In some ways Federer is better than at his "peak"!

[TheMaestro1990]

Sure, it's this, Fed is better in 17 than in 08-13.
Cuz even in his better physical state, he didn't have some tools he has today, so overall he is better.

Evidence:1.his win % after age 32 is better.
2.he only has one loss vs top 10 and is 4-0 vs Rafa
3.He is now 5-0 in five setters while always
having problems.
4.He has better backhand, tactics, scheduling
and mentality.
5.Won three tournaments without losing a set.
6.Won AO-IW-Miami those are slower surfaces
7.He will win AO 18

1. Win % is relative to the strength of the field.
2. Again, strenght of the field. Rafa now is not the same Rafa as in 2008-2013. And the other top 10 players are generally not comparable to the five years you are listing.
3. Also relative to the strenght of the field.
4. Better backhand, smarter tactics and mentality. Yes. Scheduling? Federer didn't make any scheduling errors in 2008-2012. In 2013, yes.
5. Again...
6. He played awesome in Indian Wells - impressive. Miamia not super sharp, but still won.
7. I hope so.

Federer's comeback in 2017 was truly remarkable and in my opinion, no other player in similiar age has reached those sorts of levels. But to suggest he is better than in his peak. No, he is not. He has lost so much speed and isn't as light on his feet as he used to be. That makes a massive difference, hence his tactical changes. His backhand is better, yes. But it was just as awesome in 2006.

 

[KINGROGER]

Sure, it's this, Fed is better in 17 than in 08-13.
Cuz even in his better physical state, he didn't have some tools he has today, so overall he is better.

Evidence:1.his win % after age 32 is better.
2.he only has one loss vs top 10 and is 4-0 vs Rafa
3.He is now 5-0 in five setters while always
having problems.
4.He has better backhand, tactics, scheduling
and mentality.
5.Won three tournaments without losing a set.
6.Won AO-IW-Miami those are slower surfaces
7.He will win AO 18

Ok let’s forget about 13 for a minute.

I’ll take 08-12 all day over 14-17. For starters he beat Djokovic 4 times at slams during this period, twice at his peak too. Not to mention he made 10 slams finals during this period, winning 5 of them. Vs 5 finals and 2 wins between 14-17,

Only area I’d prefer 14-17 is vs the field on HC BO3. Overall at slams, on grass, on clay the former is better.

 

[Jonas78]

Average numbers don't apply to Federer, he is an outlier.

Do you know that average age when people die is what about 65 and yet that also means some people live to 105.

Like peak. Sure on average players have 6-7 year old peaks, but that also means that some players will have 12 years and some will have 3 years.

Also, tennis is not only about fitness, it's just a small part, there is a lot more to it. Why is Fed beating 25 year olds easily if fitness is such a big deal?

And also prime doesn't mean you reach your potential. If your max is 100. And at age 26 you are at 70, then you can still be at 80 at age 36 and still have a higher level.

Also why Fed wasn't winning has a lot to do with racket, tactics, being stubborn and not age.

I agree Federer is an outlier, but not in the same way as you. He has declined like every other 36y old, but still wins slams because his peak was so far ahead of the rest (same with Rafa on clay).

Of course i agree fitness is only part of it. The reason he beats 25 year olds is a weak field combined with him still being good enough in a declined state.

When you say 70 out of 100 thats just some numbers you have made up yourself.

You can come up with a 100 reasons why someone wins or not, but again, whatever the reason, all history show that players stop winning regularly at 29-30y.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

What are you talking about, what tech? Can you be specific or just repeat yourself?

No, you have to be pretty dumb to think that Fed's racket used any special materials that others can't use and that frame size is much significant tech improvement than any minor details.

How can you not get that in baseline era frame size is a significant improvement.

Also, you are making stuff up, tell me exactly what materials Fed has that Rafa can't use lol. And what kind of technology?

You are just saying it, you need to prove it. When you tell me that you have a better cell phone, we can measure it, you can't just say it.

If only size mattered, then WIlson would give Fed one of Serene's big racquets and he'd just master that. That would save them millions and would save Fed hundreds of hours of testing racquets.

Tech= anything related to the whole engineering process, not just the racquet materials. Fed hasn't done anything illegal by having the most resources at his disposal to develop a racquet that gave him the tech advantage when he went to the 90 and then to the 97. He has just taken advantage of the privileged position that he has been in as the cash cow. It makes business sense to pour the most money into the cash cow.

Nadal has been unlucky to have an injury plagued career so it has not been an option for him to have the necessary time required for the testing and development of improved racquets, so he has competed at a big disadvantage to guys like Fed.

Just think of the situation where things were reversed, where:

1/If a decade ago Rafa had a personalized racquet developed for him which took a few years and an unprecedented amount of resources to develop, and

2/If in recent times Rafa had another personalized racquet developed for him which took another couple of years and an unprecedented amount of recources to develop.

3/ All while Fed kept using the same retail racquet that he had been using since he was a teenager.

From an objective view point how would you perceive things in this case? Would it not be obvious who has had the tech advantage all along, not just over the other player but over the field.

 

[Gary Duane]

Come one, some people here say Fed is an old man after 2007 when he was still only 26. So, ages 26-36 Fed is past his peak? I don't buy that for a second.

What is your point???

Who are you writing "Come one" to?

 

[metsman]

Yes I remember 04-07 Federer routinely running around backhands only to miss the forehand outside the doubles alley.

 

[MeatTornado]

How can you guys all complain about this argument constantly getting brought up, but then continue to engage with this troll? Just let the thread die.

 

[realplayer]

Federer is not nearly as good as 2004. He is lucky that Djokovic has declined. Nadal is often struggling with injuries and the same goes for Murray. The competition he had is no longer there and because he still plays tennis on a very high level it is now good enough to win which is highly impressive at his age.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Well you may have a point. He is still physically in good shape, but the little that he has lost physically over the years, he has certainly made up for in increased tennis smarts through experience.

 

[Steve0904]

He serves better. That's about it. And even that's debatable.

 

[Sudacafan]

What weakness did he have in 2006 that he doesn’t have now? If I remember correctly he did have the 2017 backhand at that time.

Rafa?

 

[mike danny]

So you are saying it's impossible for two goats to be so good that they can dominate strong fields even at their age?

Do you think in any sport it's possible for older guys to still dominate?

Well I don't think current Federer and Nadal would have dominated in years like 2011 and 2012 when the field was much stronger.

And sometimes it takes just 1 dominant force to shut them down. Keep last year's field in the same state and insert just 2015 Djokovic and it is very doubtful they would have dominated.

 

[mike danny]

And yet Fed still hasn't managed to win three tournaments without losing a set in 2006. He won Miami, Halle and W last year without losing a set.

In his peak, Fed had losing h2h vs Murray and Nadal, but now he owns them.

Yes, Fed is slower, but he is so good today, he doesn't even need to be fast and hit those forehands. He prevents the necessity to even be pushed into the defensive.

Fed also lost 0 finals in 2017 and hasn't lost a single match who went to five sets.

And come on, Nadal would have another 3 slam season without Fed, how can you say Rafa is not close to his best?

Fed did lose a final in 2017 in Montreal, albeit due to injury.

Let me ask you a question: who would you choose to battle 2011/2015 Djokovic toe to toe: 2006 Federer or 2017 Federer?

 

[mike danny]

And yet Fed still hasn't managed to win three tournaments without losing a set in 2006. He won Miami, Halle and W last year without losing a set.

In his peak, Fed had losing h2h vs Murray and Nadal, but now he owns them.

Yes, Fed is slower, but he is so good today, he doesn't even need to be fast and hit those forehands. He prevents the necessity to even be pushed into the defensive.

Fed also lost 0 finals in 2017 and hasn't lost a single match who went to five sets.

And come on, Nadal would have another 3 slam season without Fed, how can you say Rafa is not close to his best?

He simply got a tougher opponent in the final of 2006 Wimb than in the final of 2017 Wimb. That's why he lost a set. I mean it's not out of the ordinary to lose a set to the world no.2 in a GS final.

 

[mike danny]

Exactly, Fed just can't sustain his level all year due to age, but he can sustain his level for half a year in 17 and that half a year was as good as 08-12.

Admittedly I was more impressed with his 2017 level overall than his 2008 and 2010 seasons across a full season.

 

[mike danny]

I agree Federer is an outlier, but not in the same way as you. He has declined like every other 36y old, but still wins slams because his peak was so far ahead of the rest (same with Rafa on clay).

Of course i agree fitness is only part of it. The reason he beats 25 year olds is a weak field combined with him still being good enough in a declined state.

When you say 70 out of 100 thats just some numbers you have made up yourself.

You can come up with a 100 reasons why someone wins or not, but again, whatever the reason, all history show that players stop winning regularly at 29-30y.

The bolded is not true. I have reliable sources telling me that Federer never declined, he just got exposed by superior players. He is at his peak as we speak.

 

[Jaitock1991]

Depends what you mean by better. He has limitations on him now, so he has to be smarter in the way he goes about playing the game, he has to make adjustments, he has to find solutions, and do things differently. There's more there to obviously, outwardly admire. 10-12 years ago he did not have those limitations so he could do whatever the hell he liked, including playing with an outdated racket.

Just a side note. The fact we're even talking about "10-12 years ago" in a sport as physical as tennis is absolutely absurd. The longevity of this legend must be beyond anything I've seen in any sport.

 

[Jonas78]

The bolded is not true. I have reliable sources telling me that Federer never declined, he just got exposed by superior players. He is at his peak as we speak.

Yep. Federer is the universal constant, the one who has been on the exact same level from 2003-2018, while every other player have their ups and downs, pre-peak, peak and post-peak. So if you defeat Fed, you are better than him, if you lose, you just wasnt at your peak

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Yep. Federer is the universal constant, the one who has been on the exact same level from 2003-2018, while every other player have their ups and downs, pre-peak, peak and post-peak. So if you defeat Fed, you are better than him, if you lose, you just wasnt at your peak

Those who argue for that, directly or not, have effectively already admitted he is the GOAT, since no other player is viewed as such a constant measuring stick, except for Nadal on clay who is unquestionably the single surface GOAT as well.

 

[chjtennis]

I think the only thing he's doing better now is his BH, but if he was given this racquet back in 2004-2007, he would've had better BH than now.

The technique was always there, it's just his new racquet which gives him bigger sweet spot and better results. He's also getting some help with serve with it because the racquet gives him a bit more power so he can go even more for accuracy than power. Other than that, he's just playing differently now, relying more on timing the ball rather than use force to hit the ball harder. He has always taken the ball early, but he's taking the ball even earlier now on average, knowing he doesn't have the physicality of his younger version. That makes him look even more aggressive than before.

 

[FiReFTW]

Yeah, if he played with a 90 inch racquet today, he would not be in the top 10 probably, or maybe top 5-10 at most.

In b4 he switches his racquet for the 5th time to a 150 inch one in 2045 and wins his 25th wimbledon.

 

[DRII]

Ok, how do you know the field was stronger if you can't rely on the stats? And what force could make field stronger? Field doesn't just become strong over night for no reasons.

It's far more likely that Federer is fluctuating than the entire field. It's not like top 100 players died.

no, but 'super-talents' or ATGs do not show up linearly, unlike the aggregate level of the top 100 which probably does remain relatively constant.

Federer did not have fully fledged ATGs to contend with at his peak.

however, I do agree that 'physical prime' and 'game prime' do not always coincide with each other perfectly.

Agassi was a good example. his game prime occurred later on in his career when he was starting to physically decline.

 

[zagor]

He serves better. That's about it. And even that's debatable.

I'd say he also hits cleaner off the BH side, just makes less errors and is better at coming over the BH the return of serve. He's also more focused, doesn't have those mental walkabouts he used to have after destroying someone in the 1st set.

That's about it. His FH, movement, footwork, transition from defense to offense, stamina, recovery time, return game, confidence (one of the key components to mental strength) etc. all were on a different level in 2004-2007.

But we all know that deep down. If this was 2004-2007 Fed we'd barely be discussing his matches against Chung and potentially Cilic, we'd all be waiting for the trophy speech.

 

[DRII]

Federer was nearly unbeatable November of 2003 to May of 2007. Durning that time frame, he was an unimaginable 62-7 vs the top 10, which includes a record 26 straight wins vs the top 10. But it gets even better. Excluding Nadal, he was 59-1 vs the top 10. It took a Herculean effort by Safin to beat Federer.

If Federer can win 26 straight against the top 10 and put together 11 slam wins in 4 years, then I will believe that he is back to his peak. Heck, if he can have even one season like 2004(74-6, includes 18-0 vs top 10), then I will say that that he hit his peak again for 1 year. In 2005, he was 81-4. He was 92-5 in 2006. The 2017 Federer would have needed to play 40 more matches in 2017 and win all of them to match his 2006 season. That is a huge ask, considering that we would have needed to destroy everybody on clay, along with play a few other tourneys.

The Nadal that took Federer down back then is far better than the Nadal that we have seen lately. This was the same Nadal that was so versatile, that he went to 5 Wimby finals in a 6 year span, not this version of Nadal that has been eliminated from Wimby 5 Straight Times that he has played the event by the 4th round or earlier.

I do agree that some aspects of Federer’s game are better. But most of it is related to having a modern racquet. A 2004-2006 version of Federer with a modern racquet would beat 2017 Federer in straight sets nearly every time on surfaces outside of grass. A 2017 Federer would take a set at Wimby.

you're probably giving too much credit to the new racquet.

it has helped his BH obviously, but if he were using this new racquet back in the day it probably would have affected the accuracy of his lethal FH back then.

 

[Steve0904]

I'd say he also hits cleaner off the BH side, just makes less errors and is better at coming over the BH the return of serve. He's also more focused, doesn't have those mental walkabouts he used to have after destroying someone in the 1st set.

That's about it. His FH, movement, transition from defense to offense, stamina, recovery time, return game, confidence (one of the key components to mental strength) etc. all were on a different level in 2004-2007.

But we all know that deep down. If this was 2004-2007 Fed we'd barely be discussing his matches against Chung and potentially Cilic, we'd all be waiting for the trophy speech.

All good points, but I'd say he hits the BH cleaner because of the racquet for the most part. If he still had the 90 his BH would be terrible in comparison to what it is now. Basically the same with the ROS. He's better at coming over it, but he does it mostly out of necessity. In his prime he could "get away" with the slice return (although it probably took him too long and he was too stubborn to realize it didn't work against Nadal).

I'd also say he still has the mental walkabouts now, but they're because he's old and his level drops and not because he's bored. But yes, he seems better at guarding against them these days because he's more experienced and realizes he can't really afford them anymore.

The new racquet has also helped the serve in certain ways. I think I remember him once saying he could get more MPH's, but the serve is the one shot that was always really good even with the old racquet in the 2011-2012 years (just as an example). It's really the only shot that I think he has improved upon when you basically take the racquet factor out of it.

 

[chjtennis]

you're probably giving too much credit to the new racquet.

it has helped his BH obviously, but if he were using this new racquet back in the day it probably would have affected the accuracy of his lethal FH back then.

His FH was and is still so good, I think he would've hit great FH with any racquet, especially back in his peak years. Serve as well. However, if he got extra help on his BH, that would've changed the outcomes of some of the matches a lot.

 

[chjtennis]

All good points, but I'd say he hits the BH cleaner because of the racquet for the most part. If he still had the 90 his BH would be terrible in comparison to what it is now. Basically the same with the ROS. He's better at coming over it, but he does it mostly out of necessity. In his prime he could "get away" with the slice return (although it probably took him too long and he was too stubborn to realize it didn't work against Nadal).

I'd also say he still has the mental walkabouts now, but they're because he's old and his level drops and not because he's bored. But yes, he seems better at guarding against them these days because he's more experienced and realizes he can't really afford them anymore.

He certainly is not shanking all that much these days, not just with BH but also with his FH, suggesting the bigger racquet helps him a lot in every aspect. I think he's mentally more relaxed now, thinking everything from here is just bonus and realizing he plays better when he plays more instinctively without overthinking.

 

[Steve0904]

He certainly is not shanking all that much these days, not just with BH but also with his FH, suggesting the bigger racquet helps him a lot in every aspect. I think he's mentally more relaxed now, thinking everything from here is just bonus and realizing he plays better when he plays more instinctively without overthinking.

Agree. I think the biggest change that came with a more experienced Federer is simply knowing himself and what he has to do. He always knew those things to some extent, and his ego is still there like it is for any champion but when you hear him talk these days it's like he knows if he doesn't do the right things he'll lose and he's very aware of it. Whereas in his prime it was more like "Maybe that was a mistake but it didn't matter because I won." These days it's more like "Yeah I got lucky there."

 

[robert.s]

Federer's best, his peak level of play, was between 2004 and 2007, when he picked up 8 slams in 3 years, and made 15 out of 16 possible finals. Basically if not for clay GOAT Nadal, he would've absolutely murdered the field in all 4 slams. You're looking at several calendar year slams. Yes, some skills have improved with time in Federer's case (especially the ones not related to physical attributes), but the most important ones have declined.

 

[Jonas78]

Those who argue for that, directly or not, have effectively already admitted he is the GOAT, since no other player is viewed as such a constant measuring stick, except for Nadal on clay who is unquestionably the single surface GOAT as well.

Thats true . The Ultronians are very clear about Noles peak (2010 vs 2011 etc), same with the Brigade (for example 2013 vs 2014). If the Maestronians arent allowed to define a peak, then Fed surely is the GOAT

 

[RF-18]

He serves better. That's about it. And even that's debatable.

That's not really debatable. He has been serving better than he ever has for years now.

 

[Tennisanity]

IF Federer was better than at his peak then how could be be losing to Djokovic in 2015 since Federer is the better player. The only explanation is that Federer declined.

 

[tennis_crazy]

That's not really debatable. He has been serving better than he ever has for years now.

So the peak is yet to come....I see

 

[Enga]

As a tennis fan who happens to like Federer (meaning I don't just say this to discredit his earlier successes), I think he is playing a lot better now. The difference is that he has developed new understandings of the game that seem to not only make his game quite effective, but seemingly is fun for him.

I think mainly whats different is that now that his movement is slower now, he prefers to stay even closer to the baseline. He was always considered an attacking player but now he rarely ever gives up positioning. For him, positioning>hitting with more RPM's and MPH. In the old days, he wouldn't have minded stepping back if it meant he could measure it up and hit a heavy shot, but that's physically demanding.

Other than that, his technique seems to be even cleaner now, if it's even possible. Not just on his racket skills, but his movement. When he's moving at his best, his footwork technique is just awesome to watch. Old Federer would take giant steps and just leap across the court. Modern day Federer makes perfect precision steps and gets into position just in time to take the ball on the rise. His footwork is still lightyears beyond most top 10 players just based on the eye test of fluidity, and speed, even though he lost a lot of defensive capability.

Basically, I would say his game today is more brain>physical ability. But losing his physical abilities were the only way he was gonna learn to play like this.

 

[KINGROGER]

One things for sure, 17/18 Federer is way better than 14/15 version from the baseline. Great depth, precision, angles etc. Less routine FH dumped into net, powderpuff BH hitting the service line etc for Djokovic to tee off on.

 

[goldengoose]

He looks a lot learner, more often than ever. He has, as do many of us, the ability to put on a lot of chunk around the stomach. And there are many pics of him, with a full lsized roll around the middle in his off season.. Away from the tour.

Now? Very lean. So he is probably eating a ton of leafy veggies, and a lot less carbs than in his youth. Great move for him. For anyone really.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Ok, I know this is blasphemy, but at least hear me out first!

I claim that the reason Federer now plays at the same level as at age 26 is because at the time he was only using 70% of his potential.

Also, his peak today is not LOWER than at age 26, just DIFFERENT. So let me explain what different and only at 70% of his potential means.

Different means that he is worse in some aspects, but he is also better in other aspects of the game. So his overall level is almost the same.

So, he was never really at 100%. When he was young, he had weaknesses, but when he is old he has physical weaknesses, while he eliminated some other weaknesses.

So, people are sort of right. He is playing at the same level as at age 26, just in a much different way. Because even at age 26, he wasn't close to his 100% potential.

That explains why his stats are better at age 32-36 than at age 29-32.
That would explain a lot and why at age 36 he can still dominate.

So, people can have two primes. Physical prime and game prime. And if you don't reach both at the same time, you can have two primes. Wawrinka is similar too. That's also why people can run marathons at age 50 while at age 25 they couldn't do a push up.

One important point. In 2006, Federer went 92-5 and won 12 titles, as against 52-5 and 7 titles in 2017; so he played more tennis and yet was more dominant than in 2017 (same no. of defeats for nearly double the no. of wins). Three of his 2006 losses were on clay to Nadal. The other two being to Nadal at Dubai again and to Murray at Cincy, no Goffin type loss, let alone Donskoy. I know the Nadal loss at Dubai looks bad compared to him going 4-0 against him in 2017, BUT Federer also beat Nadal at Wimbledon in 2006. So, no, I don't think Federer is playing at the same level as 2006 anymore. However, he is certainly playing much better than in 2010-2011 and I would even go so far as to say better than large parts of 2009 and 2012 as well. And yes, it is because he has sharpened some aspects of his game and plays smarter than before. If the argument is that he didn't play so smart in 2006 and therefore wasn't playing up to potential then, well, he won almost everything outside clay so there wasn't room to go higher. The type of hard court tennis played by his main rivals then (who didn't yet include Nadal or Djokovic) also resulted in him facing off against offensive baseliners. Not that Nadalovic aren't offensive, but players like Roddick or Blake attacked more and Fed focused on defence to beat them. With the tour going all heavy topspin and baseline dominant in recent years, Fed has pivoted to a more all court strategy to achieve a year somewhat like 2005 (but still not as good as Fed lost an epic match to Safin at AO, not limping home against Delpo). So I don't see anything wrong per se with Fed's tactics in his peak years (though maybe individual matches could be parsed and criticised). Further, Fed was always strong on serve, volleys, overheads and drops. He's rarely had a terrible serving day as such and not in his peak years so it's not like he ballbashed with his forehand to win. His was always a tactical approach and I would argue he was smart to play a lower risk game then because he had the body to pull it off. The tour today seems to lack the tools to punish Federer but it would be interesting to see what would happen if he was under return pressure. Fed is also being smart in not overexposing himself in conditions where he is not quite as comfortable. Which is great but that also means in 2004-07, his peak was more all pervasive and he was more versatile, winning on slow, medium, fast, whatever the tour threw at him (except Nadal on clay which I think would be a peak too high even now).

 

[World Beater]

Fed has been shanking several routine bhs this tournament. how did the racquet help there?

fed was asked the question of the bigger racquet and while he admitted it did help generate easier power, he attributed his play more to confidence than the bigger stick.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Fed has been shanking several routine bhs this tournament. how did the racquet help there?

fed was asked the question of the bigger racquet and while he admitted it did help generate easier power, he attributed his play more to confidence than the bigger stick.

Indeed. Shanks were way down in 2017 though.

 

[MasturB]

No, he didn't have 2017 backhand. His backhand was more spinny and short and shanked a lot. Plus, he didn't take it early, so his recovery was longer. That is partly also due to the racket.

Also, he was a lot worse tactically. Nadal even said that Federer is not very good in tactics. Then, he didn't have as great net game, he came to the net at strangest times. Sure he hit godly volleys, but his approach timing wasn't as good as today.

Then mentally he had weaknesses. He just lost so many close matches, but in 2017 he didn't lose a single big match which was close. He is what 5-0 in five setters and what 5-1 in bo3 that go to five?

Also, he had poor scheduling. Today he shows less time, but when he shows he is always at the top level.

Wut.

He didn't have poor scheduling. He was required to play X amount of tournaments compared to today where he has hit every ATP exemption and doesn't have to enter so many.

This is so ridiculous on so many levels. He's always had a really good backhand, it's just in his peak his forehand never missed and it was godmode every time. His forehand is nowhere near where it was back then. It has glimpses here and there but the backhand has had to catchup by necessity but that's crazy to say it was never good. If his backhand sucked there's no way he would have been able to push Rafa on clay as much as he did.

This revisionist history is non-sense and someone like you clearly hasn't watched his matches thoroughly from that time period.

Really the big difference from 2017 and 2007 is the serve. Any real Fed fan watching knows its the serve.

 

[MasturB]

Jack Gates has been a poster on here for 3 weeks and thinks he knows all. Curious to know what troll username he was on before January 8th.

 

[watungga]

Sure, it's this, Fed is better in 17 than in 08-13.
Cuz even in his better physical state, he didn't have some tools he has today, so overall he is better.

Evidence:1.his win % after age 32 is better.
2.he only has one loss vs top 10 and is 4-0 vs Rafa
3.He is now 5-0 in five setters while always
having problems.
4.He has better backhand, tactics, scheduling
and mentality.
5.Won three tournaments without losing a set.
6.Won AO-IW-Miami those are slower surfaces
7.He will win AO 18

Adding #8.

 

[MasturB]

I will put it this way. 2006 could have played the 2017 game if given time to adapt and had Edberg to help guide his serve even with the 90 sq inch racquet. 2017 could play the 2006 game but not be able to sustain it for very long.

2006 beats 2017 90% of the time. The only chance 2017 has is if 2006 is having a bad day off the ground and 2017 is serving in 2015 god mode. Off the ground, I don't care how early 2017 is taking the ball, 2006 punishes with the God Mode Fearhand every time.

I guess people have forgotten 2004-2006 forehand is greatest shot in tennis history, ever.

 

[watungga]

2017 beats 2006 at 60% of the time. The 2006 fearhand was already applied by Berdych in the semis. Hearing the ball being smacked back and forth (1st set) makes me cringed as they look like playing ping pong.

 

[Mongolmike]

Just reported from AO that a cleaning crew discovered a small altar made out of animal bones found in Federer's locker! And apparently there were small figurines (dolls) sitting around the altar. One had a pink sleeveless shirt on, another had dark hair and glasses.

When questioned about it, Fed claimed no knowledge of it. He later recanted and suggested they were his daughter's "dolls".

He was then seen walking away making odd abrupt hand motions and seemed to be mouthing the letters "c i l i c".

 

[Deleted member 3771]

After a few years of dedicated focus on aggression and net play he finally started channeling his idols Edberg and Sampras. Now he is living his childhood dream to play like a Sampras/Edberg composite.