 3 have been recently, compared to best of 5.
As for the "stupid" stats, they are a more accurate reflection of player's form than the subjective impressions of excitable fans.

 

[NatF]

That is not my point at all. My point is that Fed is currently posting much better results in best of 3 than in best of 5 (on hard) because stamina and endurance are less of a factor in best of 3. It is possible to play at a high level but to get tired in longer matches.

I don't think many would disagree with this, though I'm not sure if that is all of it. Afterall he hardly lit up the arena for the first 3 sets of his match against Seppi or Bolelli. Likewise at the USO last year. Perhaps mentally he feels more pressure at the slams these days because he knows how disastrous a long match could be for him, and in response he doesn't play as well as he could?

You do seem to have shifted your point a bit.

 

[veroniquem]

I don't think many would disagree with this, though I'm not sure if that is all of it. Afterall he hardly lit up the arena for the first 3 sets of his match against Seppi or Bolelli. Likewise at the USO last year. Perhaps mentally he feels more pressure at the slams these days because he knows how disastrous a long match could be for him, and in response he doesn't play as well as he could?

.

Maybe. I think you have to manage your energy differently when you know the match could be long. Maybe he is used to feeling like it's ok to start slow in a best of 5 as long as you finish strong. But I think the older one gets, the harder it becomes to do it.

 

[NatF]

Maybe. I think you have to manage your energy differently when you know the match could be long. Maybe he is used to feeling like it's ok to start slow in a best of 5 as long as you finish strong. But I think the older one gets, the harder it becomes to do it.

Could be, best of 3 on a fast HC Federer seems to be ready go full out from the first point - perhaps because he feels he can be aggressive and end it quickly. Also against top players he seems to have a fire in him which might help him start quicker.

 

[Earnest One]

Hasn't it been established that Djokovic actually said something else?

WTF are your droning on and on about!!

There's NOTHING to see/read here. Move along. Move along. Don't ask questions....
--------------------------------------------------------

Train wreck thread. Some posters fail to understands the modifier "some".

A lesson in mass hysteria? Perhaps not. Perhaps it depends on the meaning of "established".

 

[BGod]

This is like saying Becker was playing his best tennis in those late career Aussie Open runs.

Just, no.

Federer is simply taking advantage of a transitional period, like Agassi did.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Level in slams is far indicative of how well a guy like Federer is playing. He doesn't major in minors. As you know I was just 'trolling' your need to respond and with that image to boot is just an example of you leaping to defend Novak despite what he's saying being clearly BS - hence fanboy drivel.

Where exactly did I defend what Novak said? I posted a counterpoint to your asinine point about Safin vs Seppi and it was you who immediately assumed. But yes of course I am the biased one.

I didn't say Seppi played poorly did I? Seppi played well, Federer played poorly. That's the first of your strawman attempts.

Reading comprehension is a good thing. I was saying like Federer played well in 06 but played poorly in 1 match, why is it a stretch to say he played well in 15 (to this point) but poorly in that one match, but again your fanboyism clouds your ability to read.

As for Vero's numbers those from 2015 are not season long so you can park that at the door right now. His stats on return in 2014 were noticeably lower than his best years. I don't really care how they look for the first 4 months of this year when he's played only 20 matches and crashed out of the only slam and one of the masters. Results in the biggest tournaments surely matter more than winning lots of games in smaller ones?

No, if we are talking about level of play all of the results matter and composite season numbers display the best. Results in the biggest tournaments are about achievements and greatness but not necessarily correlated to level of play.

Agassi had better winer/ue stats in the 2005 final than the 1995 final, was he playing peak tennis? As said before you can't determine absolute level from winners and ue's only. Federer couldn't dictate with his forehand and was bullied from the baseline. He served as well as he ever had and vollyed well.

Well according to most fed fans yes actually. They state the Agassi at 34/35 was peak since Fed had issues, but Fed at 29/30 was declined since Nole beat him.

Also lol at dismissing winners/ues as an indicator of level of play.

BTW that's another strawman, I haven't claimed that 04-07 Federer would beat his older self 0,0,0.

That was an obvious exaggeration. You did however claim that 04-07 Fed would straight set Djokovic at Wimbledon which seems to have no basis considering he played statistically one of his best matches and lost and guys like Hewitt, Roddick, and 20 year old Nadal were taking sets off Fed at Wimbledon in those years.

You think Wimbledon was faster in 07 than 2014? Any evidence other than Novak winning :lol:

:lol: the entire argument about how the courts have been slowed down and there is surface homogenization now helping Novak?

In any case explain how Fed was so declined last year but managed to face the fewest break points in tournament history (more so than the supposed "faster" courts of his peak days) and only drop serve once? Also explain how your own statistical analysis shows that last year was a stronger year of competition in terms of both the top 10 and 20 than 04, yet Fed posted better numbers in "declined" form at Wimbledon last year?

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Novak doing some trolling, but he is not the only one. It is contagious, listen to the sky sports commentators gush over Federer being in the best form of his career.

Same being said about Nole now

 

[NatF]

Same being said about Nole now

Both times they're incorrect.