Why did federer slow down

[Garro]

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.

The user I replied to challenged the idea that most slams are won under the age of 27, implying he doesn't think it's an exception.
I'm happy to agree with him if it turns out that is not the case.

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?

Yes exactly. It's a short list of players (Djokovic, Stan, Agassi, Lendl?) that have won as many or more slams after turning 27 than before.
OP is acting like it's some mystery why as to why Fed won fewer slams after 2007 when it's not.

 

[junkieballer]

Cherry picking is easy

In my opinion it's not cherrypicking, it's a very important stat.

 

[Jonas78]

The user I replied to challenged the idea that most slams are won under the age of 27, implying he doesn't think it's an exception.
I'm happy to agree with him if it turns out that is not the case.


Yes exactly. It's a short list of players (Djokovic, Stan, Agassi, Lendl?) that have won more slams after turning 27 than before.
OP is acting like it's some mystery why as to why Fed won fewer slams after 2007 when it's not.

The problem is that he just wants to prove that Djokovic stopped Federer when Federer was peak. Its extremely easy to cherry pick stats to prove your point.

 

[Jonas78]

In my opinion it's not cherrypicking, it's a very important stat.

Lol. You are even twisting the fact that Federer lost a lot more to the field 2/3 of the 2008 season and after AO2010.

The main problem is that Fed wasnt stopped by Djokodal. If he was, id agree with you. He was stopped by players like Tsonga and Berdych at his favourite slam.

 

[MrFlip]

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

Did you see his gut 2009? That definitely disappeared by 2017

 

[junior74]

3 matches is many?

Somehow VB have strange "reasons" to explain why Rafa lost all matches outside clay against Djokovic since 2013 and Federer since 2014. I believe it's 16-17 matches. He lost to Djokovic several times on clay, as well. He got lucky winning HC slams in Fedovic' absence later in his career.

 

[junkieballer]

Lol. You are even twisting the fact that Federer lost a lot more to the field 2/3 of the 2008 season and after AO2010.

The main problem is that Fed wasnt stopped by Djokodal. If he was, id agree with you. He was stopped by players like Tsonga and Berdych at his favourite slam.

Tsonga and Berdych who were not peak in 2003-07.

 

[Jonas78]

Somehow VB have strange "reasons" to explain why Rafa lost all matches outside clay against Djokovic since 2013 and Federer since 2014. I believe it's 16-17 matches. He lost to Djokovic several times on clay, as well. He got lucky winning HC slams in Fedovic' absence later in his career.

The culprit was Djokodal, except the inconvenient fact that he lost to Tsonga, Berdych and Stakhovsky at his favourite slam 2010-2013.

Federer didnt decline, Stakhovsky peaked! Lol.

 

[Jonas78]

Tsonga and Berdych who were not peak in 2003-07.

So when Federer lost to Berdych, Tsonga and Stakohvsky, but beat Djokovic 2010-2013, does this mean Berdych, Tsonga and Stak > Djokovic on grass?

 

[AesBinz]

There's a lot of reason on the internet, not sure which is which, but some list are:

1. There's the mononucleosis which they said Federer is not the same since he got it by 2008
2. Federer's racket being too outdated and being exploited by modern spin game led by Nadal.
3. Competition catch up to him and with modern game/style/coaching or well being of players from that era, also there's new influx of new younger gen coming up every year.
4. Prior to Federer's era, most tennis player decline dramatically on or near 30's and lot of tennis players retire few years after, or you don't hear or see them on TV's and on lower tournament.
5. Not sure about Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic seems revolutionize maintaining and recovery to peak performance specially Djokovic. Nadal usually get injured on end of the year or early year then bounce back to win RG, keep hearing on commentators about his recovery, same with Djokovic, since his gluten free and whatever ice bath or cryogenic or something on when he's inside the chamber and he uses it to recover from injuries and fatigue. Federer seems an old school and probably catch up on sports science later on.

 

[Jonas78]

There's a lot of reason on the internet, not sure which is which, but some list are:

1. There's the mononucleosis which they said Federer is not the same since he got it by 2008
2. Federer's racket being too outdated and being exploited by modern spin game led by Nadal.
3. Competition catch up to him and with modern game/style/coaching or well being of players from that era, also there's new influx of new younger gen coming up every year.
4. Prior to Federer's era, most tennis player decline dramatically on or near 30's and lot of tennis players retire few years after, or you don't hear or see them on TV's and on lower tournament.
5. Not sure about Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic seems revolutionize maintaining and recovery to peak performance specially Djokovic. Nadal usually get injured on end of the year or early year then bounce back to win RG, keep hearing on commentators about his recovery, same with Djokovic, since his gluten free and whatever ice bath or cryogenic or something on when he's inside the chamber and he uses it to recover from injuries and fatigue. Federer seems an old school and probably catch up on sports science later on.

What happened to Fed is normal, players usually dont win a lot after 29/30. The question is rather why Djokovic did?

 

[AesBinz]

What happened to Fed is normal, players usually dont win a lot after 29/30. The question is rather why Djokovic did?

Well, more likely on point # 5, he's very vocal on his diet, recovery and those high tech stuff.

 

[NatF]

Slightly off his best, moving to far off his best versus two young GOAT's slightly off their best moving to their very best. Just the natural order of things.

 

[Jonas78]

Slightly off his best, moving to far off his best versus two young GOAT's slightly off their best moving to their very best. Just the natural order of things.

Yeah its the wrong question. The question is rather why Djokovic didnt "slow down"?

I was actually a little surprised to see most slams are won at age 23, then drops pretty linear, i though it was a little later. Then again, 23-24y is the only time both Fed (2004), Rafa (2010) and Nole (2011) had 3 slam seasons.

 

[NatF]

Yeah its the wrong question. The question is rather why Djokovic didnt "slow down"?

I was actually a little surprised to see most slams are won at age 23, then drops pretty linear, i though it was a little later. Then again, 23-24y is the only time both Fed (2004), Rafa (2010) and Nole (2011) had 3 slam seasons.

I think primes have been extended a bit but peaks are still in the mid 20's, but I guess we'll see with Sinner and Alcaraz.

There's a real lack of intellectual honesty when discussing Federer IMO, physical issues for Nadal/Djokovic get way more airtime.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Slightly off his best, moving to far off his best versus two young GOAT's slightly off their best moving to their very best. Just the natural order of things.

When we look at the Federer-Djokovic H2H it completely follows the usual pattern. Fed winning most matches at the beginning then some years 2011-2014 where Djokovic starts getting the upper-hand but Fed still being competitive and winning matches here and there even at slams and then at some point where Fed gets too old such that he can only win the occasional Bo3 match.
All in all, when looking at age difference and when they played, it is astonishing how close Fed could still make it. Gives serious ground for argument that if they were the same age Fed would actually lead the H2H.
As for Fedal, this is another topic. Here we do not have such a pattern (actually it is almost reverse).

 

[NatF]

When we look at the Federer-Djokovic H2H it completely follows the usual pattern. Fed winning most matches at the beginning then some years 2011-2014 where Djokovic starts getting the upper-hand but Fed still being competitive and winning matches here and there even at slams and then at some point where Fed gets too old such that he can only win the occasional Bo3 match.
All in all, when looking at age difference and when they played, it is astonishing how close Fed could still make it. Gives serious ground for argument that if they were the same age Fed would actually lead the H2H.
As for Fedal, this is another topic. Here we do not have such a pattern (actually it is almost reverse).

I certainly think Fed leads Djokovic if they're the same age. Fedal was a match-up issue first and foremost IMO. I saw a recent interview with Murray talking about his match-ups with the Big 3 and it was interesting to hear him talk about Federer and how he grew up watching him and already had data on how he wanted to play him etc...Nadal was precocious and he turned pro early but he still had the benefit of a scouting report when he first started playing Federer. I also think Nadal is maybe the hardest of the Big 3 to play for the first time because of the shape he puts on the ball. I think the h2h with Fedal isn't easy to predict if they're the same age, Nadal would Dominate with a capital D if they met early but outside of that I think Federer being the hungry chaser adds a different dynamic and certainly if their h2h in their 30's is anything to go by Federer would have many chases to close the gap.

 

[junkieballer]

So when Federer lost to Berdych, Tsonga and Stakohvsky, but beat Djokovic 2010-2013, does this mean Berdych, Tsonga and Stak > Djokovic on grass?

Djokovic also lost Slams to Murray and Stan but no one would say he's a worse player than them

 

[Jonas78]

Djokovic also lost Slams to Murray and Stan but no one would say he's a worse player than them

Its the amount of slams he lost. The most winning player at Wimbledon in history losing 3/4 times to non-slam winners from 2010-2013 at his absolute peak.

 

[junkieballer]

Its the amount of slams he lost. The most winning player at Wimbledon in history losing 3/4 times to non-slam winners from 2010-2013 at his absolute peak.

Big3 at the age of 35-36 were 8-1 in Slam finals against the field and the only loss was against ATG Alcaraz in the 5th set in one of the best matches ever.

Wins:

Federer d. Cilic WI17
Federer d. Cilic AO18
Nadal d. Medvedev AO22
Nadal d. Ruud RG22
Djokovic d. Kyrgios WI22
Djokovic d. Tstisipas AO23
Djokovic d. Ruud RG23
Djokovic d. Medvedev UO23

Losses:

Alcaraz d. Djokovic WI23

If they were so domininant at 35-36 I don't understand how one can think they declined at 26.

 

[Jonas78]

Big3 at the age of 35-36 were 8-1 in Slam finals against the field and the only loss was against ATG Alcaraz in the 5th set in one of the best matches ever.

Wins:

Federer d. Cilic WI17
Federer d. Cilic AO18
Nadal d. Medvedev AO22
Nadal d. Ruud RG22
Djokovic d. Kyrgios WI22
Djokovic d. Tstisipas AO23
Djokovic d. Ruud RG23
Djokovic d. Medvedev UO23

Losses:

Alcaraz d. Djokovic WI23

If they were so domininant at 35-36 I don't understand how one can think they declined at 26.

Sure, Federer could mostly beat the non-ATGs from 2014 and on, he just couldnt beat the younger ATGs anymore. And lets be fair, he won 2017-2018 because Djokovic was down and out

 

[zakopinjo]

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.

Experience, mental and physical peak, when combined, are highest in the late 20s and the first half of the 30s, of course that doesn't mean that it will last the same for every player, for some it will last much longer and for some shorter, it depends a lot on injuries.

Luka Modric won the Ballon d'Or at 32-33, Benzema at 34, Lewandowski should have won at 32-33

LeBron said that in 2017/18 he felt like the most complete player, at 33 years old. Novak recently stated that he felt invincible in 2015/16, at the age of 28-29.
Cristiano Ronaldo also experienced his career peak at the age of 29-32.

So it is wrong to claim that athletes decline in their late 20s and early 30s. The decline is evident after age 35-36.

 

[TMF]

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:

57 years of history show peak tennis players are in their 20s. Age hovering between 22-25 reflects the ATG players highest level - Borg, Sampras, Federer, Wilander, McEnroe. Some early bloomers like Nadal and Becker excel before 22, and still at their peak in mid-20s. This is a testament of every next young generation since 1968(57 years) take over the tour while the previous generation(age 30+) decline and fading away. HOWEVER...

The upward trend on the chart at 35.0 is a testament of the competition got even worse(hyperinflation era). 90s born players in their 20s failed to seize the opportunity for major success. While Fed was retired and Nadal was washed up, they still struggled to capitalize on the opportunities when Nole was at 35. Because of the technical and mental weaknesses, such as a lack of belief or an inability to consistently win crucial matches, the 90s born surrender to a 35+ years old Nole who almost won a CYGS in 2021 and 2023(hence the spike on the chart).

The sandwich generation couldn't stop the bleeding. Only when the younger players from the 2000s (Sincaraz) quickly rose to prominence and won major titles is when the bleeding stop. Sincaraz who are vastly superior to all the 90s born combined is the reason why the last data point on the chart went downward sharply.

Thanks to @Jonas78 for uploading this chart. If anyone who question about tennis player's peak and prime age, refer to this chart.

Thank You.

 

[Jonas78]

Experience, mental and physical peak, when combined, are highest in the late 20s and the first half of the 30s, of course that doesn't mean that it will last the same for every player, for some it will last much longer and for some shorter, it depends a lot on injuries.

Luka Modric won the Ballon d'Or at 32-33, Benzema at 34, Lewandowski should have won at 32-33

LeBron said that in 2017/18 he felt like the most complete player, at 33 years old. Novak recently stated that he felt invincible in 2015/16, at the age of 28-29.
Cristiano Ronaldo also experienced his career peak at the age of 29-32.

So it is wrong to claim that athletes decline in their late 20s and early 30s. The decline is evident after age 35-36.

Im only presenting what the stats show, most slams are won when players are 23-24, and then drops in a linear way for every year they get older. I dont know the reason, its just the facts

Big3 are no exception, they won most slams at 23-24, when they all had 3-slam seasons. Now Sincaraz are completely destroying the field at 22-24.

 

[Jonas78]

57 years of history show peak tennis players are in their 20s. Age hovering between 22-25 reflects the ATG players highest level - Borg, Sampras, Federer, Wilander, McEnroe. Some early bloomers like Nadal and Becker excel before 22, and still at their peak in mid-20s. This is a testament of every next young generation since 1968(57 years) take over the tour while the previous generation(age 30+) decline and fading away. HOWEVER...

The upward trend on the chart at 35.0 is a testament of the competition got even worse(hyperinflation era). 90s born players in their 20s failed to seize the opportunity for major success. While Fed was retired and Nadal was washed up, they still struggled to capitalize on the opportunities when Nole was at 35. Because of the technical and mental weaknesses, such as a lack of belief or an inability to consistently win crucial matches, the 90s born surrender to a 35+ years old Nole who almost won a CYGS in 2021 and 2023(hence the spike on the chart).

The sandwich generation couldn't stop the bleeding. Only when the younger players from the 2000s (Sincaraz) quickly rose to prominence and won major titles is when the bleeding stop. Sincaraz who are vastly superior to all the 90s born combined is the reason why the last data point on the chart went downward sharply.

Thanks to @Jonas78 for uploading this chart. If anyone who question about tennis player's peak and prime age, refer to this chart.

Thank You.

Yeah this is the way i see it. Its pretty clear that historically players peak at 22-24, then the number of slams won drops for every year you get older.

So what was it a about Nole, and to some extent Rafa? Were they so good that they made potential ATGs into mediocre players? I always had problems with this, because Stan and Murray won 3 slams each vs younger versions of Big3. So the "Big3 made the 90s guys weak" hypothesis just didnt fit. Why didnt they make Stan weak?

I dont say Big3 wasnt exceptional, but i got the answers i needed when Big3 stepped down, and Medvedev, Zverev and Tsitsipas didnt become the new Big3. Now they are Sincaraz punching bags, and its pretty clear this generation only just didnt have any ATGs, but they were also a weak tier 2.

 

[Holmes]

Sweet, simple sense, oh how I missed you.

 

[Holmes]

I certainly think Fed leads Djokovic if they're the same age. Fedal was a match-up issue first and foremost IMO. I saw a recent interview with Murray talking about his match-ups with the Big 3 and it was interesting to hear him talk about Federer and how he grew up watching him and already had data on how he wanted to play him etc...Nadal was precocious and he turned pro early but he still had the benefit of a scouting report when he first started playing Federer. I also think Nadal is maybe the hardest of the Big 3 to play for the first time because of the shape he puts on the ball. I think the h2h with Fedal isn't easy to predict if they're the same age, Nadal would Dominate with a capital D if they met early but outside of that I think Federer being the hungry chaser adds a different dynamic and certainly if their h2h in their 30's is anything to go by Federer would have many chases to close the gap.

Who would lead Federer if they were the same age? In your opinion?

 

[Holmes]

Did you see his gut 2009? That definitely disappeared by 2017

His guts got way bigger though. Until 2019 that is.

 

[shamaho]

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?

you can also see it this way...

Roger had Rafa and Nole chasing him, Rafa had Nole chasing him and Roger... and Who did Nole have chasing him for years before Jannick and Charly ?

 

[AesBinz]

I don't really see why no one really give credit to sports science and it's really underrated for longevity high performance of the athletes, Since mid 2000's, you can see a lot of athletes all across the sports got longevity and maintaining high peak performance, NBA has Lebron and still players drafted from 2008-2012 are still superstars today. Football has Messi and Ronaldo which is still competitive even Neymar or Mbappe came around, Tom Brady also seems looking young and still got the Superbowl couple years back. Players don't smoke, drink less, and less vices, they also adapt their training regimen with good trainers, like they lessen the weight lifting and changed to stretching, mobility and endurance, I believe Djokovic and Federer has interview about this. Lastly, even Fed really slows down, he is still competitive, only Novak and Nadal keeps him at bay, and probably he got another 3 or 4 if Novak is not there on 3 Wimbledon and 1 USO lost, and other times he has deep runs on GS and still doing well on Bo3 tournaments. Also, could it be that Djokovic game style is prolong his longevity? He refined his defensive style, not the running and chasing all the time like Murray but more like dictating the groundstroke or keeping it neutral, and lastly the question is, why young players pre- SinCaraz can't break through? Or if they wone 1 GS, they either decline or retired due to injury, and Djokovic got extra 3GS I believe on this time.

 

[TMF]

yes it was.

No it's not a race !

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....

Just because you say so is not a fact either !

 

[TMF]

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

This is not about Federer vs. Sampras Herald. Please stay on topic

 

[TMF]

Yeah this is the way i see it. Its pretty clear that historically players peak at 22-24, then the number of slams won drops for every year you get older.

So what was it a about Nole, and to some extent Rafa? Were they so good that they made potential ATGs into mediocre players? I always had problems with this, because Stan and Murray won 3 slams each vs younger versions of Big3. So the "Big3 made the 90s guys weak" hypothesis just didnt fit. Why didnt they make Stan weak?

I dont say Big3 wasnt exceptional, but i got the answers i needed when Big3 stepped down, and Medvedev, Zverev and Tsitsipas didnt become the new Big3. Now they are Sincaraz punching bags, and its pretty clear this generation only just didnt have any ATGs, but they were also a weak tier 2.

You mention Wawrinka and Murray winning 6 slams combined between 2012-2016 add more compelling case about the 90s born mediocrity. Overcome peak/prime Djokovic means they are a cut above the rest of the 90s gen.

1) Peak/prime Nole couldn't stop Wawrinka/Murray from grand slam success
2) Old past prime Nole was having a field day against the 90s born, including the big 3 clowns(Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas) in the CIE
3) 2000s (Sinneraz) quickly rose to prominence and won major titles, stop grandpa Djokovic from inflation, and the 90s born( later known as the sandwich gen.) still in their 20s continue to struggle to capitalize on the opportunity for major success

 

[Jonas78]

You mention Wawrinka and Murray winning 6 slams combined between 2012-2016 add more compelling case about the 90s born mediocrity. Overcome peak/prime Djokovic means they are a cut above the rest of the 90s gen.

1) Peak/prime Nole couldn't stop Wawrinka/Murray from grand slam success
2) Old past prime Nole was having a field day against the 90s born, including the big 3 clowns(Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas) in the CIE
3) 2000s (Sinneraz) quickly rose to prominence and won major titles, stop grandpa Djokovic from inflation, and the 90s born( later known as the sandwich gen.) still in their 20s continue to struggle to capitalize on the opportunity for major success

Yep. Not to mention, a player like Stan dominates all the early 90s player; Nishikori (actually 89), Goffin, Thiem, Raonic, Dimitrov. The tier 2 of the 80s was better than tier 1 of the 90s, at least 89-95.

 

[Holmes]

This is not about Federer vs. Sampras Herald. Please stay on topic

I always like to imagine you staring unblinkingly into your screen when you respond to me.

 

[sandy mayer]

Certainly Federer's competition of Nadal and Djokovic was much tougher than the likes of Hewitt and Roddick. But we need to be careful how we approach this.
Nadal, Djokovic and Federer were not only miles ahead of the players born in the early 80s, they were better than the players born before the early 2000s.
This trio were a freak occurrence.
So I wouldn't be hard on Federer for not winning so many slams against peak Nadal and Djokovic, nor would I be hard on Roddick and Hewitt for being dominated by Federer, nor would I be hard on the generation of players younger than the golden trio who didn't win much as a result.
Federer certainly deserves his 20 slams.

 

[Smecz]

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?

His game slowed down, and he relied on high balls or high-jumping balls...

Serve and volley, smash, forehand with high takeback, forehand drive, etc...

Look, from 2004-2007, his forehand was high, with the head of the racket high in a V-shape, so he could attack high balls. Then, through topspin and long rallies, he switched from a faster game to a lower, L-shaped forehand...

The source:

Playing from lower balls wasn't good for him, but he had to do it after his game changed. Paradoxically, his backhand became a weapon in 2017 because he started returning it higher and playing from high balls.

However, I see the biggest problem in modern tennis. What ruined Federer's game was easier returns and passing shots, and topspin game in tennis,which allowed to keep all-rounders and net rushers deeper in the court, making the game less sharp and aggressive.

Today they say tennis has sped up, quite a bit, yes, but matches have gotten longer, and sometimes tennis isn't about playing fewer rallies and shortening the game?!?!?!

 

[Day_Tripper]

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?

He had to consistently face two all time greats that were significantly younger than him. That and mono.