Wimbledon 2012

[wr8_utd]

Roger Federer on Wimbledon speed (2008):
Well, I don’t think it’s that much of a difference since I played Pete here in 2001 really. So, I mean, it’s not that extreme, you know, to the point where I need to thank anybody, I think, you know.
I think it’s just also the way how players are playing today: more from the baseline, not as much serve and volley, chip and charge. That sort of gives you the feeling that it’s slowed down, as well, you know.
Because 95% of the guys play from the baseline today, whereas before it was maybe 50/50. That is a big change, I think, and that’s happened in the last, let’s say, 10, 15 years.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

All this kind of talk is strange. I thought Aussie open final was great, much better than the final yesterday. And that was supposedly between two defensive players. I don't get why people are gagging for tennis where big servers can close out games in under a minute.

I think it's fair enough for people to lament the fact that one style of tennis has pretty much become extinct. I personally prefer fast and aggressive tennis rather than 30 shot rallies where 25 of them have zero intent. But my preference aside, isn't variety the beauty of sport? Pretty much noone can afford to serve and volley now. Forget who it favors etc, but surely it kinda sucks that a style of play that has played a huge part in hybrid game's history is all but dead.

 

[wr8_utd]

All this kind of talk is strange. I thought Aussie open final was great, much better than the final yesterday. And that was supposedly between two defensive players. I don't get why people are gagging for tennis where big servers can close out games in under a minute.

This

Non sense. A close to retirement Agassi gave Federer more of game then plonkers like Roddick and Hewitt. If people like Safin had fulfilled their potential then it would have been different.

Nadal has 11 slams, to say he won't have been anywhere near the same earlier, reeks of bitterness from Federer fanbois. Fact remains that Nadal has beaten Fed on his favorite surface in a slam while Fed has not even gotten close.

Exactly. A Agassi struggling with injuries and having to take pain killers just to play matches gave Federer a huge scare in the USO final whereas Roddick was probably the worst World Number 1 and 2 in a long time. What sort of #2 has a record like his against the #1? It was ridiculous the amount of times he lost to Federer. Slightly faster courts or slow, Nadal would have won a lot more Slams if his only competition was the likes of Roddick and Hewitt. For a Nadal to win a Slam nowadays he needs to beat Murray/Federer and Djokovic in back to back matches whereas for Federer to win back then he had to beat..Roddick? Safin was too inconsistent and temperamental and JCF was okay for a while but that's it, there was no other competition.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Federer will of course defend his corner when suggested he's at an advantage due to it. Nadal did the same. Pretty much every other source suggests otherwise. I think once it was even measured and proved conclusive.

 

[wr8_utd]

I think it's fair enough for people to lament the fact that one style of tennis has pretty much become extinct. I personally prefer fast and aggressive tennis rather than 30 shot rallies where 25 of them have zero intent. But my preference aside, isn't variety the beauty of sport? Pretty much noone can afford to serve and volley now. Forget who it favors etc, but surely it kinda sucks that a style of play that has played a huge part in hybrid game's history is all but dead.

It's good to have variety in tennis but do we want to see all grass court matches like that 5th set of the Isner-Mahut match? Huge serves and no rallies?

 

[crappycraperson]

I think it's fair enough for people to lament the fact that one style of tennis has pretty much become extinct. I personally prefer fast and aggressive tennis rather than 30 shot rallies where 25 of them have zero intent. But my preference aside, isn't variety the beauty of sport? Pretty much noone can afford to serve and volley now. Forget who it favors etc, but surely it kinda sucks that a style of play that has played a huge part in hybrid game's history is all but dead.

Happens in all sports. Even in cricket very few pitches left which give you the same kind of bounce like in 80s. Old people also keep moaning how football has changed. People moaning about Tennis are odd, since this is very much a golden age of Tennis with the big three around and throwing up classic matches every slam. The rivalry between the three will be talked about for a long time, with each having a different flavour.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

It's good to have variety in tennis but do we want to see all grass court matches like that 5th set of the Isner-Mahut match? Huge serves and no rallies?

Obviously not but how about a semblance of balance? Too much towards each direction is wrong imo.

 

[crappycraperson]

This


Exactly. A Agassi struggling with injuries and having to take pain killers just to play matches gave Federer a huge scare in the USO final whereas Roddick was probably the worst World Number 1 and 2 in a long time. What sort of #2 has a record like his against the #1? It was ridiculous the amount of times he lost to Federer. Slightly faster courts or slow, Nadal would have won a lot more Slams if his only competition was the likes of Roddick and Hewitt. For a Nadal to win a Slam nowadays he needs to beat Murray/Federer and Djokovic in back to back matches whereas for Federer to win back then he had to beat..Roddick? Safin was too inconsistent and temperamental and JCF was okay for a while but that's it, there was no other competition.

People forget that Nadal made 4 GS finals in row with Djokovic. If not for latter, he would be much close to Fed's record. Federer is fortunate he did not have someone like that.

Nadal has his own style of play and he is phenomenal at it. An apt analogy would be a great CA football side who soaks up all the pressure and then launches its own attack.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Happens in all sports. Even in cricket very few pitches left which give you the same kind of bounce like in 80s. Old people also keep moaning how football has changed. People moaning about Tennis are odd, since this is very much a golden age of Tennis with the big three around and throwing up classic matches every slam. The rivalry between the three will be talked about for a long time, with each having a different flavour.

Cricket is absolutely dying as a sport. It favors batsman over bowlers to such extent where it's often becoming a joke. The introduction of t20 only further marginalizes bowlers and their relevance.

Just because one sport has favored one aspect over another doesnt mean another should.

 

[crappycraperson]

Cricket is absolutely dying as a sport. It favors batsman over bowlers to such extent where it's often becoming a joke. The introduction of t20 only further marginalizes bowlers and their relevance.

Just because one sport has favored one aspect over another doesnt mean another should.

I don't like all the T20 circus but cricket is far from a dying sport. Unfortunately if handled properly, T20 can be used to popularize cricket in countries out side the test nations. That is the bitter truth that purists choose to overlook.

Odd comparison to make anyway since Tennis is very popular right now due to three great players about. Much much more popular than when Federer was yawning his way to slams.

The whole talk is over exaggerated anyway. Djokovic has a great range of shots and he was no.1 till yesterday. Federer with his variety can beat everyone on circuit bar Nadal who is a freak. Tsonga is old school serve and volley player and he is number 5. I wager if Sampras was around he would still be in the mix easily with the same game he has. Roddick was still able to use his big serve in his prime to win a slam and reach finals in others.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I don't like all the T20 circus but cricket is far from a dying sport. Unfortunately if handled properly, T20 can be used to popularize cricket in countries out side the test nations. That is the bitter truth that purists choose to overlook.

Odd comparison to make anyway since Tennis is very popular right now due to three great players about. Much much more popular than when Federer was yawning his way to slams.

The whole talk is over exaggerated anyway. Djokovic has a great range of shots and he was no.1 till yesterday. Federer with his variety can beat everyone on circuit bar Nadal who is a freak. Tsonga is old school serve and volley player and he is number 5. I wager if Sampras was around he would still be in the mix easily with the same game he has. Roddick was still able to use his big serve in his prime to win a slam and reach finals in others.

Popularity is not the sole concern in my mind. The basic core element that makes cricket great is a good contest between bat and ball. And there's a definite shift in favor of one of those which I consider principally wrong. To an extent it can be considered understandable. But any extensive shift is damaging IMO. Look at the list of top bowlers right now and compare them to those 10 years ago.

The same goes for tennis. While tennis is a much better place due to the standard of competitors, it is still heavily skewed. You've mentioned all these kinds of players but barring a few players almost all players on tour end up playing the same kind of tennis because it is what works now. The attempt at achieving homogeneity in courts will lead to homogeneity in players/matches and that's not right IMO.

It's not an exaggeration, really. I'm hardly saying the game is dying. It clearly isn't. The entertainment level and quality of players is extremely high. But I don't think it's right and fair at the same time.

 

[Enigma_87]

This


Exactly. A Agassi struggling with injuries and having to take pain killers just to play matches gave Federer a huge scare in the USO final whereas Roddick was probably the worst World Number 1 and 2 in a long time. What sort of #2 has a record like his against the #1? It was ridiculous the amount of times he lost to Federer. Slightly faster courts or slow, Nadal would have won a lot more Slams if his only competition was the likes of Roddick and Hewitt. For a Nadal to win a Slam nowadays he needs to beat Murray/Federer and Djokovic in back to back matches whereas for Federer to win back then he had to beat..Roddick? Safin was too inconsistent and temperamental and JCF was okay for a while but that's it, there was no other competition.

Roddick has 1 GS title, 4 more GS finals, all lost to Federer. The Murray he needs to beat has taken 1 set off Federer in their 3 slam encounters when Federer is way off his prime. The Roddick that we're talking about dismantled Murray at Wimbey not long ago, yet not in his prime.

Off prime Roddick still beat Nadal and al of their matches off clay were tense.

Muster, Rafter,Rios were better #1?

Slightly faster courts and Nadal wins less slams. He couldn't even get past Rosol who is nobody in faster conditions under closed roof. Put Nadal on the old grass, where it's serve and 1-2 shots rallys and that means no Wimbledon for him. Same goes for the USO. Nadal is vulnerable to big hitters who can catch fire for one match.

Hewitt led the H2H against Nadal 4-1 up to 2007 after that he was pretty much done. Hewitt made the QF's or better in 03-06 on 9 occasions(most of the time losing to Fed and all of the time losing to the eventual winner). Then there was hugely talented Safin, 8 times slam winner Agassi, etc.

Nadal won 6 of his GS titles during 08-10 when he met off prime Federer(with back/mono issues) non matured Djokovic, struggling with injuries Delpo and not consistent Murray.

When 31 years old Federer comes and beats the #1 and#4 in the world in the biggest stage(wimbledon) and regains the #1 position what does that tell you about the competition?

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

Tennis players peak notoriously young, with the drop off age generally starting at 25. When Federer was at his peak tennis age he was 2-2 with Nadal in slam finals, losing the French twice (which is no disgrace against the greatest clay court player ever), against Djokovic, Federer was 1-0 in slam finals. When Nadal 'dethroned' Federer at Wimbledon 2008 Federer was 26 which is later middle aged for a male tennis player. Since Federer has been 'over the hill' he has won 5 more slams, Nadal has won 6 and Djokovic 4.

I think that it would be safe to say that if Nadal and Djokovic had come through at exactly the same time as Federer then it would be they who would have significantly less titles to their names.

 

[Cheesy]

Tennis players peak notoriously young, with the drop off age generally starting at 25. When Federer was at his peak tennis age he was 2-2 with Nadal in slam finals, losing the French twice (which is no disgrace against the greatest clay court player ever), against Djokovic, Federer was 1-0 in slam finals. When Nadal 'dethroned' Federer at Wimbledon 2008 Federer was 26 which is later middle aged for a male tennis player. Since Federer has been 'over the hill' he has won 5 more slams, Nadal has won 6 and Djokovic 4.

I think that it would be safe to say that if Nadal and Djokovic had come through at exactly the same time as Federer then it would be they who would have significantly less titles to their names.

That's not necessarily true. Looking at them, I think a lot of the time they peak around 25 and drop off a couple of years later. They certainly don't drop off at 25 all the time as Federer has proven now.

If Federer had challengers like them in his era, then he would certainly have less time. I doubt he would have won Wimbledon 5 times in a row, and Djokovic would have certainly reduced how many US and Australian Open titles he had won.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

There's nothing certain about any of that. Just an opinion like what everyone else is posting.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

All of this is pointless. I personally believe that at Federer's peak Nadal and Djokovic would never have had 2 3 grandslam years and 1 3 grand slam years respectively. In the end these are hypotheticals. Federer isn't the same age as them and all we can do is form opinions on how we perceive the data.

This whole back and forth makes no sense. Noone is going to change the others opinion on this topic. It's like the whole ronaldo messi debate. Best left alone.

So has Andy finally won over Britain?

 

[crappycraperson]

Tennis players peak notoriously young, with the drop off age generally starting at 25. When Federer was at his peak tennis age he was 2-2 with Nadal in slam finals, losing the French twice (which is no disgrace against the greatest clay court player ever), against Djokovic, Federer was 1-0 in slam finals. When Nadal 'dethroned' Federer at Wimbledon 2008 Federer was 26 which is later middle aged for a male tennis player. Since Federer has been 'over the hill' he has won 5 more slams, Nadal has won 6 and Djokovic 4.

I think that it would be safe to say that if Nadal and Djokovic had come through at exactly the same time as Federer then it would be they who would have significantly less titles to their names.

Hilarious.

As soon as Federer loses a Wimbldeon slam final to Nadal, he is not in his prime. Let's be clear, last time Federer won a slam beating Nadal on the way, was 2007, even then he struggled and for my money was second best anyway.

Last couple of posts in this thread are typical Federer fan-boi posts. So I am not going to respond further.

In fact only people who cry about Tennis now days are those who wanted their hero to stomp to 30 slams without any competition. I am very happy though that I got to see an era of Tennis that compares to the one in late 70s/early 80s when McEnroe, Bjorg, Connors and Lendl were about. Others can keep worrying about updating their slam counts rather than enjoying quality tennis.

 

[crappycraperson]

All of this is pointless. I personally believe that at Federer's peak Nadal and Djokovic would never have had 2 3 grandslam years and 1 3 grand slam years respectively. In the end these are hypotheticals. Federer isn't the same age as them and all we can do is form opinions on how we perceive the data.

This whole back and forth makes no sense. Noone is going to change the others opinion on this topic. It's like the whole ronaldo messi debate. Best left alone.

So has Andy finally won over Britain?

Same goes for Federer, he would not have won so many as well. You can't predict who would have won how many except for that fact that Nadal would have won the French titles he has now.

 

[crappycraperson]

That's not necessarily true. Looking at them, I think a lot of the time they peak around 25 and drop off a couple of years later. They certainly don't drop off at 25 all the time as Federer has proven now.

If Federer had challengers like them in his era, then he would certainly have less time. I doubt he would have won Wimbledon 5 times in a row, and Djokovic would have certainly reduced how many US and Australian Open titles he had won.

That is pretty much obvious to anyone but his fan bois. Replace Hewitt and Roddick with Nadal and Djoko, and Fed still wins 5 in a row. Yeah sure.

 

[CheadleBeagle]

Nadal is a clay court player supreme who has won 4 slams on other surfaces. I firmly believe that Roger would have won the 2008 Australian and Wimbledon if he had not had mono. The commentators were saying yesterday that the Wimbledon court is now harder and the ball bounces higher which is what gives Nadal a chance. On a fast indoor court Nadal is thumped by Federer every time and also the big hitters can push Nadal off the court. If Roger had a two-handed backhand Nadal would never have had as much success but then Roger may not have won Wimbledon as often nor be such a joy to watch. It's like watching someone with a rapier take on someone with a cudgel. I would rather watch the guy with the rapier anytime.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Same goes for Federer, he would not have won so many as well. You can't predict who would have won how many except for that fact that Nadal would have won the French titles he has now.

Let me put it this way. Had they started their careers together Federer would be the dominant player due to being better at tennis IMO. Replace the courts with more balanced courts and Federer would be even further ahead IMO and Nadal would be the biggest sufferer. I don't see the need to keep carrying on the discussion when everyones made up their minds yet still quoting others attempting to convince them otherwise. Best we agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

Hilarious.

As soon as Federer loses a Wimbldeon slam final to Nadal, he is not in his prime. Let's be clear, last time Federer won a slam beating Nadal on the way, was 2007, even then he struggled and for my money was second best anyway.

Last couple of posts in this thread are typical Federer fan-boi posts. So I am not going to respond further.

In fact only people who cry about Tennis now days are those who wanted their hero to stomp to 30 slams without any competition. I am very happy though that I got to see an era of Tennis that compares to the one in late 70s/early 80s when McEnroe, Bjorg, Connors and Lendl were about. Others can keep worrying about updating their slam counts rather than enjoying quality tennis.

He was 25 in 2007 the beginning of the end.

Fact of the matter is that when Federer was in his peak tennis years he was beating Nadal in slam finals that were not on clay. My point is simply that if Nadal, Djokovic and Federer were all the same age then they would all have less titles but I think that Federer would have won more than the other two. Hell Nadal in his prime years has only managed one more slam than the old Federer. You are drawing your conclusions from an old Federer against peak aged Nadal and Djokovic, if you want to bring some tangible evidence to support your argument then I would like to hear it.

If you are talking about enjoying watching tennis then you can't look any further than Federer either, he is a majestic player.

 

[CheadleBeagle]

If Federer had challengers like them in his era, then he would certainly have less time. I doubt he would have won Wimbledon 5 times in a row, and Djokovic would have certainly reduced how many US and Australian Open titles he had won.

At his peak 2006/07 Roger would have destroyed the Djokovic of today as he did last Friday. You can always argue about different eras and even say Sampras didn't have much oppostion other than Agassi. You play who is put before you and Roger dominated everyone for many years. Nadal is a manufactured player constructed to win on clay. The right-hander who plays left handed to cause as many difficulties as possible and the extreme strength to be able to grind out matches and out-slug anyone from the baseline. However he is paying for his style by wearing out his body and is susceptible to being hit off the court by the really big-hitters. If Roger can keep this type of form even for another year or so I can see him winning another 1 or 2 grand slams before he is done.

 

[crappycraperson]

He was 25 in 2007 the beginning of the end.

Fact of the matter is that when Federer was in his peak tennis years he was beating Nadal in slam finals that were not on clay. My point is simply that if Nadal, Djokovic and Federer were all the same age then they would all have less titles but I think that Federer would have won more than the other two. Hell Nadal in his prime years has only managed one more slam than the old Federer. You are drawing your conclusions from an old Federer against peak aged Nadal and Djokovic, if you want to bring some tangible evidence to support your argument then I would like to hear it.

If you are talking about enjoying watching tennis then you can't look any further than Federer either, he is a majestic player.

You are the one who has randomly decided what peak age in Tennis is. Even after crossing 26, Sampras was beating likes of Agassi in Wimbledon finals, still very much in his peak. To say Fed aged 26 was not at his peak is a ridiculous opinion. Also Federer was beating a 20 or under Nadal in other slam finals. Here is another clue, Federer himself did not start winning slams till he was 21 (very close to being 22). So Federer was actually beating a young Nadal in those finals not someone in his peak. If anything it is Nadal who beat Federer in his peak much more often.

 

[crappycraperson]

Let me put it this way. Had they started their careers together Federer would be the dominant player due to being better at tennis IMO. Replace the courts with more balanced courts and Federer would be even further ahead IMO and Nadal would be the biggest sufferer. I don't see the need to keep carrying on the discussion when everyones made up their minds yet still quoting others attempting to convince them otherwise. Best we agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

All this balanced courts talk is shit. Federer himself won all these titles in the same courts as Nadal/Djoko. Have no idea why his fans prefer to indulge in fantasy where he would supposedly win even more titles on different surfaces. No way to tell he would.

This is seriously getting very embarrassing now. A page back you had someone proclaiming that he would have won even more Wimbledon titles in 90s even when Sampras would have been his competition. Now you have people laughably claiming he was past his peak after 25 itself. Now people indulging in fantasy where he would whoop Djoko and Nadal with conditions of his choosing. And I thought Barca wanking was bad.

 

[crappycraperson]

I have no idea why Federer fans indulge in such non sense. He is a contender for being greatest of all time. Has a fantastic rivalry with two players. Why not just enjoy his Tennis rather than disparaging his opponents and indulging in mindless fantasies?

 

[amolbhatia50k]

All this balanced courts talk is shit. Federer himself won all these titles in the same courts as Nadal/Djoko. Have no idea why his fans prefer to indulge in fantasy where he would supposedly win even more titles on different surfaces. No way to tell he would.

This is seriously getting very embarrassing now. A page back you had someone proclaiming that he would have won even more Wimbledon titles in 90s even when Sampras would have been his competition. Now you have people laughably claiming he was past his peak after 25 itself. Now people indulging in fantasy where he would whoop Djoko and Nadal with conditions of his choosing. And I thought Barca wanking was bad.

You're the only one seemingly feeling embarassed or whatever you're feeling. I don't actually need to create fallacies. The man is comfortably the holder of most records around. And he's possibly the most entertaining and graceful sportsman most people have ever watched.

But having read up a lot on the topic, it's the clear the courts have over the years changed a great deal. I choose to take that into consideration rather than just take everything at face value. And so I am. I'm not sure why you're so wound up about it? If you chose to discard those changes that's your wish. I'm not pouncing on you making you do it.

 

[crappycraperson]

You're the only one seemingly feeling embarassed or whatever you're feeling. I don't actually need to create fallacies. The man is comfortably the holder of most records around. And he's possibly the most entertaining and graceful sportsman most people have ever watched.
.

Has anybody denied that? No. I was actually supporting him yesterday and glad he won. But look back at some of the posts in this thread. Garbage. Any loss or failing of Federer, some pathetic excuse. Jabs at his great rivals' game, no attempt to laud them or give them any credit. Fantasising about him winning all the slams in any era or surface.

I have nothing more to say really. I am far from wound up. I learnt my less from Barca fanbois, so I am gonna let you all wank each other off over Fed. I will just hope all three continue their great level of Tennis to serve up more classic regardless of who wins out of three.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Has anybody denied that? No. I was actually supporting him yesterday and glad he won. But look back at some of the posts in this thread. Garbage. Any loss or failing of Federer, some pathetic excuse. Jabs at his great rivals' game, no attempt to laud them or give them any credit. Fantasising about him winning all the slams in any era or surface.

I have nothing more to say really. I am far from wound up. I learnt my less from Barca fanbois, so I am gonna let you all wank each other off over Fed. I will just hope all three continue their great level of Tennis to serve up more classic regardless of who wins out of three.

I give them loads of credit. Always have. They're great players although we'll have to give Novak more time. He's still on just 5 slams. But there's nothing wrong with viewing things in context. Feck knows how exactly that context exactly affects things but we can hazard a guess. Which is what I'm doing. Maybe there's some bias involved but based on what I've read up it seems pretty logical too. But yeah let's move on from this.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

You are the one who has randomly decided what peak age in Tennis is. Even after crossing 26, Sampras was beating likes of Agassi in Wimbledon finals, still very much in his peak. To say Fed aged 26 was not at his peak is a ridiculous opinion. Also Federer was beating a 20 or under Nadal in other slam finals. Here is another clue, Federer himself did not start winning slams till he was 21 (very close to being 22). So Federer was actually beating a young Nadal in those finals not someone in his peak. If anything it is Nadal who beat Federer in his peak much more often.

Actually I got the peak age of tennis players from this article that I read a few months ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...slam-this-year.-Or-is-he-already-too-old.html

For further reading

http://www.ucsur.pitt.edu/files/schulz/JofGeronSchulzCarnow1988.pdf

It is commonly known that tennis players peak young and unlike you I would not assert my biased opinion without some tangible evidence to back it up.

It was also interesting to see Nadal and Djokovic drop off in this tournament because they are both at the end of their peak years as we speak. Congratulations to old man Federer for becoming world no 1 again.

 

[crappycraperson]

I know Tennis players peak young but there is no definite check point in terms of age, at least not so definite that you can proclaim someone won't be in his peak at 26. To claim Fed was not at his peak when he lost to Nadal in the Wimbledon final is very much agena-ridden.

Dropping off in one tournament also does not mean the end of dominance of Nadal-Djoko on GS scene. 4 out of last 5 finals have still been contested among them. Sampras continued to win GSs after he went past 26/27. I see no reason why Nadal/Djoko won't. Only reason Fed could not win so many past 26 was because of Nadal. People have been waiting for Nadal to burn out for last two years, has not happened. Djoko is just 25 anyway. I am pretty confident both will continue to dominate for another two years atleast. Let's see if this win proves to be Federer's second wind and he can come into the mix as well. He certainly seems motivated enough which is great to see. Would have been very easy for him to retire off this Wimbledon win.

 

[Cheesy]

Actually I got the peak age of tennis players from this article that I read a few months ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...slam-this-year.-Or-is-he-already-too-old.html

For further reading

http://www.ucsur.pitt.edu/files/schulz/JofGeronSchulzCarnow1988.pdf

It is commonly known that tennis players peak young and unlike you I would not assert my biased opinion without some tangible evidence to back it up.

It was also interesting to see Nadal and Djokovic drop off in this tournament because they are both at the end of their peak years as we speak. Congratulations to old man Federer for becoming world no 1 again.

Your last part is just utter drivel. Djokovic did not peak young. I think it is clear for all to see that he peaked in 2011 and played his best tennis then. He's still at around that level and is probably the best player in the world right now. His strongest surface is generally the hard court though, so I'd expect him to have the number 1 spot back once we're into the hard court season and I wouldn't be surprised if he was to win the US Open.

As for Nadal, while he played some brilliant stuff in 2008, I'd say he reached his peak in 2010. For how good he was in 2008, the fact was that his hard court game wasn't brilliant which was a large part of why Murray was able to beat him in 2008 at the US Open. In 2010 he was untouchable on all surfaces once he got going.

It's just nonsense to say that Federer was past his peak in 2008 just because someone else was then better than him. I think Federer is an incredible player and brilliant to watch. He's probably the best of all-time, but that's not to say that he's leagues ahead of Nadal and Djokovic. I fully expect the both of them, Nadal definitely and Djokovic maybe, to be right up there with the other legends, including Federer, by the end of their career. Whether you like their play styles or not, it's not a reason to say that their style should be outcast while players like Federer have courts that suit them perfectly.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

I know Tennis players peak young but there is no definite check point in terms of age, at least not so definite that you can proclaim someone won't be in his peak at 26. To claim Fed was not at his peak when he lost to Nadal in the Wimbledon final is very much agena-ridden.

Dropping off in one tournament also does not mean the end of dominance of Nadal-Djoko on GS scene. 4 out of last 5 finals have still been contested among them. Sampras continued to win GSs after he went past 26/27. I see no reason why Nadal/Djoko won't. Only reason Fed could not win so many past 26 was because of Nadal. People have been waiting for Nadal to burn out for last two years, has not happened. Djoko is just 25 anyway. I am pretty confident both will continue to dominate for another two years atleast. Let's see if this win proves to be Federer's second wind and he can come into the mix as well. He certainly seems motivated enough which is great to see. Would have been very easy for him to retire off this Wimbledon win.

Since Nadal beat Fed at Wimbledon 2008 he has won 6 more slams, Federer has won 5 and Djokovic 4. Even after Federer got traditionally old he is right up there. All the real evidence points to Nadal not being a superior player, add to that Federer being 'old' when Nadal started getting the better of him I do not really see how you can claim with confidence that Nadal is the greater player.

You can sit there all day saying 'you can't say that Federer had peaked at 26' but in the context of this debate all the tangible evidence is with me.

Your last part is just utter drivel. Djokovic did not peak young. I think it is clear for all to see that he peaked in 2011 and played his best tennis then. He's still at around that level and is probably the best player in the world right now. His strongest surface is generally the hard court though, so I'd expect him to have the number 1 spot back once we're into the hard court season and I wouldn't be surprised if he was to win the US Open.

It's just nonsense to say that Federer was past his peak in 2008 just because someone else was then better than him. I think Federer is an incredible player and brilliant to watch. He's probably the best of all-time, but that's not to say that he's leagues ahead of Nadal and Djokovic. I fully expect the both of them, Nadal definitely and Djokovic maybe, to be right up there with the other legends, including Federer, by the end of their career. Whether you like their play styles or not, it's not a reason to say that their style should be outcast while players like Federer have courts that suit them perfectly.

I never said that Djokovic peaked young, if indeed he has peaked then he peaked at exactly the right age for a tennis player according to the data?!?!

It is reasonable to say that Federer was past his peak after 2008 if you appreciate the data and the way his career has gone since then.

I believe that all three players will be in the top 5 of all time when all is said and done, certainly Federer and Nadal, with Federer at the top. I have nothing against the other players as I quite like watching Nadal relentless drive and power.

 

[Cheesy]

Since Nadal beat Fed at Wimbledon 2008 he has won 6 more slams, Federer has won 5 and Djokovic 4. Even after Federer got traditionally old he is right up there. All the real evidence points to Nadal not being a superior player, add to that Federer being 'old' when Nadal started getting the better of him I do not really see how you can claim with confidence that Nadal is the greater player.

You can sit there all day saying 'you can't say that Federer had peaked at 26' but in the context of this debate all the tangible evidence is with me.

You're ignoring the injury problems that Nadal has had throughout that time which have held him back. I don't use them to take anything away from Federer because he can only beat the opposition put in front of him, but a fully fit Nadal in 2009 would have almost certainly done a lot better than he did in the major slams that year.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

You're ignoring the injury problems that Nadal has had throughout that time which have held him back. I don't use them to take anything away from Federer because he can only beat the opposition put in front of him, but a fully fit Nadal in 2009 would have almost certainly done a lot better than he did in the major slams that year.

Nadal's injuries are a by product of his style not from him being unlucky, he plays very hard and his body suffers.

 

[crappycraperson]

Since Nadal beat Fed at Wimbledon 2008 he has won 6 more slams, Federer has won 5 and Djokovic 4. Even after Federer got traditionally old he is right up there. All the real evidence points to Nadal not being a superior player, add to that Federer being 'old' when Nadal started getting the better of him I do not really see how you can claim with confidence that Nadal is the greater player.

You can sit there all day saying 'you can't say that Federer had peaked at 26' but in the context of this debate all the tangible evidence is with me.

Errr I have never once said that Nadal is the greater player. It is the Fed fan bois who have a chip on their shoulder about Nadal not the other way around. I just wish they both broke at the same time so we could have had the definite answer as to who was better.

 

[Cheesy]

I never said that Djokovic peaked young, if indeed he has peaked then he peaked at exactly the right age for a tennis player according to the data?!?!

It is reasonable to say that Federer was past his peak after 2008 if you appreciate the data and the way his career has gone since then.

I believe that all three players will be in the top 5 of all time when all is said and done, certainly Federer and Nadal, with Federer at the top. I have nothing against the other players as I quite like watching Nadal relentless drive and power.

Effectively, you did. You stated that players peak young and after the age of 25 start to go into decline. I happen to take a slightly different view. I think that most of them peak around 25, and go into decline a couple of years later. I certainly don't think Nadal and Djokovic are in decline now like you have said.

You say that Federer went into decline in 2008, which wasn't one of his strongest years in comparison to previous years. I'm not so sure. Had Nadal and Djokovic not upped their games that year, then the chances are that Federer would have won Wimbledon for sure, and probably the Australian Open as well. Had he done so, nobody would have said that he was going into decline at all, would they have?

 

[NM]

To be fair, I think Federer's most impressive record is his semi-final streak (since snapped) and his quarter final streak. That consistency will never be matched IMO.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

Effectively, you did. You stated that players peak young and after the age of 25 start to go into decline. I happen to take a slightly different view. I think that most of them peak around 25, and go into decline a couple of years later. I certainly don't think Nadal and Djokovic are in decline now like you have said.

You say that Federer went into decline in 2008, which wasn't one of his strongest years in comparison to previous years. I'm not so sure. Had Nadal and Djokovic not upped their games that year, then the chances are that Federer would have won Wimbledon for sure, and probably the Australian Open as well. Had he done so, nobody would have said that he was going into decline at all, would they have?

That didn't happen though did it, what happened is that when Federer went past the general prime years for a male tennis player two players caught up to him. I emphasise caught up because Federer has won more slams than Djokovic and has only one less the Nadal in his tennis old age while they have been in their peak years.

 

[kouroux]

Is it a recafe syndrome to have debates on things that are impossible to compare ? "Feder vs Nadal vs Djokovic" at their their peak ...