Roger losing to Nole in 5 setters unrelated to age

[Alien]

People keep saying the mantra: Federer cannot beat Djokovic to 5 sets anymore, he is too old.

Which is completely wrong. Resistance is the last to disappear, and certainly not at 34. Quick muscles are the first to go (and his performance shows he is no slower than before, but this is altogether another matter).


For instance:

http://www.runnersworld.com/masters/age-matters-for-marathoning

"These physiological changes inevitably alter marathon performance. Though individuals will age differently, studies indicate that beyond about age 35, endurance performance declines by about five to 15 percent per decade, says Dieter Leyk, a researcher at the Institute for Physiology and Anatomy in Cologne, Germany. Leyk recently examined age–related changes in marathon performance among 300,757 runners, and found that among top–10 finishers, running times slowed by about 10.5 percent per decade for men and 14.8 percent among women.

But that study yielded encouraging news for runners outside of the lead pack. For the nonelites tracked, the decline was a little lower-and began later. "For these runners, significant age–related losses in endurance performance did not occur before the age of 50. Mean marathon and half–marathon times were nearly identical for the age groups from 20 to 49 years." The bottom line: Keep up your training, and there's no reason you can't continue to put in solid performances well into middle–age."



If Federer cannot keep up with Nole up to 5 sets, it s certainly NOT because of his age, but just because Nole's tennis is better than his nowadays. Period. Age is not excuse for having less resistance.

 

[RF20Lennon]

People say the age because Federer has lost his killer instinct. He keeps setting up opportunities and then shooting himself in the foot. He has no mental focus. The age has made him lose that. That's what McEnroe was talking about. It's not about the physical aspect. It's about Federer not being able to focus, make use of his chances and be proactive. He was just waiting for Djokovic to make mistakes and he wasn't. If he had taken those bp's up 4-3 he could've wrapped it up in 4.

Oh and btw he is considerably slower. Go watch old videos of him playing. The explosiveness is gone. But that's not why he lost. He lost because he couldn't break to save his life and lost focus while being up 40-15 3 times.

 

[wy2sl0]

By the far the best Roger has hit his backhand since 2011 final versus Nadal probably. Maybe before that.

What is there to say? Roger had the match on his racket. Mental errors cost him the match. That was the worst loss I have ever seen since I have watched tennis (in terms of choking). That mid court sitter in the 3rd set is on repeat for me.

 

[Alien]

People say the age because Federer has lost his killer instinct. He keeps setting up opportunities and then shooting himself in the foot. He has no mental focus. The age has made him lose that. That's what McEnroe was talking about. It's not about the physical aspect. It's about Federer not being able to focus, make use of his chances and be proactive. He was just waiting for Djokovic to make mistakes and he wasn't. If he had taken those bp's up 4-3 he could've wrapped it up in 4.

Oh and btw he is considerably slower. Go watch old videos of him playing. The explosiveness is gone. But that's not why he lost. He lost because he couldn't break to save his life and lost focus while being up 40-15 3 times.

So at 34 you get mentally tired ? Weaker ? How come, your neurons are old, or you get Alzheimer ?

Nonsense. You lose motivation (not his case) or you dont. Your character doesnt get weak at 34.

 

[RF20Lennon]

So at 34 you get mentally tired ? Weaker ? How come, your neurons are old, or you get Alzheimer ?

Nonsense. You lose motivation (not his case) or you dont. Your character doesnt get weak at 34.

No, you start to lose focus and tired with the amount of matches he's played. You don't have the same mental edge that you did when you were in your 20's. That being said he still should've capitalized on his chances but he didn't. Because he couldn't step on it when he needed to. It gets harder with age to keep that focus. All the ex players talk about it. Even Agassi talked about it at length in his book 'Open'.

 

[ultradr]

If Federer cannot keep up with Nole up to 5 sets, it s certainly NOT because of his age, but just because Nole's tennis is better than his nowadays. Period. Age is not excuse for having less resistance.

Federer had this issue even during his prime. Exposed by matches against Nadal only though.

Federer resorts to defensive baseline game when pressured.
It's a widely known issue he's been failing to correct.

 

[RF20Lennon]

By the far the best Roger has hit his backhand since 2011 final versus Nadal probably. Maybe before that.

What is there to say? Roger had the match on his racket. Mental errors cost him the match. That was the worst loss I have ever seen since I have watched tennis (in terms of choking). That mid court sitter in the 3rd set is on repeat for me.

SO MUCH THIS.

He just went away.

 

[sportsfan1]

People say the age because Federer has lost his killer instinct. He keeps setting up opportunities and then shooting himself in the foot. He has no mental focus. The age has made him lose that. That's what McEnroe was talking about. It's not about the physical aspect. It's about Federer not being able to focus, make use of his chances and be proactive. He was just waiting for Djokovic to make mistakes and he wasn't. If he had taken those bp's up 4-3 he could've wrapped it up in 4.

Oh and btw he is considerably slower. Go watch old videos of him playing. The explosiveness is gone. But that's not why he lost. He lost because he couldn't break to save his life and lost focus while being up 40-15 3 times.

He got broken from being 40-15 up, as well as failed to break while being 0-40 or 15-40 up several times. smh.

 

[Noelan]

Good god, you fans talk about him as hes in his mid 40es

 

[RF20Lennon]

Federer had this issue even during his prime. Exposed by matches against Nadal only though.

Federer resorts to defensive baseline game when pressured.
It's a widely known issue he's been failing to correct.

Federer at his prime was at least proactive. He was explosive and would take opportunities. And it's not really pressured when you're UP 4-3 with two bp's now is it? He was waiting for Djokovic to commit the error and it wasn't happening.

 

[RF20Lennon]

He got broken from being 40-15 up, as well as failed to break while being 0-40 or 15-40 up several times. smh.

Yeah exactly it was pretty pathetic to say the least.

 

[Alien]

Federer had this issue even during his prime. Exposed by matches against Nadal only though.

Federer resorts to defensive baseline game when pressured.
It's a widely known issue he's been failing to correct.

So unrelated to age, again.

He either has always been mentally fragile (your saying, I disagree), or not. He doesnt change mental at 34, sorry.

 

[Alien]

No, you start to lose focus and tired with the amount of matches he's played. You don't have the same mental edge that you did when you were in your 20's. That being said he still should've capitalized on his chances but he didn't. Because he couldn't step on it when he needed to. It gets harder with age to keep that focus. All the ex players talk about it. Even Agassi talked about it at length in his book 'Open'.

Sorry, no. Car racers keep driving well beyond 34, do they lose focus duerin g arace so they crash ?

I would say on the contrary, you dont have the same mental edge than 20s, you have MORE of it. More mature, stronger, more savy.

 

[BGod]

He's the most conservative player on tour now with key points. Never goes for it anymore. Just waits for opponent to make mistake.

 

[RF20Lennon]

Sorry, no. Car racers keep driving well beyond 34, do they lose focus duerin g arace so they crash ?

I would say on the contrary, you dont have the same mental edge than 20s, you have MORE of it. More mature, stronger, more savy.

Go read Agassi's book. Go listen to JMac's commentary. All of which have more credibility than you are offering.

Again despite that Federer just blew his opportunities. He wasn't getting blown off the court. He shot himself in the foot! He really did. If he had broken at 4-3 it would've been Wimbledon 2012 all over again.

 

[RF20Lennon]

He's the most conservative player on tour now with key points. Never goes for it anymore. Just waits for opponent to make mistake.

Yeah this is it! Exactly! That's what cost him the match. A younger Federer would have taken chances and made use of his opportunities unlike the one yesterday.

 

[HoyaPride]

Again despite that Federer just blew his opportunities. He wasn't getting blown off the court. He shot himself in the foot! He really did. If he had broken at 4-3 it would've been Wimbledon 2012 all over again.

That's called tennis. I blew a 40-0 lead last week and got broken. It happens.

 

[RF20Lennon]

That's called tennis. I blew a 40-0 lead last week and got broken. It happens.

Yeah agreed but this guy repeatedly keeps creating chances and blowing them. 23 bp's FFS I mean how much can you ask for? If he had capitalized on at least close to half of them he would've won. But doesn't have that killer mentality anymore. Just sits back, rallies on big points and hopes for a mistake.

 

[Alien]

Go read Agassi's book. Go listen to JMac's commentary. All of which have more credibility than you are offering.

Again despite that Federer just blew his opportunities. He wasn't getting blown off the court. He shot himself in the foot! He really did. If he had broken at 4-3 it would've been Wimbledon 2012 all over again.

Well I read Open when it went out as well as almost all the other tennis books out there.

All Agassi can tell about is him and his loss of motivation or what happened to him. Nobody else's. It is clear Roger is still motivated, don't you agree?

 

[Alien]

Yeah this is it! Exactly! That's what cost him the match. A younger Federer would have taken chances and made use of his opportunities unlike the one yesterday.

Sure sure, a younger Federer. Like he did against Nadal.

No mental change due to being as old as 34. If he blew it, he would have blown it at any age.

You tend to forget he was playet the best defense in the history and likely the most consistent at this speed of ball ever.

 

[RF20Lennon]

Well I read Open when it went out as well as almost all the other tennis books out there.

All Agassi can tell about is him and his lost of motivation or wjat happened to him. Nobody else's. It is clear Roger is still motivated, don't you agree?

I agree! As another poster posted on a thread. I think Federer puts too much pressure on himself, gets tensed and then cracks. Then he becomes more free flowing when he is in danger but when he's up he feels the pressure to end it? What do you think?

 

[RF20Lennon]

Sure sure, a younger Federer. Like he did against Nadal.

No mental change due to being as old as 34. If he blew it, he would have blown it at any age.

You tend to forget he was playet the best defense in the history and likely the most consistent at this speed of ball ever.

His record against Nadal has always been abysmal. No argument there. But a younger Federer would not have been as nervous. He would have taken it to Djokovic, been more proactive and taken his chances. Just look at Wimbledon 2012. If he hadn't broken at 5-4 in the third it would've turned out like yesterday and similarly if he taken it yesterday it would've turned out like that match.

 

[NastyWinners]

If he repeatedly made these mistakes then he wouldn't be in two slam finals and #2 in the world.

 

[Sysyphus]

OP's comparison to marathon is not a solid one. Tennis focuses on completely different energy systems. Purely aerobic endurance can be kept up for a long time. The repeated anaerobic bursts needed for tennis is a different thing altogether.

If you looked at, say, medal winners in the 800 metres, I'd dare predict that you wouldn't find many over 30 years at all. And the typical age is certainly more towards the lower 20's. And this isn't surprising, because most reach their peak anaerobic capacity during their twenties.

 

[Gazelle]

Good god, you fans talk about him as hes in his mid 40es

You realize nearly all of Feds peers have retired by now?

 

[Alien]

His record against Nadal has always been abysmal. No argument there. But a younger Federer would not have been as nervous. He would have taken it to Djokovic, been more proactive and taken his chances. Just look at Wimbledon 2012. If he hadn't broken at 5-4 in the third it would've turned out like yesterday and similarly if he taken it yesterday it would've turned out like that match.

You might be right and he could have lost it mentally. However, it would be after his own history with Note or the fact that he lost so many times lately to him. Maybe in 2005 he would have had more confident because he used to win against the weaker Hewitt, Nalby or Ljubicic. But totally unrelated to age.

 

[billboard]

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]Fred played puppet Roddick which involved Roddick's worship, fake effort, predictable, topspin undisguised serves and nonexistent returns. He had a bad record against Hewitt and Agassi even when they no longer challenged for slams. He was lucky, like Roddick, because he faced a mediocre or injured Nalbandian, and in 2003, Fred was beneficiary of his own genetic advantage. He was light boned, so the media and sycophant fanatics thought he was too balletic, friendly, gracious, intellectual, pretty and clever for Novak.
Fred doesn't respect nadal much because he says nadal ran a lot like Hewitt, which meant that he was just 'facing a match-up issue'.
Once Novak improved a lil bit, Fred became a lame duck that needed misfortunes (Novak injuries, illness, disastrous French open delay by fognini, novak's marriage obsession and grandpa death) to earn free ranking points. Fred can't believe his luck with no real opponent in 2003-2006 and nadal conceding defeat.[/COLOR]

 

[Alien]

You realize nearly all of Feds peers have retired by now?

Why? Loss of motivation, injuries or losing, going down in rankings which produce loss of motivation etc.

None of them happened to Roger.

 

[Gazelle]

Why? Loss of motivation, injuries or losing, going down in rankings which produce loss of motivation etc.

None of them happened to Roger.

It means Fed is at an age at which most players are already retired, so people shouldn't expect him to play his all time best tennis nowadays.

 

[Alien]

It means Fed is at an age at which most players are already retired, so people shouldn't expect him to play his all time best tennis nowadays.

Why again? If not injured, fit and motivated, his body IS still young at 34.

 

[Gazelle]

Why again? If not injured, fit and motivated, his body IS still young at 34.

It's called AGING and MILEAGE. There are dictionaries in case you don't understand these words.

 

[tennisaddict]

Good god, you fans talk about him as hes in his mid 40es

1 year in age gap is more than a 2 year gap in tennis quality.

Wait for 6 years to see how Novak fares against Coric and Kokk.

 

[HRB]

People keep saying the mantra: Federer cannot beat Djokovic to 5 sets anymore, he is too old.

Which is completely wrong. Resistance is the last to disappear, and certainly not at 34. Quick muscles are the first to go (and his performance shows he is no slower than before, but this is altogether another matter).


For instance:

http://www.runnersworld.com/masters/age-matters-for-marathoning

"These physiological changes inevitably alter marathon performance. Though individuals will age differently, studies indicate that beyond about age 35, endurance performance declines by about five to 15 percent per decade, says Dieter Leyk, a researcher at the Institute for Physiology and Anatomy in Cologne, Germany. Leyk recently examined age–related changes in marathon performance among 300,757 runners, and found that among top–10 finishers, running times slowed by about 10.5 percent per decade for men and 14.8 percent among women.

But that study yielded encouraging news for runners outside of the lead pack. For the nonelites tracked, the decline was a little lower-and began later. "For these runners, significant age–related losses in endurance performance did not occur before the age of 50. Mean marathon and half–marathon times were nearly identical for the age groups from 20 to 49 years." The bottom line: Keep up your training, and there's no reason you can't continue to put in solid performances well into middle–age."



If Federer cannot keep up with Nole up to 5 sets, it s certainly NOT because of his age, but just because Nole's tennis is better than his nowadays. Period. Age is not excuse for having less resistance.

Despite you using the worst sport to compare to tennis as your "proof" (short repeated explosive sprints and acceleration and de-accellerations, and changes in direction have nothing to do with the endurance to plod along at a steady clip for hours!), I have to agree that fitness for Rog is not the issue.

Roger is a great tennis player, arguably the best of all time so far, however in the past 2 years there is a player who is even better...plain and simple.

Joker is #1, Rog is #2. Takes nothing away from Rogers past, and says everything about Jokers present and potential future. Nuff said.

 

[billboard]

Fred played error machines (Blake with scoliosis effects, overweight sycophant Roddick, indifferent journeymen...), so the Fred fanboys have a hard time understanding why he didn't suffer physically. What a genius Fred is! SUCH bad luck and old age!

Pete Sampras had low red blood count. Fred is just bruised by Novak.

 

[Alien]

Despite you using the worst sport to compare to tennis as your "proof" (short repeated explosive sprints and acceleration and de-accellerations, and changes in direction have nothing to do with the endurance to plod along at a steady clip for hours!), I have to agree that fitness for Rog is not the issue.

Roger is a great tennis player, arguably the best of all time so far, however in the past 2 years there is a player who is even better...plain and simple.

Joker is #1, Rog is #2. Takes nothing away from Rogers past, and says everything about Jokers present and potential future. Nuff said.

I disagree with your first paragraph (anaerobic takes you through a point, aerobic takes you through five sets, my point being you don't lose resistance at 34), but I concur 100% with the rest.

 

[Fedfan34]

People keep saying the mantra: Federer cannot beat Djokovic to 5 sets anymore, he is too old.

Which is completely wrong. Resistance is the last to disappear, and certainly not at 34. Quick muscles are the first to go (and his performance shows he is no slower than before, but this is altogether another matter).


For instance:

http://www.runnersworld.com/masters/age-matters-for-marathoning

"These physiological changes inevitably alter marathon performance. Though individuals will age differently, studies indicate that beyond about age 35, endurance performance declines by about five to 15 percent per decade, says Dieter Leyk, a researcher at the Institute for Physiology and Anatomy in Cologne, Germany. Leyk recently examined age–related changes in marathon performance among 300,757 runners, and found that among top–10 finishers, running times slowed by about 10.5 percent per decade for men and 14.8 percent among women.

But that study yielded encouraging news for runners outside of the lead pack. For the nonelites tracked, the decline was a little lower-and began later. "For these runners, significant age–related losses in endurance performance did not occur before the age of 50. Mean marathon and half–marathon times were nearly identical for the age groups from 20 to 49 years." The bottom line: Keep up your training, and there's no reason you can't continue to put in solid performances well into middle–age."



If Federer cannot keep up with Nole up to 5 sets, it s certainly NOT because of his age, but just because Nole's tennis is better than his nowadays. Period. Age is not excuse for having less resistance.

I wasn't aware that Federer was a marathon runner?

 

[Alien]

I wasn't aware that Federer was a marathon runner?

You got it wrong. That would be Wozniacki.

 

[Noelan]

1 year in age gap is more than a 2 year gap in tennis quality.

Wait for 6 years to see how Novak fares against Coric and Kokk.

That's the only thing that you fans come up. You sound like broken record, if Fedrerer would feel the way that you portrait him when losing the big matches, I belive he would be retired by now.
I'm not worried about Novak I belive he wont play tennis at age 34, will be high profile politician ( in UN or his country), and I will enjoy tennis when someone of my young favorites would play great tennis and winning the titles. For me ,who knows maybe the time between Borg/Mac and Novaks as my big favs this time will be shorther.
Really like that young boy Chung .

 

[NatF]

Stopped reading at "He's no slower than before"

Djokovic had a great win on Sunday. Best to leave it there.

 

[tennisaddict]

That's the only thing that you fans come up. You sound like broken record, if Fedrerer would feel the way that you portrait him when losing the big matches, I belive he would be retired by now.
I'm not worried about Novak I belive he wont play tennis at age 34, will be high profile politician ( in UN or his country), and I will enjoy tennis when someone of my young favorites would play great tennis and winning the titles. For me ,who knows maybe the time between Borg/Mac and Novaks as my big favs this time will be shorther.
Really like that young boy Chung .

Why does it hurt when we mention Fed's age ? Is he not 34 ?

Listen, no one is discrediting Novak. He may even if the best of Federer is showing up. That does not mean that current Federer is playing the best tennis of his life

 

[Noelan]

Come one, why would that hurt me? Just find it boring and tiresome, I think you guys discredit him if anything with that constant whinning about his age.
But each of their own

 

[Sysyphus]

I disagree with your first paragraph (anaerobic takes you through a point, aerobic takes you through five sets, my point being you don't lose resistance at 34), but I concur 100% with the rest.

But this is still obviously wrong.

You use different energy systems to replenish your ATP stores during repeated anaerobic activity like tennis compared to a purely aerobic activity like marathon.

Yes, tennis has an aerobic component, but it just works through completely different mechanisms and systems—there's much more of an interaction between the energy systems. And these capacities quite obviously peak at an earlier age.

And even pro long distance runners have their natural peak earlier than 34, even though it declines slower the longer (more purely aerobic) the event.

And this:

In a non-tennis study that differentiated athletes depending on the sport-specific skills used, Bradbury (2009) found that “the evidence indicates that athletes peak in their mid-to-late twenties” (p. 2). Bradbury’s finding was not surprising. Schulz and Curnow (1988) were more specific. Using various performance records, they pinpointed the most likely age at which athletes achieve peak performance in a variety of sports. For men, Schulz and Curnow found the peak performance age to be: (i) 22 for sprints (100 and 200 meters); (ii) 24 for middle distances (800 meters and mile); (iii) 27 for long distances (5000 meters to marathon); (iv) 28 for baseball; (v) 24 for tennis; and (vi) 31 for golf.

 

[Russeljones]

People keep saying the mantra: Federer cannot beat Djokovic to 5 sets anymore, he is too old.

Which is completely wrong. Resistance is the last to disappear, and certainly not at 34. Quick muscles are the first to go (and his performance shows he is no slower than before, but this is altogether another matter).


For instance:

http://www.runnersworld.com/masters/age-matters-for-marathoning

"These physiological changes inevitably alter marathon performance. Though individuals will age differently, studies indicate that beyond about age 35, endurance performance declines by about five to 15 percent per decade, says Dieter Leyk, a researcher at the Institute for Physiology and Anatomy in Cologne, Germany. Leyk recently examined age–related changes in marathon performance among 300,757 runners, and found that among top–10 finishers, running times slowed by about 10.5 percent per decade for men and 14.8 percent among women.

But that study yielded encouraging news for runners outside of the lead pack. For the nonelites tracked, the decline was a little lower-and began later. "For these runners, significant age–related losses in endurance performance did not occur before the age of 50. Mean marathon and half–marathon times were nearly identical for the age groups from 20 to 49 years." The bottom line: Keep up your training, and there's no reason you can't continue to put in solid performances well into middle–age."



If Federer cannot keep up with Nole up to 5 sets, it s certainly NOT because of his age, but just because Nole's tennis is better than his nowadays. Period. Age is not excuse for having less resistance.

Are you talking about Ferrer or about Federer? Because one needs explosiveness to end points in keeping with his life-long aggressive baseline game, and the other needs the resistance you talk about. Have you spent too much time in the sun?

 

[Roddick85]

Federer's problem is purely mental I believe. While Djokovic adds extra pressure on Federer to play perfect tennis to win, Federer has been able to beat him before. I'm not sure Sunday's result would of been any different had he played anyone else.
Even though he played well, Djokovic was quite beatable Sunday but Federer choked on the key points. No one realizes how much pressure there is on Federer to win another slam. Not only are media's hyping him to death, he's also got to deal with the fact that whenever he makes a slam final, it could very well be his last time to shine in major events given how hard it is physically for an older player. Dealing with that kind of pressure is very hard even for the best and that's why it's harder for older players to keep it together mentally on the big stage.

 

[ABCD]

Djokovic didn't play that well and yet he won against a guy who annihilated a top-notch opposition prior to the final. Impression is that there is a lot of room for improvement in Djokovic game. That is a scary thought.

 

[zep]

1. Federer is definitely slower. It is quite apparent. It is not possible for someone to be faster at 34 than at 25 unless you are Justin Gatlin.
2. Federer is serving better than he ever has and using his forecourt game to take advantage of that. That is how he is beating other opponents.
3. Djokovic returns better than anyone else and defends better than anyone else. He pushes Federer to the baseline. Other players can't do that.
4. From the baseline, Federer at 34 is not going to win it against Djokovic. His FH is not as good as it once was, the BH is probably better than before but Federer needs his FH to attack from the baseline.

So it is a combination of both Djokovic's brilliance and Federer's (slowness+weaker FH).

 

[zep]

Federer's problem is purely mental I believe. While Djokovic adds extra pressure on Federer to play perfect tennis to win, Federer has been able to beat him before. I'm not sure Sunday's result would of been any different had he played anyone else.

The mental part is because he does not believe that he can beat Djokovic in a BO5. Right from the beginning he never looked confident to me. It is like his matches against Nadal. He is never comfortable and free. I truly believe that he would have beaten anyone other than Djokovic and Nadal in the final.

 

[Slice'n'dice]

if that's the case why can he beat him in three setters? Why in the last two finals has he fallen away in the 4th set. Double break down in both after being closer up to that point.

 

[Alien]

Roger is definetly not slower. Whoever has watched the whole USO without prejudice would realize that. Not to mention that to play so fast aggressively and rush to net, to jump from one side to the other he needs to be faster even than before.

Even if he were, he has overcompensated with his improved serve and experience.

Nole is just better.

 

[Alien]

But this is still obviously wrong.

You use different energy systems to replenish your ATP stores during repeated anaerobic activity like tennis compared to a purely aerobic activity like marathon.

Yes, tennis has an aerobic component, but it just works through completely different mechanisms and systems—there's much more of an interaction between the energy systems. And these capacities quite obviously peak at an earlier age.

And even pro long distance runners have their natural peak earlier than 34, even though it declines slower the longer (more purely aerobic) the event.

And this:

In a non-tennis study that differentiated athletes depending on the sport-specific skills used, Bradbury (2009) found that “the evidence indicates that athletes peak in their mid-to-late twenties” (p. 2). Bradbury’s finding was not surprising. Schulz and Curnow (1988) were more specific. Using various performance records, they pinpointed the most likely age at which athletes achieve peak performance in a variety of sports. For men, Schulz and Curnow found the peak performance age to be: (i) 22 for sprints (100 and 200 meters); (ii) 24 for middle distances (800 meters and mile); (iii) 27 for long distances (5000 meters to marathon); (iv) 28 for baseball; (v) 24 for tennis; and (vi) 31 for golf.

How did he measured this in tennis ? Which players, what time ? It is obvious that is shifting. Then is he referring to pure speed ? Tennis involves much more than that.

Has anyone seen Federer tired ? Sweating ? Cramping ? Asking for massages ? NO. BIG NO. Federer losing in 5 is unrelated to age. He loses because he is at a slight lower level than Nole. Period.