GRASScaraz
Hall of Fame
Was that the last moment of his peak?
He was nowhere until the WTF at the end of the year.
He was nowhere until the WTF at the end of the year.
Why did Federer disappear after winning AO 2010?
- Thread starter GRASScaraz
- Start date
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
I don't know if anyone agrees but 2017 Fed went 90%, hitting back his fiercest rival 4 times, winning 5 big titles and he did it his way.
That was peak as well.
"mistakes i've made a few but then again too few to mention"
That was peak as well.
"mistakes i've made a few but then again too few to mention"
Rosstour
Talk Tennis Guru
His peak ended after 2007, he was just really good at hiding it. He played another 12 years
GRASScaraz
Hall of Fame
Yes I suspect that Fed applied some special cream in the 2016 offseason when he was sidelined with injury.
2017 was a very weak year however.
Nowhere? After Wimbledon and before WTF, Federer:
-made the Canadian Open final, beating Berdych/Djokovic in the QF/SF;
-won Cincinnati;
-made the U.S. Open SF and had 2 match points against Djokovic;
-made the Shanghai final, beating Soderling and Djokovic in the QF/SF;
-won Stockholm;
-won Basel, beating Roddick/Djokovic in the SF/F;
-lost to Monfils in the Bercy SF
30-4 overall, with the loss to Monfils being the only bad loss, balanced by his 3-1 record against Djokovic, losing the one from match points up.
His peak occurred at 26? Rather soon, don't you think? Conveniently, escaping the peaks of his rivals?
Sport
G.O.A.T.
His peak didn't end in 2007, that's the peak years Federer fans want to promote to excuse the losses to Nadal both at W 08 and the AO 09. Federer was perfectly fine and at his peak both at W 08 and the AO 09.
There's literally zero difference between Federer at the USO 07 and USO 08. At the USO 07, Roger dismantled Roddick in 3 (with 2 tie-breaks) and Novak also in 3 (with 2 tie-breaks). At the USO 08, Roger executed the already Slam-winner Novak in 4 (with no tie-break) and Murray in 3.
Both equally amazing and dominant.
USO 07:
USO 08:
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
To say he disappeared or lost motivation is a lie.
Medvedev is 28 now, he stopped giving a damn about non slams already. He understands that time to go week in and out is ending.
Djokovic did so in 2018 at age of 31, a little longer because he is fitter than Meddy.
At 28/29 the time to go week in and out is almost ending for everyone. What you can still do is peak for slams and big titles. Fed peaked for slams a lot but surfaces slowed down and his backhand no longer could handle Rafole barrage in BO5. In BO3, he was still beating them from time to time, Nadal in IW 2012, ATP finals, Djokovic in Cincy/Dubai etc.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
At some point your body will not allow you to go week in and out at your best.
But what do you care you slams is everything crowd
But what do you care you slams is everything crowd
GRASScaraz
Hall of Fame
I was talking more big picture. Going QF/QF back to back in slams was shocking after he made every GS Final in 2009. Insane drop off, also the choke against Djoke at the USO was a clear sign of decline.
Federer and Del Potro
Bionic Poster
Mono
Slowed down courts
TTW lost faith in him
Etc.
Slowed down courts
TTW lost faith in him
Etc.
GRASScaraz
Hall of Fame
What about senility?
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
OP is known to create threads like this. But its a good point to look at everyone else. Fed results week in and out could no longer match pre 2008. The DUDE was putting in 100 match seasons FFS. Totally bizarre if you think in today's players. No one is even close. Roger put 70+ matches in even at age of 32/33 so him slowing down is almost peak for many players. Very effortless.
In fairness, prior to Federer, what player's peak extended much beyond age 26?
-Sampras peak ended at 26 in 1997, his last season winning multiple Majors;
-McEnroe's peak ended at 26 in 1985;
-Edberg's peak ended at 26 in 1992;
-Wilander's peak ended at 24 in 1988;
-Borg's peak/career ended at 25 in 1981;
-Lendl's peak ended at 27 in 1987;
-Becker's peak ended at 24 in 1991 (before a late career resurgence from mid-1995 to 1996);
-Connors's peak ended at 26 in 1978;
-Courier's peak ended at 23 in 1993;
-Agassi is a bit weird, but I would say his peak ended at 25 in 1995 before his big resurgence in 1999.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
At age 34 in 2014, Fed put in 85 matches. 85 freaking
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Federer's greatness is, indeed, magnificent. Particurly impressive are his double 5 W and 5 USO streaks. Out of this world dominance.
He was scared of Sinner
Pheasant
Legend
Fed with his new big racket rolled back the years, starting in 2014. He really turned this around vs Berdych and Murray with that big racket. IIRC(a stat guru will correct me if I'm wrong), Fed cracked 60% games won in 2015, despite meeting god-mode Djoker in so many finals that year.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
You are not wrong. 2015 Fed cracked 60% which he did only for 2 years prior.
He won 250 on clay, and reached Rome final as well. Again beating Murray I think who became YE number 2. If you are outlasting CLAYRAY then you are not out of prime yet.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
We can't use Borg/Wilander/Becker/Edberg/McEnroe even for this. They were winning slams and reaching top at teenage. They had too many matches already at the top, which takes physical and mental toll.
kangaroo1973
Semi-Pro
For once I have to partially agree with you. Fed was never the same after 2007 WTF , thanks to mono.
In 2010 he played hell in Australia but contracted some lung virus shortly thereafter iirc
"Peak" is not defined by age or capabilities, but simply by on-court results. Any other definition makes the term almost meaningless, because (a) we already have "prime" to describe the period when a player is young and fit enough to be playing his/her best tennis, and (b) we know that many players can have great years surprisingly erupt long after we thought their best production was behind them.
Traditionally, a tennis player's "peak" has referred to a contiguous period of years, usually no more than 4-5, when a player achieves his best results on average. A peak could be shorter if we're dealing with a player who is generally mediocre, then suddenly has a couple of excellent years, then slips right back into his standard mediocrity. Or a peak could be a bit longer than the customary four to five years if we're dealing with a player who is unusually productive over a long career. We sometimes see arguments of this kind applied to the Big 3. But even with them, a peak needs a defined starting point and hard cutoff, or else we wind up saying that they were at peak throughout their careers, which again renders the concept meaningless. Finally, with players from different generations, the norm is to have nonoverlapping peaks, or else peaks that coincide just a little. This is a natural result of age differences, not some kind of agenda-driven conspiracy (even recognizing that "agenda-driven conspiracy" is the primary critical conceptual framework adopted by many posters here).
The best definition of Federer's peak is the four-year period from 2004 through 2007. The results dictate this. However, I can understand why some might wish to include 2009 also (two slam titles and two slam finals), which would rope in 2008 as well due to the contiguity requirement. For Nadal, 2008 through 2013 would be analogous to the longer version of the Federer peak. For Djokovic, the peak would be 2011-2016. All three of these players had excellent years after their peaks, especially Djokovic. But defining a 13-year "peak" would be so out of step with tennis tradition that it would nullify the explanatory power of the idea. We just have to get used to the reality that a few players have been able to win lots of slams well outside their obvious peaks.
No. I have already explained how the turnaround was engineered. https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ly-puts-murray-comfortably-behind-him.582196/
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Yes, while his prime lasted up to 2012.
2014 to early 2016 was a revival after a difficult 2013.
2017-2019 was his long Indian summer.
Federer did win 17 of his last 18 matches of 2010, winning Stockholm, Basel and the YEC in London. The one loss was to Monfils in the Paris Indoor where Federer blew 5 match points.
EddieChang
Rookie
06 fed would lose to delpo and almost lose to roddick？ lmao
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
That's literally one tournament that he played at that level in 2008 where it was still a constant basis in 2007.
In 2008 I remember he also played great in Basel, made Nalbandian look like nothing in the final.
But outside of that he really was one level below 2007, let alone 2004-2006.
I'd argue you're doing the exact opposite to make yourself feel better that Rafa suddenly beat peak Fed in 2008/2009 when he clearly didn't.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
2006 fed had 4 hands or something ?
Mustard
Bionic Poster
With hindsight, that was foolish.
This is why Phil Taylor in darts was the greatest. He wanted to beat opponents like 18-0 if he could, and wouldn't get complacent if up 9-0 and cruising. He saw it as professionalism, i.e. his job, to win flawlessly if possible.
RS
Bionic Poster
inflation_era
Professional
LOL, love how Nadal fans like to bolster Fed as peak in 2008 when that was one of his worst years on tour since becoming a slam winner. And before anyone comes in with he didn't lose a set till the final, neither did Nadal at FO2009 till he lost.
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
In 2010 he had a lung infection after the AO
www.tennis.com
He had a leg issue from the Halle final and struggled with his back in Wimbledon
Lung infection takes Federer out of Dubai | Tennis.com
ASAP Sports Transcripts - Tennis - 2010 - WIMBLEDON - June 30 - Roger Federer
ASAPSports FastScripts, a system using state-of-the-art technology created to produce verbatim FastScripts of press conferences and player/team interviews at sporting events around the globe.
www.asapsports.com
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
He had some virus in the middle of 2010. I think he caught something in a trip to Africa IIRC.
But after making 23 or so SF in a row he lost before that twice in a row to Soderling (RG) and Berdych (Wimbledon).
But after making 23 or so SF in a row he lost before that twice in a row to Soderling (RG) and Berdych (Wimbledon).
Vincent-C
Legend
IIRC Paris and Fred mostly did not get along, tennis-wise. Corrections are welcome.
Vincent-C
Legend
I remember he was a bit testy after that loss to Berdych, in particular.
Vincent-C
Legend
You betcha! Besides the mono (or maybe in conjunction with it- heh) I'm pretty sure
there was something going on with Mirka during that time. Hell hath no fury like a..
Last edited:
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
In the interview I linked he mentions the physical problems that he had. When Berdych almost bageled Fraud on grass you know that something was up.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
No, not 2007. That's a disservice to the Mighty Fed.
Vincent-C
Legend
Thanks- I'll have a look.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
Weak era...
Vincent-C
Legend
2007 YEC was the end of his "peak era", AFAICS.
The Great Man did not win W again for five years,
then again five years after that. So there.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Federer won the Paris Indoor once, in 2011, beating Tsonga in the final. That was the only time that Federer got to the final there. His next best results there were semi final losses in 2010 (to Monfils), in 2013 (to Djokovic) and in 2018 (to Djokovic).
Federer didn't play the Paris Indoor in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2012, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Nadal was better in 2008 when he won 8 tournaments in 4 months, i.e. Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Hamburg, French Open, Queen's Club, Wimbledon, Canadian Open in Toronto, Olympics in Beijing, and became world number 1.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Funnily enough, it had very little to do with Nadal and Djokovic since Fed finished 5-2 vs them in 2010. So much for the myth that Fed didn't decline, Djokodal just got better.
Similar threads
