Why did Federer slow down so much since 2008?

[GhostofPetros]

Federer slam wins 2004 - 2007 -> 11 / 16 -> 68%
Federer slam wins 2008 - 2015-> 5 / 32 -> 15%

Federer number 1 ranking 2004 - 2007 -> 204 weeks
Federer number 1 ranking 2008 - 2015 -> 65 weeks



Such a huge drop off in results.


Fed got old at 26? or faced prime Djokovic/Nadal instead of Bagdhatis, Philippousis, Roddick, Gonzalez, Hewitt?

The END of the Weak Era is why.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

The END of the Weak Era is why.

Sucks for Fed he went from having a hit with pals Roddick, Hewitt, Kiefer, Haas, Bogdanovic to having to go through wars with GOAT contenders Nadal/Djokovic for his slams

 

[GhostofPetros]

Sucks for Fed he went from having a hit with pals Roddick, Hewitt, Kiefer, Haas, Bogdanovic to having to go through wars with GOAT contenders Nadal/Djokovic for his slams

Everything was possible in the Roddick era

 

[icedevil0289]

sometimes i think half the people here create multiple accounts to then say i agree with you because some o the conversations people have here are hilarious

 

[icedevil0289]

i think of the big 3, its quite telling to me that fed has had to adopt the most to the current game, i mean i know people dont want to admit it, but i think it plays a role and that curent surfaces, equipment etc support the other two far more than fed, there is a reason he felt the need to change up his racket, the racket that had previously won him so many slams. also so sick of people acting like he's in the same gen

 

[helterskelter]

Amazing how much people can enjoy debating and discussing the same thing again and again. It makes it less surprising to me that people aren't bored stiff of the dominance of three players after 17 years, when my view is that it is painfully dull.

 

[Mustard]

That's why Pete is the GOAT. He beat his biggest rival PEAK for PEAK so hard poor Andre took 3 years to recover

That's because of HOW it happened. Agassi had been the better player for most of 1995, had been undefeated that summer on hardcourts, had won most matches against Sampras that year, yet Sampras wins the 1995 US Open final against Agassi and suddenly it all looked different, Sampras now had 2 majors to Agassi's 1 in 1995 despite Sampras having less dominance week to week. Gilbert had managed to get Agassi more dedicated, focused, patient and tactically aware, so Agassi was already making sacrifices, yet all that 1995 success still saw Sampras seen as better after that US Open final. Agassi's dedication then drops off a bit in 1996, and then almost completely went for most of 1997.

 

[InsideOut900]

That's because of HOW it happened. Agassi had been the better player for most of 1995, had been undefeated that summer on hardcourts, had won most matches against Sampras that year, yet Sampras wins the 1995 US Open final against Agassi and suddenly it all looked different, Sampras now had 2 majors to Agassi's 1 in 1995 despite less dominance week to week.

Do I need to say I was trolling there?

 

[SonnyT]

If it weren't for Djokovic, Federer would've 5 more majors: '14-15, '19 Wimb; '15 USO; '16 AO. That would mean 15 majors in the 00's, and 10 more in the 10's. So his slowing down was pretty much down to one opponent, not the whole field!

 

[darthrafa]

why not could it be he won too many before that?

 

[GhostofPetros]

That's because of HOW it happened. Agassi had been the better player for most of 1995, had been undefeated that summer on hardcourts, had won most matches against Sampras that year, yet Sampras wins the 1995 US Open final against Agassi and suddenly it all looked different, Sampras now had 2 majors to Agassi's 1 in 1995 despite Sampras having less dominance week to week. Gilbert had managed to get Agassi more dedicated, focused, patient and tactically aware, so Agassi was already making sacrifices, yet all that 1995 success still saw Sampras seen as better after that US Open final. Agassi's dedication then drops off a bit in 1996, and then almost completely went for most of 1997.

26 years later and the Agassi brigade can't stop making excuses. 1995 USO final was seen as a heavy weight fight for all the marbles. They were throwing lightning bolts at each other for most of the first, until as usual, Pete found a way into a break point, outwitted Andre from the back, and got the break and set. From there on out, Andre was playing catch-up and didn't stand a chance. Rest of the match was a formality. You also conveniently forgot that PETE straightsetted Andre at Indian wells earlier in the year to avenge Australia.

End of the day, Pete played and beat a peaking Agassi at the height of his confidence. End o' story. No excuses.

 

[Mustard]

26 years later and the Agassi brigade can't stop making excuses. 1995 USO final was seen as a heavy weight fight for all the marbles. They were throwing lightning bolts at each other for most of the first, until as usual, Pete found a way into a break point, outwitted Andre from the back, and got the break and set. From there on out, Andre was playing catch-up and didn't stand a chance. Rest of the match was a formality. You also conveniently forgot that PETE straightsetted Andre at Indian wells earlier in the year to avenge Australia.

End of the day, Pete played and beat a peaking Agassi at the height of his confidence. End o' story. No excuses.

LOL. I was a Muster and Ivanisevic fan.

How does Sampras winning the 1995 US Open final change anything I've just said, i.e. that Agassi had been the better player for most of 1995? While Sampras had been playing better at the 1995 US Open itself, Agassi was still going into that match with the unbeaten record since losing to Becker at Wimbledon. Agassi had won 3 out of 4 matches against Sampras in 1995 at that time. Agassi had won more tournaments than Sampras in 1995. When Sampras won the 1995 US Open final, suddenly it was all about Sampras winning 2 majors in 1995 compared to Agassi's 1 major. That, combined with Agassi having made sacrifices he wouldn't normally have made in the previous year, is what caused the Agassi decline in form in 1996 and then slump in 1997.

And you conveniently forget that, in 1995, Agassi beat Sampras at Miami after Indian Wells, and in Montreal. Sampras never did win the Canadian Open, did he?

 

[GhostofPetros]

LOL. I was a Muster and Ivanisevic fan.

How does Sampras winning the 1995 US Open final change anything I've just said, i.e. that Agassi had been the better player for most of 1995? While Sampras had been playing better at the 1995 US Open itself, Agassi was still going into that match with the unbeaten record since losing to Becker at Wimbledon. Agassi had won 3 out of 4 matches against Sampras in 1995 at that time. Agassi had won more tournaments than Sampras in 1995. When Sampras won the 1995 US Open final, suddenly it was all about Sampras winning 2 majors in 1995 compared to Agassi's 1 major. That, combined with Agassi having made sacrifices he wouldn't normally have made in the previous year, is what caused the Agassi decline in form in 1996 and then slump in 1997.

And you conveniently forget that, in 1995, Agassi beat Sampras at Miami after Indian Wells, and in Montreal. Sampras never did win the Canadian Open, did he?

I don't see how any of your points contradict the standardly accepted view that Pete crushed Andre in the biggest match of '95 when both were at their peaks which is what you were originally responding to...nobody argues that Pete's summer of '95 was better than Andre's so...yeah...

Unless you're arguing that Andre with one major and all his tourneys had a better year than PETE with two majors including Wimbledon, as well as Indian Wells?

 

[NoleIsBoat]

If it weren't for Djokovic, Federer would've 5 more majors: '14-15, '19 Wimb; '15 USO; '16 AO. That would mean 15 majors in the 00's, and 10 more in the 10's. So his slowing down was pretty much down to one opponent, not the whole field!

Not to mention RG11, USO10-11, AO12, AO14 if you take away Nadal too. That takes us to 15 in each decade… he lost most because 2 GOAT players showed up and started beating him everywhere!

 

[King No1e]

Federer slam wins 2004 - 2007 -> 11 / 16 -> 68%
Federer slam wins 2008 - 2015-> 5 / 32 -> 15%

Federer number 1 ranking 2004 - 2007 -> 204 weeks
Federer number 1 ranking 2008 - 2015 -> 65 weeks



Such a huge drop off in results.


Fed got old at 26? or faced prime Djokovic/Nadal instead of Bagdhatis, Philippousis, Roddick, Gonzalez, Hewitt?

Suomi, perkele!

 

[GhostofPetros]

You mean he slowed down after Nadal and Djokovic took the reins from Roddick and Blake? Who knew?

 

[SonnyT]

Not to mention RG11, USO10-11, AO12, AO14 if you take away Nadal too. That takes us to 15 in each decade… he lost most because 2 GOAT players showed up and started beating him everywhere!

I'm only counting the Slams that, if Djokovic didn't win, Federer almost definitely would've won. For example, '10-11 USO, if Federer had beat Djokovic in semis, Nadal would be the finals favorite. I'm not even counting '20 AO. If Federer had beat Djokovic in semi, in my estimation, Thiem might very well win his first slam!

From '14 on when Djokovic cost Federer 5 majors, Nadal cost Federer maybe 1 major: the '14 AO. If Federer had won the semi, he'd enter the finals against Wawrinka as the favorite. But we all know what a big match player Stan was!

 

[BGod]

Age 27 in tennis use to be a common steep decline point.

Discounting the early open era where nearly all the top guys were older because of pro tour circuit the only guys prior to Big 3 to buck the trend were Connors, Lendl, Pete and Andre and they all just extended their haul by a bit save for Agassi who doubled after age 29.

What's more of a bigger deal is crap gens extending Nadal & Djokovic's timelines. No way should they or Fed been winning post 2016 like that. Except like 1-2 French for Rafa and Novak with a pair.

 

[ForehandRF]

Age 27 in tennis use to be a common steep decline point.

Discounting the early open era where nearly all the top guys were older because of pro tour circuit the only guys prior to Big 3 to buck the trend were Connors, Lendl, Pete and Andre and they all just extended their haul by a bit save for Agassi who doubled after age 29.

What's more of a bigger deal is crap gens extending Nadal & Djokovic's timelines. No way should they or Fed been winning post 2016 like that. Except like 1-2 French for Rafa and Novak with a pair.

It doesn't have to do with age, it's just that nobody can dominate for years one end as it takes its toll, both phisically and mentally.All ATG have their slump periods, years when they struggle, when things don't work their way which is normal, especially in the BIG3 cases, as they had such a long career.Federer had a negative record against the top 10 in 2008 and really played well only at Wimbledon and the USO, Djokovic couldn't sustain his 2011 dominance and struggled in slams in 2012-2014, it happens.The level fluctuates, only the "shallow thinkers" push agendas.