Is federer the best 30yo of all time?

[Limpinhitter]

Pops, you're pushing it top10 means 9 and 10 for those two dudes.

But, that's in contrast to your sandbox buddies who insist that Laver would be lucky to be a futures player today. You say 9-10, I say 2-5. You even give Laver a few major titles. That alone makes him top 5 among today's players. Seriously, your not as much of a ******* as you pretend to be.

 

[Cup8489]

Well teenage Roddick in the quarters and Sjeng freaking Schalken in the semis aren't a part of a tough draw, me thinks. Agassi won the 2002 US Open for Pete when he took out Hewitt in the semis.

That wouldve been an awesome final, hewitt sampras. hewitt at his prime against a guy in GOAT mode..

 

[NadalAgassi]

Well teenage Roddick in the quarters and Sjeng freaking Schalken in the semis aren't a part of a tough draw, me thinks. Agassi won the 2002 US Open for Pete when he took out Hewitt in the semis.

What makes you believe Hewitt would have won that final, especialy when his loss to Agassi was almost straight sets as was Sampras's victory over Agassi in the final. I know he beat him easily in the previous years final but Pete was clearly physically not up for that one, and was serving atleast 30 mph under normal and about 2 steps slower. For the 2002 final he seemed perfectly fine (probably because of the easy draw), and Hewitt wasnt playing as well at the 2002 U.S Open either.

 

[pc1]

For pure dominance guys, Bill Tilden at age 30 in 1923 might have been the best. He was number one in the world and virtually unbeatable.

Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Agassi, Connors were pretty great too.

We're talking about for the times guys.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Its a completely different game now, much more physical. A 30 year old today has to play better to keep up, than a 30 year old 15-20+ years ago

How is it more physical?

 

[tennis_pro]

What makes you believe Hewitt would have won that final, especialy when his loss to Agassi was almost straight sets as was Sampras's victory over Agassi in the final. I know he beat him easily in the previous years final but Pete was clearly physically not up for that one, and was serving atleast 30 mph under normal and about 2 steps slower. For the 2002 final he seemed perfectly fine (probably because of the easy draw), and Hewitt wasnt playing as well at the 2002 U.S Open either.

Maybe he looked that way because he faced Agassi in the final instead of Hewitt? There's a reason why Hewitt won the last 4 meetings against Sampras (losing 1 set) while Pete always had a shot against Agassi in 2000-2002. Hewitt being a great returner, passer and mover in his prime was always going to cause Sampras problems.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Maybe he looked that way because he faced Agassi in the final instead of Hewitt? There's a reason why Hewitt won the last 4 meetings against Sampras (losing 1 set) while Pete always had a shot against Agassi in 2000-2002. Hewitt being a great returner, passer and mover in his prime was always going to cause Sampras problems.

Agassi IMO is a better returner and as good a passer as Hewitt (even at that point).

 

[tennis_pro]

That wouldve been an awesome final, hewitt sampras. hewitt at his prime against a guy in GOAT mode..

30-year old Sampras was never going to beat peak Hewitt. Last time Pete beat him in an official match was the at the 2000 US Open while the Ozzie was a teenage up and comer. He beat him 4 times (including a couple of breadsticks, a bagel and lost just 1 set in all 4 meetings) after that.

 

[tennis_pro]

Agassi IMO is a better returner and as good a passer as Hewitt (even at that point).

But his movement was nowhere near as good as Hewitt's.

 

[tennis_pro]

Agassi IMO is a better returner and as good a passer as Hewitt (even at that point).

Also it's all about match-ups. Hewitt was a horrible match-up for Sampras (especially an older version who lost half a step) while at the same time Sampras ALWAYS had a shot against Agassi (even though Agassi in 2001-2002 was far better against the field than Pete was) and at the same time Agassi ALWAYS had a chance against Hewitt and kept the matches competitive, damn a 34-year old beat prime Hewitt in Cincinnati.

 

[TMF]

Sampras would rather play Agassi than Hewitt any day. Match up wise, Sampras's better chance is against Agassi, and not to mention Hewitt beat him at the USO final.

 

[cc0509]

Think we need to compare mileage not age. Agassi took a couple of years off. I know it was more like 18-20 months. Connors may not have played as much as a junior, although I have no idea.

But we are talking about what a player has accomplished at 30 years plus and it is a fact that Agassi achieved more than Federer so far at least post 30 years old, mileage is irrelevant. I am not saying Agassi is a better player than Federer as that would be stupidity, I am merely saying Agassi 30 plus achieved more than Federer has been able to do so far--i.e. Agassi won a slam past 30 and he was number one past 30.

 

[paulorenzo]

jimmy connors in 5

 

[mattennis]

Think we need to compare mileage not age. Agassi took a couple of years off. I know it was more like 18-20 months. Connors may not have played as much as a junior, although I have no idea.

Agassi never stopped playing tennis, in everyone of his 21 seasons (1986 to 2006) he played more than 10 tournaments.

The longest he was out of competition were 5 months (from September 1993 to February 1994)

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Not even close. Can't see how he's even in the discussion right now.

He should not be; Federer has not won a major in two years, and at 30, history is not on his side regarding his chances. This is not to say it is impossible for Federer win another major before he retires but with such a small list of men to accomplish 30 and over majors, it illustrates just how difficult the task will be.

 

[tennis_pro]

He should not be; Federer has not won a major in two years, and at 30, history is not on his side regarding his chances. This is not to say it is impossible for Federer win another major before he retires but with such a small list of men to accomplish 30 and over majors, it illustrates just how difficult the task will be.

Thank you, captain obvious. We all know "history is not on his side" as you like to remind us in your every godda**n post.

 

[stringertom]

Having just turned 30 six short months ago, Fed has virtually no resume to compare to the others. Two majors, two tough SF losses. One WTF title. A good start. Revive this thread in two or three years in order to compare apples to oranges.

BTW, Tilden was a beast in his 30's. Almost all his accomplishments occurred in his fourth decade. Also, no mention of Pancho, who was robbed of his career path due to the shamateurism of the pre-Open era? And how about Ashe, who won Wimby at 32 in the greatest upset of our sport's history?

 

[Cup8489]

Agassi IMO is a better returner and as good a passer as Hewitt (even at that point).

Hewitt didn't give up as many aces as Agassi against Sampras. And his footspeed meant he could just hit a decent return and run down the first ball against sampras and hit a pass...see the previous year's final. No way does Sampras beat Hewitt in the final... but he could make it a good match.

 

[david93]

Honestly I think these threads are pointless. Tennis evolves, things change. I think one of the biggest reasons that the guys from the 70's and before were able to continue winning big titles into their 30's was that Serve and Volley is very much based in skill and feel, which in my opinion are the last things to go, long after the footspeed and quick recovery times.

Nowadays, with the game being more focused on physical domination as opposed to using pure skill on the court, it would be harder to play and win titles to such a late stage.

This. Threads like this don't make sense whatsoever, you can't compare current tennis to the tennis of the last century. And you can't tell for sure whether eras are/were weak or not, either. Tennis constantly changes. Federer is still the GOAT, though

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Having just turned 30 six short months ago, Fed has virtually no resume to compare to the others. Two majors, two tough SF losses. One WTF title. A good start. Revive this thread in two or three years in order to compare apples to oranges.

Well, a year passes by quickly. Before you know it, the FO will be here,then you blink, and its back to Wimbledon, and so on,and along the way, he's not getting younger. However, as you point out, Ashe did it at 32--outthinking the pissy Connors that day--when just about everyone counted him (Ashe) out against the defending champ. The oft-noted problem is that the list of 30 and over players to win majors is simply so small, that we are forced to consider Federer's majors-capable window may have closed. Add the fact Nadal has his number often, and no matter how certain Federer fans wish to spin the following, Djokovic is only improving and will remain a roadblock until Federer retires.

 

[The Baseline]

Thomas Muster has to be the best 40 year old of all time.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Is this thread about tennis specifically or about all existing 30 year old persons who have ever existed in history...

 

[stringertom]

Thomas Muster has to be the best 40 year old of all time.

I'd say Gonzalez holds that claim...SF at RG as a 40-year-old and a win in the longest pre-Issie/Mahut match at Wimby at age 41.

 

[NadalAgassi]

But his movement was nowhere near as good as Hewitt's.

True but over the years movement was not normally a weapon vs Sampras at all (93 onwards, think of Michael Chang for instance). Only did it start to become so at the end of his career when he was slowing down physically.

 

[NamRanger]

Also it's all about match-ups. Hewitt was a horrible match-up for Sampras (especially an older version who lost half a step) while at the same time Sampras ALWAYS had a shot against Agassi (even though Agassi in 2001-2002 was far better against the field than Pete was) and at the same time Agassi ALWAYS had a chance against Hewitt and kept the matches competitive, damn a 34-year old beat prime Hewitt in Cincinnati.

Hewitt was a bad match-up for alot of S&V guys because he has literally the best top spin lob like... ever.


The threat of his top spin lob alone forces alot of S&V players to completely change the way they play their game.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Poor Hewitt, he was one of the biggest victims of the slowing of surfaces. He also is a victim that nobody comes to the net anymore, baseline to baseline he just gets flat out overhit by a number of players.

 

[urban]

Over 50, and you shouldn't bet against Bobby Riggs. And over 100 - no match for Gardnar Mulloy.

 

[zagor]

He should not be; Federer has not won a major in two years, and at 30, history is not on his side regarding his chances. This is not to say it is impossible for Federer win another major before he retires but with such a small list of men to accomplish 30 and over majors, it illustrates just how difficult the task will be.

Well yes, Fed may or may not win another slam (and yes I agree it will be a very difficukt task) but that's besides the point. Fact is right now Fed is not even in conversation, his best accomplishment at the age of 30 is winning WTF and reaching a slam SF, how can anyone argue for him on this one is beyond me.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Back on topic there are many guys who have won multiple slams in their 30s. So to this point Federer whose last slam title came when he was 28 isnt even close. Even if he wins just 1 slam he still wouldnt be close.

Laver won the Grand Slam at 31. Connors won 2 U.S Opens in his 30s, and a Wimbledon just before turning 30. Andre Agassi won 5 slams aged 29-32, and ranked #1 in the World at various points from 29-33. Ken Rosewall won 3 slam events aged 35-37, and reached the Wimbledon and U.S Open finals at 39. That is just in the Open Era alone.

This is a purely silly topic to even begin.

 

[celoft]

Comparing Federer to tennis players pre 1970 is like comparing the current men's game to the women's game.

This.....................

Right now it is a jungle out there.

 

[FlashFlare11]

If we were to go by a player's form and appearance of play alone, I guess a case could be made. But that's rather subjective, especially when you think about Agassi and the way he moved and hit the ball in his 30s. The guy was amazing. Federer still has the ability, but his results don't reflect it (yet).

 

[volleygirl]

The physical requirements are much greater nowadays. The game has evolved, but the human body has not. Therefore Federer is likely the best 30 year old to ever play the game despite achievements of the past.

I knew someone would have to throw in something like this, where its "so much togher today" so todays 30 yr old has to be the best ever.

 

[urban]

"The game has evolved, but the human body has not". Must be quote of the day. Seems to contradict itself. What should be athletic evolution, if not evolution of the human body? Equipment, surface - which other factors should constitute evolution, of one does believe in evolution.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

I knew someone would have to throw in something like this, where its "so much togher today" so todays 30 yr old has to be the best ever.

How did you know? Psychic?

 

[NLBwell]

Tilden, Rosewall, Laver, Gonzales, Connors, etc. The list is pretty long. Federer has barely even begun play in his 30's. Could he be the top player ever in his 30's? Yes, I think he is capable of that. He will have to put in the work and be lucky with injuries. If he has the love of the game and desire of someone like Connors, he could be up there with them by the time he is 40 and looking back.

 

[VOLLEY KING]

I knew someone would have to throw in something like this, where its "so much togher today" so todays 30 yr old has to be the best ever.

As the King you are a princess not a volley girl .

 

[Marius_Hancu]

Laver, no doubt.

 

[lendlmac]

IVAN LENDL was the BEST 30 year old player of all time, surpassing little Federer:

Singles Career Titles (94):

Age 33: 1993 (2) Tokyo Indoor (Indoor/Carpet) , Munich (Outdoor/Clay)

Age 32: 1992 (1) Tokyo Indoor (Indoor/Carpet)

Age 31: 1991 (3) Long Island (Outdoor/Hard) , Memphis (Indoor/Hard) , Philadelphia (Indoor/Carpet)

Age 30: 1990 (5) Tokyo Indoor (Indoor/Carpet) , London / Queen's Club (Outdoor/Grass) , Toronto Indoor (Indoor/Carpet) , Milan (Indoor/Carpet) , Australian Open (Outdoor/Hard)



Federer hasn't even come close to winning an titles after the age of 30..

Let's not put Roger over Lendl...let's not...

thanks!

 

[timnz]

Ahem

IVAN LENDL was the BEST 30 year old player of all time, surpassing little Federer:

Singles Career Titles (94):

Age 33: 1993 (2) Tokyo Indoor (Indoor/Carpet) , Munich (Outdoor/Clay)

Age 32: 1992 (1) Tokyo Indoor (Indoor/Carpet)

Age 31: 1991 (3) Long Island (Outdoor/Hard) , Memphis (Indoor/Hard) , Philadelphia (Indoor/Carpet)

Age 30: 1990 (5) Tokyo Indoor (Indoor/Carpet) , London / Queen's Club (Outdoor/Grass) , Toronto Indoor (Indoor/Carpet) , Milan (Indoor/Carpet) , Australian Open (Outdoor/Hard)



Federer hasn't even come close to winning an titles after the age of 30..

Let's not put Roger over Lendl...let's not...

thanks!

Roger has won 3 titles post 30 not zero.

I was a big Lendl fan but let's face it his post 30 record doesn't compare to lavers who won around 45 titles after the age of 30

 

[dominikk1985]

Bumping this thread.

federer has declined a bit but still aged better than almost any player in history. not a lot of players can contend for number 1 well past 30.

how does feds career past his 30th bday (august 2011) compare to agassi (april 2000)? and is there any other player who can compete with them? both won a slam and were number 1 after their 30th birthday.

 

[uliks]

dopage incroyable

 

[sez]

Wow great ressurect, read the thread, in today's 4000+rpm game Fed's achievements have to make him a 30+GOAT candidate.