Post prime Fed achievements

[ARFED]

After watching the Fed-Djoker final yesterday, it amazed me how much success is having Fed well past his prime. If you only take in consideration his achievements in the post prime years (2008-2012), you get this:

-5 Slams
-5 Slams finals
-2 WTF
-7 M1000
-1 olympic silver medal (i know about his gold medal in doubles but i am just counting singles here)
-77 weeks at #1
-23 titles overall

Now look at what has accomplished the third best player of this generation and already an all time-great, during his ENTIRE career:

-5 slams
-3 slams finals
-1 WTF
-12 M1000
-1 olympic bronze medal
-47 weeks at #1
-31 titles overall

If i was forced to pick one resume, i would pick djoker's only by a very small margin, but my main point is when you take into perspective some of roger's numbers you get the whole picture about his greatness. I wonder how Fed post prime numbers compare against other great players, from open era, complete careers (tier III, since it would be pointless to compare him aganist sampras, borg, nadal, lendl, mc, connors or agassi)

 

[Seany]

It is truly amazing how he has extended his career with such a huge amont of success, I don't think it will ever be repeated again, he's an incredible athlete.

Motivation+Dedication+Skill+Talent

The part that amazes me most is just how motivated he still is considering what he has achieved, it's like he has some sort of sickening drive inside him to cement his GOAT legacy so strongly that nobody will ever get close, EVER.

 

[SLD76]

It is truly amazing how he has extended his career with such a huge amont of success, I don't think it will ever be repeated again, he's an incredible athlete.

Motivation+Dedication+Skill+Talent

The part that amazes me most is just how motivated he still is considering what he has achieved, it's like he has some sort of sickening drive inside him to cement his GOAT legacy so strongly that nobody will ever get close, EVER.

I give Mirka alot of credit for that.

her willingness to travel with the family, her knowing what a special talent roger is and wanting him to play until he cant play anymore. I think she was quoted as saying once that her time comes after roger, meaning they both put his tennis first. Granted, this was before they had kids when she said this but still. Most tennis players having a wife/family is a distraction, mirka is the rare exception

Alot of roger's sucess is due to mirka. period.

 

[Talker]

I can't remember what fed thread I'm posting in anymore, which one of the 20 is this?

 

[DoubleDeuce]

Prime post about post prime Roger.

I think I like OP, would like to see more.

 

[AnotherTennisProdigy]

You also have to give Annacone some credit for his success recently. That aggressive mindset and first strike tennis is part of the reason he's #1 now.

 

[NadalDramaQueen]

All just icing on the cake.

 

[smoledman]

Prime Fed was a monster.

 

[90's Clay]

After watching the Fed-Djoker final yesterday, it amazed me how much success is having Fed well past his prime. If you only take in consideration his achievements in the post prime years (2008-2012), you get this:

-5 Slams
-5 Slams finals
-2 WTF
-7 M1000
-1 olympic silver medal (i know about his gold medal in doubles but i am just counting singles here)
-77 weeks at #1
-23 titles overall

Now look at what has accomplished the third best player of this generation and already an all time-great, during his ENTIRE career:

-5 slams
-3 slams finals
-1 WTF
-12 M1000
-1 olympic bronze medal
-47 weeks at #1
-31 titles overall

If i was forced to pick one resume, i would pick djoker's only by a very small margin, but my main point is when you take into perspective some of roger's numbers you get the whole picture about his greatness. I wonder how Fed post prime numbers compare against other great players, from open era, complete careers (tier III, since it would be pointless to compare him aganist sampras, borg, nadal, lendl, mc, connors or agassi)

It doesn't stack up with Laver or Connor's for sure. Laver post prime was winning a calendar slam. Andre was winning slams at 33-34 years of age and beating top guys 10 years younger then him.. More impressive, then beating guys only 5 years younger then you

 

[ARFED]

i dont think Federer is the best player ever based on his peak years level only, one could perfectly argue that there have been other players with higher level at some point during their careers (Mc, Sampras, Laver, Djokovic himself, etc), is the sustained level of excellence what is mind-blowing (10 straight years inside the top 3!!!!), all of this while we are having the most depth of players in tennis history. And before someone talks about the lack of people in the US who plays tennis nowadays, worldwide there has never been as much people playing tennis than the present days. For instance, i am myself from a country in which 30 years ago it was almost impossible to play tennis, unless you were upper class, and these days you can see thousands of kids and teens playing.

 

[SLD76]

It doesn't stack up with Laver or Connor's for sure. Laver post prime was winning a calendar slam. Andre was winning slams at 33-34 years of age and beating top guys 10 years younger then him.. More impressive, then beating guys only 5 years younger then you

laver himself said that winning one slam in this era is the equivalent of 2 to 3 slams in his day.

 

[SLD76]

i dont think Federer is the best player ever based on his peak years level only, one could perfectly argue that there have been other players with higher level at some point during their careers (Mc, Sampras, Laver, Djokovic himself, etc), is the sustained level of excellence what is mind-blowing (10 straight years inside the top 3!!!!), all of this while we are having the most depth of players in tennis history. And before someone talks about the lack of people in the US who plays tennis nowadays, worldwide there has never been as much people playing tennis than the present days. For instance, i am myself from a country in which 30 years ago it was almost impossible to play tennis, unless you were upper class, and these days you can see thousands of kids and teens playing.

for me, no I cant. I came up in the 80's...I saw connors, mac, lendl, agassi, courier, wilander, edberg, becker, agassi, sampras...

ive never seen someone who was a shotmaker of roger's quality, a genius with a racket.

but that is my humble and subjective opinion. many were great..but roger was just...ridiculous with his shots.

when people go on about fed being just as good, all I can say is that while fed is playing great, his point construction is more workmanlike, you still see the crazy angle shot now and again, but in his prime, that was 2 or 3 points a game he'd hit a shot that would leave your jaw hanging.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

It doesn't stack up with Laver or Connor's for sure. Laver post prime was winning a calendar slam. Andre was winning slams at 33-34 years of age and beating top guys 10 years younger then him.. More impressive, then beating guys only 5 years younger then you

True, but at least the glaring weaknesses of the current era will give Roger a good shot at equalling the post-prime achievements of these other players, even if it would end up being significantly less deserved.

 

[ARFED]

for me, no I cant. I came up in the 80's...I saw connors, mac, lendl, agassi, courier, wilander, edberg, becker, agassi, sampras...

ive never seen someone who was a shotmaker of roger's quality, a genius with a racket.

but that is my humble and subjective opinion. many were great..but roger was just...ridiculous with his shots.

when people go on about fed being just as good, all I can say is that while fed is playing great, his point construction is more workmanlike, you still see the crazy angle shot now and again, but in his prime, that was 2 or 3 points a game he'd hit a shot that would leave your jaw hanging.

I know what you mean, and i share your view, Fed has displayed the most amazing tennis ever seen on a tennis court, but as i said in the earlier post, peak level of play is very subjective and it's pretty much open for debate.

And about jaw dropping shots: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC3uI-A8fGM at 1:40 mark simply the best single shot ever hited on a tennis court (at least in my eyes haha)

 

[DoubleDeuce]

It doesn't stack up with Laver or Connor's for sure. Laver post prime was winning a calendar slam. Andre was winning slams at 33-34 years of age and beating top guys 10 years younger then him.. More impressive, then beating guys only 5 years younger then you

You talk Joke.

Beating the ranking is what that's impressive , not the age of the player and how many years younger.

Have you ever heard that players peak at different age?

 

[10is]

i dont think Federer is the best player ever based on his peak years level only, one could perfectly argue that there have been other players with higher level at some point during their careers (Mc, Sampras, Laver, Djokovic himself, etc)

What? Laver/McEnroe are the only names in that list that have any credibility in that regard. Federer's 2004-2006 (particularly 05 and 06) are among the most dominant seasons in tennis history (top 5). Djokovic's 2011 is a distant 10th (tied with Borg's 1980):


1. John McEnroe (1984) 96.47% 82–3

2. Jimmy Connors (1974) 95.88% 93–4

3. Roger Federer (2005) 95.29% 81–4

4. Roger Federer (2006) 94.85% 92–5

5. Björn Borg (1979) 93.33% 84–6

6. Ivan Lendl (1986) 92.50% 74–6

= Roger Federer (2004) 92.50% 74–6

8. Ivan Lendl (1985) 92.31% 84–7

9. Ivan Lendl (1982) 92.17% 106–9

10. Björn Borg (1980) 92.11% 70–6

= Novak Djokovic (2011) 92.11 70–6

 

[Bobby Jr]

I wouldn't have called 2008 post-prime Federer. He won three majors on the trot over 2009 and 2010. That can hardly be called anything but completely dominant. Even if it's due to outside circumstances - opponents being off-form - that makes a player's prime longer... In Federer's case it was a pre-post-prime period of his career.

I'd say his real post-prime period started in 2010. Being generous to include the Aussie Open win he's still achieved two majors, two year ending championships and a stack of M1000 wins. Not a bad haul when you compare him to even the likes of the Murray, Roddick, Ferrer, Tsonga etc's entire careers.

 

[Retaliation]

I wouldn't have called 2008 post-prime Federer. He won three majors on the trot over 2009 and 2010. That can hardly be called anything but completely dominant. Even if it's due to outside circumstances - opponents being off-form - that makes a player's prime longer... In Federer's case it was a pre-post-prime period of his career.

I'd say his real post-prime period started in 2010. Being generous to include the Aussie Open win he's still achieved two majors, two year ending championships and a stack of M1000 wins. Not a bad haul when you compare him to even the likes of the Murray, Roddick, Ferrer, Tsonga etc's entire careers.

This is very, very fair. So, in essence, Djokovic's prime is better than Federer's post-prime. Done deal (for now).

Now, compare both of their primes.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I consider Fed's prime period to be 2003 TMC - 2010 AO, or something like that. It had that strange and sudden interruption in 2008 due to his significant illness which he acquired after Sampras had spiked his drinks during the late exhibition matches of 2007.

 

[Russeljones]

It doesn't stack up with Laver or Connor's for sure. Laver post prime was winning a calendar slam. Andre was winning slams at 33-34 years of age and beating top guys 10 years younger then him.. More impressive, then beating guys only 5 years younger then you

You mean amateur Laver prime? He was 'Steve-Davis-ing' it against part timers and racking up them impressive recreational tournaments. I hear Henry VIII was a crack shot with a tennis racquet in his prime and post-prime too. Remind me again of what Connors won in the GS-WTF-Masters range in his post-prime period. And the guys 5-6 years younger than Fed are way better than Agassi ever was, so your point is?

 

[Retaliation]

It doesn't stack up with Laver or Connor's for sure. Laver post prime was winning a calendar slam. Andre was winning slams at 33-34 years of age and beating top guys 10 years younger then him.. More impressive, then beating guys only 5 years younger then you

Yes it does.

Federer is winning slams and beating top guys 10 years younger "then" [sic] him. How can Federer even fail at this until he reaches 33-34 years of age (and Agassi is my favorite ever)? But to you he already has? Laver and Connors entered tournaments that you and I could enter right now...and they counted as ATP tournaments. I've been reading on this board for years, and I can't believe you just posted this. Did you see Connors' and Laver's rackets? Have you seen them play? Did you see most of their opponents? Caroline Wozniacki would have them for lunch, and not in a sexual way.