So Federer outlasted everyone......?

[Candide]

What a ridiculous op. What do you mean outlasted everyone? Borg retired at 26 because he'd had enough and was content with 5 Wimbledon trophies and 6 French. Sampras retired at 32 because he was content in what he achieved and got that burning fire out of his system. Neither of them knew they were in a fight to the death contest where he who outlasts everyone else wins. If Federer wants to hang around until he's 60 and make an ass of himself as Mirka looks on in the stands thinking enough already, that's his perogative, but don't retrospectively make this a contest about who lasts longest, you goose.

That is all.

I think most people understand that longevity is a major component of sporting greatness. Is this controversial? He's not looking quite the ass that a bunch of people were saying he was looking for the last couple of years at the moment. The only thing I don't agree with in the OP is that those mentioned should be embarrassed. They should be proud that they have got to compete with such an exceptional talent. Good on them I say.

 

[zagor]

I said at the time that but for the h2h federer should be winning that match in straight sets.

Not in the slightest, Fed didn't cruise to that AO final, his level was very up and down in every match he played in AO save the Berdych drubbing and that just continued into the final. If anything he did well to raise his game in the F after that very lackluster showing against Stan in the SF, Nadal looked much better against Dimitrov for comparison.

2017 AO wasn't the case of Fed zoning and Nadal being in poor form and it still went 5 sets regardless of how much Nadal fans are trying to portray that scenario. Both were struggling on their road to the final, inconsistent but showing moments of brilliance. What tipped the scales in Fed's favour were improved topspin BH, better tactical approach and not playing 5 matches on clay in a row or something leading up to the sole meeting on HC/grass this time. Other than that, this his huge gap in form that you're suggesting didn't exist in AO.

What happened in 5th se and then in indian wells is more reflective of fedal 2017.

Fed played much cleaner tennis in IW compared to AO overall, the rustyness wore off and he had no huge dips in form that were characteristic for his AO campaign. However IW has suitable conditions for Fed to handle Nadal (ball flies through the air fast, tough to defend as Fed himself said), people conveniently seem to forget/omit to mention their 2012 IW encounter where 30 year old Fed straight-setted Nadal who was in some of his career best HC form.

We don't know if IW will be reflective of 2017 Fedal, we're now entering the part of the season where conditions are decidedly in Nadal's favour against Fed (Miami and clay) aside from Madrid. Not to mention that the wheels could still fall off for Fed in any given moment (he will turn 36 this year afterall) and Nadal has been written off frequently in the past only to stage a successful comeback so we'll see, it's early days still.

 

[Jonas78]

What a ridiculous op. What do you mean outlasted everyone? Borg retired at 26 because he'd had enough and was content with 5 Wimbledon trophies and 6 French. Sampras retired at 32 because he was content in what he achieved and got that burning fire out of his system. Neither of them knew they were in a fight to the death contest where he who outlasts everyone else wins. If Federer wants to hang around until he's 60 and make an ass of himself as Mirka looks on in the stands thinking enough already, that's his perogative, but don't retrospectively make this a contest about who lasts longest, you goose.

That is all.

Well i dont think that is true, Borg retiring at 26 is the exception. Most players continue their careers post prime, many try way too hard getting back. Very few players would retire if they played like Federer does now.

 

[toby55555]

He's keen on records so I reckon he's after Ken Rosewall's of being the oldest player to win a GS which stands at 37.2

 

[Drlexus]

Not in the slightest, Fed didn't cruise to that AO final, his level was very up and down in every match he played in AO save the Berdych drubbing and that just continued into the final. If anything he did well to raise his game in the F after that very lackluster showing against Stan in the SF, Nadal looked much better against Dimitrov for comparison.

2017 AO wasn't the case of Fed zoning and Nadal being in poor form and it still went 5 sets regardless of how much Nadal fans are trying to portray that scenario. Both were struggling on their road to the final, inconsistent but showing moments of brilliance. What tipped the scales in Fed's favour were improved topspin BH, better tactical approach and not playing 5 matches on clay in a row or something leading up to the sole meeting on HC/grass this time. Other than that, this his huge gap in form that you're suggesting didn't exist in AO.



Fed played much cleaner tennis in IW compared to AO overall, the rustyness wore off and he had no huge dips in form that were characteristic for his AO campaign. However IW has suitable conditions for Fed to handle Nadal (ball flies through the air fast, tough to defend as Fed himself said), people conveniently seem to forget/omit to mention their 2012 IW encounter where 30 year old Fed straight-setted Nadal who was in some of his career best HC form.

We don't know if IW will be reflective of 2017 Fedal, we're now entering the part of the season where conditions are decidedly in Nadal's favour against Fed (Miami and clay) aside from Madrid. Not to mention that the wheels could still fall off for Fed in any given moment (he will turn 36 this year afterall) and Nadal has been written off frequently in the past only to stage a successful comeback so we'll see, it's early days still.

Indian wells was far more inpressibe and significant than ao. Federer shoukd have beaten a tired nadal on a fast low bouncingbhardcourt with ease but failed to do so. After ao it was advantage nadal despite the loss.

Indian wells shattered any momentum nadal took from ao. He was hammered on a court that he owns. At his best nobody used to live with nadal in indian wells. A 35 year old federer made him look like a novice.

Indian wells changed the dynamic. Its advantage federer on any surface now so should he now not capitalise on clay against nadal that would be evidence of a mental block v nadal rather than form or technique

 

[Drlexus]

I wouldn't base projections of claydal off his HC performance. If he has done well in AO, he can do much better at RG. We'll see. He WAS winning against Fed in set 5 and had break points too in Fed's last service game IIRC. That the result was favourable for Fed doesn't diminish Nadal's level. It may be a far cry from his best but weirdly it is also proving enough to go deep in slams.

Ao is irrelevant as that court was unique given its fast nature and low bounce..only wimbledon is comparable so in some ways nadal came out of australia with more going forward ghan federer despite losing.

Indian wells though changed everything. That is a higj bouncing court like clay. Nadal didnt just lose he got totally destroyed. Unless federer becomes a mental midget there is no way there is enough difference between a clay court and indian wells fkr such a beat down to be reversed. No chance.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Ao is irrelevant as that court was unique given its fast nature and low bounce..only wimbledon is comparable so in some ways nadal came out of australia with more going forward ghan federer despite losing.

But because he did well in conditions that don't suit him, it augurs well for clay.

Indian wells though changed everything. That is a higj bouncing court like clay. Nadal didnt just lose he got totally destroyed.

It is high bouncing like clay, yes, but the desert conditions also make it quick through the air. So Fed can still be successful with his first strike tennis there and traditionally has done much better at IW than Miami for instance.

Unless federer becomes a mental midget there is no way there is enough difference between a clay court and indian wells fkr such a beat down to be reversed. No chance.

There is for the reasons mentioned above. Clay will give a lot more time for Nadal to get balls back in and make it harder for Fed, conversely, to take time away from him. The more shots he has to play with this kind of aggressive first strike tennis, the more he runs the risk of leaking errors. We have so far not seen much to suggest Nadal is unable to grind it through long matches. If anything, he looked fresher than AZ in the fifth set at AO. So I'd much rather wait to see how the match up goes on clay and I frankly don't understand why people are in a hurry to make forecasts without seeing the two face off yet in any clay tournament, let alone Phillippe Chatrier which is the slowest of all.

 

[Drlexus]

But because he did well in conditions that don't suit him, it augurs well for clay.


It is high bouncing like clay, yes, but the desert conditions also make it quick through the air. So Fed can still be successful with his first strike tennis there and traditionally has done much better at IW than Miami for instance.



There is for the reasons mentioned above. Clay will give a lot more time for Nadal to get balls back in and make it harder for Fed, conversely, to take time away from him. The more shots he has to play with this kind of aggressive first strike tennis, the more he runs the risk of leaking errors. We have so far not seen much to suggest Nadal is unable to grind it through long matches. If anything, he looked fresher than AZ in the fifth set at AO. So I'd much rather wait to see how the match up goes on clay and I frankly don't understand why people are in a hurry to make forecasts without seeing the two face off yet in any clay tournament, let alone Phillippe Chatrier which is the slowest of all.

You got the crucial point. Saying nadal will have more time is the issue. Indont think nowadays that helps nadal as he is slower around the court than federer. Thats the point that worries me on clay as i think clay will expose his deterioration in movement which a fast court like australia this year didnt. Indian wells did to an extent but the clay is ehere it might really show up.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I think most people understand that longevity is a major component of sporting greatness. Is this controversial? He's not looking quite the ass that a bunch of people were saying he was looking for the last couple of years at the moment. The only thing I don't agree with in the OP is that those mentioned should be embarrassed. They should be proud that they have got to compete with such an exceptional talent. Good on them I say.

That depends on what you value more. If you value longevity, then Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Connors must be your GOAT candidates. If you value level of play, then perhaps only Gonzalez in that group would qualify as a GOAT candidate.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

You got the crucial point. Saying nadal will have more time is the issue. Indont think nowadays that helps nadal as he is slower around the court than federer. Thats the point that worries me on clay as i think clay will expose his deterioration in movement which a fast court like australia this year didnt. Indian wells did to an extent but the clay is ehere it might really show up.

I don't know man, even last year he was shaping up to be a threat at RG before he got injured and had to pull out. I still think writing off Nadal on clay is a big leap. And as for a fast court protecting his movement, well, it works both ways. On a fast court, Fed can hit a screaming groundie within the vicinity of Nadal and Nadal wouldn't move because he has no chance. On a slow court, he can get further back behind the baseline and keep retrieving. This is how he played against AZ because AZ wasn't trying to rush him and instead himself preferred to grind. Not saying Fed has no chance, but I am not sure we can extrapolate anything from the AO and IW matches to judge the outcome on clay.

 

[Drlexus]

I don't know man, even last year he was shaping up to be a threat at RG before he got injured and had to pull out. I still think writing off Nadal on clay is a big leap. And as for a fast court protecting his movement, well, it works both ways. On a fast court, Fed can hit a screaming groundie within the vicinity of Nadal and Nadal wouldn't move because he has no chance. On a slow court, he can get further back behind the baseline and keep retrieving. This is how he played against AZ because AZ wasn't trying to rush him and instead himself preferred to grind. Not saying Fed has no chance, but I am not sure we can extrapolate anything from the AO and IW matches to judge the outcome on clay.

I hope you are right. But when rafa lost to raonic at indian wells a coupke if years ago it seemed to dent his confidence fkr the clay courts.

I hope im wrong tjough

 

[TripleATeam]

Us Federer fans need to remember this! So much can happen. It's still very early.

Indeed. Remember Nole 2016. Hopefully it doesn't happen like that, but I hope that Fed at least gives someone a chance.

 

[wangs78]

Many difficulties in life are a double edged sword. With Fed, after his supposed physical peak, he had Nadal, Djokovic and to a lesser extent, Murray to deal with for the last 5-6 years. All 3 are all-time greats with Nadal and Djokovic being Top 5 ATG's. These guys were all peaking at around the same time making things very difficult for Fed, despite him still making tons of Slam SF's and Finals. It's a testament to his passion for the game that he kept trying and didn't retire like Sampras would have done. Now, they are all slumping at the same time giving Fed a golden opportunity to win not one, but possibly multiple Slams this year. One can argue that such amazing success at age 35/36 will do more for Fed's legacy than another couple of Slams while he was 30-33.

The lesson here is simply, never give up what you love simply because it is difficult.

 

[wangs78]

What a ridiculous op. What do you mean outlasted everyone? Borg retired at 26 because he'd had enough and was content with 5 Wimbledon trophies and 6 French. Sampras retired at 32 because he was content in what he achieved and got that burning fire out of his system. Neither of them knew they were in a fight to the death contest where he who outlasts everyone else wins. If Federer wants to hang around until he's 60 and make an ass of himself as Mirka looks on in the stands thinking enough already, that's his perogative, but don't retrospectively make this a contest about who lasts longest, you goose.

That is all.

Honestly, I think it's BS when pro athletes (and high-achievers in other fields) say "I achieved everything I wanted to so decided to stop". When you look at the evidence, the reality is that usually the player has had a period of declining performance and simply doesn't want to keep working so hard when the returns are diminishing. Fed has been in decline, but he loves the game enough that he's kept fighting. For someone who used to win 3 out of 4 Slams regularly to still love the game and be willing to work hard when he wins maybe only 1 in 15 Slams shows his mettle, which is worthy of deep respect. He's not making an ass of himself as you put it.

 

[BGod]

Confirmation for Murray & Novak.

We wait on clay for Nadal.

This is bannanas. The only player to have outlasted his successor generation in this fashion was Roger Clemens in baseball as a pitcher (lot of weight in team sport) and arguably Patrick Roy I suppose in some respect.

Late bloomers don't count.

In individual sport all I can think of is Ali at the top of the mountain. Roberto Duran & Bernard Hopkins switched around weight classes somewhat and different governing bodies so not quite like Ali.