Federer's Game Ranked By The Years

Devin

Semi-Pro
I couldn't think of a better name for this thread, and I didn't find any threads addressing this already.

That being said, what do you guys think was Federer's best year for the following aspects of his game?

Serve
Forehand
Backhand (Topspin and slice)
Return of Serve
Footwork/Speed (Court coverage, defense, etc)
Volleys (Forehand and backhand)

Discuss.
 
Last edited:

NEW_BORN

Hall of Fame
Best years imo
Serve - 2009
Forehand Topspin - 2005
Forehand Slice/Squash - 2016
Backhand Topspin - 2017
Backhand Slice - 2007
Return of Serve - 2006
Footwork - 2003
Speed - 2004
Volleys - 2015
Smashes - 2008
Dropshots - 2009
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Funny how rarely people point to 2004 as a year of fearsome quality from Federer, because it truly was. Nice list!
My favorite Federer year is 2004. So dynamic and played so fearlessly on the big points. 18-0 against the top 10 is legendary and his serve/break point saved against the top 10 is ridiculous as well. Possible the most clutch year in tennis history. His game got more consistent and more traditional in the next 2 years (which had the added benefit of being better on clay, but also was a little less fun to watch as well).
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
2017 for all according to @Alien

According to Alien, Brad Gilbert, Javier Frana, Federer himself, Djokovic, Nishikori, I think Wawrinka said so as well among others.

Whereas on the other side we only have clown posters that can't hold a racquet.

So really it seems not even debatable.
 
Last edited:

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
According to Alien, Brad Gilbert, Javier Frana, Coria, Federer himself, Djokovic, Nishikori, I think Wawrinka said so as well among others.

Whereas on the other side we only have clown posters that can't hold a racquet.

So really it seems not even debatable.

Agree.

/thread
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
Just read the thread after having answered your jab. No, not all strokes are better now but overall he is. Not worth to classify every shot.

Agree. We must look at the full pictures rather than picking and choosing.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
My favorite Federer year is 2004. So dynamic and played so fearlessly on the big points. 18-0 against the top 10 is legendary and his serve/break point saved against the top 10 is ridiculous as well. Possible the most clutch year in tennis history. His game got more consistent and more traditional in the next 2 years (which had the added benefit of being better on clay, but also was a little less fun to watch as well).
2004 was indeed probably the best year in terms of absolute clutchness ever. 11-0 in finals and 18-0 vs the top 10. Nobody has had a season like that ever since. Not even before.
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
I couldn't think of a better name for this thread, and I didn't find any threads addressing this already.

That being said, what do you guys think was Federer's best year for the following aspects of his game?

Serve
Forehand
Backhand (Topspin and slice)
Return of Serve
Footwork/Speed (Court coverage, defense, etc)
Volleys (Forehand and backhand)

Discuss.

Serve: Possibly 2015 or now
Forehand: Late 2004-2005
Backhand Topspin: Now
Return of Serve: 2006 (gave out a record number of bagels that year so I'd bet his return stats were his best then)
Footword/Speed 2004-2006
Volleys: Hard to judge really but possibly 2015
 

Devin

Semi-Pro
This is my opinion:
Serve - 2009, 2015
Forehand - 2004, 2005
Backhand (Topspin) - 2006, 2017
Backhand (Slice) - 2005, 2006
Return of Serve - 2006
Footwork - 2004
Speed - 2004
Volleys - 2014
 
6

6-3 6-0

Guest
This is my opinion:
Serve - 2009, 2015
Forehand - 2004, 2005
Backhand (Topspin) - 2006, 2017
Backhand (Slice) - 2005, 2006
Return of Serve - 2006
Footwork - 2004
Speed - 2004
Volleys - 2014
I'd add 2006 to FH. His FH that whole year was literally devastating and IMO most potent out of all other years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
According to Brad Gilbert, Javier Frana, Federer himself, Djokovic, Nishikori, I think Wawrinka said

So really it seems not even debatable.

Brad Gilbert is a commentator, paid to make provocative statements. He never played Fed in his life, so he has no basis of comparison between peak Fed and now. He says things to keep viewers interested.

Frana never has played recent-vintage Fed, so he also has no basis of comparison.

Federer himself is hardly going to compromise his endorsements by admitting, "I moved 20% better in 2004-2006, my FH was lethal back then and my recovery was 30% superior to now." Please cite one pro athlete (besides McEnroe) who ever admits a decline? Mac famously said, "the older I get, the better I used to be." But that was after he retired.

Djokovic? He didn't say Federer was playing his best ever tennis in 2017, that's an invented quote (provide the source). In any case, Djoker hasn't played Roger in 2 years.

Nishi never said Fed is playing better than in his peak. Again, an invented quote, and Kei never was never near Roger in his peak, never mind playing him.
--------------------

Did peak Fed need to take 2 months off to 'rest and heal?' He's chasing a YE #1 ranking (whether he admits it or not) and he's forgoing a ton of possible points because he's OLD. Anyone thinking 2017 is his peak level never watched him play 2004-07.
 

Devin

Semi-Pro
Must not have been alive or watching tennis 2004-2007.
Despite what others may say, there's no way he's better than he was back then. Face it, his forehand and footwork/speed, two of his three "big" weapons back then, have declined. Last time I checked (I didn't watch the match but I have heard from multiple people) that his serve was what kept the Wimbledon 2014 final so competitive. If he had his old forehand and speed, there's no question he would've won.

Some people could even argue that Federer in his prime was faster than Djokovic ever was, but Djokovic's insane defensive skills have definitely been shown much more than Federer's have.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Serve: 2009 Wimbledon final, 2014-2015 or 2017 AO
Forehand: 2004 (this could be stretched to 03W - 06USO but imo his FH wasn't as explosive in 06 and let him down on clay). Definitely declined by 07.
Topspin Backhand: 2006 or 2017
Slices Backhand: 2004-2005
Return of Serve: 2003-2006 more specifically 2003-2004
Footwork/Speed: 2003 - 2006
Volleys: 03-04, 14


Just read the thread after having answered your jab. No, not all strokes are better now but overall he is. Not worth to classify every shot.

If he was overall better than ever, he would be playing a full clay schedule and sweeping it up, ready for a 2nd RG, 8th Wimbledon and 6th USO for his first CYGS.
 
Last edited:

Alien

Hall of Fame
Brad Gilbert is a commentator, paid to make provocative statements. He never played Fed in his life, so he has no basis of comparison between peak Fed and now. He says things to keep viewers interested.

Frana never has played recent-vintage Fed, so he also has no basis of comparison.

Federer himself is hardly going to compromise his endorsements by admitting, "I moved 20% better in 2004-2006, my FH was lethal back then and my recovery was 30% superior to now." Please cite one pro athlete (besides McEnroe) who ever admits a decline? Mac famously said, "the older I get, the better I used to be." But that was after he retired.

Djokovic? He didn't say Federer was playing his best ever tennis in 2017, that's an invented quote (provide the source). In any case, Djoker hasn't played Roger in 2 years.

Nishi never said Fed is playing better than in his peak. Again, an invented quote, and Kei never was never near Roger in his peak, never mind playing him.
--------------------

Did peak Fed need to take 2 months off to 'rest and heal?' He's chasing a YE #1 ranking (whether he admits it or not) and he's forgoing a ton of possible points because he's OLD. Anyone thinking 2017 is his peak level never watched him play 2004-07.

Really? So all of you are claiming that Federer is old but you have never played a single match with a 2.0 player and you want to disqualify a former top 10 pro player, coach and commentator just because he didn't play Federer at his peak? People that played for maybe 25 years five hours a day and observed tennis and understand it is never static but always evolving?

Honestly, do you get what an expert is? You (we) just shut up and listen when they speak.

The rest, just Google the quotes, I am not doing it for you.

You are welcome.
 
Last edited:

Alien

Hall of Fame
If he was overall better than ever, he would be playing a full clay schedule and sweeping it up, ready for a 2nd RG, 8th Wimbledon and 6th USO for his first CYGS.

Sorry? he is playing a different game now. He is taking care of his body, he doesn't chase ranking. Old age does affect recovery time and also he knows he cannot lose six months after an injury again. What is the relationship between level and him not playing clay.?
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
So really it seems not even debatable.

It's debatable all right, most things are

. No, not all strokes are better now but overall he is. Not worth to classify every shot.

That's a valid opinion... and I agree that classifying every shot is splitting hairs

Brad Gilbert ...never played Fed in his life, so he has no basis of comparison between peak Fed and now.

Djoker hasn't played Roger in 2 years.

As opposed to all of us?

And Djokovic played Federer 1 Year ago

If he was overall better than ever, he would be playing a full clay schedule...

That's fitness and stamina and it's a sepearate issue. Particularly since the OP hasn't included it on the things to rate (probably because it's obvious)

----

All good opinions here.

Not a fan of the the seemingly obsessive need to convert opinions to ones own (you're welcome to disagree with that, of course)

Some of the reasoning is pretty poor
 

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
Serve - around 2006 Wimbledon when his serve became one of the best of all time and stayed there ever since.
Backhand - probably 2006 AO.
Forehand - 2003 YEC it really came into its own and has been a 'fearhand' ever since.
movement - 2002 he already was a gazelle
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
It's debatable all right, most things are



That's a valid opinion... and I agree that classifying every shot is splitting hairs



As opposed to all of us?

And Djokovic played Federer 1 Year ago



That's fitness and stamina and it's a sepearate issue. Particularly since the OP hasn't included it on the things to rate (probably because it's obvious)

----

All good opinions here.

Not a fan of the the seemingly obsessive need to convert opinions to ones own (you're welcome to disagree with that, of course)

Some of the reasoning is pretty poor

Agree all is debatable. However I keep saying, would you (I am assuming you are not a doctor) debate with a PhD in medicine about an illness? With a fisic about the quantums and spin in particles? No.

So why on earth would people pretend to disqualify Brad Gilbert or even Federer's own words from their armchairs?
 
F

Fedfan34

Guest
2012 was Goat serving year. Dood was getting free points on his second serve, almost like Pete.
2017 for everything else.
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
Agree all is debatable. However I keep saying, would you (I am assuming you are not a doctor) debate with a PhD in medicine about an illness? With a fisic about the quantums and spin in particles? No.

So why on earth would people pretend to disqualify Brad Gilbert or even Federer's own words from their armchairs?

... Or an Alien about Roger Federer :)

what you say is true if all the doctors and physicists were in near 100% agreement. .. In this case, I doubt it's true.

I respect Gilbert's opinion (and Fed's too), but don't feel any pressure to agree with them even though they know tennis much better than I ever will. So does say, Wilander and Michael Chang... which way do I look if they give a polar opposite opinion?

There's a difference between 'dismissing' and 'disagreeing' , no problem with the latter, the former can be a tricky business.

Tennis is a sensitive game. I remember after losing a 5 setter to Sampras (USO 2002?), Greg Rusedski said Sampras was nowhere as good as he used to be, he was a lot slower than before, that Rusedski blew the match rather than Sampras won it etc.

His words were mostly reported from a bad sportsmanship and being mean point of view.

Most of what he said was obviously true
 
Last edited:

Alien

Hall of Fame
... Or an Alien about Roger Federer :)

Well I think I have not played the famous 10.000 hours that makes you an expert but maybe I did 4000 in my 30 years playing. Plus I have been watching tennis since the 70s plus I can hold my own (like 4.5 level). Honestly I don't think someone playing at 2.0 has the same level of understanding of the game I may have.

The rest, Wilander, Mc E, Greg... You are right people may have stakes or differ... However none of them has said Federer is at a lower player than before. None. Because they understand it is useless or impossible to prove. Or because they understand change and evolution of the sport in ten years. Who knows. But one thing is certain. Only armchair warriors are the ones maintaining Federer is old and Nadal is finnish.
 
6

6-3 6-0

Guest
That's fitness and stamina and it's a sepearate issue. Particularly since the OP hasn't included it on the things to rate (probably because it's obvious)
And these issues affects matches specially when the player is in his mid 30's. Slower movement and speed also mean lesser time to chase the ball and hit your FH/BH properly. Its all interlinked. Ther reason why Fed had such a monstrous FH in '04-'06 was due to the swift movement and footwork. Now he can't play as much as around his FH like he used to.

After changing racquet, he said his forehand and slices isn't as lethal as it used to be back in the day. Serve is independent shot that doesn't rely on movement, so I'll give you that.
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
And these issues affects matches specially when the player is in his mid 30's. Slower movement and speed also mean lesser time to chase the ball and hit your FH/BH properly. Its all interlinked. Ther reason why Fed had such a monstrous FH in '04-'06 was due to the swift movement and footwork. Now he can't play as much as around his FH like he used to.

After changing racquet, he said his forehand and slices isn't as lethal as it used to be back in the day. Serve is independent shot that doesn't rely on movement, so I'll give you that.

When did he say that about his forehand again? Never read that.

The reason you and others believe forehand was better is simply because courts were faster back then.

Everybody without prejudice can see he is not slower. At all.
 
6

6-3 6-0

Guest
When did he say that about his forehand again? Never read that.
It was during Indian wells in an interview. Don't think there was a news article but the you can youtube it.

The reason you and others believe forehand was better is simply because courts were faster back then.

Everybody without prejudice can see he is not slower. At all.
LOL ridiculous! So his forehand was better due to faster courts? So I guess by that logic, everyone's forehand as well as backhand is worse now.
For once, stop trolling and provide constructive arguments. It'll make this place a lot better ;)
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
... Or an Alien about Roger Federer :)

Well I think I have not played the ...

It was a joke, playing of your username and Roger Federer not being human (because he's so good). Sorry if that wasn't clear

(You might consider chilling a bit - it might be that taking your own opinions so seriously attitude that's eliciting the edgy responses you're getting from people)
---
As for your argument... well if all you've got is "X expert says so, therefore it is so, end of debate"... you're probably on the wrong forum.

Surely the forum is for its members to discuss their own opinions, not solely point to other peoples opinions. What do you think?

As for no experts coming forward to claim Federer was better before... I (from my armchair and with my 8 hours - not 10 - of tennis playing experience) see it differently

Since one would generally assume that ANY male tennis player is better at 26 than 36, if anything, it suggests they agree he was better before by staying silent. It's not worth pointing out because ... it's completely normal. Only those who think he's better now will actually say it.

"If a dog bites a man, that's not news. If a man bites a dog, thats news"... that sort of thing

Secondly it's silly to point out and would make one look like an ass.

"LEGEND LAVER SAYS AUSTRALIAN OPEN AND SUNSHINE DOUBLE WINNER FEDERER NOT AS GOOD AS HE USED TO BE"

... Do you think anyone wants to see ther name used like that??

Thirdly, your not reading between the lines very well in your take of what the experts are saying (and since that's your entire argument, that's a problem). I'm not as up to date on who has said what as you are, but i'll give 1 example.

Rod Laver said, "It is amazing to think he's playing as well as he is at this moment ... I have not seen him play a backhand this good..."

If he thought he's playing better than ever, he'd have just said so... not this

----

Your opinion is valid and I respect it (for all you know, I might even agree with it). Your reasoning. .. not so much
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Sorry? he is playing a different game now. He is taking care of his body, he doesn't chase ranking. Old age does affect recovery time and also he knows he cannot lose six months after an injury again. What is the relationship between level and him not playing clay.?

Oh ok. Well he's playing all slams so he's HEAVY favourite for CYGS according to you as there's no peak Nadal to stop him at RG anymore and he's solved that match up.

As for him not being slower? That's demonstrably false. He doesn't chase balls all day long anymore because he can't defend as well as he used to. That's a fact.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
It's debatable all right, most things are



That's a valid opinion... and I agree that classifying every shot is splitting hairs



As opposed to all of us?

And Djokovic played Federer 1 Year ago



That's fitness and stamina and it's a sepearate issue. Particularly since the OP hasn't included it on the things to rate (probably because it's obvious)

----

All good opinions here.

Not a fan of the the seemingly obsessive need to convert opinions to ones own (you're welcome to disagree with that, of course)

Some of the reasoning is pretty poor

OK fair point. But if he's better than ever he's massive odds on favourite for CYGS this year. Double CGS incoming, then record titles at Wimbledon and USO.

Back in reality, his FH is nowhere near as good as it once was, his movement and speed are nowhere near as good as they were, his overall return game across the surfaces isn't as good.

Right now his BH is as good as it was in 2006 except he's a bit more aggressive with it now but with a worse slice. Overall peak Federer would destroy this Fed across all surfaces... maybe grandpa would nick a tiebreak before peak Fed turned it on.
 

Artist

Rookie
I think what also shouldn't be forgotten is that commentators, experts, journalist often hype things up. Example it's a much better story to say '35 year federer currently playing his best ever back to winning ways' then '35 year old at 75% of his capabilities owning the tour'. It would leave a rather bad look on the ATP tour tbh. Also I don't know if yall noticed but everytime federer is back to winning ways he is playing his 'best ever level similar to the period he absolutely dominated' according to the commentators/journalist/ect.

In 2010 right after he won the AO: 'his best ever, best level since since his 3 slams a year period'
In 2012: 'Highesth level ever, best level since vintage fed of 2006/2007 period'
In certain parts of 2015: 'Highesth level ever, best level since he won 3 slam a year'
In 2017: 'Highest level ever, best level since he was king of the tennis world at 26'

So how does that work?? If in 2015 or the other years it was his best ever level, then people now in 2017 should have said 'it's the highest level ever topping his 2012/2015/....(add whatever year they have mentioned it) level', but they never do that. This year again they mention it's his best level ever, best level since his dominating period 10 years ago. So suddenly he wasn't at his 'best ever' atleast three times inbetween his golden period and 2017 :rolleyes:
 
S

Sirius Black

Guest
Well I think I have not played the famous 10.000 hours that makes you an expert but maybe I did 4000 in my 30 years playing. Plus I have been watching tennis since the 70s plus I can hold my own (like 4.5 level). Honestly I don't think someone playing at 2.0 has the same level of understanding of the game I may have.

The rest, Wilander, Mc E, Greg... You are right people may have stakes or differ... However none of them has said Federer is at a lower player than before. None. Because they understand it is useless or impossible to prove. Or because they understand change and evolution of the sport in ten years. Who knows. But one thing is certain. Only armchair warriors are the ones maintaining Federer is old and Nadal is finnish.

You're going to lose people by bringing up NTRP rankings. You're using that to belittle your oppposition (with no basis for your claims). How do you know that the people you're talking to aren't better than you? You don't.

More to the point, a lot of former players do not make for the best analysts. Now, I'm not saying that Gilbert is the Charles Barkley of tennis, barely able to talk in complete sentences, but one person's opinion does not mean that the entire aggregate of tennis experts agrees.

As for your medicine example, if you run enough tests, you will eventually find something to support your hypothesis simply due to chance...which is why most journals require studies to be peer reviewed. In this entire sea of analysis about Federer's game, you are clinging for dear life on the reputation of man who refers to Federer as "Fedfan." A lot of what Gilbert says is solely for entertainment.
 

TheMaestro1990

Hall of Fame
Serve - 2009/2015

Forehand - 2004/2005

Backhand topspin - 2017

Backhand slice - AO 2007

Return of serve - 2006/2017

Footwork - Late 2004/2005

Speed - 2004/2005

Volleys - AO 2007
 

Surion

Hall of Fame
Well I think I have not played the famous 10.000 hours that makes you an expert but maybe I did 4000 in my 30 years playing. Plus I have been watching tennis since the 70s plus I can hold my own (like 4.5 level). Honestly I don't think someone playing at 2.0 has the same level of understanding of the game I may have.

The rest, Wilander, Mc E, Greg... You are right people may have stakes or differ... However none of them has said Federer is at a lower player than before. None. Because they understand it is useless or impossible to prove. Or because they understand change and evolution of the sport in ten years. Who knows. But one thing is certain. Only armchair warriors are the ones maintaining Federer is old and Nadal is finnish.
And to ignore my own advice, it's really helping your "arguments" if you suddenly instead of arguing properly tell people they are 2.0s and never played tennis or whatever.
You don't know us so stop doing stupid **** and finally start to argue properly.
Your only argument is "Gilbert" said it.
Wow, convincing.
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
You're going to lose people by bringing up NTRP rankings. You're using that to belittle your oppposition (with no basis for your claims). How do you know that the people you're talking to aren't better than you? You don't.

More to the point, a lot of former players do not make for the best analysts. Now, I'm not saying that Gilbert is the Charles Barkley of tennis, barely able to talk in complete sentences, but one person's opinion does not mean that the entire aggregate of tennis experts agrees.

As for your medicine example, if you run enough tests, you will eventually find something to support your hypothesis simply due to chance...which is why most journals require studies to be peer reviewed. In this entire sea of analysis about Federer's game, you are clinging for dear life on the reputation of man who refers to Federer as "Fedfan." A lot of what Gilbert says is solely for entertainment.

Well he put names on everybody. Fair enough, I would surrender to proof but nobody has produced it. Not a single comparative viseo or the sort. They measured speed of players 2010-2016 or something like that at AO but not before. They could do it with tapes but nobody has.

In the meantime, I hear what those people have to say. And I know if you don't improve every year you fall down the rankings, not to mention if you play worse...
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
I think what also shouldn't be forgotten is that commentators, experts, journalist often hype things up. Example it's a much better story to say '35 year federer currently playing his best ever back to winning ways' then '35 year old at 75% of his capabilities owning the tour'. It would leave a rather bad look on the ATP tour tbh. Also I don't know if yall noticed but everytime federer is back to winning ways he is playing his 'best ever level similar to the period he absolutely dominated' according to the commentators/journalist/ect.

In 2010 right after he won the AO: 'his best ever, best level since since his 3 slams a year period'
In 2012: 'Highesth level ever, best level since vintage fed of 2006/2007 period'
In certain parts of 2015: 'Highesth level ever, best level since he won 3 slam a year'
In 2017: 'Highest level ever, best level since he was king of the tennis world at 26'

So how does that work?? If in 2015 or the other years it was his best ever level, then people now in 2017 should have said 'it's the highest level ever topping his 2012/2015/....(add whatever year they have mentioned it) level', but they never do that. This year again they mention it's his best level ever, best level since his dominating period 10 years ago. So suddenly he wasn't at his 'best ever' atleast three times inbetween his golden period and 2017 :rolleyes:

Right because there is no golden period. He keeps adding. He almost never got injured like Rafa (what makes you go back to the start) or been crippled or lost motivation like Pete or Borg. At some point he was simply surpassed. Now he got it back with a new backhand with Ljubo and more offensive game after Edberg.

By the way yes, general level keeps improving, going up on a seesaw manner but it does. Ten years is a lot.
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
Oh ok. Well he's playing all slams so he's HEAVY favourite for CYGS according to you as there's no peak Nadal to stop him at RG anymore and he's solved that match up.

As for him not being slower? That's demonstrably false. He doesn't chase balls all day long anymore because he can't defend as well as he used to. That's a fact.

Demonstrable? Have you consider that taking the ball on the rise requires quicker feet than before? Going so much to the net requires faster feet and agility than basegame?
 

Artist

Rookie
Right because there is no golden period. He keeps adding. He almost never got injured like Rafa (what makes you go back to the start) or been crippled or lost motivation like Pete or Borg. At some point he was simply surpassed.

By the way yes, general levwl keepa improving, going up on a seesaw manner but it does. Ten years is a lot.

I don't think you understand my comment.
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
It was a joke, playing of your username and Roger Federer not being human (because he's so good). Sorry if that wasn't clear

(You might consider chilling a bit - it might be that taking your own opinions so seriously attitude that's eliciting the edgy responses you're getting from people)
---
As for your argument... well if all you've got is "X expert says so, therefore it is so, end of debate"... you're probably on the wrong forum.

Surely the forum is for its members to discuss their own opinions, not solely point to other peoples opinions. What do you think?

As for no experts coming forward to claim Federer was better before... I (from my armchair and with my 8 hours - not 10 - of tennis playing experience) see it differently

Since one would generally assume that ANY male tennis player is better at 26 than 36, if anything, it suggests they agree he was better before by staying silent. It's not worth pointing out because ... it's completely normal. Only those who think he's better now will actually say it.

"If a dog bites a man, that's not news. If a man bites a dog, thats news"... that sort of thing

Secondly it's silly to point out and would make one look like an ass.

"LEGEND LAVER SAYS AUSTRALIAN OPEN AND SUNSHINE DOUBLE WINNER FEDERER NOT AS GOOD AS HE USED TO BE"

... Do you think anyone wants to see ther name used like that??

Thirdly, your not reading between the lines very well in your take of what the experts are saying (and since that's your entire argument, that's a problem). I'm not as up to date on who has said what as you are, but i'll give 1 example.

Rod Laver said, "It is amazing to think he's playing as well as he is at this moment ... I have not seen him play a backhand this good..."

If he thought he's playing better than ever, he'd have just said so... not this

----

Your opinion is valid and I respect it (for all you know, I might even agree with it). Your reasoning. .. not so much

You are a great poster, well thought and logic. I might disagree (like a lot of those guys give sh about going against the mainstream, not Laver though) but you are right, discussing this gets old inmediately and I become edgy soon.

I think I will drop the issue.
 

Artist

Rookie
I think I have. You ironically said that being at one best every couple of years is nonsense. I think it is not.

That wasn't the point. My point was how many things commentators/journalist ect over the years say don't add up and how their comments clearly get influenced by recency bias and the need to create hype. Example if they say 2010 is the best level ever, better then 2004-2007, then in 2012 when federer is again playing the best ever, it should be his highest level since 2010 but no, those same people claim that it's the best level he showed since 2004-2007. And again this year, they should say it's his best level ever, the best he showed since 2012/2015 but no, they say it's the best level since 2004-2007. So basically they ignore their own previous claim of 'best ever tennis' that they made in 2012 and 2015 and still hold the 2004-2007 as his golden standard.
 

Wander

Hall of Fame
Demonstrable? Have you consider that taking the ball on the rise requires quicker feet than before? Going so much to the net requires faster feet and agility than basegame?
I think some of that is due to excellent skills in anticipation and timing. His footwork is indeed still amazing, but he has lost a step in top speed and definitely plays a game that saves energy more than before.

I think it's difficult to assess how good he is now compared to when he was ranked number one for hundreds of weeks straight cause the way he plays is so different now. I think his modern game essentially covers for the things that have declined very well which allows him to still to be so good.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Well I think I have not played the famous 10.000 hours that makes you an expert but maybe I did 4000 in my 30 years playing. Plus I have been watching tennis since the 70s plus I can hold my own (like 4.5 level). Honestly I don't think someone playing at 2.0 has the same level of understanding of the game I may have.

The rest, Wilander, Mc E, Greg... You are right people may have stakes or differ... However none of them has said Federer is at a lower player than before. None. Because they understand it is useless or impossible to prove. Or because they understand change and evolution of the sport in ten years. Who knows. But one thing is certain. Only armchair warriors are the ones maintaining Federer is old and Nadal is finnish.
wow...4.5? Your understanding of the game must be very high.
 
Top