When did Federer officially become old?

When did Federer officially become old?

  • 28

    Votes: 19 26.4%
  • 29

    Votes: 3 4.2%
  • 30

    Votes: 3 4.2%
  • 31

    Votes: 6 8.3%
  • 32

    Votes: 17 23.6%
  • 33

    Votes: 4 5.6%
  • 34

    Votes: 5 6.9%
  • 35+

    Votes: 15 20.8%

  • Total voters
    72
#1
The number one keyword for most search results would probably be "Federer xx age"

This is often brought up when discussing H2H.. somehow Federers matches vs Djokovic when he was 18-19.. in early rounds COUNT in the H2H..
Also the breathing problem years before 2011.. they also count in the h2h.
But matches at the top stages like 2014-2015 slam finals do not count, because Federer was old!

But, somehow its super relevant when Federer was able to fix his negative H2H vs Murray in his OLDER age
Same goes for Nadal, who had an 23-10 lead in 2014..


Murray had 11-10 positive h2h up to 2014, Nadal had 23-10 up to 2014.. how could Federer turn these around and make them 14-11 and 23-15..
Did Murray and Nadal get older than the Agerer himself?

Or is it simply a matchup effect, were Federer became more effective in older age vs Nad/Mur.. and less effective vs Djo?
Perhaps when they meet he reminds him of his old age?


The age thing changes over time, i kept hearing Federer got old after the FO of 2010..were after that he went 1 slam in almost 7 years time.
Oddly enough 2010 he was about 28 years.. but then at the age of 36+ he wins 3 slams out of nowhere?!


Players like Lebron/Kobe and M.Jordan won their first NBA title 27-28 years of age and last one in their mid 30s, so at 28 for these guys was the start of Peak abilities meets peak experiences = NBA titles.

The age of Federer is a true mystery, only understod by the hardest of hardcore Fedfans out there in the world.
 
#2
Federer officially no longer in prime from 2013 - injured that year and game completely retooled after 2013.

Everything up until that counts.

Murray h2h hardly matters as he had 0 wins where it counted. Nadal h2h was highly clay skewed.

Djokovic won 9 of 15 majors from Wimb 2014 - When Fed was 32 yrs 11 months and Nadal 28.2
 
#8
Murray had 11-10 positive h2h up to 2014, Nadal had 23-10 up to 2014.. how could Federer turn these around and make them 14-11 and 23-15..
Did Murray and Nadal get older than the Agerer himself?
Andy was a better player before 2014. After he hurt his back and split with Lendl the first time he was never quite the same guy. He became incredibly passive and he didn't just get worse against Fed, he stopped being able to threaten Novak either. I know some disagree, but I've always thought 2012-13 Andy >> 2015-16 Andy.

As for Nadal, it's no secret. 30-31 year old Rafa losing much of his youthful speed/defense, combined with Roger's counteracting of his topspin with the bigger racket and no longer playing him on clay = winning streak.

2014-16 Novak was surely playing better and moving better than a 2017 Nadal. Or do you disagree? Not being able to beat a 27-29 year old Novak doesn't really have anything to do with his ability to beat a 30-31 year old Rafa.

Players like Lebron/Kobe and M.Jordan won their first NBA title 27-28 years of age and last one in their mid 30s, so at 28 for these guys was the start of Peak abilities meets peak experiences = NBA titles.
It's almost like different sports have differences. Why are Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps and Calvin Johnson retired? Surely they should still be at their peaks...
 
#10
So Djokovic won 9 majors after age of 27. You do realize that Federer won 8 majors after age of 27 and until last month they were tied? Correct?
I have to reiterate that to dispel the myth that Djokovic had to go through peak Fed and Nadal for most of his majors.

Fact is 60% of his majors were won after Fed was 32 years 11 month and Nadal 28.2.

Djokovic's rivals since 2014 who were of prime tennis age were Murray, Delpo, Raonic, Nishikori , Cilic and Dmitrov.
 
#11
I have to reiterate that to dispel the myth that Djokovic had to go through peak Fed and Nadal for most of his majors.

Fact is 60% of his majors were won after Fed was 32 years 11 month and Nadal 28.2
Djokovic and Nadal are of the same generation and roughly the same age. Anything about age being important in relation to them is nonsensical.

And every last one of them counts the same as the 6 previous ones. Anyone could counter that and say the majority of Federer's Slams were won without beating an ATG. Irrelevant.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#16
I have to reiterate that to dispel the myth that Djokovic had to go through peak Fed and Nadal for most of his majors.

Fact is 60% of his majors were won after Fed was 32 years 11 month and Nadal 28.2.

Djokovic's rivals since 2014 who were of prime tennis age were Murray, Delpo, Raonic, Nishikori , Cilic and Dmitrov.
So it seems all Big 3 did not have great competition. Lol. There is accusations for each guy having the weakest competition.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#17
Btw, I can answer for Nadal. The first time I thought he had seriously declined was in 2014, but the first time I thought of him as "old" was in 2017 AO when I saw how badly he was losing hair.
 
#18
I don’t know he’s still going at a fairly healthy clip. It’s all relative and he has done a great job of maintaining his fitness and also knowing how to rest and recuperate. There’s a lot that allows players to play into their later years these days, including the way surfaces play these days and the technology and all the money/trainers, the tiebreakers, private travel, etc.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#20
Federer was old at age 28. Agassi was young at age 33. Also, apparently 33 years old Agassi with little mobility is stronger than the HC GOAT Djokovic at age 26.
Agassi played his best tennis from 1999-2003.. perhaps not the highest level he'd shown but it was the most consistent period in his career bar none.

He never dropped below 11th in the rankings during that timeframe.

As for the jabs towards Fed re: Novak... he was in his mid 30s when those beatings took place. Only Novak fanboys or bitter Nadal trolls will legitimately try to argue he was in his prime.
 
#21
Why don’t we look at the H2H stats themselves and how they fit in to each players' seasons? Skip to the bottom if you're short on time.

Here's how I rank seasons in order of worst to best in case some find my metric unclear:
Poor (It should be obvious)
OK (Good slam showing, not many big titles; usually slamless unless the player wins one slam but no other big titles)
Good (One slam; a few masters or the WTF)
Great (Two slams, a few masters and the WTF)
Very Good (Again, it should be obvious)

Matches in 2006: 1 (H2H 1-0) -- Federer season: Very good -- Djokovic season: Poor
Matches in 2007: 4 (H2H 3-1) -- Federer season: Very good -- Djokovic season: Good
Matches in 2008: 3 (H2H 2-1) -- Federer season: Good -- Djokovic season: Good (A rare tie in level of play!!! :eek:)
Matches in 2009: 5 (H2H 2-3) -- Federer season: Great -- Djokovic season: OK
Matches in 2010: 5 (H2H 4-1) -- Federer season: Good -- Djokovic season: Poor
Matches in 2011: 5 (H2H 1-4) -- Federer season: OK -- Djokovic season: Very good
Matches in 2012: 5 (H2H 2-3) -- Federer season: Good -- Djokovic season Great
Matches in 2013: 2 (H2H 0-2) -- Federer season: Poor -- Djokovic season: Great
Matches in 2014: 5 (H2H 3-2) -- Federer season: OK -- Djokovic season: Good (H2H does not include walkover in the WTF)
Matches in 2015: 8 :eek: (H2H 3-5) -- Federer season: Good -- Djokovic season: Very good
Matches in 2016: 1 (H2H 0-1) -- Federer season: Poor -- Djokovic season: Very good, then Poor after RG; Overall Great
Matches in 2017: 0 (H2H 0-0) -- Federer season: Great -- Djokovic season: Poor
Matches in 2018: 2 (H2H 0-2) -- Federer season: OK -- Djokovic season: Poor, then Great; Overall Good

If we count 2010 as the final year for Djokovic playing "poorly" and 2011 as the year when Federer began to "age", that leaves us with:

Pre-2011: 18 matches played
2011-present: 28 matches played

I'm not a huge fan of the age argument as it doesn't factor in level of play (Ex. Fed had a great 2017 season despite being 35 yrs old). Let's use level of play itself:

Matches played in seasons when Federer was clearly the better player: 15
Matches played in seasons when Djokovic was clearly the better player: 23
Matches played in seasons when Federer and Djokovic were playing at roughly a similar level: 8 (funnily enough, these matches are equally split between the players)

For the third statistic, I picked the 2008 and 2012 seasons; you're free to add or remove seasons.

I realize that it's impossible to truly compare seasons with H2H as sometimes, a player can have an excellent season and lose a lot to one player because of matchups and have a weaker season but totally own that player due to reversing the matchup.

What would end the argument IMO is if three matches were played in 2017 to make up for 2016 and 2018; this would tie the H2H and leave it out of the debate when regarding actual achievements.

My answer to the OP: Fed started to really become old in the year he turned 32: 2013. After this he began to make many changes in his game to accommodate for his declining power and movement (The bigger racket, the SABR, and an increased reliance on volleys to end points quicker). This does not mean that Djokovic's wins against Fed post-2014 are useless. I was just answering the question. Feel free to make up your own mind.
 
Last edited:
#23
Agassi played his best tennis from 1999-2003.
Hell no. Agassi was already playing RG and USO finals in 1990. His prime is 1990-1999. And he was indeed really fast when young. In 2003 he was already old and slow. He just had good results in early 2003 because of the weak era of 2003 (both Ferrero and Roddick were number 1 a few weeks in 2003, which illustrates the weak era).

Anyhow, to compare the HC GOAT Djokovic at age 26 with 35 years old Agassi is a crime against objectivity.
 
Last edited:
#26
Hell no. Agassi was already playing RG and USO finals in 1990. His prime is 1990-1999. And he was indeed really fast when young. In 2003 he was already old and slow. He just had good results in early 2003 because of the weak era of 2003 (both Ferrero and Roddick were number 1 a few weeks in 2003, which illustrates the weak era).

Anyhow, to compare the HC GOAT Djokovic at age 26 with 35 years old Agassi is a crime against objectivity.
I think the argument is that, while Agassi's potential ability might well have been higher in, say, 1990 than in, say, 2003, he was much closer to his potential in most of the later years of his career, so his actual ability was higher in the later years. (I'm adapting the terms "potential ability" and "actual ability" from the game Football Manager). I think that Agassi's best year of consistent play was 1995. But there's no doubt that his average performance in 1999 was much better than in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, or 1998, regardless of his age.
 
D

Deleted member 743545

Guest
#28
I think the argument is that, while Agassi's potential ability might well have been higher in, say, 1990 than in, say, 2003, he was much closer to his potential in most of the later years of his career, so his actual ability was higher in the later years. (I'm adapting the terms "potential ability" and "actual ability" from the game Football Manager). I think that Agassi's best year of consistent play was 1995. But there's no doubt that his average performance in 1999 was much better than in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, or 1998, regardless of his age.
Agassi results and overall winning % was highest in 1999-2003 (outside of late 1994-1995). In 1996-1998 he didn't even bother to show up at all.
 
#29
The "age" excuse has been going full bore since 2007/2008 or so. But Roger was still in his prime probably up to 2010. . But as others have said, Agassi was playing his best tennis from 30 years of age and on but that is UNTRUE. Generally a player ( I don't care who it is) starts to decline at 30. (Agassi began to decline after the 2000 Australian) Sure he may still win but if the tour is trash thats basically WHY he/she is still winning. Medical advancements help but you can't really do the things in your 30s that you can in your 20s. And I haven't really seen anything to the contrary. Lebron wasn't as good his 2nd time around in Cleveland or now than he was in Miami. You can't physically do the things you do in your 30s that you could in your 20s. Those same muscle fibers just aren't there.

Nadal started declining in 2011 (But he also started his run earlier) with heavy miles and injuries. Altered his game a bit. Doesn't do as much running but if you put this Nadal up against that one he gets DESTROYED. That Nadal was dynamite going off on the court. Djokovic while still dominating isn't nearly as good as he was from 2011-2015. The tour is just trash now. Results don't mean a player isn't in decline.
 
#32
I think the argument is that, while Agassi's potential ability might well have been higher in, say, 1990 than in, say, 2003, he was much closer to his potential in most of the later years of his career, so his actual ability was higher in the later years. (I'm adapting the terms "potential ability" and "actual ability" from the game Football Manager). I think that Agassi's best year of consistent play was 1995. But there's no doubt that his average performance in 1999 was much better than in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, or 1998, regardless of his age.
Agassi wasn't at his best in 2003. In 2003 he was 33 years old. In 2003 there was no Sampras or prime Federer to compete against, that is the reason why he won the AO 2003.

In 1990 he played 2 GS finals (RG and USO), rather than only 1 like in 2003. He lost the USO final against the child prodigy Sampras and the RG final because of the psychological pression of thinking his wig would fall (he wrote about this in his autobiography). Agassi was undoubtedly a faster and better player in 1990 than 2003.
 
#33
I guess "semi-prime" describes it better. There were times when he could certainly rival prime Federer (2010 and 2011 WTF, 2012 Cincy), but this wasn't all the time. Agree tho
I personally don't like the term "semi". For instance, I don't think there is such thing as "semi-science" (a discipline is either science or not science). Analogously, a player is either prime or not prime. I think Federer was not at his prime but nearly-prime in 2010-2012.

But if you prefer the term "semi-prime", go ahead and use it. It's a matter of preference. :giggle:
 
D

Deleted member 743545

Guest
#34
Agassi wasn't at his best in 2003. In 2003 he was 33 years old. In 2003 there was no Sampras or prime Federer to compete against, that is the reason why he won the AO 2003.

In 1990 he played 2 GS finals (RG and USO), rather than only 1 like in 2003. He lost the USO final against the child prodigy Sampras and the RG final because of the psychological pression of thinking his wig would fall (he wrote about this in his autobiography). Agassi was undoubtedly a faster and better player in 1990 than 2003.
1999-2003 Agassi was better than any Agassi apart from late 1994-1995 Agassi. He had the highest winning % in that period and consistently ending the year inside the top 5/top10 in 1999-2003.
 
#35
I personally don't like the term "semi". For instance, I don't think there is such thing as "semi-science" (a discipline is either science or it is simply not science). Analogously, I think Federer was not at his prime but nearly-prime in 2010-2012.

But if you prefer the term "semi-prime", go ahead and use it. It's a matter of preference. :giggle:
Partial-Prime?
Slightly-Less-Than-Prime-Prime?
Time-to-Time-Prime?

It's similar with 2016 and 2018 Djokovic. It's hard to say if he was prime in those years or if he wasn't prime in those years.

It boggles the mind
 
#36
I would say 2010-2012 he was indeed non-prime but "nearly-prime". From 2013 onwards he substantially declined and is when you can see a more clear age effect.
In 2010-12 he was still great, but definitely not at the unbeatable standard he set from 2004-2009. For the first time, it was uncertain whether he'd win another Slam.
 
#37
35. that's essentially retirement age for 90% of all-time players. Only Jimbo, Rosewall, Laver, etc went past that. Agassi technically retired at 36 too but he played like 3 tournaments.
 
#38
The "age" excuse has been going full bore since 2007/2008 or so. But Roger was still in his prime probably up to 2010. . But as others have said, Agassi was playing his best tennis from 30 years of age and on but that is UNTRUE. Generally a player ( I don't care who it is) starts to decline at 30. (Agassi began to decline after the 2000 Australian) Sure he may still win but if the tour is trash thats basically WHY he/she is still winning. Medical advancements help but you can't really do the things in your 30s that you can in your 20s. And I haven't really seen anything to the contrary. Lebron wasn't as good his 2nd time around in Cleveland or now than he was in Miami. You can't physically do the things you do in your 30s that you could in your 20s. Those same muscle fibers just aren't there.

Nadal started declining in 2011 (But he also started his run earlier) with heavy miles and injuries. Altered his game a bit. Doesn't do as much running but if you put this Nadal up against that one he gets DESTROYED. That Nadal was dynamite going off on the court. Djokovic while still dominating isn't nearly as good as he was from 2011-2015. The tour is just trash now. Results don't mean a player isn't in decline.
Agassi is a different case and I do believe he was as good of a player at 29 that he was at 25. I do think he began to slow down in late 2000 but he also is not in the same league of an athlete as the big 3 are. Jordan, on other hand, is a phenomenon who did not follow any set protocol or standard. He won his NBA titles and had his best stats and results from 28-35 years of age. In fact, most NBA players peak in their late 20's or early 30's and I also disagree about Lebron being better when he was younger and with Miami. When a player is supremely athletic, and this is true across multiple sports, age is not as detrimental as to someone who is not as athletic and some achieve their peak later than others. As for Nadal began declining in 2011 at 25 years old? I don't see how you believe that.
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
#40
Agassi wasn't at his best in 2003. In 2003 he was 33 years old. In 2003 there was no Sampras or prime Federer to compete against, that is the reason why he won the AO 2003.

In 1990 he played 2 GS finals (RG and USO), rather than only 1 like in 2003. He lost the USO final against the child prodigy Sampras and the RG final because of the psychological pression of thinking his wig would fall (he wrote about this in his autobiography). Agassi was undoubtedly a faster and better player in 1990 than 2003.
Who do you say was a better player between 1990 'baby' Agassi and 2005 'baby' Nadal?
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#43
Why don’t we look at the H2H stats themselves and how they fit in to each players' seasons? Skip to the bottom if you're short on time.

Here's how I rank seasons in order of worst to best in case some find my metric unclear:
Poor (It should be obvious)
OK (Good slam showing, not many big titles; usually slamless unless the player wins one slam but no other big titles)
Good (One slam; a few masters or the WTF)
Great (Two slams, a few masters and the WTF)
Very Good (Again, it should be obvious)

Matches in 2006: 1 (H2H 1-0) -- Federer season: Very good -- Djokovic season: Poor
Matches in 2007: 4 (H2H 3-1) -- Federer season: Very good -- Djokovic season: Good
Matches in 2008: 3 (H2H 2-1) -- Federer season: Good -- Djokovic season: Good (A rare tie in level of play!!! :eek:)
Matches in 2009: 5 (H2H 2-3) -- Federer season: Great -- Djokovic season: Poor (though it depends on opinion)
Matches in 2010: 5 (H2H 4-1) -- Federer season: Good -- Djokovic season: Poor
Matches in 2011: 5 (H2H 1-4) -- Federer season: OK -- Djokovic season: Good
Matches in 2012: 5 (H2H 2-3) -- Federer season: Good -- Djokovic season Great
Matches in 2013: 2 (H2H 0-2) -- Federer season: Poor -- Djokovic season: Great
Matches in 2014: 5 (H2H 3-2) -- Federer season: OK -- Djokovic season: Good (H2H does not include walkover in the WTF)
Matches in 2015: 8 :eek: (H2H 3-5) -- Federer season: Good -- Djokovic season: Very good
Matches in 2016: 1 (H2H 0-1) -- Federer season: Poor -- Djokovic season: Very good, then Poor after RG
Matches in 2017: 0 (H2H 0-0) -- Federer season: Great -- Djokovic season: Poor
Matches in 2018: 2 (H2H 0-2) -- Federer season: OK -- Djokovic season: Poor, then Great

If we count 2010 as the final year for Djokovic playing "poorly" and 2011 as the year when Federer began to "age", that leaves us with:

Pre-2011: 18 matches played
2011-present: 28 matches played

I'm not a huge fan of the age argument as it doesn't factor in level of play (Ex. Fed had a great 2017 season despite being 35 yrs old). Let's use level of play itself:

Matches played in seasons when Federer was clearly the better player: 15
Matches played in seasons when Djokovic was clearly the better player: 23
Matches played in seasons when Federer and Djokovic were playing at roughly a similar level: 8 (funnily enough, these matches are equally split between the players)

For the third statistic, I picked the 2008 and 2012 seasons; you're free to add or remove seasons.

I realize that it's impossible to truly compare seasons with H2H as sometimes, a player can have an excellent season and lose a lot to one player because of matchups and have a weaker season but totally own that player due to reversing the matchup.

What would end the argument IMO is if three matches were played in 2017 to make up for 2016 and 2018; this would tie the H2H and leave it out of the debate when regarding actual achievements.

My answer to the OP: Fed started to really become old in the year he turned 32: 2013. After this he began to make many changes in his game to accommodate for his declining power and movement (The bigger racket, the SABR, and an increased reliance on volleys to end points quicker). This does not mean that Djokovic's wins against Fed post-2014 are useless. I was just answering the question. Feel free to make up your own mind.
The bolded red doesn't seem to be right. There are other minor disagreements, but it is a matter of opinion (for example, I don't understand how Djokovic's 2012 and 2013 seasons can be "Great", but 2015 only "Very good". Also 2009 "Poor"? Don't understand also how some seasons are given as two things at once, and some are not)

:cool:
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
#46
Roger only looked 'old' because he had to deal with Nadal and Djokovic simultaneously.

If those guys weren't around, he would have been 'ageless' and continued dominating everyone and could still be doing it.

Even when he was Finnish, he was still making it to SFs and Fs and mostly losing to only those two guys.

A brief, incomplete snippet of his deeper runs during his age 29-35 Finnish Era, where he had a real shot to win...

2011 AO: SF loss to Djokovic
2011 FO: F loss to Nadal
2011 US: SF loss to Djokovic after holding MPs
2012 AO: SF loss to Nadal
2012 FO: SF loss to Djokovic
2012 W: F win over Roddick
2013 AO: SF loss to Murray
2014 AO: SF loss to Nadal
2014 W: F loss to Djokovic
2014 US: SF loss to eventual champ Cilic
2015 FO: QF loss to eventual champ Stan
2015 W: F loss to Djokovic
2015 US: F loss to Djokovic
2016 AO: SF loss to Djokovic
2016 W: SF loss to Raonic

Was he OLD then? Slightly declined, sure. But if not for Nadal and Djokovic, we might never have noticed until he started losing to the likes of Millman, Kokkinakis, and Anderson.

That's 10 Slams he would have very likely won if not for those two guys. So I think honestly he hasn't REALLY been old until last year when he started losing to guys below their level.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#49
Why is that weak *** era even mentioned?

Moreover, why is a stat where Federer didn't play a full season compared to full seasons?

:cool:
In 2014-15 he played full season and were strong years for my objective evaluation methods (results of top players).

In 2017-18 he won 3 slams out of 5, had a 52-3 streak in big tournaments, and won 7 sets in a row vs year-end no.1 Nadal with his neo backhand... Do I have to say more? ;)
 
Top