ForehandRF
Legend
Rewatching highlights of the 2000s Federer, it reminds me pretty well how much he could use that shot thanks to his superior footwork and movement back in those years.That forehand was so deadly with the old racket.
Federer's running around the forehand inside out winners -> increasingly rare after 2010
- Thread starter ForehandRF
- Start date
Nadal_Django
Legend
Yes. He improved his backhand massively.
ForehandRF
Legend
There is no comparison.Even though his backhand was more stable with the bigger racket, that forehand inside out from back in the day was more efficient and sometimes proved crucial in many matches, which also helped Fed in the Fedovic matchup in slams pre 2013.The backhand with the 97 helped him against Nadal lately though.
ForehandRF
Legend
This was unnecessary and I expected more from you.As if there is not enough trolling on this.
weakera
Talk Tennis Guru
Sorry bro, just some trouble with self control.
Born_to_slice
Legend
Relying that much on FH has its disadvantages and was exploited more and more by his biggest rivals.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Really?
Alfred Chicken
Rookie
Hats off, your rebuttal game is off the charts like a blackballed artist.
Federer had very short peak period and his prime period didn't last that much long unlike Djokovic/Nadal. Federer still remained relevant but I think especially Djokovic has declined less compared to his peak level. Federer had to make a lot of adjustment Post 32. Djokovic is playing as if nothing has changed Post 2016.
ForehandRF
Legend
Yeah, I just didn't expected that all of the sudden after I just created the thread.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
It was exploited more and more because Fed lost the ability to hit it with velocity, not because his biggest rivals found an answer to it necessarily.
ForehandRF
Legend
His backhand was good against the field and even against peak Djokovic though, but not against Nadal on high bouncing surfaces.The running around the forehand payed off so many times and the inside out forehand was his speciality.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Fed's peak wasn't short LOL. He dominated for 4 straight years. No one else has done that.
His prime lasted from late WTF 2003 to AO 2010. That's a healthy period of 6 years and 2 months. It was a normal prime period.
Djokovic is playing like nothing has changed after 2016 because there is literally no one after him to trouble him, while Federer had Djokodal. Take out Djokovic and Fed's 2015 would have been like his 2005.
Let's see how Djokovic looks against a guy younger than him and on his level. Oh wait, we'll never find out because there isn't one.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Slams won outside their best 4 years period (Federer 2004-07, Nadal 2008-11 or 2010-13, Djokovic 2013-16):
Nadal 13 (and counting)
Djokovic 11 (and counting)
Federer 9
Short-Peakerer. Strictly related to the Roddick/Baghdatis era.
ForehandRF
Legend
Federer's 2007 is one of the best 3 slam seasons, only behind Djokovic's 2011 I would say.
Eren
Professional
Djokovic
Djokovic's peak year should include 2011 for obvious reasons. Subtract 3 Slams and add the one of 2013. 2011 and the period of 2014-2016 is peak Djokovic. 2011 = 3 Slams vs only one in 2013 lolz.
Nadal
Nadal's period doesn't make sense either: 2008 agreed, 2009 (injured for the most part so a big no, especially since he lost at the FO, DID YOU EVEN WATCH TENNIS), 2010 yes, 2011 yes, 2013 should be here over 2009.
So, 2008,2010-2011 and 2013.
Nadal 9 (and counting)
Federer 9 (and counting)
Djokovic 9 (and counting)
Don't see much difference.
Federer was the only one with 4 years of consistency, but Nadal and Djokovic managed to get to peak levels in different periods. Pretty cool. So trying to discredit Federer for the best consecutive four year period doesn't make sense. Take their best 4 years, not necessarily consecutive years. No need for that restriction.
Eren
Professional
See my post above.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
That's exactly what I meant. They peaked against different types of competition while Federer only against one (which was not even great).
Eren
Professional
Fair enough, that is a good conclusion if you want to state it like that.
It came across like you meant something else. Outside their peaks, they all have 9 Slams making the difference smaller than stated in your post.
Born_to_slice
Legend
Physically peak Djokovic isn't the same as tactically peak Djokovic.
ForehandRF
Legend
So you are saying that Djokovic from 2015 onwards was (clearly) better than in 2011 ?
Born_to_slice
Legend
2011 was an explosion of power. Impressive but tiring and injury prone, thus unsustainable tennis. I think he was (subtly) better 2015/16.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
A lot of things in his game took a turn for the worse in 2010.
Gazelle
G.O.A.T.
Indeed. Djokovic is the youngest (latest born) multi slam winner at age, what is it, 34? That's easily 10 years of not being pushed by younger players.
Slowtwitcher
Legend
Same with Nadal. Watching old Nadal matches, it's unreal how much he'd run around to hit forehands. Not anymore though.
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
Like clockwork....
abmk
Bionic Poster
Federer would've won like 15 slams outside of best 4 years if he was facing Djokovic's competition.
Absolute Luckovic - a lot of thanks to ultra-weak super inflation era - pathetic fail gen and new gen as bad as them in slams till now, if not worse
only one to be mentally and physically fully there vs him in 2014-16 went 3-1 vs him in slams - Stan (only exception: Nadal in RG 14)
of course Nadal also benefitted a lot in 17-current (2nd most after Djokovic)
Similar threads
