If peak Federer played now...

Speisekarte

Do you think he would dominate the field and win multiple majors each year.

Personally, I think he'd still be winning 2-3 majors per year. There seems to be a lot of propanda that other players have overtaken Federer rather than age taking its toll on his game.

I think people generally have short memories and don't realise just how good Federer was between 2004-2007. Granted 2011 djokovic would run him close, but if a past it Fed can beat 2011 Djokovic at at French semi and bagel him at 2012 Cincinnati I feel peak Fed dominated if he plays now.

Johnmb

I think he would dominate even more now than he did then. I don't think current Nadal could get into peak Federer's head the way young Nadal did, so there'd be multiple French Opens, as well as numerous other Grand Slams and Masters events that Federer would comfortably win too. None of the current top players are capable of playing at peak Federer's level, and that includes Djokovic during his career year.

Speisekarte

Johnmb wrote: »

I think he would dominate even more now than he did then. I don't think current Nadal could get into peak Federer's head the way young Nadal did, so there'd be multiple French Opens, as well as numerous other Grand Slams and Masters events that Federer would comfortably win too. None of the current top players are capable of playing at peak Federer's level, and that includes Djokovic during his career year.

I agree except about the multiple French opens, just don't see Fed beating Nadal at The French.

MisterAnarchy

That's a good question and one I was asking a friend today .

Federer has declined in recent years there is no doubt of that.
His forehand is much more error prone and it looks a rushed stroke in general.
His serve is much poorer and his backhand is worse too.

That clown Mats Wilander on Eurosport is adamant that Federer now is a better player than Federer of 5 years ago .

Another huge factor in Federer not being so dominant is the homogenization of the court surfaces.
They are alot slower in general and there is very little variation in court speeds.
The modern courts suit the power hitter who can grind his way to victory ,out slogging his opponent.

During 2004-2007 when Federer had his great success ,he didnt really have any main rival ,or one who was a regular Grand Slam winner to challenge him.
John Newcombe said yesterday

"Taking nothing away from Roger, there was a period when he didn't have the level of competition that there is today"

Mentally he knew he had the beating of guys like Roddick and Safin.
The last few years he has looked nervous and edgy against other top players .

Johnmb

Speisekarte wrote: »

I agree except about the multiple French opens, just don't see Fed beating Nadal at The French.

Nadal only beat Federer, in my opinion, because he got in his head. Nadal, nowadays, would not be capable of getting into peak Federer's head. Against everyone else who played like Nadal, Federer stepped in and took the ball on the rise, winning comfortably. He only ever could do that against Nadal for one set at a time in the French. If Peak Federer appeared now, having never been psyched out by Nadal, he would do to Nadal what he did to everyone else who played with huge topspin balls landing mid court. Nadal now is not as intimidating, even on clay, as Nadal from several years ago.

MisterAnarchy

Johnmb wrote: »

If Peak Federer appeared now, having never been psyched out by Nadal, he would do to Nadal what he did to everyone else who played with huge topspin balls landing mid court.

But peak Federer never encountered a left handed player with huge topspin that directed almost all of his shots to Federer's single handed backhand .
It is extremely difficult to deal with high kicking balls with a single handed backhand.

NeoRox

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

During 2004-2007 when Federer had his great success ,he didnt really have any main rival ,or one who was a regular Grand Slam winner to challenge him.
John Newcombe said yesterday

Mentally he knew he had the beating of guys like Roddick and Safin.
The last few years he has looked nervous and edgy against other top players .

This sums it all up for me.

I regularly have discussion with a friend about the Federer topic.

I don't think that he would dominate now even in the form of 2004-2007. He would be a major contender but every match would not be a forgone conclusion as it nearly was then.

[Off Topic]
Why Federer will never be the greatest tennis player for me personally ( Pete Sampras is king :cool: ) is nothing to do with his talent level, its purely because of the lack of any serious competitors until Nadal came along as a serious contender in all grand slams. Where Sampras had many more top top players to deal with.

Speisekarte

NeoRox wrote: »

This sums it all up for me.

I regularly have discussion with a friend about the Federer topic.

I don't think that he would dominate now even in the form of 2004-2007. He would be a major contender but every match would not be a forgone conclusion as it nearly was then.

[Off Topic]
Why Federer will never be the greatest tennis player for me personally ( Pete Sampras is king :cool: ) is nothing to do with his talent level, its purely because of the lack of any serious competitors until Nadal came along as a serious contender in all grand slams. Where Sampras had many more top top players to deal with.

The best Pete Sampras do in the French was one semi final. Roger Federer won it once, came runner up 4 times and lost in the semi twice.

Federer had Safin, Agassi, Hewitt, Nalbandian , Roddick, Nadal and Djokovic to compete with during his peak years. Djokovic still hadn't fully matured but he was still an excellent player.

Safin and Hewitt both beat Pete Sampras in the final of the US Open.

Tox56

I think people would be surprised to be honest. Federer has always been a good match-up for Murray for whatever reason. Murray leads their head to head 11-9, but for fairness if we consider 2005-2008 (their first meeting was in 05), they played 6 times and Murray won 4 of them. That was Federer around his peak. You have to consider that it's not a massive sample size and they didn't play much in Federer's true golden years, but you also have to consider Murray was a good 5-6 years off his peak at the time. Both at their best and it would be a close match for sure.

NeoRox

Speisekarte wrote: »

The best Pete Sampras do in the French was one semi final. Roger Federer won it once, came runner up 4 times and lost in the semi twice.

Yep, lost to Kafelnikov if memory serves me right.

Speisekarte wrote: »

Federer had Safin, Agassi, Hewitt, Nalbandian , Roddick, Nadal and Djokovic to compete with during his peak years. Djokovic still hadn't fully matured but he was still an excellent player.

Too many to mention in this for Sampras not just a handful of good players. I could start with McEnroe and finish up with Federer in that list.

Speisekarte wrote: »

Safin and Hewitt both beat Pete Sampras in the final of the US Open.

That has no bearing on anything, its a competitive sport top players get beaten all the time. You can take the early exits of Federer and Nadal in this years Wimbledon out of context too.

Anyway I don't want to drag your topic off kilter too much.

Personally I don't think would dominate as there is always some subtle change in the tennis environment that changes from the heaviness of the balls to the materials used to speed up or slow down the courts.

Also at this moment in time there seems to be a few more young players coming through who are starting to challenge more.

Plus there are always the upsets which are bound to happen.

walshb

NeoRox wrote: »

This sums it all up for me.

I regularly have discussion with a friend about the Federer topic.

I don't think that he would dominate now even in the form of 2004-2007. He would be a major contender but every match would not be a forgone conclusion as it nearly was then.

[Off Topic]
Why Federer will never be the greatest tennis player for me personally ( Pete Sampras is king :cool: ) is nothing to do with his talent level, its purely because of the lack of any serious competitors until Nadal came along as a serious contender in all grand slams. Where Sampras had many more top top players to deal with.

I agree. Back in 2004-2007 Nadal and Novak and Murray were not at their peaks. So, it must be done fairly. Federer at peak beats them when they're not at peak, peak for peak and as much as I love Fed's style and game, Novak and Nadal have so much to offer. Murray a small bit behind.

Whilst I do believe Fed is sliding/past peak, what about 2008/2009/2010? He was not past it then. Probably at his overall best. He was just facing Nadal and Novak when they were stronger than in 2004-2007.

BTW, Fed at SW19 in 2009 was probably at his absolute best.

IvySlayer

Federer has an excellent record on indoor courts vs Nadal doesn't he? His poor clay record vs Nadal shouldn't take away his best of all time tag.

Federer at his peak would be just as dominant imo.

IvySlayer

Tox56 wrote: »

I think people would be surprised to be honest. Federer has always been a good match-up for Murray for whatever reason. Murray leads their head to head 11-9, but for fairness if we consider 2005-2008 (their first meeting was in 05), they played 6 times and Murray won 4 of them. That was Federer around his peak. You have to consider that it's not a massive sample size and they didn't play much in Federer's true golden years, but you also have to consider Murray was a good 5-6 years off his peak at the time. Both at their best and it would be a close match for sure.

They played 4 times in Grand Slams and Federer won 3 times, 3 finals won by Fed.

Tox56

IvySlayer wrote: »

They played 4 times in Grand Slams and Federer won 3 times, 3 finals won by Fed.

Murray is only reaching his peak though, Olympic final win against Fed was the start IMO.

Rob2D

I reckon Federer would be dominant in any era you cared to put him in over the last century. We must remember that he came from an older era, was dominant and transitioned to the new slower era we have now; and he can still take it to the top guys.

People love to go on about how great Murray and Novak are; but as someone previously said, all I see are a couple of sluggers and grinders. Neither come anywhere close to the Swiss in terms of pure talent and skill. I'd say if you put either of them back in the 80's or 90's they'd have a very hard time of it. No way they'd be at the top IMO.

Now Nadal is a special case. Very much a modern player but he has an air about him that makes me think he'd be fine in any era too. There's god given talent there.

I'd love to see Federer and Nadal handed wooden rackets and sent back 70 years. Fed would be right at home and I'd say Nadal wouldn't do too bad either.

But anyway, none of this matters because Edberg will always be my GOAT :pac:

Speisekarte

NeoRox wrote: »

Yep, lost to Kafelnikov if memory serves me right.



Too many to mention in this for Sampras not just a handful of good players. I could start with McEnroe and finish up with Federer in that list.



That has no bearing on anything, its a competitive sport top players get beaten all the time. You can take the early exits of Federer and Nadal in this years Wimbledon out of context too.

Anyway I don't want to drag your topic off kilter too much.

Personally I don't think would dominate as there is always some subtle change in the tennis environment that changes from the heaviness of the balls to the materials used to speed up or slow down the courts.

Also at this moment in time there seems to be a few more young players coming through who are starting to challenge more.

Plus there are always the upsets which are bound to happen.

To be honest I think you just have to look at youtube clips of Federer and Sampras to see the difference, while both excellent players, Federer was well ahead in ability.

I'd have to disagree that there are a few more young players coming through.

The only players who are going to win a slam in the near future are all mature. There is no 18-21 year olds I can think of with a realistic chance at winning a slam or even coming close. It's a worrying time for tennis IMO.

If 2010 Federer can beat Murray in straight sets on a slow plexi cushion surface ( suits Murray) at the Australian open final final and beat him at the Wimbledon Final in 2012 I really don't see Murray giving 2006 Federer that much trouble. He'd beat him in occasionally but when it matters 2006 Federer would win and dominate the big tournaments.

Tox56

Speisekarte wrote: »

To be honest I think you just have to look at youtube clips of Federer and Sampras to see the difference, while both excellent players, Federer was well ahead in ability.

I'd have to disagree that there are a few more young players coming through.

The only players who are going to win a slam in the near future are all mature. There is no 18-21 year olds I can think of with a realistic chance at winning a slam or even coming close. It's a worrying time for tennis IMO.

If 2010 Federer can beat Murray in straight sets on a slow plexi cushion surface ( suits Murray) at the Australian open final final and beat him at the Wimbledon Final in 2012 I really don't see Murray giving 2006 Federer that much trouble. He'd beat him in occasionally but when it matters 2006 Federer would win and dominate the big tournaments.

Those are very selective examples

I really don't see Murray giving 2006 Federer that much trouble

Murray beat Federer in straights sets in 2006!

Murray has a winning record against Federer both overall and in the 2005-2008 period of Fed's career. Look, I'm not saying a peak Murray would be better than a peak Federer, but I really think the suggestion the latter would 'dominate' the former is well wide of the mark.

walshb

Rob2D wrote: »

I
People love to go on about how great Murray and Novak are; but as someone previously said, all I see are a couple of sluggers and grinders. Neither come anywhere close to the Swiss in terms of pure talent and skill. I'd say if you put either of them back in the 80's or 90's they'd have a very hard time of it. No way they'd be at the top IMO.

Now Nadal is a special case. Very much a modern player but he has an air about him that makes me think he'd be fine in any era too. There's god given talent there.

:

Murray and Novak would hammer the 80s players. Are you saying that if they went back and used wooden rackets and hadn't got the use of the advanced technology/dieticians etc of today? If you put them back as they are right now they'd obliterate the 80s. Late 80s would be tougher, but no way the early 80s giys live with their speed, movement, power!

Alos, how is Nadal so different than them? He for me is also a tough grinder kind of player.

AllGunsBlazing

walshb wrote: »

Murray and Novak would hammer the 80s players.

They wouldn't hammer Becker. He was the first of the real super athlete tennis players and would be competitive if be were playing today.

Rob2D

Speisekarte wrote: »

He'd beat him in occasionally but when it matters 2006 Federer would win and dominate the big tournaments.

Agreed. Peak Federer was just on another planet compared to most guys who ever picked up a racquet. Just winners out of nowhere all day long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTHQ-9z8Ki4

Rob2D

walshb wrote: »

Also, how is Nadal so different than them? He for me is also a tough grinder kind of player.

That's how he plays most of the time. But there's more to him than that. A softer skillful player that I wish we'd see more of.

And as regards Murray and Novak going back in time; if you took away the slow courts and gave them less powerful smaller racquets then it becomes a lot harder for them to play their type of game. Even if they managed to run down the balls they wouldn't be able to send them back with as much power.

No, they are a product of the modern game and their place is the here and now.

Sorry, it seems we have gone off topic again.

pconn062

Rob2D wrote: »

Agreed. Peak Federer was just on another planet compared to most guys who ever picked up a racquet. Just winners out of nowhere all day long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTHQ-9z8Ki4

It's watching videos like that that kind of want me to see Federer retire sooner rather than later. I want to see him remembered for that stuff, not for slowly falling down the rankings and exiting tournaments early.

Rob2D

pconn062 wrote: »

It's watching videos like that that kind of want me to see Federer retire sooner rather than later. I want to see him remembered for that stuff, not for slowly falling down the rankings and exiting tournaments early.

Its sounds strange but I think he has to lose more before he can get better again. The last couple years he has had too much to lose and you can see it gets to his head. He has to hit rock bottom and get rid of all the pressure before he can bounce back. Just like Sampras did in '02.

Speisekarte

Tox56 wrote: »

Those are very selective examples



Murray beat Federer in straights sets in 2006!

Murray has a winning record against Federer both overall and in the 2005-2008 period of Fed's career. Look, I'm not saying a peak Murray would be better than a peak Federer, but I really think the suggestion the latter would 'dominate' the former is well wide of the mark.

I'm didn't mean to say he would specifically dominate Murray, what I mean is he would dominate the silverware still.

For whatever reason Murray and Nadal have been bad match ups for Federer. Much like boxing styles make matches. Davydenko has a winning record against Nadal I believe but you wouldn't say Davydenko is better than. IMO you judge a player by how they do against the entire field, for whatever quirck of davydenko's game it seems to trouble Nadal.

Tox56

Speisekarte wrote: »

I'm didn't mean to say he would specifically dominate Murray, what I mean is he would dominate the silverware still.

Ah yeah but given Murray's recent consistency I don't think there's much of a difference between those two things

RosyLily

Rob2D wrote: »

Its sounds strange but I think he has to lose more before he can get better again. The last couple years he has had too much to lose and you can see it gets to his head. He has to hit rock bottom and get rid of all the pressure before he can bounce back. Just like Sampras did in '02.

Strangely, that makes perfect sense to me. He can still bounce back and win another Slam or two. He may be slowing but I think he'll find another way to win big matches.