Since RG05 Federer lost only to the new gen

#52
Djokovic trailed the h2h until Fed was old as dirt. I don't see how Djokovic fans are proud of the h2h. I wouldn't mention it since it makes him look bad.
Federer has the matchup advantage vs Djokovic. The 25-22 H2H says a lot about both of them, 1. That Federer controlled the matchup until he was just too old, and 2. That Djokovic reversed a 13-6 H2H and overcame his worst matchup.
I'm not as proud of that as I am of Djokovic leading Nadal, although I don't want to celebrate prematurely with that one.
 
#53
Federer has the matchup advantage vs Djokovic. The 25-22 H2H says a lot about both of them, 1. That Federer controlled the matchup until he was just too old, and 2. That Djokovic reversed a 13-6 H2H and overcame his worst matchup.
I'm not as proud of that as I am of Djokovic leading Nadal, although I don't want to celebrate prematurely with that one.
Fair enough.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#54
Federer has the matchup advantage vs Djokovic. The 25-22 H2H says a lot about both of them, 1. That Federer controlled the matchup until he was just too old, and 2. That Djokovic reversed a 13-6 H2H and overcame his worst matchup.
I'm not as proud of that as I am of Djokovic leading Nadal, although I don't want to celebrate prematurely with that one.
What was his match up advantage in your opinion?

:cool:
 
#55
What was his match up advantage in your opinion?

:cool:
Being able to read Djokovic's game. It's nothing like the Fedal matchup advantage, but Fed definitely anticipates Djokovic's plays much better than anyone on tour. Nadal just uses brute stamina against Djokovic, so they were pretty much evenly matched and Djoker got the edge after developing a big serve/net game. But Federer gives him trouble always.
 
#57
Being able to read Djokovic's game. It's nothing like the Fedal matchup advantage, but Fed definitely anticipates Djokovic's plays much better than anyone on tour. Nadal just uses brute stamina against Djokovic, so they were pretty much evenly matched and Djoker got the edge after developing a big serve/net game. But Federer gives him trouble always.
I’d say Djokovic got the edge when Fed’s FH and movement heavily declined from 2013 onward.
 
#60
In all of Fed's peak (2004-2007), he was pushed to 5 by a 'mediocre' player once, by Haas at AO 06. The only other 5 are matches were to Agassi and Nadal, ATGs.

So no, Fed wasn't close to upset 'tons of times at his peak. Bear in mind that in many of old Fed's upsets, he didn't even manage to win 2 sets anyway
Why only in Federer's supposed peak? He was taken to 5 sets 6 times in 2008 and 2009 when he was still young and making almost every grand slam final so this is pretty meaningless.
 
#61
Federer has the matchup advantage vs Djokovic. The 25-22 H2H says a lot about both of them, 1. That Federer controlled the matchup until he was just too old, and 2. That Djokovic reversed a 13-6 H2H and overcame his worst matchup.
I'm not as proud of that as I am of Djokovic leading Nadal, although I don't want to celebrate prematurely with that one.
No no bud, I disagree. Djoker dusted Federer off in 2011-2013 when he was 9-3 against him. The only reason Federer led the head to head so long is because he took advantage of a weak Djoker in fall of 2010 and then chickened out in atp finals in 2014. Djoker has controlled this matchup since 2011.
 
#62
No no bud, I disagree. Djoker dusted Federer off in 2011-2013 when he was 9-3 against him. The only reason Federer led the head to head so long is because he took advantage of a weak Djoker in fall of 2010 and then chickened out in atp finals in 2014. Djoker has controlled this matchup since 2011.
Djokovic has overall been the better player since 2011, partly because he hit that unmatchable level in 2011 and partly because Fed turned 30. But Federer kept the rivalry competitive even in Novak's prime and in his own late career, beating him at RG and Wimbledon and getting MP's at the USO twice
 
#63
Djokovic 4-5 Roddick
Djokovic 0-2 Safin

Federer gen >>>>>>>>>>>>> Weak Era Vulture King JokeWitch?
Federer 0-3 Rafter
Federer 0-2 Squillari
Federer 1-3 Enqvist
Federer 2-4 Kafelnikov
Federer 1-2 Kuerten
Federer 1-2 Hrbaty
Federer 2-3 Corretja

Sampras gen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Weak era Fed*error. Jajajaja! :-D
 
#65
Djokovic has overall been the better player since 2011, partly because he hit that unmatchable level in 2011 and partly because Fed turned 30. But Federer kept the rivalry competitive even in Novak's prime and in his own late career, beating him at RG and Wimbledon and getting MP's at the USO twice
Don't let these Federistas cloud your judgment. Djoker was 3-2 against Federer in 2009 so the seeds were already planted, and he was 1-1 against him in 2008 when both matches were in Slams. It was in 2010 that Federer took advantage of a weakened Djokovic to extend his lead but that was quickly evaporated in 2011-2012. Just because a player turns 30 doesn't mean he cannot play top level and that's Federerista logic that you can't. Look at Djoker now.
 
#66
Bad argument. Del Piero, Raul, Inzaghi, Shevchenko, Crespo all declined around 32. Federer is the same as them perhaps.

Ronaldo, still looking ridiculously good. Perhaps Djokovic is more like Ronaldo.

Point is, Djokovic being able to display supposed peak level at 31 does not mean Federer was able to do the same.

Federer displayed a higher level of play at 29/30 than Djokovic at that age. You can not compare both of them one to one regarding age.

But yes, I agree with you, Djokovic might be the best 30s ATG ever if he goes on like this.
 
#67
Don't let these Federistas cloud your judgment. Djoker was 3-2 against Federer in 2009 so the seeds were already planted, and he was 1-1 against him in 2008 when both matches were in Slams. It was in 2010 that Federer took advantage of a weakened Djokovic to extend his lead but that was quickly evaporated in 2011-2012. Just because a player turns 30 doesn't mean he cannot play top level and that's Federerista logic that you can't. Look at Djoker now.
Weak Djoker in late 2010? Lolwut? No, Djokovic's God mode began at USO10, he was playing really well into 2011, but he couldn't beat Federer until AO11.
But for sure, the "matchup lead" I refer to is not to say Fed owns Djokovic the way Nadal owns him, but that Federer has the tactical upper hand with Djokovic, and kept it competitive past 30 (of course he declined after 2009, wtf?) against peak Djoker
 
#69
Bad argument. Del Piero, Raul, Inzaghi, Shevchenko, Crespo all declined around 32. Federer is the same as them perhaps.

Ronaldo, still looking ridiculously good. Perhaps Djokovic is more like Ronaldo.

Point is, Djokovic being able to display supposed peak level at 31 does not mean Federer was able to do the same.

Federer displayed a higher level of play at 29/30 than Djokovic at that age. You can not compare both of them one to one regarding age.

But yes, I agree with you, Djokovic might be the best 30s ATG ever if he goes on like this.
I didn't say Djoker is displaying peak but he is controlling the game which says a lot. So Federer declined around 32 but made 6 more Grand Slam finals after 32 and won 3 of them? No bud, that just won't cut it.

Yes but Federer was ranked in #2 and #1 when he was 29 and 30. Where was Djokovic? Floundering around outside the top 10. I can compare them at certain ages when they both are in the top 5 and winning important tournaments.
 
Last edited:
#70
Weak Djoker in late 2010? Lolwut? No, Djokovic's God mode began at USO10, he was playing really well into 2011, but he couldn't beat Federer until AO11.
But for sure, the "matchup lead" I refer to is not to say Fed owns Djokovic the way Nadal owns him, but that Federer has the tactical upper hand with Djokovic, and kept it competitive past 30 (of course he declined after 2009, wtf?) against peak Djoker
Djoker played like crap in the fall of 2010. Come on bud, were you were watching those tournaments? 2010 was a bad year for Djoker and the only tournaments where he played decent were Wimbledon and US Open, and he got dusted off by Berdych at Wimbledon. Djoker became a new player after he won DC in the fall of 2010. That was the trigger. I don't think Federer has had any kind of upper hand with Djoker once he entered the top 5 in the rankings. Just that one year in 2010 he had the upper hand.
 
#71
I didn't say Djoker is displaying peak but he is controlling the game which says a lot. So Federer decline around 32 yet made 6 more Grand Slam finals after 32 and won 3 of them? No bud, that just won't cut it.

Yes but Federer was ranked in #2 and #1 when he was 29 and 30. Where was Djokovic? Floundering around outside the top 10. I can compare them at certain ages when they both are in the top 5 and winning important tournaments.
Not everyone declines so much that they struggle to get beat mugs right? But dude declined on HC in a BO5 because the results tell so:

2012 UO: Lost to Berdych in 4 (LOL)
2013 AO: Lost to Murray (lol)
2013 UO: Lost to Robredo in straight sets (ROFL)
2014 AO: Lost to Nadal in straight sets (this is bad)
2014: UO: Lost to Cilic in straight sets (LOL)
2015 AO: Lost to Seppi (ROFL)
2015 UO: Finally had an okay F result.

Furthermore, you telling me Djokovic declined in 16 Wimb-18 RG to win 3 consecutive Slams. No bud, that just won't cut it. Mug level > Peak Djokovic level.

So let's be reasonable, Djokovic and Federer display different level at ages, played in different circumstances. In the end, if Djoke is good in his 30s, does not mean Fed was too.

It's like saying: "Ronaldo was amazing at 33, Raul was already at Schalke but still was peak though. Benzema was simply better than peak Raul. Raul at 33 was peak because Ronaldo was too. Raul even made it to a CL QF with Schalke, so peak as hell no"
 
#72
Not everyone declines so much that they struggle to get beat mugs right? But dude declined on HC in a BO5 because the results tell so:

2012 UO: Lost to Berdych in 4 (LOL)
2013 AO: Lost to Murray (lol)
2013 UO: Lost to Robredo in straight sets (ROFL)
2014 AO: Lost to Nadal in straight sets (this is bad)
2014: UO: Lost to Cilic in straight sets (LOL)
2015 AO: Lost to Seppi (ROFL)
2015 UO: Finally had an okay F result.

Furthermore, you telling me Djokovic declined in 16 Wimb-18 RG to win 3 consecutive Slams. No bud, that just won't cut it. Mug level > Peak Djokovic level.

So let's be reasonable, Djokovic and Federer display different level at ages, played in different circumstances. In the end, if Djoke is good in his 30s, does not mean Fed was too.

It's like saying: "Ronaldo was amazing at 33, Raul was already at Schalke but still was peak though. Benzema was simply better than peak Raul. Raul at 33 was peak because Ronaldo was too. Raul even made it to a CL QF with Schalke, so peak as hell no"
Only the Robredo and Seppi losses were bad losses. In the rest he was just outplayed and there is an explanation for all of them. How can you laugh at the Berdych, Murray and Cilic losses? Cilic was unplayable and took the match out of his hands, Murray always played great in Australia and had a great day, and Berdych was on fire. How can the Nadal loss be bad when he lost to him in Australia in 2009, 2012 and 2014?

Federer declined but minimally when compared to Djoker in 2016-2018 when he had a career crisis. I agree that they played different levels at different ages but Federer made like 5 Masters finals in 2014 and won 2 of them, ,made the Atp final match, and made the Wimbledon final, Australia semi and US Open semi. That's not someone who is gravely declined.
 
#73
Only the Robredo and Seppi losses were bad losses. In the rest he was just outplayed and there in an explanation for all of them. How can you laugh at the Berdych, Murray and Cilic losses? Cilic was unplayable and took the match out of his hands, Murray always played great in Australia and had a great day, and Berdych was on fire. How can the Nadal loss be bad when he lost to him in Australia in 2009, 2012 and 2014?

Federer declined but minimally when compared to Djoker in 2016-2018 when he had a career crisis. I agree that they played different levels at different ages but Federer made like 5 Masters finals in 2014 and won 2 of them, ,made the Atp final match, and made the Wimbledon final, Australia semi and US Open semi. That's not someone who is severely declined.
Berdych, Murray and Cilic are nothing compared to peak Federer (this is not debatable). He got absolutely destroyed against Berdych (struggled to win a set against a mug lol), STRAIGHT set loss to Cilic... come on. Shows a severe decline.

Nadal in 14 looked good right? Until weak era mug Wawrinka blasted Nadal off the court. So was Nadal really that good to defeat Federer in straight sets, or was Federer lol. I laugh at that particular loss because he never lost to Nadal on hard/grass in Slams in STRAIGHT sets (look at my list, I purposely left AO '12 out of that list because IMO Federer played okay [choked as usual but we know that story]).

I guess we agree to disagree. Further debate is not useful. We have different views. I am not going to convince you of my truth and you're not going to convince me. That's life.

Anyway, you should be happy that Djokovic probably will display a level in his 30s that NO ONE has ever shown before. Instead, you're trying to discredit Federer. That's unnecessary really.
 
#74
Berdych, Murray and Cilic are nothing compared to peak Federer (this is not debatable). He got absolutely destroyed against Berdych (struggled to win a set against a mug lol), STRAIGHT set loss to Cilic... come on. Shows a severe decline.

Nadal in 14 looked good right? Until weak era mug Wawrinka blasted Nadal off the court. So was Nadal really that good to defeat Federer in straight sets, or was Federer lol. I laugh at that particular loss because he never lost to Nadal on hard/grass in Slams in STRAIGHT sets (look at my list, I purposely left AO '12 out of that list because IMO Federer played okay [choked as usual but we know that story]).

I guess we agree to disagree. Further debate is not useful. We have different views. I am not going to convince you of my truth and you're not going to convince me. That's life.

Anyway, you should be happy that Djokovic probably will display a level in his 30s that NO ONE has ever shown before. Instead, you're trying to discredit Federer. That's unnecessary really.
No no, I don't agree. From what I understand most Feder fans think he exited his peak around 25 or 26 so what's the point in bringing up what he would have done at his peak if he was 31 and 32 when the matches happened? That doesn't make much sense to me. How about talk about his level in comparison to when he was 28-30? For me, I see slight decline but not massive like you are suggesting. Berdych destroyed both Federer and Djokovic in 2010 Wim or did you forget? Cilic was in god mode and there was no stopping him. Wake up bud.

Sorry but you cannot bring up losses to Nadal to make any point. Nadal was like 8-2 in outdoor hardcourt matches to Federer before 2017. Federer just didn't faze him on an outdoor match for most of their careers.

I guess so bud so no need keep recycling our same points.
 

Towny

Professional
#75
Why only in Federer's supposed peak? He was taken to 5 sets 6 times in 2008 and 2009 when he was still young and making almost every grand slam final so this is pretty meaningless.
You've just proved my point. 2008-2009 Fed was clearly not at his peak as evidenced by numerous more losses and difficult matches that should've been straightforward.

He was still in his prime but he wasn't at the height of his powers. Before you argue that he was too young to have declined at all, bear in mind McEnroe and Borg both won their last slam at age 25. Wilander at age 24. Connors had his best year at 22. Sampras had his last multi-slam year when he was 25/26. Becker won 5 slams before he was 24. Only 1 after that. Edberg won his last slam age 26.

Looking to more recent players, Hewitt made his last slam final at 23. Roddick won his only slam at 21, made his last final at 26. Safin won his last slam at 25. Berdych made his only slam final at 24. Tsonga made his at 22. Del Potro had his best year at 20.

The idea that Fed could begin to decline physically at 25/26 is perfectly realistic and it's what the evidence shows. Add to that getting mono which accelerated the process and his 2008/9 results make a lot of sense. He was still good, still in his prime, but no longer at his best. The Lew/ABCD argument that he was somehow in his peak at 34 years old, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, is beyond ridiculous
 
#76
No no bud, I disagree. Djoker dusted Federer off in 2011-2013 when he was 9-3 against him. The only reason Federer led the head to head so long is because he took advantage of a weak Djoker in fall of 2010 and then chickened out in atp finals in 2014. Djoker has controlled this matchup since 2011.
The problem with this thinking is that 2011-2013 was from almost age 30-32. You won't find ATGs that age with a winning H2H against other ATGs 6 years younger. Someone else would be doing the same thing to Novak right now, reversing the H2H and gaining dominance, but - guess what - there IS no one left. Nadal is a year older, Murray is gone, also over 30, Wawrinka is now over 30. Who else is there? Novak is left playing in a bubble, or a vacuum. He deserves his wins because God knows he had a ridiculously hard, uphill climb against both Fed and Nadal, but there is no one to stop him at this point. If someone 6 years older finally gets the best of him (again, where IS that player?) then his H2H against that player will reverse.
 
#77
You've just proved my point. 2008-2009 Fed was clearly not at his peak as evidenced by numerous more losses and difficult matches that should've been straightforward.

He was still in his prime but he wasn't at the height of his powers. Before you argue that he was too young to have declined at all, bear in mind McEnroe and Borg both won their last slam at age 25. Wilander at age 24. Connors had his best year at 22. Sampras had his last multi-slam year when he was 25/26. Becker won 5 slams before he was 24. Only 1 after that. Edberg won his last slam age 26.

Looking to more recent players, Hewitt made his last slam final at 23. Roddick won his only slam at 21, made his last final at 26. Safin won his last slam at 25. Berdych made his only slam final at 24. Tsonga made his at 22. Del Potro had his best year at 20.

The idea that Fed could begin to decline physically at 25/26 is perfectly realistic and it's what the evidence shows. Add to that getting mono which accelerated the process and his 2008/9 results make a lot of sense. He was still good, still in his prime, but no longer at his best. The Lew/ABCD argument that he was somehow in his peak at 34 years old, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, is beyond ridiculous
He was 26 and 27 years old so it's meaningless to bring up his peak. He was young.

These guys were winning Slams when they were 17-19 years old so it's meaningless trying to compare them to someone who didn't win his 1st one until he was almost 22. Keep in mind that players are playing a lot longer than they did back then. If McEnroe wasn't snorting so much coke with Tatum, if Borg didn't walk away at 25, and if Wilander didn't completely lose his marbles who knows what else they could have done.

As if any of these players have any relevance to Roger Federer or any all time great. :rolleyes:

He didn't decline physically at 25 or 26, especially with a game that is lightweight on his joints and with no real injuries. No way Jose. Any excuse is better than no excuse.
 
#78
The problem with this thinking is that 2011-2013 was from almost age 30-32. You won't find ATGs that age with a winning H2H against other ATGs 6 years younger. Someone else would be doing the same thing to Novak right now, reversing the H2H and gaining dominance, but - guess what - there IS no one left. Nadal is a year older, Murray is gone, also over 30, Wawrinka is now over 30. Who else is there? Novak is left playing in a bubble, or a vacuum. He deserves his wins because God knows he had a ridiculously hard, uphill climb against both Fed and Nadal, but there is no one to stop him at this point. If someone 6 years older finally gets the best of him (again, where IS that player?) then his H2H against that player will reverse.
All the matches in 2011 except one happened when Federer was 29 so no sir. You probably won't find any except Agassi that went back to #1 at 31 either back then. These are different times. As far as I know, Lendl didn't care how much younger any player was than him since he crushed them all in head to heads so that argument only works for certain players.
 

Towny

Professional
#79
He didn't decline physically at 25 or 26, especially with a game that is lightweight on his joints and with no real injuries. No way Jose. Any excuse is better than no excuse.
So how do you explain Fed losing to Fish, Roddick, Stephanek, Simon x 2, Karlovic and Blake? Nothing to do with Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. He went from 92-5 in 2006 to 66-15 in 2008. Being pushed to 5 in the hard court slams by Tipsarevic and Andreev. Losing in straights to Djokovic at the AO in spite of beating him in straights at the USO just a few months prior. Your preconceived notion that he just simply can't decline at that age doesn't tally up with what actually happened
 

Zhilady

Professional
#80
Federer 0-3 Rafter
Federer 0-2 Squillari
Federer 1-3 Enqvist
Federer 2-4 Kafelnikov
Federer 1-2 Kuerten
Federer 1-2 Hrbaty
Federer 2-3 Corretja

Sampras gen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Weak era Fed*error. Jajajaja! :-D
Aren't you forgetting something?

Sampras 4-5 Hewitt
Sampras 3-4 Safin
Sampras 1-2 Roddick
Sampras 0-1 Federer

We can play this circular argument game all day.
 
#81
So how do you explain Fed losing to Fish, Roddick, Stephanek, Simon x 2, Karlovic and Blake? Nothing to do with Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. He went from 92-5 in 2006 to 66-15 in 2008. Being pushed to 5 in the hard court slams by Tipsarevic and Andreev. Losing in straights to Djokovic at the AO in spite of beating him in straights at the USO just a few months prior. Your preconceived notion that he just simply can't decline at that age doesn't tally up with what actually happened
Because he was playing sub par tennis, not because he physically declined when was 26 years old. That's madhouse talk. Just because you are losing it doesn't mean it is because for some odd reason, contrary to normal biology, your body severely declined physically in your mid 20s.
 

Zhilady

Professional
#83
:laughing: Jaja. Federer's still takes the cake bud. You shouldn't have opened that can if you didn't want to see what was all in it.
:laughing: Jojo. Djokovic's still takes the cake and the cherry bud. You shouldn't have opened that can if you didn't want to see what was all in it.
#CircularArgument
 
#84
:laughing: Jojo. Djokovic's still takes the cake and the cherry bud. You shouldn't have opened that can if you didn't want to see what was all in it.
#CircularArgument
Ok I guess we are in pre school now. It's ok bud. You tried to troll and got trolled, and it happens to everybody every now and then. Jajaja.
 

Towny

Professional
#85
Because he was playing sub par tennis, not because he physically declined when was 26 years old. That's madhouse talk. Just because you are losing it doesn't mean it is because for some odd reason, contrary to normal biology, your body severely declined physically in your mid 20s.
Usain Bolt ran his fastest official 100 metres and 200 metres at age 22. He hasn't bettered it. It's really not crazy to start slight physical decline in your mid-twenties. But it's irrelevant anyway. If you agree he was playing sub-par tennis, then he wasn't playing peak tennis, which is what I'm trying to say
 

Zhilady

Professional
#86
Ok I guess we are in pre school now. It's ok bud. You tried to troll and got trolled, and it happens to everybody every now and then. Jajaja.
Ok I guess we are in kindergarten now. It's ok bud. You tried to argue and got owned, and it happens to everybody every now and then. Jojojo.
 
#87
Usain Bolt ran his fastest official 100 metres and 200 metres at age 22. He hasn't bettered it. It's really not crazy to start slight physical decline in your mid-twenties. But it's irrelevant anyway. If you agree he was playing sub-par tennis, then he wasn't playing peak tennis, which is what I'm trying to say
Two different sports there bud. You cannot compare tennis to track and field, which is night and day. Besides, I looked it up and he was 23.
 
Last edited:

Towny

Professional
#88
Two different sports there bud. You cannot compare tennis to track and field, which is night and day. Besides, I think he was 23.
for some odd reason, contrary to normal biology, your body severely declined physically in your mid 20s
Your point was that it was impossible to decline physically. Period. Which is simply not true. Regardless, it's irrelevant as you've admitted Fed was sub par in 2008. It doesn't matter if it was physical, mental or whatever. The fact is, he was worse that 2004-7 which is my point. Some posters here like to argue that he was just as good, or even more ridiculous, that he was just as good in 2015-16. Call it something other than peak/not peak if you like but we essentially agree that Federer was playing worse in 2008/9 compared to 2004-7

Incidentally Usain Bolt was 22 when he set the records (August 16th and 20th) although he turned 23 very soon afterwards (August 21st)
 
#90
It means his generation (outside of a brief few instances like Safin/Nalbandian ) basically stepped on the court already defeated and bent over. Its why old geriatric Brokeback Agassi during that time was basically the only player who put up some resistance. A freakin Sampras-era holdover with sciatica.
 
Last edited:
#92
Your point was that it was impossible to decline physically. Period. Which is simply not true. Regardless, it's irrelevant as you've admitted Fed was sub par in 2008. It doesn't matter if it was physical, mental or whatever. The fact is, he was worse that 2004-7 which is my point. Some posters here like to argue that he was just as good, or even more ridiculous, that he was just as good in 2015-16. Call it something other than peak/not peak if you like but we essentially agree that Federer was playing worse in 2008/9 compared to 2004-7

Incidentally Usain Bolt was 22 when he set the records (August 16th and 20th) although he turned 23 very soon afterwards (August 21st)
Track and field is a rare type of sport with a rare type of skillset. You cannot compare it to tennis. Even if Bolt slightly declined after 23 he still dominated two more Olympics anyway. It does matter if you say someone who is 26 in tennis severely decline physically which is not true. I could bring up sports like basketball where Jordan had some of his best seasons and stats over 30 or Brady who is dominating at 41. Track and field requires different type of physical athleticism than tennis does. Yea he was playing worse but not because he physically declined at 26 which is bonkers.
 
#94
Here are the stats for Tennis:

Looks like players, in general, do decline past the age of 25. Jojojojo 8-B
Good ole Federista excuses and logic. I wonder how many of these "stats" are from 3 and 4 decades ago when players were gone by 30. Federer gets wiped off the court and "oh it was because he was severely physically declined and never recovered from his mono", when he never missed one tournament when he had this "alleged" mono. On the other hand Kvitova and Roddick were so weak they had to withdraw from tournaments when they had a light case of it and a severe case ruined poor Soderling's career. Spare me the Federerista excuses after he won 8 more Grand Slams after this "severe physical decline". Jaja. :rolleyes:
 

Zhilady

Professional
#95
Good ole Federista excuses and logic. I wonder how many of these "stats" are from 3 and 4 decades ago when players were gone by 30. Federer gets wiped off the court and "oh it was because he was severely physically declined and never recovered from his mono", when he never missed one tournament when he had this "alleged" mono. On the other hand Kvitova and Roddick were so weak they had to withdraw from tournaments when they had a light case of it and a severe case ruined poor Soderling's career. Spare me the Federerista excuses after he won 8 more Grand Slams after this "severe physical decline". Jaja. :rolleyes:
It's for the entire Open Era, through the 2018 Australian Open. Nice to see you resorting to pulling things out of your ass in the face of hard stats and facts. Jojo :laughing::-D
 
#96
Good ole Federista excuses and logic. I wonder how many of these "stats" are from 3 and 4 decades ago when players were gone by 30. Federer gets wiped off the court and "oh it was because he was severely physically declined and never recovered from his mono", when he never missed one tournament when he had this "alleged" mono. On the other hand Kvitova and Roddick were so weak they had to withdraw from tournaments when they had a light case of it and a severe case ruined poor Soderling's career. Spare me the Federerista excuses after he won 8 more Grand Slams after this "severe physical decline". Jaja. :rolleyes:
Go to the link which @Zhilady referred to. You'll see a breakdown for every decade. Trend seems to go on until 10s.
 
#97
All the matches in 2011 except one happened when Federer was 29 so no sir. You probably won't find any except Agassi that went back to #1 at 31 either back then. These are different times. As far as I know, Lendl didn't care how much younger any player was than him since he crushed them all in head to heads so that argument only works for certain players.
1. Any time after the middle of Feb., Fed was closer to 30 than 29. But that's not the important point. For the rest of the OE peak tennis was around age 24, on average. You're going to say, but wait, everything has changed. And you may be right. But we don't know that yet, and we also don't know why or how.
2. You're using Lendl. Maybe valid, maybe not. Are you saying that the H3H between him and all other players never reversed after he was age 29?
 
#98
It's for the entire Open Era, through the 2018 Australian Open. Nice to see you resorting to pulling things out of your ass in the face of hard stats and facts. Jojo :laughing::-D
Yea which includes the 60s and 70s which are dinosaur years compared to now. No just showing how Federistas will invent excuses when they have no other options. Tell me how a guy who severely physically declined won 8 more grand slams. I would love to hear this excuse. Jaja. :-D
 
#99
1. Any time after the middle of Feb., Fed was closer to 30 than 29. But that's not the important point. For the rest of the OE peak tennis was around age 24, on average. You're going to say, but wait, everything has changed. And you may be right. But we don't know that yet, and we also don't know why or how.
2. You're using Lendl. Maybe valid, maybe not. Are you saying that the H3H between him and all other players never reversed after he was age 29?
You're reasonable and seem nice so I won't bother you. You make valid points but yea Lendl maintained his advantage over everyone except Edberg I think.
 

Zhilady

Professional
Yea which includes the 60s and 70s which are dinosaur years compared to now. No just showing how Federistas will invent excuses when they have no other options.
You should also show how Djokaristas pull things out of their rear ends, like you are, when facts and stats prove them wrong.

Tell me how a guy who severely physically declined won 8 more grand slams. I would love to hear this excuse. Jaja. :-D
Decline does not equal death. 8 Slams in 11 years is a decline compared to 11 Slams in 4 years. This should be understandable enough for even a kindergartener like you. Jojo. :-D
 
Top