Fed's Slam Window Shut

[El Dude]

I'm surprised that he's playing this well at 33 because only one other great player (6+ Slams) has maintained elite form at age 33 - Andre Agassi. Connors was close, I guess, but other than him you have to go back to Rosewall. But Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, and Sampras were all done, or close to done, by 33 - and most a few years before.

 

[Federberg]

He had a good year, Darth. He was a factor at every major, bar one. And given what happened to Rafa in Oz, had this occurred in the semi instead, who knows?

His only real letdown was Paris, but that gave him time to get ready for Wimbledon. At what stage are we gonna start measuring his current game realistically and say, for a 33 year old, he's maybe the best in history? We look at Grigor and say he's off the pace for his age, why not contextualise what Roger is doing, too?

There is only one way for Roger to have a good year regardless of his age...it's all about the slams. The other events are nice practice, ranking points, etc. but it is about whether he can add another big one or 2 to his total. Wins like Cincy and even YEC if he were to win another are small resume buffers at this point.

I'm not sure he is the best 33 year old in history but regardless what did you expect him to be? Total chopped liver? Still a complete shell of what he was and that's expected.

I have to disagree. Tennis is more than about slams. I refuse to have a Sampras-media fabrication devolve tennis into such a one dimensional metric. Accumulation of tournament wins, weeks at number one are as impressive to me.

 

[DarthFed]

Darth, he's not a "complete shell" of what he was. To me that's hyperbole and a bit defensive, because by saying that we can always refer to the peak Federer who wouldn't lose any of the matches he's losing now.

Yes, he's not as good as he was from 2004-09. But his level in 2014, at age 32-33, isn't far from what its been from 2010 onward, which is rather remarkable. 2013 looked like he was falling fast, but now he's back to where he was in 2010-12 - which is as the third best player in the sport. No shame in that, especially when the two ahead of him are in-prime Nadal and Djokovic.

We've had this discussion before, it is just a difference in opinion. The small dropoff/decline for Roger was 2008 - AO 2010. After that has been the large decline. I do agree that the fact he is again playing as well as he has in 2010-2012 is impressive but it is still a long ways away from the peak he climbed up to.

 

[DarthFed]

He had a good year, Darth. He was a factor at every major, bar one. And given what happened to Rafa in Oz, had this occurred in the semi instead, who knows?

His only real letdown was Paris, but that gave him time to get ready for Wimbledon. At what stage are we gonna start measuring his current game realistically and say, for a 33 year old, he's maybe the best in history? We look at Grigor and say he's off the pace for his age, why not contextualise what Roger is doing, too?

There is only one way for Roger to have a good year regardless of his age...it's all about the slams. The other events are nice practice, ranking points, etc. but it is about whether he can add another big one or 2 to his total. Wins like Cincy and even YEC if he were to win another are small resume buffers at this point.

I'm not sure he is the best 33 year old in history but regardless what did you expect him to be? Total chopped liver? Still a complete shell of what he was and that's expected.

I have to disagree. Tennis is more than about slams. I refuse to have a Sampras-media fabrication devolve tennis into such a one dimensional metric. Accumulation of tournament wins, weeks at number one are as impressive to me.

Yes on an overall scale that's all huge but to Roger right now it has to mostly be about majors and peaking for them, keeping a good ranking for draw purposes.

Now if he got back to #1 obviously that'd be a HUGE deal. I think the YEC is also still a big deal for him, seeking to improve upon his record and trying to win it at such an old age would be big.

 

[Kieran]

I understand what you're saying. Of course Roger is exceptional for a 33 year old. But he was exceptional for a 23-31 year old too (not so much for 32 but that was a one off year :snigger) Thus I ask again, are you really that surprised at how he is playing at 33?

I am, of course, because such longevity is rare, and especially rare in high achievers in the sport.

Look at the other players who won 10-plus majors since the Open era: Borg flaked out at 25, Pete was already skipping majors aged 27 due to fatigue (Oz, in 1999, first slam of the year!), and Rafa's body is constantly breaking down. Roger has shown no real signs of the wear and tear that afflicts players who have such long careers. He's skipped no majors, he's been top 8 for 12 years, and he's still going deep in the slams.

That's extraordinary, and I think the longer it goes on, you should be grateful, not slagging the bloke off...

 

[shawnbm]

When you go to the final of SW19 and lose a superior quality match to the top guy in five sets (6-4 in the fifth) and then lose in the semifinals of two or the other three slams, you are a contender against the field in any foreseeable slam going into next year barring injury. Again, let us bring this up when Roger has not advanced beyond the first week in three or four straight majors. I may sign on then, but Cilic was remarkable in that match and Roger was simply outplayed in all facets. It happens, just as it did Nole and as happened to Rafa in Wimbledon. Federer is still in the mix and the window is still ajar.

 

[DarthFed]

I understand what you're saying. Of course Roger is exceptional for a 33 year old. But he was exceptional for a 23-31 year old too (not so much for 32 but that was a one off year :snigger) Thus I ask again, are you really that surprised at how he is playing at 33?

I am, of course, because such longevity is rare, and especially rare in high achievers in the sport.

Look at the other players who won 10-plus majors since the Open era: Borg flaked out at 25, Pete was already skipping majors aged 27 due to fatigue (Oz, in 1999, first slam of the year!), and Rafa's body is constantly breaking down. Roger has shown no real signs of the wear and tear that afflicts players who have such long careers. He's skipped no majors, he's been top 8 for 12 years, and he's still going deep in the slams.

That's extraordinary, and I think the longer it goes on, you should be grateful, not slagging the bloke off...

I'm not slagging him off, just not surprised by it is all. Roger has shown signs of wear and tear as his play has declined. Aside from a nagging back he hasn't had any major injuries but that's about style of play. He's always had a style that was going to help his longevity.

But going deep at slams but losing and staying top 10 doesn't bolster Roger's resume, he is still ambitious for the ones that really count. That's why I mention there are only 4 chances for him to have a good year, unless something crazy happens and he gets #1 without winning another slam.

 

[Federberg]

That's the thing.. I think that the fact he's still consistently going deep does bolster his resume. I want him to win no 18 of course. But he's doing great! You can't win them all, I'm not one of those to through the baby out with the bath water. Nothings happened to make me think he can't win another one. And that might be the most amazing thing of all

 

[DarthFed]

That's the thing.. I think that the fact he's still consistently going deep does bolster his resume. I want him to win no 18 of course. But he's doing great! You can't win them all, I'm not one of those to through the baby out with the bath water. Nothings happened to make me think he can't win another one. And that might be the most amazing thing of all

I agree with most of this. It was good to see Roger look at Wimbledon as such a positive that boosted his chances at USO. It just didn't work out this time but I think he will still be feeling good about his game right now. I think he can win another one but tough to see him being able to do it after 2015.

But I do disagree that going deep is bolstering his resume and I'd imagine he does too. It is about winning the big ones. Roger is putting himself in position to get the big wins but aside from money and ranking points that doesn't mean much on its own. Hopefully he keeps giving himself chances. I said before that if he were to play Nole again tomorrow at Wimbledon I'd like his chances. Hope that rings true next year if he makes it deep at Wimbledon again.

 

[Front242]

Not as long as Rafa has his current team "whom I blame for his strenuous training daily regimen and match schedule".. All Fed has to do is just hang around for another Rafa injury or a Djoker meltdown and he will secure number #18.. Trust me.. his Windows is Never closed.

That scenario didn't turn out so well this time round.

 

[sid]

2 me the door is shut for Fed winning any more Slams,but what he's won is Amazing over the years.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

for me the fedsters "slam window" has not shut..:idea:

the window is still ajar :idea: Federer is watering his African violet potted plant on the windowsill keeping a lookout for another opportunity. (not at French open tho).

 

[the AntiPusher]

Not as long as Rafa has his current team "whom I blame for his strenuous training daily regimen and match schedule".. All Fed has to do is just hang around for another Rafa injury or a Djoker meltdown and he will secure number #18.. Trust me.. his Windows is Never closed.

That scenario didn't turn out so well this time round.

Yeah it didnt but Rafa can't keep relying on others because its just a matter of time before Roger pounces again. Don't Ever count Roger out, he is still in tremendous shape and still capable of producing spectactular tennis at times.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

I think the slam window probably is shut for Roger after failing to win this tournament when he was in good form and didn't have to face a top ten player all the way if he'd done so.

It doesn't matter any more though. Now that Wawrinka and Cilic have won majors they've become barely more meaningful than an ATP 500 :angel:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think the slam window probably is shut for Roger after failing to win this tournament when he was in good form and didn't have to face a top ten player all the way if he'd done so.

It doesn't matter any more though. Now that Wawrinka and Cilic have won majors they've become barely more meaningful than an ATP 500 :angel:

Make it ATP250 as neither won even a 500 before winning GS.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

I think the slam window probably is shut for Roger after failing to win this tournament when he was in good form and didn't have to face a top ten player all the way if he'd done so.

It doesn't matter any more though. Now that Wawrinka and Cilic have won majors they've become barely more meaningful than an ATP 500 :angel:

Make it ATP250 as neither won even a 500 before winning GS.

Kei won Barcelona this year

Edit: Woops, this was Wawrinka and Cilic

 

[Front242]

Not as long as Rafa has his current team "whom I blame for his strenuous training daily regimen and match schedule".. All Fed has to do is just hang around for another Rafa injury or a Djoker meltdown and he will secure number #18.. Trust me.. his Windows is Never closed.

That scenario didn't turn out so well this time round.

Yeah it didnt but Rafa can't keep relying on others because its just a matter of time before Roger pounces again. Don't Ever count Roger out, he is still in tremendous shape and still capable of producing spectactular tennis at times.

Yeah, against Marcel Granola for 3 sets in the 3rd round :cry

 

[herios]

Not as long as Rafa has his current team "whom I blame for his strenuous training daily regimen and match schedule".. All Fed has to do is just hang around for another Rafa injury or a Djoker meltdown and he will secure number #18.. Trust me.. his Windows is Never closed.

That scenario didn't turn out so well this time round.

Yeah it didnt but Rafa can't keep relying on others because its just a matter of time before Roger pounces again. Don't Ever count Roger out, he is still in tremendous shape and still capable of producing spectactular tennis at times.

Yeah, against Marcel Granola for 3 sets in the 3rd round :cry

Even there he needed a nap in the first set, because you know, old men need to rest more often

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I don't get it. 11 matches is a fairly decent sample size. And this is not an election poll with plus/minus variables. Those 11 matches took place in real world and by the way, 4 of them were on clay, which were all won by Nadal.

It depends on who you ask obviously, but I've never valued the head2head :gross:

I've only valued the slam head2head.

Nadal leads Federer 9-2.
Nadal and Davydenko are tied at 0-0.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I'm surprised that he's playing this well at 33 because only one other great player (6+ Slams) has maintained elite form at age 33 - Andre Agassi. Connors was close, I guess, but other than him you have to go back to Rosewall. But Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, and Sampras were all done, or close to done, by 33 - and most a few years before.

I'm not surprised, because Federer is more athletic than Agassi, and Federer has a big serve.
Federer is also more aggressive than Agassi, albeit mostly because of the serve, somewhat the net.
So nothing suggests Agassi would last longer than Federer.

We can go on about Agassi missing many years of tennis.......But he NEVER missed a US Open, and he was an early-bloomer and injured early in his career - the doctor said scar tissue on Agassi's wrist was the worst he'd ever seen in an athlete, and that check-up was 1993 :s