Review of the Year; a Federer fans perspective

First topic message reminder :

So it's all done and what do I think about 2012? How do I mark it?

Well it has to get 9/10 against a "par" score of 5. I fancied he might recapture the #1, maybe, but I didn't dream he'd have it done by Wimbledon. My idea was that maybe by the US Open he could have got it back; instead he went into that tournament already assured of exiting it as the top player. To get past the 300 weeks mark was even better; there's a reason why cricketers raise their bats at the one extra run that clicks over another set of three figures, and it applies here too.

He also secured his 17th Slam, and 7th Wimbledon. There's no question that this was the one he'd have most wanted - it brought him level with Pete Sampras as the most successful Wimbledon champion ever. The manner of victory would be just as satisfying, taking out his two in-prime challengers in the semi and final. Wonderful stuff.

Anyway, how did the year pan out?

He started with a depressingly familiar loss to Nadal at the Australian. While not what he'd wanted, the AO is a far cry from the fast surface it was until 2007 and nobody was too shocked at that. At least no ranking points were lost.

The first sign of things to come came at Rotterdam where he was slipping to defeat against Davydenko until pulling out the first good turnaround of the season; something that became a feature of the year. In Dubai he got the better of Andy Murray in the final and then headed to Indian Wells to make a hat-trick of tournament wins. There we got a real look at his level when he defeated Nadal en route to the win. An early loss to Roddick in Miami (Andy thereby securing bragging rights as the winner of their final professional match!) wasn't so smart, and then he skipped Monte Carlo in favour of an abbreviated clay campaign. This was hugely successful as his superior adaptability allowed him to win on the slippy blue clay of Madrid, followed by semi appearances in Rome and Roland Garros.

Onto grass where he experienced his only defeat against a 30+ year old player in a zillion years, to Tommy Haas in Halle. The sound clay effort, combined with Djokovic losing three times to Nadal on clay in a big turnaround from their 2011 form meant that he could get the #1 position by winning Wimbledon, so long as Djokovic fell before the final. The draw made these two birds hittable by one stone, by putting them in the same half. The omens weren't good as Federer was striken with back problems in barely scraping past Benneteau from two sets down, then literally limped past Malisse in the next round. However he recovered with a beat-down on perrenial punching bag Youzhny before a semi-final appointment with Djokovic, who had looked dominant through the event until then. Their semi-final simmered for two sets but then Federer was able to sprint awat from 4-4 in the 3rd set. The final followed and the records were set to tumble.

The Olympics may, in retrospect, have been a bridge too far; certainly the Del Potro semi-final can't have helped, but Murray gave him a bit of a pasting in the final, and he pulled out of Toronto (which was more or less a walkover for Djokovic sans top 4 rivals) missing out on another chance to extend his lead at the top of the rankings.

Cincinnatti saw a return to resurgence and he set a remarkable new record; the first Masters Trophy won without dropping serve throughout the tournament (and not many break points either), including a bagel set over Djokovic in the final. In hindsight this was the last high point of the season as a disappointing US Open was ended in the quarters by Berdych, followed by poor showings in Shanghai and Basel. He pulled out of Paris to muster resources for a 7th year-end event but came up short by the narrowest of margins.

So he ends the year with not much left to go for in terms of records; an 8th Wimbledon is probably the only realistic mark left. He does end the year looking a bit knackered, but that's understandable after the big push for #1; 2013 should see a less extravagent schedule, including no Olympics to mess things up, and a few key events skipped.

2012 was a great year for the 31 year old, coming back after Djokovic's dominant 2011 to head the rankings for a while and get a share of the Slam pie plus three more masters events. It could have been even better, but not by much. I think 2013 could still be worth turning up for.

I'm not sure stats ever tell the whole story.

Perhaps stamina isn't the correct term, as opposed to niggles that take longer the recover from as you get older - which he gave as the reason for withdrawing from Paris. That said, he certainly seem well out of sorts in the Olympic final after his exertions in the marathon semi.

He also lost to Roddick and Haas - one could say they played a blinder or that Fed lacked his peak consistency.

I think Fed hides his niggles and tiredness as well as anyone - the supreme poker face - but for the last couple of months he looked pretty knackered to me, regardless of results. I think he's realised he played too many matches this year. He (as with Djoko and Nadal) only needs to be at 75% to get to semis/finals. (Look at Rafa - misses 6 months and still in top 4)

Interestingly Fed said that next year he needs more time to practice, as he hardly had time this year. Are we to believe he got to No 1. without sufficient practice?

Across the course of a year stats are pretty good...after all ranking is about "stats"...and they tell the picture across the year too...that Federer got back to number 1 and finished as number 2.

Wouldnt any player arguably be out of sorts after that 4hr marathon at OG semi's having to shortly return for the final? Yes he is older...but he's as fit as a fiddle stamina-wise.

All players get niggles as well...and Federer withdrew from Paris because he was going to have played 3 weeks in a row inc. WTF. That was never going to work for any player in the top 4 serious about winning WTF.

I'm sure Federer also had losses during 2004-7 against players you wouldnt expect...they all do.

I agree he looked tired...he's had a heavy schedule. But then Nadal and Djokovic looked knackered late 2011 as well - none of them are impervious to it when you're playing heavy schedules with lots of events close to each other and going deep each time (which speaks to his consistency).

All in all...whichever way its sliced and diced he's been cutting it against the prime other Top 3 this year achieving results he'd have been pretty pleased with a few years back....1 slam, OG final, 3 Masters, 86% W:L in 83 matches...etc, etc.

So again, given all the things you and others say - how is he still cutting it against a better, in-prime other Top 3 to achieve #1, etc?
Are they simply worse than the guys he was playing 04-07, or has he found a way to improve his game to take them on. Its a simple question...

The way I see it lydian is as follows;

Where is he against 2007?

* Down on speed, reflexes, recovery. These make him much more vulnerable to big hitters and being moved about.
* Up on serve, experience. These help him through tight matches more (he didn't really used to have more than one or two a year!

How did he make #1 in 2012 at a lower level?

* his run to #1 was aided by Djokovic & Nadal hitting points off each other, especially Nadal beating Djokovic on clay so Nole got hardly any more points than Federer on clay. No Nadal probably = no Federer at #1. In fact the big boys split the pie quite evenly at the Slams.

* he capitalised on the last season great indoors run, then pushed himself hard by playing the events to get the requisite points despite not doing as well at the Slams as his rivals.

What does decline say about his 2007 level?

* It says he was the greatest player to hold a racquet. That's pretty much how it is, unless we're going to start up that Murray is the equal of the player who dominated the World of tennis.

* what's more likely? That he's improving towards 32 or he was just pretty stratospherically good so that even now he can hold his own? If you think the former then we can forget him as the greatest player, he's not even all that special in this decade. We can also say goodbye to all experience that sportsmen tend to peak in their mid twenties. I think the idea that he was just crazily good is reasonable, given all titles and comparable experience of other players.

lydian wrote:He's not as consistent as before?
Let's look at that further. His results for 2012 are:

+ Won 3 Masters - better than any stage since 2006
+ Won 1 slam, reacehd 2 SFs, 1 QF - better than 2010 and 2011
+ Won 86% of matches...only bettered in 2004-7 (2007 = 88%)
+ Played 83 matches...his highest level other than 2003. 2005, 2006
+ Won 6 titles...last time he did that was 2007.

So, where is this lack of consistency you speak given the 86% W:L???
Where is this lack of stamina??? He beat Del Potro in the longest ever 3 set match at Wimbledon at OG.
Where is the lack of recovery given he played 83 matches?

Sorry, I just dont buy that Federer's ability to compete and last the course has fallen off some kind of cliff when he's returning the kind of numbers shown above for 2012. The only counter argument for those stating he's declined is that he's playing in a much weaker era to enable him to return those sort of 2012 stats. So again, which is it?

1. Has he become a better player to cut it against prime Djokovic et al. to return these numbers?
or
2. Are the 2010-12 prime players worse than the prime guys he was beating 2004-7 given "he's declined"?

My take is that he's not the SAME player as 2004-7 - yes, he's not as explosive but surfaces are slower now so that doesnt count as much. IMO to return these 2012 stats he must have improved a number of areas given the field, again IMO, is stronger than 2004-7 when Nadal, Djokovic and Murray werent in their prime.

To start off, in response to your two questions, it doesn't have to be one or the other. They are not mutually exclusive; as with most things there is a grey area in between (as I'm in doubt you'll argue after you read my second point)

1) Who said that Federer's level has fallen off a cliff? Surely you're not creating a strawman? I've actually stated that Federer is still a very good player (obviously) but he has lost a few percent overall in his game, which is normal and expected given his age, and that few percentage loss is all it takes to go from being the best player in the world to something less. What is unreasonable about that?

2) Were you not of the opinion that Federer took advantage of a 'window of opportunity' in 2012 because his main rivals were injured, burn't out, emotionally traumatised from all manner of things, etc, and thus managed to climb back to the top? If that is the case then surely the competition this year was somewhat depleted? Or has the competition suddenly been elevated to stratospheric levels because it suits your arguement that only a Federer playing at his absolute best could have topped a prime Nadal, Djokovic or Murray. Which is it Lydian?

3) No one is calling 2011-12 a weak era and no one is suggesting it is. Federer being able to compete in this era despite his age doesn't make this era weak, it's just makes Federer extra special - which we all know he is. Your assertion that only a peak Federer could achieve such results in this era has no factual basis other than that you think the rivals of today are just too good for anything less than a peak Federer to be able to compete as well as he has.

4) Let's look at the results. Since the question at hand concerns whether Federer 2012 is as good as peak Federer then it would only be fair to compare with his peak years. Who cares about 2010/11? We already know the decline had started prior to then. The absolute peak years were 05-06, or to extend it slightly one could say 04-07. All the stats that you posted actually go against your arguement, except the number of masters titles and total number of matches won. Even in 2007 he won more titles (8), reached more finals (12 v 10), reached all four slam finals, winning 3, won the WTF, had a higher winning percentage. Basically by every meaningful measure it was a better year than 2012. Looking at the YE top 10 in 2007, it doesn't look any weaker or stronger than this year. At most there's a marginal difference (but Rafa missed four months of this year)

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Davydenko
Ferrer
Roddick
Gonzalez
Gasquet
Nalbandian
Robredo

5) You talk about Federer having lost some explosiveness as an abstract, peripheral issue. What exactly do you mean? and how does it relate to his game? If by explosiveness you mean his ability to stop, start, change direction, reflexes then that basically equates to movement and I've already spoken in detail about the importance of movement and positioning for Federer's game. So it's a fundamental decline and not some obscure side issue.



emancipator

Also look at our own expectations.

In 2005-2007 Fed would have been the clear favourite before Australia, Wimbledon and US and would be a comfortable second favourite for the French.

In 2012 he wasn't the favourite for any slams. On this forum, I believe the general sentiment was, and continues to be, if he's fit and the draw opens up nicely then he has a decent chance.

That still puts him at a high level but it is clearly behind what was expected a few years ago.

lydian wrote:If people are saying Federer 2012 is way off the ability of Federer 2007 (say) and yet he won 6 titles and got to #1 this year...then they are basically saying 2011-12 is a "weak era" despite having Djokovic, Nadal and Murray around in their prime. Or rather, his 2007 prime was sooooo much better than these guy's 2012 prime. Personally I think not. Otherwise, the alternative is that Federer has improved many areas of his game to still be able to cut it with these prime multi-slam/multi-Masters guys...which is it?

It's not a case of either or..

The counter argument could be made just as easily about your point of view.

If Federer in 2012, playing as well as ever, could only just reclaim the number one spot requiring a 'window of opportunity' in the process (or even good fortune as others have put it) then the 'mythical' federer of 04-07, who was at best only equal to this version, too would have required a window of opportunity to best the current crop, ergo he was only so successful because he played in a weak era. This then puts Andy Murray (all respect to him, top player that he is) on the same level as the guy who's won 17 slams.

A good year.

He claimed the richest prize in the sport, the Wimbledon Gold Cup - as 'The All England Lawn Tennis Club Single Handed Champion of the World' - for the 7th time.

A uniquely brilliant showing led to title #5 at Cincinnati, his adaptability separated him from the field on the blue clay of Madrid, and a devastating run of form saw him sweep the titles in Rotterdam, Dubai and Indian Wells.

A history-making return to #1 was well deserved.

But, to be honest, Federer circa 2004-6 would have probably won all 4 Slams and the World Finals. Clearly the Great One has lost a step and dropped a level or two.

Spaghetti-Hans wrote: Clearly the Great One has lost a step and dropped a level or two.

Especially since he retired 13 years ago - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Gretzky

HM Murdoch wrote:Also look at our own expectations.

In 2005-2007 Fed would have been the clear favourite before Australia, Wimbledon and US and would be a comfortable second favourite for the French.

In 2012 he wasn't the favourite for any slams. On this forum, I believe the general sentiment was, and continues to be, if he's fit and the draw opens up nicely then he has a decent chance.

That still puts him at a high level but it is clearly behind what was expected a few years ago.

More unbaised view again

Yes Djoko's level and the game has improved to 2007, but prior to 2011 the like of Roddick, Davydenko, Nalbandian,Ferrer,Berdych ,Murray were all beating Djoko comfortably, while Murray still is other have aged out or retired, if one player's game improve all of sudden we can put doubts or raise arguments that the current player is better than his pervious version but every players result have improved or lived to the level of expectation.

If you compare , Roddick[Exception], Haas, Ferrer, Almagro, Berdych,Tsonga,Murray, Federer, Nadal and many more their stats haven't changed much to 2007-2008 period, the only exception could be Roddick from the list who had an inconsistent year and decided to call it off, so barring Djoko others have remained more or less the same with respect to stats atleast, so this boils down the question whether Djoko took advantage of transitional era where there was no new talent coming up and the old legs wearing out.

I don't think so Djoko would have dominated 2004-2009 anyways and I don't think so his domination will last more than a year if Murray translates his potential to consistency and if upcoming stars show the metal, Djoko will be a pale of himself in 2 yrs time let alone in 30.

Oh I dunno about that. I still believe he'd have won the USO without the gale blowing.

One other point about all this; I don't think Nadal is as good as he was in 2007-10 either.

BB, interesting idea.

Btw what do you think was the best tennis match Nadal has ever played?

That's a toughie, it has to be one v Federer I think.

Most would say RG or W 2008 but I believe Federer was handicapped somewhat. Maybe AO 2009. I dunno, maybe it's not v Federer and is rather USO'10?

bogbrush wrote:That's a toughie, it has to be one v Federer I think.

Most would say RG or W 2008 but I believe Federer was handicapped somewhat. Maybe AO 2009. I dunno, maybe it's not v Federer and is rather USO'10?

I think the latter. USO final '10 is the best I've ever seen Rafa play.

BB, I'm not sure we can say better or worse, just different. Players and the game evolves over time. Anyway, IMO best I've seen Nadal play is 2005 Rome vs Coria. Never seen him play as aggressive before or since, and that was on clay. A narrow 2nd is AO2012 vs Federer, blew him off court fairly routinely...2012 could have been a pretty good year slam-wise if not for the injuries IMO.

Emancipator, decline is an interesting term. It can mean decline of ability in all areas, in just some areas that make a difference, or simply a decline in results without loss of ability. I dont believe Federer has declined in all areas but I do feel he's lost some innate speed off the mark. Clearly you cant age without some effects. However, with surfaces being slower those movement "losses" dont get exposed in quite the same way as they might have done in the 90s when it was arguably harder for guys to stay top 5 in their 30s when losing speed. Conversely, for me Federer has improved some areas of his game to compensate for other areas declining, e.g. serve, FH - he's been watching Nadal's no doubt, his slice and volleying. Do you believe his results would have been the same in 04-07 had he faced peak Djokovic and Murray, given he struggled against Nadal over that period? Do we assume his decline has been significant because he's gone from 2-3 slams per year to 0-1 per year when that observation is based on winning slams against different players than prime Nadal, Djokovic, etc. What would have been the difference between Fed's results in 04-07 vs prime Nadal, Djoko, Murray vs results in 2012 against similar? A massive difference?

For me, if he could hold his own in 2012 against this current crop then he cant have fallen that far...indeed I dont see why he cant have improved some areas of his game when we see other age 29+ players also getting very good results, e.g. Ferrer. However, I do feel 2012 will have taken alot out of him and his results in 2013 wont be anywhere near the same.

he just misses more, he shanks more, he double faults more, his forehand is not as monstrous. People talk about Djokovic coming back against Federer last week and how tough he is, but Federer was 40-15 up then just hit miss after miss after miss. He NEVER did that before. His running forehand is a weakness, Djokovic targeted that greatly, Roger only hit 7 unforced errors when he hit his forehand from the backhand corner, he hit 30+ in the deuce court when he had to run to make the shot, which suggests a deterioration in his movement

By the way, I watched Federer/Nadal Wimbledon 2007 the other day. That's why I'm saying neither is as good as they were; Nadal's hitting was just massive, the backhand was monstrous - it's easier to attack there now.

The standard of that match was miles above the 2012 final.

So the quality of tennis from the top 4 is declining - given Federer and Nadal can still win against the other 2?

I would suspect that even in 2007 tennis was quicker with surfaces being faster. If you look at the video of Nadal vs Federer in Miami 2004 its an amazing display of fast, aggressive tennis.
The game has changed, its become more grinding and we dont see "flattness" used as much in shot making given ralleys need to be ran for longer. Tennis grips have all been getting more Western to sustain ralleying.

When we say Federer's FH/BH is weaker...is it? Or is it...
a) his game was never designed for long ralleys so in longer ralley conditions he breaks down more now
b) his playing style has changed...being more aggressive and getting to the net more comes at the expense of ralleying consistency at the back

Personally I think its b).

Its hard to be great all over the court in all situations when your playing style favours one approach over another - he used to be an overt ralleyer, thats changed since 2009/10. Age doesnt have to mean loss of consistency...Ferrer is testament to that....I just think Federer has changed his approach the past 2-3 years, and thats been working well in general but against the very best ralleyers (Nadal, Djokovic, Murray) his game breaks down more when 5-8 shots into the point.

On running FHs I dont believe this was ever a particularly strength of Federer's. That's more Nadal's territory - the best running FH in the game by some distance. Djokovic knows this and has started to exploit it more against Federer. Federer's FH play is much more cross-court (normal, or increasingly inside out to protect his BH and bring his strength into play more).

Finally on FHs, I also see a change in Roger's technique. His style is much closer to Nadal now, I think he's put alot of time into analysing Nadal's technique and taking some parts of that. His follow-through is quite different from 6-7 years ago. Also, his grip has become much more Westernised from E-->SW so he suffers more than before when stretched out wide on that side.

To the first sentence of your post, Lydian; yes.

Quantity at the expense of quality.

for someone who is not designed for long rallies like you say, its incredible to think he could be the 2nd/3rd best clay courter of all time!

CAS, note I didn't pick that option.
Plus he's changed his game style since 2003-2009, he's much more attacking now.

It was the same with Sampras to a degree, a much more dominant ralleyer earlier in his career but then switched to more aggressive play once the years moved by and better ralleyers came along. Same with Henman also became more aggressive late on. Common denominator? Annacone...it's impossible to dominate all areas of the court as the years advance.

henman said he was getting killed against hewitt by coming to the net so he stayed back and rallied with him and thats why he got his only win against him, is that more aggressive?

Yep Henman played more from the back of the court in the twilight of his career than he ever did in his prime, presumably because the conditions were no longer conducive to effective s&v.

An article about Henman said this in March 2004: In Paul Annacone, his new coach who helped Pete Sampras win nine of his 14 Grand Slam titles, Henman has found someone who encourages his attacking instincts. Henman said: "We're very clear in the way that we see my game and how I should be playing. I'm being as aggressive as possible on every serve and committing to every shot. I couldn't be happier with the direction that my game's moving in.". He added: "I have struggled with the conditions there a little bit in the past, but now I just think I'm a much, much better player and in a position to deal with that."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-227971/Henman-ready-turn-heat.html

This article analyses Henman's success at French Open 2004. A key passage is: With Annacone’s tactical mind and clarity of thought they put together a great strategy that saw Henman beat Cyril Saulnier, Lars Burgsmuller, Galo Blanco, Michael Llodra and Juan Ignacio Chela before eventually losing to Argentine Clay specialist and certified choker, Guillermo Coria. (Henman actually should have beaten Coria as for 1 1/2 sets he was totally dominant, pity he couldn’t keep it up. I guess sometimes things really are written in the stars and Henman making a slam final wasn’t one of them.) The strategy was simple, it played to Henman’s strengths and he stuck to the plan beautifully. Rather than try and develop a typical clay court game of staying far back behind the baseline and rallying for extended periods, Annacone and Henman adapted his serve and volley game. Henman served harder and more accurately than ever before, he transitioned to the net as quickly as possible and was able to win an incredible number of points by putting away volleys at the first time of asking. Henman also threw some clever plays into the mixer, his short sliced floaty backhand dragged his opponents wide and his constant variation, change of pace and presence at the net caught his opponents off guard and left them bemused, most notably against Bergsmuller and Chela (a clay specialist) whom he defeated with total ease.
http://www.perfect-tennis.co.uk/could-federer-apply-henman-like-tactics-to-win-the-french-open/

This RG approach was typical for Henman in the latter part of his career...serving harder...transitioning to the net as quickly as possible. Its the Annacone way.

lydian wrote:So the quality of tennis from the top 4 is declining - given Federer and Nadal can still win against the other 2?

The obvious and factual answer is yes, like BB explained Wim 2007 was miles better than AO 2012, Wim 2007 in my view was ranks above most of the matches they played coz on most occasions both played their max level.

FO 2008 is probably the best I have seen Rafa play, in that match Fed didn't do much wrong and tried every different angles to get back into the match but was simply blown away, yes Fed was not at his best coz of after effects of Mono, but that Rafa was once hell of a scary monster.

@ Lyd

regarding your question how successful Fed prime would be against Djoko's prime, Fed on some games could have even anihilated Djoko pretty badly, if an aged 32 old year off peak player is beating a prime 25 year old, obiviously Fed of 2005-2006 would be Djoko pretty badly.

lydian wrote:CAS, note I didn't pick that option.
Plus he's changed his game style since 2003-2009, he's much more attacking now.

It was the same with Sampras to a degree, a much more dominant ralleyer earlier in his career but then switched to more aggressive play once the years moved by and better ralleyers came along. Same with Henman also became more aggressive late on. Common denominator? Annacone...it's impossible to dominate all areas of the court as the years advance.

So with respect to your argument, do you say Sampras might not have had much success had he faced a prime Hewitt and Safin? coz according to Sampras he played his best tennis on 2012, I remember Tenez even posting a link to confirm the Sampras view, so 2000-2003 should be one of the strongest of eras then.

haha 2012?!?!

Hey? I don't think Hewitt or Safin were far off prime in 2000/2001. Hewitt was arguably in prime given he started young and didn't do much after 2002. I note you stick to the line Sampras played the best tennis of his life in 2002 at 31 years old yet think Federer at 31 (not 32) is an off peak player.

Besides which, no-one believed Sampras was playing career best tennis in 2002...fellow pros were calling him slow and saying he should retire. After USO 2002 he did just that...don't you think it strange a guy who was supposedly playing the best tennis of his life at USO 2002 retired immediately afterwards? How many players have retired after playing career best tennis? Yeah exactly... Sampras knew he wouldn't perform like that again so got out on a high.

Given 2005/6 Fed didn't beat Nadal badly, indeed quite the contrary, and we see Djokovic and Nadal on a par in 2011/12...I just dont buy prime Federer would "annihilate" prime Djokovic.

That's a bit thin Lydian, you don't need me to point out the gaps in that logic.

I'm just going to stick with the observation that 31 year old Fed isn't overall as good as 26 year old Fed. I don't think that's too far out there really.

Funny you mention logic. In November 2011 Federer said "It’s interesting how you evolve as a tennis player. For me it’s only logical to improve".

He'll be pretty good by the time he's 50 then!

lydian wrote:Funny you mention logic. In November 2011 Federer said "It’s interesting how you evolve as a tennis player. For me it’s only logical to improve".

Sure you improve; it's just such a pity you inhabit a deteriorating body.

It's from the horses mouth JHM not mine. Clearly he's said that thinking he's not going backwards...as of Nov 2011. I'm sure if he felt he was declining he wouldn't come out with a statement like that.

Actually, if he felt he was declining, he may be more likely to come out with a statement like that (as opposed to "I'm not as good as I used to be")

Well in the very next sentence he said "I have been amazed how long I’ve been able to keep it up. I’m happy my level is still very high and my body’s holding up". Didn't sound like a man who thought he was physically or technically deteriorating to the level you guys are suggesting.

How about the concept that his improvement in playing makes up for any physical shortfall? Or even exceeds it, so it's a net positive. Sure at some point the balance may shift as age truly does catch up but he didn't sound that way 12 mths ago, nor does he look to have unduly suffered 12 mths later.

lydian wrote:Hey? I don't think Hewitt or Safin were far off prime in 2000/2001. Hewitt was arguably in prime given he started young and didn't do much after 2002. I note you stick to the line Sampras played the best tennis of his life in 2002 at 31 years old yet think Federer at 31 (not 32) is an off peak player.

Good question, I neither agree Sampras played his best on 2012 nor agree Fed playing his best now, however it can't be this way that one played his best and the other was out of his prime.

The fact is both are legends and they made their presence felt even way past their prime, I would say that the legends can win and make the game look so simple which the otherwise normal guys might find it difficult to do, I would say Djoko as a legend of the game if he can win 10+slams and win some at his 30's.

lydian wrote:Funny you mention logic. In November 2011 Federer said "It’s interesting how you evolve as a tennis player. For me it’s only logical to improve".

You take Fed's view seriously but not Pete's view who said something similar like he played his best tennis at 2002, may be you convinently ignore Pete's statement to support you view.

Fed has more experience now but he is just a pale shadow of himself, his weapons are half the value of what it was at his prime, this is more than proven.

Back to Nadal/ Djoko beating Fed, Nadal beats Fed coz his game is tailor made to beat him, and Nadal know how to beat Fed, it doesn't matter prime Fed or old Fed a prime Nadal can get the task done, this is not the case with Djoko, Djoko on the other hand getting bagelled on fast courts when Fed bring his A-game , Fed on prime would bring it time and again I won't be surprised if Djoko get annihilated in some matches.

Sure IC, the best players have that special ingredient that elevates them above others. I don't think Sampras and Federer are comparable. I've posted several times on this forum medical reports from haematology experts on the effects Sampras's sickle cell anaemia condition, thalassemia, had on him as he got older. Sampras tried to keep a lid on it but the truth came out eventually. He also badly struggled with his back from 99 onwards - missed at least 2 HC slams due to it. That he won a slam under slowing conditions in 2002 with a creaking body was truly remarkable. The effort it took to get him across that final slam line was such he knew he couldn't go on any longer. The perfect end. By contrast, Federer is still one of the fittest guys on tour and as he says, his body has held up well. But agree they're both legends in their differing ways.

I want to see the links. Not saying it isn't true but I find it hard to believe that he could have competed at that level at all if the thalassaemia was symptomatic in any way.

Which form of thalassaemi?

According to Sampras his thalassaemia (mild form of anemia) was "easily addressed" with increased intake of "meat, eggs and other protein".

Which slams did he miss because of a bad back?

Yes I do IC. Federer hasn't got other fellow pros saying he's not the player he was, that he should retire to save embarrassing himself (Kafelnikov) or that he's a yard slower (Rusedski).

People, including Tenez, misquote that 2002 match. Sampras in his own autobiography says of the match: "I rolled through the first two sets with some of the best tennis I had played in years".

That's not "my best tennis ever" but "SOME of the best tennis I had played in YEARS".

In that USO final Sampras was also lucky to meet dead on his legs Agassi suffering from a long win over Hewitt the day before (SuperSaturday). Sampras physically declined rapidly in sets 3 and 4...luckily for him he was playing a 32 yr old who was struggling himself. By the 4th set Sampras could barely raise his trademark fist pump on key winners...indeed, at breaking Agassi to go 5-4 up and be able to serve for the match he simply trudged back to his chair completely drained. It was a classic match for all it meant but the best tennis he played ever? No, and he didnt say it was. That would be his win over Agassi at Wimb 99...the game for which he said "The best tennis I ever played". I agree with him and still the best tennis I've seen played to this day.

Despite all this back and forth, I am very glad, that he is still playing at a very high level and enjoys the sport. He still has the desire to compete and play very good tennis.

I am very grateful to Federer for not doing a Borg. He has nothing left to prove to his peers, the historians or himself.

Whether he was better in 2006 or 2012 is irrelevant to his place in the pantheons of Tennis.

He played the longest three setter against Del Potro in 2012, so an argument can be made in many ways...

a. He is getting older, slower and needs so much Tennis to beat Del Potro, or,

b. He is playing the best Tennis of his life, beating players much younger than him, or,

c. It was a Wee Keira in 2005-07, or,

d. It is a 'strong' era in 2010-2012, or, ....

As Lydian himself points out, round and round the Mulberry bush we go.

BTW, has anyone followed Challengers in Toyota ( http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2012/4042/mds.pdf ) ?

Anyone remember this player... http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Su/T/Takao-Suzuki.aspx

Something about him (36 yo now) and Federer in Tokyo 2006...

Emancipator, he had Beta-thalassemia minor. Had it been T-Major he wouldn't have been a pro tennis player. But even the minor form causes top athlete issues with endurance and recovery. Sampras tried to hide it for years for fear of giving opponents an edge. After the 1995 US Open match vs Corretja where he wobbled uneasily and threw up in the 5th set, a Toronto Globe and Mail journalist, Tom Tebbutt, guessed correctly that Sampras had thalassemia and wrote an article about it.

Although Sampras rarely talked about it during his prime career in an interview in "Inside The Great Mind Of Pete Sampras" by Peter Bodo, Ace Tennis Magazine, UK, October 2000, Issue 48 he said in response to the question:

Q. It seems that the 'F' word in your career has been 'fitness'. Are your critics justified in claiming you aren't always in the best of shape?
"After that Corretja match [in 1995 at USO where he threw up], Tom Tebbutt, a US newspaper reporter, wrote a story claiming I suffered from thalassemia, a low-iron blood condition that afflicts some people of Mediterranean descent. He was spot on. I have it. It sometimes makes me feel lethargic and a little out of it - that hang-dog look is partly because of the condition - especially in any very hot weather. I've been doing about all you can to offset it, which is taking iron pills. Other than trying to build up your iron level, there isn't much else you can do. I've never admitted it until now because I didn't want my opponents to have that confidence of knowing I was playing with a deficit.

The Tom Tebbutt article referred to is here, it contained opinion on thalassemia's effects on Sampras from a haematologist: http://www.samprasfanz.com/news/1990/19960923.html

Sampras said in his autobiography that had Tebbutt asked him outright if he had thalassemia he would have denied it to avoid other players knowing it and stretching out matches to tire him. This condition for me is part of the reason he wasn't successful on clay. He really should have beat Kafelnikov in 1996 to reach the final vs Stich but he was exhausted from having beaten Jim Courier in 5 sets. I also think this is why he cruised through sets conserving energy until it was 3-3 or 4-4 then would elevate his game to break.

This blogger commented on having the condition and thoughts Sampras:
http://reddirtblogger.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/so-i-am-not-total-slacker-after-all.html


JHM, I detect open sarcasm. How unlike you. Sampras withdrew from Lyon Indoors mid-event in late Oct 1998 from a back injury...it almost cost him the year end #1 ranking as had to then pull out of Eurocard Open following week. He came back (to secure YE #1) for the Paris Masters in November but was needing oncourt treatment for the back every match. A few weeks later, having still not mentally and physically recovered properly he withdrew from the Australian Open. The back problem then flared again a few months later in Summer 99 where he had to withdraw from RCA Championships and US Open, the back had deterioated to a herniated disc. Withdrawing probably cost him a slam and almost certainly cost him 7 straight YE #1s. He had back issues for years...shin-splints too.

lydian wrote:JHM, I detect open sarcasm.

No, an honest question - I don't remember reading about it in his book, that's all. I'll try and look it up.

It's been a great year for Federer. For me, everything hinges on his motivation for 2013 - I don't think his body has declined to such an extent that he can't take on the best and beat them. After seeing what he did at RG in 2011, I'm convinced that if he's truly hungry and fired up, Federer is damn near unbeatable even at this stage in his career. Getting the hunger is another thing entirely, and there may not be another rival's 40-odd win streak to end in 2013!

Obviously he has lost a step over the years, but his shotmaking and tactical ability can still make up for it, and generally I think we'll see him keeping his powder dry during the early rounds in order to prepare for the bigger challenges at the sharp end of tournaments. Not cruising, but more trying to do enough to win comfortably rather than blowing people off court. Of course, that gets harder and harder as the strength in depth amongst ATP players rises.

Everything else I'd say has already been said! With one exception - I thought he played some of his best tennis of the year at the Australian Open 2012, he just ran into an inspired opponent in Rafa. In that sense, I wasn't disappointed to watch Federer lose, because the quality was just immense. Match of the year IMO.

I hope he continues on into 2013 and stays motivated. I like watching many players on tour for numerous reasons - technique, mentality, stamina, drama - but a Federer in full flow in still the best viewing spectacle I could ask for. Long may the top four continue to play at a high level.

Edit: That's an interesting point about how Fed's been praising his rivals more in interviews this year, I'd noticed that too. Nadal's also like that, but the other two tend to be more reticent and certainly less effusive when asked questions about their main rivals. I wonder why that is? Maybe it's just the stage of their careers. I guess it wouldn't do for Novak, as current #1, to be constantly claiming that Federer's the best - something he has often avoided saying outright in interviews, and has in fact alluded to Nadal being the greater player at times. It's all fascinating stuff.

Silver wrote:

Everything else I'd say has already been said! With one exception - I thought he played some of his best tennis of the year at the Australian Open 2012, he just ran into an inspired opponent in Rafa. In that sense, I wasn't disappointed to watch Federer lose, because the quality was just immense. Match of the year IMO.

Couldn't agree more! That was a GREAT match. It makes me wonder if some actually watch matches rather than looking at scores or going along with the hype of the moment. Like you say the quality was immense and so was the tension. The scoreline hides many of twists and turns and the outcome was anything but straightforward. I know this because I have recently re-watched it. Match of the year... and yet it gets overlooked even as match of the AO. Quality beats quantity any day.

AO Semi was a stunning match, for me match of the year too.

Yep, definitely a great match, and one that included perhaps two of the best shots of the whole tournament.

Most impressive for me was this cracker from Rafa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL6ePvScz4A

and this Federer gem wasn't too shabby either
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aRKCWGE_dI&feature=related