Why did federer slow down

[mike danny]

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?

Yes, Fed clearly cannot get old at any point. Every version of Fed from 2008 to 2015 is the same

 

[mike danny]

A combination of different factors:

- Slight decline at times, strong decline at times
- Stronger competition
- Blowing several opportunities

He should have done better at Wimbledon during 2010-2016.

He won 1 out of 7 titles at his pet slam. He was old in the last ones, but not terribly old, given he reached the final and had MPs in 2019. And in the early ones in that period, he had defeats to Tsonga from 2-0 or Berdych in somewhat routine fashion. For an ATG still at a decent age, he could have done a bit better there.

You have to show me someone else in that age interval that had similar circumstances to proclaim that Fed should have done better

 

[GoatNo1]

Great post.

The reason why the players born in mid-late 80s were more successful than players born in early 1980s was the racquet evolution, Federer and his peers already were 20+ in early 2000s, too late to perfect the modern big racquets, Djoko-Dal-Murray and gang were introduced to these racquets at a younger age

@junkieballer @GoatNo1 @SonnyT - Read this point and understand the disadvantages that Federer and his peers had in that so called weak era, far from weak that era was a transition era where the tour was still adapting and learning, it was actually harder than early 2010s in some ways even if the competition looks weaker on paper, they weren't. Hewitt and Murray are similar players.

it was weak. it is same to all players in that era. strong era has strong top players that constantly come to final stages of big tournaments. top players play each other many times in each tournament. it was same to all. but in that weak era it was not so. it was random players in the final stages of tournaments. ljubicic was no3 in feds best season. it is definition of weak era when it is no consistent top players. all they played with the same conditions.

 

[Third Serve]

I don't know why Federer fans hardly ever bring up the motivation or lack thereof argument when they're arguing in favor of their guy. Djokovic fans sure have no problem pulling that one out when needed.

Something happened after AO 2010 and I don't think it was all that physical tbh. Federer finally got the Slam record at 2009 Wimbledon. Nadal, his main rival, looked to be out of sorts after his loss to Soderling and then lost badly to Del Potro at the USO, and then to Murray at the AO. After that AO win, Federer's form just dropped. He lost 4 of his next 8 matches after that AO win.

Federer could have had that feeling of being satisfied and getting complacent with a 10 Slam lead, with Nadal seemingly falling off. To me, this is when the losses started happening more frequently in Slams to guys he was beating before, starting at Wimbledon.

I think it's possible he got complacent after breaking the Slam record (what else is he chasing at that point?), but I would attribute his struggles in mid-2010 much more to physical issues. He had a lung infection after the AO which messed up his training quite a bit. Minor leg injury at Wimbledon too. Fed had been in great health overall during the previous 7 or so years (mono being the only noteworthy exception) so 2010 felt like a physical correction.

He kinda played himself back into form near the end of the year and by 2011/2012 he wasn't terribly far off his 2008-2009 level IMO (and in Bo3 he was probably outright better than 2008 at least), just not quite as formidable at Slam-level.

 

[TheRed]

he got mono in end of 07/early 08 and then back issues. And then by 09/10, he's 28/29. Which isn't terrible but not peak anymore. I think around that time, I started seeing less of the inside in forehand, which is probably the one shot which requires the best footwork and speed. He lost just a bit of firepower, a bit of defense by being slower and became a bit vulnerable. Maybe switching to a bigger racquet then woulda helped but he was still good enough to get deep in every slam so it's a tough call for him. At the same time, Nadal and Djokovic were clearly improving

 

[TennisGrandpA]

Yes, Fed clearly cannot get old at any point. Every version of Fed from 2008 to 2015 is the same

Not true 2015 Fed was the best Fed as be himself admitted

 

[GoatNo1]

Fed became too old

the late bloomer who withered early

 

[GoatNo1]

Wow someone is still sore that depsite the slam count people still like Fed the most.

Shocking

you mean despite the slam and YE#1 and weeks at no1 and WTF and OG and masters and GM and CGS and h2h and big titles and highest points count some people like fed the most.

 

[GoatNo1]

If fed is goat why he didnt win in the weakest era in history 2000 to 2002 ?

he was he GOAT so all respect, some ATG as rafa never was. one day nole will not be the GOAT anymore, maybe. probable.

 

[GoatNo1]

Federer was not racing against anyone since 2009. He was the pacesetter, not the chaser(e.g. Nole). There's no such thing is as a race.

yes it was. in fact it were many races not just one. weeks at no1 race, YE#1 race, slam race, WTF race, masters race, big title race, all title race, ect....

 

[Chairman3]

you mean despite the slam and YE#1 and weeks at no1 and WTF and OG and masters and GM and CGS and h2h and big titles and highest points count some people like fed the most.

Fed is the likability GOAT.
Print it.

 

[Jonas78]

Not true 2015 Fed was the best Fed as be himself admitted

Bands/artists also tend to always think their last album is their best, although the fans (and sales) rarely agree .

Thing is, whatever the reason, few slams are won at a higher age:

 

[Garro]

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?

Less than half of Fed's slam losses post 2007 were to Nadal and Djokovic.

Were prime Robredo, Seppi, Gulbis, Raonic, Anderson, Millman, and Tsitsipas too much for Fed to handle? Or did Fed decline?

 

[junkieballer]

To the people having problems understanding how age affects the human body. Here is a chart showing GSs won by age in open era. Say no more:

Sorry to tell you...

Spoiler

30 isnt the new 25...

Wawrinka peaked at 22.5 confirmed

 

[GoatNo1]

I think it's possible he got complacent after breaking the Slam record (what else is he chasing at that point?), but I would attribute his struggles in mid-2010 much more to physical issues. He had a lung infection after the AO which messed up his training quite a bit. Minor leg injury at Wimbledon too. Fed had been in great health overall during the previous 7 or so years (mono being the only noteworthy exception) so 2010 felt like a physical correction.

He kinda played himself back into form near the end of the year and by 2011/2012 he wasn't terribly far off his 2008-2009 level IMO (and in Bo3 he was probably outright better than 2008 at least), just not quite as formidable at Slam-level.

fed said that being no1 is the most special and most important thing and that he choose YE#1 rather than slam. sampras said too that his 6 YE#1 is his greatest accomplishment. nole said also that no1 is most important and that his no1 stat is his greatest accomplishment!

sampras has 6 YE#1, fed has 5.

sampras has 286 weeks at no1 and 14 slams. fed won his 15th slam at W09 and 16th at AO10. he made 285 weeks at no1 in 6th june 2010! he was 1 YE#1 and 1 week at no1 short from owning all 3 main tennis records. so i have an pretty good idea what he could chase! he got weeks record so late as in july 2012 and he never caught sampras 6 YE#1. and then, it is much more records to take and by that time rafa and nole began to win much and he felt the press to win more for sure. which he did in 2017-18 when nole was injured.

 

[junkieballer]

Great post.

The reason why the players born in mid-late 80s were more successful than players born in early 1980s was the racquet evolution, Federer and his peers already were 20+ in early 2000s, too late to perfect the modern strings and shift to big racquets, Djoko-Dal-Murray and gang were introduced to these racquets at a younger age

@junkieballer @GoatNo1 @SonnyT - Read this point and understand the disadvantages that Federer and his peers had in that so called weak era, far from weak that era was a transition era where the tour was still adapting and learning, it was actually harder than early 2010s in some ways even if the competition looks weaker on paper, they weren't. Hewitt and Murray are similar players.

It's a good post, but at the end of the day results are the only objective thing, and Federer since 2008 in Slams dealt perfectly fine with the same players he dominated in 2003-07.

Why Djokovic's game didn't become obsolete instead? Because the materials didn't evolve? We should see many players dominating in their 30s then, but actually outside Djokovic there is none.

You still have to explain me if winning in your 30s now is easy why only Djokovic and Nadal in the last 6 years have done it.

 

[MrFlip]

Federer for all his talents and hard work, was never shredded, never the best physical player. There's a tonne of players who had or have better bodies.

 

[Razer]

Why Djokovic's game didn't become obsolete instead? Because the materials didn't evolve?

Yes, to a large extent racquets or strings or playing conditions are more or less same since the late 2000s.

The next step in tennis evolution is yet to come and when it comes then the teenagers at that time will be at benefit compared to the guys already are in their 20s and cannot make changes suddenly. So you will again see those teens surpassing their 5-6 years older counterparts just like we saw Murray-Djoko etc quickly take over from Hewitt/Roddick and Federer.

We criticize Federer for not changing his racquet in the 2000s after Nadal arrived but we forget that Federer was already like 23-24 when Nadal became a pain in the arse and he was in his peak run by then, he could not have changed it for 1 player. But if Nadal and Fed are of the same age then Fed will face Nadal as early as age 17-18 and then itself his coaches will tell him to make changes, these things matter a lot but in the end stats wont say this.

 

[junkieballer]

Let’s mostly back out Nadal and Djokovic by seeing what Fed did vs players ranked outside the top-3:

2004-2007: 298-18, lost 5.696%
2008-2013: 317-41, lost 11.45%

Fed’s losing rate vs players ranked outside the top-3 doubled. It increased by 101% after the 2004-2007 period. His play vs the so-caller weaker players got much worse.

So what happened? The racket technology got bigger while the courts slowed down. Brad Gilbert made two comments about these things. In 2011, he owned a pro tennis shop. Many customers complained that Gilbert didn’t carry Fed’s 90 inch racket. Gilbert said in 2011 that “with that racket, you need to hit it flush, and I mean flush”. Another quote of Gilbert’s at the USO: “these courts have slowed down drastically. Lendl would have cleaned up at the USO with these courts”. That tells the whole story about how outdated Fed’s racket was in 2011. Brad Gilbert wouldn’t sell the racket of the most popular player on the planet because it was that outdated and junky. Note: Fed finally switched rackets in 2014 and he experienced somewhat of a Renaissance. But he was 32 going on 33. That racket allowed him to reverse some HTH matches while improving his record vs the top 10(when compared to 2008-13. He was 196-24 vs players ranked outside the top-3; a loss percentage of 10.91% vs that group. So although that is slightly better than his 2008-2013 numbers; it’s not close to his 2004-2007 numbers.

I saw Agassi get interviewed in late-2004. He was asked why Fed got so much better so quickly. Agassi said that it was all attributed to his movement. “He’s always had the shot-making. But his movement is so much better these days..”

As a fan, I can only dream what Fed would have done with the larger racket from the beginning. Agassi figured it out very early. He was using a 107 inch racket in the 1990s. And many call him the best pure ball-striker of all time.

But at the end of the day, I cannot give a player credit for a what if. Fed’s records were broken fair square. However, we need to respect what Federer did. He’s the only one from his generation that survived the seismic shift in the change of the game. Somebody should watch the 2003 Wimbledon final once to see how often Fed served and volleyed. At age 19, Fed with the same 85 inch Wilson racket that Sampras had, served and volleyed the majority of the time vs his idol. Now granted, the grass was different that year(the slicker grass was changed out in 2001). But that’s not the point. Fed learned to play a different brand of tennis on grass courts when he was younger. I really wish that Fed had switched to a 95-100 inch racket in 2002 instead of going to a 90. But that is life.

You're saying that materials didn't evolve during the career of Djokovic and Nadal? Then why were they the only over 30 years old players to reach Slam finals or multiple Slam semifinals since 2019 US Open?

If now winning in your 30s is easy because the materials didn't evolve why were Djokovic and Nadal the only successful players in their 30s?

 

[Winners or Errors]

Won uso against Murray , won channel slam against non ATG, you solidify op’s argument by bringing these slams, as soon as prime ATG was out of picture Fed resumed his winning ways.

Mmm, hmm. Wasn't Fed in the finals of all 4 majors in 2009? And wasn't 2011 Peakovic, who IIRC was prevented from a shot at the calendar slam by whom? I feel like the start of Fed's decline the year he turned 30 coincided with Djokovic's rise. And who was it that Federer "routined" en route to winning Wimbledon in 2012 in the semis? And who did Murray beat in the 2012 US Open final? Just a lot of holes in the OP's argument... and in yours, @TennisGrandpA.

 

[junkieballer]

Yes, to a large extent racquets or strings or playing conditions are more or less same since the late 2000s.

But Djokovic and Nadal were the only who managed to take advantage of it, so it was not easy.

In 2017-18 it looked like it, with Delpo, Cilic, Isner, Anderson, Fognini, Bautista Agut reaching their best results, but then the average age of top players dropped drastically.

 

[TheRed]

Bands/artists also tend to always think their last album is their best, although the fans (and sales) rarely agree .

Thing is, whatever the reason, few slams are won at a higher age:

What's striking about this graph is that the odds of a 30 yr old (which we don't think of as too old) winning a slam is the same as a 20 yr old, which we think is pretty young and rare to see.

 

[GoatNo1]

It's a good post, but at the end of the day results are the only objective thing, and Federer since 2008 in Slams dealt perfectly fine with the same players he dominated in 2003-07.

Why Djokovic's game didn't become obsolete instead? Because the materials didn't evolve? We should see many players dominating in their 30s then, but actually outside Djokovic there is none.

You still have to explain me if winning in your 30s now is easy why only Djokovic and Nadal in the last 6 years have done it.

fed did actually better vs rafa and muzza in noles era (2011 and after) than in his own. nole did not worse just vs fed in feds era but vs all players. and he did not improve drasticaly just vs fed but vs all players including muzza and rafa since 2011! so it is just nole that is feds anomaly no one else. but, as said, everybody got worse vs nole since 2011!

​

fed vs muzza: from 40 to 72,7%
fed vs rafa: from 35 to 44,4%
fed vs nole: from 64,3 to 32,3%

nole vs muzza: from 57,1 to 72,4%
nole vs rafa: from 33,3 to 64,9%
nole vs fed: from 35,7 to 67,7%

 

[Jonas78]

Wawrinka peaked at 22.5 confirmed

These stats show the age of every slam winner in open era. Talking about Stan is literally like saying smoking isnt dangerous because you know a guy that smoked and got 100y old. Besides, even Stan didnt win slams after age 31.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Federer for all his talents and hard work, was never shredded, never the best physical player. There's a tonne of players who had or have better bodies.

You don't have to be jacked to be a great athlete in tennis, mate.

 

[zakopinjo]

Wawrinka peaked at 22.5 confirmed

Wawrinka peaked between the ages of 28-32.

This is generally the period when the average athlete achieves the greatest success in their career, reaching their physical, mental and playing peak.

 

[Jonas78]

Wawrinka peaked between the ages of 28-32.

This is generally the period when the average athlete achieves the greatest success in their career, reaching their physical, mental and playing peak.

Not in tennis, most slams are won between 22 and 27.

 

[Robert F]

Interesting that the testosterone graph and slam graph suggest peak performance somwehere between 22-26.
Could this be an argument that guys are not on the juice? If they were on T, could they push their careers longer?
Or if everyone is on the juice, it evens out?

 

[Jonas78]

Interesting that the testosterone graph and slam graph suggest peak performance somwehere between 22-26.
Could this be an argument that guys are not on the juice? If they were on T, could they push there careers longer?
Or if everyone is on the juice, it evens out?

Big 3 and the 90s gen just fooled almost everyone. The slam graph speak for itself, Sincaraz are 22 and 24, and Djokovic is the only player older than 30y in top25.

 

[Federev]

Athletically 27 is when Testosterone levels start to dip, declines begins from here .... Notice the RED line

100%

Fed - like all tennis pros had their prime physiological years from 22-27.

It’s normal - and historical! - in tennis to drop off as you approach your late 20s and early 30s.

That early to mid 20s is a normal range to peak in terms of wins.

So the question lies with players who peak in other age ranges.

 

[zakopinjo]

Not in tennis, most slams are won between 22 and 27.

Well, not really, Nadal had his best season at 27, Novak at 27-28, Murray at 29, Wawrinka at 29-31, Cilic at 28-29.

Basketball players, football players too, achieve their greatest successes in that period and the early years of their 30s.

 

[Holmes]

Federer was not racing against anyone since 2009. He was the pacesetter, not the chaser(e.g. Nole). There's no such thing is as a race.

For this same reason, Federer is not greater than Sampras. The difference is, Sampras made the game. Feddy just played it.

 

[PilotPete]

When the stats don't favour Djokovic, out the window they go!

 

[accidental]

He was having huge problems with Giles Simon back in ‘08

 

[Jonas78]

Well, not really, Nadal had his best season at 27, Novak at 27-28, Murray at 29, Wawrinka at 29-31, Cilic at 28-29.

Basketball players, football players too, achieve their greatest successes in that period and the early years of their 30s.

Just talking about the chart i posted earlier this thread, which shows that clearly most slams are won at age 22-27 in open era. Nadal won 14 of his slams before he turned 28. Murray 2. Cilic won his at 26. Stan was an anomaly.

As ive said earlier, players might win slams a little older than earlier because of improvements in nutrition, surgery etc, but human nature still dont change. Very few slams are won after age 31-32.

 

[Rosstour]

Bands/artists also tend to always think their last album is their best, although the fans (and sales) rarely agree .

Thing is, whatever the reason, few slams are won at a higher age:

I’ve been saying it. The numbers do not lie

 

[SonnyT]

Fed became too old

Federer was 30 in '11, not old at all by tennis standard.

 

[TennisGrandpA]

Mmm, hmm. Wasn't Fed in the finals of all 4 majors in 2009? And wasn't 2011 Peakovic, who IIRC was prevented from a shot at the calendar slam by whom? I feel like the start of Fed's decline the year he turned 30 coincided with Djokovic's rise. And who was it that Federer "routined" en route to winning Wimbledon in 2012 in the semis? And who did Murray beat in the 2012 US Open final? Just a lot of holes in the OP's argument... and in yours, @TennisGrandpA.

Yes he was in final of all slams and capitalised on absence on Rafa’s absence

 

[smoledman]

Tougher competition back in the day.

 

[junkieballer]

These stats show the age of every slam winner in open era. Talking about Stan is literally like saying smoking isnt dangerous because you know a guy that smoked and got 100y old. Besides, even Stan didnt win slams after age 31.

So you know that Stan didn't peak at 22.5

 

[jackson vile]

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?

Correct, the field got a whole lot better.

 

[junkieballer]

Federer was 30 in '11, not old at all by tennis standard.

Bro, tennis players peak at 22.5.

Stan 2015 was garbage.
Laver 1969 was garbage.
Djokovic 2015-16 was garbage.
Murray 2016 was garbage.
Big3 in their 30s went 20-1 against non-ATGs in Slam finals but they were garbage.
Anderson in 2017-18 was garbage.
Ferrer in 2012-13 was garbage.

 

[Garro]

Well, not really, Nadal had his best season at 27, Novak at 27-28, Murray at 29, Wawrinka at 29-31, Cilic at 28-29.

Basketball players, football players too, achieve their greatest successes in that period and the early years of their 30s.

An exception to a rule doesn't disprove the rule. 2/3 of all slams in the open era were won by players under 27.

But the examples you give here are shaky anyway.

Nadal turned 24 during his best season and Cilic won his lone slam just before he turned 26.
Murray had his best season in 2016 largely because all of Fedalovitch were injured: it's debatable whether his level was actually higher than in 2012-13.

 

[junkieballer]

An exception to a rule doesn't disprove the rule.

We're not discussing the rule, we're discussing that Federer is an exception.

Big3 are the only over30 years old players that reached Slam finals or multiple Slam semifinals in the last 7 years.

They were an exception because they're exceptional players, they're not one dimensional players that once they get a bit slower get destroyed.

 

[Jonas78]

So you know that Stan didn't peak at 22.5

You didnt get the anology? When you look at large numbers, the number of slams won peaks at around 23y, and then slowly drops. Big3 is no exeption (although people strangely seem to think so), 23-24 is the only time they all had 3-slam seasons (Rafa 2010, Nole 2011, Fed 2004).

Stan alone doesnt prove anything, just as a smoker who doesnt get COPD or lung cancer doesnt prove smoking isnt dangerous.

At 32+ very few slams are won.

So you are obviously asking the wrong question. The question isnt why Fed slowed down, its why Djokovic didnt?

 

[junkieballer]

Stan alone doesnt prove anything, just as a smoker who doesnt get COPD or lung cancer doesnt prove smoking isnt dangerous.

Stan proves that exceptions exist.

You didnt get the anology? When you look at large numbers, the number of slams won peaks at around 23y, and then slowly drops. Big3 is no exeption (although people strangely seem to think so), 23-24 is the only time they all had 3-slam seasons (Rafa 2010, Nole 2011, Fed 2004).

Big3s in their 30s were 20-1 in Slam finals against non-ATGs, while in their 20s they were 21-6.

 

[GoatNo1]

.

 

[Jonas78]

Stan proves that exceptions exist.


Big3s in their 30s were 20-1 in Slam finals against non-ATGs, while in their 20s they were 21-6.

1. Thats why youre asking the wrong question. The question isnt why Fed slowed down, because slowing down is normal, not thr exception.

2. Im not talking about that, im talking about when tennis players win their slams when you look at the big picture.

 

[junkieballer]

1. Thats why youre asking the wrong question. The question isnt why Fed slowed down, because slowing down is normal, not thr exception.

I never asked why Federer slowed down, because I don't think he did.

2. Im not talking about that, im talking about when tennis players win their slams when you look at the big picture.

I'm talking about other numbers that you should consider.

 

[Jonas78]

I never asked why Federer slowed down, because I don't think he did.


I'm talking about other numbers that you should consider.

Cherry picking is easy (for example by using 2008-2013 for Federer). Slams won by age is a an indisputable stat with huge numbers and the tendency is crystal clear; number of slams won peaks at 23y and then drops. Winning at 30y is rare, winning at 32+ is extremlely rare.

To me this isnt strange at all. During 2010 Fed was overtaken by two younger ATGs, its the way tennis has always been. The combination of Nadal/Nole and an extremely weak 90s gen caused the biggest anomaly in the history of tennis, now we are back to normal (no players at 30y+ in top25 except Nole)