Real reason for Fed's FH decline

[FiReFTW]

I was just wondering what the majority of people think is the biggest reason for federer's forehand decline since 2008.
There are so many speculations and guesses, but I will only list the 5 most obvious ones that are usually mentioned.

I made a poll but here are more detailed descriptions

1.He looked almost "unbeatable" in his prime years, top of his game, confidence at a very high, then when Nadal started emerging he started beating him on Clay regularly, which hit his confidence, he started doubting himself, then after Wimbledon 2008 when Nadal beat him in Wimbledon, where he did not lose since forever, he was not the same guy anymore, and after 2008 he was never the same anymore mentaly.

2.As he aged his footwork started declining, similar to how Nadal's footwork declined now, so he is no longer fast enough to get in good positions to hit the Forehand, and we all know that getting in a good position is key, once you have to rush it its no longer the same, its a much harder shot to hit great consistently.

3.After seeing that Nadal was clearly superior on clay, he wanted to find a solution to beat him somehow, so he started changing his forehand technique, his style and his tactics to try to find a way to beat Nadal and also to win RG since it was the only slam he did not win yet, so it was a big motivation for him to win it, so he changed his overall game to try to be more competitive on clay, but it hurt his game elsewhere specially his forehand.

4.Physical decline started to happen, started losing explosiveness in his legs, hips, shoulders, which all affect the power of the shot. So his body is not as explosive as it was hence he is not able to produce as much power behind the forehand that he was able to when he was younger.

5.Prime Federer had one of the best baseline games of all time, can be argued even the best, meaning he had a major advantage vs anyone. However as Nadal and Djokovic (two that also have one of the best baseline games of all time, and can also be argued the best) started to emerge, they challenged Fed's baseline game and were competitive against him in baseline rallies, so he started to focus more on other areas of the game and less on the baseline game, since he needed to have other advantages against these two player, but his baseline game regressed because of it.


So what do you guys think is the real reason, or do you think it is the combination of many reasons?

I made it so you can vote up to two things you think most affected his forehand decline, because sometimes it might be hard to pick just one.

 

[mike danny]

Fed was fine from the baseline until the end of 2012.

It was after 2012 that his baseline game declined which is only natural.

But my point is that before 2013 his baseline game was still pretty compact. He wouldn't have beaten Djokovic in GS and returned to world no.1 in 2012 otherwise.

 

[tenniswright]

I was just wondering what the majority of people think is the biggest reason for federer's forehand decline since 2008.
There are so many speculations and guesses, but I will only list the 5 most obvious ones that are usually mentioned.

I made a poll but here are more detailed descriptions

1.He looked almost "unbeatable" in his prime years, top of his game, confidence at a very high, then when Nadal started emerging he started beating him on Clay regularly, which hit his confidence, he started doubting himself, then after Wimbledon 2008 when Nadal beat him in Wimbledon, where he did not lose since forever, he was not the same guy anymore, and after 2008 he was never the same anymore mentaly.

2.As he aged his footwork started declining, similar to how Nadal's footwork declined now, so he is no longer fast enough to get in good positions to hit the Forehand, and we all know that getting in a good position is key, once you have to rush it its no longer the same, its a much harder shot to hit great consistently.

3.After seeing that Nadal was clearly superior on clay, he wanted to find a solution to beat him somehow, so he started changing his forehand technique, his style and his tactics to try to find a way to beat Nadal and also to win RG since it was the only slam he did not win yet, so it was a big motivation for him to win it, so he changed his overall game to try to be more competitive on clay, but it hurt his game elsewhere specially his forehand.

4.Physical decline started to happen, started losing explosiveness in his legs, hips, shoulders, which all affect the power of the shot. So his body is not as explosive as it was hence he is not able to produce as much power behind the forehand that he was able to when he was younger.

5.Prime Federer had one of the best baseline games of all time, can be argued even the best, meaning he had a major advantage vs anyone. However as Nadal and Djokovic (two that also have one of the best baseline games of all time, and can also be argued the best) started to emerge, they challenged Fed's baseline game and were competitive against him in baseline rallies, so he started to focus more on other areas of the game and less on the baseline game, since he needed to have other advantages against these two player, but his baseline game regressed because of it.


So what do you guys think is the real reason, or do you think it is the combination of many reasons?

I made it so you can vote up to two things you think most affected his forehand decline, because sometimes it might be hard to pick just one.

His movement is clearly worse. In his prime, I think that's what made his forehand go. And his movement was magical. Now he doesn't have the same level of quickness. Someone should do a side-by-side of Fed in baseline rallies, one from 2005 and the other from 2016.

Also, I suspect there may have been more lingering and chronic aches and injuries than we know about. Federer isn't one to complain. I think his back has probably been an issue for a while.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FiReFTW]

Fed was fine from the baseline until the end of 2012.

It was after 2012 that his baseline game declined which is only natural.

But my point is that before 2013 his baseline game was still pretty compact. He wouldn't have beaten Djokovic in GS and returned to world no.1 in 2012 other wise.

I do agree after 2012 his forehand declined massively.

But even after 2008 it was not the same shot as before, it did not have the same penetration and was not the weapon it once was.

 

[Rally]

I do agree after 2012 his forehand declined massively.

But even after 2008 it was not the same shot as before, it did not have the same penetration and was not the weapon it once was.

His forehand was as good in 2013 as it was in 2012. The problem was his back and movement. When you can't get to the ball in time, you're going to misfire and shank. I'm of the opinion that his 2013 forehand in a vacuum was better than his 2015 forehand. Watch some matches from 2013 and 2015 and compare just the forehands when he got to them in time. He had more variety in 2013 than in 2015 and he also had the confidence to use it for more than just a setup shot like he did for all of 2015.

 

[Rally]

I was just wondering what the majority of people think is the biggest reason for federer's forehand decline since 2008.
There are so many speculations and guesses, but I will only list the 5 most obvious ones that are usually mentioned.

I made a poll but here are more detailed descriptions

1.He looked almost "unbeatable" in his prime years, top of his game, confidence at a very high, then when Nadal started emerging he started beating him on Clay regularly, which hit his confidence, he started doubting himself, then after Wimbledon 2008 when Nadal beat him in Wimbledon, where he did not lose since forever, he was not the same guy anymore, and after 2008 he was never the same anymore mentaly.

2.As he aged his footwork started declining, similar to how Nadal's footwork declined now, so he is no longer fast enough to get in good positions to hit the Forehand, and we all know that getting in a good position is key, once you have to rush it its no longer the same, its a much harder shot to hit great consistently.

3.After seeing that Nadal was clearly superior on clay, he wanted to find a solution to beat him somehow, so he started changing his forehand technique, his style and his tactics to try to find a way to beat Nadal and also to win RG since it was the only slam he did not win yet, so it was a big motivation for him to win it, so he changed his overall game to try to be more competitive on clay, but it hurt his game elsewhere specially his forehand.

4.Physical decline started to happen, started losing explosiveness in his legs, hips, shoulders, which all affect the power of the shot. So his body is not as explosive as it was hence he is not able to produce as much power behind the forehand that he was able to when he was younger.

5.Prime Federer had one of the best baseline games of all time, can be argued even the best, meaning he had a major advantage vs anyone. However as Nadal and Djokovic (two that also have one of the best baseline games of all time, and can also be argued the best) started to emerge, they challenged Fed's baseline game and were competitive against him in baseline rallies, so he started to focus more on other areas of the game and less on the baseline game, since he needed to have other advantages against these two player, but his baseline game regressed because of it.


So what do you guys think is the real reason, or do you think it is the combination of many reasons?

I made it so you can vote up to two things you think most affected his forehand decline, because sometimes it might be hard to pick just one.

Federer changed his forehand technique after 2006. Watch some videos of his matches and compare his forehand motion and the ball it produced from the 2006 US Open and before to his forehand motion and the ball it produced in the 2007 Australian Open and after. That's when his forehand declined. The forehand that was the greatest shot in the sport stopped existing after 2006.

 

[Tennisanity]

The real reason was the slowing down of all the courts, allowing players like Nadal to return otherwise clear winners.

 

[Gazelle]

Federer changed his forehand technique after 2006. Watch some videos of his matches and compare his forehand motion and the ball it produced from the 2006 US Open and before to his forehand motion and the ball it produced in the 2007 Australian Open and after. That's when his forehand declined. The forehand that was the greatest shot in the sport stopped existing after 2006.

I've thought this too, but I can't put my finger on what he exactly changed about his forehand. It's just when you saw his forehand preparation prior to 2007/2008 you just saw he was gonna kill the ball. Not so much in his later years.

I'd love to see an analysis comparing the different forehands of Fed.

 

[Russeljones]

Staggering that not everyone agrees about this one.

 

[ghostofMecir]

Lots of things:

1. His movement is not as explosive. In 2003-2006 into 2007, he catches up to more balls to his FH and then can lash the ball DTL or CC. With his decline in movement, he couldn't attack these balls to that are wide his FH.

2. Knowing this, he went to more and more Nadal like FHs and was successful at keeping rallies at neutral or slightly in his favor.

3. His racket preparation wasn't as early in those early years when he indeed looked like he was going to murder the ball.

4. He began to creep closer and closer to the baseline and so he wasn't taking the full cuts with the FH, but rather the abbreviated cuts.

5. Racket head speed dropped slightly

6. Finally, the racket change basically all but killed the old Federer FH.

 

[Rally]

The real reason was the slowing down of all the courts, allowing players like Nadal to return otherwise clear winners.

That's a half truth. It made his forehand less effective, but it was not the reason that his forehand actually got worse over the years. It got worse because he went from swinging like this

to swinging like this

.
Then he got slower as he got older, and then he switched to a racquet that was too powerful for him to go all out on the forehand wing and expect it to land in more often than not.

 

[Rally]

I've thought this too, but I can't put my finger on what he exactly changed about his forehand. It's just when you saw his forehand preparation prior to 2007/2008 you just saw he was gonna kill the ball. Not so much in his later years.

I'd love to see an analysis comparing the different forehands of Fed.

What changed was the motion. Let's draw an imaginary line from the net to Federer. Now let's draw another imaginary line from Federer to the position of his racquet on his backswing. For his forehand from 2003 to the end of 2006, that angle was closer to 150 degrees. He really opened up on the forehand and took full swings at the ball. The ball he produced was flatter but much faster. Compare it to the forehand he hit from 2007 to today. The angle between those imaginary lines is much closer to 90 degrees. The swing path that came from this shorter swing opened his racquet face a little more and gave him more topspin, but it took away from the pace he had on the ball. The old forehand was the forehand that let him hit through people. The current forehand produces more of a rally ball.

 

[FiReFTW]

What changed was the motion. Let's draw an imaginary line from the net to Federer. Now let's draw another imaginary line from Federer to the position of his racquet on his backswing. For his forehand from 2003 to the end of 2006, that angle was closer to 150 degrees. He really opened up on the forehand and took full swings at the ball. The ball he produced was flatter but much faster. Compare it to the forehand he hit from 2007 to today. The angle between those imaginary lines is much closer to 90 degrees. The swing path that came from this shorter swing opened his racquet face a little more and gave him more topspin, but it took away from the pace he had on the ball. The old forehand was the forehand that let him hit through people. The current forehand produces more of a rally ball.

Why did he make that change tho, and would you think it was a positive or a negative change?

 

[Rally]

Why did he make that change tho, and would you think it was a positive or a negative change?

In my opinion, he made the change to have a better chance at winning that elusive French Open, and I think it was a negative change. Let's look at it purely from the standpoint of winning the French Open. Roger didn't win in 2007 or 2008. He didn't win in 2011 either. He won it the year that Nadal lost to Soderling in the 4th round, 2009. As a die hard Federer fan who watched how he played in Madrid 2009 against Nadal, I think he had a strong chance of beating Nadal had he made it to the final, but that's irrelevant. The point is that he changed his forehand for the sole purpose of beating Nadal on clay, and he didn't even have to beat him to get his French Open title. He would have won the French Open with his old forehand if everything else remained the same. I also think that changing his forehand cost him at least three more majors.

 

[tenniswright]

Why did he make that change tho, and would you think it was a positive or a negative change?

His forehand has definitely changed. But that's not why his forehand has declined. He's just not in position to strike it. No way he makes an adjustment that reduces his ball-striking ability. He has improved his technique over time, not made it worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rally]

His forehand has definitely changed. But that's not why his forehand has declined. He's just not in position to strike it. No way he makes an adjustment that reduces his ball-striking ability. He has improved his technique over time, not made it worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's the thing though. There is a huge tradeoff in changing a forehand motion. We see it when we compare the tape for his matches. We also see it when we try to hit different forehand motions ourselves. No matter how hard he tries, he will never be able to consistently hit a ball with his current motion with the same pace he had on his old motion, and no matter how hard he tries he will never be able to consistently hit the ball with his old motion with as much spin as he gets from his new motion. He most likely changed his forehand motion because he thought there was more benefit in having more topspin and less benefit in having pure ball-striking ability on slower courts with slower balls. I agree that his technique improved over time. To my eyes, his 2009 forehand was the most explosive his current forehand has ever been, not his 2007 forehand which was when he was two years younger and using it for the first time. But I still think that he made a conscious decision that he was willing to sacrifice some pure ball-striking ability for the sake of having more topspin for a heavier rally ball. I think he wanted a heavier rally ball because at the time he thought the best way to win was to construct points from the baseline as opposed to just hitting through his opponents.

 

[mike danny]

While Federer did change his FH after 2006, he still won 8 more majors despire this.

 

[Rally]

While Federer did change his FH after 2006, he still won 8 more majors despire this.

More a testament of the man than the forehand.

 

[tenniswright]

More a testament of the man than the forehand.

Power comes from the hips. Not the arms. Federer would never make an adjustment that would compromise his ball striking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rally]

Power comes from the hips. Not the arms. Federer would never make an adjustment that would compromise his ball striking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not saying he strong-armed the ball. No professional would have technique that bad. This is the difference though. Hips alone don't provide power. They provide torque. The longer the swing and longer the time before contact, the higher the angular velocity is. He gets more angular velocity with the old motion because his racquet has more time to accelerate, and therefore comes at a slightly higher angular velocity than he does with the current motion. I am also saying that his old swing path was flatter which meant more of his racquet head speed was transferred to ball speed.

 

[Gazelle]

What changed was the motion. Let's draw an imaginary line from the net to Federer. Now let's draw another imaginary line from Federer to the position of his racquet on his backswing. For his forehand from 2003 to the end of 2006, that angle was closer to 150 degrees. He really opened up on the forehand and took full swings at the ball. The ball he produced was flatter but much faster. Compare it to the forehand he hit from 2007 to today. The angle between those imaginary lines is much closer to 90 degrees. The swing path that came from this shorter swing opened his racquet face a little more and gave him more topspin, but it took away from the pace he had on the ball. The old forehand was the forehand that let him hit through people. The current forehand produces more of a rally ball.

Interesting, thanks for this explanation. So if I interpret this correctly, Fed has reduced the degree of shoulder turn on his forehand. People in the past have told me how his backswing used to be larger. Well, I believe that top-notch forehands don't really swing from the arm, they bring their arm and racket back by rotating hip and shoulders. By having less rotation, Fed's backswing appears shorter. This would also correlate with my observation that his preparation used to be much more intimidating, as if you felt he was going to hit big. What is the main factor in making your forehand stroke look impressive? I believe it is the unit turn (shoulder+hip turn). Fed's old bigger unit turn made his forehand much more dangerous looking, and also produced a faster ball (I don't know about spin though).

 

[tenniswright]

I'm not saying he strong-armed the ball. No professional would have technique that bad. This is the difference though. Hips alone don't provide power. They provide torque. The longer the swing and longer the time before contact, the higher the angular velocity is. He gets more angular velocity with the old motion because his racquet has more time to accelerate, and therefore comes at a slightly higher angular velocity than he does with the current motion. I am also saying that his old swing path was flatter which meant more of his racquet head speed was transferred to ball speed.

Yeah, I totally understand the argument that he's losing some space to build momentum. But if he's losing power because of less room to generate angular momentum, he is also going to be losing racquet head speed and spin as well. Even with a greater angle hitting up on the ball, he still wouldn't be gaining spin if it was an issue that he was losing angular momentum and power on the ball. It would really just be all bad, then, if that were true, and Fed would feel that hitting a forehand.

But he has been reducing the prep size since his junior days, and I don't think the loss in angular momentum is enough for him to even notice. If he did, he would never have changed it. It wouldn't have felt right.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Say Chi Sin Lo]

That's a half truth. It made his forehand less effective, but it was not the reason that his forehand actually got worse over the years. It got worse because he went from swinging like this

to swinging like this

.
Then he got slower as he got older, and then he switched to a racquet that was too powerful for him to go all out on the forehand wing and expect it to land in more often than not.

2009 forehands was less pixelated.

 

[Rally]

2009 forehands was less pixelated.

If only HD video was mainstream in the 90s. All of Fed's matches and most of Sampras's matches wouldn't have to be remastered.

 

[Rally]

Yeah, I totally understand the argument that he's losing some space to build momentum. But if he's losing power because of less room to generate angular momentum, he is also going to be losing racquet head speed and spin as well. Even with a greater angle hitting up on the ball, he still wouldn't be gaining spin if it was an issue that he was losing angular momentum and power on the ball. It would really just be all bad, then, if that were true, and Fed would feel that hitting a forehand.

But he has been reducing the prep size since his junior days, and I don't think the loss in angular momentum is enough for him to even notice. If he did, he would never have changed it. It wouldn't have felt right.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I was a little vague earlier, I'll clarify. I think he loses a little bit of angular momentum but not a massive amount. Probably 5%. I'm saying the majority of the loss in pace and addition of spin comes from the wrist flick/release that the current forehand has. The current forehand has a much more dramatic natural wrist flick/release which wasn't there on the old forehand.

 

[tenniswright]

If I was a little vague earlier, I'll clarify. I think he loses a little bit of angular momentum but not a massive amount. Probably 5%. I'm saying the majority of the loss in pace and addition of spin comes from the wrist flick/release that the current forehand has. The current forehand has a much more dramatic natural wrist flick/release which wasn't there on the old forehand.

Ok, I definitely see that on his heavier spin forehands. But I still think he has the ability to drive through the ball when he wants. He still has control over the little angles that change how much he strikes the ball, whether it's a flat ball or a heavy spin, glancing blow.

This is a warmup from 2010. There are several forehands that are clean and flat. I think he has full command over the release of the shot. He still has impeccable timing and feel:

Unfortunately, in tennis years, he's just old. The biggest issue on his forehand is the out-wide. The second is that he's not nearly as effective with the inside forehand. Both of these are movement rather than technical issues.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rally]

Ok, I definitely see that on his heavier spin forehands. But I still think he has the ability to drive through the ball when he wants. He still has control over the little angles that change how much he strikes the ball, whether it's a flat ball or a heavy spin, glancing blow.

This is a warmup from 2010. There are several forehands that are clean and flat. I think he has full command over the release of the shot. He still has impeccable timing and feel:

Unfortunately, in tennis years, he's just old. The biggest issue on his forehand is the out-wide. The second is that he's not nearly as effective with the inside forehand. Both of these are movement rather than technical issues.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not arguing that he's still as fresh as a daisy as he was when he was 25. I wholeheartedly agree that he has slowed down over the years and his foot speed is miles behind where it used to be. If his feet were still quick, he wouldn't have had to turn into a serve and volleyer for most of the last three years. My argument is more geared towards 2003-2006 forehand for 22-25 year-old Federer vs 2007-2009 forehand for 26-28 year old Federer. I'm comparing both forehands at their peak years.

 

[Sartorius]

Fantastic insight from @Rally, kudos.

You could say in general Fed was a much more instinctive player pre-2007. He slowly but surely turned to a more calculated style of play - though this was probably a natural progression because as time passed his athleticism and explosiveness declined, and he had to compensate.

The point Rally makes about the change to topspin FH to beat Nadal on clay and Fed ending up winning FO without facing him is an interesting one indeed - I would argue though (as Rally too argues later) the change probably wasn't solely about Nadal, things were slowing down all around. His performance at 2009 is underrated, plus he had the dropshot that year; 2011 saw one of his best FO performances but that was probably because of the fast balls used that year. I'd say even with the old forehand Fed's success would be the same - he still gets Nadaled in 2008 and Novacked in 2011. 2010 was I think a weird year for him since his career was in a different place after 2009. In fact the old forehand might have backfired at times since that still required Fed to be consistently explosive.

The racket change is also an interesting point of discussion as it seems hard to gauge what goes right and what goes wrong for him on the FH side. I think he knowingly went through with it since he felt the BH needed tuning, plus he has an easier time serving which at this stage is as important as his FH.

 

[KINGROGER]

Fed was fine from the baseline until the end of 2012.

It was after 2012 that his baseline game declined which is only natural.

But my point is that before 2013 his baseline game was still pretty compact. He wouldn't have beaten Djokovic in GS and returned to world no.1 in 2012 otherwise.

He was fine yes, but nowhere near his peak years on the baseline. If he was, he likely would've won 4 or 5 / 6 HC majors in 10 - 12.

In my opinion, he made the change to have a better chance at winning that elusive French Open, and I think it was a negative change. Let's look at it purely from the standpoint of winning the French Open. Roger didn't win in 2007 or 2008. He didn't win in 2011 either. He won it the year that Nadal lost to Soderling in the 4th round, 2009. As a die hard Federer fan who watched how he played in Madrid 2009 against Nadal, I think he had a strong chance of beating Nadal had he made it to the final, but that's irrelevant. The point is that he changed his forehand for the sole purpose of beating Nadal on clay, and he didn't even have to beat him to get his French Open title. He would have won the French Open with his old forehand if everything else remained the same. I also think that changing his forehand cost him at least three more majors.

Spot on.

Had he kept his GOAT forehand, he would've won 7 or 8 Wimbledons in a row by hitting through Nadal. Would've won 6-8 USO in a row too and right now would be on at least 22 majors, regardless of FO (which, like you said he probably would've won anyway in 2009).

5 or 6 x AO, 8 or 9 x Wimbledon and 7 or 8 x USO champion with 0-1 RG is better than his current stats (still GOAT regardless).

 

[KINGROGER]

Fantastic insight from @Rally, kudos.

You could say in general Fed was a much more instinctive player pre-2007. He slowly but surely turned to a more calculated style of play - though this was probably a natural progression because as time passed his athleticism and explosiveness declined, and he had to compensate.

The point Rally makes about the change to topspin FH to beat Nadal on clay and Fed ending up winning FO without facing him is an interesting one indeed - I would argue though (as Rally too argues later) the change probably wasn't solely about Nadal, things were slowing down all around. His performance at 2009 is underrated, plus he had the dropshot that year, and 2011 was one of his best FO performances, but that was probably because of the fast balls used that year. I'd say even with the old forehand Fed's success would be the same - he still gets Nadaled in 2008 and Novacked in 2011. 2010 was I think a weird year for him since his career was in a different place after 2009. In fact the old forehand might have backfired at times since that still required Fed to be consistently explosive.

The racket change is also an interesting point of discussion as it seems hard to gauge what goes right and what goes wrong for him on the FH side. I think he knowingly went through with it since he felt the BH needed tuning, plus he has an easier time serving which at this stage is as important as his FH.

Fed would've owned Djokovic at both HC majors with a fully firing FH. Especially USO where he wouldn't miss those easy putaways on MP.

 

[Sartorius]

Fed would've owned Djokovic at both HC majors with a fully firing FH. Especially USO where he wouldn't miss those easy putaways on MP.

USO perhaps (still a big if) but definitely not AO. Night matches at plexicushion AO are a completely different affair - things slow down further as matches go on and it heavily favors Novak.

 

[metsman]

I've thought this too, but I can't put my finger on what he exactly changed about his forehand. It's just when you saw his forehand preparation prior to 2007/2008 you just saw he was gonna kill the ball. Not so much in his later years.

I'd love to see an analysis comparing the different forehands of Fed.

shorter backswing, went up more instead of through the ball. And with shorter preparation, your rotation and racquet head speed through the ball is also compromised.

Part of it may have been trying to add more spin to win on clay. Part of it may also have been some physical decline which made him a little slower to the ball and gave him less preparation. But the languid and fluid forehand motion and rotation that he used to get in 03-06 that produced so much penetration and heaviness on the FH started to disappear starting 07. In 08 he definitely lost a step so his preparation was compromised.

 

[Rally]

USO perhaps (still a big if) but definitely not AO. Night matches at plexicushion AO are a completely different affair - things slow down further as matches go on and it heavily favors Novak.

That's why @KINGROGER said only 5-6 Australian Opens if Roger kept the old forehand. Slow hard court is Djokovic's domain, but the bully tennis that Federer's old forehand allowed him to play would give him more of a fighting chance that trying to coax short balls from Djokovic like Federer has been playing since 2007. I personally think that Roger would have at least 2 more Wimbledons and the 2009 US Open if he had that old forehand. I'd even like his chances to take another Australian Open, which is pretty conservative since it's only one AO in eight years.

 

[metsman]

I also do think that Federer lost some functional strength especially in his core over the years. Feel like he had more muscle in 03-06 which gave him more explosive movement into the FH and loading/trunk rotation on his FH. May have been because of the back, or he just lost motivation to train as hard.

 

[KINGROGER]

USO perhaps (still a big if) but definitely not AO. Night matches at plexicushion AO are a completely different affair - things slow down further as matches go on and it heavily favors Novak.

I think Peak Fed would win anyway (choked first set of 2011 AO and held double MP at USO and also owned Nole at both RG and Wimbledon post prime)

But with the old forehand and tactics I'd give him 09 AO possibly 08 although mono cost him there, and also a good chance at 2011 AO. Any AO after that is business as usual.

USO I give him 09, makes final in 10/11 in which I think he wins at least one.

Wimbledon 03 through to 09 then 2 out of 10,11,12 (probably 11/12 as Rafa wasn't as good in 2011)

So 5-6 AO, 8-9 Wimbledon, 6-7+ USO and 1 RG regardless, so 20-23 slams I make that.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I think Peak Fed would win anyway (choked first set of 2011 AO and held double MP at USO and also owned Nole at both RG and Wimbledon post prime)

But with the old forehand and tactics I'd give him 09 AO possibly 08 although mono cost him there, and also a good chance at 2011 AO. Any AO after that is business as usual.

USO I give him 09, makes final in 10/11 in which I think he wins at least one.

Wimbledon 03 through to 09 then 2 out of 10,11,12 (probably 11/12 as Rafa wasn't as good in 2011)

So 5-6 AO, 8-9 Wimbledon, 6-7+ USO and 1 RG regardless, so 20-23 slams I make that.

I have to say between you and Nadalfan 2013 I never have to look too far for a good laugh before retiring for the night. Keep 'em coming mate.

 

[KINGROGER]

I have to say between you and Nadalfan 2013 I never have to look too far for a good laugh before retiring for the night. Keep 'em coming mate.

No problem I'll keep the facts and sound analysis coming all day

 

[donquijote]

tl;dr