What makes Federer top 3?

I think that is a myth. he is not able to pull the trigger in as many situations (he used to be able to rip winners even on the run 7 feet behind the Baseline because his footwork was so good) anymore because his footwork has declined but he is still hitting A TON of FH winners, probably still the most on the ATP tour.

also his serve is still extremely good, maybe even better than it was in 2007 (his hold percentage is a whopping 91% this year which is higher than it was in each year from 05-07 but slightly lower than in 04).

I think what has declined is his return game but his hold game is still as good as it was 5 or 6 years ago.

even with his declined return ability there are simply not many players being able to break his serve so it is hard to beat him.

also of course the field behind him is rather weak in 2014 which is helping him (slumping murray, nadal injured or out of shape all the time) and the young guys still not stepping up all the way.
Federer's forehand is garbage now. He can't hit a winner unless it's the second ball off a serve. Not sure how people can STILL not see this.

Have you not seen the recent statistics where Federer loses to just about every opponent 2:1 from the baseline? He's probably got among the fewest FH winners in the top 50.
 

Charlemagne

Hall of Fame
Federer's forehand is garbage now. He can't hit a winner unless it's the second ball off a serve. Not sure how people can STILL not see this.

Have you not seen the recent statistics where Federer loses to just about every opponent 2:1 from the baseline? He's probably got among the fewest FH winners in the top 50.
I can't really think of very many 33 yo players, who are solid from the baseline.
 

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
never saw the US Open 2010 draw before, everyone says its a cakewalk draw ? wow i have seen way easier draws in the past to be honest, i don't see how weak this is
 

SystemicAnomaly

Talk Tennis Guru
... Rogers forehand is not a real weapon anymore though pretty consistent on shorter balls. He moves worse than most. His serve is def. Less than raonic...
Even tho' it is erratic every once in a while, RF's forehand is still a force to be reckoned with. Even tho' he might be a half-step slow than it was a decade ago, his footwork is still better than most on the tour. It's more than just speed, it's also economy/efficiency. And let's not forget, Roger is still the king of blue clay -- Rafa's and Novak's footwork failed them on that challenging surface.

Now let's take a look at his serve for 2014. He has played 724 service games compared to 613 for Raonic. Altho' he has fewer total Aces, he also has fewer DFs -- 85 compared to 141 DFs for Raonic. Roger has been getting 65% of his 1st serves into play and have won 78% of those points. Milos has gotten a lower 62% of his 1st serves into play but had won a very respectable 83% of those points. OTOH, Roger has won 58% of his 2nd serve points whereas Milos has only won 55%. Both players have won 91% of their service games. Given this, Roger's serve game stacks up very well against Milos'.
 

THE FIGHTER

Hall of Fame
Has anyone seen Fed's slice lately? It's frickin' sick. I mean it's a cold-blooded, no joke, incredible shot--better than many players' drive backhands.

I forgot to add that Federer has the best out wide, stretched squash forehand in the history of the game. Most players rarely his that shot once in a match--Federer gets that puppy out every 3 or 4 games to re-set the point to neutral.

Also, with the exception of Nadal, the greatest overhead in the game. Maybe it's a draw with Nadal. And the best backhand overhead flick, by far. Federer still has about ten more bows in his quiver than just about any other player on court. Like I said, the only difference now is that he's lost a step and he's prone to fatigue and nerves late in matches, i.e. IW TB loss to Nole, and serving at 4-5 W 5th set.

I've realized 2013 was a humungous anomaly due to his back.
agree with everything. didnt realize how bad 2013 was for him, i thought it was just a normal transition. i think he's quicker at closing the net than he has been in the past, or at least better at it, so in a sense, he's gained a step moving forward.
 

THE FIGHTER

Hall of Fame
oh you mean like this one...



or maybe this one...



as Rafa has proved on multiple occasions, sleepers can be more dangerous than highly seeded players.
i dont think Federer has as easy of a draw as everyone thinks. quite a few sleepers in his quarter and half.

then again, Federer is playing well enough to get by them this year.
 

Charlemagne

Hall of Fame
Return game, and footwork (sharpness) and movement have declined the most imo. One manifestation I notice with regard to diminished return game, is an increased inability to convert BPs especially on the ad court. Now, if you're looking at numbers, his service game is highly efficient (still). I think he's focused on maxing out his potential at serve and this still makes him quite difficult to beat.
 

90's Clay

Banned
* Stan and Tsonga are very inconsistent.
* Murray is coming back from injury.
* Dimitrov is a fraud.
* Raonic needs to work on his ground game.
* Berdych has been terrible, I don't know why.


This. The rest of the up and comers are pure garbage who should have already begun winning slams but haven't won zilch along with Murray never being the same post back surgery.

Fed due to his ever declining game and ability to not maintain a high level throughout a match as well anymore should be no higher than rank 9 or 10, if these young guys would have finally stepped up already.


Its the same reason Nadal can take months off, relax, and come back and dominate despite his decline as well or the reason why old Grandad no weapon Ferrer is still a top guy.. They got no one coming up in the ranks that can stay consistent in winning or win at all.

Its got nothing to do with old grandad declining Fed but everything to do with how horrid the new generation of players are.


I mean Raonic is a top 5-6 player. Raonic for god sakes. A guy that can't do anything but serve
 
Last edited:

CurrenFan

Rookie
still has the best backhand slice in the game bar none--whoever is second is a distant second.
So what? He doesn't hit winners with it and his backhand on the whole is a weak shot, probably no better than average among the top 50 players, if that. Why else do you think he takes such obvious efforts to run around his backhand and hit a forehand, sometimes even hitting his forehand while stepping on the ad-court sideline. If you saw the Wimbledon finals, Djokovic had something like 4 or 5 backhand winners for every one that Federer hit. If Federer's back hand was more of a weapon, if he'd grown up placing both hands on the racquet from the backhand side, he'd easily have over 20 GS titles.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
This. The rest of the up and comers are pure garbage who should have already begun winning slams but haven't won zilch along with Murray never being the same post back surgery.

Fed due to his ever declining game and ability to not maintain a high level throughout a match as well anymore should be no higher than rank 9 or 10, if these young guys would have finally stepped up already.


Its the same reason Nadal can take months off, relax, and come back and dominate despite his decline as well or the reason why old Grandad no weapon Ferrer is still a top guy.. They got no one coming up in the ranks that can stay consistent in winning or win at all.

Its got nothing to do with old grandad declining Fed but everything to do with how horrid the new generation of players are.


I mean Raonic is a top 5-6 player. Raonic for god sakes. A guy that can't do anything but serve
Yep. That would like, never have happend in Pete's super-strong era. I mean, it's not like Rusedski rose to #4 in '97 and could have taken the #1 spot at Key Biscayne in '98... :roll:
 

Carsomyr

Legend
Except Bjorkman and Rusedski were both better players than Raonic.

Nice try though
Raonic already has as many singles titles at 23 that Bjorkman had at 33 - and he wasn't collecting his at the same place Dr. Spaceman earned his medical degree. :lol:
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Except Bjorkman and Rusedski were both better players than Raonic.

Nice try though
Ah, but Rusedski was "just a serve", too, so there goes your "argument" (for lack of a better word, I know you never have any). But at that time, "just a serve" got you much higher than 5-6. Just ask Goran.

Ahem. And maybe Pete, too.
 
Well, yeah, in the fast era, you're going to see more of that sort of stuff. That's why the comparisons in "competition" between the 90s and more recent years are apples and oranges. I'm sure guys such as Muster and Agassi would be salivating over playing in today's conditions, but Pete would only be a threat at one slam as long as Nadal was in the draw.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Rudeski won a Masters and both have higher year end finishes. By the end of this season it may not be a debate though.
Yeah, that's all minor stuff. 1 masters and a higher YE finish particularly when it wasn't a number 1 doesn't really mean a row of beans.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Yeah, that's all minor stuff. 1 masters and a higher YE finish particularly when it wasn't a number 1 doesn't really mean a row of beans.
Enough to nudge ahead Raonic who has done even less.

Don't forget Rusedski also reached a Slam final('97 USO).
Yep, I did forget that. Thanks. So definite edge to Rusedski. Not that he was a much better play or anything.
 

TommyA8X

Hall of Fame
So what? He doesn't hit winners with it and his backhand on the whole is a weak shot, probably no better than average among the top 50 players, if that. Why else do you think he takes such obvious efforts to run around his backhand and hit a forehand, sometimes even hitting his forehand while stepping on the ad-court sideline. If you saw the Wimbledon finals, Djokovic had something like 4 or 5 backhand winners for every one that Federer hit. If Federer's back hand was more of a weapon, if he'd grown up placing both hands on the racquet from the backhand side, he'd easily have over 20 GS titles.
Good one :lol:
Hmmm...Maybe because his forehand is probably the greatest shot in tennis.
 

Zoid

Professional
Except Bjorkman and Rusedski were both better players than Raonic.

Nice try though
I'm all for defending much of the 90's as a very tough era in men's tennis. BUt cmon mate, Jonas Bjorkman is NOT a better player than Raonic. 97 and 98 were some of the weakest years in the 90's. By the time Milos is done he will have much better credentials than either of those two guys.
 

aer0pr0

Rookie
rusedski definetly not better than raonic, even though raonic cannot play tennis ( can only serve), but head to head raonic would beat him

However Ivanisevic would put raonic in his pocket and eat him for breakfast:)
 

Candide

Hall of Fame
The appeal to authority

Except Bjorkman and Rusedski were both better players than Raonic.

Nice try though
Thanks for clearing that up for everyone. However, there's one problem with this and many of your posts. They rest on logical fallacy called the appeal to authority.

Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

So, although your moniker implies some interest in the tennis playing of the era to which you refer it does not confer any special expertise on you as a tennis analyst. Similarly, although TT has bestowed on you the rank of 'Legend' this is only in regard to your consistency in typing inane comments on this board. As such, closing down lines of discussion with comments like the above which in essence equate to, "I said so that's the why," is entirely unconvincing.

Nice try though.
 
Last edited:

The Green Mile

Bionic Poster
Thanks for clearing that up for everyone. However, there's one problem with this and many of your posts. They rest on logical fallacy called the appeal to authority.

Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

So, although your moniker implies some interest in the tennis playing of the era to which you refer it does not confer any special expertise on you as a tennis analyst. Similarly, although TT has bestowed on you the rank of 'Legend' this is only in regard to your consistency in typing inane comments on this board. As such closing down lines of discussion with comments like the above which in essence equate to, "I said so that's the why," they are entirely unconvincing.

Nice try though.
LMAO... nice one.
 

Raging Buddha

Semi-Pro
Thanks for clearing that up for everyone. However, there's one problem with this and many of your posts. They rest on logical fallacy called the appeal to authority.

Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

So, although your moniker implies some interest in the tennis playing of the era to which you refer it does not confer any special expertise on you as a tennis analyst. Similarly, although TT has bestowed on you the rank of 'Legend' this is only in regard to your consistency in typing inane comments on this board. As such, closing down lines of discussion with comments like the above which in essence equate to, "I said so that's the why," is entirely unconvincing.

Nice try though.
You could've simply said "shut up".
 

Candide

Hall of Fame
You could've simply said "shut up".
I could but I am an eternal optimist. I'm sure that even the faultiest of thinking can be improved when bad habits are pointed out to the student.

“To know that you do not know is the best.
To think you know when you do not is a disease.
Recognizing this disease as a disease is to be free of it.”
― Lao Tzu
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
I could but I am an eternal optimist. I'm sure that even the faultiest of thinking can be improved when bad habits are pointed out to the student.

“To know that you do not know is the best.
To think you know when you do not is a disease.
Recognizing this disease as a disease is to be free of it.”
― Lao Tzu
Lol, Lao Tzu better shut up, he never got to play Rafa on clay.
 
Top