Federer now compared to 2004-2007

We had this discussion on IW thread, then it creeped onto another thread, so I thought I'll make a specific place for the discussion.

I think to start off, we have to look at it in atleast 3 separate categories:

1/ Is his best now better than his best then ?
2/ Is he as consistent now as he was then (when healthy) ?
3/ Is he more likely to get injured more frequently now he's older ?

For me, answers to questions 2&3 are fairly clear cut. Number 1 is closer, but I feel Federer in 2004 and 2007 was marginally ahead.

1. Better in what way? Skill-wise he is about the same.

2. No he isn't as consistent and this isn't health-related but more to do with age.

3. No I would say not .

I think with the 5/6 year age gap its going to be an argument that goes on for the ages as we will never truly know whose level was higher, did Federer drop off because he was pushing 30 or did Novak and Rafa push it to another level? The age gap is right on the edge where an argument can be made for both.

Was Federer lucky he had an 'easy' era or was he unlucky two gods turned up when he still had something to offer but was battling the clock.

An interesting argument could be, if Federer retired after Wimbledon 2012 would he have gone down as a greater player than he is now as he is losing more and more to his rivals?

CAS wrote:An interesting argument could be, if Federer retired after Wimbledon 2012 would he have gone down as a greater player than he is now as he is losing more and more to his rivals?

No way, he's done superbly since then if you compare other people at that age.

CAS wrote:I think with the 5/6 year age gap its going to be an argument that goes on for the ages as we will never truly know whose level was higher, did Federer drop off because he was pushing 30 or did Novak and Rafa push it to another level? The age gap is right on the edge where an argument can be made for both.

Was Federer lucky he had an 'easy' era or was he unlucky two gods turned up when he still had something to offer but was battling the clock.

The emergence of Nadal and then Djokovic as two rivals could impede his slam count, as they are genuinely ATGs, but Federer also started losing more to lower ranked players after 2007, did he not ?

It Must Be Love wrote:

CAS wrote:I think with the 5/6 year age gap its going to be an argument that goes on for the ages as we will never truly know whose level was higher, did Federer drop off because he was pushing 30 or did Novak and Rafa push it to another level? The age gap is right on the edge where an argument can be made for both.

Was Federer lucky he had an 'easy' era or was he unlucky two gods turned up when he still had something to offer but was battling the clock.

The emergence of Nadal and then Djokovic as two rivals could impede his slam count, as they are genuinely ATGs, but Federer also started losing more to lower ranked players after 2007, did he not ?

read what Ive been writing on Socals thread..

No, yes and then no. He's more specialised now but he's not the same all round force he was.

I find it astonishing that this is even a question as he now gets less further in the slams than he used to do so

Or have we forgotten the umpteen consecutive quarter or semi's that he achieved up to whenever it was

As us Murray fans were reminded as our hero quickly notched up six Masters titles - it's the slams that count

He is still playing remarkably well for a 33 year old as let's be honest his current form is probably better than most players best - including Murray

My point is that I think people need to actually remember just how awesome he was in 2004-7, particularly the first half

Can he pull a one off performance that rivals his very best. sure... maybe even 2 or 3 in a row, but there is just no doubt that his body can't recover like before and he becomes less consistent over a long tournament- esp best of 5 matches. That's from age and there is just no way around it. Happens to every single top athlete. The fact that people- even his detractors think he can perform at a prime level at his age is just a testament to how great he is. We've seen the stats of other greats past 30, and what he is doing is fairly unprecedented- esp with the amount of matches in his legs that all those consistent years of success created, but he's still human and tiny drops in muscle twitch, speed, recovery are a factor at the top.

Every great athlete improves in certain things over time- I keep using Jordan and Ali as examples. Jordan was a far superior outside shooter and defensive player as he got older, but he could not dominate one on one matchups like he could in his mid 20's. Ali was far better tacticly, better shape even, better chin, smarter in his mid 30's, but his mid 20's self dominated in a far far greater fashion. People confuse this and like they do with Federer say- "he's better now" but there is just something missing even with all those improvements in certain areas that age creates. They can never dominate like they could before. Everyone also has "their time" too where it all comes together- age, motivation, focus and lack of outside distractions.

1. He was better in early years.
2. He is not as consistent- no one could be with that many matches in those legs.
3. He prob is not at the point where his body will injure more from age in most areas, but he has a chronic bad back, and that can only become worse with time. Back problems always have cumulative wear and tear as a problem. No way to reverse that.

still- the guy is clearly #2 in the world. His matchup with the dominant world #1 and all time great Djokovic is usually a toss up based on conditions. could go either way, and it's amazing he can hang with such a great player at his age. I don't know if he can string together enough matches to win a major as we've all seen his body doesn't recover as quickly, but I think he still is a force and will win some titles that are important to him.

CAS wrote:I think with the 5/6 year age gap its going to be an argument that goes on for the ages as we will never truly know whose level was higher, did Federer drop off because he was pushing 30 or did Novak and Rafa push it to another level? The age gap is right on the edge where an argument can be made for both.

Was Federer lucky he had an 'easy' era or was he unlucky two gods turned up when he still had something to offer but was battling the clock.

They pushed defence and endurance to another level. I don't think they pushed tennis overall to another level but they certainly took it to a different place.

I don't think Federer was unlucky that great players emerged as his own powers began to slowly wane. That's the normal order of things. It's Rafa and Novak that are lucky because they don't seem to have emergent greats hunting them down.

no, no and yes. Like everyone who gets older.

It's a right b@$tard fact that as we get older we get dramatically more knowledgable and wise, but physically nowhere near as able to deliver. That's just life, not worth worrying about. I can see the wiser bit working for Federer but it's a losing battle, like it always has been for every sportsman.

Thank God I'm in a line of work that the bit that gets better is what matters.

Edit: Murdoch, I am STILL laughing at that Laver post. Thanks.

bogbrush wrote:no, no and yes. Like everyone who gets older.

It's a right b@$tard fact that as we get older we get dramatically more knowledgable and wise, but physically nowhere near as able to deliver. That's just life, not worth worrying about. I can see the wiser bit working for Federer but it's a losing battle, like it always has been for every sportsman.

Thank God I'm in a line of work that the bit that gets better is what matters.

Edit: Murdoch, I am STILL laughing at that Laver post. Thanks.

Glad you enjoyed it. I owed you a giggle for that post about Djokovic's acting.

I've highlighted something in your comment that makes me think you've forgotten some of the discussion on here in the last few days...

I'm missing it. That's probably something else that's associated with age......

I think there is an element of fans, players and commentators saying he is as good as ever as a way of trying to explain how he is still beating the World Number 1 and challenging for all the big titles. It is pretty hard to comprehend that at pushing 34 he's still right up there

bogbrush wrote:I'm missing it. That's probably something else that's associated with age......

Your quoting of Lt Ripley would not suggest you'd observed dramatic increases in wisdom!

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I'm missing it. That's probably something else that's associated with age......

Your quoting of Lt Ripley would not suggest you'd observed dramatic increases in wisdom!

i was being tactful.

Fed's last slam was what, W 2012. In 2004-2007 he won, what, all of them? Ah no, he let Rafa have the FO to be nice.

I smell a little bit of overkill now with this discussion, though.

2) If you mean in rallies then possibly he is as or more consistent with his new racquet though he plays safer than he used to. If you mean results then not really where it matters in slams.

3) Other than the back, no; he's learnt how to take care of himself even better than before and his style doesn't lend itself to injuries.

I think 1 is the most interesting. At his "best" he may have lacked a few of the things of today but there was that feeling within a match that he could do anything if needed. The wow factor in his game was gone for a while though I've seen it a bit more this year. I'm not sure whether it's because that factor is not conducive to winning matches in these conditions or if he's just lost it a little. You still get the odd match where it's winner after winner like the old days.

Forget Federer, look at http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2015/03/12/Emirates-ATP-Rankings-Felix-Auger-Aliassime-Feature.aspx.

banbrotam wrote:I find it astonishing that this is even a question as he now gets less further in the slams than he used to do so

Or have we forgotten the umpteen consecutive quarter or semi's that he achieved up to whenever it was

As us Murray fans were reminded as our hero quickly notched up six Masters titles - it's the slams that count

He is still playing remarkably well for a 33 year old as let's be honest his current form is probably better than most players best - including Murray

My point is that I think people need to actually remember just how awesome he was in 2004-7, particularly the first half

This is correct. It's 10 years ago so perhaps memories are failing, but there was a period where his standard was ridiculous. These days he's a very good player - maybe so good that some are deceived that this is a clear step down.
Of course, it's all stoked by a hyperbolic media. Wasn't it only the other day that Petchey announced after a rally that Rafa had just hit the best forehand he'd ever hit? just doesn't do it.

Fed of course was better off game wise in 04-07, and it is quite remarkable that he is still playing this well. Of course we have to take this in the context of what we are seeing across the entire tour of the prime of top tennis players being moved back. Training and sports medicine are such and the money is so huge that we are seeing an entire tour of players playing their best tennis from 27-32.

In some areas for example tactics, backhand return and backhand in general I would give older Federer the edge. But overall old Fed was better.

This discusion was done comprehensively in 2011:
https://www.606v2.com/t14760-was-federer-better-in-2006-poll-added

I'm not sure we're adding much new to the debate, apart from the info on what's happened after 2011 of course.

It was also a beter debate in 2011 because it (2006 vs 2011) was more evenly matched. With all the early slam losses I'm not sure it's evenly matched any more (e.g. 2006 vs 2015).

I ended up reading a lot of that thread HB, its amazing it was a discussion between 2006 and 2011 of 5 years, another 4 years on and its still being discussed. A lot of the same arguments being made.

Henman Bill wrote:I'm not sure we're adding much new to the debate, apart from the info on what's happened after 2011 of course.

Having a debate in 2011 and continuing it to 2015, just shows his longevity. This debate is now standard cannon fodder.

I'm more interested in reading what other people's opinions are on this rather than arguing on one particular side- in the OP I just wrote a brief summary of what my opinion on the topic was.

I also made this thread because the debate was creeping onto multiple threads at once, which is annoying.

Also remember, many people posting on this forum now were not posting in 2011. Posters who have joined since then may have a view on this, and they should be allowed to express their opinion too.

It Must Be Love wrote:I'm more interested in reading what other people's opinions are on this rather than arguing on one particular side- in the OP I just wrote a brief summary of what my opinion on the topic was.

I also made this thread because the debate was creeping onto multiple threads at once, which is annoying.

Also remember, many people posting on this forum now were not posting in 2011. Posters who have joined since then may have a view on this, and they should be allowed to express their opinion too.

If you post on HB's thread, it comes back in the mix and provides much richer context rather than starting over again. It also provides historical context for new posters.

laverfan wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I'm more interested in reading what other people's opinions are on this rather than arguing on one particular side- in the OP I just wrote a brief summary of what my opinion on the topic was.

I also made this thread because the debate was creeping onto multiple threads at once, which is annoying.

Also remember, many people posting on this forum now were not posting in 2011. Posters who have joined since then may have a view on this, and they should be allowed to express their opinion too.

If you post on HB's thread, it comes back in the mix and provides much richer context rather than starting over again. It also provides historical context for new posters.

No one told me about HB's thread, bit unfair of you to ask me to post on a thread from years ago I didn't even know about.

It Must Be Love wrote:the debate was creeping onto multiple threads at once, which is annoying.

I would have never guessed you found that annoying.

summerblues wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:the debate was creeping onto multiple threads at once, which is annoying.

I would have never guessed you found that annoying.

Yeah, well clearly not all your guesses turn out to be true Summerblues.

It's interesting that there's a real consensus view on this topic, a rarity for this forum - that he's still very good, and probably better tactically, but overall not quite the player he was. The physical attributes really do count for a lot.

HB's thread in 2011 is extremely informative, and a better debate since his level was still so high then, but it's good that we can still talk about it considering Federer's hitting 34 this year.

summerblues wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:the debate was creeping onto multiple threads at once, which is annoying.

I would have never guessed you found that annoying.

I think Federer is a more skillful player today than in his best years of results: his serve is much better, his backhand is better overall, he has drop shots, his net game is better and his return of serve is more imposing than it was.

The difference between then and now is the quality of his opponents, who have improved more and more over the years.  Whereas before the gap between him and his closest rivals was very big, today there is no gap with the top players and the others have also made a lot of improvements. After all, Djokovic is in the prime of his career, Nadal is still very strong, Murray has won two majors, made 5 more finals, and even the likes of Berdych, Ferrer, Lopez, Wawrinka are all much better today than during his best years.

I don't think the diminishing results has any impact at all on his legacy - no player in history is judged by the end of their career, because no player plays their best tennis at the end of their career, particularly a career that has spanned 15 years.  Laver played until 1976, and after his grand slam year in 1969 didn't win another major.  McEnroe won 2 majors at age 25 in 1984, made the final at Roland Garros and never won another major after that. In fact he only made one other major final the next year, burned out, and never recovered. Wilander won 3 majors in 1988, and never won another tournament.  Sampras won two majors in 1997, his 10th, and although he won 4 more after that, never didn't reach the heights of his best year.  In fact he lost US Open finals to two first time finalist before he won his last in 2002 - an unimaginable result before then. The only great player who was almost as good in his last full year as before then was Borg, but he burned out and never put up Federer's numbers anyway even in his best years.

And none of those players won 3 majors in the same year 3 times AND 2 majors twice in the same year, none of them won the career slam, none of them were #1 more weeks, and none of them won more titles.  Ultimately Federer will be judged on his best years of from 2004-2009, and by this measure there there is no comparison in the history of the game.  Until someone comes along and wins 18 majors, for me he's still the GOAT.

MMT1, fair post and fair arguments. My point here is not that Roger is not GOAT my big thing that I take issue with is that the players like Djoko, Nadal, and Murray who started to challenge Fed in the big tournaments on the faster surfaces are not given enough credit for the decline in Fed's results. If we are to believe some critics already by 2009 he was passed it, meaning that at the age that Djokovic is in his prime Fed is some old guy and his losses discounted as such. I am glad in your response you at least give credit to his opposition.

CAS wrote:I think there is an element of fans, players and commentators saying he is as good as ever as a way of trying to explain how he is still beating the World Number 1 and challenging for all the big titles. It is pretty hard to comprehend that at pushing 34 he's still right up there

Hmm....... an interesting reflection.

Oddly enough, I was trawling through the archives the other day, and came across a guy named Federer who was apparently ranked World Number 2 way back in 2003. Presumably a different player, or maybe a family member .....

But if it IS one & the the same guy, I can't help wondering if I've missed something in the intervening fifteen years or so .......

Meanwhile, must say this Djokovic chap seems damn good.

socal1976 wrote:If we are to believe some critics already by 2009 he was passed it...

It would be interesting to know who these 'critics' are. . Journalists are perhaps bit too quick on obituaries.

2009 is the same year when Federer held three slams? You do not give any credit to players who go down and come back. Agassi is a prime example of playing challengers and then playing till 35+. Federer has never had such a large gap (unlike Agassi playing challengers), but by Federer's standards, he was #8 in 2014 (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=rh).  

Federer has already been challenged by almost four generations, Safin/Hewitt/Ferrero/Nalbandian, Djokovic/Nadal/Murray, Nishikori/Raonic/Dimitrov, et al.

Djokovic is peaking when there is hardly anyone to challenge him, otherwise he should have won a CYGS in 2011, if the self-same critics are to be believed. Murray is no challenge to Djokovic. Nadal and Federer are fading, albeit at different rates, but they still pose more of a challenge than Nishikori/Raonic/Cilic.

Do you want to consider Wawrinka or Murray as a challenger to Djokovic? Murray has 2 slams (a la Safin), Wawrinka/Cilic has one each ( adds up to number of slams that Hewitt has). Djokovic is a wonderful player, but arguing that competition was better in one year or another, based on results, is very circular, and a disservice to players who do not win 14-slams-in-a-career routinely. And you can see that such an argument makes Djokovic look as the King of Lost Generation v2 (see highlighted part).

I was never much of an aficionado of the counter-puncher Hewitt brand of tennis - but you've done him out of a Slam there laverfan when you say he has just the one ....!!

lags72 wrote:I was never much of an aficionado of the counter-puncher Hewitt brand of tennis - but you've done him out of a Slam there laverfan when you say he has just the one ....!!

My intent was to combine 1 each of Wawrinka/Cilic to be equal to Hewitt's two. . But I will edit my comment to avoid confusion.

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:If we are to believe some critics already by 2009 he was passed it...

It would be interesting to know who these 'critics' are. . Journalists are perhaps bit too quick on obituaries.

2009 is the same year when Federer held three slams? You do not give any credit to players who go down and come back. Agassi is a prime example of playing challengers and then playing till 35+. Federer has never had such a large gap (unlike Agassi playing challengers), but by Federer's standards, he was #8 in 2014 (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=rh).  

Federer has already been challenged by almost four generations, Safin/Hewitt/Ferrero/Nalbandian, Djokovic/Nadal/Murray, Nishikori/Raonic/Dimitrov, et al.

Djokovic is peaking when there is hardly anyone to challenge him, otherwise he should have won a CYGS in 2011, if the self-same critics are to be believed. Murray is no challenge to Djokovic. Nadal and Federer are fading, albeit at different rates, but they still pose more of a challenge than Nishikori/Raonic/Cilic.

Do you want to consider Wawrinka or Murray as a challenger to Djokovic? Murray has 2 slams (a la Safin), Wawrinka/Cilic has one each ( adds up to number of slams that Hewitt has). Djokovic is a wonderful player, but arguing that competition was better in one year or another, based on results, is very circular, and a disservice to players who do not win 14-slams-in-a-career routinely. And you can see that such an argument makes Djokovic look as the King of Lost Generation v2 (see highlighted part).

LF very well said

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:If we are to believe some critics already by 2009 he was passed it...

It would be interesting to know who these 'critics' are. . Journalists are perhaps bit too quick on obituaries.

2009 is the same year when Federer held three slams? You do not give any credit to players who go down and come back. Agassi is a prime example of playing challengers and then playing till 35+. Federer has never had such a large gap (unlike Agassi playing challengers), but by Federer's standards, he was #8 in 2014 (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=rh).  

Federer has already been challenged by almost four generations, Safin/Hewitt/Ferrero/Nalbandian, Djokovic/Nadal/Murray, Nishikori/Raonic/Dimitrov, et al.

Djokovic is peaking when there is hardly anyone to challenge him, otherwise he should have won a CYGS in 2011, if the self-same critics are to be believed. Murray is no challenge to Djokovic. Nadal and Federer are fading, albeit at different rates, but they still pose more of a challenge than Nishikori/Raonic/Cilic.

Do you want to consider Wawrinka or Murray as a challenger to Djokovic? Murray has 2 slams (a la Safin), Wawrinka/Cilic has one each ( adds up to number of slams that Hewitt has). Djokovic is a wonderful player, but arguing that competition was better in one year or another, based on results, is very circular, and a disservice to players who do not win 14-slams-in-a-career routinely. And you can see that such an argument makes Djokovic look as the King of Lost Generation v2 (see highlighted part).

I actually think that this last year has seen because of Murray's form and Nadal trying to get back from injury a weak period of competition. I still would like to take a look at how Nadal performs the rest of the season particularly the clay court season and if Murray can round off. But we may already be in a second weak era. So? That isn't Djokovic's fault and it wasn't Federer's. I give credit to the man, up until Nadal's 14th slam I had him as the clear GOAT. And I marvel at how well he has played for how long. But at the same time that doesn't mean I have to rate his mid 2000s competition as particularly impressive. Again this is not a weak era issue from me or a GOAT conversation. I just think as I stated that Fed's decline in form in the period after 07 and between lets 2010 was more to the competition he received from mainly Nadal at the slams. That is my argument here on this thread. It is not about GOAT or weak era to be honest it is about giving Nadal credit for taking it from Fed while Fed was at or near his peak.

My issue with your point Socal is that in 2010 Federer didn't play Rafa in the slams, so after the Aussie Open I think Federer's decline was clear. Had Rafa not been around Federer still wouldn't have won a slam after the Aussie.

While I agree Rafa was definitely top dog from 08 I do feel Federer was certainly showing signs of decline but not enough to lose to anyone else apart from Rafa over best of 5 in 08/09.

Losses to Fish, Stepanek, Karlovic, Simon, Roddick, Blake were very strange for him that year.

That being said, I do think its very few Federer fans on here who feel Rafa only won 14 slams because Federer dropped off and Novak only broke through because of Federer's decline. Myself included, I feel I have a more neutral look on it having a soft spot for Andy Murray and being frustrated by his lack of credit.

Why does the era have to weak to explain a player's or a group of players' dominance? By this logic, in order for a player to be judged greater historically, he essentially has to lose more (so that his opponents win more and thereby strengthen the era). Doesn't it make more sense to simply conclude that the player is as good as his results?

MMT1 wrote:Why does the era have to weak to explain a player's or a group of players' dominance? By this logic, in order for a player to be judged greater historically, he essentially has to lose more (so that his opponents win more and thereby strengthen the era). Doesn't it make more sense to simply conclude that the player is as good as his results?

It is something that has irked me too, its like had Federer been a lesser player and not been as good on clay he wouldn't have played Rafa in the finals so often thus having a better head2head record against him, which in turn would make him a better player? Which is silly.

Like you say you have to conclude that the player is as good as their results. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will go down as the greatest players we've ever seen, I don't think much else matters.

CAS wrote:Like you say you have to conclude that the player is as good as their results. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will go down as the greatest players we've ever seen, I don't think much else matters.

I bet you will be up for a surprise pretty soon. You will realise how weak Nadal and Djokovic were compared to the next generation coming. Stay tuned!

TheMessi wrote:

CAS wrote:Like you say you have to conclude that the player is as good as their results. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will go down as the greatest players we've ever seen, I don't think much else matters.

I bet you will be up for a surprise pretty soon. You will realise how weak Nadal and Djokovic were compared to the next generation coming. Stay tuned!

Well Nadal is already declining, but has won 14 Grand Slams so he's proven his worth.
Djokovic is on 8, and I feel with the next generation not being that strong, could go on to win quite a few more in the next years.