TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
If a player is pre-prime are they more effective than post-prime or vise-versa? Any examples or explanations as to why?
Pre- or Post-Prime?
- Thread starter TripleATeam
- Start date
-
- Tags
- performance style
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
By the end of 2002 though Federer was a dangerous player.
HipRotation
Hall of Fame
I'd say post, there's always a chance of finding that old spark
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
How is this undeniable proof the forum thinks post-prime is better than pre-prime?
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
I didn't state that- just that those who responded said post.
I guess thats very different from player to player.
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
The way I see it, the experience they gain while on tour stays with them after their prime, and makes them knowledgeable, even if they can't run or make the frightening plays like they once could. Yet before their prime, they don't have that experience and skill, and must develop it. Because of this knowledge, which some young players have more of and some have less of, it makes for more variance in the younger years of the best players, but as they get older, they invariably hit their prime, then stay at an okay level for some time.
Once a young player's mind finally clicks, they are free to dominate the upper echelons of the game until they fall off due to mental or physical exhaustion.
xFullCourtTenniSx
Hall of Fame
Depends on what the strengths and core of their game was versus how they adapted to reduced physical performance. Although Federer's game relied a lot on his movement, he shifted it in the later parts of his career to big first strike tennis to try and sneak some points to make up for his lower percentage in long rallies. He was also pretty volatile mentally pre-prime.
But I'd probably take pre-prime Nadal (if such a thing truly exists; he's been relevant since he was 18) over post prime. I can't imagine "pre-prime" Nadal NOT winning RG, while post-prime Nadal has let 2 slip by him (unless we're talking about a 15 year old Nadal).
You take post-prime Wawrinka over pre-prime, because the guy peaked in his late 20s.
Djokovic is also likely to be better pre-prime than post-prime, as he plays a heavily physical style of play.
But I'd probably take pre-prime Nadal (if such a thing truly exists; he's been relevant since he was 18) over post prime. I can't imagine "pre-prime" Nadal NOT winning RG, while post-prime Nadal has let 2 slip by him (unless we're talking about a 15 year old Nadal).
You take post-prime Wawrinka over pre-prime, because the guy peaked in his late 20s.
Djokovic is also likely to be better pre-prime than post-prime, as he plays a heavily physical style of play.
But this fall can be very different. As for Federer, i would definetly say som of his late years were better than pre 2004. Rafa did better 2005-2007 than post FO14 (could probably say post 2013). Of course people wont agree when a players prime is either, there are people on this forum who believe Fed was peaking 2014-2016.
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
Those people are idiots.
Anyhow, Federer rose really fast due to learning the intricacies of the game really quickly. Nadal did the same- so I'm even reluctant to say he had a pre-prime. His rise was meteoric and right from the beginning. He came right into his prime, but injuries and inability to play as physically as before derailed him and stopped him prime. Personally, I cite Nadal as a man without a pre-prime.
Yeah i agree
. They are probably mostly Ultronians who like the idea that peak-Djoker >> peak-Fed. Let them live in their psychosis
.Rafa won so much in the years 2005-2007 so i agree its debatable. But if you go back all the way in Open Era i think you will find examples of players with a better pre-prime and players with a better post-prime. Some just suddenly fall of a cliff.
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
Well, like Wilander for example. Of course there is no right answer, since it's subjective from person to person, but we can form a general rule that a post prime player is typically better than their own self before their prime.Yeah i agree
Rafa won so much in the years 2005-2007 so i agree its debatable. But if you go back all the way in Open Era i think you will find examples of players with a better pre-prime and players with a better post-prime. Some just suddenly fall of a cliff.
NEW_BORN
Hall of Fame
In your pre-prime the body is able but the mind is lagging, whereas in your post-prime the mind is experienced but the body is failing.
In the case of past early bloomers like Borg, Chang, Hewitt and Nadal, both the body and mind was already in sync pre-prime , hence success came at an earlier age.
In the case of longevity kings like Rosewall, Connors, Agassi and Federer, as long as the body is held in tact, these guys will always be a threat wherever they play.
In the case of past early bloomers like Borg, Chang, Hewitt and Nadal, both the body and mind was already in sync pre-prime , hence success came at an earlier age.
In the case of longevity kings like Rosewall, Connors, Agassi and Federer, as long as the body is held in tact, these guys will always be a threat wherever they play.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
@NEW_BORN said it right - it depends on mentality.
There is physical, mental, and tactical/technical maturity. Prime form is when all three are in sync. How pre-prime compares to post-prime depends on which of the three components are there.
An early bloomer who is already physically and mentally mature at a young age, only yet to fully develop technically, may be better in comparison to his "old" self, declined both physically and mentally, leaving only the technical proficiency in full force, but it's not enough, 1 vs 2.
A later bloomer who took time to mature mentally after entering physical prime will not compare favourably to his post-prime version, which is both more technically sound and mentally stronger (even if lacking comparing to peak), so it's 2 vs 1 in favour of post-prime.
There is physical, mental, and tactical/technical maturity. Prime form is when all three are in sync. How pre-prime compares to post-prime depends on which of the three components are there.
An early bloomer who is already physically and mentally mature at a young age, only yet to fully develop technically, may be better in comparison to his "old" self, declined both physically and mentally, leaving only the technical proficiency in full force, but it's not enough, 1 vs 2.
A later bloomer who took time to mature mentally after entering physical prime will not compare favourably to his post-prime version, which is both more technically sound and mentally stronger (even if lacking comparing to peak), so it's 2 vs 1 in favour of post-prime.
It will be interesting to see how Murrays and Djokers late career will turn out...
NEW_BORN
Hall of Fame
Yep, the technical aspect is just as important as mental and physical.
This is probably why some commentators will say that Federer is "playing" as well as he ever has, which is true in the sense that Federer's technique is getting better as the years go by, the same way a bodybuilder will improve year by year, even though their physiology may not actually allow their improvements to be so evident.
However, even though Federer's technique/tactical prowess/variety of shots is now better than during his peak years, this improvement is offset by the fact that his physical conditioning (especially his explosive speed) is nowhere close to that of his peak years.
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
Yeah, in athletics I'd almost have to lean youth v. age, particularly from a fan's perspective. In comparing those two stages of the pro athlete's arc, the earlier of the two is marked by striving for something, whereas the later stage is more often about clinging to something or trying to reclaim it.
Of course there are exceptions. But just the fact that the story is yet to be written, and there is a huge future lying ahead, injects a ton of optimism into the bearing of the promising pre-prime athlete.
Of course there are exceptions. But just the fact that the story is yet to be written, and there is a huge future lying ahead, injects a ton of optimism into the bearing of the promising pre-prime athlete.
tennisplayer1993
Professional
I will be honest even as an avid tennis fan in the late 90s/early 2000s. I think I only heard of Federer once and it was when he beat Sampras at Wimbledon 2001. Safin for a few years before Roddick became a serious slam contender in mid-to late 2003 was often the talk. He had the ability to dominate HC, wasn't great on glass but was decent on clay.
At the time, I felt Safin and Roddick to the casual tennis fan like myself were seen as more of the up and comers. I remember seeing Fed vs. Roddick Wimbledon 2003 and I was like man, this guy has out of this world talent. Its as only until then, I didn't really knew he existed.
Young pre-prime Federer was inconsistent but showed signs of brilliance every once in awhile. Don't forget, Hewitt was also pretty young at the time and was probably seen as the megastar of the young bunch during the 2000-2002 era. Then probably Safin, then Roddick.
I may be wrong but I think Federer was favored to win Wimbledon 2003 but a good share of people at the time, felt Roddick could too. That Wimbledon 2003 match to this day is still one of the best matches I've ever seen Roger play.
Due to the fact, I enjoy faster court play, I enjoyed pre-prime Federer the few times I've seen him play on live TV: Wimbledon 2001 vs. Sampras and Wimbledon 2003 vs. Roddick.
At the time, I felt Safin and Roddick to the casual tennis fan like myself were seen as more of the up and comers. I remember seeing Fed vs. Roddick Wimbledon 2003 and I was like man, this guy has out of this world talent. Its as only until then, I didn't really knew he existed.
Young pre-prime Federer was inconsistent but showed signs of brilliance every once in awhile. Don't forget, Hewitt was also pretty young at the time and was probably seen as the megastar of the young bunch during the 2000-2002 era. Then probably Safin, then Roddick.
I may be wrong but I think Federer was favored to win Wimbledon 2003 but a good share of people at the time, felt Roddick could too. That Wimbledon 2003 match to this day is still one of the best matches I've ever seen Roger play.
Due to the fact, I enjoy faster court play, I enjoyed pre-prime Federer the few times I've seen him play on live TV: Wimbledon 2001 vs. Sampras and Wimbledon 2003 vs. Roddick.
Similar threads
