I totally get when Nadal fans dismiss the mono as an excuse for RG & Wimbledon that year.
FEDR- the last truly tested GOAT.
/threadYes, because he's kept being good for so long that he keeps getting to the latter stages of tournaments. It's the curse of being good at your job for too long. Like, a tennis player once they approach 30 is generally, historically nearing the end, they're certainly past their best.
I mean you could even backtrack that to include late 20s (Nadal was 28 when he fell into his slump, Djokovic was 29) but let's be generous and say 30 is the cut off point for anyone being considered anywhere close to their best.
He's been around for almost 10 years now in that post-30 zone. You can counter that with the comically vapid retort that Djokovic is now also in his 30s, but then of course the simple response is that ever since Djokovic moved into his 30s in this rivalry Federer has been 37+, and how many slams in the Open era have been won by dudes 37+?
1 out of 211.
The average age of slam winners in the Open era is 24-26, Djokovic turned 24 in May 2011, so you could say if you wanted (and I think it'd be pretty generous to do so) that prior to that point Federer had the advantage (Even though Novak at 23 would still be closer to the 24-26 age range than Federer was since, what, late 2008?) but let's again be generous and say Federer has the advantage in the head to head prior to May 2011. Their head to head at that point was 13-9 to Federer. Post Federer's 30th it is 18-9 to Djokovic. They've played 5 more times in that window (Interestingly enough if you discount the 5 meetings they've had since Novak hit 30, it's 14-8 to Djokovic, almost identical to the early rivalry's 13-9) so of course he has an advantage.
Of course the funny thing is the one time they met after Djokovic hit peak slam winning age and before Federer hit 30... How'd that go? And thus we come at last to the whole reason for this rambling mess of a post. A chance to post this GIF:
Yes.
I was being sarcastic. (See my “peak” assessments).In the same way Federer was able to break him just the game prior. I take it you didn't watch the match to not know that?
Of course it’s legit.It is quite a legitimate question to ask ... if you haven't watched the match, so I suggested that you didn't.
The two consecutive games were a carbon copy of each other, with the roles of the players reversed.
Fed thrashed Murray with his highest serving level ever in one of his best matches at Wimbledon. W 2015 SF, right before the final where Djokovic SPANKED him.
When you are trolling, at least make sure that you make the difference between a serve centric performance and a performance illustrated by the overall ground game and skills.
Oh so W09 was crap? It was a serve centric performance
Yeah - I meant ”to win”.Unless by the bolded you mean "to win" in general, I have to disagree here: again, from watching the match already more than 5 times start to finish, I can tell you that Federer played as good as his state allowed him. The game in question was no different: he knifed two aces, and had a couple of other successful plays. He missed the first MP by a cat's whisker by moving to hit what was basically I/O FH. In fact, he got into position, but overcooked it: it happens when your mind thinks that you are late for the shot and need to put a bit more steam on it to compensate . The second MP was the right tactic: Djokovic played (intentionally or not) an attackable ball: Federer didn't do stellar job with the approach shot and that allowed Djokovic to pass him, but the tactical decision was sound, and even then it was a very difficult shot for Djokovic to execute, as it required a pinpoint precision (which obviously Djokovic delivered on that occasion). All in all, Federer played to his strengths, and that is what matters. He lost, but he lost playing like he should.
Sorry buckaroo, doesn't work that way. If you're gonna call this gen weak because they prefer social media over hard work then you gotta point out the party boy Safins and restaurant connoisseurs Baghdatis and Nalbandians of 03-07. Agassi was the hardest worker in that period and the guy was on one leg with the other in a retirement home, ROFLMAO!
Advancements in nutrition and sports science made it possible in the last decades for players to expand their competitive prime/peak level into their early 30s. Roger Federer had no age disadvantage at all in 2010/2011 against Djokovic. Federer was aged merely 29 and 30 in the USO 2010 and USO 2011 SF, as well as the AO 2011 SF and RG 2011 SF.
Strange cutoff.
You know that is not the case.Serve centric performance, but Fed still had that fearhand back in those days.
Didn't even bother reading the rest of your post when I saw this portion.
The top scorers in all 5 major footballing leagues in Europe last season were thirty plus and you can’t claim that the talent pool in the world’s most popular sport is lacking.
Since 17 Federer has dominated Nadal off clay, whereas, when Roger was younger it was Nadal who had the advantage over Roger off grass. Roger aged very slowly, probably due to condidtioning, game style and genes. Roger had the age advantage over Novak till 2011, while Novak has had the slight advantage since then. In the end, it all evens out, advantage wise.
Generally, in most cases, I think (especially with careers of their lengths and magnitudes) that this is true. Sure, there are some ATGs whose careers overlapped where the age difference was more pronounced, but H2H records has never been that big of a factor to me in ranking players. Much as many poasters use shortcuts to reduce the tour to seemingly 3 or 4 players, to build such resumes, they're playing against fields of up to 128 players.
It doesn't. Novak skipped 3 of Federer's best years, 2004-2006, while Fed played every version of Novak.
Most of it was while he was on a mostly long break.
You liked a comment earlier in 21 so think you browsed through briefly before.
Djokovic barely turned pro in 04/05 tbh.
How many matches have they played on what you would consider a decently fast surface?
You would have liked 18 matches in that period
