I don't get why people say Fed is not in his prime?

kraggy

Banned
Just wanted to throw some facts out there and hopefully we can have a fact based discussion rather than a lot of subjectivity.

So how do you define a players prime?

I would define a players prime as the period in which he has fairly strong results and is not regularly upset by low ranked opponents. I don't think there should be a fixed 4-5 yr period that defines a prime since different players might have varying longevity.

A look at Fed since 2008:

Feds results at the Grand Slams : AO 08-SF, FO -F , Wimby-F, US open -Won, AO 09 - F, FO - Won

Fed's losses in 2008 - Murray, Roddick, Simon, Djokovic, Blake, Karlovic, Nadal, Stepanek, Fish,

Nadal's losses in 2008(his best year) - Murray, Roddick, Simon, Djokovic, ferrero, davydenko, Seppi, Tsonga

Did Fed do as well in 08 as he has done in years past. NO. Did he do badly?Far from it.

I think its disrespectful to the competition to say that unless Fed wins 3 slams a year like he did in 05 , 06 etc , he is not in his prime and hence any victory over him is primarily a result of his decline. Any top 50 player is capable of having a day or two where he plays out of his mind to beat a Federer or a Nadal. And people like Simon , Murray, Djoker, Roddick were not just top 50, they were top 10.

I think Fed is still very much in his prime especially since he has won 2 out of the last 3 slams. I do believe he might have had some mental blocks over the last few months but aside from those he seems to be very much in his prime.

Not at his peak, but still in his prime.
 
Last edited:

Danstevens

Semi-Pro
I personally believe that your prime is the best 2,3 maybe 4 years of your career when you play your absolute best tennis. There isn't a set time for a player's prime to last for but it tends not to be very long. Federer is no longer in that stage and whether you like it or not, is starting to decline. That's OK though because he's still a great player and it's not disrespectful to the field to say he's not in his prime because a lot of players will have witnessed some of the decline.

Still, Fed isn't completely washed up - I think he could be a force for a few years to come. Any victory that a player gets on him is partly due to the decline as he isn't the same player as 04-06 Fed but whatever player it was, they would have to play out of their mind to beat Federer on most occasions still and so, they deserve lots of credit.
 

kraggy

Banned
As Ice said, I think the confusion is between prime and peak. 04-06 Fed was 'peak' Fed. 08-10 Fed will still probably be prime Fed. I think I would consider him out of his prime when he starts losing to journeymen.

Fed's 08 had better results than a lot of Pete's peak years!
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
I don't get why people equate "not being in his prime" with being washed up. It's not the same thing.

Look at Fed's seasons in 2005-2007. Look at his sustained, consistent level of high quality play. Look at his losses.

Then look at 2008 and the first half of 2009. By no means "bad" seasons at all. But there were more missteps, more bad matches, more times when you questioned what was going to with Fed. You can even look at his Haas and Del Potro matches at this years FO and see that he was playing below his "normal" level from his "prime" seasons.

To me, he's clearly not in his prime anymore. He's not that far out of it and is still highly capable of winning Slams. But, as has already been shown, he'll lose more often, have more missteps, etc.
 

VictorS.

Professional
I guess in many people's minds, someone's prime is their absolute best. It's definitely a testament to how great Federer is that he continues to win slams, yet people still think he's not in his prime.

Like Federer said, he created a monster by winning so dominantly for so many years. He may indeed regain his #1 ranking and yet we still see him as a shell of himself at times.

I don't know if he's the same player that dismantled Hewitt in 2004 at the US Open. That Federer was in my opinion the best Federer I have seen. He's so great that sometimes we micro-analyze things when we see him lose. His groundies are definitely not as consistent as they once were & his movement, though still great, can be hit or miss.


2004: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7EDb-tPpSw
 
Last edited:

Chelsea_Kiwi

Hall of Fame
Prime has nothing to do with results. It's to do with the level of play. Such as many people might say Federer played better in 2005 then he did in 2007 but he won more GS that year.
 

Chelsea_Kiwi

Hall of Fame
I don't get why people equate "not being in his prime" with being washed up. It's not the same thing.

Look at Fed's seasons in 2005-2007. Look at his sustained, consistent level of high quality play. Look at his losses.

Then look at 2008 and the first half of 2009. By no means "bad" seasons at all. But there were more missteps, more bad matches, more times when you questioned what was going to with Fed. You can even look at his Haas and Del Potro matches at this years FO and see that he was playing below his "normal" level from his "prime" seasons.


To me, he's clearly not in his prime anymore. He's not that far out of it and is still highly capable of winning Slams. But, as has already been shown, he'll lose more often, have more missteps, etc.
Great explanation to anyone in doubt. The exception however was perhaps 2008 USO.
 

joeri888

G.O.A.T.
It's all about your defenition of prime. IMO your prime is a 1 or 2 year period in which you are on your absolute best level of play. For me, Roger Federer was in his prime in 2006, a bit past his prime in 2007 and way past his prime in 2008 and 2009. It just shows what a great player he is that he's already won 5 Slams past his prime. Playingwise though, he never got to the level of 2006 again on a consistent basis.
 
Federer's prime was definitely 2004-2007. That is 4 years which isnt that different from other greats I would say:

Lendl's prime was 1985-1989 (peak was 1986-1987)
Sampras's prime was 1993-1997 (peak was 1993-1995)
Borg's prime was 1977-1981 (peak was 1978-1980)
McEnroe's prime was 1980-1984 (peak was 1981 and 1984)
Agassi's prime was summer 1994-summer 1995 and spring 1999-winter 2000 (peak tennis was summer 1994-summer 1995)
Connors prime was 1974-1978 (peak was 1974)

OK so 1 year shorter than the others basically (well twice as long as Agassi's). He is past his prime since his actual tennis game, movement, and many of his skills have diminished from what they once were. He is playing far less consistenly year round, and even in slams he is struggling much more often with much inferior players that he would much more rarely struggle with in his prime. I know you are a Djokovic fan from your previous posts so I understand why you hate the idea of Federer being past his prime. A past his prime Federer still outperforms Djokovic in his prime at 5 of the last 6 slams. If you want to narrow prime even further to peak than Federer's peak was 2005-2006, as his tennis those two years was clearly even better than 2004 and 2007. So if you distinguish from prime to peak he is still past his prime now. He won less slams in 2005 despite that this was probably his best year of tennis ever so # of slam wins and finals is not some foolproof measure either.
 
Last edited:

sh@de

Hall of Fame
Fed is not in his prime... he's just that damn good that he can still win even though he isn't in his prime. Prime = when he's at his absolute best. That was 04-06, even 07 wasn't his prime. It's just that he's so uber that even during 07 he won so much. It's very obvious that Fed has declined ever since 07, hence he is no longer in his prime.
 
Federer's prime might seem a bit shorter than some other greats (although not by much as I broke down) but 2002-2006/2007 probably should have been his "prime" of 5 or 6 years. He really should have build on his 2001 performance had his first "prime" year in 2002. He was an underachiever early in his career though who didnt mentally figure it out, and that delayed his prime about 2 years longer than it should have. Of course that is his own fault, so not making any excuses for him. Hewitt and Roddick are the two players who can be most thankful of this.
 

kraggy

Banned
I know you are a Djokovic fan from your previous posts so I understand why you hate the idea of Federer being past his prime. A past his prime Federer still outperforms Djokovic in his prime at 5 of the last 6 slams.

Exactly my point, when it suits you , you will say Fed is past his prime, but somehow Djokovic is very clearly in his prime at 21 when Fed didnt hit his prime till 22?!

That's what I don't get people will say 19 yr old Nadal who didnt do well in the slams was PRIME nadal, just because it suits their argument. But when it comes to the current Federer - " Oh , he's way past his prime, he is just SOOOOO GOOOD that even a 20 % Federer is better than anyone else".

All I want is that players stop throwing injury/illness/tiredness/non prime excuses for every loss their favorite has.
 
Last edited:
Exactly my point, when it suits you , you will say Fed is past his prime, but Djokovic is very clearly in his prime at 21 right when Fed didnt hit his prime till 22!!

That's what I don't get people will say 19 yr old Nadal who didnt do well in the slams was PRIME nadal, just because it suits their argument. But when it comes to the current Federer - " Oh , he's way past his prime, he is just SOOOOO GOOOD that even a 20 % Federer is better than anyone else".

All I want is that players stop throwing injury/illness/tiredness/non prime excuses for every loss their favorite has.

Your age examples are pretty dumb. People mature at different rates. So Djokovic is in his prime at 21 means Federer had to be? Thinking of some players past Rafter wasnt in his prime until 24, Becker was already in his prime as a teenager and already having nowhere near the overall results he used to at 24, Agassi didnt have his first prime year until he was 24, Chang began his prime as a teenager and was burnt out at 25, Hewitt likewise began his prime as a teenager and was burnt out at 24, Sampras began his prime at around 22 too. Everyone is different. .

I already explained that Federer's prime which lasted from mid 2003-end of 2007 is nearly the same length prime other all time greats including Sampras so it isnt that short of a prime. You make it sound like everyone who thinks Federer is past his prime now is some uber fan, wishful thinking on your part.
 

Docalex007

Hall of Fame
Look a player's career usually follows this type of curve (normal distribution curve):

basic%20normal%20distribution%20with%20labels%5B3%5D.gif


But of course not always and not exactly... there are anomalies and outliers that occur along the curve at any given moment in their career... but this is a basic idea of how it goes.

Just because Federer isn't at his peak doesn't mean he can't still be playing at a high enough level to be better than most everyone else to still win slams. It means that when he was at his peak he was pretty much invincible. Not the case anymore but he's still damn good... near the top but going downhill.
 

joeri888

G.O.A.T.
Exactly my point, when it suits you , you will say Fed is past his prime, but Djokovic is very clearly in his prime at 21 right when Fed didnt hit his prime till 22!!

That's what I don't get people will say 19 yr old Nadal who didnt do well in the slams was PRIME nadal, just because it suits their argument. But when it comes to the current Federer - " Oh , he's way past his prime, he is just SOOOOO GOOOD that even a 20 % Federer is better than anyone else".

All I want is that players stop throwing injury/illness/tiredness/non prime excuses for every loss their favorite has.

IMO we began to see glimpses of prime Nadal when he had Federer on the ropes at Wimbledon 2007. Since then, he's still improved, and I think that Monte Carlo 2008-Madrid 2009 was his absolute prime so far.
 

kraggy

Banned
Look a player's career usually follows this type of curve (normal distribution curve):

basic%20normal%20distribution%20with%20labels%5B3%5D.gif


But of course not always and not exactly... there are anomalies and outliers that occur along the curve at any given moment in their career... but this is a basic idea of how it goes.

Just because Federer isn't at his peak doesn't mean he can't still be playing at a high enough level to be better than most everyone else to still win slams. It means that when he was at his peak he was pretty much invincible. Not the case anymore but he's still damn good... near the top but going downhill.

Very good post, I was about to post the normal distribution graph myself :). Its exactly what i wanted to say, Fed is past his peak and he is going downwards but he is still fairly close to that top. So on either side of the top (the peak) would be the zone of Feds prime and I think he is still in that zone playing high class tennis.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Is that really true or just mathematically appealing? I would say the curve before reaching the peak is often very steep, and the decline less steep.
 

kraggy

Banned
Your age examples are pretty dumb. People mature at different rates. So Djokovic is in his prime at 21 means Federer had to be? Thinking of some players past Rafter wasnt in his prime until 24, Becker was already in his prime as a teenager and already having nowhere near the overall results he used to at 24, Agassi didnt have his first prime year until he was 24, Chang began his prime as a teenager and was burnt out at 25, Hewitt likewise began his prime as a teenager and was burnt out at 24, Sampras began his prime at around 22 too. Everyone is different. .

I already explained that Federer's prime which lasted from mid 2003-end of 2007 is nearly the same length prime other all time greats including Sampras so it isnt that short of a prime. You make it sound like everyone who thinks Federer is past his prime now is some uber fan, wishful thinking on your part.

I don't think you understood my post, I didn't say that Federer should have been in his prime at 21. I said that for all we know djokovic may have his prime from 22-26. How can you say that at 21, he is already in his prime.

And just like different players have different primes, they might also have different length of primes. Andre Agassi had some prime years even in his 30s .

Federer is past his peak for sure. But not past his prime.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
As long as Fed is good enough to make the final of (practically) every slam and stay in the top 2 in the ranking, his decline will have to be considered insignificant. Once that changes, then we can talk about "past his prime Fed". I agree that his peak years are behind him but his prime? Not quite yet, it's clear he's not ready to let go...
 
As long as Fed is good enough to make the final of (practically) every slam and stay in the top 2 in the ranking, his decline will have to be considered insignificant. Once that changes, then we can talk about "past his prime Fed". I agree that his peak years are behind him but his prime? Not quite yet, it's clear he's not ready to let go...

Not really. It just shows that in the big events he is so much better than Murray and Djokovic (both big event flakes to be honest) that he can be clearly past his prime and still be making finals. Dont even get me started on the guys outside the top 4, most are whom Federer was waxing in his prime and some of them now going 4 or 5 sets with.
 

bruce38

Banned
I know this is subjective, but just watching Fed, it seems he is not playing as well as he used to. Even though he still wins, it seems he does not do it as convincingly as he once did. Hence, many think he is past his prime. It may not be true indeed. To objectify it a bit, I would like to see an analysis of his average yearly unforced errors (normalized somehow). It seems to me he is making a lot more unforced errors than he did in 2004-2007. I would like to see an analysis of average unforced errors per year and compare with 2008 and current.
 
Since I am a fan of both Nadal and Federer IMO Federer's prime began at Wimbledon 2003 and ended at the year end Masters in 2007. Nadal's prime began around Indian Wells 2007 and is still going for now.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Not really. It just shows that in the big events he is so much better than Murray and Djokovic (both big event flakes to be honest) that he can be clearly past his prime and still be making finals. Dont even get me started on the guys outside the top 4, most are whom Federer was waxing in his prime and some of them now going 4 or 5 sets with.
4 or 5 sets but as long as they don't BEAT him, it doesn't mean much. I agree that the time they will start beating him may be close but I've had that feeling for a while now and Fed is still making semis or finals at every tournament lol (and not just at majors.)
 

JeMar

Legend
His level of play has definitely dropped from before. Federer's talented enough that he can beat 99.99% of the tour with his "C+" game, but it doesn't mean that he's playing as well as he once did.
 
Last edited:

kraggy

Banned
I know this is subjective, but just watching Fed, it seems he is not playing as well as he used to. Even though he still wins, it seems he does not do it as convincingly as he once did. Hence, many think he is past his prime. It may not be true indeed. To objectify it a bit, I would like to see an analysis of his average yearly unforced errors (normalized somehow). It seems to me he is making a lot more unforced errors than he did in 2004-2007. I would like to see an analysis of average unforced errors per year and compare with 2008 and current.

I think you bring up a very good point. That would be a good statistic to look at to draw a comparison. I would especially like to see his UE stats vs players outside the top 4.
 

kraggy

Banned
His level of play has definitely dropped from before. Federer's talented enough that he can beat 99.99% of the tour with his "C+" game, but it doesn't mean that he's playing as well as before.

Exactly the kind of post have trouble with. You have already made the assumption that either Fed is so good OR the competition is so weak that a C+ game is good enough. So if Fed loses - " Oh he was only playing his C game" , if Fed wins " Even his C game is good enough".
 

LanceStern

Professional
Exactly the kind of post have trouble with. You have already made the assumption that either Fed is so good OR the competition is so weak that a C+ game is good enough. So if Fed loses - " Oh he was only playing his C game" , if Fed wins " Even his C game is good enough".

Well what was he supposed to say? He told the truth anyways besides maybe option 3 - The opponent had A+ game.
 

JeMar

Legend
Exactly the kind of post have trouble with. You have already made the assumption that either Fed is so good OR the competition is so weak that a C+ game is good enough. So if Fed loses - " Oh he was only playing his C game" , if Fed wins " Even his C game is good enough".


Federer would routinely finish matches with +20 Winner/error ratios. Entire tournaments would go by where he would finish tons of sets with single-digit errors.

Now he finishes either +/-10 on the differential in almost all his matches.

How can you argue that the quality is the same? I've never made the argument that when Federer loses it's because his opponent got lucky that they were playing a C+ Federer. Whenever Federer goes out and loses it's because he played the best tennis he could play on that day. That's how matches are decided.

What I don't understand are people that have selective memories and choose to forget the entire three-year stretch where it was rare that Federer lost a set, much less a match. These days, it's rare that Federer manages to win in straight sets. Can you argue that he does NOT beat 99% of the tour with a level of tennis that is obviously worse than his level when he was winning just about everything in sight? Clay was different, of course.

I'm not saying that he's not capable to playing A+ tennis anymore, but he certainly does not play A+ tennis nearly as consistently as he did during 2004-2006. He didn't manage to win so many tournaments because he had flashes of brilliance, he won so much because he was consistently great. That consistency match-in and match-out is absent from his tennis these days, yet he keeps winning in slams.
 
Last edited:

wangs78

Legend
I think Fed is still very much in his prime especially since he has won 2 out of the last 3 slams. I do believe he might have had some mental blocks over the last few months but aside from those he seems to be very much in his prime.

Not at his peak, but still in his prime.

Prime = peak, IMO. But if you want to make a distinction between those two terms then sure, he's certainly not at his peak, but he's still in a phase in his life where the majority of his talents are still intact. His movement has noticeably declined but is still quite good.

To his credit, despite not being at his peak/prime he still defeats pretty much anyone out there. I also agree that most of his losses against Nadal, Murray and Djokovic have been due to mental blocks. The exception of course are the losses to Nadal on clay.
 

kanamit

Hall of Fame
The Myth of 05-07 Federer

Sometimes I wonder if we engage in myth-making in our quest to locate Fed's prime in the past. The way some people here are talking, you'd think Fed never made an unforced error before 2008. I wonder if people here think Federer ever had bowel movements or perspired during that period! Sure there are clips on youtube that show Fed playing excellently in 2005-2007, but guess what, they're edited so that all his double faults and unforced errors are excluded. I'm sure highlights packages of his 2008 and even his 2009 seasons would look just as impressive.

In terms of grand slam performances and win-loss results, Fed is doing as well now as he's ever done. The rest can be attributed to people's different perceptions about the way Fed is winning. These perceptions, it should be noted, are not reflections of reality and are heavily influenced by media buzz about Fed's decline and stupid tropes about Wimbledon 2008 being the passing of the old guard.

My two bits: Fed is still in his prime and is performing about as well as he ever has and he will continue to do so for at least another year.
 

wangs78

Legend
Federer would routinely finish matches with +20 Winner/error ratios. Entire tournaments would go by where he would finish tons of sets with single-digit errors.

Now he finishes either +/-10 on the differential in almost all his matches.

How can you argue that the quality is the same? I've never made the argument that when Federer loses it's because his opponent got lucky that they were playing a C+ Federer. Whenever Federer goes out and loses it's because he played the best tennis he could play on that day. That's how matches are decided.

What I don't understand are people that have selective memories and choose to forget the entire three-year stretch where it was rare that Federer lost a set, much less a match. These days, it's rare that Federer manages to win in straight sets. Can you argue that he does NOT beat 99% of the tour with a level of tennis that is obviously worse than his level when he was winning just about everything in sight? Clay was different, of course.

I'm not saying that he's not capable to playing A+ tennis anymore, but he certainly does not play A+ tennis nearly as consistently as he did during 2004-2006. He didn't manage to win so many tournaments because he had flashes of brilliance, he won so much because he was consistently great. That consistency match-in and match-out is absent from his tennis these days, yet he keeps winning in slams.

Good post. Clearly, he's more motivated to win the Slams, which I would agree with. At his age he should use the smaller tournaments (including masters) as tuneups only. This way he can minimize the mileage on his body and can play into his 30s. I think ppl often forget to include durability when considering a player's talents. The fact is all of the great champions were very durable over the years. Sampras never had a serious injury, neither has Fed. Sure, part of it is good fortune, part of it is style of play, part of it is simply physical build, but regardless it is something that should be considered. The fact that Nadal cannot be as durable should be a big question mark IMO.
 

kraggy

Banned
Federer would routinely finish matches with +20 Winner/error ratios. Entire tournaments would go by where he would finish tons of sets with single-digit errors.

Now he finishes either +/-10 on the differential in almost all his matches.

How can you argue that the quality is the same? I've never made the argument that when Federer loses it's because his opponent got lucky that they were playing a C+ Federer. Whenever Federer goes out and loses it's because he played the best tennis he could play on that day. That's how matches are decided.

What I don't understand are people that have selective memories and choose to forget the entire three-year stretch where it was rare that Federer lost a set, much less a match. These days, it's rare that Federer manages to win in straight sets. Can you argue that he does NOT beat 99% of the tour with a level of tennis that is obviously worse than his level when he was winning just about everything in sight? Clay was different, of course.

I'm not saying that he's not capable to playing A+ tennis anymore, but he certainly does not play A+ tennis nearly as consistently as he did during 2004-2006. He didn't manage to win so many tournaments because he had flashes of brilliance, he won so much because he was consistently great. That consistency match-in and match-out is absent from his tennis these days, yet he keeps winning in slams.

I agree with a lot of what you said. But I do think the difference between now and Feds glory days is not just a function of how Fed is playing. I truly believe the competition ( Nadal, Murray, Djoker etc) is superior to what it was from 2004-2007. Nadal has already proven that he is better than anyone Fed faced from 2004-2007. I imagine Djoker and Murray will win multiple slams in the near future and prove the same. If they dont then obviously I was wrong in saying they are better than the likes of Roddick/Blake/Davydenko etc. But only time will tell about those two.

I don't doubt that a peak Fed would have a very strong winning record vs a peak Djoker or peak Murray (although for both those players we don't know if we have seen their peak yet). But I really doubt he would be laying the beatdown on them the way he lay the beatdown on Roddick/Blake/Davydenko and the likes.

Also during Feds glory days, nothing was going wrong for him. So no mental pressure on him and hence less UE's , better serve percentage etc. Now though, he is a) facing better opposition b) making more mistakes as an indirect consequence of the pressure from facing better opposition
 

angharad

Semi-Pro
I truly believe the competition ( Nadal, Murray, Djoker etc) is superior to what it was from 2004-2007.

I'm not sure that that's really the case. I think Federer has remained pretty confident against the guys who are his age, and the guys that are a bit older. He either played them in juniors, or was able to watch them when he was a junior. The younger guys are players that he's never had to deal with before, and have the same advantage of having watched Federer play for a few years before actually facing him.

I don't think Federer will ever be as dominant as he once was, so that "peak" has passed. I still won't count him out of any Slam for at least a few years, though.
 

JeMar

Legend
I agree with a lot of what you said. But I do think the difference between now and Feds glory days is not just a function of how Fed is playing. I truly believe the competition ( Nadal, Murray, Djoker etc) is superior to what it was from 2004-2007. Nadal has already proven that he is better than anyone Fed faced from 2004-2007. I imagine Djoker and Murray will win multiple slams in the near future and prove the same. If they dont then obviously I was wrong in saying they are better than the likes of Roddick/Blake/Davydenko etc. But only time will tell about those two.

I don't doubt that a peak Fed would have a very strong winning record vs a peak Djoker or peak Murray (although for both those players we don't know if we have seen their peak yet). But I really doubt he would be laying the beatdown on them the way he lay the beatdown on Roddick/Blake/Davydenko and the likes.

Also during Feds glory days, nothing was going wrong for him. So no mental pressure on him and hence less UE's , better serve percentage etc. Now though, he is a) facing better opposition b) making more mistakes as an indirect consequence of the pressure from facing better opposition

That's a good point, at least as far as Murray and Nadal are concerned. Both have the ability to play "counter-Federer" tennis and have definitely managed to get in his head. I'm not too sure about Djokovic as he's still behind in the H2H and got the last two matches after really not doing much other than stand on the court as Federer went down in a glorious veritable Roman orgy of unforced errors.
 

wangs78

Legend
Sometimes I wonder if we engage in myth-making in our quest to locate Fed's prime in the past. The way some people here are talking, you'd think Fed never made an unforced error before 2008. I wonder if people here think Federer ever had bowel movements or perspired during that period! Sure there are clips on youtube that show Fed playing excellently in 2005-2007, but guess what, they're edited so that all his double faults and unforced errors are excluded. I'm sure highlights packages of his 2008 and even his 2009 seasons would look just as impressive.

In terms of grand slam performances and win-loss results, Fed is doing as well now as he's ever done. The rest can be attributed to people's different perceptions about the way Fed is winning. These perceptions, it should be noted, are not reflections of reality and are heavily influenced by media buzz about Fed's decline and stupid tropes about Wimbledon 2008 being the passing of the old guard.

My two bits: Fed is still in his prime and is performing about as well as he ever has and he will continue to do so for at least another year.

Fed won about 10 titles a year in 2005 to 2007. He won 4 in 2008 and is probably on track for 5 or so this year. If that's not a dropoff then I don't know what is.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
I agree with a lot of what you said. But I do think the difference between now and Feds glory days is not just a function of how Fed is playing. I truly believe the competition ( Nadal, Murray, Djoker etc) is superior to what it was from 2004-2007. Nadal has already proven that he is better than anyone Fed faced from 2004-2007. I imagine Djoker and Murray will win multiple slams in the near future and prove the same. If they dont then obviously I was wrong in saying they are better than the likes of Roddick/Blake/Davydenko etc. But only time will tell about those two.

I don't doubt that a peak Fed would have a very strong winning record vs a peak Djoker or peak Murray (although for both those players we don't know if we have seen their peak yet). But I really doubt he would be laying the beatdown on them the way he lay the beatdown on Roddick/Blake/Davydenko and the likes.

Also during Feds glory days, nothing was going wrong for him. So no mental pressure on him and hence less UE's , better serve percentage etc. Now though, he is a) facing better opposition b) making more mistakes as an indirect consequence of the pressure from facing better opposition
A peak Fed would NOT have a winning record vs Murray. Murray beat Fed for the first time in 2006 (Fed's peak year if there ever was 1).
Actually during his peak year, Nadal and Murray are the only 2 players who beat Fed. Fed would never have been able to dominate those 2 players at any point in his career, peak or not.
 

JeMar

Legend
A peak Fed would NOT have a winning record vs Murray. Murray beat Fed for the first time in 2006 (Fed's peak year if there ever was 1).
Actually during his peak year, Nadal and Murray are the only 2 players who beat Fed. Fed would never have been able to dominate those 2 players at any point in his career, peak or not.

Edit: Nevermind, I won't go there.

lol
 

Tennis_Bum

Professional
A peak Fed would NOT have a winning record vs Murray. Murray beat Fed for the first time in 2006 (Fed's peak year if there ever was 1).
Actually during his peak year, Nadal and Murray are the only 2 players who beat Fed. Fed would never have been able to dominate those 2 players at any point in his career, peak or not.

You don't get it do you. Nicolas Mahue beat Nadal on grass. Fed played a lot of tournaments, and the more you play, the more chances you are going lose to someone. But at slam, did Fed lose to Murray? No, and you said it yourself that slam results are more important than other tournament. Fed in 2008 is definitely not is his prime. The guy scraped and crawled his way to the final. He didn't have his best year but put himself in final to win it. He took out Djoko in the semi. Murray had lost to so many people and the guy had not even won a slam, and you are talking about him as though he's so great. Murray is overrated and has brain cramp at slams. What happened at FO quarter this year? Does brain cramp comes to mind when he served at 4-5 to extend the match after he broke Gonzalez to stay alive? Murray went on to lose the next 4 points, one point due to a stupid drop shot when he was out of position, and on match point he dumped a forehand at mid point of the net. That's great tennis IQ for you guys, especially you. Murray may not even make it to the semi this year. The guy is way overrated.

On grass you have to be bold, Murray's game is pushing. I haven't seen a pusher won Wimbledon yet. Murray can prove me wrong but I highly doubt that.
 

grafrules

Banned
A peak Fed would NOT have a winning record vs Murray. Murray beat Fed for the first time in 2006 (Fed's peak year if there ever was 1).
Actually during his peak year, Nadal and Murray are the only 2 players who beat Fed. Fed would never have been able to dominate those 2 players at any point in his career, peak or not.

Federer was visibly fatigued for that match after all the 4 3 setters to win Canada the previous weekend, and another 3 setter in his first match there. It was obvious at the time and a general consensus of everyone. Even Murray admited such after the match. They didnt play another match until early 2008 when Federer's decline had already started. Of course if this was Nadal you would freely be making that excuse if he had just one 3 setter the previous day (and have done so 2000 times), but since it is Federer I am sure you will say that is just an excuse. We all know how you operate (all too well). :rolleyes:
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Edit: Nevermind, I won't go there.

lol
That Federer was tired in the Murray match? Yes, yes go there. The fact that Murray beat Fed 5 times after that (out of the 6 times they played subsequently) makes that excuse completely moot.
Murray (like Nadal) is a bad matchup for Fed and their head to head is there to prove it.
 

BullDogTennis

Hall of Fame
people say hes not in his prime, because he isnt...if he was in his prime still like he was a few years ago he'd still be dominating the opponents...i will say he may be at the low end of his prime. because he is still winning, until he is regularly beatin before the semi's in any tournament ill still say hes in his low end of prime.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
You don't get it do you. Nicolas Mahue beat Nadal on grass. Fed played a lot of tournaments, and the more you play, the more chances you are going lose to someone. But at slam, did Fed lose to Murray? No, and you said it yourself that slam results are more important than other tournament. Fed in 2008 is definitely not is his prime. The guy scraped and crawled his way to the final. He didn't have his best year but put himself in final to win it. He took out Djoko in the semi. Murray had lost to so many people and the guy had not even won a slam, and you are talking about him as though he's so great. Murray is overrated and has brain cramp at slams. What happened at FO quarter this year? Does brain cramp comes to mind when he served at 4-5 to extend the match after he broke Gonzalez to stay alive? Murray went on to lose the next 4 points, one point due to a stupid drop shot when he was out of position, and on match point he dumped a forehand at mid point of the net. That's great tennis IQ for you guys, especially you. Murray may not even make it to the semi this year. The guy is way overrated.

On grass you have to be bold, Murray's game is pushing. I haven't seen a pusher won Wimbledon yet. Murray can prove me wrong but I highly doubt that.
Maybe Murray is overrated (not my opinion) but as long as he continues beating Fed, he is still a terrible matchup for him, not someone that Fed would have ever dismissed easily. Fed would have won matches but he would never have clearly dominated him in the head to head.
 

kanamit

Hall of Fame
Fed won about 10 titles a year in 2005 to 2007. He won 4 in 2008 and is probably on track for 5 or so this year. If that's not a dropoff then I don't know what is.

This might be a sign of a drop-off in Fed's play. Or it might be a sign that Fed's competition is somewhat greater than it was a few years ago.
 

bruce38

Banned
Fed versus Murray only matters in slams. All else is meaningless. Fed would clearly dominate Murray in slams as has been proven thus far.
 

Tennis_Bum

Professional
Maybe Murray is overrated (not my opinion) but as long as he continues beating Fed, he is still a terrible matchup for him, not someone that Fed would have ever dismissed easily. Fed would have won matches but he would never have clearly dominated him in the head to head.

You can say all you want, and of course you are entitled to that. But until Murray proves that he can win a slam, then all of his small events are excellent but when his career is over, people won't remember him. Fed simply tries a lot harder when it comes to slam. Especially, now, when he no longer on top of his game, he can't beat guys in and out anymore. That's just a fact. Of course, H2H matters but right, we are talking about apples and oranges. Simply, because Fed is finishing his career whereas Murray just starting out. Naturally, the priority is different for both. Murray is trying to prove that he can win anything under the sun whereas Fed is trying to put his best effort in slams.

Do you see the difference? I know it's hard for you to understand these things but if you take some time you can see it too. As long as Fed continues to fight and crawl his way to the final at slams so that he gives himself a chance to win then that is all that matter because of the he is playing, his tennis is so inconsistent, and his fitness. He is no longer in top form but that doesn't mean he can't fight his way to the final at slams. Murray, can't do that consistently. He only does that at small tournaments, of course points count, but Fed can't do that anymore because he's not consistent.
 

bolo

G.O.A.T.
He is definitely near peak. I wouldn't take his non GS results very seriously at this point. But come GS time he will be contending for every title and will likely only lose to murray, djokovic or nadal.
 

JeMar

Legend
That Federer was tired in the Murray match? Yes, yes go there. The fact that Murray beat Fed 5 times after that (out of the 6 times they played subsequently) makes that excuse completely moot.
Murray (like Nadal) is a bad matchup for Fed and their head to head is there to prove it.

And in four out of the five times that Federer lost to Murray, it was in close three sets after Federer won the first set. Not bad considering that 2008 and now 2009 Federer is famous for how many balls he shanks. He's nowhere near the player Murray would've played in 2004-2006, save for that match that a lot of people claim Federer was tired in. I don't make excuses when Federer loses, I wish I could say the same about some people here.

It's interesting how they didn't meet ONCE in 2007.
 
Top