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.
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: » 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: » 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.
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.
jr86 wrote: » Wozniacki's defence for those last two points!!! What an athlete For all those who think good tennis is about all out attacking - fk off tbh! Wozniacki seems a nice girl too, very pleased for her
qwabercd wrote: » I think that match answers the question as to whether women should play 5 sets.
