Is the notion of "Prime Federer" problematic?

[Nadalgaenger]

So many times on here we hear how much greater "Prime Fed" was than Murrovic or Prime Nadal.

And yet what empirical evidence do we have that Federer is SIGNIFICANTLY worse than he was in 04-07?

Of course his record was much better then and he dominated at the Slams, but the fact remains that Fed ALWAYS struggled against Nadal (see for instance his 6-3, 6-3 loss to pre-Prime Rafa in Miami at the height of Fed's dominance in '04 or even his hard-fought victory in "05 on the same court).

"Prime" Fed escaped from the clutches of Pre-Prime Nadal at Wimbledon in 2007 and from Djokovic 1.0 at the US Open in 2007. Anyone who rematches those matches would concede that he could easily have lost these matches had a few points gone differently.

So basically still dominates the field outside of the Big 3. The only difference is that Nadal, Djoker, and Murray are GREAT players, whereas Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin, post-Prime Agassi, and Hewitt were merely very good ones.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

The basic point is that Fed still dominates most of the field. He just is not significantly better than the other top 3.

One can argue that any of the other top guys would have dominated and amassed slams if they hadn't had to cancel each other out...

 

[Valdez737]

Nadal is the only guy who can stop Prime Federer. If it wornt for Nadal, Federer would of won 8 straight slams. Djok was no match for prime Fed just look at the h2h it was a blow out

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Nadal is the only guy who can stop Prime Federer. If it wornt for Nadal, Federer would of won 8 straight slams. Djok was no match for prime Fed just look at the h2h it was a blow out

The point is that Fed may be as good now as he was in 2007 or maybe EVEN BETTER!

We have no objective data to demonstrate that his level has dropped other than the fact that he loses more. But most of his losses are to the other top 3 guys. If they weren't around to cause him problems he might still win 3 GS/year. Who would stop him, Tsonga?? Ferrer? Really only Berdych is the obstacle...

 

[WhiskeyEE]

1. his winning %
2. He started losing to guys like Roddick in 2008
3. His level of play obviously dropped. Not a hard stat, but it was obvious. It actually happened in 2007.

stop being a moron. Or maybe open your eyes if you're finding it hard to find 'empirical evidence.'

 

[Nadalgaenger]

1. his winning %
2. He started losing to guys like Roddick in 2008
3. His level of play obviously dropped. Not a hard stat, but it was obvious. It actually happened in 2007.

stop being a moron. Or maybe open your eyes if you're finding it hard to find 'empirical evidence.'

Fed in 2011 was probably as good as Fed had been in 2007, so the idea that age was the issue is BS.

I think Fed has improved in important areas. Even if he has dropped 2-3% physically he makes up for that with wiliness and experience.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Fed in 2011 was probably as good as Fed had been in 2007, so the idea that age was the issue is BS.

I think Fed has improved in important areas. Even if he has dropped 2-3% physically he makes up for that with wiliness and experience.

Are you ********? How do you quantify his physical drop as 2-3%? He noticeably declined as evidenced by his losses to guys like Stepanek, Karlovic, Roddick, etc. after 2007. And now he has problems with the guys ranked 5-10 as well. He used to obliterate everyone not named Nadal to the point that the matches weren't even worth playing. In his prime he lost only a few times 3 years in a row and a couple weeks ago he lost to Benneteau.

 

[zagor]

Right, so Fed is the only player in the Open Era who doesn't age but like wine only gets better! Empirical evidence, seriously? Use your eyes.

Just because he didn't drop out of top 10 and isn't losing before QF in slams doesn't mean he's as good as he was.

In addition to not being allowed to age, Fed also seems to be the only player whose solid performances past his prime are used against him.

Gotta like TW logic though, Fed's prime is now lasting a decade but Nadal's prime was 4 months in 2008, great stuff.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Are you ********? How do you quantify his physical drop as 2-3%? He noticeably declined as evidenced by his losses to guys like Stepanek, Karlovic, Roddick, etc. after 2007. And now he has problems with the guys ranked 5-10 as well. He used to obliterate everyone not named Nadal to the point that the matches weren't even worth playing. In his prime he lost only a few times 3 years in a row and a couple weeks ago he lost to Benneteau.

Well why did Fed play a better FO final in 2011 against Nadal than he did arguably in ANY year before?

Arguably Nadal was rattled from having lost to Djoker twice on clay that year but by any other measure Nadal was better in 2011 than in 06 or 07.

 

[monfed]

So many times on here we hear how much greater "Prime Fed" was than Murrovic or Prime Nadal.

And yet what empirical evidence do we have that Federer is SIGNIFICANTLY worse than he was in 04-07?

Of course his record was much better then and he dominated at the Slams, but the fact remains that Fed ALWAYS struggled against Nadal (see for instance his 6-3, 6-3 loss to pre-Prime Rafa in Miami at the height of Fed's dominance in '04 or even his hard-fought victory in "05 on the same court).

"Prime" Fed escaped from the clutches of Pre-Prime Nadal at Wimbledon in 2007 and from Djokovic 1.0 at the US Open in 2007. Anyone who rematches those matches would concede that he could easily have lost these matches had a few points gone differently.

So basically still dominates the field outside of the Big 3. The only difference is that Nadal, Djoker, and Murray are GREAT players, whereas Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin, post-Prime Agassi, and Hewitt were merely very good ones.

It is problematic for a hater like yourself/****,same thing.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Well why did Fed play a better FO final in 2011 against Nadal than he did arguably in ANY year before?

Arguably Nadal was rattled from having lost to Djoker twice on clay that year but by any other measure Nadal was better in 2011 than in 06 or 07.

They used different balls in 2011 that travelled much quicker (small babolat balls) and Rafa was slightly past his prime. He also already had an FO title so there was less pressure than before.

 

[zagor]

Nadal is the only guy who can stop Prime Federer. If it wornt for Nadal, Federer would of won 8 straight slams. Djok was no match for prime Fed just look at the h2h it was a blow out

Fed and Novak's prime didn't coincide, Novak would be more than a match for Fed at AO, would be tight at FO with having the edge at Wimbledon and USO (bigger one at Wimbledon obviously).

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Fed and Novak's prime didn't coincide, Novak would be more than a match for Fed at AO, would be tight at FO with having the edge at Wimbledon and USO (bigger one at Wimbledon obviously).

"Prime Fed" would have had his hands full with a brilliant defender like Novak on any court other than fast grass.

Fed's BH and serve are better now than they were in 05. His movement and forehand have declined, however.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

"Prime Fed" also struggled against the likes of Safin and Agassi, let alone pre-prime Nadal...

 

[egn]

How do we that Federer didn't just get worse and Novak and Murray are playing the same and are just more lucky to play in an era without such a powerful great.

 

[zagor]

"Prime Fed" would have had his hands full with a brilliant defender like Novak on any court other than fast grass.

Fed's BH and serve are better now than they were in 05. His movement and forehand have declined, however.

Right but FH and movement are Fed's bread and butter, they are the fundamentals of his game.

 

[zagor]

"Prime Fed" also struggled against the likes of Safin and Agassi, let alone pre-prime Nadal...

Losing one slam match against Safin isn't struggling and Marat at his best was as good as anyone HC, it would be akin to saying Nadal struggled against the likes of Soderling on clay which proves Borg would destroy him.

Fed also won his last 8 matches against Agassi, yes Agassi was old but if we can't use that "excuse" for Fed then considering their different career trajectories (Agassi winning most of his slams at the age of 29+) we can't use it for Andre either.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Right but FH and movement are Fed's bread and butter, they are the fundamentals of his game.

Fair enough.
But so is his serve!

Is his ace count better now than before?
In 2010 in the Wimbledon final he served up more aces than ever.

I think basically Fed is capable, on any given day, of reaching the brilliance of 04-07. It is fair to argue that he is less motivated or less physically able, but it is also fair to argue that he is up against all-time greats whereas before he played in a WEAK ERA with lightweight opponents.

I'm sorry, but Hewitt and Safin were NOTHING compared to Djokovic and Murray.

 

[OddJack]

LOL@ empirical evidence

As if you saw one you would understand it.

Or maybe you think athletes, table tennis player to soccer player, do not have a prime age for playing their best.

 

[tennisplayer1993]

Federer dominanted in a very talented top 10 in 2004. 7 grand slam finalists in the top 10. Names such as Roddick (he was amazing in that 2004 Wimbledon), Safin (he played very well in the Australian Open), Hewitt (he had a great all around year IMO). Agassi was still a very solid player. Nadal was up and coming and had a 4-3 record (1-0 against Fed. and 1-1 against Roddick) against the top 10. Tim Henman was still pretty good despite being close to retirement.

Federer dominated a very strong field of tennis in 2004. Prime federer in 2004 IMO would beat today's federer in 4 sets

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Agassi played some of his best tennis in his 30s.

Modern conditioning means that people can extend their prime much longer than before.

Fed is a freak. No one doubts that he is capable of things others aren't, and he would not allow his standard to drop.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Federer dominanted in a very talented top 10 in 2004. 7 grand slam finalists in the top 10. Names such as Roddick (he was amazing in that 2004 Wimbledon), Safin (he played very well in the Australian Open), Hewitt (he had a great all around year IMO). Agassi was still a very solid player. Nadal was up and coming and had a 3-3 record against the top 10. Tim Henman was still pretty good despite being close to retirement.

Federer dominated a very strong field of tennis in 2004. Prime federer in 2004 IMO would beat today's federer in 4 sets

Ok, well Prime Djokovic of 2011 could beat him in 3!!! Basically Fed played a brilliant match in 2011 at the French. Otherwise Novak owned him that year. He won 7 out of the first 8 sets they played on HC that year...

 

[zagor]

Fair enough.
But so is his serve!

Not really, serve was always a weapon for Fed but not the main weapon,his footwork, transition from defense to offense and his FH were his biggest assets.

Once his movement and FH started to decline, serve become crucial for him.

Is his ace count better now than before?
In 2010 in the Wimbledon final he served up more aces than ever.

I have no idea, I don't think his 2nd serve is better than in his heyday but it's possible that 1st serve is (or that he atleast varies it more).

I think basically Fed is capable, on any given day, of reaching the brilliance of 04-07. It is fair to argue that he is less motivated or less physically able, but it is also fair to argue that he is up against all-time greats whereas before he played in a WEAK ERA with lightweight opponents.

Naw, I don't think he can reach his best level of 2004-2007 but he can reach good enough level to still challenge for the big titles, so could some other greats at similar age/stage in their careers, doesn't mean they weren't past their prime either.

I'm sorry, but Hewitt and Safin were NOTHING compared to Djokovic and Murray.

Disagree, they're worse than Novak and Murray (atleast 2011+ version of Novak and 2012+ version of Murray) but they were both capable players at their best.

 

[zagor]

Federer dominanted in a very talented top 10 in 2004. 7 grand slam finalists in the top 10. Names such as Roddick (he was amazing in that 2004 Wimbledon), Safin (he played very well in the Australian Open), Hewitt (he had a great all around year IMO). Agassi was still a very solid player. Nadal was up and coming and had a 3-3 record against the top 10. Tim Henman was still pretty good despite being close to retirement.

Federer dominated a very strong field of tennis in 2004. Prime federer in 2004 IMO would beat today's federer in 4 sets

If by today's you mean 2013 (what we've seen so far) I'd take 2004 Fed in straights, 2012 would put up a much better fight.

 

[Mike Sams]

Federer and Nadal are legendary players. Djokovic is on his way to becoming a legend by the looks of it (most Australian Open titles in history is a possibility for him).
We have 3 great players who are playing at the same time.

 

[matchmaker]

I think it is obvious that Fed is not in his prime anymore. Just look at the UE stats. There were matches in his prime he'd hit less than 10 UEs per match. Now matches with less than 30 UEs are the exception.

 

[zagor]

Agassi played some of his best tennis in his 30s.


Modern conditioning means that people can extend their prime much longer than before.

Right so we can agree that part of Fed's competition was prime 8 slam winner Agassi and that Fed beat prime Sampras at Wimbledon playing serve and volley?

Fed is a freak. No one doubts that he is capable of things others aren't, and he would not allow his standard to drop.

Yeah, a freak that could barely move in his last match, it's performances like that that convince me Fed is Wolverine on steroids who will play tennis for a few more decades before moving on to decimate the senior tour.

 

[DropShotArtist]

So many times on here we hear how much greater "Prime Fed" was than Murrovic or Prime Nadal.

And yet what empirical evidence do we have that Federer is SIGNIFICANTLY worse than he was in 04-07?

Of course his record was much better then and he dominated at the Slams, but the fact remains that Fed ALWAYS struggled against Nadal (see for instance his 6-3, 6-3 loss to pre-Prime Rafa in Miami at the height of Fed's dominance in '04 or even his hard-fought victory in "05 on the same court).

"Prime" Fed escaped from the clutches of Pre-Prime Nadal at Wimbledon in 2007 and from Djokovic 1.0 at the US Open in 2007. Anyone who rematches those matches would concede that he could easily have lost these matches had a few points gone differently.

So basically still dominates the field outside of the Big 3. The only difference is that Nadal, Djoker, and Murray are GREAT players, whereas Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin, post-Prime Agassi, and Hewitt were merely very good ones.

The problem OP is that your passage above is a contradiction. You claim that Fed may still yet be in his prime, i.e. defining 04-07 as prime years is erroneous meaning there is no such clear demarcation of his prime. Yet you have no problem saying Nadal was PRE-PRIME in 07 and Djokovic 1.0 in 07. My dear fellow, you cannot have it both ways. If Federer is still prime now, then so was Nadal since 2004 and Djokovic since 2005 . Learn consistency in argument and then post!

 

[zagor]

The problem OP is that your passage above is a contradiction. You claim that Fed may still yet be in his prime, i.e. defining 04-07 as prime years is erroneous meaning there is no such clear demarcation of his prime. Yet you have no problem saying Nadal was PRE-PRIME in 07 and Djokovic 1.0 in 07. My dear fellow, you cannot have it both ways. If Federer is still prime now, then so was Nadal since 2004 and Djokovic since 2005 . Learn consistency in argument and then post!

Partially agree, 2005 Nadal had a yearly career high winning % and # of titles, that must have been his highest level of play so far.

 

[Mike Sams]

Federer can't fight and grind for every point like he used to. He's declined, has stamina issues and is past retirement age for a tennis player. And he's still ranked #2.
Despite his loss to Nadal yesterday, it was similar to the embarrassing loss of Miami 2011. Stuff happens. Moving on to the next tournament...

 

[NadalAgassi]

Nadal is the only guy who can stop Prime Federer. If it wornt for Nadal, Federer would of won 8 straight slams. Djok was no match for prime Fed just look at the h2h it was a blow out

Any match Djokovic played vs anyone (not just Federer) before March 2007 is irrelevant, 10 times more irrelevant than a match with Federer today is according to ****s. Atleast Federer is still a top 3 player, Djokovic wasnt even a top 10 caliber player until starting around March 2007. At the 2006 U.S Open he was barely top 30 and got beat up by an already washed up Hewitt and nearly went out to Donald Young, so trying to evaluate matches against Djokovic then is beyond a joke.

Since March 2007 Djokovic has always been a tough opponent for Federer, even though he was not yet anywhere near the player he was in 2011-2013 (and probably for several more years to come). He won roughly half their matches from mid 2007-end of 2010, even in 2009 and 2010 when he was mostly playing like crap and nowhere near even his late 2007-2008 level, while in 2007-2008 there is no question Federer was the closer to his prime of the two.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I think it is obvious that Fed is not in his prime anymore. Just look at the UE stats. There were matches in his prime he'd hit less than 10 UEs per match. Now matches with less than 30 UEs are the exception.

What about his clay matches against Rafa in 05, 06???

I think Fed's stats are rosy against players ranked 5 and below.

He just can't dominate the other 3 like he did the old guys he used to bully in 04-07.

 

[BigServer1]

Fair enough.
But so is his serve!

Is his ace count better now than before?
In 2010 in the Wimbledon final he served up more aces than ever.

I think basically Fed is capable, on any given day, of reaching the brilliance of 04-07. It is fair to argue that he is less motivated or less physically able, but it is also fair to argue that he is up against all-time greats whereas before he played in a WEAK ERA with lightweight opponents.

I'm sorry, but Hewitt and Safin were NOTHING compared to Djokovic and Murray.

Federer wasn't even in the 2010 Wimbledon final.

Lacking that kind of basic tennis knowledge really shoots holes in any point you're trying to make.

 

[Nitish]

"Prime Fed" would have had his hands full with a brilliant defender like Novak on any court other than fast grass.

Fed's BH and serve are better now than they were in 05. His movement and forehand have declined, however.

Prime novak lost to a post prime federer at RG in 2011,at wimby 2012 almost lost at uso 2011 and received a bagel at Cincinnati 12 and you think prime fed would have lost

 

[The_Order]

Mystical peak Fed got beat on HC by teenagers:

Nadal, Berdych, Gasquet, Murray and Djokovic (just turned 20 iirc).

Incredible 04-07 field players (excluding already mentioned teenagers) never beat peak Fed:

old Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Baghdatis.

Only Safin and Nalbandian could manage wins against peak Fed, Safin 1 and Nalby 3. But they were never consisent enough to be a threat to him in all the majors.

In other words, it's quite clear that the current gen are much more formidable opponents. The fact that Fed has still kept his spot in the top 4 goes to show that he hasn't declined as much as the ****s want everyone to believe. Whatever he lost in movement, he has made up for with his BH, his serve and experience.

His FH hasn't declined much at all, it's the defence of guys like Rafa, Novak and Murray that cause him to get frustrated and go for more, in turn causing more UEs.

I'd say as he's got older his movement and consistency have suffered, but as I said there are other areas that have got better which help to make up for it.

BTW not saying he's just as good now as he was in his peak, but it doesn't realy matter anyway because Nadal has always had his measure. FACT. Peak Fed struggled with Rafa badly until 2007 where Fed got wins in Hamburg, Wimbledon and YEC. Even at Wimbledon though he struggled big time. If he had lost that final, the ****s would insist his peak was 04-06, no doubt about that.

 

[abmk]

^^

yeah, lol, whom you do really expect would overtake federer to push him below 4 ? ferrer ? LOL ... tsonga, berdych are too flaky .... delpo isn't back to his 2009 level .......

of course, fed's returning, passing, movement , FH haven't declined majorly ....:lol:

the statement I LOL'ed at the most was that his FH hasn't declined much

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ........

oh and one more fact you got wrong .... gonzo did beat fed at YEC in 2007 ...

 

[abmk]

I have no idea, I don't think his 2nd serve is better than in his heyday but it's possible that 1st serve is (or that he atleast varies it more).

his 2nd serve used to be better ...used to get quite a bit more of kick on it ...

he gets more free points on his 1st serve, but is not as clutch as he used to be before ... of course major part of the reason is the pressure on it caused by the rest of his game declining ....

 

[The_Order]

Prime novak lost to a post prime federer at RG in 2011,at wimby 2012 almost lost at uso 2011 and received a bagel at Cincinnati 12 and you think prime fed would have lost

He did, I believe it was Montreal 07.

Just for fun though, teenage Rafa beat Federer in Miami 04 (without even facing a single break point), he also beat Federer in Dubai 06 final, so that must mean that 30+ year old Fed would have NO CHANCE IN HELL of beating prime Rafa, yet somehow he did in WTF and IW.

You see, tennis just doesn't work like that. Prime Novak would've been a big threat to Federer especially at the Australian Open.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Fed has hit his prime each time Nadal has been injured, then Nadal has returned and taken him out of his prime again.

 

[The_Order]

^^

yeah, lol, whom you do really expect would overtake federer to push him below 4 ? ferrer ? LOL ... tsonga, berdych are too flaky .... delpo isn't back to his 2009 level .......

of course, fed's returning, passing, movement , FH haven't declined majorly ....:lol:

the statement I LOL'ed at the most was that his FH hasn't declined much

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ........

oh and one more fact you got wrong .... gonzo did beat fed at YEC in 2007 ...

LOL YEC07 was Nov07, if he was still peak then, then he was still peak in AO08.

How did you enjoy watching your boy get blasted off the court yesterday by a guy who

a) hasn't played in a HC tournament in almost a year
b) has damaged knees

1 more win and the GOAT becomes a turkey

His FH works fine most of the time as long as he's not playing a guy with incredible defence. He's beating everybody consistently apart from Novak, Rafa, Murray and Berdych.

Safin and Nalby were even more flaky than Tsonga and Berdych and the other 4 (Hewitt + Roddick + Agassi + Davydenko) couldn't even beat him once. While TEENAGERS Berdych, Rafa, Murray, Gasquet and newly crowned 20 year old Novak were able to beat him.

Funny how you dance around that fact :lol:

 

[Cup8489]

He did, I believe it was Montreal 07.

Just for fun though, teenage Rafa beat Federer in Miami 04 (without even facing a single break point), he also beat Federer in Dubai 06 final, so that must mean that 30+ year old Fed would have NO CHANCE IN HELL of beating prime Rafa, yet somehow he did in WTF and IW.

You see, tennis just doesn't work like that. Prime Novak would've been a big threat to Federer especially at the Australian Open.

So what's your argument, that Federer's prime is 2011?
LOL.

 

[The_Order]

So what's your argument, that Federer's prime is 2011?
LOL.

Explain to me where I mentioned the year 2011 being Fed's prime in my post. Go ahead.

 

[Cup8489]

Explain to me where I mentioned the year 2011 being Fed's prime in my post. Go ahead.

You didn't. But someone with basic inference skills would notice that you implied that if prime Federer couldnt beat Rafa, then why would he be able to do so after his prime.

Effectively arguing that Federer was still in his prime.

Duh.

 

[The_Order]

You didn't. But someone with basic inference skills would notice that you implied that if prime Federer couldnt beat Rafa, then why would he be able to do so after his prime.

Effectively arguing that Federer was still in his prime.

Duh.

No, that's your interpretation of what I said.

What I was saying is that because post prime Fed was able to beat prime Novak, doesn't mean that prime Novak wouldn't have been able to beat prime Fed.

Just like when pre-prime Rafa beat peak Fed, doesn't mean that post prime Fed can't beat prime Rafa.

 

[abmk]

LOL YEC07 was Nov07, if he was still peak then, then he was still peak in AO08.

YEC 07, fed was playing very well, he destroyed roddick, nadal and ferrer in a row ..but then you wouldn't know because you didn't watch . :roll:

2008, he had mono and that started a decline

How did you enjoy watching your boy get blasted off the court yesterday by a guy who

a) hasn't played in a HC tournament in almost a year
b) has damaged knees

1 more win and the GOAT becomes a turkey

lol, fed was having back problems , it was obvious as hell ...

His FH works fine most of the time as long as he's not playing a guy with incredible defence. He's beating everybody consistently apart from Novak, Rafa, Murray and Berdych.

no, its not, not even close ....even apart from matches vs defenders , his FH was poor in several other instances - fish IW 2008, blake olympics 2008, montanes estoril 2010 , grass season 2010,benneteau rotterdam 2013 etc ......

hewitt was an incredible defender as well and even in his peak years in 2004,05 ; fed's FH didn't break down vs him in that time

davydenko is no slouch either and fed's FH rarely went off vs him , same for ferrer whom federer owns thoroughly ....

even nadal didn't have it easy vs fed's FH at his prime, djokovic had major trouble vs his I/O and DTL FH , even after 2010, does, when federer is hitting it well ; murray does get blasted by fed's FH many times ....

Safin and Nalby were even more flaky than Tsonga and Berdych and the other 4 (Hewitt + Roddick + Agassi + Davydenko) couldn't even beat him once. While TEENAGERS Berdych, Rafa, Murray, Gasquet and newly crowned 20 year old Novak were able to beat him.

Funny how you dance around that fact :lol:

lol, wut ? even henman, hrbaty, canas,volandri beat peak fed , not just teenage berdych, murray ....fact is teenage berdych/murray and these guys were lucky to meet off-form fed, whereas roddick, hewitt, agassi, davydenko weren't .....

if you think berdych/murray were playing better in olympics 2004/cincy 2006 than roddick in wim 04, USO 2007 ; hewitt in wim 05, USO 2005, agassi in IW 2004,USO 2004,AO 2005, that stretch in USO 2005 final, davydenko in AO 2006 etc etc .... you are more delusional than I previously thought and that's saying something ....

rafa of course was brilliant even when a teenager and gasquet played lights out at MC 2005

never said safin or nalby were highly consistent, but your point was that federer is still in the top 4 and my reply was about tsonga's/berdych's consistency not being enough for displacing him from there ...


Anyways one thing is for sure, prime federer would never allow a ~30 year old to reach #1 during his reign like prime djoker/nadal did

 

[Disgruntled Worker]

I agree with OP. "Prime" Federer is hyped up way too much on these forums. The only person who could tell you defnitively would be a former player that played Roger in his supposed "prime" as well as recently. And there's NO ONE on this forum that's even played a top 100 match, much less top 5.

 

[Crisstti]

He has declined, but I don't know how can anyone argue the competition was equally tough during (most of) his prime... it just wasn't.

 

[abmk]

BTW not saying he's just as good now as he was in his peak, but it doesn't realy matter anyway because Nadal has always had his measure. FACT. Peak Fed struggled with Rafa badly until 2007 where Fed got wins in Hamburg, Wimbledon and YEC. Even at Wimbledon though he struggled big time. If he had lost that final, the ****s would insist his peak was 04-06, no doubt about that.

he beat nadal convincingly in wim 06, YEC 2006 and had MPs vs him @ rome 2006 , RG 2006 was competitive as well.... he didn't "struggle" vs him from after MC 2006 till 2007 end .....

 

[Tafmatch]

Even watched a Federer match while he was in his prime? The difference is huge. But you want to believe that Federer now is just as good as 8 years ago which means he wasn't that special anyway. Have fun with that.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Even watched a Federer match while he was in his prime? The difference is huge. But you want to believe that Federer now is just as good as 8 years ago which means he wasn't that special anyway. Have fun with that.

Exactly.

What I was saying is that because post prime Fed was able to beat prime Novak, doesn't mean that prime Novak wouldn't have been able to beat prime Fed.

Just like when pre-prime Rafa beat peak Fed, doesn't mean that post prime Fed can't beat prime Rafa.

Federer went to nr 1 last year. Of course he would do even better in peak form.