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

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#51
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? ;)
Can you post the H2Hs of the other players in the top 5 vs the other top 10 excluding Djokovic for 2015 (the highest percentage year)? 8-B

Yes, you actually need to say more by answering my question why a full season is compared to a season where Federer didn't play his worst surface.

:cool:
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
#52
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.
You have to provide more options in this poll. Specifically, you need to cover 20-27 age range and you need to provide option "other". BW.
 
Last edited:

Enga

Professional
#53
It was always expected in tennis to retire early. In other sports, men were expected to peak in their thirties, and decline in their forties. Tennis players suffered unique problems, like early wear and tear due to constant running and long tours, as well as a general decline in speed. But now tennis lets you dominate with a serve and aggressive baseline play. That means you can potentially avoid putting too much wear on your joints.

I think for a while, Federer WAS old for tennis. But the book on how to play tennis at an older age is being written, and he is one of the main authors, along with anyone else who would have been considered over the hill in tennis terms who found recent success. He has had a big resurgence, and won 3 more majors, simultaneously showing other players that your time isnt up when you hit 30, or even 35, like so many people thought before.
 
#54
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? ;)
Im curious... Do you also consider Nadal peak (for example at AO19) because of his 51-5 sinse the start of 2018 and #2 ranking?
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
#58
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
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#59
Ok. I just find it a bit strange. Hitman (and others), who is a big Djoko-fan, called the lopsided result based on Nadals form. This is why you cant just look at the "objective" numbers like ranking and win% last 52 weeks
I can't form my own opinion because Hitman says differently? :unsure:
 
#62
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.
The old version of Federer is far better a player and competitor than the likes of hewitt, safin, roddick,gonzo,raonic,nishikori etc ever were, even in their 'primes'. If you disagree with this, then you can't say that Fed is the GOAT.

This just proves that Novak faced a much tougher competition. As for Nadal, Novak and him are almost the same age, so please don't bring him into this discussion.
 
#63
I can't form my own opinion because Hitman says differently? :unsure:
Of course you can. My point is that Nadal obviously wasnt at his best, which you cant read out of his ranking or match win%. You have to actually watch tennis to see it.
 
Last edited:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#64
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.
Did you forget prime Slam-winning Stan Wawrinka?
 
#65
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.
In 2007
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#66
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.
Djokovic is the same age as Nadal and Murray.
Federer is the same age as Roddick and Hewitt.

When making age excuses, you should consider this.
 
Last edited:
#67
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
It counts until the day he retires! Not until you say when.

If you do not count the results when someone isn't in his prime in H2H do not count the slams won by the same person (during that period) too.

So, please, take a seat and keep it hush.
 
Last edited:

uscwang

Hall of Fame
#71
2015 was the last year Federer played a full schedule.
2013 was the first season he was slowed down by injury.
2014 was the first season i felt Novak had a clear age advantage over Federer, i.e., can't lose in GS.
Answer 2012 to 2013, age 31.
 

Tennease

Hall of Fame
#72
When he was 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000..........00000001 second old.

I mean let's be honest, we call somebody who is 1 year old 1 year old, not 1 year young.



But oddly enough some people like to say they are 65 or 70 years young, lol.
 
#74
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.
Federer and Nadal are one generation more than Djokovic-Nadal.
Djokovic is the same age as Nadal and Murray.
Federer is the same age as Roddick and Hewitt.

When making age excuses, you should consider this.
Federer’s 2015-17 looks good because it is an incredible weak era EVER

Nadal has won close to 10 majors when Novak won his second . In tennis terms his age belongs more with Fedeerer than Djokovic . Hence he is a different player from 2015 while Djokovic is still going strong .

Fact : Fed was 32 years 11 months and Nadal 28.2 when Novak started racking alams
 
#76
It counts until the day he retires! Not until you say when.

If you do not count the results when someone isn't in his prime in H2H do not count the slams won by the same person (during that period) too.

So, please, take a seat and keep it hush.
No one denied or altered he h2h

However one needs to keep in mind that the path to success since 2014 have come against ‘aged’ rivals . Everyone saw what happened between 2012-13 when the competition was strong
 
#79
Nadal and especially Federer racked a lot of Slams by the time Djokovic finally peaked and that's perfectly fine. Fed won one Slam during Djokovic's best six season stretch and that's fine too. But Djokovic winning all but one of his Slams after Fed turned 29, and racking Slams a bit later, basically saying it all the other way around, means Djokovic's numbers are inflated. :unsure:

But the most criminal stat of all is Djokovic started racking Slams at 27 when Nadal was 28. CANCEL THE TENNIS!
 
#80
There is a difference of 5 years between Federer and Nadal. They are not from the same generation. Federer's generation is Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Roddick and Safin.
Federer’s and Nadal’s success were in the same period 2004-2013.

They are practically not relevant since , except for 2017 when Novak was off the tour

Novak started feasting from 2014
 
#81
Federer’s and Nadal’s success were in the same period 2004-2013.

They are practically not relevant since , except for 2017 when Novak was off the tour

Novak started feasting from 2014
Nadal won his 1st Slam in 2005, not 2004 when he was 19 years old. Federer didn't win his 1st until he was almost 22 and that's why they overlapped. Federer bloomed later than greats like Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Borg, etc. and Nadal followed their pattern. That still doesn't mean they are the same generation since they can't be with a 5 year age difference. Novak and Rafa are less than a year apart. Djokovic already had 6 Slams before 2014 and when he started feasting or didn't is irrelevant.
 
#82
"Prime Fed" officially ended at 2010 AO. People were calling him Grandpa Fed in 2011 already. Then you had a renaissance Fed in 2012. Then Backerer in 2013. Then Fedberg with no ground game 2014-2015. Then Kneerer 2016. Then Neo Fed 2017. Now is probably just *******?
 
#83
Its hilarious how the "staticians" around here deny age as relevant, when slam titles won/age have almost a perfect statistical normal distribution:-D:-D. Its a huuuge paradox. If there are confounding factors behind these numbers that go all the way back to 1968, im very interested to hear it.

That being said, level of play is more interesting than age. Feds peak was 2004-2007, prime 2004-AO2010. Parts of 2011 and 2012 can also probably be considered prime.
 
#84
Nadal won his 1st Slam in 2005, not 2004 when he was 19 years old. Federer didn't win his 1st until he was almost 22 and that's why they overlapped. Federer bloomed later than greats like Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Borg, etc. and Nadal followed their pattern. That still doesn't mean they are the same generation since they can't be with a 5 year age difference. Novak and Rafa are less than a year apart. Djokovic already had 6 Slams before 2014 and when he started feasting or didn't is irrelevant.
Let us lay down the facts and people can draw conclusions:

Novak up until 27 when Fedal peaked , won 6 majors t.

Fed 32.11 and Nadal 28.2 at Wimb 14 and Novak has added 150% more majors from Wimb 14
 
#87
Let us lay down the facts and people can draw conclusions:

Novak up until 27 when Fedal peaked , won 6 majors t.

Fed 32.11 and Nadal 28.2 at Wimb 14 and Novak has added 150% more majors from Wimb 14
And this is relevant because...? You don't see how ridiculous you sound in saying Nadal was 28 when Wimbledon 2014 happened when Djokovic himself was 27.
 
#90
And this is relevant because...? You don't see how ridiculous you sound in saying Nadal was 28 when Wimbledon 2014 happened when Djokovic himself was 27.
And don't forget that window Federer and Nadal had recently to win Slams was actually Djokovic's weak era as well, no? :-D
Why would I find it ridiculous? Nadal was an early bloomer and he is no longer the player he was after 2013
And Djokovic is not a late bloomer himself but some eternal 2006-19 bloomer? :-D
 
#91
And don't forget that window Federer and Nadal had recently to win Slams was actually Djokovic's weak era as well, no? :-D

And Djokovic is not a late bloomer himself but some eternal 2006-19 bloomer? :-D
Someone who wins a major at 20 years and beating Federer 7 times before 2011 started is not a late bloomer

We have never denied Fedal won 2017 only because of weak era
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#93
If its a theory its a pretty strong one. This is almost a textbook example of a statistical normal distribution:

I know, I know. 31+ years old players winning last 10 slams was a terrible coincidence.

But if there's a peak age, who shared this peak age with the better players?

- Federer with Roddick/Hewitt
- Djokovic with Nadal/Murray?
 
#94
Someone who wins a major at 20 years and beating Federer 7 times before 2011 started is not a late bloomer

We have never denied Fedal won 2017 only because of weak era
One Slam and a few wins over Federer in a four year period doesn't make you an early bloomer either. Even with the consistency he's shown back then, it's miles behind of how he played from 2011 onward. Of course you know all of that, you're just grasping at straws as usual, wanting to imply that Djokovic has always been perfectly ready to compete with Fedal and the rest of the field over the last 12 years or so.
 
#97
One Slam and a few wins over Federer in a four year period doesn't make you an early bloomer either. Even with the consistency he's shown back then, it's miles behind of how he played from 2011 onward. Of course you know all of that, you're just grasping at straws as usual, wanting to imply that Djokovic has always been perfectly ready to compete with Fedal and the rest of the field over the last 12 years or so.
Actually I really don’t have a problem to go with your theory that Djokovic was a late bloomer

I reallly want to drive home the point that Djokovic most majors (9 and going strong ) have come after Fedal turned 32.11 and Nadal 28.2
 
#98
I know, I know. 31+ years old players winning last 10 slams was a terrible coincidence.

But if there's a peak age, who shared this peak age with the better players?

- Federer with Roddick/Hewitt
- Djokovic with Nadal/Murray?
Thats not the point. Big3 are in fact great examples of the normal distribution:

Federer won 75% of his slams 2004-2010 (age23-29)
Djokovic won 73% of his slams 2011-2016 (age24-29)
Nadal won 65% of his slams 2008-1014 (age22-28).

If varying competition was/is very relevant, and age is irrelevant, we shouldnt see a normal distribution for slams won/age (which even fits Big4). Its a huge statistical paradox.
 
Last edited:
#99
Actually I really don’t have a problem to go with your theory that Djokovic was a late bloomer

I reallly want to drive home the point that Djokovic most majors (9 and going strong ) have come after Fedal turned 32.11 and Nadal 28.2
28.2, that moment when everything goes downhill.

And Federer won 16 Slams by the time Djokovic entered his peak while 3 of the remaining 4 came when Djokovic was going through amor y paz phase. Should we now judge Fed according to how one of his rivals did in each period and discredit his Slam record because of that, or praise him for consistently performing well against the field when he was expected to?
 
28.2, that moment when everything goes downhill.

And Federer won 16 Slams by the time Djokovic entered his peak while 3 of the remaining 4 came when Djokovic was going through amor y paz phase. Should we now judge Fed according to how one of his rivals did in each period and discredit his Slam record because of that, or praise him for consistently performing well against the field when he was expected to?
If you have noticed , all I want to say is most of Novak’s majors have come after Fed being 32.11 and Nadal 28.2

It is up to each one to draw their conclusions .

For folks who think 2015 Fed is peak and Nadal is just a year older to Novak , it is all the more creditable . For the ones who think Fed is no longer the same player from 2013 , it is a different story .

The myth that Novak had to go through Fedal every time has to be dispelled
 
Top