Breaker
Legend
Losing to Blake, Roddick, and Fish (two in straight sets..) as well as two straight sets defeats in slams suggest it was more about level of play dropping.
I don't get why people say Fed is not in his prime?
- Thread starter kraggy
- Start date
Losing to Blake, Roddick, and Fish (two in straight sets..) as well as two straight sets defeats in slams suggest it was more about level of play dropping.
kraggy
Banned
Nadal just lost to Soderling quite easily. Soderling is no where near as good as people like Roddick. Players CAN lose to people they don't usually lose to if they have an off day and/or the other player plays out of their mind. Doesn't necessarily mean the players overall form has dipped , only their form for the day might have dipped.
tHotGates
Rookie
Barring some exceptions like injuries, I make the following distinctions:
Physical Prime/Athletic Peak: this is tougher to figure out with advances in nutrition and training and their developmental/sustainable impact visa vi strength, fast twitch muscles, stamina, etc; but I would say early to late 20s or so. By 28 or 29 (sometimes sooner) some physical degradation occurs but at varying speeds depending on the individual's physiological make up. Some athletes degrade faster, some more gradual.
Career Prime/Career Peak: This normally coincides with an athletes physical prime/athletic peak. Sometimes the athlete is injured or blossoms late and their career prime/peak can overlap past their physical/athletic peak or sometimes the athlete is such a physical specimen that a slow down in career success is slower even though their physical skills are diminishing. As noted, sometimes injuries factor in during an athletes physical prime but career success comes later. Sometimes the talented athlete rededicates themselves after squandering some precious athletic/prime years away.
A lot of variables to consider.
Physical Prime/Athletic Peak: this is tougher to figure out with advances in nutrition and training and their developmental/sustainable impact visa vi strength, fast twitch muscles, stamina, etc; but I would say early to late 20s or so. By 28 or 29 (sometimes sooner) some physical degradation occurs but at varying speeds depending on the individual's physiological make up. Some athletes degrade faster, some more gradual.
Career Prime/Career Peak: This normally coincides with an athletes physical prime/athletic peak. Sometimes the athlete is injured or blossoms late and their career prime/peak can overlap past their physical/athletic peak or sometimes the athlete is such a physical specimen that a slow down in career success is slower even though their physical skills are diminishing. As noted, sometimes injuries factor in during an athletes physical prime but career success comes later. Sometimes the talented athlete rededicates themselves after squandering some precious athletic/prime years away.
A lot of variables to consider.
JeMar
Legend
Right, but if the year is littered with losses like that, which 2008 was, then you'd say a player's over-all level has decreased.
P_Agony
Banned
I think he IS past his prime. 2008 wasn't a bad year for any pro's standards, but it was a terrible year for Federer's standards. His game has declined, it's very obvious. He's still good enough to win slams because he is Federer.
I think 2007 was the year that Federer was still prime Federer but not peak Federer. A prime Federer was still good enough to win 3 slams that year, but he also had some odd losses to players he usually owns. In 2008 it was more apparent, and mono really ruined things for him.
Just look at the recent FO - Fed is no longer the guy who can finish off just about anyone over 3 quick sets. He's being tested more and more, he has to fight for the win, rather than let his opponents fight for games and sets. He's slower, especially to his forehand side. I won't be surprised he plays some tough matches at Wimbeldon against guys other than Nadal.
I think 2007 was the year that Federer was still prime Federer but not peak Federer. A prime Federer was still good enough to win 3 slams that year, but he also had some odd losses to players he usually owns. In 2008 it was more apparent, and mono really ruined things for him.
Just look at the recent FO - Fed is no longer the guy who can finish off just about anyone over 3 quick sets. He's being tested more and more, he has to fight for the win, rather than let his opponents fight for games and sets. He's slower, especially to his forehand side. I won't be surprised he plays some tough matches at Wimbeldon against guys other than Nadal.
P_Agony
Banned
I'm sure Murray would have traded those wins to Fed's US Open win in a heart beat. Fed is 1-0 against Murray in slams. Until that changes, Fed remains superior. Fed is also 2-1 against Djokovic in slams, so he has no case too. The only one that has a case here is Nadal, but Nadal did get 3 GS wins over Fed in and after 2008, and old man Fed was still good enough to take Nadal to 5 sets in 2 of those matches.
“Prime” and “Success” are two independent entities meaning although many times there is correlation between the two, one is not however indicative of the other…Someone’s “prime” is simply the “time of maturity when power and vigor are their greatest” this has nothing to do with “success” it has only to do with the physical conditioning of an individual…accordingly someone playing tennis during their athletic “prime” does not mean they are also playing at their “peak potential capacity” since the former is relative to physical conditioning while the latter is relative to skill (the successful execution of which resulting in subsequent “success”)…in other words, an individual playing at their “peak potential capacity” (depending how high that peak level of skill is in relation to the rest of the competition) will result in subsequent “success” while an individual playing during his “athletic prime” is only relevant as far as their individual ease in reaching their peak level of physical conditioning…therefore based on the fact that Federer is not technically at his age relative “athletic prime” his current fitness level and movement however are still at or near the level they were during his “athletic prime” and therefore means the fact that he is no longer in his “athletic prime” serves little relevance. Furthermore in terms of Federer playing at his “peak potential capacity” he has not played consistently at his “peak” since 04’-06’/07’ however for his lack of playing during his “athletic prime” to serve any relevance in terms of “success” he’d have to have not been playing at his “peak potential capacity” due to his lack of possessing the physical capacity to do so..therefore based on the fact that Federer’s recent “struggles”/diminished “success” have been both predominantly mental in nature and due to Nadal playing at his own personal “peak potential capacity” (ie; Federer’s wavering mental state has resulted in inconsistent execution on Federer’s behalf and Nadal playing at his “peak potential capacity” while Federer has continually dipped in an out of his has caused Federer’s diminished success rate since 2008, not the fact that he is simply just “not at his athletic prime”). In short, Federer’s “diminished success” is the direct result of both Nadal consistently playing at his “peak potential capacity” since 2008 coupled with Federer’s lack of consistently playing at his own “peak potential capacity” due to his weakened mental state (ie; resulting in inconsistent execution and a subsequently lower tournament success rate)..therefore since Federer’s lack of playing at his “peak potential capacity” is not physical in origin then the fact that he is not at his “athletic prime” is largely irrelevant.
kraggy
Banned
Great post and very well explained.
Ray Mercer
Hall of Fame
I only count slams. US Open 08. Murray playing his absolute best gets spanked in 3. When the court is fast and you can't push he gets spanked. The guy's got no power in that forehand. When Federer is aggresive he blows Murray of the court.
Federer is not as good as he used to be. The Peak Federer would have destroyed Djokovic at will and never lose on grass. Here is what I see that has declined for Fed since his 2005/2006 peak:
1)speed/quickness. He's still got both but not at the level he once did.
2)backhand slice - used to be consistently lower and deeper and hit with more authority. Now it comes and goes, floaty, lands short a lot. Against Nadal it mostly goes.
3)Backhand drive-mishits much more and doesn't have the confidence to rip it up the line as much
4)forehand-not quite as deadly as much of the time due to loss of quickness to get in position to hit them
5)return of serve- too much chipping and not enough ripping
Summed up he went from being Immortal to being merely colossally great
grafrules
Banned
It is interesting how women seem to have longer primes than men. I would say these were the prime periods for some of the great women:
Court- 1962-1970
Evert- 1974-1982
Graf- 1988-1996
Navratilova- 1981-1986
King- 1965-1972
Then again we are seeing shorter primes for the great women of late:
Henin- spring 2003-2007
Serena- 2002-summer 2003
Venus- 2000-summer 2003
Davenport- 1998-2001
Hingis- 1997-2000
So more and more womens primes are becoming like the men in their shorter length.
Of some of the great men the last 2 decades I would say their primes were:
Becker- 1985-1991
Edberg- 1988-1992
Courier- 1991-1993
Sampras- 1993-1997
Federer- mid 2003-2007
Nadal- mid 2007-date unknown
Agassi- 1995 and 1999?
Court- 1962-1970
Evert- 1974-1982
Graf- 1988-1996
Navratilova- 1981-1986
King- 1965-1972
Then again we are seeing shorter primes for the great women of late:
Henin- spring 2003-2007
Serena- 2002-summer 2003
Venus- 2000-summer 2003
Davenport- 1998-2001
Hingis- 1997-2000
So more and more womens primes are becoming like the men in their shorter length.
Of some of the great men the last 2 decades I would say their primes were:
Becker- 1985-1991
Edberg- 1988-1992
Courier- 1991-1993
Sampras- 1993-1997
Federer- mid 2003-2007
Nadal- mid 2007-date unknown
Agassi- 1995 and 1999?
Last edited:
Andres
G.O.A.T.
See TMC 2008 for further proof
Federer might have had trouble with Murray in his prime as well. However, I don't think Murray is much better than the Hewitt of 2004. Hewitt played a defensive style as well and was a bad matchup for Fed at first. However, in 2004-2006 Federer ate everyone alive and would have done a lot of damage to Murray as well. I think Murray would always have won some(as shown by their meeting in 2006 I think? R32 of a MS after Wimby) but it would be more like a h2h he's got with Nalbandian. Murray is nowhere near the bad matchup for Federer that Nadal has always been.
See his post about how that was already when Federer was declining from his best level of play.
It is pretty undeniable that Federer's level of play has declined somewhat, although of course other players (like Del Potro) have also become better.
Murray didn't beat Federer when it mattered, at the USO. Federer simply outclassed him. The fact is, Federer is more talented than Murray. So Murray can rack up all the wins he wants against Federer in events that aren't as important.
At the really important events, Federer beats Murray.
kraggy
Banned
Yes the grand total of ONE important event.
I'm no Murray fan, but I find it ridiculous when people say that Fed's one USO win over Murray means more than ALL THE COMBINED Murray wins. I agree that it means more than each individual win. A grand slam win is always more important that any other win. But to say that Fed beating Murray in the USO is the ONLY result that matters is ludicrous.
Right, there are plenty of other results that matter. Like Murray failing to make another grand slam final other than the USO; being beaten at the AO before the semi-final; being unceremoniously dumped from the FO.
My conclusion is that Murray is not a good player when it counts.
Sure, Murray's wins over Federer count. But cummulatively, no, they don't count compared to Federer's USO win. This is obvious. Vis-a-vis their record, I can assure you that Federer would rather be on his side of it, and Murray on Federer's side too; because on Federer's side, there's the USO whipping of Murray.
That is, Federer has come out better between the two players, because while he lost of bunch of insignificant matches in terms of his career, he won when it really counted.
kraggy
Banned
I like how you call those Masters tournaments insignificant.Bravo.
I guarantee you , Fed does not consider those tournaments insignificant. He was not TRYING to lose. Is Fed a better big match player than Murray? Most definitely. But that's mainly because he has age and experience on his side. Murray was playing in his first slam final at the USO, he was bound to be nervous.
Its ridiculous to suggest however that a guy with 7-2 record vs Fed , would be 'destroyed' by Fed .
icedevil0289
G.O.A.T.
100% agree. I don't like it when people say that murray's wins over fed are insignificant or they don't count, because it wasn't in a gs. Anyways, they have only played each other once in a gs final. If it becomes a pattern where federer beats murray in the grandslams, but loses in the master series and other tournaments, than one can make the conclusion murray is not a good player when it counts against fed or whatever.
Similar threads
