Why did Federer's grass game decline so badly after the 2008 final?

[RS]

Who wins these matchups?

1. Nadal Wim 06 final vs Federer Wim 11 QF
2. Roddick Wim 04 final vs Federer Wim 15 SF
3. Roddick Wim 04 final vs Murray Wim 16 final
4. Djokovic Wim 12 SF vs Federer Wim 15 final
5. Nadal Wim 06 final vs Murray Wim 13 final
6. Hewitt Wim 04 QF vs Anderson Wim 15 4R
7. Murray Oly 12 SF vs Djokovic Wim 14 final
8. Nadal Wim 11 final vs Tsonga Wim 11 QF

 

[Cantconvert2MP]

27 is not old now in 2021
27 was not old even in 2010s after modern day training + nutrition ensured that players can play longer, also Fed was already in his 30s and showing the rest of the world what can be done in 30s

However 27 was old in 2008
27 was definetly old in 1998-99 and before it

So you need to see compare relative to era...blindly comparing yesteryears with modern day standards is wrong...

One of the most nonsensial gibberish bs talk any Fed's fans has been able to come up with.

27 was by no f*cking mean old in 2008.

27 has NEVER been old in any sport in the world... and will never been considered "old". from normal life, to football, to baseball, to basketball, to volleyball, to curling, or whatever... Tennis is no exception, 27 old has and will never seen and considered as old in any sport.
That fallacy has been only be going on in the mind of Federer's fans.

 

[Headhunter_Tennis]

One of the most nonsensial gibberish bs talk any Fed's fans has been able to come up with.

27 was by no f*cking mean old in 2008.

27 has NEVER been old in any sport in the world... and will never been considered "old". from normal life, to football, to baseball, to basketball, to volleyball, to curling, or whatever... Tennis is no exception, 27 old has and will never seen and considered as old in any sport.
That fallacy has been only be going on in the mind of Federer's fans.

Mono at 27, or else Fed would not have shown any dip till 29. Federer was significantly better in 2009 than what he was in 2008. In 08 he lost to so many second grade players, a guy like Giles Simon got his only 2 wins vs Fed in that year, you think that's peak fed? Or peak Simon?

Duh!!!

 

[abmk]

Far from citing individual cases at random I am specifically citing the greatest players of all time. Let's collate the data set of a generally agreed possible ATG Top Ten.

TILDEN (Am)
Before 27 -0 slams
After 27 -10 slams

GONZALES (Am/Pro)
Before 27 -5 slams
After 27 - 7 slams

ROSEWALL (Am/Pro/Open)
Before 27 - 10 slams
After 27 -13 slams

LAVER (Am/Pro/Open)
Before 27 - 8 slams
After 27 -11 slams

BORG (Open)
Before 27 -11 slams
After 27 -Retired

LENDL (Open)
Before 27 -4 slams
After 27 -4 slams

SAMPRAS (Open)
Before 27 -10 slams
After 27 -4 slams

FEDERER
Before 27 -12 slams
After 27 - 8 slams

NADAL
Before 27 -11 slams
After 27 -9 slams

DJOKOVIC (Open)
Before 27 -6 slams
After 27 -14 slams

TOTAL: Top Ten ATGs
Slams won before 27 -77
Slams won after 27 -80

The data shows no drop off in achievement by the best of the best after the age of 27. In fact, they win marginally more after the age of 27.

Maybe educate yourself before jumping in next time.

Talk was about open era. Before turning 27 means including just before turning 27.
Careers wholly in open era. ATGs: Connors, Borg, Mcenroe,Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic

Slams

Connors:
before 27: 5
after 27: 3

Borg:
before 27: 11
after 27: 0

Mcenroe:
before 27: 7
after 27: 0

Lendl:
before 27: 4
after 27: 4

Becker:
before 27: 5
after 27: 1

Edberg:
before 27: 6
after 27: 0

Wilander:
before 27: 7
after 27: 0

Sampras:
before 27: 11
after 27: 3

Agassi:
before 27: 3
after 27: 5

Federer:
before 27: 12
after 27: 8

Nadal:
before 27: 11
after 27: 9

Djokovic:
before 27: 6
after 27: 14

total slams won before 27: 90
total slams won after 27: 47

leaving Fed/Nadal/Djokovic.

total slams won before 27: 61
total slams won after 27: 16

that becomes a joke of a comparision - all ATGs from Connors to Sampras/Agassi ^^

 

[Spencer Gore]

Talk was about open era.

No, it wasn't. And even if it was, Laver won the Grand Slam at 31 and Rosewall won multiple slams after 30 in the Open Era, so Federer pioneered ZERO.

Come back when you've learned the very basics about tennis. It's getting embarrassing watching Federer fans tying themselves into knots to avoid admitting he stopped winning so much because the opposition got better.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Yes, talk was about open era, once it really got under away.

Can you not see how embarrassing this is for Federer? That his fans have to draw such tight restrictions around things to make any claims for him.

Using the history of tennis means the over 27 year old thing is exposed as nonsense; restricting it to the Open Era doesn't work either as the over 27 year olds thing is exposed as nonsense, so you have to restrict it to "once it got underway" (whatever that means) at one end and then not include Djokovic at the other, because that also exposes the over 27 thing as nonsense.

Please, for everyone's sake, can Federer's fans stop humiliating their hero. He deserves better.

 

[abmk]

Can you not see how embarrassing this is for Federer? That his fans have to draw such tight restrictions around things to make any claims for him.

Using the history of tennis means the other 27 year old thing is exposed as nonsense; restricting it to the Open Era doesn't work either as the other 27 year olds thing is exposed as nonsense, so you have to restrict it to "once it got underway" (whatever that means) at one end and then not include Djokovic at the other, because that also exposes the over 27 thing as nonsense.

Please, for everyone's sake, can Federer's fans stop humiliating their hero. He deserves better.

Excluded Fedalovic to show what happened in the open era with ATGs with careers fully in open era before them.
Also they have benefitted quite a bit from the worst period in open era (15-21) - Djokovic first, Nadal second and Federer third in that order
You are the one embarassing yourself, Embrassing Bore, since you didn't address:
1. 61 slams before 27 to 16 after 27 among ATGs with career fully in open era before Federer/Nadal/Djokovic.
2. Federer has won 8 slams after turning 27, so he's done more than fine after turning 27. But perhaps the pathological hatred wthin you makes you bitter and unable to see/acknowledge that. Get well soon.

 

[zvelf]

He exited his prime after AO 10. Hence lesser success after that.

Federer lost to Hewitt and Haas at Halle in 2010 and 2012 and both are older than Fed so no not-in-prime excuses there.

fed beat djoko in Wim 12 and wouldn't lose to him on grass till Wim 14 final when fed was nearly 33.

You make this sound worse than it is. Djokovic never played Federer on grass until Wimbledon 2012. Wimbledon 2014 was only their second match on grass. So full context is that Federer won their first match on grass and Djokovic has won every match since then on grass.

 

[abmk]

Federer lost to Hewitt and Haas at Halle in 2010 and 2012 and both are older than Fed so no not-in-prime excuses there.

an out of prime player can lose to another out of prime player genius.
Heck your guy Djokovic in his prime got his a** kicked by an even older Haas on HC in Miami 13.

You make this sound worse than it is. Djokovic never played Federer on grass until Wimbledon 2012. Wimbledon 2014 was only their second match on grass. So full context is that Federer won their first match on grass and Djokovic has won every match since then on grass.

LOL, is this a joke?
2007-09 djokovic would get ROFLSTOMPED by fed in those Wimbledons. Fed was way better.
10 - Fed played a little better in loss to Berdych compared to Djoko in his.
11 - Djoko lucky to avoid fed at Wimbledon thanks to a GOATing tsonga in the QF. He had lost to fed in better suited conditions in their matchup at RG a month earlier. Of course Tsonga played nowhere near as well in the semi.

 

[zvelf]

an out of prime player can lose to another out of prime player genius.
Heck your guy Djokovic in his prime got his a** kicked by an even older Haas on HC in Miami 13.

The point was that Federer being out of prime isn't an excuse to losing to another out-of-prime player on Federer's best surface. Funny that you have to cherry-pick the one match Haas won that's bucketed between 4 Djokovic wins against him during which Djokovic won 10 out of 11 sets.

LOL, is this a joke?
2007-09 djokovic would get ROFLSTOMPED by fed in those Wimbledons. Fed was way better.
10 - Fed played a little better in loss to Berdych compared to Djoko in his.
11 - Djoko lucky to avoid fed at Wimbledon thanks to a GOATing tsonga in the QF. He had lost to fed in better suited conditions in their matchup at RG a month earlier. Of course Tsonga played nowhere near as well in the semi.

Yes, Federer fans think Federer wins all hypothetical matches. And somehow now it's to Djokovic's hypothetical detriment that Federer lost to Tsonga instead of Federer's detriment that he did so.

 

[abmk]

The point was that Federer being out of prime isn't an excuse to losing to another out-of-prime player on Federer's best surface. Funny that you have to cherry-pick the one match Haas won that's bucketed between 4 Djokovic wins against him.

when you are out of prime, you are less consistent. That happens. Its the reality. Not an excuse.
I pointed out a Djokovic loss at his prime. Can't deal with it? Too bad.
and fed beat Haas/Hewitt before and after those matches. So what's your point? Nothing.

Yes, Federer fans think Federer wins all hypothetical matches. And somehow now it's to Djokovic's hypothetical detriment that Federer lost to Tsonga instead of Federer's detriment that he did so.

Its reality that Federer was way better at Wim 07-09 than Djokovic was.
Also did better vs Berdych in loss in Wim 10 than djokovic did in his.
Djoko had lost to fed in better suited conditions in their matchup at RG a month earlier in 2011.
Perhaps those realities don't sink for you. Hence you only see the hypothetical aspects of what I mentioned., Djoko fanatic.
But I make it look worse than it is by not mentioning what happened before 2012 at Wim?
LMAO. the delusions.

 

[zvelf]

But I make it look worse than it is by not mentioning what happened before 2012 at Wim?
LMAO. the delusions.

You're projecting your delusions on to others. You repeatedly go around this forum posting that Federer had never lost to Djokovic on grass before Wimbledon 2014 while neglecting to mention that was only their second meeting on grass ever. So "never having lost to Djokovic on grass before 2014" is pretty much meaningless when you're referring to the outcome of a single match.

 

[abmk]

You're projecting your delusions on to others. You repeatedly go around this forum posting that Federer had never lost to Djokovic on grass before Wimbledon 2014 while neglecting to mention that was only their second meeting on grass ever. So "never having lost to Djokovic on grass before 2014" is pretty much meaningless when you're referring to the outcome of a single match.

Its not as I explained:

Federer was way better at Wim 07-09 than Djokovic was.
Also did better vs Berdych in loss in Wim 10 than djokovic did in his.
Djoko had lost to fed in better suited conditions in their matchup at RG a month earlier in 2011.

Your point would be relevant if Djoko would be clear enough favorite in their matches at Wim before 2014. Not in the above ones as I showed.

 

[zvelf]

Its not as I explained:

Federer was way better at Wim 07-09 than Djokovic was.
Also did better vs Berdych in loss in Wim 10 than djokovic did in his.
Djoko had lost to fed in better suited conditions in their matchup at RG a month earlier in 2011.

Your point would be relevant if Djoko would be clear enough favorite in their matches at Wim before 2014. Not in the above ones as I showed.

In other words, your phrasing is only meaningful based on hypothetical wins and thus unprovable. Yes, we know, Federer has never lost a hypothetical matchup. He only loses in real matches.

 

[abmk]

In other words, your phrasing is only meaningful based on hypothetical wins and thus unprovable. Yes, we know, Federer has never lost a hypothetical matchup. He only loses in real matches.

No, my statement is based on fed being far better in Wim 07-09, doing better in loss to Berdych than djoko in 10, that Djoko had lost to fed in better suited conditions in their matchup at RG a month earlier in 2011.
Also in other words, you couldn't deal with reality being pointed out that prime Djokovic lost to a ~31 yo old Federer at Wimbledon and only got wins with ~33 yo or older federer at Wimbledon and not a younger Federer.

 

[TennisLurker]

lmao.. so Federer was old at 27 years old ?

And people laugh when we say Fed fans are well known b*llshit maker

I'm not a Federer fan, 28 years old used to be past your prime in tennis, and 30 years old used to be ancient. 32 years old Agassi winning the Australian open was like a grandfather, a player from the late 80s winning a slam in the 2000s. McEnroe won all his majors before the age of 26 iirc, even though he continued playing until 1992. He won none after 1984. Connors won like 6 out of 8 before the age of 27. Borg retired at 26. Lendl won 6 out of 8 before the age of 27, his last one at 29. edberg won his last one when he was 26. becker won 5 out of 6 before 24 years old.
Second order top players, like Enqvist, would have half a decade in the top ten, and then fall down the rankings abruptly in their late 20s.

If you look at tennis history, it's full of top players who suffer a very strong decline after the ages of 26-27. the prime of athletes is more or less from 21 to 26-27-28 depending on genetics and injuries. All of the big 3 lost some speed after their mid 20s because it happens to all humans. When Federer dominated in 2004, I would think (he is not that young, he won his first slam rather late, when he was 22, we just have to wait some years until his late 20s and he will stop dominating). I never expected him to reach 20 slams, more like Sampras numbers.

Djokovic had an easier time than Federer, as an aging athlete, because aging Federer had to compete with Nadal and Djokovic in their physical mid 20s primes. The last half of the 2000s were not a very strong period. You had Wawrinka suddenly becoming a top player as a 29 years old man, and people like Cilic and Anderson making multiple slam finals.

 

[zvelf]

No, my statement is based on fed being far better in Wim 07-09, doing better in loss to Berdych than djoko in 10, that Djoko had lost to fed in better suited conditions in their matchup at RG a month earlier in 2011.
Also in other words, you couldn't deal with reality being pointed out that prime Djokovic lost to a ~31 yo old Federer at Wimbledon and only got wins with ~33 yo or older federer at Wimbledon and not a younger Federer.

Uh, no. I readily concede that Federer has had the better career at Wimbledon than Djokovic even if his 1-3 record against Djokovic there looks bad. I'll even concede that had they met at Wimbledon between 2007-2009, Federer would have been the odds-on favorite. But nevertheless, they did not play and to act as if they had and the winner is a foregone conclusion is erroneous and exactly what I said, your claim is based on hypothetical matches. Just as an example, Federer lost to Blake twice and Simon twice in 2008 and to Mardy Fish too. There's absolutely no reason to believe that Djokovic could not possibly win against Federer either. The actual match has to be played for it to count. They didn't play and so it doesn't count.

 

[Spencer Gore]

I'm not a Federer fan, 28 years old used to be past your prime in tennis, and 30 years old used to be ancient.

Of the all-time greats only Tilden, Cochet, Borotra, Gonzales, Rosewall, Emerson, Laver, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic won much after turning 27.

 

[Headhunter_Tennis]

No, it wasn't. And even if it was, Laver won the Grand Slam at 31 and Rosewall won multiple slams after 30 in the Open Era, so Federer pioneered ZERO.

Come back when you've learned the very basics about tennis. It's getting embarrassing watching Federer fans tying themselves into knots to avoid admitting he stopped winning so much because the opposition got better.

Opposition did get better "physically"

But not skillwise

 

[Bartelby]

This is a larger list of individual cases chosen at random. It's not a stratistical presentation of a data set. If you think you're that right, then why not go to the trouble of doing a proper job?

Far from citing individual cases at random I am specifically citing the greatest players of all time. Let's collate the data set of a generally agreed possible ATG Top Ten.

TILDEN (Am)
Before 27 -0 slams
After 27 -10 slams

GONZALES (Am/Pro)
Before 27 -5 slams
After 27 - 7 slams

ROSEWALL (Am/Pro/Open)
Before 27 - 10 slams
After 27 -13 slams

LAVER (Am/Pro/Open)
Before 27 - 8 slams
After 27 -11 slams

BORG (Open)
Before 27 -11 slams
After 27 -Retired

LENDL (Open)
Before 27 -4 slams
After 27 -4 slams

SAMPRAS (Open)
Before 27 -10 slams
After 27 -4 slams

FEDERER
Before 27 -12 slams
After 27 - 8 slams

NADAL
Before 27 -11 slams
After 27 -9 slams

DJOKOVIC (Open)
Before 27 -6 slams
After 27 -14 slams

TOTAL: Top Ten ATGs
Slams won before 27 -77
Slams won after 27 -80

The data shows no drop off in achievement by the best of the best after the age of 27. In fact, they win marginally more after the age of 27.

Maybe educate yourself before jumping in next time.

 

[abmk]

Uh, no. I readily concede that Federer has had the better career at Wimbledon than Djokovic even if his 1-3 record against Djokovic there looks bad. I'll even concede that had they met at Wimbledon between 2007-2009, Federer would have been the odds-on favorite. But nevertheless, they did not play and to act as if they had and the winner is a foregone conclusion is erroneous and exactly what I said, your claim is based on hypothetical matches. Just as an example, Federer lost to Blake twice and Simon twice in 2008 and to Mardy Fish too. There's absolutely no reason to believe that Djokovic could not possibly win against Federer either. The actual match has to be played for it to count. They didn't play and so it doesn't count.

You are not doing a favour by conceding federer has had a better career at Wimbledon. Its a fact. Also Federer is significantly better at Wimbldon and Djokovic has overachieved there (aka lucky)

2008 fed didn't lose a single set at Wimbledon before the final - including to Safin who thrashed Djokovic and to Hewitt/Ancic/Soderling.
Nowhere near the crappy form in Bo3 when he lost to Blake (once at Olympics, not twice) and to Simon(twice), Fish.

Djokovic has near zero chance of a win at Wimbledon 08 vs fed. But then how would a Djoko fanatic like you know that given you've probably watched very little of tennis before 2011.

Fact is DJoko got lucky at Wimbledon with wins only over ~33 yo old Federer. Its not unfair to say that given what actually happened before that.

 

[zvelf]

You are not doing a favour by conceding federer has had a better career at Wimbledon. Its a fact. Also Federer is significantly better at Wimbldon and Djokovic has overachieved there (aka lucky)

Numbers say Federer was better at Wimbledon, but if numbers are all that matter, then Djokovic's career is already indisputably better than Federer's career. So based on numbers, it's a fact that Djokovic is better than Federer.

Djokovic has near zero chance of a win at Wimbledon 08 vs fed. But then how would a Djoko fanatic like you know that given you've probably watched very little of tennis before 2011.

I've been watching tennis since Connors/Borg/McEnroe, but obviously since you can't out-argue someone, you resort to insults.

 

[abmk]

Numbers say Federer was better at Wimbledon, but if numbers are all that matter, then Djokovic's career is already indisputably better than Federer's career. So based on numbers, it's a fact that Djokovic is better than Federer.

no, even game wise, federer is significantly better on grass (both prime to prime and overall career wise). I mean past his prime fed beat prime Djoko at Wim 12 (prime-ish Fed at best).
best 5 years on grass, federer has better numbers on both serve and return (2003 to 2007 compared to 2011/12/14/15/18 for djoko)

Numbers actually flatter Djokovic here. He's overachieved at Wimbledon. 6 Wimbledons, FFS. 3 of them after turning 31. Wim 18 was obviously well earned with the W over nadal. But got lucky with fed letting him off the hook in Wim 19 final and the so easy draw in Wim 21 (easier by far than any draw fed has faced at Wimbledon)

And no, numbers wise, it isn't indisputable by any means that Djoko has had a better career.
Federer has better #s at YEC for one.
is #1 or #2 in the open era at 3 of the 4 slams (AO, Wim,USO). Djoko only at one of the slams (AO - even if he is alone).
Fed has his streak of 23 grand slam semis, 18 out of 19 slam finals, 56 HC match streak, 65 grass match streak etc.

Djoko has facts in his favour as well purely numbers wise, but its not indisputable.

I've been watching tennis since Connors/Borg/McEnroe, but obviously since you can't out-argue someone, you resort to insults.

cool story Djoko natic.
You have your head so far up Djokovic's a** that you are even insinuating its possible that Djoko is the equal or better of fed on grass game wise. (with your above statements)

 

[zvelf]

no, even game wise, federer is significantly better on grass (both prime to prime and overall career wise). I mean past his prime fed beat prime Djoko at Wim 12 (prime-ish Fed at best).
best 5 years on grass, federer has better numbers on both serve and return (2003 to 2007 compared to 2011/12/14/15/18 for djoko)

Numbers actually flatter Djokovic here. He's overachieved at Wimbledon. 6 Wimbledons, FFS. 3 of them after turning 31. Wim 18 was obviously well earned with the W over nadal. But got lucky with fed letting him off the hook in Wim 19 final and the so easy draw in Wim 21 (easier by far than any draw fed has faced at Wimbledon)

And no, numbers wise, it isn't indisputable by any means that Djoko has had a better career.
Federer has better #s at YEC for one.
is #1 or #2 in the open era at 3 of the 4 slams (AO, Wim,USO). Djoko only at one of the slams (AO - even if he is alone).
Fed has his streak of 23 grand slam semis, 18 out of 19 slam finals, 56 HC match streak, 65 grass match streak etc.

Djoko has facts in his favour as well purely numbers wise, but its not indisputable.

cool story Djoko natic.
You have your head so far up Djokovic's a** that you are even insinuating its possible that Djoko is the equal or better of fed on grass game wise. (with your above statements)

You have reading comprehension issues if that's what you got from what I've written. Read post #217 again. But you're wrong about the numbers not significantly favoring Djokovic over Federer career-wise. 1 extra YEC and some streaks don't come close to overcoming Djokovic's now overwhelmingly more weeks at #1 than Federer, being the only Open Era player with a double career slam, being the only Open Era player to win a NCYGS, and winning every Masters 1000 not only once, a record in itself, but twice.

 

[abmk]

You have reading comprehension issues if that's what you got from what I've written. Read post #217 again. But you're wrong about the numbers not significantly favoring Djokovic over Federer career-wise. 1 extra YEC and some streaks don't come close to overcoming Djokovic's now overwhelmingly more weeks at #1 than Federer, being the only Open Era player with a double career slam, being the only Open Era player to win a NCYGS, and winning every Masters 1000 not only once, a record in itself, but twice.

I read it perfectly fine. The actual words and read b/w the lines, djoko natic.

Your response about numbers was to this:
"You are not doing a favour by conceding federer has had a better career at Wimbledon. Its a fact. Also Federer is significantly better at Wimbldon"

I didn't just mention numbers, I also mentioned federer being significantly better. Better means game-wise.

Its not just the YEC and streaks, but also this: Fed is #1 or #2 in the open era at 3 of the 4 slams (AO, Wim,USO). Djoko only at one of the slams (AO - even if he is alone).
But apparently that doesn't get through.
If we're talking djoko having 2 at each slam, lets also talk about fed having 5 at 3 slams (AO/Wim/USO) - that Djoko doesn't have.

Anyone who thinks career wise its indisputable for djokovic has his head so far up Djokovic's a** that he/she requires some help.

 

[Headhunter_Tennis]

On Grass Federer is better than Djokovic by a distance
On HCs maybe it is a tie between the 2
On Clay however Novak is much ahead vs the field than Fed is due to Novak's superior 2 handed backhand

So I am not surprised on why Novak has better numbers, he has been better due to this HC+Clay combo which perhaps levels or surpasses the grass edge of Federer.