Now don't tell me Fed is not peaking
- Thread starter Lew II
- Start date
TheIntrovert
Hall of Fame
Fed is not peaking.
George Turner
Hall of Fame
Best Federer performance ever, best Nadal performance ever.
They will peak again next year.
They will peak again next year.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Says the man who is here.
Deon Sanders
Legend
That second set tank was the peak of tennis tanking
No one has done it better
No one has done it better
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Freakin rofl you killed it.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Difference is I'm not trying to wind anyone up, I'm happy basking in the glory of a great win for Federer.
VaporDude95
Banned
Lmao
No 37 year and 11 month old player is “peaking”.
No 37 year and 11 month old player is “peaking”.
Last edited:
Third Serve
G.O.A.T.
Already got everything set up for the final, I see.
Born Again
Rookie
This is peak Fed.
If you watched the match it is difficult to deny.
His game is the most complete it's ever been.
Firing on all cilinders, the forehand, the backhand, serving better than ever, volleying as good as ever, everything is there.
I am at a loss to explain why the so called Federer fans continously try to denigrate his game...
If you watched the match it is difficult to deny.
His game is the most complete it's ever been.
Firing on all cilinders, the forehand, the backhand, serving better than ever, volleying as good as ever, everything is there.
I am at a loss to explain why the so called Federer fans continously try to denigrate his game...
Federer and Del Potro
Talk Tennis Guru
Undoubtedly PEAKing. Amazing how much better the old codger has gotten since RG 2019.
Wind confirmed the real nemesis of Fed.
Wind confirmed the real nemesis of Fed.
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
It was a very high level first set of that there is no doubt.
Fed then collapsed like the England batting team in the second set but recovered well.
Best he’s every played, no, but a very high quality level from both players today.
Fed then collapsed like the England batting team in the second set but recovered well.
Best he’s every played, no, but a very high quality level from both players today.
A tennis match is not a contest between two "games," although how the players' games match up and interact is extremely important. But fundamentally, a tennis match is a contest between two athletes. Physical attributes are always at least as important as technical attributes, even in a high skill-set sport such as tennis.
Towny
Hall of Fame
So according to Lew, Federer was at his peak in 2006/7, then again in 2017/19. Has it ever occurred to you that Fed's ability to beat Rafa or not might also be dependent on Rafa's level, as well as Federer's? This wasn't 2007/8 Rafa just like this wasn't 2003-6 Federer.
That being said, Federer was phenomenal today. The old man still has it in him. Hoping we don't get a repeat of 2015, with a high in the SF and a let down from Fed in the final.
That being said, Federer was phenomenal today. The old man still has it in him. Hoping we don't get a repeat of 2015, with a high in the SF and a let down from Fed in the final.
killerboss
Rookie
He will come straight down back to Earth vs Djokovic, just like when he beat Murray and got outclassed against Djokovic in 2015. Good year as Rafa has had, the guy's grass game is depleted as hell and it shows against the top players.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes cause Feds performance today was so much worse than 2007/2008. You don't Think the Fed we saw today could beat that Rafa?
Rago
Hall of Fame
This.
OP, give it a rest mate.
Have a streak/burger or two. I like mine done to medium rare/medium.
Towny
Hall of Fame
Fed did many things very well today. He served and returned well. And his backhand was excellent. But he essentially out rallied Nadal today. That just wouldn't have happened in 2007/8. Rafa was not as fast today as he was back then, played a number of shorter balls and made a number of errors on the long rally which is uncharacteristic. Dont get me wrong; Fed was good today. There's no way he goes down in straights to 2007/8 Nadal. But he wouldn't be winning either. Nadal just moved far too well and was too strong from the baseline
2019 Federer >>>>> 2004-2007 Federer lol
you people just don't realize that when Federer was lile 24 he would have lost against any Nadal version from 2008 onwards, cause he wasn't as strong mentally then and lost his focus easily. He was never challenged like that by Davidenko, Hewitt or Roddick. The fact that Federer has MAINTAINED his shape and form, he actually looks a lot leaner than 15 years ago, speaks for itself
you people just don't realize that when Federer was lile 24 he would have lost against any Nadal version from 2008 onwards, cause he wasn't as strong mentally then and lost his focus easily. He was never challenged like that by Davidenko, Hewitt or Roddick. The fact that Federer has MAINTAINED his shape and form, he actually looks a lot leaner than 15 years ago, speaks for itself
Well you like statistics and there are some really interesting statistics regarding Nadal.
On serve he aces more than average and wins more on 1st serve. The price of putting more into the 1st serve is of course a lower 1st serve in% and more DFs. The stats here are clear.
His average rally length is way under normal, in other words he is trying to shorten points. Naturally this leads to more UEs. In the final he made as many UEs as Federer. I dont know, but i think that has never happened before? In W08 final it was 80 vs 47 UEs. In AO17 final it was 57 vs 26 UEs.
In other words, Nadal has made pretty big changes to his game, the question is why? For me both the natural answer, and what i see with my eyes, is declined speed and movement, which forces a more aggressive game. It seems like this gets him easier through the field, but its no longer the cryptonite vs Federers aggressive style which is once was.
TheMaestro1990
Hall of Fame
Lew's memory is short and unsurprisingly selective. It's all done to be able to say "look, Federer was at his absolute best!" if he loses to Djokovic on Sunday. Then he finds some cherry picked twisted stat to back it up.
Breakpointerer
Legend
Second set was peak Fred
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Expect to see Peak Fed at Black Rock 2040 against McEnroe
abmk
Bionic Poster
nope.
abmk
Bionic Poster
BH wasn't excellent, not in the 1st 2 sets atleast.
FH was firing and that was the most important aspect off the ground apart from fed playing tactically well.
Nadal's returning was also clearly better back in 07/08.
Last edited:
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Lew, I'll answer you seriously to see where it gets us.
All of the Big 3 are both peaking and declining. They are peaking in some areas, declining in others. This is what aging players do. A number of factors are slowing down the aging of athletes now. Novak is the youngest of the Big 3, and he was the latest to peak and he will be the last to decline. Every year in tennis is huge.
For the record, I expect Novak to win on Sunday. Fed gives a way 6 years of age, which is huge. I don't know why you keep looking at these three as if they were all born the same year.
Why the need to wind people up?
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
ForehandRF
Hall of Fame
He improved some aspects of the game later in his career (see the backhand return for instance), but he is not in the same physical shape as he was 10 years ago; this is the elephant in the room.
Born Again
Rookie
Sure, he has declined physically, however how much does this affect his game?
His attacking brand of tennis is less dependant on his speed & endurance unlike the more defensive Djokodal.
Yes. There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
I was never into stats. I just go by the feel of the match. Stats help only if you use it wisely. Some people just abuse it to justify their point.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
It's all balance, a see-saw. It's just like serve return. If a play erdrops 2% on return games but goes up 2% on service games, the net is the same and may even be stronger because of the weight of serving. That's why I look at game% as a whole. The Big 3 keep up those stats, so the only way you can say they are declining is to blame it on the other players, which I think is a weak argument.
The problem is those stats do not say when those big serves came. It is not of much use if the all came at 40-0. His serve looked a liability in both Querrey and Fed match. Fed was dialled in returning deep.
He needs to bring back his 2010 serve despite that motion giving him shoulder problems. Or he can just live to fight at french opens.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I think stats are important for separating blind belief from reality, but they are only important when used wisely and honestly. Here in this forum most people use them to advance their talking points, which to me is dishonest.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Is Lew shook? 
OldschoolKIaus
Hall of Fame
I expect him to hit peak at FO20 for achieving DCGS.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Don't remember that there is so much hype that people don't check. Look at the beginning of the 2008 Wimbeldon final. You might be amazed that Nadal just spun the serve into Fed's BH about 15 times in a row. It was obvious. Yet he won. That would have been disastrous today. I have not rewatched that whole match, but I'll bet you won't see him acing to Fed's FH that year. His newer tactics of mixing it up have been highly effective and may pay much bigger dividends at the USO or slower HCs. Nadal does some things better now than ever before but has declined in other areas, true also of Fed obviously. Novak has probably declined the least because of few injuries and being younger even than Nadal, but that will also change.
Haha, competition is so terrible, that you need to prop up 38 year old weak era champion to make Djokovic look good?
I thought Fed is a weak era champion and old, and competition is the hardest, they should be exposing Fraud.erer and not letting him in the final.
Lew, that's why nobody takes your argument seriously, you contradict yourself all the time.
Also the word fraud.erer is now banned? What kind of mentally weak people are here that this word is triggering them and they can't take it?
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Lew is on the same path of purity as other FANatics who are tribal and live to prove that their man is GOAT. Everything he posts about stats is about proving that Novak is the GOAT.Is Lew shook?
That's why his posts annoy me. He's not interested in facts. If you know stats there are plenty of facts to support any of the Big 3 as being the best. That should be clear to anyone who is unbiased.
I'm interested in analysis, not proving that player A is better than player B.
ForehandRF
Hall of Fame
That's hard to say, but I think that he cannot sustain a high level of play if the match is prolonged.He needs shorter matches and that is the case especially against Djokovic.Can't see him beating Novak in a long match, let's say 3 hours +.
Towny
Hall of Fame
Nadal certainly not returning as well. Federer was better in that respect. While you're right that his backhand wasn't firing as well in the first 2 sets, I think it made a significant difference in the latter two. I can't say his forehand was better than in 2008, but the backhand held up better against Nadal this year. It was one of the major reasons he was able to win many of the slightly longer rallies yesterday. Had it not been as strong there's a decent chance he gets broken back in the 4th set which would have let Nadal back into the match
Literally the only thing better about Federer today vs 12+ years ago is improvements in racket technology means he can wield a bigger racket with a bigger sweet spot and higher tolerance, but similar weight and other characteristics, the same way he did his older, smaller frame.
Federer spent a good chunk of his peak giving his opponents a handicap, because they grew up with better rackets, while he grew up with worse ones, but since he was still winning, he wasn't ready to risk a change to the better tech.
Federer spent a good chunk of his peak giving his opponents a handicap, because they grew up with better rackets, while he grew up with worse ones, but since he was still winning, he wasn't ready to risk a change to the better tech.
ForehandRF
Hall of Fame
That's true.I will rewatch some highlights from the 2008 final but my opinion is that his backhand was much better yesterday.In the 2008 final he was constantly avoiding the backhand, as much as he could, and only the forehand and the serve kept him in the match.
Firstservingman
Talk Tennis Guru
The match isn't until Sunday, their guy is the favourite, and Djokerbots are somehow still seethingIs Lew shook?
No, stats don't support Nadal and Djokovic being the best. Their greatness is all based on how well they did against Federer. But that is cirular reasoning, it's predicated only on that Fed is playing in a strong era, which his critics deny plus you can't compare eras.
Fed has most majors and most weeks nr.1. So masters count is the only stat that is in their favour and that's not based on circular reasoning, you really think that is enough?
So, can you give me those stats that favour those guys apart from winning a bit more of masters. And I'm talking facts, not that h2h and weak era circular reasoning BS, that's not a fact, it's opinion.
Exactly. Fed even in 2006 was just 60% of his best. That's why at old age, he can be as good in his top level even when he isn't consistent. Sadly we never saw Fed's true peak maxed talent. In younger years he had weaker technology and wasn't working on his weakness and tactics. But now that he improved those, he lost speed.
That's why Federer is considered the goat talent.
Towny
Hall of Fame
Admittedly, 2008 Nadals's attack on Federer's backhand was stronger than it was this year, so that was a point in Federer's favour. But Federer's backhand was also clearly better. I thought it was pretty much up there with early 2017 Federer, particularly in the last 2 sets (too many errors in the first 2). Interestingly enough, Nadal corrected a reporter in the press conference who stated that Nadal's strategy was to attack Federer's backhand. He said that was his strategy years ago but not any more. I suspect that Federer's improved backhand and declined forehand is part of the reason for that