Dispelling the rumour that Federer is going down......

OK on this forum waaaaay tooo many people think that Federer is on his way out based on this years results and last years results, but here using my analysis I'll dispell this saying.

OK so far this year Federer's tournament performance has been as follows:

Doha - Winner
Australian Open- Semi Finals
Dubai- Final, runner up
Indian Wells- Semi Finals
Miami- Semi Finals
Monte Carlo- Quarter Finals
Madrid- Semi Finals so far

Compared to 2009 where he broke the grand slam record and completed a career grand slam:

Doha- Semi-Finals
Australian Open- Final, runner up
Dubai- DNP
Indian Wells- Semi-Finals
Miami- Semi-Finals
Monte Carlo- Round of 16
Rome (This happened before Madrid in 2009)- Semi-finals

So comparing the two start of years together, Roger has actually done pretty much the same, if not a bit better in 2011 as he has already won a tournament. With the way people talk on here about Roger, you'd reckon that he's losing in the first round of every tournament to unseeded opponents, but that is far from the truth. The scenarios for both 2009 and 2011 are pretty much the same; the year before Roger only won one Grand Slam and was a wounded animal. The fact of the matter is you cannot expect any sportsman to win every tournament; that's an unrealistic expectation but here it seems that if Federer doesn't make it to the final, he is not good enough to compete with the best, yet he's been doing it so consistently for the past few years. All sportsmen, whether they be tennis players or otherwise go through blips in form and one major example is the man of the moment: Novak Djokovic.

Djokovic for the first part of last year was a shadow of his former self, was struggling to beat lower ranked players, his serve was out of sorts, you could see that he weren't exactly enjoying his tennis and again you were seeing people starting to question whether or not he'll ever win another grand slam, but slowly as the year progressed his form stated to go up and you could see him enjoying his tennis more and was looking more comfortable on the court and that eventually led to the many tournaments he has won so far this year, his slump of form was only a natural thing that happens to every sportsmen. Yet I don't ever recall Federer having such terrible months as much as Djokovic did from the time he first won Wimbledon in 2003, so for him to be reaching semi finals consistently can be forgiven seeing as he's never ever really had a terrible slump in form.

The fact of the matter is this year Federer has only lost to either Djokovic and Nadal, apart from the one time he lost to Melzer, and those both have been on great form with Roger not being on his best form. Many players would happily trade their places for Roger's if you asked them and they would be said to be ''on form'' if anyone in the top 20 had the results of Federer so far this year. As long as Roger keeps himself physically fit, I fully expect these results to increase as the year goes on and as Roger's favourite part of the year come up; the grass court season. If winning one tournament, reaching one grand slam semi-final, reaching 3 masters semi-finals is considered the ''end'' of Federer then sure as hell he's going out strong.

Good article. I think that the fact that he has been losing big games recently has encouraged the view that he is on the way down. I think the (relative) lack of slams especially have been taken up as sign of decline. Federer isn't playing as well as he used to, and combined with Nadal's emergence as a power on surfaces other than clay and the emergence of players like Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro has meant that there are more players in contention to win slams and who have a good chance of beating him. He has also lost to less renowned players (notably Berdych last year), which hasn't helped him. He has lost the aura of invincibility which would have protected him in those type of games in the past.

To an extent I agree with Iamawesome and Schrodinger but with a caveat. Part of the problem is that we are comparing Roger with the federer of 2004-07 judging on those standards Roger is certainly not as good as he was then. He set the bar so exceptionally high.

When you compare 2009 you must take one important thing into consideration, Rafa suffered a serious knee injury that didn't allow him to defend Roland Garros and he did not play at wimbeldon. Rafa early in that year looked untouchable as he beat fed for the aussie crown. And again rolled through the clay season, but towards the end of the clay season he suffered a leg injury that made him susceptible to soderling. Lets remember that in 2008 Rafa blitzed the field and looked like he was going to do the same in 09 before he was injured. That is why Roger's results in the second half of 09 were so much better than in the first half of 09. Nadal bestrode the tennis world in the first half of 09 and Roger flourished in the second half without Nadal or with a recovering Nadal who was way off form.

Roger's form has slipped a little that is undeniable, but that is half of the equation his opposition is stronger. Djokovic is entering his prime and Rafa has been there a couple of years. If Rafa goes down the most likely player to slip into his shoes is Nole not Roger. Yes Roger is a solid #3, but even his biggest supporter can't compare today's Roger to the Roger of 04-07. 09 was a bit of an anomaly in that Rafa who had dominated was hobbled from Madrid 09 to till Monaco 2010.

Today was indeed a good day for Roger despite him losing. It's a long time since I wasn't cringing when he went for winners with his backhand, so overall I'm happy with his performance, even though the score of the last 2 sets undermines Roger's performance in those sets because he was absolutely immense throughout the match. Hopefully he can build on this form and now move on a gear to win tournaments and perhaps even RG ( Although it's unlikely). I think appluase should be given to Rafa, he was amazing today.

I think it's rather clear Federer is not quite what he once was.

But then people seem to fail to appreciate what Federer was. That is, rather clearly the greatest ever to have graced the game, a man seemingly invincible at the highest level of the game for years. His consistency and overall brilliance across all shots and physical aspects of the game were, combined, at a level above anything we have seen before or since.

Federer has fallen from that level, that is true. But when his previous level was far greater than anything his adversaries as of yet have managed to provide, he can decline, and still stay at the top. This year he has, bar the Aussie Open, kept up admirably with Djokovic and Nadal. Strangely he seems to struggle where in the past he was at his best, in the big games against his big rivals. But he's still far above anyone below him in the rankings, that much is for sure.

Technically he's so accomplished he can probably stay in the Top 10 untill he's 40 if he feels like it. On a good day, he's still damn near unstoppable. It's just the good days are no longer every day, that's all.

Stealth Maestro Agro Love wrote:I think it's rather clear Federer is not quite what he once was.

But then people seem to fail to appreciate what Federer was. That is, rather clearly the greatest ever to have graced the game, a man seemingly invincible at the highest level of the game for years. His consistency and overall brilliance across all shots and physical aspects of the game were, combined, at a level above anything we have seen before or since.

Federer has fallen from that level, that is true. But when his previous level was far greater than anything his adversaries as of yet have managed to provide, he can decline, and still stay at the top. This year he has, bar the Aussie Open, kept up admirably with Djokovic and Nadal. Strangely he seems to struggle where in the past he was at his best, in the big games against his big rivals. But he's still far above anyone below him in the rankings, that much is for sure.

Technically he's so accomplished he can probably stay in the Top 10 untill he's 40 if he feels like it. On a good day, he's still damn near unstoppable. It's just the good days are no longer every day, that's all.

Were you watching the same Aussie open as me, brah? Lol. He exceeded Nadal and his match with Djokovic, yet again like the US could have gone either way. The second set when he was leading 5-2 (I think? Or 4-2) he had a mental collapse, a Federer from 2006 would have crushed Djokovic and probably in the first set. I think one thing has definately changed for Federer is his mental strenght but then again that's understandable, I'd probably be bored to death having played thousand matches and having hit the ball about a million times.

Sorry, your right, I meant kept up with Djokovic.

Stealth Maestro Agro Love wrote:Sorry, your right, I meant kept up with Djokovic.

Woah, dude. No need to be sorry.

I think Federer played well today. I think the only thing that let him down was that he was too agressive. I think if he had stretched out some of the points he would've beaten Nadal.

Nadal more or less played the same tactics against Federer like he did in Miami. Serve to the backhand.

People who think Federer is in decline is just absurd. I think he has another 2 GS in him.

Again it was a good match to see.

graf_the_greatest wrote:In my opinion Federer is not 'the greatest Player ever to grace the court' for various reasons but each to his own.Regardless, he played much better against Nadal than in recent times but those 2 incidents during the match are quite embarrassing and do him no favours.

Is that by any chance Stefi Graf?

For me Navratilova is the greatest of all time. Again my opinion. But to win 59 Grand Slam titles in all formats which is more than Federer and Graf combined. 167 Titles in all. To win her last Grand Slam at the age of 49 is even more amazing.

Other players will always have other statistics and playing styles that define their tag as being the GOAT.

First of all you can't compare women's champions to men's champions. It has always been easier to dominate the women's tour than the men's tour. Frankly, how can Navaratilova or Graf be the greatest of all time when the average male player on the futures circuit would beat them 6-0 and 6-1. Sorry, the woman's tour is uncomparable to the men's tour. They are the best woman's players of all time, a great accomplishment, but not something you can compare to the men. Like apples and oranges frankly.

socal1976 wrote:First of all you can't compare women's champions to men's champions. It has always been easier to dominate the women's tour than the men's tour.

Not sure I agree there. I agree that comparison between men and womens top players is difficult, as we've never really seen the outcome of Navratilova vs Becker or something like that, and I agree that these days, men would destroy the women. Personally i'd never compare Federer to Navratilova, as they played on different tours.

But I don't think the womens tour was easy to dominate at all, certainly not when Navratilova, Graf and later on Seles were around. OK, nowadays it's all rallies down the middle but back then they had ambition, they showed their skills and their consistency and overall they were skillwise probably every bit the male's equals. I still think Henin has the best backhand I have ever seen, for instance.

The standard of the WTA has collapsed since; you only need to see what the retirements and absence of the Williams sisters and Henin did to the standard of the game, but it's unfair to slate the players of ages past based on todays relative tripe.

Look Stealth, I have a lot of respect for Graf, Navratilova, and everet the current women's tour has made a farce of the tour.While these ladies were truely dedicated and great athletes as well as role models. Nowadays The best players don't even bother to show up for most of the tournaments or retire and make comebacks half a dozen times. But the woman's tour is never comparable in skill level to the men, and this isn't a recent development. Everyone talks about the battle of the sexes when Billie Jean then the 25 years younger barely beat Bobby Riggs who was 55 years old. And what they fail to mention is that this was Battle of the sexes 2, and that few months earlier 55 year old Bobby Riggs beat the world's #1 ranked woman's player Margaret court 6-2, 6-1.


Look at the number of woman's champions with over double figure slams and look at the number of men's champions. The numbers for woman's champions with large numbers of slams is off the charts so even in this regard it isn't comparable. In my mind none of the records can be compared from the woman's to the men or vice versa. Graf was great, so was Martina; but to simply look at the number of titles they won and then rate them above Federer or nadal is frankly disrespectful to Fed and Nadal and other men's champions. And you certainly can't call them the greatest player ever, you can call them the greatest women players of all time. In 1998, Venus Williams boasted she could beat any man ranked outside the top 200, She got her you know what handed to her 6-2 and then Serena got waxed 6-1 by the guy ranked number 203 in the world. Regardless of gender how can you call a player that would get beat breadsticks by the the #203 man on the tour the greatest player ever.

You can't compare the women's game to the men's in the same way you can't compare players from different eras. Declaring someone the greatest of all time is a bit meaningless because the game has changed so much.