walshb wrote: » You seem fixated on his age...... He is not like other "older" players. There is so much to his game and the way he plays and his lifestyle and court presence and shot delivery. He is not doing the impossible here. He is simply still at a very high level of tennis excellence and it is seeing him win matches. He never really relied on the "younger" man's needs and attributes like stamina and intensity and explosive speed and power and relentlessness and that grinder attitude. That was never his game. His game and success was a mix of flare and shot selection and footwork and overall sensory greatness and brilliant serving and brilliant floating court coverage. It has allowed him less wear and tear through the years compared to the more intense and grinding type greats. Last year at OZ I watched closely and to me he was every bit as brilliant as he was ten years previous,. Why? I don't know. That is why he is an astonishing tennis player. Little changes here and there can make you a slight bit better, or allow you to be the best or close to the best. If he were a boxer he'd be one who took next to no punishment and kept himself in tip top shape, allowing him compete at the highest level whilst others who took shots and grinded out wins fell by the wayside! Remember, Federer never "really" declined. He still hasn't really declined. If he had he would have been beaten a lot more the past 18 months or so.
WickIow Brave wrote: » Nadal won his first slam at 19, Djokovic 20. Can't remember what exact age Federer was but he was like 20 when he first won Wimbledon. Murray was 21 when he made his first slam final. Nadal at the exact same age Kyrgios is now was just about to win his *6th* slam. Kyrgios hasn't even a semi-final yet and it's four years now since he beat Nadal at Wimbledon. I'm not saying they have to be as good as Nadal or Federer but come on. A 36 yo Federer gets through to the final because of a 6-1 5-2 (ret) win and people think that's good for the game? People on here talking about how 'astonishing' Federer is? Probably the same people who give out about the lack of competition for Serena when she wins all the time.
josip wrote: » It takes a few years of Grand Slam experience to get the soles of your feet tough enough for the 2nd week
WickIow Brave wrote: » Yeah I totally agree with that for all the players that are 30+. It's not surprising they are all burnt out trying to compete with Federer for all these years. I'm referring to the 18-23 year olds that are coming on to the scene, they haven't been on the tour that long and weren't dominanted by the big 4. They should be able to step up and pose some questions of a 36 year old but there doesn't to be anyone capable. That's worrying and making for a very dull tournament and tournaments to come.
josip wrote: » But the reason there's no competition now is because all of his challengers have had to go to superhuman physical limits to compensate for the talent deficit between them and Federer. It's not just down to good fortune that the other 3 of the big 4 are all injured. They've burned themselves out trying to keep up. A bit like what happened the USSR and USA economically.
walshb wrote: » They need to become fans, educate themselves on the game and educate themselves on what makes Fed so special a sporting talent.
dominatinMC wrote: » Ha, looks like Paul Kimmage is moonlighting on Boards! To be fair, I did read an article recently on the Irish Times (I think), where that journalist (not Kimmage) was questioning Feds comeback. I think it is only fair that if people point the finger at Nadal/Djokovic, that Fed is not exempt from the same treatment. I know Nadal/Djokovic play a more attritional, physical game, but Fed is also 5 years older (6 on Djokovic), which has to count for a lot! He has tailored his schedule, yes, but I am not surprised that some are suspicious. Disclaimer: I, personally, do not think Fed is guilty of any nefarious activities (nor Nadal or Djokovic). I can just see why people (particularly causal fans) would be wary of a 36 (nearly 37!) year old dominating such a physically demanding sport.
dominatinMC wrote: » I can just see why people (particularly causal fans) would be wary of a 36 (nearly 37!) year old dominating such a physically demanding sport.
WickIow Brave wrote: » Yeah. Very unusual is right.
Boris_Pecker wrote: » It's an unusual case study really as there are lots of variables to examine.
WickIow Brave wrote: » I don't think there's ever been a player in tennis or any other sport for that matter to begin a decline at 30 and then make a huge improvement at 35. That is not normal.
jr86 wrote: » You can't just say "he's 36 so he can't be better than 30"! As the poster above said, the bigger racket has been a major difference, he's scheduling more precisely now, so he's much fresher for the big events. His serve is as consistent as it's ever been in the last decade, his backhand paled in comparison back then to what it does now. I've barely ever seen him moving better Sometimes sport and form in sport just does not follow black-and-white logic.
WickIow Brave wrote: » I appreciate how good Federer is but I'd prefer it if he had to earn it like he did last year and not because of some young fella having to retire because of blisters. Federer could be winning slams until he's 60 and people would still gush about how great he is. Fair enough, they're Federer fans first and foremost, I'm a tennis fan and I'd like to see high quality, competitive matches. Djokovic is just one player, where are the up and coming players? Players aged 20-25 that should be challenging and winning the biggest tournaments. Federer has been beaten at slams by Tsonga, Wawrinka, Berdych, Soderling, Raonic, Cilic, del Potro (I'm not including 2013 because yes, Fed was below form that year). You can't honestly believe Fed is playing that much better at 36 than he was at 29/30 when he lost to those guys? If he is than I would seriously question his methods. Most of those guys are old now but where are the next generation of players? It's quite depressing. I hope Cilic brings his A game because a repeat of last year's Wimbledon final is really not a good look for mens tennis and does Fed no good either. I hope Fed wins because I'm obviously a way bigger Fed fan than Cilic fan but please god it's competitive.
WickIow Brave wrote: » Eh, the best players will still win in best of 3? Do you honestly think they wouldn't? How many shock Masters winners have they're been in the last 10 years?! Players that wouldn't have won if was best 5? If slams were best of 3 all along Djokovic would still have dominated for those few years he was number 1, Federer would still have won all those Wimbledons, Nadal would still have all won all those French Opens. I would rather the best player won than the best marathon runner to win TBH. There are plenty of epic Masters matches in best of 3 and plenty of epic women's matches? Or would you disagree? Does a match have to be best of 5 to be considered a classic?
Rob2D wrote: » Absolute nonsense. At the end of the day the best man should win END OF. Runnings long sets in anything is the best way to decide the real talent. Maybe you'd like them to just flip a coin for the trophy altogether
jr86 wrote: » Well Federer is the greatest player ever and is playing some of his best tennis ever. Of course he'll hammer most. 6 of the top players in the game are all injured in some form too Tbf Federer was average to borderline poor in 2013 and his level now is a step ahead of 2014. Remember, he still finished 2014 as world number 2 and probably would have in 2015 but for a scheduling cull. In 2016 he sat out half the season But what I'm saying is there's a big difference (imo) as to why Federer is winning Slams now and not then - the fitness of Djokovic. But Federer still coasted to 3 slam finals between 2014 and 2015 which he all lost to guess who. He lost to him in AO semi aswell (which he breezed into), and was basically injured at W'don 2016. Take out his MIA 2013 and he was still just as dominant, only the best player of this decade is now injured.
yerwanthere123 wrote: » Ben Rothenberg is a fúcking idiot, his opinions mean absolutely nothing. Best of 5 will never go on the men's side, rather they'll reduce the number of mandatory tournaments to deal with the ever-increasing injuries in the game. I'd like to see best of 5 from the QF's onwards in the women's game.
WickIow Brave wrote: » A bit of unpredictability on the men's would do no harm either
jr86 wrote: » Switching men to best of 3 would be a disaster and I'm scared to death when the 'big 4' go it will be advocated far more. Money and ratings talk. But slams are the absolute pinnacle of the sport and best of 3 can produce too many flukes. I'd imagine the majority of Women players would have no problem playing Best of 5 either. Even just QF onwards - as a poster above mentioned - would be still very feasible
WickIow Brave wrote: » It's not good when a near 37 yo is just sauntering to the title like this and it's got nought to do with how great he is, he didn't win a single Slam between 2012-2017. It's more the lack of any competition. We're looking at Nadal coasting to another French Open and Federer to another Wimbledon in a few months aswell. Awful stuff.
