Hey Fedal fans, can you pinpoint the moment when you realised your respective favourite was done?

[metsman]

I think you're being too pessimistic about the future of the game, as most people are. There aren't too many players that look promising, but why do we have to rely solely on them? For example, I doubt anyone saw Fedal coming around back in the mid 2000s. It's not like they were outstanding players before they started winning slams, they sorta just came out of the blue. Same could happen again once Djovak is done, although it doesn't seem too likely.

I hate when people compare this to the early 2000's. That period had Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Haas, Nalbandian, Federer, Ferrero all as "young guns". I mean day and night difference from the jokers we have today. Plenty of players looked promising, some of them delivered, and others had bad luck with injuries. But all of them had some level of success except for really Haas who got as unlucky as you can possibly get.

Fed at 19/20 got to the quarters of the French, pretty awesome for a young guy whose game was not geared for clay, beat Sampras at Wimbledon and played a competitive match in the quarters against a good grass courter in Henman. At 20/21 he took a top player in Haas to the limit at the AO, got to the finals of Miami and won Hamburg. He had a let down after that but still finished in the top 8 and gave the top player and defending champ a very close fight at the YEC semis. That blows away everything the next generation of today has done and Fed was a late bloomer compared to almost every other ATG and also more talented than all of them, which was still evident from a young age.

After he beat sampras at Wimbledon I was absolutely sure that either Federer or Safin was the next dominant player in mens tennis. After the 2002 season the future of men's tennis was very bright and after 2003 it was ridiculously bright. If Fed's dominance came completely out of the blue then you weren't paying attention. He always had the game and had decent results to go with it. Same thing with Nadal. If you watched the 04 Miami match, his 04 matches on clay(was injured at RG, who knows what he could have done), 05 AO match against Hewitt, 05 Miami match against fed it was clear what kind of potential he had. It was not surprising at the very least to me after watching Miami that Nadal beat Fed at the FO that year.

 

[metsman]

The fact Stretch is a headcase at RG. The fact he's never won a RG final against Nadal.

None of that matters. Not one bit.

 

[nowhereman]

I hate when people compare this to the early 2000's. That period had Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Haas, Nalbandian, Federer, Ferrero all as "young guns". I mean day and night difference from the jokers we have today. Plenty of players looked promising, some of them delivered, and others had bad luck with injuries. But all of them had some level of success except for really Haas who got as unlucky as you can possibly get.

Fed at 19/20 got to the quarters of the French, pretty awesome for a young guy whose game was not geared for clay, beat Sampras at Wimbledon and played a competitive match in the quarters against a good grass courter in Henman. At 20/21 he took a top player in Haas to the limit at the AO, got to the finals of Miami and won Hamburg. He had a let down after that but still finished in the top 8 and gave the top player and defending champ a very close fight at the YEC semis. That blows away everything the next generation of today has done and Fed was a late bloomer compared to almost every other ATG and also more talented than all of them, which was still evident from a young age.

After he beat sampras at Wimbledon I was absolutely sure that either Federer or Safin was the next dominant player in mens tennis. After the 2002 season the future of men's tennis was very bright and after 2003 it was ridiculously bright. If Fed's dominance came completely out of the blue then you weren't paying attention. He always had the game and had decent results to go with it. Same thing with Nadal. If you watched the 04 Miami match, his 04 matches on clay(was injured at RG, who knows what he could have done), 05 AO match against Hewitt, 05 Miami match against fed it was clear what kind of potential he had. It was not surprising at the very least to me after watching Miami that Nadal beat Fed at the FO that year.

Fair enough, although I felt that Fed's win against Pete was just a fluke at the time. After seeing him go out early in 7 straight majors after that, I didn't think he was that special, so I guess that's why his first Wimbledon victory was a surprise to me. His upsets to guys like Horna and Arazi made me think that he was just a solid top tenner, not the next best thing. Same with Nadal. He had a good win over Fed in Miami, but showed nothing of promise for the rest of the season. He showed more promising signs at Miami the next year, but I didn't think he would have the type of clay season he did, so that was rather unexpected for me too. I mean, did you really expect this 18 year old kid to win MC, Barca, Rome, and RG all in a row when he was still inexperienced? I think you would agree also that his results that year on the dirt were pretty unexpected.

So yeah you're right, Fedal didn't exactly come out of the blue, but I don't think they were the most promising youngsters of their time either. And it's not like a champion coming out of nowhere hasn't been seen before. I think Connors and Borg in 74 are the best examples of what I'm trying to say.

 

[metsman]

Fair enough, although I felt that Fed's win against Pete was just a fluke at the time. After seeing him go out early in 7 straight majors after that, I didn't think he was that special, so I guess that's why his first Wimbledon victory was a surprise to me. Same with Nadal. He had a good win over Fed in Miami, but showed nothing of promise for the rest of the season. He showed more promising signs at Miami the next year, but I didn't think he would have the type of clay season he did, so that was rather unexpected for me too.

So yeah you're right, Fedal didn't exactly come out of the blue, but I don't think they were the most promising youngsters of their time either. And it's not like a champion coming out of nowhere hasn't been seen before. I think Connors and Borg in 74 are the best examples of what I'm trying to say.

sure maybe Fed was what Safin should have been. But bottom line is that people thought for sure someone would break out and someone did. Maybe it wasn't who most people expected but there's no problem with that. Problem is that right now expectations are zero.

Also Fed didn't exactly go out early 2002 FO/Wimby was a failure but he was playing pretty well before that. Took Haas 5 sets and had MP at AO, finals of Miami, took a set off Agassi, won Hamburg with a true masterclass performance. I mean if you didn't believe in his win against Pete, that was the match that should have convinced you. Yeah, then he had a little letdown, but then he was back to the second week of USO, won all the RR in the YEC and then took #1 and defending champ Hewitt 7-5 in the third. 2003 AO another solid run, 5 set lost to Nalbandian. He was still inconsistent in his game, but the game was brilliant when it was on and the results were slowly starting to come. I had him on the short list of favorites for Wimby 03 after he won halle in awesome fashion. After he survived the back injury vs Lopez and put on a masterclass against Schalken I new he would win the tournament and he did it with some of the best tennis i have ever seen. After that he had another little letdown, as his baseline game was still being developed, but then he had another one of those barometer matches against Agassi first match of the YEC and when he surprised that I knew the Fed era had begun. He got his head straight in that match and then there was no stopping him.

As for nadal, he was injured clay season 2004 and I suspect if he hadn't been he would have opened some more eyes. But he showed a lot of game in his 04 AO loss to Hewitt. 05, he once again showed a lot of game, and in Miami was this close to beating Fed. Sure I didn't expect he would win every clay tournament but the potential was there for sure so once he did start his run it's not like it came out of left field. Same with Fed, the potential was always there. You can't even say that about the current crop.

Borg and Connors is a better example I guess, game was a lot different then though so tougher to compare.

 

[Sartorius]

I never really thought Federer was "done", I still don't, but here's something: I can't quite pinpoint it, but somewhere at the very begining in 2013, in an interview Federer said something along the lines of "this is going to be a transition year", hinting he spent a lot of energy in 2012 and he might be a little low during the year. He actually repeated that phrase "transition year" in a couple more interviews. Federer usually is blunt and pretty accurate when assessing himself. At the time I thought he was done at least for that year, at the very least my expectations went from low to zero. Glad it did. I think I actually posted about it here too back at the day.

That all said I did think Federer made a serious push from 2011 USO to Wimbledon 2012 (and it turned out to be an amazing run), and I was thinking that's possibly it for winning slams, certainly the last time for the No.1 spot. But recently he has actually given some good for thought, or hope rather. So I don't expect anything but I wouldn't say he's done.

 

[nowhereman]

sure maybe Fed was what Safin should have been. But bottom line is that people thought for sure someone would break out and someone did. Maybe it wasn't who most people expected but there's no problem with that. Problem is that right now expectations are zero.

Also Fed didn't exactly go out early 2002 FO/Wimby was a failure but he was playing pretty well before that. Took Haas 5 sets and had MP at AO, finals of Miami, took a set off Agassi, won Hamburg with a true masterclass performance. I mean if you didn't believe in his win against Pete, that was the match that should have convinced you. Yeah, then he had a little letdown, but then he was back to the second week of USO, won all the RR in the YEC and then took #1 and defending champ Hewitt 7-5 in the third. 2003 AO another solid run, 5 set lost to Nalbandian. He was still inconsistent in his game, but the game was brilliant when it was on and the results were slowly starting to come. I had him on the short list of favorites for Wimby 03 after he won halle in awesome fashion. After he survived the back injury vs Lopez and put on a masterclass against Schalken I new he would win the tournament and he did it with some of the best tennis i have ever seen. After that he had another little letdown, as his baseline game was still being developed, but then he had another one of those barometer matches against Agassi first match of the YEC and when he surprised that I knew the Fed era had begun. He got his head straight in that match and then there was no stopping him.

As for nadal, he was injured clay season 2004 and I suspect if he hadn't been he would have opened some more eyes. But he showed a lot of game in his 04 AO loss to Hewitt. 05, he once again showed a lot of game, and in Miami was this close to beating Fed. Sure I didn't expect he would win every clay tournament but the potential was there for sure so once he did start his run it's not like it came out of left field. Same with Fed, the potential was always there. You can't even say that about the current crop.

Borg and Connors is a better example I guess, game was a lot different then though so tougher to compare.

I didn't really look at it that way. Fed had some great results early on like you said, but his inconsistency was the thing that made it seem like he wasn't that great. Like you said, he started 02 off pretty well at Australia and then later on at Miami and then won Hamburg. But then come Roland Garros time, he's out in round 1. Fast forward another month, he's out round 1 in Wimbledon too. He wins all his RR matches and gets Hewitt deep into a fifth set, but he starts off 03 lousily. Loses another five setter at Australia, wins some small titles here and there, but has crappy results in all the big tournaments. So I guess his sporadic flashes of brilliance were what made me think he isn't gonna be that great in the long run. And not to mention, even after he won his first slam, he still crashed out early in Flushing and didn't win a masters title the whole year. He again showed even more brilliance at the YEC, but I again thought that he would just go back to old ways and start off 04 the exact opposite way. Back then, he was pretty much the Safin/Nalbandian we know of in hindsight - all the talent in the world, but no consistency.

As for Nadal, the 04 clay season definitely a big what if. I actually made of thread about it a few weeks back, and most people didn't think he was really ready that year. You should check it out http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/nadal-04-clay-season.552608/

 

[metsman]

I didn't really look at it that way. Fed had some great results early on like you said, but his inconsistency was the thing that made it seem like he wasn't that great. Like you said, he started 02 off pretty well at Australia and then later on at Miami and then won Hamburg. But then come Roland Garros time, he's out in round 1. Fast forward another month, he's out round 1 in Wimbledon too. He wins all his RR matches and gets Hewitt deep into a fifth set, but he starts off 03 lousily. Loses another five setter at Australia, wins some small titles here and there, but has crappy results in all the big tournaments. So I guess his sporadic flashes of brilliance were what made me think he isn't gonna be that great in the long run. And not to mention, even after he won his first slam, he still crashed out early in Flushing and didn't win a masters title the whole year. He again showed even more brilliance at the YEC, but I again thought that he would just go back to old ways and start off 04 the exact opposite way. Back then, he was pretty much the Safin/Nalbandian we know of in hindsight - all the talent in the world, but no consistency.

As for Nadal, the 04 clay season definitely a big what if. I actually made of thread about it a few weeks back, and most people didn't think he was really ready that year. You should check it out http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/nadal-04-clay-season.552608/

sure inconsistency is never ideal but it's easy to expect a breakout for a ridiculously talented but inconsistent player. Today's players are both not very talented and inconsistent.

After the WTF I was sold. The win against Agassi was huge...that's a match he was used to losing in the past and after that match he beat the stuffing out of the best players in the world. Including the 3 other slam champs Ferrero, Roddick, and Agassi. Including Nalbandian who beat him twice at hard court slams that year. After those kind of performances I was fairly convinced that he was the one.

I was still hopeful that Safin would challenge him though outside of grass and outside of 1 amazing night in Australia it never really happened

 

[StannisTheMannis]

The championship point of the 2016 Australian Open is Djokovics is last championship point.

Cheers

Hey... You followed through.

 

[Gary Duane]

When did you realise that "yup, this guy is done dominating. It's not going to be like it was before", "the days of being king are over". Was it match? A season? What was it? And when was it?

I ask so we can be on a lookout for when it happens to Djokovic. Notice I said "when". Because it will happen. Eventually.

Levi, it happens slowly.

Watch the % of return games he wins on HCs. Novak's bread and butter surface is HC. I don't have data to break down his record on slow and fast HCs, but the speed of courts is a pretty subjective thing.

32% for a career, on HCs, is amazing, and only a few players have achieved that. The only top player who was even better was Chang, at 33%

At 32% at the end of last year: Novak, Murray, Agassi. Edberg came close at 31%.

(Nadal is the only one with 33% on all surfaces, but obviously that is due to his clay record.)

There is a tendency for guys like Roger and Novak to hide a slow decline in returning as they age by an improvement in serve. The same thing was true of Sampras. To a lesser extent true for Agassi, but with him it is hard to tell because of his very strange career.

HCs are probably best to use here because there are so few matches each year on grass, where Fed returned better than anyone else at least one year.

Fed peaked in 2006, winning 32% of his service games on HCs. He actually went back up to 30% in 2015, but Novak went to an insane 37%, second only to 2011 when he won 41%.

2011-2012 was his peak. Absolute peak. It is highly unlikely that he will ever equal that again. Why is he killing everyone? Because his serve was at 85% in 2011, and that has been going up since then. Look for him to stay about where he is on serve, at or close to 90%. With the speed of his serve, even with good spots, that is likely to be his peak.

So watch his % of return games won this year. If it stays as high as 37% again, look out world. But if it falls to something like 32%, still very good, he becomes vulnerable. When his total % of games falls below 60%, for every % point he becomes less invincible.

A guy like Wawrinka can be around 55% or lower most of the year, but he has the freak ability to get to 60% or higher in slams. It's scary, but he will never ever get anywhere near to #1.

 

[metsman]

Levi, it happens slowly.

Watch the % of return games he wins on HCs. Novak's bread and butter surface is HC. I don't have data to break down his record on slow and fast HCs, but the speed of courts is a pretty subjective thing.

32% for a career, on HCs, is amazing, and only a few players have achieved that. The only top player who was even better was Chang, at 33%

At 32% at the end of last year: Novak, Murray, Agassi. Edberg came close at 31%.

(Nadal is the only one with 33% on all surfaces, but obviously that is due to his clay record.)

There is a tendency for guys like Roger and Novak to hide a slow decline in returning as they age by an improvement in serve. The same thing was true of Sampras. To a lesser extent true for Agassi, but with him it is hard to tell because of his very strange career.

HCs are probably best to use here because there are so few matches each year on grass, where Fed returned better than anyone else at least one year.

Fed peaked in 2006, winning 32% of his service games on HCs. He actually went back up to 30% in 2015, but Novak went to an insane 37%, second only to 2011 when he won 41%.

2011-2012 was his peak. Absolute peak. It is highly unlikely that he will ever equal that again. Why is he killing everyone? Because his serve was at 85% in 2011, and that has been going up since then. Look for him to stay about where he is on serve, at or close to 90%. With the speed of his serve, even with good spots, that is likely to be his peak.

So watch his % of return games won this year. If it stays as high as 37% again, look out world. But if it falls to something like 32%, still very good, he becomes vulnerable. When his total % of games falls below 60%, for every % point he becomes less invincible.

A guy like Wawrinka can be around 55% or lower most of the year, but he has the freak ability to get to 60% or higher in slams. It's scary, but he will never ever get anywhere near to #1.

Fed somehow winning 30% of return games on hard in 2015 confirms more than anything that this is an insanely weak era and it inflates everyone's stats. Novak's serve has improved but his return is worse than 2011-2012 yet he somehow experienced this magical bump back up to 37 last year...

 

[TommyA8X]

For Fed, the early signs of über-domination from 2004 to 2006 coming to an end started to be visible around March-April 2007 (consecutive loses to Canas and a loss to Volandri in Rome). Fed went a staggering (for the time) 4 tournaments without winning one for the first time since 2004. The slam domination started to crumble in AO 2008. (I think Fed wasn't even the bookies favorite to win it because of his lack of preparation due to sickness). With hindsight, those are the answers.

At the time, I thought Fed was done dominating the entire tour 24/7 in late 2008 early 2009. Slam domination was done after Wimbledon 2010. (Maybe USO 2010)

 

[Gary Duane]

Fed somehow winning 30% of return games on hard in 2015 confirms more than anything that this is an insanely weak era and it inflates everyone's stats. Novak's serve has improved but his return is worse than 2011-2012 yet he somehow experienced this magical bump back up to 37 last year...

It does tend to suggest that, doesn't it?

I don't want to knock Novak's play. It seems unfair. To win 3 slams in a year requires some good luck. I would never say that Fed's 3 slam years were any more amazing. But note that people say that in a highly competitive year, when no one is totally dominating, it is by default a weak era.

I would not be at all surprised to see things start to change a lot by the end of this year. Novak is about to turn 29, and age 29 is a difficult transition in tennis.

By the way, when you look at Laver's age when he won the Grand Slam you have to think the same thing. How much really good competition did he have in 69? At an age when surely he was past his absolute prime, which happened on the pro tour when none of us got to see him play...

Even more true for Rosewall, who won slams at an older age than anyone else. Lot's of luck there for the Little Master, who also got screwed by not getting to play in the Open era until well after age 30!

 

[Gary Duane]

For Fed, the early signs of über-domination from 2004 to 2006 coming to an end started to be visible around March-April 2007 (consecutive loses to Canas and a loss to Volandri in Rome). Fed went a staggering (for the time) 4 tournaments without winning one for the first time since 2004. The slam domination started to crumble in AO 2008. (I think Fed wasn't even the bookies favorite to win it because of his lack of preparation due to sickness). With hindsight, those are the answers.

At the time, I thought Fed was done dominating the entire tour 24/7 in late 2008 early 2009. Slam domination was done after Wimbledon 2010. (Maybe USO 2010)

I agree. But how many people figured that out at the time?

Fans always think these hot streaks in primes will go on forever.

 

[TommyA8X]

I agree. But how many people figured that out at the time?

Fans always think these hot streaks in primes will go on forever.

Hence the discrepancy between my two answers

 

[Gary Duane]

Hence the discrepancy between my two answers

I will be interested to see some of the people who are posting now try to backtrack in about 3 years...

 

[Deleted member 743561]

For Fed, the early signs of über-domination from 2004 to 2006 coming to an end started to be visible around March-April 2007 (consecutive loses to Canas and a loss to Volandri in Rome). Fed went a staggering (for the time) 4 tournaments without winning one for the first time since 2004.

Yes, agree that the aura of invincibility sustained its first cracks around that time. A tennis-pro's-lifetime ago... The things he did elevated him so far above the rest of the tour that it was complete shock and awe when he began facing more than one-off random defeats, and flaws were exposed. Was like, "Cripes. Dude's mortal." Then again... a decade and 50-odd tournament victories later...

 

[metsman]

I agree. But how many people figured that out at the time?

Fans always think these hot streaks in primes will go on forever.

yes but the common denominator in all these declines is a younger ATG ready to assume the mantle. That in no way shape or form exists today. Takes two to really have a decline. You can argue that Djoker's absolute level may be dropping, he certainly was looking vulnerable through big chunks of the USO and AO but there is absolutely no one to take advantage.

 

[metsman]

Yes, agree that the aura of invincibility sustained its first cracks around that time. A tennis-pro's-lifetime ago... The things he did elevated him so far above the rest of the tour that it was complete shock and awe when he began facing more than one-off random defeats, and flaws were exposed. Was like, "Cripes. Dude's mortal." Then again... a decade and 50-odd tournament victories later...

2007 USO final was when I knew Fed was not the same. Up until then I was in denial, just writing off those Canas/Volandri losses as flukes, nadal taking him 5 at Wimbledon was cause hawkeye messed with him blah blah blah but his subpar performance in the 07 USO final really hit it home for me especially after how he looked the previous 3 years particularly with the forehand. All of the previous 3 yeas he came out like an absolute man possessed and ripping forehands like no one's business winning the first set to love, 3 and 2. Sure his level dropped a bit after that which is to be expected, but once Fed has the first set in the bag it's very tough...that's what made Peak Federer peak Federer...his ability to start and close. He could come out and blitz the opponent and he could raise his game just when they were threatening and run away with it in the final set which is what happened in all 3 USO finals and the 2006 Wimby final..same deal.

2007 final he came out very passive and tentative and almost lost the set despite nothing special from nole. That forehand that could just take over a match was just not there anymore it seemed. It was a solid win but not the Federer I had come to expect and then it just kind of hit home, connecting all the other shaky moments throughout the year....

 

[Gary Duane]

yes but the common denominator in all these declines is a younger ATG ready to assume the mantle. That in no way shape or form exists today. Takes two to really have a decline. You can argue that Djoker's absolute level may be dropping, he certainly was looking vulnerable through big chunks of the USO and AO but there is absolutely no one to take advantage.

No argument about any of that, but the problem remains: WHY?

And we've all gone round and round on this question. My hunch is that we are seeing a change in the game, and that players are going to dominate longer from now on, because of better training and all the other things going on now.

But I don't think the average age is going to remain at this all time high. Look for the average age of winners to stop dropping some over the next 5 years, much as it did after the late 60s and early 70s, but not as much.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

.

 

[metsman]

No argument about any of that, but the problem remains: WHY?

And we've all gone round and round on this question. My hunch is that we are seeing a change in the game, and that players are going to dominate longer from now on, because of better training and all the other things going on now.

But I don't think the average age is going to remain at this all time high. Look for the average age of winners to stop dropping some over the next 5 years, much as it did after the late 60s and early 70s, but not as much.

I think it is partly because the best athletes and athletic talents are going into other sports. In order to succeed at a young age in tennis you have to be an athletic freak..borg, sampras, nadal, djoker, etc. You don't see those kind of athletes in tennis anymore it seems for the last few years and that's to be expected given that there is much more "easy money" in other sports. Also it seems like the dedication of the younger generation is a bit suspect. Looking at Dimitrov...I mean he beats Murray at Wimby 2014 and nearly takes out Djoker or at least almost takes him 5. That should be something to build on, to redouble your efforts to get to the top, but instead since then his personal life is all over the media and he is in a downward spiral. Where is the hunger? That's why I love felix auger aliassime, he seems to be that kind of athlete and has impressive talent and an aggressive game to go with it. But he is 15...no one knows what will happen with him in the coming years. Also why I love Rublev...aggressive game, lots of talent, really athletic 6'2". But he just turned 18 and hasn't done much of note in main draws so who knows there as well.

I don't think that the top guys are shutting the younger guys out....that just can't be true, tennis has not changed that much the last 5-8 years. I think most of the "blame" goes on the next generation.

 

[mightyrick]

I'm not a fan of Nadal or Federer, but I felt that Federer was done after 2012 Wimbledon. When he won Wimbledon in 2012, it felt just like Agassi winning the AO in 2003. It just felt like a swan song to me.

For Nadal, I actually am still not sure that he's done. His level has declined just too rapidly and it still isn't making any sense to me. He either is having injury issues or something else is going on. While some trolls may scream bio-passport, I won't troll by saying I agree... but I'm not going to discount the possibility. Regardless, I really do think something is wrong. His dropoff is far too swift to resemble anything normal.

I'll wait to see if Nadal implements any changes in his game before pronouncing him done.

 

[cc0509]

When Federer lost to Del Potro at the USO 2009, I knew he wouldn't dominate any longer.

 

[6august]

Agree that AO 09 is the milestone for Fed's career. I'd thought WImby 08 was just an accident until that day.

 

[Mainad]

Federer: 2009 US Open final: first time he lost a Slam final to someone he had never lost to before.

Nadal: 2014 Australian Open: first time he lost a Slam final to someone he had never lost to before.

IMO they were the 'Jump The Shark' moments for Federer's and Nadal's dominance.

 

[adil1972]

when federer/nadal won their first grandslams, i saw them declining

LOL

 

[vanioMan]

Yup, after beating the invincible Nole in 2011 RG semi, and playing his most competitive match ever against Nadal in the final, the hopes were really high for 2011 Wimby. Things ended up not going like that and that TBH made me admit to myself that he isn't ever going to be what he once was. I was more than amazed to find him holding matchpoints against Nole in USO.

Do you think he could've won the eventual semi with Nole had he beaten Tsonga?

 

[Dilettante]

Hey Fedal fans, can you pinpoint the moment when you realised your respective favourite was done?

When 12 yo boys started to join the forums to make asinine questions.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

When 12 yo boys started to join the forums to make asinine questions.

Ooooooh. Burn! How very original! I have never been called a 12 y/o on this forum before!

P.s. two pages worth of well-thought out posts and you think the question is asinine? Lol. I guess well seasoned posters like @Mainad, @metsman, @Gary Duane, @RF20Lennon, @vanioMan, @RoddickAce are asinine ipso facto (?)

Might I suggest that you keep your asinine opinions to yourself, in future, when you have nothing constructive to add to the conversation. Thank you.

 

[Alchemy-Z]

For me Fed losing to Del Potro in the 2009 USO open - I knew once the tour saw someone other than Rafa draw blood his multi slam years were behind him.

Rafa - I would say 2012 ..but his comeback surprised me in 2013-2014 ..

I guess now I would say 2015- but I am not sure how to gauge Rafa...he seems like he can go from being the most down and out player to #1 in the same year ..kind of crazy..but interesting to follow

 

[Russeljones]

When did you realise that "yup, this guy is done dominating. It's not going to be like it was before", "the days of being king are over". Was it match? A season? What was it? And when was it?

I ask so we can be on a lookout for when it happens to Djokovic. Notice I said "when". Because it will happen. Eventually.

The moment he said he was done. I am speaking of Sampras, of course. Federer hasn't said any such thing, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

The moment he said he was done. I am speaking of Sampras, of course. Federer hasn't said any such thing, to the best of my knowledge.

Sampras was a sly one though. He sort of just stopped playing. Then he came back for his "send off" - what? - like a year later? Have you ever worked with someone who just stops coming to work for a long period, and then suddenly shows up with chocolates and other treats, saying, "oh, hey guys, it's my last day today!", and you can't help but think to yourself, "You still worked here!"

That's kinda what Sampras did.

 

[Russeljones]

Sampras was a sly one though. He sort of just stopped playing. Then he came back for his "send off" - what? - like a year later? Have you ever worked with someone who just stops coming to work for a long period, and then suddenly shows up with chocolates and other treats, saying, "oh, hey guys, it's my last day today!", and you can't help but think to yourself, "You still worked here!"

That's kinda what Sampras did.

Nah, didn't see it that way. I think everyone has his own way, though.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

Nah, didn't see it that way. I think everyone has his own way, though.

Nah. He was a sly one. He won the USO in 2002 and did not compete in any tour events in the following 12 months. He officially announced his retirement in August 2003. Lol. It's exactly as I described.

 

[Russeljones]

Nah. He was a sly one. He won the USO in 2002 and did not compete in any tour events in the following 12 months. He officially announced his retirement in August 2003. Lol. It's exactly as I described.

I believe I remember full well what happened. I also said it's up each individual to make his own exit. Not really sure what you're gunning for.

 

[cknobman]

2009 Australian Open - Federer

I realized it was the beginning of the end for Rogers total domination.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

I believe I remember full well what happened. I also said it's up each individual to make his own exit. Not really sure what you're gunning for.

Not gunning for anything. Just making small talk is all. Why do we always have to fight?

 

[Dilettante]

Ooooooh. Burn! How very original! I have never been called a 12 y/o on this forum before!

Really? I wonder why.

As you can see, truth is rarely original.

 

[tennisaddict]

That moment has not arrived yet.

 

[tusharlovesrafa]

Some where last year I realized Rafa is done !

 

[Express]

I'm reading a book entitled Strokes of Genius that covers every little facet of the FeDal Rivalry as well as the Wimbledon 2008 Final. According to the book, Federer later told a friend (unspecified) that when the score line was 6-4, 6-4, 4-4, he had a feeling his reign (at Wimbledon) was drawing to a close.

 

[TennisCJC]

There was no one moment for Federer but there were several times when I thought he was beginning to lose peak form.

The first time was AO 2008 when he had mono. I think mono had an effect on the whole year and Federer didn't get back to be close to peak Federer until USO late that year. I think every year after 2008 was a small dip downward in Federer's performance over the year before. Federer is still playing great but just a step below 2004-2007 peak. In 2004-2007, he was quicker, had better stamina, better recovery times between matches and slightly more explosive power.