We have just witnessed yet another achievement from the all time best tennis player, Roger "The Maestro" Federer.
As I said in one of my previous posts here, by winning Wimbledon this year, making it his seventh to tie Sampras's record, he extends his own record of slams won to 17, and gets back to number one in what his detractors call the greatest era of tennis (when his main rivals are great at the game and at their peaks), so even they have to recognize he is the best tennis player ever, don't they?
I can hardly hide my happiness! I'm ecstatic!
As the subject title suggests though, that's not all folks. I'd like to know what you think of the following: has Federer peaked again?
Just as a help for thought, even though we have seen Fed go down pretty fast through 2010, showing already he was on the way to losing his number two ranking - after he had already lost the number one during the clay season and the two QF exits (ending on the way his formidable 23 consecutive slam SFs) - after losing the USO semi to Djokovic, what happened afterwards?
Since that loss, even if we just look at Fed's H2H record against everybody, including his closest rivals, what do we see?
Versus Djokovic who had one of the best years in tennis with 2011, he is 5-6 (only one win away, 2-2 in slams).
Versus Nadal who had just finished an amazing year in 2010 and the career Grand Slam and who is the worst match-up he can have, he is 3-4 (only one win away).
Versus Murray who used to have a positive H2H against him, he is 3-1.
So, really, my question is: is Federer peaking for the second time in his sumptuous career?
We only peak twice!
posted on 9/7/12
Okay, then why did he hire Annacone?
posted on 9/7/12
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/7/12
No peak really. He's just won this slam Remember 2-0 down to Bennateau and just 2 points from defeat multiple times...if he loses that the obituaries are being written. No slam for nearly 3 years. First early round loss for 8 years. Didn't look good at the FO either, didn't threaten on clay, hasn't beaten Nadal or Djokovic in a slam for over a year..that would have been the story....
Do people really think 2012 Fed was much better than 2010, or 2011?
In 2011 he beat Djokovic (40+ match winning streak at the FO) in the form of his life, and played incredible in the final against Rafa, better than he did at WImbledon this year. Could have won the USO too, match points in the semi finals. Wimbledon that year a 5-setter goes against him, this year it just goes his way against a weaker player.
Fine margins, here.
posted on 9/7/12
I think Fed's years can be ranked as follows:
1. The best 2005, 2006.
2. The next best 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012.
3. Below that: 2003 and 2008.
4. The earlier years before 2003.
I don't believe in 2 peaks, he had a poor year in 2008, but he has been fairly consistent and good since 2009 in my opinion.
posted on 9/7/12
The other thing people and missing is that Nadal and more so Djokovic took the game to a new level in 2011. Fed is #1 in 2012 primarily because they couldn't sustain this, not because he got better.
posted on 9/7/12
Have you thought of creating HenmanBillipedia?
posted on 9/7/12
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/7/12
Fine margins, here.
-------------------------
I woudl typically agree about this when talking about tennis. But not on this occasion. Yes he was very lucky that despite a bad back he managed to get through players who should have beaten him. WorsT was probably his match v Malisse where Malisse completely collapsed under the circumstances.
But I maintain that this back was already a problem in Paris and that Federer paid dearly there while struggling to find his form and that to me is unlucky as opposed to thin margins.
On this occasion at Wimbledon, Federer won another title quite convincingly and only an impediment, or an injury could have stopped him. Otherwise his class and talent is still above everybody else, certainly on this surface and the "margins are NOT fine".
posted on 9/7/12
The best examples of fine margins is 2-0 down against Benneateau and two points from defeat several times. But Murray BP at 1-0 4-4 and Djokovic BP at 1-1 4-4....At the end of the match you say Federer was the better player, but..they could have gone differently.
Other thing is that both of his last two matches seemed pretty even 50/50 matches. Until they put the roof on and then it was more a case of superior class.
Federer has been the indoor champion for the last 2 years, having an "indoor" slam helped him a bit.
posted on 9/7/12
The point I was trying to make is bad back and fine margins don;t mix in. The fact Fed managed to win despite not being 100% (at least till Malisse's match) shows clearly that he is H&S above most players and his wins v Djoko and Murray were not fine margins. He loked the champion from teh end of the second set. Murray and Djoko got closer until Fed reached another gear. Add the fact that Federer played against a packed stadium under a closed roof and that widens the margins even. Imagine if Murray had been playing Fed in Zurich under the same circumstance.