Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by wy2sl0, Oct 20, 2012.
That is some lightning movement from both guys.
He's 31 now,but I think he still moves pretty well for his age.
Possibly my favorite match. The only time God-mode Federer was defeated.
But nowhere near as well as he did in 2003-2007. :cry:
True. Nadal doesn't move anywhere near as well as he used to either,so I know how you feel.
It would still be the Roger and Rafa show if they played how they used to. Everyone fades. It is too bad.
I disagree. That was not god-mode Federer. I don't understand why people always say that about this match. If that was god-mode Federer, can someone explain the 60 unforced errors, the pathetic body language (especially in the 5th set, Federer behaved Murray-esque at times), the horrendous serving he was doing in the 5th set (Federer was hitting the ball into the center of the net at times), and double faulting to hand Safin the break in the 5th set? Federer got lucky that Safin produced some laughably bad tennis to get broken.
Also, Federer gave Safin credit for playing well, but in the same breath he implied that he was not at his best because he was suffering from a nasty foot blister. Federer's reaction after missing that tweener pretty much showed how fearful he was to going to a 5th set. He probably knew that Safin would have the edge in that case.
I agree, but you have to watch the full match to pick up on that, not just the highlights. So much information is lost over the years.
Yes, I agree dude.
I have seen so many amazing highlight reels from the 2005 USO that I thought Federer was playing impeccable tennis. It was not until recently that I watched the entire SF between Federer and Hewitt again. Federer was shanking so hard it was hilarious at times; he was not nearly as impressive as the highlights showed him to be.
Wow! What a surprise he's not as speedy at 31 vs. 23. I'm so shocked. Still he's faster than almost everyone else on tour! Now that's a statement on his uniqueness.
You don't hit the lines without making unforced errors along the way. Federer was worried because it was probably the only time he was playing at his best and still being contested, not because he was playing badly. I've seen the whole match quite a few times, I'm not basing my opinion off the highlights. And God-mode doesn't mean you don't make any mistakes, it's just that he was good in all departments of the game for all or most of the match.
About his blister, well, that's an excuse. He still played very well. He was beaten by the better player on the day.
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I certainly didn't think i was seeing Fed's god mode when I watched the match live. It was a good match though, no doubt. Just for the record, I don't really care about making excuses either. You win and you lose, for many reasons. The result is all that matters.
Not saying it was one of his best-played matches. Just that he didn't do anything particularly wrong. I'm sure he was happy with the match he played.
federer was playing by some distance better at the AO in 2005 than he was in the SF/F of the USO in 2005 ....
the SF vs safin was easily the best ever that he's played and still lost .... the way federer/safin were painting the lines, you are bound to have some unforced errors .... that was one match which showcases almost the whole of federer's arsenal ..and I've watched the whole match atleast 3-4 times ...
the only match which comes remotely close in which he played well and still lost is the rome 2006 final vs nadal ....
Oh yeah, that's 1 one 2 favorite Claycourt matches. Pity we don't have 5 setters in Masters finals anymore.
Rewatched this match again lately.
An absolute skills contest.
Federer wasn't shanking or making UE because he was playing conservatively and messing up (like he's used to doing NOW), no, it was because he was swinging for the fences and was extremely aggressive through out.
Safin outplayed him on a handful of crucial points.
If you compare Fed to the field, I think he actually is helped by the slowed courts. He couldn't keep this up nowadays. No way. But against Nadal and Djokovic, it would still help him relatively. He would be a lot more prone to upsets though against Tsonga, Berdych, etc.
maybe in best of 3, but not in best of 5 , it'd be tough for the big hitters to keep it up in a best of 5 .... federer dominated berdych easily upto 2008 ...... barely losing sets on any sort of court ...
No, you certainly don't, just as it's true that Fed fans don't know how Nadal fans feel in terms of their favourite player's (prolonged) absence from the game because of injuries it's also true that at this point in time Nadal fans still don't know how Fed fans feel regard their favourite player's decline in physical part of the game (despite the Fed hating experts on this forum who claim that Fed's playing as good as ever).
When Nadal has a slamless year and/or gets near 30 while the fans of other players claim he's as good as ever but can't handle the new strong competition, only then will you find out.
Fed was actually 8-1 against Berdych until 2010 but of course we have people now claiming Berdych was always a nightmare match-up for Fed and similar nonsense.
Obviously, Fed couln't possibly be past his prime in 2010, no, his prime has to last 8+ years while fragile as flower Rafa overall had about a year and a change of prime/peak tennis, what a warrior.
Ah, the good old myth which is the 2005 AO semi, one of the most overrated matches of all time.
Quoted. For. Truth.
It's quite evident that he's slower now than he was in this video. I mean who wouldn't be? That's the problem I have with people saying he's playing as good as ever. He might not have lost his talent, but he's certainly lost some footspeed. That's the first thing that declines for a pro tennis player.
So? Fed has declined massively since then. That's what I'm saying. Slow courts have prolonged Fed's time at the top, because his shotmaking can make up for his decline in movement since this video.
don't quite think so ........ it was/is the best match I've seen ...
The 1980 and 2008 wimbledon finals while by some distance inferior quality-wise, are rated/talked about more .......
the problem with this argument is that while chances of hard hitters taking out the present day fed increase on faster surfaces, they still are more inconsistent than fed/nadal/djoker/murray and will be behind them in the rankings ...
what that would also mean is chances of nadal/djoker/murray getting upset also increase ...... also the chances of federer beating them ....
so, no , slower courts haven't prolonged federer's stay at the top .....
but of course .... nadal is undefeated when he wins ...... vamos ...
I have to disagree. A lot of players have caught up to fed on clay and slow hard courts. On fast hard court and indoor, Fed is still dominating.
From what I saw, I notice Fed still owns fast courts indoors; mostly because he is the first one to go for the winner straight out, or put the opponent in a compromised position - the other top 3 don't do that as often.
I would argue that Federer hasn't remained at the top because of the slower courts, rather he is still at the top because he is just that good.
At the end of the day they are playing a simple game in physics terms. You swing a racquet to hit a ball. A great singer can sing anything, a great tennis player can play anywhere and be great.
Roger was incredibly slow in Shanghai (but he wasn't fit at al).
Rafa was incredibly faster when he was 18 years old if you compare with his prime.
Like that Wimbledon 2008 final where Federer was doing everything in his power to hand the match to Nadal and Nadal still choked, and nearly lost the match despite Federer playing completely subpar?
Yes,I do. I have watched Nadal decline in speed and movement over the years just as Fed fans have watched him do the same. Not sure what there is to argue here other than you just liking to be contrary for no reason.
And this coming from you is mighty hilarious. You were preaching about how Nadal never played better all throughout last year when anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together could obviously see otherwise. As a matter of fact,your ridiculous trolling of Nadal match threads saying how he was at his peaklolwas the brunt of several jokes at your expense.
Declines in speed and movement, proceeds to have record year. Classic Nadal decline year.
Do you think Nadal is as fast or moves as well now as he did just a few years ago? If you say yes then there is no hope for you.
And Fed is still winning slams/masters tournaments at 31,and had a d*mn good year this year. Does that mean he hasn't lost any speed and that his movement is good as ever?
I understand that you've watched Nadal decline a little bit. He's lost speed as well, and I am glad that Federer stays healthier than Nadal because I don't know what it's like to watch my favourite player be out for 6 months + and miss slams. I think that's what zagor was trying to say. Nadal fans don't truly know how Federer fans feel, just as the opposite is true. They will only truly know when Nadal nears/hits 30 (if he gets that far) and people start saying he should retire after every match he loses, or he has a slamless year, or he gets beaten pretty regularly by players that are 5-6 years younger than him, and fans of those players will say what Nadal and Djokovic fans are saying now.
They will talk about how Nadal can't handle the competition, and they will likely talk about how Nadal won all his slams in a "weak" era because in said era only the top 4 even had a realistic chance to win. They will also probably say that Nadal is just a glorified clay courter, and other disrespectful things even though the man is an all time great with 11 slams. They'll probably dismiss the fact that Nadal is past his prime as well, and just say age is a sad excuse. This should all sound pretty familiar actually. In fact, all of that stuff has been said, but it will get worse when the coming generation starts beating Nadal fairly regularly.
And as I said above, I truly won't know how Nadal fans feel unless Federer is out with an injury for an extended period of time, or misses slam(s).
God dang.. Safin may have had the best "top A-game" there ever was. You can't play much better then Roger did there in Australia in 2005 and it still wasn't enough
Safin retired in 2009 he certainly wouldn't be any faster.
Unless you are some genetic cyborg like Laver.. Chances are you won't move as well at 31 years of age
You have no shame, but that is alright. I understand that you must cling to anything you can get.
Let's face it, everyone. Nadal is faster than he ever was. Federer is playing ten times better than he did when he was dominating everyone. Both players have improved to such an extent that they wouldn't lose a single game to their old selves in their best statistical seasons.
We could also accept the truth and realize that those two may be the best who have ever lived. No one will win many slams with the two of them playing at their best.
That includes Sampras, 90's clay.
Also want to play devils advocate.
Here is Federer at his best (movement wise) in 2012. Unreal point.
I love the huge smile on that rather pretty woman in Fed's box.
According to Federer fans, Federer's decline began in 2007, coming off his prime from 2004-2006. During this decline period, Federer has won 8 of his 17 majors. In other words, Federer won 47% of his major titles during his decline. Also, according to Federer fans, Federer must have been a better tennis player in 2010 than in 2012 by virtue of him being closer to his prime, despite a much worse match record and fewer titles won.
I must also add, I am tired of this place, this "Nadal Warehouse". All I ever read about is ceaseless Nadal glorification: 'Nadal god mode this' and 'Nadal is GOAT' that, and endless Federer bashing hate threads twisting his words and actions into those of pure malevolence. I am sick of people undermining the achievements of players who excel off of clay. It's as if only slow clay courts count as genuine tennis surfaces in their minds. I just wish there were a few diehard Federer fans to counterbalance the huge Nadal bias here.
Fed won 11 slams in four years, and one in 2003. The other five came in a period of five years after 2007. It is pretty obvious that 2003-2007 was his prime. 2007 is just pointed out as the start of Fed losing more matches than usual although he was still successful at the main events. 2008 would likely have been similar had there been no issues with his health.
I used to think that you were a decent troll, but you are just a broken record living off of a couple of clever posts you made some time ago. You need some new material. You're well out of your prime and your decline has been rapid.
Yes, she's lovely; that's Ester, wife of Roger's best friend Reto who's next to her in the white shirt and sunglasses.
Fed played well in the Safin match but he had major physical problems there as well; the inflammation in his feet which lead him to "compensate" by trying to change his movement and wound up with major nerve pain in his arm by the 4th/5th sets. He was worked on by the trainer on court, and Peter Lundgren who was coaching Safin at the time was chatting during the match how he could tell Roger's feet were hurting by how he was moving.
Fed was dogged by foot inflammation for much of the rest of 2005, tho' it never came back as badly as in the Safin match.
As for the topic, yeah he's slowed down
I don't move the way I did in my twenties either, that's life -
Nadal declined in 2009 and proceeds to have a record year in 2010. Classic logic. Seriously, you and namelessone would go toe to toe in a contest of who has more logical fallacies.
And according to *******s,Fed's decline began in 2007 yet he went on to win 8 more slams after that. That's one impressive decline from the Swiss Maestro.
Federer really declined in 2008. since then, he has only won 5 slams. only...
He started a very slow decline in 2007, but was certainly healthy enough to compete in 2008. The mono hit him hard in 2008 which disrupted his season, and 2009 was the first one where he was really healthy again. After that, he has never been the same Federer. His movement, his firepower, and overall game has taken a pretty big step backwards overall. He wins mostly on cunning, guile, and superior tactics.
You don't go and have record years after "declining." Period. It doesn't happen. You can try and keep it up, but you and namelessone among various other Nadal fans have constantly made a complete fool out of yourselves. Not even Benhur who adamantly defends Nadal fans would ever agree with your ridiculous assertion. Nadal hasn't declined one bit until maybe very recently.
Federer's prime was from 2004-2007. It might have carried over to the early part of 2008 but his mono stopped that. Nadal's prime has been from 2007-2011, being interrupted from time to time by his injuries.
It is true that Fed started losing to guys he normally wouldn't in 2007, like Canas twice, Volandri, Nalbandian played two great matches to beat, but he doesn't count because Fed's lost to Nalbandian before. His other somewhat surprise loss was to Gonzalez, but his decline didn't start in 2007, it started with the mono he got in 2008 I would say.
Separate names with a comma.