Was Federer better in 2006? (Poll added)

First topic message reminder :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOQp62NI2_I

I don't think so! His today's shots are actually better, more agressive, including his FH. It might be that it seemed windy that day and he tried to keep the ball in court so used a lot of spin. But in general I find his shots today smoother, his BH slice for instance is more elegant. His shot selection is also better now. You can tell he has learnt to play Nadal...over the last few years. The problem is that Nadal got even stronger.

Jarvik wrote:Nadal was fit as a fiddle last night. But his shot-making was poorer than usual.

I am afraid but Nadal's shot making has always been poor. That's the main reason why I am not a fan of his game. It was much worse on Sunday, yet he won his match. That's Nadal. You shoudl know him by now! What did you expect? Serve and Volley a la Edberg? Touch of McEnroe?

Nadal was fit yesterday and that is what his game is all about. However, if you take time away from him, his game simply can't cope. But despite teh one sided score, a let up and Federer woudl have been in big trouble like he has been in his 17 losses.

When Federer plays that well, the opponent has no say in the outcome. Regardless who that is.

Well, I guess the Fed performance last night adds legs to the marathon that is the 2006 versus 2011 posting ! Can fans think, though, of a better Fed performance, notwithstanding Rafa's fitness/lack of match practice ?
Wonder, also, what would have happened if it had been a five-setter. Would Fed have been able to keep it up long enough to win in three, or would Rafa have found a way back ? If a guy goes off like a hurricane in a three-setter, sometimes there's just no coming back.

Yes, the 5 setter match is a another question. Nadal can afford to be "more patient" in those.

Federer played wonderfully but he didn't pull his performance out of thin air. Rafa played his part in what was a great match for Fed fans.. by being rubbish.

Tenez, what is a great tennis shot? Does it involve taking the ball early, having variety, grace? Or can it be about angles and power?

Federer hit some great winners last night but you've got to factor in where the ball was when he hit it. And that's down to his opponent's own shots which last night were not Rafa's best by a long chalk.

Jarvik wrote:performance out of thin air. Rafa played his part in what was a great match for Fed fans.. by being rubbish.

Tenez, what is a great tennis shot? Does it involve taking the ball early, having variety, grace? Or can it be about angles and power?

In Nadal's case, certainly the latter: angles and power. But Nadal as you admit was fit and therefore had power. Watch him play and he doesn;t look like his shots are any worse than against the 6 matches he lost v Djokovic. The difference is that Federer was much more agressive than Djoko, most of the time, and therefore made Nadal look worse than he actually was. Just watch Federer v Djoko last year at the same tournament, and Djoko did not look any better. THat's what Federer does to anybody when in the zone. He used to find this zone against anybody bar Nadal in 2006. Nowadays he can even find it v Nadal. Simply because his timing has improved! Even on clay in Rome and FO, the matches were much closer than people think. It's the way he managed to get that BP and SP that certainly relaxed him and allowed hiim to reach higher level in that match.

"what is a great tennis shot? Does it involve taking the ball early, having variety, grace? Or can it be about angles and power?"
For me there are two both when playing and watching: one is when you really get hold of the ball and send it as a winner down the line and the other is when you barely are able to scrape to reach it and just have enough milimetres of stretch to tip the ball away from you across the net .

Tenez wrote:

Jarvik wrote:performance out of thin air. Rafa played his part in what was a great match for Fed fans.. by being rubbish.

Tenez, what is a great tennis shot? Does it involve taking the ball early, having variety, grace? Or can it be about angles and power?

In Nadal's case, certainly the latter: angles and power. But Nadal as you admit was fit and therefore had power. Watch him play and he doesn;t look like his shots are any worse than against the 6 matches he lost v Djokovic. The difference is that Federer was much more agressive than Djoko, most of the time, and therefore made Nadal look worse than he actually was. Just watch Federer v Djoko last year at the same tournament, and Djoko did not look any better. THat's what Federer does to anybody when in the zone. He used to find this zone against anybody bar Nadal in 2006. Nowadays he can even find it v Nadal. Simply because his timing has improved! Even on clay in Rome and FO, the matches were much closer than people think. It's the way he managed to get that BP and SP that certainly relaxed him and allowed hiim to reach higher level in that match.

I thin the first set of this year's AO SF shows a very clear balance of "power" between Novak and Federer.

noleisthebest wrote:I thin the first set of this year's AO SF shows a very clear balance of "power" between Novak and Federer.

I'll differ there NITB. The problem with teh AO is that Fed could not generate power like in the FO or even in the USO. He got stuck with a BH which could not hurt Djoko. That's the problem with the AO. The balls are as crap as at Wimbledon yet the court is slower than at Wimbledon....especially on cooler conds. It made Federer work much harder than it should.

That's also why Nadal beat him there...despite Federer playing pretty well there in 2009 ....for 4 sets at least.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I thin the first set of this year's AO SF shows a very clear balance of "power" between Novak and Federer.

I'll differ there NITB. The problem with teh AO is that Fed could not generate power like in the FO or even in the USO. He got stuck with a BH which could not hurt Djoko. That's the problem with the AO. The balls are as crap as at Wimbledon yet the court is slower than at Wimbledon....especially on cooler conds. It made Federer work much harder than it should.

That's also why Nadal beat him there...despite Federer playing pretty well there in 2009 ....for 4 sets at least.

If Federer can't generate power against Nole, he can't do it against anybody else, with the advantage of those shoulders, no excuse for him.

It's not the shoulders, it's the timing. Gasquet has no shoulders yet his shots have pace.

But Federer is good at generating pace effortlessly...except that he can't do that on dead conds that is the AO at night (or not). That allowed Djoko to engage in a DBH to SBH battle and do a Nadal...that is wait patiently for the shank.

Tenez wrote:It's not the shoulders, it's the timing.

Yep, Davy also has no shoulders but plays as pacey as it gets. What a difference a step (or 2) forward can make. A ball on the rise is much easier to return with interest than a diving ball. Every football player can tell you the sensation of a well executed dropkick, which is basically the same thing.

Federer is (bar the matches against Tsonga in London and Monaco in Paris) doing some marvelous early hitting this indoor season. He's so close to the baseline.
NitB, just look at this rally at 6:02. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX3OSwDAotk
(There are better examples but i don't have the time to lookup.)
Nadal is not hitting short (what many claimed), he's doing OK, but Federer's timing was plain perfect yesterday. it's like he's hitting BH half volleys. That's the reason his BH is pacier than Nadal's FH here, not a muscle thing.

gallery play wrote:

Tenez wrote:It's not the shoulders, it's the timing.

Yep, Davy also has no shoulders but plays as pacey as it gets. What a difference a step (or 2) forward can make. A ball on the rise is much return with interest than a diving ball. Every football player can tell you the sensation of a well executed dropkick, which is basically the same thing.

Federer is (bar the matches against Tsonga in London and Monaco in Paris) doing some marvelous early hitting this indoor season. He's so close to the baseline.
NitB, just look at this rally at 6:02. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX3OSwDAotk
(There are better examples but i don't have the time to lookup.)
Nadal is not hitting short (what many claimed), he's doing OK, but Federer's timing was plain perfect yesterday. it's like he's hitting BH half volleys. That's the reason his BH is pacier than Nadal's FH here, not a muscle thing.

Yes GP. This is teh 3rd BP I refer to in my other thread. Same as the first one in a way.

And I totally agree that Nadal doesn;t play short last night as he usually does. He puts a great effort in puting power and length. But maybe that helped Federer too.

I know players with small(er) shoulders can generate pace...but how long do the last. Federer 's got FREE power with those shoulders and with his coordination he has no excuse.
When competition was weaker, nobody was noticing conditions, now they are an issue.

Power and length? Sorry but Federer has much more time on his shots than he usually does against Nadal. It's not that every ball from the Spaniard is mid-court but there is a lack of penetration to his shots that means that Federer is in a relative comfort zone through much of the match. Much like in his match against Fish, Rafa is mostly just patting the ball back - in fact he is playing much like the parody of his style that Tenez insists is the real thing. Hence perhaps the confusion.

Just compare these clips posted above with, for example, some from the Aus. Open final 2009. There, Federer is on the back foot, not simply behind the baseline but having to find fantastic winners while on the move rather than with the moment to steady himself and launch as happened regularly last night.

Something which perhaps supports Tenez's theories....

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/11/47/London-Finals-Saturday-Federer-Still-Improving.aspx

Don't know if I agree with what Federer says about Nadal - ie how he's no longer troubled by hitting hard to his forehand. It seems like he's troubled by that more than ever at the moment.

I think hitting hard to the forehand is becoming a more and more effective tactic against Nadal.

bogbrush wrote:I think hitting hard to the forehand is becoming a more and more effective tactic against Nadal.

Exactly and nadal is getting clue less and it is irritating him a lot, thats one of the reason he wants rest badly.

I was very impressed by Federer's game today. Extremely impressed. Tsonga was hitting the ball very hard.

Tenez wrote: I was very impressed by Federer's game today. Extremely impressed. Tsonga was hitting the ball very hard.

Very happy for you Tenez

The best part for me was getting the break at 4-3 in the third set.

Tenez wrote: I was very impressed by Federer's game today. Extremely impressed. Tsonga was hitting the ball very hard.

Look forward to hearing all your impressions when you have time/energy Tenez - it is a different dimension live and there are somethings television does not accurately catch.

Really happy for you that you were there.

I know. What is impressive here is to see a guy who was roughly my size and frame when I was his age but move and do things even my imagination coudl not. The TV flatens it quite a bit (rightfully though cause the players have roughly the same view as the TV camera), yet TV doesn't show the power fo shots as well as live, nor the mouvement as it seems easier on screens.

We have now players who hit 10 times harder and run much faster than Borg and McEnroe but we are used to it and don't resalise what effort it is. It's the slight extra pace and mouvement so difficult to notice with the naked eye but so much more physical for the players. It's brutal.

Tenez wrote:I know. What is impressive here is to see a guy who was roughly my size and frame when I was his age but move and do things even my imagination coudl not. The TV flatens it quite a bit (rightfully though cause the players have roughly the same view as the TV camera), yet TV doesn't show the power fo shots as well as live, nor the mouvement as it seems easier on screens.

We have now players who hit 10 times harder and run much faster than Borg and McEnroe but we are used to it and don't resalise what effort it is. It's the slight extra pace and mouvement so difficult to notice with the naked eye but so much more physical for the players. It's brutal.

I can appreciate everything you are saying. The players look so much more human in flesh and their movement and presence is a lot more real: you can hear the shots a lot better, I won't even start on the movement, it's out of this world.
I suppose having seen all top 3 players live, I would really love to see Novak against Federer, to me when they are on and fresh they go to the level noone else has been before.
Their particular styles/tennis don't unfortunately match and enhance one another but the actual "battle" element is special as the two have quite the "chemistry" between them.

Their particular styles/tennis don't unfortunately match and enhance one another

I don't know...two of the best matches of the year involved these two!

Court dimensions for singles (L x W) = 78 ft long x 27 ft wide.

Longest distance (diagonal) ~ 83 feet ~ 0.0155 miles

At 120 mph serve takes ~ 0.466 seconds.

A 90 mph winner takes ~ 0.62 seconds.

Return in 0.92 seconds, 1.24 seconds at the most for a round-trip along the longest side, which is not always the case.

Some amazing hand-eye coordination is required to execute a shot, and even more amazing movement to get to where the ball is in the first place.

The player who awaits for the ball to come back has a maximum of 0.62 seconds to make a decision where they need to be.

This applies to players in 1980s as well as 2010s. Tanner and Phillippousis could serve at such speeds earlier than 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_recorded_tennis_serves

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=vBctFQT1Dxg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK-M2rSZ9zc&feature=related

Next year will be the dominant year for Fed, and these theories will be made true if that happens, I wont be surprised if Fed caps the golden year with 2/3 slams and olympic with WTF and year end no.1.

Fed fans time to rejoice, I saw Fed play without any fear against Rafa, which if he does again next year, there would be no stopping of him, Fed defeats himself most times, and if he doesnt believe in losing again its gonna be hard road head for the rest of the pack.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/11/is_roger_federer_playing_bette.html

Overend nicking your thesis, Tenez?

I was watching a replay of Federer vs Philippoussis in 2003 (for some reason, probably procrastination!)...I think there can be no doubt that he was faster then than he is now; that to me is pretty obvious from this clip, which maybe suggests that he had slowed down even by 2006, when the difference is less obvious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEysBocPWOE

The rally at 1:32 is a good example of this; there's no way I could imagine Roger nowadays getting to that ball in time to attempt the cross-court passing shot (even though Federer missed it then by about an inch). He would most likely have tossed up a defensive lob, if he could have reached it at all.

invisiblecoolers wrote:Next year will be the dominant year for Fed, and these theories will be made true if that happens, I wont be surprised if Fed caps the golden year with 2/3 slams and olympic with WTF and year end no.1.

Fed fans time to rejoice, I saw Fed play without any fear against Rafa, which if he does again next year, there would be no stopping of him, Fed defeats himself most times, and if he doesnt believe in losing again its gonna be hard road head for the rest of the pack.

That would be absolutely delicious - I don't see it though. Couldn't you have said something similar after the 2010 TMF?

Thanks Reckoner. I can see the list of people thinking alike growing. I am surprised, bar Wilander, not many people noticed it just by watching him. Sure the results are much more erratic, but what prompted me to write this article in teh first place was simply watching his today's game. SFP who has been watching tennis for decades can certainly certify how the game keeps moving and it would have been very difficult for Federer to have been consistent in 2006 with today's physical game.

Chazfazzer wrote:I was watching a replay of Federer vs Philippoussis in 2003 (for some reason, probably procrastination!)...I think there can be no doubt that he was faster then than he is now; that to me is pretty obvious from this clip, which maybe suggests that he had slowed down even by 2006, when the difference is less obvious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEysBocPWOE

The rally at 1:32 is a good example of this; there's no way I could imagine Roger nowadays getting to that ball in time to attempt the cross-court passing shot (even though Federer missed it then by about an inch). He would most likely have tossed up a defensive lob, if he could have reached it at all.

It woudl be very hard to say actually. It's actually rare to see sprinters reaching max speed at 22, which was Feds age then. As many 100m athletes achieved max speed at 29 and plus, it woudl be difficult to think that Fed slowed down from there and if he did could you actually see it with the naked eye?

Not sure. I don;t want to say that's not true, just that I can pick up rallies this year where he was as quick...or seemed to be. But anyway, court pace, though is an important factor, it's only one factor making Federer better.

That would be absolutely delicious - I don't see it though. Couldn't you have said something similar after the 2010 TMF?

it would help if Nadal was to be eliminated before the semi finals (if they end up being drawn on the same side) afterall Novak has yet to beat Roger in a finals, a good situation for the Swiss to be in. If not for the letdown at Wimbledon and losing on match points in USO we could be talking about the man being in the last 3 GS finals. Sadly if Nadal is to reach the final with Fed then Nadal will find his way to win playing 10 times better than their last encounter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/11/is_roger_federer_playing_bette.html

Thanks CAS. Reckoner posted the link a couple of paragraphs up.

sorry, I saw the story and instantly thought of this thread. I personally think it is a mixture, I think his best days are actually better than his best days during 2004-07 but I think he has a lot more off days. The match against Tsonga at Wimbledon. I thought Tsonga was unreal that day but what I noticed was Federer's return, he was so good at blocking big servers, he had Roddick at his 155mph best.

I have seen him hit some pityful returns at times, that I just never saw back then. I am talking second serves that sit up nicely that he slices straight into the net. He can destroy opponets better than he used to, the match against Monaco at the US Open, Nadal last week and the match against Djokovic at the French, he never played better than that. However, it was shocking off days like Djokovic in Dubai, Miami against Nadal that stick out as well. His shot making has not decreased, his serve is actually better, the 2009 Wimbledon final he was outrageous. 50 Aces.

His best days are better, his average days are not.

noleisthebest wrote:I think his opposition was worse which made him look better. Nothing stopping him playing the same now, except that Nole, Murray and Nadal are no Hewitt, Baghdatis and Ljubicic.

Thats prett rude on Hewitt, he is the samy guy who demolished Sampras in a Grandslam Final, to say Murray is better than him is an absolute joke, Hewitt at his prime as good as Rafa if not better.

Today's Federer would still struggle againt Prime hewitt of 2000's in 5 setters.

While some of Fed's ground strokes have improved, his stamina level is a huge question mark these days, which wasn't when he was at his prime, Federer's offensive game has improved considerably but his defensive game has fallen behind, these days he is vulnerable to big hitters, this wasn't the case for Prime Fed.

CAS wrote:...I think his best days are actually better than his best days during 2004-07 but I think he has a lot more off days.

That's how I saw it at first, but imo, the difference is that in 2006 his good days were good enough to get through, plus we were still in awe of his tennis. Losing a set to 2006 Troicki, getting to 2 sets TB versus number 475, MP v Rochus, losing a set v 19yo Djoko etc....ended in wins and were therefore would go unoticed. All those matches woudl most likely have been losses v a more physical tennis we see today.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

Today's Federer would still struggle againt Prime hewitt of 2000's in 5 setters.

Hewitt went through injuries so he is a bit of a special case, but then again, the best I have seen him play did not come in 2002 when he was winning a lot, but more like 2004-2007. He certainly was much more erratic cause of his injuries but when healthy he was very dangerous.

While some of Fed's ground strokes have improved, his stamina level is a huge question mark these days, which wasn't when he was at his prime, Federer's offensive game has improved considerably but his defensive game has fallen behind, these days he is vulnerable to big hitters, this wasn't the case for Prime Fed.

Same think I was saying in the previous post. In 2006 his stamina was only challenged by Nadal. No-one else had the shots and stamina to drag him into long rallies. Nowadays, many can still make him run more than he would then, affecting his stamina round after round.

The big buzz word in tennis is "physique" nowadays. It was so in Borg's time, but now, you never hear an athlete talk about anything else than that. In 2006 he could play 90 matches fine cause the matches took much less from him.

Tenez wrote:The idea that because you are 30 yuo are old is wrong. At 30 you don;t recover as well from the previous match that's for sure but if he is fresh, there is very little you could see between a 27yo and 30. Didn't linford Christie beat his 100m record at 32? Didn't Ljubo win his first TMS at 31? Hasn't stepanek reached his highest ranking at 31 or 32? What about Agasi winning his biggest share of slams after 30?

I certainly can see that Federer is more fragile in terms of recovery but that is also because the matches are more violent now than then.

Just open your eyes, and see how dismisses his 2003-07 opponents with more ease now than then. He loses more often now cause he doesn't want to spend too much energy outside slams, but in slams he is still pretty good.

If you're going to make it a comparison between a fully rested and fit Federer 2011 and 2006 then you've changed the debate, in my eyes.

One of the main reasons he's nowhere near the player, week in week out, that he was is that his fitness has declined. That's crucial, and it's the main reason he gets beaten by the top 2.

That's why I say he's declined. If you're taking physical condition out of it then of course he'll be better.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I think his opposition was worse which made him look better. Nothing stopping him playing the same now, except that Nole, Murray and Nadal are no Hewitt, Baghdatis and Ljubicic.

Thats prett rude on Hewitt, he is the samy guy who demolished Sampras in a Grandslam Final, to say Murray is better than him is an absolute joke, Hewitt at his prime as good as Rafa if not better.

Today's Federer would still struggle againt Prime hewitt of 2000's in 5 setters.

While some of Fed's ground strokes have improved, his stamina level is a huge question mark these days, which wasn't when he was at his prime, Federer's offensive game has improved considerably but his defensive game has fallen behind, these days he is vulnerable to big hitters, this wasn't the case for Prime Fed.

Prime Hewitt completely owns Murray. No question.

Still not clear what better means. I say Fed of 2006 would beat Fed of 2011 but with worse tennis. So I won't be voting this time because the poll simplifies what is a difficult question - hence the size of this thread. ( Tenez)

Thanks Jarvik - I am pretty pleased with the number of people whose views have changed somehow. In most debates, we tend to hold our ground without giving a iota to the other side. Here it seems we were quite happy to consider a different view.

Obviously Federer winning a clean sweep at the end of the season helped my case. But I did start this thread on Sept 24th well before Basle. And to me had he lost in Paris or WTF, he woudl still be playing better now than then because this is what I see and what prompted me to start this discussion in the first place...and not the 3 or 4 points swinging one way or another, deciding the outcome of a match, which are essentially a lot down to form of the day or even luck sometimes (especially when facing Tsonga). He was pretty close to lose that FO 11 semi...yet woudl that make him a worse player than when he won everything? Likewise, he was pretty close to win Nadal on clay on 2 occasions but failed and that's what we remember, unfortuantely, not the one or 2 points which coudl have changed the outcome. That's what we need to keep in mind.

Tenez, you're the guy constantly moaning at people for citing specific bad performances and now you're citing the 2011 indoor season (where he played one match against a fellow top 4 player)?

Come on, that's not consistent.

Can you also clarify whether, as it appears to me, you are excluding physical recovery and propensity to wilt from your analysis.

I am actually saying the opposite BB. yes we can't take a bad performance to make up our minds and I say we shoudl not take the clean sweep either. I am just saying it has probably helped some posters to reconsider, not me.

So I am very consistent. Having said that, there is a difference between having a bad match there and then and winning 3 tournaments in a row, surely!

you are excluding physical recovery and propensity to wilt from your analysis

We cannot consider those in the same light as 2006 without considering the huge physical demand of tennis 2011. They are linked. Look what it does to Djoko and Nadal nowadays. And I am sure they are using much better recovery products than Fed could use in 2006!

Which is the part of Federer getting old and which is the one asking him to play an average of 3 more rallies per point? If in 2006 he could shake his opponent off with a serve and a single FH but in 2011 he needs 2 more rallies, that makes every single match close to twice as exhausting (I am exaggerating a bit there...but just to get the idea). And this is essentially why he will never be as consistent in achieving results as 2006. Those days are gone, regardless of how much better he plays.

So you believe that 24/25 year old Federer would wilt as we often see 2011 version? For instance, as he declared after Sundays match that he was exhausted?

bogbrush wrote:So you believe that 24/25 year old Federer would wilt as we often see 2011 version? For instance, as he declared after Sundays match that he was exhausted?

Of course. He wilted in Dubai 2006 v Rafa, despite winning the first set and Nadal being half as strong as now...and that was on fast court. Slow the conds down in 2006, make him run twice as much on every round and he will tire like everybody does today. And mentally that has a huge impact! Knowing you can't afford to lose a set adds immense pressure. Back then, only Nadal could challenge him physically...now the players can make him play more than they coudl then (fitter and slower surface). Today the game has a different dyamic. he is no longer playing Roddick or Blake on a shoot out. He would be too happy to.

In 2006, Federer was the player retrieving amazing balls and able to pull some unretrievable ones. Now many do retrieve his shots and engage him in rallies.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:So you believe that 24/25 year old Federer would wilt as we often see 2011 version? For instance, as he declared after Sundays match that he was exhausted?

Of course. He wilted in Dubai 2006 v Rafa, despite winning the first set and Nadal being half as strong as now...and that was on fast court. Slow the conds down in 2006, make him run twice as much on every round and he will tire like everybody does today. And mentally that has a huge impact! Knowing you can't afford to lose a set adds immense pressure. Back then, only Nadal could challenge him physically...now the players can make him play more than they coudl then (fitter and slower surface). Today the game has a different dyamic. he is no longer playing Roddick or Blake on a shoot out. He would be too happy to.

I thought at the time that it was interesting that he had admitted to exhaustion on Sunday - obviously we have seen him being taken to the physical wire over the last few years but people often assume he doesn't feel it because he doesn't show it.

I think it was a heartfelt comment, an expression of appreciation for the fight that his opponent had given him in front of the audience, but also, in a Fed like way, he was making a point; just as he had a little dig (completely justified imo) earlier in the week about how he had played through aches and pains sometimes, I think he was also just pointing out that exhaustion is what all players feel after intensive fights and winning the battles. In other words, guys get on with it and manage your schedule and your body better!

I think his stamina has probably improved, but as pointed out in this thread, he is not allowed to play the same tennis as he did in his earlier years because of different opposition and slowing court conditions. You have almost convinced me Tenez, and I do think he has improved in the way that he has adapted to different games and how he is keeping pace with the younger generation - he has probably lost some of the 'nerve' in his tennis at clutch moments, and I think that does come with age in all sports people.

Congrats on a very interesting thread.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that Federer has not been the same player since 2008 and I haven't seen much in the way of results or play to change that view.

The main differences in my opinion are his speed around the court and (perhaps to a lesser degree) his anticipation of the ball. Sure he's improved certain aspects of his game - and it is in his interest to advertise this - but he does not have that almost supernatural anticipation anymore.

At his peak Federer would take pleasure in beating his opponent at their own game - how often do you see that these days?

Interesting discussion for sure.

I think tracking how some of Federer's core traits/attributes are changing over time is very difficult because on one hand we may think or assume he's slowing down but on the other it can also be that he's learnt not to need to run around the same as players do in their youthful zest and vigour to chase every ball and run around as much. An analogy to this is a game I used to play in leagues - Squash - as you get better at Squash you actually run around like, you judge your movements better and control the mid-court better. Ok, tennis isnt the same game but nonetheless there is no reason why players cannot continue to become more tactically astute with time and understand they simply dont need to be quite as explosive or move as much all the time. I think this applies to Federer quite well, He is a much more measured player in every respect and has honed his art to a fine degree. I believe the 2008/9 years were a transition period from the way he used to play to the more measured approach we have seen the past 2 seasons. And ok he hasnt come away with a plethora of trophies, but he's been knocking very closely on the doors - if it hadnt been for 2 younger players having their peak years in 2010 and 2011 who knows what he may have achieved? I also think Nadal is starting to go through this transition period, i.e. questioning the need to chase everything down and adapt his game accordingly. He's always been a good learner so I'm sure we'll see a more refined approach emerge over time - I also believe he's questioning whether Uncle T is the man to help him through this transition period because in some respects the questions to transition lie in Nadal's mind (not Toni's - this is a new phase in Nadal's career coming up and we are seeing Nadal challenge Toni more in public), but the answers need expert help to apply. Just like Federer knew where the gaps were but got the help he knew he needed to implement them with Annacone (this is what Annacone is excellent at doing - as did with Sampras and Henman).

I think we sometimes write-off "advanced" age too much in tennis...in most walks of life you can maintain and improve physical performance and conditioning late into your 30s. Look at Lance Armstrong...still in the top 5 for Tour de France after a break in his late 30s. Look at sprinters who peak in their 30s, and that needs explosive power and speed, look at how more and more players are doing well into their late 20s/early 30s as sport science evolves and helps people maintain their physical attributes better. Indeed their conditioning is getting so good later on in their career that the youngsters simply cant break through anymore, they need to physically develop more. Tennis is now a truly allround sport in terms of matching talent to stamina (and we can argue the balance but its not about McEnroe winning slams off little practice/work-outs anymore). Therefore, I think we need to start re-evaluating what people can achieve in tennis later on - and not be so surpirsed that Federer is doing as well as he is...look at Fish, Ferrer, Melzer, Stepanek and lots of others not only doing as well as they hit 30 and beyond as before but even better in many cases...this is not coincidence. In general I think players will start to struggle more beyond say 32 (as much due to mental fatigue as anything else) but look at what Agassi did with careful physical diligence. However...the route to longevity is to also stay injury free and manage "sporting health". If you pay the price early on, you'll likely pay it later too.

So hats off to Federer for showing the other guys what can be done in late careers, he'll inspire the generation below to keep playing and improve their games with the understanding with careful strategic consideration you can adapt and improve your game - mentally and physically.