Magnus Norman : Rafa and Roger are playing better now than 10 years ago

1. as nadal's offence as has improved, his defense has decreased after 2009. Its a major reason why djokovic was able to beat him at his own game of outdefending, outlasting , even on clay in 2011. That would not have happened to 06-09 nadal on clay.

2. the 2008 final stats are wrong. For 2008, the RG site has # of first serves in the winners column. That's why I linked the 2008 RG semi from my own stats.

3. your eye test is not wrong regarding RG 2008 semi and RG 2007 final. He was more aggressive in 2008 compared to 2007.
80 forcing plays (23W+57 FEs)/198 = 40.4%

82 forcing plays(30W+52 FEs)/255 = 32.1%
that's why don't take the winners only.

4. I don't think making forced errors half as important as the winners to determine aggression level is the solution either. It may not be 1:1, but sure as hell isn't 0.5:1.
1. Surely not. Novak wasn't outlasting Rafa, he was matching him in terms of defence and outhitting him. Nadal surely had to improve his offence there.

2. Sure enough, if we account for both W+FE you get the result 2008 semi had better aggression than 2007 final. But by the same token you get Nadal in 2017 vs thiem had higher percentage than vs 2008 Fed. This stat is from tennisabstract for 2008 final.

45 forcing plays(20W+25 FEs)/144 = 31%

It's comparable to his 2007 stat, and worse than 2017 stat. If you think Nadal had better W+FE ratio in 2017 final than 2007 final owing to worse play from Thiem, what do you make of the 2008 result in which Fed played just bad? Maybe Nadal wasn't as aggressive as he could have been in 2008 match, maybe he didn't have to, but if you can agree 2008 results by your own metric is inferior to Thiem 2017 then let's move on. I'm not saying it isn't the case, I'm just being sceptical about these numbers as many different parameters have gone into matches, including strategies, style of play etc. Whole season records are much more indicative..

Sent from my NEM-L22 using Tapatalk
 

BGod

Hall of Fame
As I've said countless of times, the sport evolves, players get better. Anyone who can't see this is somewhere up in the clouds. Tennis is, quality wise, at the pinnacle - for Federer to be able to reach slam finals beating elite competition, to win masters, also to win slams, you can't be stuck in 2005. Nadal was stuck in that circle with his uncle and their results failed, until Moya came and now Toni will be gone.

You need to evolve. It is up to the players who get older, to decide if they want to follow the evolution, or get stuck in the old. Clearly federer decided he wanted to keep on going and follow the evolution. Nadal seems to have taken that decision aswell with Moya. And they are bringing results now. Regarding Djokovic we have to wait and see. But important to remember is they are not 24 anymore, where they could play 100 matches a season - now they have to time their best tennis for the tournaments they schedule pre-season.

Wawrinka has played for the past three years, the best tennis of his life, something he never showed when he was younger. There are countless of other examples where today you peak late.

Tennis for the past years and years to come is tougher and better than ever, the sport has never, quality and considering toughness wise, been better than this.
Disagree. It's all smoke and mirrors due to the equipment and longer rallies because of slower surfaces.

I'd agree if everyone was playing with mid-size racquets on fast courts and getting better technique, but that's not the case. Guys like Wawrinka getting better is not so much because of any evolution but because the courts were slowed down with consistency and the racquets and strings have been made to leave little error.

Nadal's style of play is flat out easier to master than Federer. It's all about percentages now.

I can watch a 70s Borg match with Connors and still be in awe because I understand what it takes to hit those shots on those fast hard courts or grass with those racquets and natural gut strings. I'd be stunned if even half of the Top 100 could come anywhere close given the same circumstances. This isn't football where players in general are stronger and faster.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
I think where we disagree is that you believe that guys like Kyrgios/Sock with their unorthodox technique enabling high spin generation indicate an evolution in the game. However, for me, I really only buy that the game has evolved when these kinds of players with their heavy spin actually make it to the very top, as of right now they aren't close. In fact the most promising younger players such as Zverev or going even younger FAA hit more traditional balls with more traditional technique, which you could approximate 10 years ago. Personally, I believe the guys who develop this extreme standing behind the baseline spin the crap out of the ball routine do it to take advantage of their strengths and compensate for some areas in which they lack (precise footwork maybe could be an example). I see this as an adaptation to modern strings to allow certain players to reach greater heights than they would otherwise be able to, but I don't see this as an improvement in the level of the sport because these players aren't really at the very top of the sport. And honestly, considering that Fed/nadal are dominating the game today and Djokovic was just dominating the game, for the game to actually be better it would have to follow that current Fed/Nadal or 2015-2016 Djokovic are better than say 2007/2008 Fed/Nadal. And this is something I can't get behind. I do weigh the movement aspect of the game a ton, and I see Federer/Nadal changes as a way to compensate for that declined movement rather than an absolute improvement to their games. Federer today definitely plays with less margin on the BH than he used to and he takes advantage of the bigger frame to do that. You can say his BH is better than his old BH, but his old BH fitted into his old game better (basically hit with high margin with liberal use of the slice to change pace and allow him to set up his forehand) and that old game was more potent from more areas of the court because of how good his forehand was. Level-wise I still much prefer their prime levels because I think that level would be better suited to deal with an elite opponent who can consistently move them around the baseline. Fortunately for them, in 2017 that elite opponent has not really existed as Djokovic has fallen off and while the younger guys are doing better, they still have not risen to that level. If Djokovic had not existed and Fed had swept up a bunch of slams from 2014-2016 then we might think that was a peak version of Fed but Djokovic showed us it was not, unless of course you think that a peak version of Fed would look similarly helpless on big stages against Djokovic, but their 2011-2012 results on big stages when Fed's movement was a little better and as a result could compete off the baseline more disproves that. As a result, by a combination of that and their changes allowing them to have more consistent success against lesser players, it feels like 2006-2007 again. I really don't think they are better than they were back then though.
Spot on. Fedal are declined in their movement and it is telling on their least favorite surfaces (Rafa grass and Fed clay.) They now have both clearly adapted and still have superior movement to any serious player on tour save perhaps Dimitrov who just failed under pressurerer. Thiem and Zverev are not close on movement and rely on power to compensate.

Fedal have adapted so many aspects of their game are better.

Djoko is now in the adaption stage and we'll see if he's able to do it. His 2011 serve game was not that strong when he was at his movement peak (top return game). Djoko of course added a lot more offense under Becker and it's easily seen in his 2nd serve stats. This was his overall peak because his game was more potent on serve.

Fed's hard court stats have shown that he is in some sort of 2nd prime with some peakish levels on hard courts (not peak, but improved over post 2009 and now perhaps even better than 2009.)

Nadal has impossibly returned to prime on clay courts and we'll see if he's going to show better on US Open series hard courts (one wonders if that Muller match will take something out of him.:confused:)

Its very interesting times and Thiem and Zverev will still improve and get more and more into the mix. Thiem is in his early prime and is levelling out, but will steadily improve with more strength, stamina, and power likely for years to come. Zverev is the fascinating one to follow as it's hard to say if he's already been showing some early prime form in the last few months or will he make another leap by next year (very likely with his serve game.)

It is very clear that we don't have new players with the raw speed and talent of the big 4 on tour. Poly has damaged the tour with it's high bounces favoring taller players. This reduces the potential talent pool tremendously as not so many young players have the height. Big4 has been an athletic pinnacle for tennis. Perhaps Zverev will show how a taller player can get the job done, but he's hands down the only player with ATG potential around these days.

The tour is much more physical these days and impossible for the youngest players so it's very hard to say who will really come out of the pack of teenagers. Tiafoe has a lot of physique and height (6' 2"), but I'm with you on hating the strokes. The heavy topspin developed in the American game is great for beating the tar out of juniors, but when the likes of Sock or Tiafoe hit the best on tour their forehands are unable to handle the pace and depth.:confused:
 
Last edited:
Some of you say these things not because you believe them but because it makes you feel good.

H/C this year:

Djokovic:
AO - 2nd round
Acapulco - 3rd round
I/W - 3rd round

On the other hand, Nadal has made 3 h/c finals this year.

And lost two to Federer and one to Querry, thus proving his point
 
As I've said countless of times, the sport evolves, players get better. Anyone who can't see this is somewhere up in the clouds. Tennis is, quality wise, at the pinnacle - for Federer to be able to reach slam finals beating elite competition, to win masters, also to win slams, you can't be stuck in 2005. Nadal was stuck in that circle with his uncle and their results failed, until Moya came and now Toni will be gone.

You need to evolve. It is up to the players who get older, to decide if they want to follow the evolution, or get stuck in the old. Clearly federer decided he wanted to keep on going and follow the evolution. Nadal seems to have taken that decision aswell with Moya. And they are bringing results now. Regarding Djokovic we have to wait and see. But important to remember is they are not 24 anymore, where they could play 100 matches a season - now they have to time their best tennis for the tournaments they schedule pre-season.

Wawrinka has played for the past three years, the best tennis of his life, something he never showed when he was younger. There are countless of other examples where today you peak late.

Tennis for the past years and years to come is tougher and better than ever, the sport has never, quality and considering toughness wise, been better than this.

Classic ND-15 here
 
Disagree. It's all smoke and mirrors due to the equipment and longer rallies because of slower surfaces.

I'd agree if everyone was playing with mid-size racquets on fast courts and getting better technique, but that's not the case. Guys like Wawrinka getting better is not so much because of any evolution but because the courts were slowed down with consistency and the racquets and strings have been made to leave little error.

Nadal's style of play is flat out easier to master than Federer. It's all about percentages now.

I can watch a 70s Borg match with Connors and still be in awe because I understand what it takes to hit those shots on those fast hard courts or grass with those racquets and natural gut strings. I'd be stunned if even half of the Top 100 could come anywhere close given the same circumstances. This isn't football where players in general are stronger and faster.
It’s not just in football but in every sport that athletes/sportspeople are faster and stronger.

Thank you for clarifying that tennis however, despite the increasing trend of professionalism, is an outlier where standards do not improve, but actually regress slightly over time.
 
Last edited:
It's quite obvious the long term trend should go up.

But it also should be obvious that the guys breaking through now aren't as good as the guys who broke through 15 years ago

If you think Djoko, Fed or Nadal are better now than at their physical peak, then I have a few bridges to sell you.
 
Some people are so invested in in the peak Fed being unbeatable myth that they are happy to sell him down the river for the extremely high level of tennis he played in recent years.

What he has a done since 2014, given his age and the quality of the opposition, is mind boggling. Of course many Novak and Rafa trolls have bated these people by constantly trying to diminish Federer. I think you know what I mean...
 
Some people are so invested in in the peak Fed being unbeatable myth that they are happy to sell him down the river for the extremely high level of tennis he played in recent years.

What he has a done since 2014, given his age and the quality of the opposition, is mind boggling. Of course many Novak and Rafa trolls have bated these people by constantly trying to diminish Federer. I think you know what I mean...
He was absurdly good but the thing is as soon as it was mentioned how good he was and the level he played at people thought it was said due to an agenda or to diminish him. I don't think that is necessarily correct.

Federer can be beaten though by other ATGs when he is in top form, just like he has beaten others, people can't accept these defeats however as they think he is invincible to any human that ever existed.

This year however his level has not been particurarly high as recent years.
 
Some people are so invested in in the peak Fed being unbeatable myth that they are happy to sell him down the river for the extremely high level of tennis he played in recent years.

What he has a done since 2014, given his age and the quality of the opposition, is mind boggling. Of course many Novak and Rafa trolls have bated these people by constantly trying to diminish Federer. I think you know what I mean...
Two things:

1) there is no such a myth that peak Federer is unbeatable

Nadal proved it, Safin proved it, and it is a well accepted fact amongst the Federer fans, so anyone claiming that such a myth exists, is intentionally doing so to put the Fed fanbase in negative light

2) saying that Federer is not playing better tennis than ten years ago is not the same as saying that Federer is not playing amazing tennis for his age.

Anyone claiming that those are the same thing is doing it intentionally, to be able to attack the people who now say that Federer is not playing better tennis than ten years ago

Also, no matter how great a pundit, all of them are susceptible to bias.

The number of times a great of the game has said stupid things is really huge.

:cool:
 
Two things:

1) there is no such a myth that peak Federer is unbeatable

Nadal proved it, Safin proved it, and it is a well accepted fact amongst the Federer fans, so anyone claiming that such a myth exists, is intentionally doing so to put the Fed fanbase in negative light

2) saying that Federer is not playing better tennis than ten years ago is not the same as saying that Federer is not playing amazing tennis for his age.

Anyone claiming that those are the same thing is doing it intentionally, to be able to attack the people who now say that Federer is not playing better tennis than ten years ago

Also, no matter how great a pundit, all of them are susceptible to bias.

The number of times a great of the game has said stupid things is really huge.

:cool:
Excellent post

There are hypocrites here who say the sport has evolved and Fed is constantly reinventing himself to keep himself in the conversation, which is what gets laughter
 

Two things:

1) there is no such a myth that peak Federer is unbeatable

Nadal proved it, Safin proved it, and it is a well accepted fact amongst the Federer fans, so anyone claiming that such a myth exists, is intentionally doing so to put the Fed fanbase in negative light

2) saying that Federer is not playing better tennis than ten years ago is not the same as saying that Federer is not playing amazing tennis for his age.

Anyone claiming that those are the same thing is doing it intentionally, to be able to attack the people who now say that Federer is not playing better tennis than ten years ago

Also, no matter how great a pundit, all of them are susceptible to bias.

The number of times a great of the game has said stupid things is really huge.

:cool:
The inconvenient truth is that the larger racket head has made Federer as good, if not better.

Of course all this is unprovable by forum posters and pundits alike.

However put me in the camp that the pundits and Federer himself are nearer to the mark. At least their opinions correlate with what I see.
 
He was absurdly good but the thing is as soon as it was mentioned how good he was and the level he played at people thought it was said due to an agenda or to diminish him. I don't think that is necessarily correct.

Federer can be beaten though by other ATGs when he is in top form, just like he has beaten others, people can't accept these defeats however as they think he is invincible to any human that ever existed.

This year however his level has not been particurarly high as recent years.
Well some posters have certainly hounded Federer posters by saying Peak Novak is better than Peak Fed. It’s not possible to draw an objective conclusion on this debate.

I still think Federer has been playing some amazing tennis this year. If he beat Del Potro at IW nobody would be talking about the decline stuff with such energy.

Novak in his presser said that the recent Bercy match was one of the best they played in terms of level. I can’t disagree.

He’s had more unsurprising losses this year, so we can say that his consistency has declined. But he can still bring his A game at times too.
 
The inconvenient truth is that the larger racket head has made Federer as good, if not better.

Of course all this is unprovable by forum posters and pundits alike.

However put me in the camp that the pundits and Federer himself are nearer to the mark. At least their opinions correlate with what I see.
Why would that "truth" be "inconvenient"?

Also, while it allowed Federer to get more stability and easier access to topspin and power on the BH, it doesn't remedy his severely declined FH and movement.

Not to speak of the pretty questionable precision compared to his old frame.

His BH has never been his main weapon, so saying that the new raquet improved it doesn't even start to address the main issue with Federer's game nowadays.

And that is if we don't mention the level of his consistency when it comes to peak level of play, which is light years away from his peak.

:cool:
 
Why would that "truth" be "inconvenient"?

Also, while it allowed Federer to get more stability and easier access to topspin and power on the BH, it doesn't remedy his severely declined FH and movement.

Not to speak of the pretty questionable precision compared to his old frame.

His BH has never been his main weapon, so saying that the new raquet improved it doesn't even start to address the main issue with Federer's game nowadays.

And that is if we don't mention the level of his consistency when it comes to peak level of play, which is light years away from his peak.

:cool:
It’s inconvenient because it spoils the popular narrative (on TTW) that Federer was at his so called peak from 2004-2007.

Reading TTW you would think that Federer never made a forehand error in the so called peak years.

I am really sceptical that his forehand wing is, all things considered, much less effective, if at all, than from 2004-2007.

Watch the Roddick 2007 Aus match and the Cilic match this year. He really did hit the ball harder and take it early in 2018. He said so himself and I agree.
 
Fed's racket has helped close some of the gap. Also, his backhand at times in 2017 was better than it was during his best year, which IMHO, was 2004. If Fed had his speed, strength, and endurance from 2004, then he'd be better today with the bigger racket and improved backhand than in 2004. I don't think anybody is questioning that.

But let's not pretend for a moment that Fed hasn't declined quite a bit physically from his peak years. Speed and athleticism is a huge part of tennis. If those components didn't matter, then the top women could do great against most of the ATP.

But as I said before, it's truly impossible to compare players across eras anyway. Each player grows up in a completely different environment. How would Ivan Lendl have done growing up with these much slower and more homogenized courts with access to far better doctors, medicine, training, nutrition, and tennis equipment? I have no idea. My gut says that he'd dominate much more than he did with those crummy rackets and much faster courts. But I cannot prove it. We really don't know.
 
It’s inconvenient because it spoils the popular narrative (on TTW) that Federer was at his so called peak from 2004-2007.

Reading TTW you would think that Federer never made a forehand error in the so called peak years.

I am really sceptical that his forehand wing is, all things considered, much less effective, if at all, than from 2004-2007.

Watch the Roddick 2007 Aus match and the Cilic match this year. He really did hit the ball harder and take it early in 2018. He said so himself and I agree.
I don't think that the perception that 2003-2007 was Federer's peak is an invention of TTW.

During that period Federer was hitting his FH with pace, consistency, and heaviness, that, IMO, any version of Federer past 2010 didn't have.

He was pulling the trigger from every part of the court, and was generally succeeding.

The shot where the superiority of the version from that time is most visible is his I/O FH, which he used with lethal consequences.

Sadly, nowadays he cannot hit that shot to save his life.

Yes, he tries to take the ball early, but that is BECAUSE he cannot compensate for his diminished baseline movement in other ways, not because he suddenly has found a way to play better.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
Of course. If we take the Big 3 and all of their matches they've played between themselves and consider the level of play, if they have not been pushed to advance and excel in the game one would not consider them champions. By constantly improving and getting ready to play against each other on such a high level one would expect a high degree of progress.This is what has happened. Look at the Fedr Novk last match. Fedr had to be 100% focused to get where he got against Novk and Nadl and Novk are not some dudes Fedr used to play against in 2004-2007. He had to improve over the years.

The same applies to all three of them. I do not buy the usual crap from the keyboard warriors about peak Fedr back in those years as I believe during the last decade he has been playing really well when not injured.. Yes he dominated them back then but if Nadl and Novk were peaking then I do not think it would have been a domination at all. Say whatever you will.
 
There isn't anything Federer has done post-2007 better than he did in 2005-2007. He certainly didn't improve. All you have to do is watch his matches from back then - even losses - to see that all of his shots were at least as good back then.

That said, his decline has been minimal. The main thing is he doesn't seem as flexible as he used to be. He has had a stiffness for many years now that he didn't have when he was dominant.

Aside from that, it's really just a difference in shot selection. His stupid forehand drop shot has infested his game. He doesn't readily pull out the half-volleys and other trick shots.
 
Federer's tennis IQ and strategy got better. His serve too and arguably his net game as he didn't need to rely on it as much during his prime. But his forehand and backhand declined, as did his movement. Even the neo-backhand, as amazing as it was, wasn't as good as his peak 06 backhand. In 2015 he played smart and could play at a level that is enough to comfortably beat most of the field. I don't think peak Fed could have done much better against Murray at WTF 2014 than 2014 Fed when he won 6-0, 6-1.

His decline in certain areas is exposed when he plays the top guys, mainly Djokovic tbh. Fed beats him 3 times in a row at USO in his prime, with the loss of one set. He plays peak Djokovic in 2011, when he's 30, and goes up 2 sets to 0, then has 2 match points on serve. Then at 34, he loses in 4 sets to Djokovic. Sure Novak was better in 2011 and 15 than 2007. But Federer also isn't the same player that he was back then. All you have to do is watch the matches to see that
 
Last edited:
Wow, there are still some simpletons on this forum that believe Fed has been as good as ever. Unbelievable.
Here is the man himself on the matter from an interview in 2017 -
The next day at the Miami Open press conference, Pete Bodo followed up on that story angle by asking Federer himself if it is possible that he actually is playing his best tennis now at age 35?

“I think I play different to when I was 24,” said the Swiss maestro. “I think my technique has changed from when I was 19. Is it the best I ever played? For me it’s hard to say yes to that question. Because the years when I lost three or four matches, five the following year, in those two years I won like 150 matches and lost eight or nine. It’s hard to feel better than in that time.”

Then Federer changed course. “But I feel like maybe on the offensive side overall, I think I’m doing definitely a few things better than I ever have. That’s what Ive always tried to explain to people… that I do feel that I have improved. The game has evolved and I had to adjust and change but overall I do believe I’m probably a better player than I was ten years ago. It doesnt always translate into results per se because other guys have come up and did extremely well like Novak, Rafa, Murray and all those guys.”
 
Here is the man himself on the matter from an interview in 2017 -
The same lame argument I have heard over and over again. Of course he is not going to say that he is not the same player he used to be. He is not going to openly admit to the entire tour that he has declined. He risks putting a target on his back if he does that.

He said the same thing in 2013 when he was sucking ass all year long.

While he has improved in some aspects, he has had to make those improvements in order to compensate for deficiencies in other areas. It doesn't mean he is better than in 2004-2007. It just means he is a different player.

I don't have to take his words as absolute truth because I have my own eyes to see and my own brain to think. Those who push this argument endlessly are those with an agenda who want to convince us that Djokodal have been beating peak Fed forever, just to show what an overrated fraud he is who took advantage of a weak era.
 
The same lame argument I have heard over and over again. Of course he is not going to say that he is not the same player he used to be. He is not going to openly admit to the entire tour that he has declined. He risks putting a target on his back if he does that.

He said the same thing in 2013 when he was sucking ass all year long.

While he has improved in some aspects, he has had to make those improvements in order to compensate for deficiencies in other areas. It doesn't mean he is better than in 2004-2007. It just means he is a different player.

I don't have to take his words at heart because I have my own eyes to see and my own brain to think.
I'm not arguing with you nor even disagreeing with you completely. You're entitled to your reasoned opinion of course but I thought it was interesting what Roger had to say on the matter.
 
^ For whatever it's worth, I think he's both better and worse compared to his younger self.

Obviously he's lost some footspeed with age and the FH doesn't have the same zing.

But he's also become a much smarter player - a more effective server, much more purposeful in his rallies and able to conserve his energy better. In other words, becoming a veteran has definitely helped him make better use of his (slowly) dwindling athletic prowess and evergreen talent.
 
Last edited:
I don't have to take his words at heart because I have my own eyes to see and my own brain to think.

Assuming that both you and Magnus can see, it seems that brains are different. How do you compare your understanding of tennis with Magnus Norman's understanding of tennis? I don't know who you are, so there is a possibility that you are at the similar level as Magnus as a tennis coach. You could be Vajda?
 
^ For whatever it's worth, I think he's both better and worse compared to his younger self.

Obviously he's lost some footspeed with age and the FH doesn't have the same zing.

But he's also become a much smarter player - a more effective server, much more purposeful in his rallies and able to conserve his energy better. In other words, the becoming a veteran has definitely helped him make better use of his (slowly) dwindling athletic prowess and evergreen talent.
Yeah, he had to become smarter to still stay relevant.

He doesn't need to be at his peak for me to still enjoy watchim him play.
 
It’s inconvenient because it spoils the popular narrative (on TTW) that Federer was at his so called peak from 2004-2007.

Reading TTW you would think that Federer never made a forehand error in the so called peak years.

I am really sceptical that his forehand wing is, all things considered, much less effective, if at all, than from 2004-2007.

Watch the Roddick 2007 Aus match and the Cilic match this year. He really did hit the ball harder and take it early in 2018. He said so himself and I agree.
But that is only a comparison of 2 matches. He took the ball earlier in 2018 for sure, but he can't get the "peak" level out of his FH today that he used to get back then. Effectiveness is slightly different, but you can watch any match from Federer's later years and I don't think he hit better FHs than he did in the first minute of this video for example (yes I know it's Agassi but look at the actual FHs). The first one lands right in the corner, flying through the air with Federer standing a bit behind the baseline.


If there's one huge thing the Federer FH has lost it's probably that, on average. Just the ability to scare players because they knew he could "fire off a winner in the middle of a rally" as Mary Carillo said back then. I'm sure he missed many FHs in his prime, but finding an example where his FH just deserted him in a slam final like it did vs Nadal in the 2nd and 4th sets of AO 2017 will be a much tougher ask. Finding an example of prime level Federer getting bullied from the baseline like he did against Cilic at AO 2018 in the 4th set will also be a tough ask.

And if there's one thing he's definitely lost a lot of it's just flat out footspeed. I mean, anybody here can wax poetic about his play in 2017 until about IW 2018, but I don't think it's objectively possible to deny he's a fair bit slower than he used to be. You can't possibly keep the same footspeed or better it from 27 (especially not ages a few years younger than that) to 37 for example. You can notice it easily today when he's stretched out to the FH in comparison to something like this:

(skip to 1:00).
 
The same lame argument I have heard over and over again. Of course he is not going to say that he is not the same player he used to be. He is not going to openly admit to the entire tour that he has declined. He risks putting a target on his back if he does that.

He said the same thing in 2013 when he was sucking ass all year long.

While he has improved in some aspects, he has had to make those improvements in order to compensate for deficiencies in other areas. It doesn't mean he is better than in 2004-2007. It just means he is a different player.

I don't have to take his words as absolute truth because I have my own eyes to see and my own brain to think. Those who push this argument endlessly are those with an agenda who want to convince us that Djokodal have been beating peak Fed forever, just to show what an overrated fraud he is who took advantage of a weak era.
Some pundits who are big fans of Federer have hinted to this idea as well it is not only the general public. It is not always a hater arugement.
It could have been due to excitement with his amazing Cincy form which he did not drop a set.
 
It’s inconvenient because it spoils the popular narrative (on TTW) that Federer was at his so called peak from 2004-2007.

Reading TTW you would think that Federer never made a forehand error in the so called peak years.

I am really sceptical that his forehand wing is, all things considered, much less effective, if at all, than from 2004-2007.

Watch the Roddick 2007 Aus match and the Cilic match this year. He really did hit the ball harder and take it early in 2018. He said so himself and I agree.
federer hit the ball harder in AO 18 final compared to AO 07 semi ?
LOL !
He hit a grand total of 7 winners with his FH in the AO 18 final.

He's hit more winners with his FH in a single set than over that entire match on more than a few occasions.
your statement about the 2018 final shows you didn't even understand Federer's tactics in that match.


At the bold part, LOL, just LOL.
 
Last edited:
federer hit the ball harder in AO 18 final compared to AO 07 semi ?
LOL !
He hit a grand total of 7 winners with his FH in the AO 18 final.

He's hit more winners with his FH in a single set than over that entire match on more than a few occasions.
your statement about the 2018 final shows you didn't even understand Federer's tactics in that match.


At the bold part, LOL, just LOL.
He plays better percentage tennis in my opinion which can’t be proved with stats.

A forced error or a set up for a volley are just as valuable as a winner at the end of the day.

The take back has changed. It’s shorter more efficient and so takes more time away.

I do agree that when he’s pulled wide he’s prone to netting it more. Though part of the reason is he’s going for it more knowing that’s he’s out of position for the next shot.
 
Wow, we are here already?
That is ND-8's specialty. It is what he does best.
You should be ND-9 instead of RF-18, you seem like one of the biggest Djokovic fans on here...
jeez, get a sense of humour. It was only a cheeky comment in response to RF-18 aka ND-10 ....
Raise your hand if you think ND-11's motives are visible from space.
You're probably trolling, but how is that unlucky? Or are you just saying this is the excuse ND-12 will use.
Which is funny because those people are making those comments about Djokovic as payback because RF-18 ND-13 made these comments in earnest about Rog in ~2015.
Seriously though, ND-14 has a good point: Berdych is one of the most consistent players around, for over a decade, and usually always manages to make up for his seeding.
Will we get to see ND-18? Maybe even ND-22? (!) :p
 
Last edited:
Assuming that both you and Magnus can see, it seems that brains are different. How do you compare your understanding of tennis with Magnus Norman's understanding of tennis? I don't know who you are, so there is a possibility that you are at the similar level as Magnus as a tennis coach. You could be Vajda?
Have to say i adore how you are just calm and chill amidst the manic triggering rage we are witnessing. I am just picturing you in a smoking jacket sniffer of brandy in hand and a cig in a raul duke cig holder. Gonzo journalism! Lmao.
 
Assuming that both you and Magnus can see, it seems that brains are different. How do you compare your understanding of tennis with Magnus Norman's understanding of tennis? I don't know who you are, so there is a possibility that you are at the similar level as Magnus as a tennis coach. You could be Vajda?
I find it rather funny how "your opinion" always matches with those of the best coaches and players. Could you be one of them?
 
The "game evolving" quote always makes me laugh. How does the game evolve exactly? There hasn't been a new ground breaking advent in tennis now since poly strings. If anything it's not the game evolving, it's the all around slowing of the courts and going away from 16 seeds that has helped all the Big3/4 (yes all of them) be super consistent more than anything else.

So what's the game going to do now with the generations that have come since? It must be devolving.
 
Top