Roger Federer: Now And Then. Who Would Win?

As it is widely agreed that Roger Federer is now past his best I was wondering what level/standard that puts him at. Would the post peak Roger Federer with experience and guile but lacking prime physical condition be able to beat a pre-peak Roger Federer circa early 2000's when he was physically fresh but less battle hardened and experienced?

OP assumes that the current post-peak GranPa is not physically fit. I think that assumption is incorrect. The current Federer would lose to the prime Federer in the fifth set at 6-2 or 6-1 in a slam, IMO.

Bo3 is a different kettle of fish, as was shown by yesterday's Federer v Berdych match. Even Blake beat him at Olympics in 2008.

No I said he was lacking prime physical fitness which players tend to have at their peak. That is not saying he isn't physically fit.

Federer of today would probably beat the Federer of 2001-2002.

Both lack the physical fitness of their prime but today's Federer has a decade's worth of top-level experience to call upon. I would also suggest the current Federer has the better serve.

Current Federer also has a more sensible haircut.

HM Murdoch wrote:
Current Federer also has a more sensible haircut.

The clincher.

The Federer model of 2001-2002 played more of a serve-volley game rather than a baseline dominated game, so I guess it will depend on the playing surface as to who would win.

It may have less to do with tennis than some think. Federer today has a wife, twin daughters, a few pennies in the bank, 17 slam trophies and will go down in history as on of the true all time greats. Federer of yesterday had a bit less than that.

Hawkeye - Are you implying that Federer has less hunger than he used to?

I don't see it that way. I think he's just as hungry as ever. He doesn't need to keep playing with all he's achieved, but such is the competitor within him he chooses to.

As for who would win, I think Federer of today would beat pre-slam champion Federer. The serve and backhand are better now, plus he has a drop shot know which he didn't then. And although a young Federer would move better i think the guile and all round game of the older Federer would win through.

The fact is that Berdych played really well and just choked at the end of sets. This puts Roger's loss in some perspective. Berdych was playing at a very high level this tournament. ON the question at issue, Roger 06 would beat federer of today and fed of 2001 would lose to this federer because of lack of consistency and experience of that federer. Roger is not as good as he was in the past, but I think the loss of ability is a bit overstated. He is still very, very good like many other legends have been well into their 30s. Some can do it and others can't, Roger has held together really well and in some regards is a better player.

Early 2000s, never mind physical fitness, he was an inferior player with less shots, and far less consistency, and much weaker mental strength (tantrums) at that time.

Today's Rogerer would beat early 2000s.

In 2000 Roger was year end no 29, in 2001 no 13, in 2002 6 but failed to reach a slam quarter and in 2003 no 2. It's no contest.

This is from an interview with Federer in The Sunday Times today(PPV so no link). The title of the article is "Don't count me out".

Federer says there is no sense of a generation gap when he walks on court to face Djokovic or Murray but he acknowledges that wasn’t always the case. “Maybe it was a bit different when they were teenagers. Then I felt kind of old against them but now it’s more about where are the younger generation. It was certainly a little strange playing David Goffin [the young Belgian ranked 51 in the world] at the French Open last year with him saying I was his hero, with my picture on his bedroom wall. It was awkward but I went through the same thing when I played Sampras on Centre Court. I always looked up to Pete. Today I appreciate I am an idol to some players but it’s important to give them respect when I play them.”

The number of tournaments he will play this year has been cut. No Sony Open in Miami, no clay-court curtain-raiser at Monte Carlo, no hometown event in Basel. Something has to give when Djokovic and Murray are six years younger. “I have to be smart with my scheduling. I am in a different situation. They are right in their prime, between 23 years of age to 28. For me it’s challenging and that’s where I need to make the right decisions. Plus I have the family. None of the other guys have that.” In those six years of his prime, he won no fewer than 14 Grand Slam titles and was a losing finalist in six others.

“It’s also very important for the sport that Rafa [Nadal] gets back to the top level. He brings something else to the table. He doesn’t play the same way all the other players do. With his aura, image and achievements, he is very special. You don’t want the greats like him to retire. I don’t want that because it would take away something very special.

“Rafa has to be smart about his scheduling. Everybody is different but the body and the mind can only take so much. All the people around can give advice but you have to make a decision; that’s sometimes a tricky part for players.”

Ha ha! I like the bit were he talks about being an idol to some players.

And the coded message at the end for Rafa to be his own man and not listen to UncleT et al about scheduling. You can always tell that Federer holds Nadal in very high esteem, sees him as unique.

lydian wrote:You can always tell that Federer holds Nadal in very high esteem, sees him as unique.

Which itself is a mark of greatness, to recognise it in others.

Federer does seem to get more like pseudofed every day.

I wish he's stop going on about being the only one with a family though. He's the only top player with kids, but the other players do have families & the family commitments that brings (for example Djokovic's concerns with his grandfather & father's health last year). It's different being a parent of course, but it can sometimes sound dismissive.

Good post Yvonne we must remember that all of these stars have a lot of responsibilities in regards to family even if they don't have children. The point with Djokovic and his father and grandfather come to mind, these stars with their money and fame are much like patriarchs of their extended families, at least that certainly is the case for djoko and I am sure for the other top guys. B

Where I think the kids come in is in the hunger aspect. Fed has accomplished so much and having two young kids at home maybe makes him a bit less hungry and focused than other players. To me mental fatigue on tour can be just as draining as the physical toll.

As a father of four I know that there's absolutely no connection between having family and having a family.

Everyone has the former and no matter how much you lead it there is nothing to compare with actual offspring. They are a thousand times the commitment and investment.

As for the OP, it's a tough call.

Both obviously get owned by the 2005-7 variant. It's like putting Jon Pertwee or Chris Eccleston up against Tom Baker and expecting anything other than complete battering by the Prime One.

Having a family was at the end of the day one of the chief reasons why Johnny Mac retired... never had enough time to spend with his kids.

Indeed. I remember Johnny Miller the golfer skipped many tournaments so he could spend more time with his family.

Federer has done very well to manage his schedule and still make time for the family. Aside from fitness I am sure time with his family will play a big role in his decision to retire.

lydian wrote:And the coded message at the end for Rafa to be his own man and not listen to UncleT et al about scheduling. You can always tell that Federer holds Nadal in very high esteem, sees him as unique.

well Lyd both have great respect for each other, I remember in mid 2000's Rafa wanted to play several doubles in GS with Fed as his partner, these guys love their tennis, love each other's game and importantly respect each other for the person they are, I guess something that Djoko and Murray are following too [Mutual respect for each other].

Danny_1982 wrote:Hawkeye - Are you implying that Federer has less hunger than he used to?

I don't see it that way. I think he's just as hungry as ever. He doesn't need to keep playing with all he's achieved, but such is the competitor within him he chooses to.

As for who would win, I think Federer of today would beat pre-slam champion Federer. The serve and backhand are better now, plus he has a drop shot know which he didn't then. And although a young Federer would move better i think the guile and all round game of the older Federer would win through.

HE is right, hunger certainly not the same, he was an inferior player in 2000's but the hunger was there, otherwise he could not have won Pete in Wimby 2001, but current Fed is more wise like a wily old Fox, battle of these two [fed of 2001 and Fed of 2013] hmmm interesting it would be 50-50, i.e it will depend on surfaces

on Clay and Slow AO - Fed of 2001
on Wimby - 50-50 both are capable of winning each other [ Anybody who takes down Pete on Wimby can never be discounted]
on USO - Fed of today will win comfortably, he will close it out in st.sets before the Fed of 2001 could wear the old one out.
On 02 - Willy Old Fox to thrive
On Masters - Fed of 2001 would win most of them.

so in my view Fed has lost his hunger but the love for the game still there and he makes it up for the loss of hunger by reducing the scheduling and wins some of them by experience and proper application of mind.

I think the kids part does play in it for sure, it has to realign your priorities and impact your focus on travel and training. Plus lets be honest when you have accomplished beyond what anyone has in the game, have all that money, and all that fame; isn't it natural that maybe you will be distracted and not really care that much when you play bennetau at Rotterdam? I think the mental focus and hunger is as big factor as physical ageing in impacting fed's performance.

bogbrush wrote:As a father of four I know that there's absolutely no connection between having family and having a family.

Everyone has the former and no matter how much you lead it there is nothing to compare with actual offspring. They are a thousand times the commitment and investment.

Of course this is correct. Having children is also a big change of focus. The future is no longer just about you. By having children your investment in the future is now shared/passed to the next generation. That makes for a big change in priorities even for multi slam winning all time greats (or at least it should). Most people who have children recognize this.

bogbrush & hawkeye

I both agree & disagree with you.

In general, yes, the commitment of being as parent is much different from commitment to other family. There are specific instances where they can be actually quite similar e.g. caring for your own parents/siblings etc - not that I'm aware of any players on tour being in that situation.

But I'd also say in the short term, it can be much easier dealing with your kids when their arrangement are in place & secure (e.g. childcare etc) than with upheaval elsewhere in your family (illness, divorce etc). It certainly gets more challenging as the kids hit their teens, but at the age of Fed's kids they really shouldn't be causing any emotional turmoil.

I hope I've explained what I mean.

Also, I do wonder why they didn't put off having the family for a few years, which is a rather personal question (to say the least!) but then he could have had all the time he wanted at home with them.

YvonneT wrote:bogbrush & hawkeye

I both agree & disagree with you.

In general, yes, the commitment of being as parent is much different from commitment to other family. There are specific instances where they can be actually quite similar e.g. caring for your own parents/siblings etc - not that I'm aware of any players on tour being in that situation.

But I'd also say in the short term, it can be much easier dealing with your kids when their arrangement are in place & secure (e.g. childcare etc) than with upheaval elsewhere in your family (illness, divorce etc). It certainly gets more challenging as the kids hit their teens, but at the age of Fed's kids they really shouldn't be causing any emotional turmoil.

I hope I've explained what I mean.

Also, I do wonder why they didn't put off having the family for a few years, which is a rather personal question (to say the least!) but then he could have had all the time he wanted at home with them.

I dont think its a question of causing "emotional turmoil" and whether your children are secure in someone else´s care is not the point either. Its a matter of losing years of their young lives and watching them grow up.
It will be only another year and Federer´s girls will be in school... a governess I hear you cry.. young children love to be with other children in a school environment.

John McEenroe confesses in his autobiography that there were many occasions when he would deliberately get himself disqualified from some future matches in order to go back home to spend time with his children. He never dragged them around the world with him believing they needed a stable home life.
I think there maybe more of a pull on his heart strings instead of his racquet sooner rather than later.

You know better than me HN!

LuvSports! wrote:You know better than me HN!

Deliberately get disqualified? What a Holly Wilaboobie. just don't turn up at the tournament and pay a fine for your no show if it was mandatory.

Kids are a huge change but easier for Roger with the millions.

Why do I think you have missed my drift HB ????

Try reading Mac´s autobiography its an eye opener.

Mac's book is very good, although in his defence he doesn't mention "many occasions when he would deliberately get himself disqualified" iirc

YvonneT wrote:bogbrush & hawkeye

I both agree & disagree with you.

In general, yes, the commitment of being as parent is much different from commitment to other family. There are specific instances where they can be actually quite similar e.g. caring for your own parents/siblings etc - not that I'm aware of any players on tour being in that situation.

But I'd also say in the short term, it can be much easier dealing with your kids when their arrangement are in place & secure (e.g. childcare etc) than with upheaval elsewhere in your family (illness, divorce etc). It certainly gets more challenging as the kids hit their teens, but at the age of Fed's kids they really shouldn't be causing any emotional turmoil.

I hope I've explained what I mean.

Also, I do wonder why they didn't put off having the family for a few years, which is a rather personal question (to say the least!) but then he could have had all the time he wanted at home with them.

Ha ha! Yvonne T. I suddenly had a vision of some poor player having to drag elderly parents or a large brood of hulking teenagers around the world and see to all their needs and make sure they were happy, did what they were supposed to and didn't get upto mischief at the same as winning slams...

It's not that Rogers daughters will be causing emotional turmoil. The opposite I would hope. But they might make the world of tennis sometimes appear trivial in comparison (although I speak as a mother and not a father but I always assume feelings must be similar). Also I can remember Federer saying with a sigh about how the girls didn't like tennis. That in itself must pull him back to the ground a little... It did sort of make me smile though.

Mirka is older than Federer. Biology can't always be put on hold even for multi slam winning all time greats. At least it's less disruptive than if your a female multi slam winning all time great. Federer is very, very lucky to have Mirka. Without her commitment to his tennis career things would be a lot more tricky for him.

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! Yvonne T. I suddenly had a vision of some poor player having to drag elderly parents or a large brood of hulking teenagers around the world and see to all their needs and make sure they were happy, did what they were supposed to and didn't get upto mischief at the same as winning slams...

Hehe, Roger still trying for the gold at the 2024 Olympics, eh?

I can see that kids will come into the decision as to whether he is motivated to carry on competing at all - or whether the hunger required for an elite athlete just isn't there any more.

But if he is motivated to continue then they sort out the schedule and put arrangements in place that suit them & the kids. Plenty people sort these things without the benefits the Federer's have - you know, like armed forces etc. I do understand what HN is saying, but I think that's to do with not having the drive to compete rather than the practicalities of being able to compete.

I didn't know Mirka was older though. She probably feels she's aged even more in the past few years....

JuliusHMarx wrote:Mac's book is very good, although in his defence he doesn't mention "many occasions when he would deliberately get himself disqualified" iirc

What about the time he picked a row with the umpire ??

YvonneT wrote:I can see that kids will come into the decision as to whether he is motivated to carry on competing at all - or whether the hunger required for an elite athlete just isn't there any more.

But if he is motivated to continue then they sort out the schedule and put arrangements in place that suit them & the kids. Plenty people sort these things without the benefits the Federer's have - you know, like armed forces etc. I do understand what HN is saying, but I think that's to do with not having the drive to compete rather than the practicalities of being able to compete.

I didn't know Mirka was older though. She probably feels she's aged even more in the past few years....

It isnt about having advantages financial or otherwise..my career was in education and within the catchment area of a RAF camp I saw childrend come and go but always they made and had friends at whatever school they attended whether it be Uk or abroad. What chance will those little girls have to make friends.. visit and stay with friends..usual kids stuff.. birthday party´s their father may be a multi-millionnaire but he cannot buy the experiences those children will want and need. Keep bringing up the amount of money he has which as many think will solve all his problems is somewhat simplistic. Rio Olympics

But hey what am I talking about THIS IS FEDER!!! what do I know

Haddie-nuff wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Mac's book is very good, although in his defence he doesn't mention "many occasions when he would deliberately get himself disqualified" iirc

What about the time he picked a row with the umpire ??

That's not ''many" though. It's not like he went around doing it a lot, so to say "many" misrepresents him.

Where is Federer, our rather his children, based these days? Basel? Dubai? Do they move around a lot?
To be fair he's taking more and more time off now, after IW he's not back until Madrid on clay, that's a gap of 2 months.
He's only playing 14 tournaments this year...next year it'll be even less. I suspect 2015 will be 0 and then fatherhood really kicks in!

[quote="JuliusHMarx"]

Haddie-nuff wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Mac's book is very good, although in his defence he doesn't mention "many occasions when he would deliberately get himself disqualified" iirc

What about the time he picked a row with the umpire ??

That's not ''many" though. It's not like he went around doing it a lot, so to say "many" misrepresents him.[/qu


Oh Ok JM so you must be right you are a MODERATOR

lydian wrote:Where is Federer, our rather his children, based these days? Basel? Dubai? Do they move around a lot?
To be fair he's taking more and more time off now, after IW he's not back until Madrid on clay, that's a gap of 2 months.
He's only playing 14 tournaments this year...next year it'll be even less. I suspect 2015 will be 0 and then fatherhood really kicks in!

Exactly Lydian those little girls are four years old this year... and I would suggest have a few ideas they want to put to Daddy

Haddie-nuff wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Mac's book is very good, although in his defence he doesn't mention "many occasions when he would deliberately get himself disqualified" iirc

What about the time he picked a row with the umpire ??

That's not ''many" though. It's not like he went around doing it a lot, so to say "many" misrepresents him.

Oh Ok JM so you must be right you are a MODERATOR

Either I'm right or I'm not - being a mod has nothing to do with it. Unless, as a Mod, I should no longer post except when I agree with people?

People underestimate what a complete pain in the @r$e kids are. Honestly, there must be some stunning biological imperatives at work or either that we are programmed to blank out what an apalling burden we were on our parents otherwise nobody in their right mind would do it.

On the other hand, having grandparents is fine. They sort of come with the territory and when they get old they die and it's sort of inevitable and not really tragic at all.

PS I love my kids beyond measure, the trap really is that complete.

And I think you might agree BB that no amount of money can solve some of the worries and concerns they give you .. if it were only that simple .. its an emotional life "sentence"

Haddie-nuff wrote:And I think you might agree BB that no amount of money can solve some of the worries and concerns they give you .. if it were only that simple .. its an emotional life "sentence"

Payback for what one did to one's parents. History repeats itself.

speaking of kids..... i'm now pregnant

LuvSports! wrote:speaking of kids..... i'm now pregnant

Congratulations - did that just happen this morning?

LuvSports! wrote:speaking of kids..... i'm now pregnant

Arnie style?

LuvSports! wrote:speaking of kids..... i'm now pregnant

Congratulations. Wonderful.

LuvSports! wrote:speaking of kids..... i'm now pregnant

You thought you had a life of your own You wont have time to watch tennis

Congratulations anyway

LuvSports! wrote:speaking of kids..... i'm now pregnant

Congratulations!

The biggest surprise to me here is that I thought you were male! No idea why I thought that though.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:speaking of kids..... i'm now pregnant

Congratulations - did that just happen this morning?

I certainly got the impression this was breaking news. Very kind of LS to bring it straight to the forum..