Stop talking about Federer's age!!

D

Deleted member 733170

Guest
We have a lot players that are simillar age to Rogers,and they are playing some of the best tennis of their lives-Ferrer,Lopez,Benneteau,Karlovic (36),Robredo,Verdasco,Seppi...... So Federer is not so special for playing this good at his age

Didn't you really mean to say that Federer receives a disproportionate amount of attention and that you find that irksome?
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
Since the OP used some examples, how about Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Coria, Gaudio, Davydenko, Blake, Gonzalez et al? But, when you're committing the fallacy of cherrypicking evidence to support a claim, counter examples must be ignored.
 

dh003i

Legend
The idea that age isn't a factor is ridiculous. If age wasn't a factor, there wouldn't be much question about whether or not he'd get his 18th Major and Connors would still be playing tennis and competing at the top level.

How should that alter our analysis? Well, Federer is still an all-time great player capable of playing astounding tennis, but he doesn't produce that tennis as consistently as in his heydey. So it's not some kind of embarassment for Djokovic to lose matches or sets to him, although we acknowledge Djokovic is the best player in the world right now and the favorite.

It is particularly impressive that Federer is still competing at the level he's competing at against Djokovic who is unquestionably an all-time great in his own right and has already clearly established himself at the top of the 2nd tier of all-time greats (along with Lendl, McEnroe, Connors).
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
You do realize he's beaten Djokovic the last 3 out of 5 times right? And big two is #1 and #2. Is Nadal #1 or #2? you might want to refresh the ATP website you have on your screen from 2011.

You might want to refresh your memory and understand that ranking means nothing for Federer when it comes to facing Nadal. Nadal is always going to be the favorite unless the conditions are tailor made for Fed's game (low bouncing , fast and indoors).
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
You might want to refresh your memory and understand that ranking means nothing for Federer when it comes to facing Nadal. Nadal is always going to be the favorite unless the conditions are tailor made for Fed's game (low bouncing , fast and indoors).

Never said Nadal wasn't the favorite. But to be part of the "Big 2" you'd have to have had a pretty good season and dominate the tour in the last 6 months or so. Federer has, Nadal hasn't.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Never said Nadal wasn't the favorite. But to be part of the "Big 2" you'd have to have had a pretty good season and dominate the tour in the last 6 months or so. Federer has, Nadal hasn't.

Federer hasn't dominated anything.

His #2 ranking is the result of Nadal being out injured, not his dominance.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
Federer hasn't dominated anything.

His #2 ranking is the result of Nadal being out injured, not his dominance.

Oh Really?

Finals at wimbledon
Finals at Toronto
Win at Cincy
SF at USO
Win in Shanghai
SF in Paris
Finals in WTF
Win in Brisbane
4th round Aussie - the only bad result
Win in Dubai
Finals in IW.

That would be 4 finals, 4 wins, and 2 SF's.

Try again.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Oh Really?

Finals at wimbledon
Finals at Toronto
Win at Cincy
SF at USO
Win in Shanghai
SF in Paris
Finals in WTF
Win in Brisbane
4th round Aussie - the only bad result
Win in Dubai
Finals in IW.

That would be 4 finals, 4 wins, and 2 SF's.

Try again.

I wouldn't say he has dominated given his biggest win over that period is Cincy but he has set himself apart from those not named Novak Djokovic.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Reaching a bunch of semis and and finals (and not winning a slam for 3 years) isn't exactly what I would call dominating. At this juncture the only dominant force is nole
 

THE FIGHTER

Hall of Fame
so? should Djokovic lose to a guy with 200 matches just because he played 500 matches more?

or you wanted to post something just for posting sake?

I'll post this for the sake of posting, just giving you the heads up, because i like hearing myself type

i'd like to point out that a player with 200 matches is just hitting his stride, while a guy with 700 matches is in the middle stages of his career. so i'd like to think Djokovic can hold his own against a player like Thiem. the guy with 700 matches is going to have more experience than the guy with 200 matches and less wear-and-tear than the guy with 1200 matches.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Stupid thread. Are the guys you mentioned even in the top 5? Are those guys winning slams? Are those guys reaching slam finals? Are those guys winning masters?

Federer is still playing well. But losses like the Seppi one at the AO are clear confirmation that age is relevant.

If Djokovic was 33 and Federer 27, Nole would be losing more often to Federer than the other way around. And then we would hear all Djokovic fans claiming the same thing, that Djokovic is 33 and past his prime. It's easy for them when their favorite player is still in his prime and not that old
 

THE FIGHTER

Hall of Fame
Reaching a bunch of semis and and finals (and not winning a slam for 3 years) isn't exactly what I would call dominating. At this juncture the only dominant force is nole

and he barely qualifies as a dominant force, consecutive 1 slam seasons with a few masters.

he has been 1 slam loss away from being a Wozniacki or Rios, good players in their own right, but sheeesh
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
and he barely qualifies as a dominant force, consecutive 1 slam seasons with a few masters.

he has been 1 slam loss away from being a Wozniacki or Rios, good players in their own right, but sheeesh

Well it's not like he's been winning only one slam and going out early in the other three every year. He's had bloody tough comp, it's hard to have multi-slam seasons these days!
 

THE FIGHTER

Hall of Fame
Well it's not like he's been winning only one slam and going out early in the other three every year. He's had bloody tough comp, it's hard to have multi-slam seasons these days!

that's true he's been consistent at going deep. i disagree about the tough competition part however. i think if he maintained his 2011 form, he'd be GOAT by now. sadly, he couldn't keep it up, even in today's tour.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Well it's not like he's been winning only one slam and going out early in the other three every year. He's had bloody tough comp, it's hard to have multi-slam seasons these days!

not as hard as you make it out to be ...nowhere near in fact ...

he could've had it in both 13, 14 ... he blew it in USO 13 F, he blew it vs Nishikori in USO 14 SF ....AO 14 was not out of reach either ...

and 12 was tougher, but if he'd been a tad better player in the wind, he would've ......
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Well it's not like he's been winning only one slam and going out early in the other three every year. He's had bloody tough comp, it's hard to have multi-slam seasons these days!

Are you serious ? 2012-14 losses to Murray, Nishikori and Stan are LOL for someone vying to be an all time great , more so coming at his prime.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
Stupid thread. Are the guys you mentioned even in the top 5? Are those guys winning slams? Are those guys reaching slam finals? Are those guys winning masters?

Federer is still playing well. But losses like the Seppi one at the AO are clear confirmation that age is relevant.

If Djokovic was 33 and Federer 27, Nole would be losing more often to Federer than the other way around. And then we would hear all Djokovic fans claiming the same thing, that Djokovic is 33 and past his prime. It's easy for them when their favorite player is still in his prime and not that old

You are too reasonable here for some people to understand what you say! :)

To be honest, I highly doubt if Novak will be around when he's 33. People shoud just realise simple fact. Federer is one of the most talented tennis player ever and even at 33, he is good enough to be no.2. That's why so many people say he is the GOAT. It's simple as that.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Are you serious ? 2012-14 losses to Murray, Nishikori and Stan are LOL for someone vying to be an all time great , more so coming at his prime.

Yes, I am serious. Ok, 2014 was definitely full of missed opportunities but in 2012 he had to face peak Lendlised Murray(no sure what you think is so LOL about him), Nadal playing some of his greatest ever clay court tennis and Fed playing prime level tennis at Wimbledon. And in 2013 he was unlucky to face a recharged Nadal who was coming off a seven month break from the tour and raring to go. Those are tough circumstances whichever way you look at it.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Yes, I am serious. Ok, 2014 was definitely full of missed opportunities but in 2012 he had to face peak Lendlised Murray(no sure what you think is so LOL about him), Nadal playing some of his greatest ever clay court tennis and Fed playing prime level tennis at Wimbledon. And in 2013 he was unlucky to face a recharged Nadal who was coming off a seven month break from the tour and raring to go. Those are tough circumstances whichever way you look at it.
All people are trying to say is that Djokovic is more vulnerable than Federer or Nadal at their best. Which is true.

I mean, losing to Federer or Nadal is forgivable, but Murray (or especially Nishikori) is unexplainable.

Imagine if Federer lost to a player like Lleyton Hewitt or Andy Roddick not once, but twice in a Grand Slam final. It's kind of the same thing.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
All people are trying to say is that Djokovic is more vulnerable than Federer or Nadal at their best. Which is true.

I mean, losing to Federer or Nadal is forgivable, but Murray (or especially Nishikori) is unexplainable.

Imagine if Federer lost to a player like Lleyton Hewitt or Andy Roddick not once, but twice in a Grand Slam final. It's kind of the same thing.

I just don't see why, especially on grass. And I doubt batz, Mainad and other Murray fans will agree with you either.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I just don't see why, especially on grass. And I doubt batz, Mainad and other Murray fans will agree with you either.
I am a "Murray fan".

You're still making out like Djokovic was expected to lose when he walked out onto the court against Murray, when this is not true, even at Wimbledon. I remember before the match against Murray, Djokovic fans were saying he'd get "revenge" against him for the US Open loss; and Murray put him on his arse. It just shows how good Djokovic is relative to Federer or Nadal, who certainly would have put up more of a fight.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
I am a "Murray fan".

You're still making out like Djokovic was expected to lose when he walked out onto the court against Murray, when this is not true, even at Wimbledon. I remember before the match against Murray, Djokovic fans were saying he'd get "revenge" against him for the US Open loss; and Murray put him on his arse. It just shows how good Djokovic is relative to Federer or Nadal, who certainly would have put up more of a fight.

Not sure why you keep bringing up Federer and Nadal but yeah, Djokovic might have been expected to win those two slam finals. However, the fact that he didn't still doesn't mean it's something for him to feel ashamed of. It's not like he lost to a journeyman who'd never been in a slam final before.
 

citybert

Hall of Fame
I think we need to consider age vs mileage here. agassi took almost two years off. Those big servers who played into their thirties generally didnt go long in tournaments like federer did.

what federer is doing is pretty amazing but in the end - time is undefeated in sports(ok maybe bernard hopkins is fighting time to a draw somehow j/k) and the age and mileage will come into question for federer more and more.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Not sure why you keep bringing up Federer and Nadal but yeah, Djokovic might have been expected to win those two slam finals. However, the fact that he didn't still doesn't mean it's something for him to feel ashamed of. It's not like he lost to a journeyman who'd never been in a slam final before.
I never said he should be ashamed of it, Murray is a great player. But relative to the standards Nadal and morso Federer have set, it's a bad loss no matter which way you shape it.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Not sure why you keep bringing up Federer and Nadal but yeah, Djokovic might have been expected to win those two slam finals. However, the fact that he didn't still doesn't mean it's something for him to feel ashamed of. It's not like he lost to a journeyman who'd never been in a slam final before.

You pass of 2 majors as something minor. Having won 6 matches and having a beatable opponent, you are missing something that happens really really rare.

Those are the margins that ultimately separate the legends from the greats.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
You pass of 2 majors as something minor. Having won 6 matches and having a beatable opponent, you are missing something that happens really really rare.

Those are the margins that ultimately separate the legends from the greats.

I'm not passing them off as anything. All I'm trying to say is that Murray is a excellent player who'd already been to the finals of both USO and Wimbledon before he beat Djokovic so it's not like his wins came out of nowhere. He'd already shown what he was capable of and lest we forget that he's also beaten Nadal, who undoubtably is a legend of the game, twice in grand slams also.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
I'm not passing them off as anything. All I'm trying to say is that Murray is a excellent player who'd already been to the finals of both USO and Wimbledon before he beat Djokovic so it's not like his wins came out of nowhere. He'd already shown what he was capable of and lest we forget that he's also beaten Nadal, who undoubtably is a legend of the game, twice in grand slams also.

Not in major finals.

Greats bring in an extra gear in the finals. Novak missed the boat big time, more so at the USO. Keep consoling yourself , but it was a big missed opportunity.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Not in major finals.

Greats bring in an extra gear in the finals. Novak missed the boat big time, more so at the USO. Keep consoling yourself , but it was a big missed opportunity.

I don't care if they weren't in finals - the fact remains that Nadal lost twice to Murray in majors just as Djokovic has.

And I'm not consoling myself either. Not sure why you're trying to wind me up when all I'm doing is expressing my opinion. :confused:
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
I don't care if they weren't in finals - the fact remains that Nadal lost twice to Murray in majors just as Djokovic has.

And I'm not consoling myself either. Not sure why you're trying to wind me up when all I'm doing is expressing my opinion. :confused:

But that is a big difference. Being able to play your best in a final and win the title is what counts a lot more. Djokovic's final record is 8-7 (wins vs losses) and Nadal's is 14-6. (Fed's is 17-8 )

Don't get defensive about it. Stats tell the story.
 
A critical factor which many people might not think of: it's not the age which matters; rather, it's the # of matches played that wears on the body more.

Check out this article if you're still skeptical:

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/9664642/tennis-how-old-roger-federer-really

Tommy Haas, for instance, has played ~900 matches, compared to Federer who has played nearly 1300 matches. Lleyton Hewitt has also played around ~900. They're around the same age as Fed, but haven't played nearly as many matches as Fed.

Federer has logged more time in matches than most players because he wins more to play more matches. Age plays a factor, but it's the cumulative impact matches have your body (your knees, legs, endurance, etc) that matters more.
 
Last edited:

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
But that is a big difference. Being able to play your best in a final and win the title is what counts a lot more. Djokovic's final record is 8-7 (wins vs losses) and Nadal's is 14-6. (Fed's is 17-8 )

Don't get defensive about it. Stats tell the story.

Not being defensive in the slightest, just giving my opinion. I know what Djokovic's slam final record is so I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring it up(or Fedal's for that matter). How does it pertain to what tennisaddict and I were discussing? :confused:
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
Not being defensive in the slightest, just giving my opinion. I know what Djokovic's slam final record is so I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring it up(or Fedal's for that matter). How does it pertain to what tennisaddict and I were discussing? :confused:

I'm starting to think that directly comparing Fedal's achievements to Djokovic's doesn't really help anything anyway.

It doesn't tell us anything we don't already know (i.e. that Fedal are Tier 1 and Djokovic isn't, at least yet).

Let's see how it looks in 2-3 years.
 
D

Deleted member 512391

Guest
It's not about the age, it's about the mileage. Fed has been playing sublime tennis for the last 13 years, has 1241 matches in his legs (just compare this to Agassi, who's played 1144 matches, even though his career ended when he was 36 years old), so his physical abilities are not as good as in his prime.

It's fantastic what this man is still doing after all his achievements. If someone can't appreciate that, well...
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
I'm starting to think that directly comparing Fedal's achievements to Djokovic's doesn't really help anything anyway.

It doesn't tell us anything we don't already know (i.e. that Fedal are Tier 1 and Djokovic isn't, at least yet).

Let's see how it looks in 2-3 years.

Exactly, but unfortunately cc0 does have a rather annoying habit of going off kilter at times and telling me to stop being a certain way(which isn't even the case).
Very bizarre.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Not being defensive in the slightest, just giving my opinion. I know what Djokovic's slam final record is so I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring it up(or Fedal's for that matter). How does it pertain to what tennisaddict and I were discussing? :confused:

Because you said you don't care if Murray's wins vs Nadal were in finals or not but there is a difference between Nadal's losses to Murray in QF or SF matches vs Djokovic's losses to Murray in two finals. When you are in a QF or SF match you can't win the title so the stakes are lower. Winning the title is all that matters and how you perform in a final is more important. You can't understand that logic? :confused:
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Because you said you don't care if Murray's wins vs Nadal were in finals or not but there is a difference between Nadal's losses to Murray in QF or SF matches vs Djokovic's losses to Murray in two finals. When you are in a QF or SF match you can't win the title so the stakes are lower. Winning the title is all that matters and how you perform in a final is more important. You can't understand that logic? :confused:

Not really. A loss is a loss irrespective of which round it is. Like you're always saying, winning slams is all that matters so who cares when you lose if you don't end up going home with the trophy?
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
A critical factor which many people might not think of: it's not the age which matters; rather, it's the # of matches played that wears on the body more.

Check out this article if you're still skeptical:

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/9664642/tennis-how-old-roger-federer-really
I remain skeptical. Look at when it was written: September 12, 2013, in Fed's worst year.

If you take all of this seriously Fed should not have reached #2 again in 2014.

I think playing style is a bigger factor. Agassi and Connors both played a game that was brutal on the body. Connors was on a cane until he got his hip replaced.

JMac played with a very fluid, easy style, and he is still in superb condition for his age.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I remain skeptical. Look at when it was written: September 12, 2013, in Fed's worst year.

If you take all of this seriously Fed should not have reached #2 again in 2014.

I think playing style is a bigger factor. Agassi and Connors both played a game that was brutal on the body. Connors was on a cane until he got his hip replaced.

JMac played with a very fluid, easy style, and he is still in superb condition for his age.
Agassi's game wasn't that bad on the body. It's his genetics that ruined him I feel. He was always going to have issues with his back in his mid 30's. His playing style allowed him to have much longevity, as he didn't run down balls that often and dictated from the baseline.

Chang's style was brutal on the body.
 
Top