Some Peak Fed Gems

ABCD

Hall of Fame
You ment 2006.
In 2019 they were both slower.Both improved some parts of their game, but their movement was better in 2006.
I respectively disagree. I believe that their movement is now much better and their anticipation is much better. If you have time, try to find a way to measure it. These 2 footage are good for comparison.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
I respectively disagree. I believe that their movement is now much better and their anticipation is much better. If you have time, try to find a way to measure it. These 2 footage are good for comparison.
I disagree with you.It's visible and It's a non sense to say to that their movement is better after all those years, after all the wear in tear.Nobody can play with time.You clearly have an agenda.To tell me that 2 professional athletes move better at 33 & 38 compared to their 20 & 25 versions it's absurd.Well, in the TTW universe everything is possible.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
I disagree with you.It's visible and It's a non sense to say to that their movement is better after all those years, after all the wear in tear.Nobody can play with time.You clearly have an agenda.To tell me that 2 professional athletes move better at 33 & 38 compared to their 20 & 25 versions it's absurd.Well, in the TTW universe everything is possible.
We can agree to disagree. I am interested in truth. I am encouraged that my opinion is in agreement with Federer's assessment.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
It is incredible how much both player improved over the years. Compare 2007 footage with 2019 one

Both are quicker in 2006, Fed hits his FH and slices better, Nadal pins Fed down on his BH side better too.

Nadal is clearly worse on grass. Fed‘s BH is more solid now I’d say.
 

TearTheRoofOff

Hall of Fame
We can agree to disagree. I am interested in truth. I am encouraged that my opinion is in agreement with Federer's assessment.
You are obviously interested not necessarily in 'truth', but in postulating that Federer's prime performances have been since exceeded by other players by pretending his play is ever improving while he wins less and less, the implication being that more and more players are surpassing his peak levels. It is extremely difficult to take this seriously, and your appeal to a lack of available direct measurement in an attempt to immunize your position by rendering it objectively unfalsifiable does little to change this, because people have eyes and there comes a point where distinctions are so obvious that mere opinion is more than enough for pretty much everyone. Like my opinion, without weighing them, that a lion weighs more than a grasshopper. Care to contest that one?

Using Roger's reference to his own abilities is simply a severe case of confirmation bias and you know it. You've been flaying at this dead horse for what feels like years now and the argument from authority hasn't exactly grown in stock over that time. If the lion could talk and told you that the grasshopper weighed more than him, would that twist your arm? I acknowledge Roger has adapted some aspects of his play and stayed very relevant at the top of the game, and good on him for championing his skillsalicious, but the idea that he hasn't declined in various faculties is quite the claim.

For what it's worth I'm not intending to single out Roger; the decline is also evident in the other big 3 members. Age is fairly indiscriminant, it's just that Roger is significantly older and appears to have declined more at this stage. I expect Djokodal to be further declined by the time they are pushing 40 (if they're still playing then).
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
You are obviously interested not necessarily in 'truth', but in postulating that Federer's prime performances have been since exceeded by other players by pretending his play is ever improving while he wins less and less, the implication being that more and more players are surpassing his peak levels. It is extremely difficult to take this seriously, and your appeal to a lack of available direct measurement in an attempt to immunize your position by rendering it objectively unfalsifiable does little to change this, because people have eyes and there comes a point where distinctions are so obvious that mere opinion is more than enough for pretty much everyone. Like my opinion, without weighing them, that a lion weighs more than a grasshopper. Care to contest that one?

Using Roger's reference to his own abilities is simply a severe case of confirmation bias and you know it. You've been flaying at this dead horse for what feels like years now and the argument from authority hasn't exactly grown in stock over that time. If the lion could talk and told you that the grasshopper weighed more than him, would that twist your arm? I acknowledge Roger has adapted some aspects of his play and stayed very relevant at the top of the game, and good on him for championing his skillsalicious, but the idea that he hasn't declined in various faculties is quite the claim.

For what it's worth I'm not intending to single out Roger; the decline is also evident in the other big 3 members. Age is fairly indiscriminant, it's just that Roger is significantly older and appears to have declined more at this stage. I expect Djokodal to be further declined by the time they are pushing 40 (if they're still playing then).
~0:20-~0.26

 

ForehandRF

Professional
You are obviously interested not necessarily in 'truth', but in postulating that Federer's prime performances have been since exceeded by other players by pretending his play is ever improving while he wins less and less, the implication being that more and more players are surpassing his peak levels. It is extremely difficult to take this seriously, and your appeal to a lack of available direct measurement in an attempt to immunize your position by rendering it objectively unfalsifiable does little to change this, because people have eyes and there comes a point where distinctions are so obvious that mere opinion is more than enough for pretty much everyone. Like my opinion, without weighing them, that a lion weighs more than a grasshopper. Care to contest that one?

Using Roger's reference to his own abilities is simply a severe case of confirmation bias and you know it. You've been flaying at this dead horse for what feels like years now and the argument from authority hasn't exactly grown in stock over that time. If the lion could talk and told you that the grasshopper weighed more than him, would that twist your arm? I acknowledge Roger has adapted some aspects of his play and stayed very relevant at the top of the game, and good on him for championing his skillsalicious, but the idea that he hasn't declined in various faculties is quite the claim.

For what it's worth I'm not intending to single out Roger; the decline is also evident in the other big 3 members. Age is fairly indiscriminant, it's just that Roger is significantly older and appears to have declined more at this stage. I expect Djokodal to be further declined by the time they are pushing 40 (if they're still playing then).
So much common sense here man.Still, he will never understand.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
Federer is 3-4 vs Zverev and 2-4 vs Thiem. This is despite the fact that Federer has been at his peak during all of these matches against two kids barely out of diapers.

This proves that had either version of Thiem or Zverev played from 2004-2004, then they would have won at least 12 slam titles, with most of them being straight set blowouts. And in the process Federer wins 0 titles
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Federer is 3-4 vs Zverev and 2-4 vs Thiem. This is despite the fact that Federer has been at his peak during all of these matches against two kids barely out of diapers.

This proves that had either version of Thiem or Zverev played from 2004-2004, then they would have won at least 12 slam titles, with most of them being straight set blowouts. And in the process Federer wins 0 titles
You are too harsh to Federer here, but, in essence, you are right. I am glad that there are people who have tennis knowledge to do proper assessment of levels of play.
 
Federer is 3-4 vs Zverev and 2-4 vs Thiem. This is despite the fact that Federer has been at his peak during all of these matches against two kids barely out of diapers.

This proves that had either version of Thiem or Zverev played from 2004-2004, then they would have won at least 12 slam titles, with most of them being straight set blowouts. And in the process Federer wins 0 titles
Truly their greatness would even allow them to win 12 slams in one year ;)
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Yes, 2013 Federer was better than 2006 Federer. This means that the players ranked above him would have smoked the 2006 field, including tennis titans such as Murray, Ferrer, and Del Potro. Fed was in even better form in 2013. It’s just that the players who made better results throughout the year were just logically better than 2006 Federer. That simple.

Yeah, 2015 Federer was a giant in the sport. He was even better that year. I guess it only serves to prove that 2015 Murray was at least on par with peak Federer, even with 17 less Slams to show for it. Oh, and Seppi is also an underrated stronk era champion.

2019 must logically be peak Federer then. All the tennis experience he has aquired over the years has culminated in losses to even peakier Thiem, Zverev, and Rublev. Nuff said no excuses!
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Yes, 2013 Federer was better than 2006 Federer. This means that the players ranked above him would have smoked the 2006 field, including tennis titans such as Murray, Ferrer, and Del Potro. Fed was in even better form in 2013. It’s just that the players who made better results throughout the year were just logically better than 2006 Federer. That simple.

Yeah, 2015 Federer was a giant in the sport. He was even better that year. I guess it only serves to prove that 2015 Murray was at least on par with peak Federer, even with 17 less Slams to show for it. Oh, and Seppi is also an underrated stronk era champion.

2019 must logically be peak Federer then. All the tennis experience he has aquired over the years has culminated in losses to even peakier Thiem, Zverev, and Rublev. Nuff said no excuses!
You are spot on here. If you would transport Zverev/Medvedev/Tsitsipas in 2005 they would "massacre" everyone.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Federer is 3-4 vs Zverev and 2-4 vs Thiem. This is despite the fact that Federer has been at his peak during all of these matches against two kids barely out of diapers.

This proves that had either version of Thiem or Zverev played from 2004-2004, then they would have won at least 12 slam titles, with most of them being straight set blowouts. And in the process Federer wins 0 titles
Federer won 3 slams in 2017-19, Thiem and Zverev 0.

Federer is a better player than them.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Well, you can interpret my post in one of two ways.
Good to see people here that know tennis. In 2005 tennis players used to have so many technical problems, you could see issues with main strokes. Now, players are technically so much better.

Federer won 3 slams in 2017-19, Thiem and Zverev 0.

Federer is a better player than them.
I agree with you here. However, they are so much better than anything else at that time.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
2019 Djokovic is better than his 2011 version because tennis continue to evolve.Also, 2019 Nadal is so much better than his 2007/2008 version on clay because of the same evolution of tennis :cautious:
Spot on. Like Schwartzman said in video I posted here "every time they are better and better".
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Federer won 11 slams in 2004-2007 compared to 2015-2019. where he won 3.

Mid 20s Federer is much better than old Federer.
But Federer in 2017-19 played the same opponents as Thiem and Zverev.

2015-19 Federer played different opponents from 2004-07 Federer.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Federer is 3-4 vs Zverev and 2-4 vs Thiem. This is despite the fact that Federer has been at his peak during all of these matches against two kids barely out of diapers.

This proves that had either version of Thiem or Zverev played from 2004-2004, then they would have won at least 12 slam titles, with most of them being straight set blowouts. And in the process Federer wins 0 titles
I am willing to bet ABCD took what you said seriously ;)
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
2015 Federer said he only lacked the confidence of 10 years before.

When the toughest opponent you can play is Roddick it's easier to be confident.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Fed's BH was way better in 2006 than it is today lol
In general I would say yes but he struggled with it Nadal aside from low bouncing indoors (see their Shanghai match) where as in their 2019 Wimbledon match it held up much better.
Of course, I think a lot of this is down to Nadal not pinning Fed down as well as he used to.
 

Nadal_Django

Hall of Fame
Federer is 3-4 vs Zverev and 2-4 vs Thiem. This is despite the fact that Federer has been at his peak during all of these matches against two kids barely out of diapers.

This proves that had either version of Thiem or Zverev played from 2004-2004, then they would have won at least 12 slam titles, with most of them being straight set blowouts. And in the process Federer wins 0 titles
Quite more believable than Federer becoming old, washed up, crippled, and on crutches at the age of 25. ;)
 

ForehandRF

Professional
10 years before 2015 is 2005

Until 2008 AO Roddick is the opponent that Federer played the most times at Slams
In 2005 Fed lost on the biggest stages :AO, RG &YEC.Not an weak year at all.I bet you didn't watched those matches, especially if you are less than 30 years old.

He had Nadal on clay and grass too.He could have lost Wimbledon in 07 but yeah, you only mention Roddick.Roddick wasn't a mug on grass by any means.
 
Last edited:

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
Fed's backhand with the larger frame was more stable than ever, especially on the defence.Fed in 2006 with that old racket had issues on high bouncing courts, being forced to slice frequently and was prone to shanks.That kind of game played right into Nadal's hands.
Not in 2019 though. He has been shaky with it after 2017.
 

TearTheRoofOff

Hall of Fame
Fed's backhand with the larger frame was more stable than ever, especially on the defence.Fed in 2006 with that old racket had issues on high bouncing courts, being forced to slice frequently and was prone to shanks.That kind of game played right into Nadal's hands.
I think that's more a case of him changing his approach to the backhand and it yielding some decent results against the higher ball - though remember we didn't get to see that on clay. Fed definitely hit a purple patch on the bh side in early 2017 but on the whole I'd take his 2006 backhand over any year. Nadal 'exploited it', but only really on clay and while his speed and work rate were as ridiculous as they'd ever be. Even then Fed was competitive with it, and I think people are underselling his consistency with it from this period. His passing on that side was better and his slice was evil too.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
I think that's more a case of him changing his approach to the backhand and it yielding some decent results against the higher ball - though remember we didn't get to see that on clay. Fed definitely hit a purple patch on the bh side in early 2017 but on the whole I'd take his 2006 backhand over any year. Nadal 'exploited it', but only really on clay and while his speed and work rate were as ridiculous as they'd ever be. Even then Fed was competitive with it, and I think people are underselling his consistency with it from this period. His passing on that side was better and his slice was evil too.
Good analysis, but why did he changed his racket after all ? :)
 
Top