It turned out that everyone else in Indian Wells was playing for second place, given the dominance of Roger Federer. But with Federer, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Nick Kyrgios, Alexander Zverev, and Juan Martin Del Potro all packed into the same quarter of that draw, second place–and third, and fourth–was wide open.
The Miami Open–first place included–should be even more up for grabs, especially with Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic out due to elbow injuries. That means Indian Wells runner-up Stan Wawrinka is the No. 1 seed ahead of Kei Nishikori, Milos Raonic, and Federer.
Another tough quarter awaits Federer and Del Potro in Miami, where they could go head-to-head in the third round. It would not be unfair to argue that the winner of that possible showdown will go on to take the title, although Del Potro would likely have a hard time backing up an upset of Federer by beating Roberto Bautista Agut in the next round.
Elsewhere in the top half of the bracket, Wawrinka is in a section that also includes Kyrgios, Zverev, David Goffin, and John Isner.
On the other side, potential quarterfinal showdowns are Nishikori vs. Marin Cilic and Raonic vs. Nadal. A rematch of an Australian Open semifinal thriller–won by Nadal–could see the Spaniard go up against Grigor Dimitrov in the fourth round. Dimitrov is 17-3 this season with losses only to Nadal, Goffin, and Sock (all in final sets).
Intriguing first-rounders include Donald Young vs. Dustin Brown, Fabio Fognini vs. Ryan Harrison, and Benoit Paire vs. Martin Klizan, Kyle Edmund vs. Jared Donaldson, Alexandr Dolgopolov vs. Malek Jaziri, and Nikoloz Basilashvili vs. Tommy Robredo.
Seeds who could lose their opening match:
(18) John Isner–vs. Thomas Bellucci. Isner is not in good form, has never fared well against lefties, and Bellucci would basically have home-court advantage in Miami even though this is technically in the United States.
(22) Sam Querrey–vs. Nikoloz Basilashvili. Querrey recently captured a stunning title in Acapulco. He will be content with that result for at least a few months.
(27) David Ferrer–vs. Karen Khachanov or Diego Schwartzman. This is the beginning of the end for Ferrer, whose disappearance from the top of the rankings is becoming more and more obvious with each tournament.
(30) Joao Sousa–vs. Fabio Fognini or Ryan Harrison. Sousa is tougher mentally than either of his two potential second-round opponents, but the discrepancy in sheer talent level may be too much to overcome.
(32) Paolo Lorenzi–vs. Adrian Mannarino. Lorenzi shouldn’t be seeded; and he wouldn’t be if not for the withdrawals of Djokovic, Murray, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, and others. Mannarino is a crafty fast-court player who often does well in Miami.
Predictions
Quarterfinals: Nick Kyrgios over Alexander Zverev, Dominic Thiem over Roberto Bautista Agut, Grigor Dimitrov over Milos Raonic, and Lucas Pouille over Fernando Verdasco
Semifinals: Kyrgios over Thiem and Dimitrov over Pouille
Final: Dimitrov over Kyrgios
[polldaddy poll=9701254]
Fed-Rafa is too far away but it could definitely happen. Rafa was uncharacteristically bad in his match against Fed because generally his level has been very good this year. Fed is definitely an improved player now due to certain reasons. It would be more appropriate to talk about their match up once we really have it but I would like to touch upon some points:
-Fed is now coming over his backhand returns SO MUCH more. And, he is really in the zone and making such good contact. His backhand returns are more powerful and his mindset is such that he is ready to be on the offensive right from his ROS. In the past, we would chip/slice sooo many backhand returns and allow Rafa to set the rhythm of the rally with those heavy forehands. I mean, I’ve seen him come over his backhand returns in the past but never with the same regularity, power and belief. This is definitely troublesome for Rafa who can no longer afford to throw a safe, slider to Fed’s backhand on a break point. He has to shake the patterns up a bit and erase they predictability of those patterns.
– Fed can punish short, low pace balls more efficiently now with his backhand so depth is ESSENTIAL. Whenever Rafa was getting good length in AO and even in the IW match, Fed was just hitting backhand drives that didn’t have much on them because of the depth of Rafa’s shots. While I will never say Fed’s current forehand is better than his 2005-07 forehand, he perhaps does have some more easy power on this. This racket allows him to have easy power on serve and groundstrokes.
-Based on the above, one pattern Fed is using a lot if hitting forehands DTL early in the rallies. Rafa is surely slower to cover his forehand side now and Fed’s powerful forehands DTL are really punishing Rafa. Fed thought Rafa was moving slow in the IW match. It could be the case but in general Rafa needs to be wary of those forehands.
Agreed, VR, about Rafa being slow to cover his FH corner. Rafa tends to camp at his BH corner more often then not, and his opponents nowadays are not afraid to attack his FH, compared to in the past, all thanks to Djoko (and Sod) for showing the way of how to beat Rafa by attacking his FH before going to his BH.
Fed with his bigger racket now can attack DTL more effectively from both wings, not to mention his CC BH shot improvements too. He’s turning into another Djoko, i.e. well balanced from both wings and can attack from any direction.
Rafa OTOH, not only has a weaker FH than before, but also a weak BH since don’t know when (probably after 2009 or 2010). It will be a losing battle for Rafa vs not only Djoko but also Fed from now on; not to mention his weak serve and a declining ROS as well. I really don’t think Rafa can improve much if he sticks to one way of playing, i.e. playing from the baseline 95% of the time.
He may still have a slight edge over Fed on clay but they may not even meet on clay in the first place.
Solid points from both.
The way that match started aws typical with #GOAT2.0 attacking at a very high level and Rafa playing the turtle to #GOAT2.0’s Hare.
Peak Rafa would bide his time and turn the tables.
<90% Rafa couldn't do it.
But he can and at some point he will.
I think he would do it this week if they meet solely because Rafa said he'd be better in Miami.
It’s crazy how many looks Fed has gotten at Rafa’s serve on their matches so far this season… It would be interesting to see what % of Rafa’s service games Fed has gotten to deuce in the two 2017 matches. I mean, it’s gotta be pretty high percentage, right? Especially in that 5th set in Melbourne- did all of Rafa’s service games get to deuce in that set? Even though I expect Rafa to play better against Fed in Miami (if they play) than he did in IW, it won’t be any better for Rafa from a serving standpoint in Miami because the ball doesn’t bounce as high as in IW. But I guess that even when Rafa was serving better in like 2010, the issue was always more of Fed chipping those high kick serves to his backhand and allowing Rafa to dictate his service game rallies, as opposed to stepping in and coming over the ball more like he has done in their last couple matches.
So I really don’t know what to think of they meet in the final. Part of me thinks that Rafa will win simply because it feels so unnatural to think Fed would beat him four times in a row haha. But then another part of me thinks that if Fed serves as well as he has been, returns as aggressively as he has been, and just generally keeps playing so aggressively and taking it so early to the point that people can’t even impose their game on him consistently enough to make inroads, then why should I expect anything to be different? It’s really fascinating, actually… I think it would crazy if they played in the final again. Especially given that Rafa would surely KILL to win Miami!
Not all that crazy Kevin. Rafa’s serve is way down from his best so #GOAT2.0 going to make inroads on his serve.
But his overall game on average is trending in the right direction.
This site is so polite! Compared to Bleacher Report, where I’ve been for the past few years and where I considered myself reasonable if only for not engaging in personal attacks, here I feel like being gratuitously provocative. So here goes. I think you Rafa fans are engaging in more than a little wishful thinking at this point. The fact is, Rafa didn’t play that badly at IW and he got destroyed. Jack Sock gave Fed a much tougher match. At AO, Nadal stayed with Fed as long as Roger’s game dropped (though he did come out and played very well in those first two games of the last set). In general, I don’t think Nadal can hang with Roger anymore if Roger is anywhere near his best. The points about Nadal’s FH being vulnerable are spot-on, and Novak has showed that for the past several years. As I’ve said before, that step or so that Nadal has lost is not coming back. (Hawk, if you think Rafa’s speed looked ok in the AO final, I suggest you go watch a match from 10 years ago). And the decline in lateral movement affects his whole game, defensive and offensive -and, last but not least, his confidence. You can see it in Nadal’s face (at least I can): he no longer expects to beat players, especially Fed. And a prediction: clay is not going to change the equation. Attacking tennis, played consistently, wins on any surface. If the two were playing the Roland Garros final tomorrow, Federer would be the favourite. I agree that Nadal has done a lot better this year than the previous two (and objectively, he’s done well, period), but to be honest I haven’t been that impressed with his play, apart from flashes at Acupulco. At the AO, he beat an injured Raonic, a head-case Monfils, and probably should have lost to Dimitrov. At IW, he struggled in beating an old Gonzales. Props to him for winning all of those matches, but I will be surprised to see him in the final at Miami. I hope he makes it, because I’d love to see another match-up with Roger.
” Rafa didn’t play that badly at IW and he got destroyed. ”
Anytime one of The Big Four plays the other, they WILL get “destroyed” if they just play “not badly”.
“At AO, Nadal stayed with Fed as long as Roger’s game dropped”
Tennis players level is a function of their opponent’s (particularly in a slam final). They are not independent variables. Rafa’s level dropped up a break in the 5th and Fed’s rose. Rafa’s to lose. That simple. It was that close.
“Hawk, if you think Rafa’s speed looked ok in the AO final”
Non-starter. I didn’t. It was his lack of depth to Fed’s BH and poor serve that lost the match. Didn’t do it enough in IW either.
“Attacking tennis, played consistently, wins on any surface.”
Waaaay off there bud. You’re better than that.
At the end of the day, it’s easy to knock a guy when he’s down.
Given Nadal’s 2014.5-2016 injury and severe anxiety woes, I like what I see so far.
You are entitled to your opinion that he’s not going to improve, but I disagree. Still heading in the right direction with a lot of upside.
He’s No. 2 in the Race not near his best with lots of potential and he’s still second only to a red hot #GOAT2.0. Enjoy it while his streak lasts while the other Big 4 are simultaneously not at their best. The script on GOAT remains fluid. I can enjoy Fed’s tennis. Doubt you are able to enjoy Rafa when he’s at his. Just a hunch.
Gratuitously provocative? Hardly. Transparent? Definitely.
I’ve never pretended not to be a Fed fan, so I’m not sure what you’re seeing through. I agree that I have a hard time appreciating Rafa’s game. Both have to do with tennis aesthetics; like a lot of people I think Roger plays a beautiful game. Rafa, not so much. Messi vs. Ronaldo is an apt comparison. (I have nothing but respect for Nadal as a person. I think he’s a genuinely humble champion who is very good at keeping things in perspective off the court). But fan is after all short for fanatic, and I doubt there’s too much rationality involved in explaining why we back the players and teams that we do.
I don’t think I’m kicking Nadal when he’s down, because I think he’s much more up than he has been for quite awhile. Many (including me) have been writing his tennis obituary for the last couple of years, so I’m a bit surprised to see him doing as well as he has. I agree with you about moving in the right direction, but not about the upside: I think we’re seeing him at about his best right now.
Standing by the claim about attacking tennis. It just that there are very few who can do it nowadays. Fed is at the top of the list, but so is Stan; and some of the big guys when their game is on. (I was picking Kyrgios to beat Roger in that match at IW had they played). Novak upped his game the last couple of years by becoming a more attacking player, going for more winners and coming to net more. A generation ago, McEnroe should have beaten Lendl even on the slow clay in 1984; would have but for his twinkie diet. So we probably just disagree here.
I agree that Rafa’s biggest weakness at the moment is his serve. But (as I’ve said to Lucky), I don’t think Nadal’s serve has ever been all that. That’s why I focus on lack of speed. You talk about depth of shot, which of course is very important. But the two are pretty closely connected. For Rafa especially, it starts with the footwork.
Finally, of course each player’s play affects the other’s. But Federer changed something fundamentally by coming back in that 5th set in Melbourne, and he reinforced it with the win at IW. Rafa has been in Roger’s head like no top player has ever been in another’s, at least in the 40 odd years I’ve been watching tennis. As I see it, the script has now been flipped, and Nadal is not going to be able to fall back on that psychological advantage anymore.
“I’ve never pretended not to be a Fed fan, so I’m not sure what you’re seeing through. I agree that I have a hard time appreciating Rafa’s game. ”
No surprise. It was 10 full years of Fed failing to beat Nadal in a slam. As a fed fanatic, you are not alone in struggling to appreciate that. But I’m still able to appreciate Fed despite his wins over Rafa. Speaks to what I was seeing through.
“I don’t think I’m kicking Nadal when he’s down, because I think he’s much more up than he has been for quite awhile. Many (including me) have been writing his tennis obituary for the last couple of years, ”
Yes you do (or I give you too much credit). Yes many “fanatics” have. Many “fanatics” wrote off Fed. Not me. Again, speaks to my point.
Attacking tennis doesn;t work on every surface. That’s the dumbest statement I’ve ever heard. Maybe you missed Fed’s repeated failures at the French Open until Rafa was injured. He still almost choked to Haas. Haas!!!!!
“I don’t think Nadal’s serve has ever been all that. ”
Non-starter. How many times was Rafa’s serve broken prior to the US Open final in 2013?
If you can’t tell the difference between 2013, and Rafa dumping so many first serves into the bottom two-thirds of the net then I suggest you watch another sport.
No. Rafa tightened up. It’s been a big problem. It’s mental. I’ve been saying that since 2014. But it’s more rare.
Yes, in terms of your riding the wave while it lasts, that’s how most black and white fed fanatics would see it. Also speaks to my point.
Transparent.
I’m enjoying Fed’s tennis. Always have, north of 2007.
Joe, this is boring. I’ve been doing it for too long.
Same old arguments and downplaying other players.
Neither of us will convince the other of anything.
I’m really not into it.
No worries, I won’t mind if you don’t respond. But just one substantive question. Why are you so willing to chalk up Nadal’s current problems to mental anxiety, tightness, etc., but not entertain the idea that that’s been Roger’s main problem against Nadal for the past 10 years? That’s what I’ve always thought (though the larger racquet success of the last three years has convinced me that that change alone, in 2007, would have been enough to change the dynamic with Rafa).
Experience.
Not to mention being able to read both players own words.
It surprises me when people are willing to write off Rafa before the clay season has even started… There have been plenty of season where Rafa didn’t win anything pre-clay, and then did great on clay. I feel like the clay season, in particular Monte Carlo, has always been a good measure of where he’s at physically and mentally. I don’t claim to think that Rafa is definitely going to kill it in the clay season by any means, but I also could never write him off before the traditional Rafa clay test has even started.
Joe Smith- I commend you for having the stones to speak your mind about Rafa on such, in the words of Hawkeye, a Rafa-skewed site haha!
It doesn’t take stones to sit behind a keyboard and post anonymously.
As far as surprising? Nah, that’s just Joe being what he refers to as “gratuitously provocative” and I refer to as transparent and predictable.
#Semantics
Fed having a mental block is perfectly consistent with him not being aware of it.
Wishful thinking based on nothing but Fed coloured glasses.
As good as Fed is this year, he still loses to any version of Rafa 2008-13 or Nole 2011-15.
As I said enjoy it while it lasts. As I do. I’m a tennis fan first. Fanatics cant tell the difference between Fed and tennis. They can’t separate the two.
You are proving my point for me.
Nothing new.
This is you not getting into it, huh? Good thing you’re the only one without biases.
“As good as Fed is this year, he still loses to any version of Rafa 2008-13 or Nole 2011-15”
Now that really is a dumb thing to say. Fed 2011 beat Novak at RG (the former’s weakest surface); and should have beaten him two years ago at Wimby and USO. 2017 That 2015-16 version of Novak is better than Nadal ever was, and Fed is a good step up from two years ago. I like current Roger’s chances against any version of Novak except 2016 AO, which as I’ve said might be the best tennis I’ve ever seen (1st two sets). Current Fed will beat any version of Nadal off clay, and he will push even prime Rafa on clay (maybe win 2-3 of their FO matches). See their 2011 final where Roger played attacking tennis and jumped to a big early lead. But Fed is nearly 36. Give his 26 year old self a larger racquet and the right mental attitude, and he wins handily. Just me trying to be as objective as I can be. I’m not sure current Fed wins against Cilic USO in 2014, or other big guys who when they’re on can simply overwhelm the opponent. Maybe Stan at 2015 FO falls into that category: Roger played great in QF but still lost. So I don’t think I’m channeling pure Roger worship. Maybe you think I’ve got it in for Rafa. He’s a great champion. I just don’t think he’s the tennis player that Federer is, nor the Novak of the past few years.
Now, we are back to Fed at 26 with bigger racket would beat a peak Rafa at RG again?? Come on, their FO 2008 match wasn’t even close! FO2011? Fed almost won the first set, so what? He still lost in the end! Was the Rafa of 2011 in peak form? Nope, after all the beatings he received from Djoko that year, he was poor where confidence was concerned. He was definitely better at FO2012 and FO2013; still in his prime but not sure was he still in his peak on clay.
As mentioned before, the young Rafa simply could hit with depth even from way behind the baseline; he was very quick in his movements as well. Come on Joe, people here are calling me a biased Rafa fan, but I can say that Fed > Rafa on grass and on quick HCs. You are an even more biased Fed fanatics, to say that a younger Fed at 26 with a bigger racket could beat a peak Rafa at RG!
Nah, Djoko v 2011 > Djoko v 2015/2016 except on clay. CAN’T agree that Djoko at 2015/2016 ( or even 2011) > any version of Rafa.
To me Rafa at 2008/2010 > Djoko on clay and grass anytime! Rafa of USO2010 = or even slightly better than any version of Djoko at USO (Djoko had his serves broken before the finals there). Djoko at AO > than Rafa at AO.
And, why Fed should’ve beaten Djoko at Wimbledon or USO2015? To me Djoko played very well and Fed was fortunate to get a set at Wimbledon 2015!
Djoko at 2011 or 2015 > Fed with bigger racket (or 2017 version if you think he’s better in 2017). Only a peak Fed > Djoko on grass and quick HCs.
If you don’t think Djokovic’s best was 2015-16, then we really disagree on something important. I agree that he was great in 2011, but he really upped it later. I think this is a typical Rafa-centered analysis: Novak was best during the period of their greatest rivalry. I think most people disagree, and taking on Becker as a coach really did take him to a new level. It’s much easier (I think) to compare Nole and Rafa, because their games are so similar. But I can see how, if you think that Novak was better in 2011 than he was 5 years later, that you would disagree that his later self was better than Rafa ever was.
The 2011 Djoko was beating almost everyone in straight sets and served out many bagels and breadsticks. The 2015 Djoko had many narrow escapes. Like I said, it’s only on clay that the Djoko of 2015/2016 was better than the 2011 version. The 2015 version on grass wasn’t better than the 2011 version, at best almost equal. It had nothing to do with Rafa, more to do with Djoko vs the field.
Djoko in 2015 > a weaker field; Djoko in 2011 > a stronger field.
God how dull and pointless.
Fedfans can’t accept that Feds greatness is due to his longevity in spite of his being dominated by his two key rivals.
It’s true, some Fed fans can’t accept that other players have had the better of him, especially over five sets. But I think it’s also true that Fed’s longevity relative to his rivals is no mere coincidence or ‘luck’ factor, it is partially attributable to their respective styles of play (as well as the ability to maintain motivation).
On the Head to Heads: In a game that, like most, is about beating the field as a whole (for slams, masters, weeks at #1 and whatever else) I think the importance of H2H is sometimes overstated by commentators, but I can understand why, the individual ‘gladiatorial’ battles capturing the public imagination as they do. That all being said, Fed has hardly been dominated by Djokovic. I think he’s now slightly down on the H2H now, but a lot of great players would’ve retired five years back, at which point he was ‘leading’ that count. As for Nadal, yeah, the guy’s clearly had the better of Fed. Not by quite as much as the H2H might indicate though, as they’ve met on clay a lot more than grass, as we all know.
the Fedal H2H is shrinking….
The Fedole H2H is growing…
IMHO, Fed wasn’t playing great tennis in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Nothing to do with his racket, but more of Fed himself, so to me, a bigger racket won’t help.
Fed had mono in 2008, had back issue at end of 2008; skipped D.C. and Dubai in 2009 because of back issue. He didn’t play well at the channel slams but won both when Rafa was knocked out early at FO and skipped Wimbledon. In 2010 he didn’t play well vs Sod at FO as Sod was hitting without missing after the rain delay and there’s nothing Fed could do about it. At Wimbledon he lost to Berdych in the QF but said afterwards that he had injured his thigh earlier on.
Would a bigger racket help in those circumstances mentioned above? I doubt so, when it’s Fed himself not being able to play well. Credit to him that he still managed to win four slams when not at his best during those three years. Perhaps he should have won the USO 2009 final but let it slipped away. Even if he might win the USO SF in 2010 vs Djoko if not for the lucky shot, I doubt he’s going to beat Rafa in the final when Rafa was serving with his almost unbreakable serve.
Fed’s not going to beat the FO2008 Rafa even if Fed used a bigger racket, when Rafa was in that kind of mode and allowed Fed only four games. At Wimbledon 2008, Rafa was in top form and moved like snake on grass. Rafa at 2008 > Rafa at 2007 on grass; Fed at 2008 < Fed at 2007, I'm not sure Fed with a bigger racket would help him on grass, when Rafa was so quick to get to every shot and if not for rain delay, might won in straight imo.
Lucky: I’m glad you pointed out that Fed won 4 slams from beginning of 2008-AO 2010. During same period Rafa won 3. I’m not saying that Roger was the better player during that period, but it’s at least not obvious, despite the big losses to Nadal. Rest of 2010 was all Rafa, obviously, and (to me) that was his peak, better than 2013. Of course wondering about the effect of the larger racquet is highly speculative, but that’s what makes it fun. The point I keep coming back to, which I’d love to see someone try to answer, is this: How could nearly 33-35 year old Fed be so much better than 29-31 year old Fed? I just don’t see any explanation except for the larger racquet. Put that racquet (and attacking mind-set) in the hands of 26 year old Fed, and I think he would have won 30 slams. How he is playing right now is totally unprecedented for someone his age, and there is no good reason that he wouldn’t have been this good and better with the right equipment/attitude 10 years ago.
Nah if fed had the bigger racket back then, his confidence in the backhand could’ve been a lot higher earlier therefore circumstance and results can change drastically. A lot of factors are in play with his bigger racket especially confidence. Fed is more confident now against Rafa with the bigger racket and could very well have been the same deal back then which could have totally changed some results. This is just my opinion though I do see what you’re saying.
Benny, you have to take into consideration this Rafa isn’t the Rafa of say 8 to 10 years ago; that Rafa would hit with more depth, hence even if Fed had his improved BH with his bigger racket, chances were that Rafa would still be able to push Fed back to the baseline or beyond.
I’d used Djoko as an example in the earlier discussion. I mean how is Fed’s new improved BH compared to Djoko’s DHBH at its best? If Rafa in 2012 at 26 was able to find a solution to Djoko’s DHBH (re: the clay season that year; also their encounters in 2013 right up to USO), how was Rafa any worse off during his peak from say 2008-2010 (or from 2007-2010) when he had to pitch against Fed’s SHBH with bigger racket? Also, on clay it would be tougher for Fed even if he tried taking the ball earlier; I mean Rafa’s topspin FH at its best was really formidable, it would beat Fed’s SHBH with its raw power, heavy weight, on that shot.
You as well as some others said that if Fed played with the bigger racket, he might change some of the results vs Rafa earlier on, but which results? I believed I’d dealt on this in some of my earlier posts; Fed vs Rafa from 2004 (first encounter) to 2007, on non clay surfaces, Fed was 5-2 against Rafa, so bigger racket or not Fed had the edge then. Would a bigger racket help Fed to win the other two encounters which Rafa won – i.e. Miami 2004, Dubai 2006? Who knows? After all Rafa didn’t attack Fed’s BH in 2004, but played an all court game to beat Fed, winning almost all his points when he came forward to the net. The Dubai final in 2006, Fed was playing very well, won the first set comfortably, somehow lost a bit of focus in set two to let Rafa back into the match. Rafa broke early in the third set but Fed broke back later on and Rafa narrowly beat Fed in the end. Was it because of Fed’s BH that he lost? I don’t think so because Fed was hitting his BH very well throughout the match; it’s more like Nadal was playing a little better at the end to edge out Fed.
In their earlier days encounters, Rafa wasn’t in Fed’s head, not during 2004, 2005, 2006. In fact Fed almost won their Rome encounter in 2006 but Rafa was clutch in saving MP when Fed otoh, played it safe. Fed after that match, was still full of confidence that he would beat Rafa at RG that year, he still failed. Would a bigger racket helped at that time? Maybe.
Fed did beat Rafa on clay at Hamburg the following year, so whether Rafa was in his head or not it didn’t matter and Fed failed to beat Rafa again at the FO. Would a bigger racket help? Maybe, but Rafa himself was reaching his peak so there’s also no guarantee that Fed would beat Rafa at RG with a bigger racket.
Exactly, Benny. The confidence is doing wonders right now, and would have had the same effect (on a 10 year-younger body) back then. In technical terms, the main change would have been the ability to take Rafa’s heavy topspin shot on the rise, much easier to do with a larger racquet. And this can be done on any surface; Roger of course tried to do it back in the day, but couldn’t get the required consistency with the 90 cm racquet. So he reverted to the slice as his default, and that defined a lot of their baseline exchanges.
Fed’s BH with bigger racket still wasn’t enough to counter Rafa’s topspin at its very best – the weight of shots against a SHBH was enough to cause Fed all sorts of problems, imo. Also you’re assuming Fed had the skills at that time, like he has it now, so Fed has not improved his skills all these years?
Don’t shortchanged Rafa at his peak; if you’re assuming Fed at 26 with a bigger racket could deal with Rafa at his peak at the FO, based on what Fed at 35 could do on a quicker court against a 30 yo Rafa, then I think that’s simply wishful thinking.
A bigger racket is not going to solve the Rafa problem for Fed, it makes me pissed that Fed fans thought the world of Fed, belittling Rafa at his best, as if one bigger racket Fed would be able to beat Rafa at his best on clay. Rafa is not the king of clay for nothing. He beat Fed on clay not because of Fed’s weaker SHBH; Fed had his formidable FH during his peak years, but that didn’t help him to beat Rafa on clay most of the times.
Note that when Rafa was at his peak, he was more aggressive than he is now, moving inside the court more often compared to now, even though he wasn’t the more offensive self of his earlier years of 2003-2005. To think that Fed with a bigger racket could consistently take Rafa’s topspin FH on the rise on clay is not being realistic; as if Rafa could only attack Fed’s BH. I would also think that Fed would break his shoulder when taking the topspin FH consistently on his SHBH, without using his own FH to help him!
Rafa during his peak could attack Fed on both wings as in all directions, not just FH CC to Fed’s SHBH. Watch their earlier matches, Rafa’s CC BH was formidable, and he was so quick that he could run around his BH to hit his FHDTL or CC I/O FH.
Also, Fed at that time when he was 26, wasn’t having the skill sets that he has now; at least he wasn’t rushing the net that often, knowing full well Rafa would pass him most of the times with passing shots, preferring to stay back to rally when he had the foot speed, power and pace of his shots to do so.
This is seriously the dumbest thread I’ve ever read.
Imo, Fed also didn’t play well at AO 2009; it’s just that his opponents – Delpo, Safin, Roddick made him looked good; he was taken to five sets by Berdych. His serve stats was below par in the final, and a tired Rafa still could beat him in five sets.
You have to look at the competition. When Fed was 29-31, ie mid 2010 to mid 2013? It happened that there was a formidable Djoko at his peak in 2011, sweeping up most major titles on his way to becoming world no.1; and a formidable Rafa in 2010 and then 2013. Also Fed was having physical problems in 2013. In 2012, there’s also a Andy Murray in addition to Djoko and Rafa.
When Fed was 33-35, i.e. 2014-2016, it happened that one of his main rivals, i.e. Rafa, was having injury issues and was then in a slump. Fed had only one major rival Djoko to contend with during those times, as Murray was also just back from surgery and took almost a year to get back to full health and fitness. 2016 was between Djoko and Murray with Fed and Rafa out of the picture midway.
Fed is now fit and healthy after six months break and so happens that Djoko is in a mini slump, Murray not playing that well and injured his elbow now; and Rafa is also back from injury break. It’s up to Fed to take advantage of the situation now, before….
HE Im not sure why you keep bringing up Giles, OK fine he was right, i was wrong, i was a bit negative about Rafa at the time, but all i was saying is i dont buy into all things GOAT and thats my perogative, you do and thats yours, and its one area of tennis i care very little about, i much prefer the idea that we have a number of all time greats instead, hell i dont even post here that often to make an issue about each and every little thing, let Roger and Novak both win 25 GS each, and both sets of fans can tear lumps out of each other pontificating about whos the greatest ever for all i care ….
No that’s not all you said. You said “To add ive never put other players down in favour of Rafa ….”
And I brought up Giles to point out that you put Rafa down to play up Fed.
Hope that answers your question about why o brought up Giles. She was right. That’s all.
And there is a GOAT. The only unknown is who it is.
Go read again, i dont care about GOATs, not everyone does, i just prefer to watch and enjoy the tennis, although im not obsessed about it, you are entitled to love all things GOAT and thats your perogative, im entitled to not care and thats mine, im not sure why you feel the need to make such an issue about this, im out have it your own way, i dont bloody care ….
You asked why I brought up Giles.
I answered.
The rest is your opinion which I respect.
Why is this so hard for you?
I Just dont see why we have to keep dragging up things that were said in the past ….
Except you did at 2:29 pm. I just called you on it….
Hawkeye, you mentioned that Fed’s greatness is due to his longevity; not due to his domination over his two key rivals.
First of all, neither of them have dominated each other. You may say Rafa dominated Fed on Clay just like he has dominated almost everyone due to his exceptionness on clay. So, overall, if Federer did not dominate Djokovic, nor did Djokovic. If Federer did not dominated Nadal, nor did Nadal.
If Nadal did not djokovic, neither did Nadal.
Greatness is a combination of different factors. We might have a clear picture of mutual dominance if all of 3 would have had same age. So, head to head is totally misleading in terms of measuring greatness.
OK I should have been more specific.
Rafa dominated Fed in Slams.
We can never know if Federer had a large racket earlier, he might have beaten peak Nadal on clay in RG. I repeat we never know….
Nadal’s ridiculous clay wins had left a scare on Federer’s mind and that led to some tricky defeats on other surfaces. Nadal,s non clay wins over Federer is a function of Federer’s scare of Nadal’s clay wins. For example, in my opinion, Federer used to have togh time in beating Nadal on Wimbeldon because
Of Nadal’s half month ago RG wins. In fact, it played a major role especially in 08 Wimbeldon final because of Federer’s crushing defeat in 08 RG final just a month ago then and these two defeats led to another defeat in 2009 AO final. In my personal opinion, if wimbeldon might have played earlier than RG (just assuming), we might have never seen Federer facing struggle on grass against Nadal due to not having RG defeat in mind. In fact, Nadal used to carry super confidence ahead of Wimbeldon due his RG wins. Now just imagin the reverse…I repeat just imagin the reverse. Had wimbeldon played earlier than RG, and had it been Federer playing RG final with confidence (due to wimbeldon win played befor RG), who knows may be Nadal would have had same state of mind what Feder suffered going Wimbeldon with a RG scaring defeats. Nadal always had nothing to loose position facing Federer in Wembeldon duw to his earlier RG win. If the scheduling of RG and Wimbeldon might bave been reverse, and Federer facing Nadal at RG with nothing to loose mindset after Wimbeldon wins (scheduled earlier), I personally feel Federer might at least have won 1 (if not 2) RG final against Nadal out of 4 and Federer might have never lost 08 Wimbeldon.
In a nutshell, we must keep in mind, sometimes the dynamics of order of wins or deafets play a major role in inventing other wins or defeats.
I confess to being baffled as to why this has even been brought up. Hypotheticals can be fun or maybe interesting, but the fundamental reality of the past can never be changed. What happened, happened. That’s it. Rafahas a lopsided H2H against Fed. If the Fed fans can’t accept it or live with it and have to come up these scenarios of “would have, could hsve, should have”, then that is their problem.
It’s not enough for them that Fed beat Rafa to win his 18th slam. Now there has to be this nonsensical proposition that if Fed had the bigger racket in the past, then Fed would have beaten Rafa more. Never mind that this simplistic argument does not include other factors, such as Rafa’s innate superiority and skill on clay. Like it came down to the racket, as opposed to Rafa’s brilliant movement and court coverage, superb defense, that forehand and his cc and DTL backhands. It’s so much more than just the racket.
It appears that Fed fans will never be satisfied until they have tried to rewrite the past. Their refusal to acknowledge Rafa’s greatness and unique gifts, his fierce mental strength, the fact that he was never in awe of Fed and was the one player who had the game and the fighting spirit to take it to him, is a measure of their own fanaticism.
The record is the record. There are many reasons why Rafa was able to get the best of Fed over the years of their rivalry. Fed fans refusing to acknowledge Rafa’s incredible genius and greatness, are living in a fool’s paradise.
Well said NNY! Fully agreed.
Bravo nny. You’ve expanded perfectly on what I succinctly said was the dumbest discussion I’ve ever read.
Make me laugh, reading all those Fed fans could’ve, should’ve etc and etc. As if they knew exactly how Fed felt about Rafa; to say Fed would have beaten Rafa at RG with a bigger racket and then said Fed would not lose Wimbledon 2008 to Rafa! Are they dreaming?
Rafa was far superior to Fed on clay – quicker, more powerful, better in many ways than Fed on clay. A bigger racket won’t help solve the Rafa issue for Fed.
Come on, it’s pretty obvious Rafa was superior to Fed in 2008 at both RG and Wimbledon 2008 ( Rafa was on his way to a straight set win at Wimbledon too if not for the rain delay). Bigger racket or not it’s not going to help Fed! If it’s so simple a problem, many players would have beaten Rafa on clay already.
Lucky,
Thanks! At least we can appreciate Rafa’s game and his unmatched dominance on clay. His record speaks for itself. It’s interesting that the man who preceded Rafa as the greatest clay court player of all time, seems to have a special appreciation for what Rafa has done in succeeding him and breaking his record at RG. Borg should know just how much it takes to do what Rafa has done.
Well said to yourself, too!
??
haha. I KNEW this would come up. It is pretty pointless to say that. I don’t mind some hypothetical scenarios (after all, a lot of Rafans talked about the weak era thing and it WAS reasonable given there is proof that fed’s dominance dropped off later, and the proof his later rivlas were far superior than the weak era ones). This hypothetical claim is very weak though. On so many grounds.
Imagine the outcome of Wimbledon 2006 2007 if Rafa had the 2010 serve and a bigger forehand (like 2010 or 2013)?
I am not upset that Fed fans are bringing this up as they are overexcited right now. However, if they don’t realize that the claims are too far-fetched,
I wasn’t saying fed would’ve won those matches they had. I’m saying it’s possible. But that doesn’t matter now. What matters is fedal is at the top of the race this year and that’s pretty awesome.
Benny gets it like reasonable tennis fans as opposed to player fanatics should.
Most of the fed fans here are reasonable and that includes Benny and Kevin. Like I said, all fans have the tendency to get overexcited but what’s important to stay realistic once you think about what you are saying.
– Do you really think Fed could have hit his forehand with the same efectiveness (control, precision/accuracy) with the larger racket? Try playing tennis with a 90 sq inch racket and then switch to a 100 sq inch one. It will be very obvious how you lose control of your shots. More easy power and less shanking? Yes. But, control not the same. The fed forehand in his prime was hugely supported supplemented by the racket he used back then. It was perfect for his forehand and also the backhand slices/drop shots and the ‘feel’ on his game. I am sure Fed would agree how much that racket suited to his forehand!
So, using a larger racket would have involved a trade-off , anyway. Also, don’t forget that players like Rafa can change the hitting patterns a bit (just like he did against Novak post 2011) so rafa’s wouldn’t necessarily have kept pummelling fed’s backhand to the same extent.
I know it’s a pointless ‘debtate’ but I was just sharing some views as they might help improve our understanding here.
I would actually like Rafa to attack Fed’s forehand a bit more… He will likely get more errors as compared to the prime Fed. So, all the top players need to change the mentality a bit.
Carlos Moya on Fed-Rafa IW match:
He didn’t allow him to do anything,’ Moya told El Espanol. ‘It’s difficult when you play against an inspired Federer. He maybe had to play insider the court on the return, be more aggressive especially on the second serve even if it means making more errors. It was a comfortable match for Roger. The beginning could have been a little bit different because he had a game point to be up 1-0 and then another one to break him back, but Federer’s level was incredible. There isn’t anything to say.’
‘He realizes that top players have a big advantage if their opponents play far away from the court. Despite he doesn’t feel comfortable many times, he will have to adapt to it. The more he practice on it, the easier it will be in competition. Anyway, he doesn’t have to play like this all the time, but he will have to vary. Tennis evolves and the player needs to do the same thing, but in the past he already did it. You’re not asking to him anything he can’t do. We try to plan the practice session depending on what we see in the matches. We didn’t changed anything drastically, you simply need to continue on this way and improve little details in order to keep having a good season.’
Carlos says Rafa needs to be more aggressive- 100% agreed
Carlos says Rafa should have returned serve from close to the baseline- Not too sure about this.
Actually, Rafa made a mess with second serve returns. Fed changed his strategy a bit and served heavy kick serves to Rafa’ s FOREHAND. Rafa kept landing short returns (even if they had some penetration) and Fed crushed them with his forehand. I kept shouting during the match that Rafa should stand back to return serve and try to get good depth. Rafa started doing this late in the match and actually it worked better! By returning close to the baseline, you are also playing into Fed’s hands by increasing the pace of the rallies.
In the last few years Fed was a bit more willing to serve and volley , even on second serves as he was not too confident about his baseline game against Rafa Djoko. BUT, I have noticed that now he is more than happy to stay back and he thinks he can defeat anyone from the baseline! Ljubicic also has a role in this.
I noticed that wawrinka was returning serve from miles behind the baseline and fed BARELY came in. He waited for Stan’s returns at the baseline. So, given how good Rafa is at dipping returns, he should not be tense. Also, Fed was not coming in much behind serve so rafa can stand back and try to get good depth on his returns. It’s the idea thing for him as long as he gets GOOD length.
When standing on the baseline, he can hit aggressive returns from his backhand but his forehand return is not reliable enough (esp in the deuce court). Watch the highlights and you will notice! It’s good to have options so no harm in stepping in to return but the primary option should be to stand back until his forehand return is much better.
* I meant Fed was not coming in much behind his serves during their AO match..
I’m a fed fan, but it’s too early to say how he would have played in the past with his current skills. He played great in IW and I just wish he wins many more tournaments. At least the weak era arguments will stop now. The players who were considered strong are losing to a 35+ year old guy. In fact their grand slam wins should be considered to have come in the weak era as when Fed was good they were not winning and again when he is good they will not win. Ofcourse it will not last longer as he is very old now.
Nopes, this is fan bias and I understand. How convenient to say Fed is defeating ‘The players who were considered strong’ Clearly those players are not having the best time of their careers at the moment. One is injured/in a slump, the other is coming back from injuries and doesn’t have the same belief and mental strength (WHICH was one of the biggest reasons for his so many wins over fed).
So, it really is not that simple. Also, rafa is clearly not as fast as he used to be and Fed knows that too. Prime Rafa was a diff monster. The weak era argument definitely stays! Where was fed’s grand slam winning rate 2008-2015 when Rafa and djoko were the two having dominating years. Exclude 2009 as Rafa was injured and Djoko wasn’t the player he later became (unsurprisingly the only year when Fed won multiple slams in a year since 2007!!!). These are no coincidences but facts.
Fed’s greatness knows no bounds. What he is doing right now is astonishing and mind-boggling but the weak era argument definitely still holds because we are talking about titles won over whole careers.
Waaoo…this weak era debate will never end. If you really believe in weak era hypothesis then you should keep in mind Nadal is the most luckiest person to have ever got benefit of weak era. According to your logic if weak era is the function of non presence of competetion, then you must think Nadal won all his French open titles because there was absolutely zero competetion at Clay and Nadal fully took advantage of it. Apart from Federer upto 2011 and Djokovic later on, there was absolutely no conpetetion for Nadal at RG. Now Rafa fans will say because Rafa was so strong on clay that is why it seemed as if there was no competetion. Nadal was lucky to take advantage of virtually zero competetion at clay. And still it was only Federer from so called weak era who was still giving some competetion to Nadal at clay upto 2011. And again, djokovic’s prime years 2014-2016 again, it was only federer drom so called weak era who was giving some competetion to Djokovic. And now when Federer has a momentum to ein again, the rafans have started making thier minds again establishing a conceptIn a of low competetion because of current state of Djokovic, Murray and Nadal, but Federer from weak era is still there to give a comoeteyion…weak era debate will never end and its baffling.
Er… wasn’t Fed lucky when he had no competition when winning his seven Wimbledon??
Don’t compare apples to oranges. When has a peak nadal gotten cake competition man? It is actually you Fed fans who belittle Fed when you say Nadal had zero competition on clay!! You keep missing the point. Nadal has ALWAYS had to contend with Federer in his career and then when he finally was able to overcome Fed and Fed’s level may be dropped, everyone thought Nadal’s dominance had begun but then came Djokovic ! So, nadal NEVER got that time when the nearest rivals are player like Roddick, safin, Ljubicic (COME ON?!). The weak era argument is not to downplay federer’s high level of play, it is that Fed would NOT have won the same number of slams if he were contending with Nadal and Djokovic on all surfaces! You saw how hampered Fed was at RG because Rafa was so good on clay but it took him time to mature on other surfaces.
DO I believe Rafa and Djoko would have smashed slam after slam and stay no.1 for like forever in their prime when nearest competitors were Roddick, Nalby, Saffin, Ljubicic, Davydenko etc. YES, WHY NOT!! All these players were mentally so damn weak and limitations too in their games.
Yup, there are IFs and Buts involved but no doubt Fed’s slam tally wouldn’t have been the same. Do you expect him to beat rafa and Djoko all time ?? They would get split just like they have been getting split between the big players since 2008 depending who players better.
And you actually missed another point. Even if you say Rafa didn’t have enough competition (which is crap as Fed is a phenomenal clay court player and even the clay greats have hailed him to be so), rafa also defeated Djokovic at the French 3 times and showed he could have bossed anyone around at RG! I am sorry but Fed could barely show that as he started losing a lot to Rafa and Djoko post 2007.
The Fed fans miss the point again and again that they are dissing their own man when they try to demean Rafa. That lopsided H2H was not a fluke or an accident. The truth is that Rafa changed the face of men’s tennis because of his ability take on Fed when no one else could. Rafa never feared Fed. He went out believing that he could beat him.
Also, this is not meant to demean Fed at all. I remember watching a replay of the 2005 AO semifinal between Fed and Safin. I was blown away by how brilliant Fed was back then, his movement and the sheer accuracy and sharpness of his forehand at that time was unbelievable. Safin was at his mercurial best in that match. He has incredible potential and should have challenged Fed more. But his temperament got in the way. Safin ended up winning this match, but it took his very best to do it.
No one is taking away anything from Fed. He took the game to a whole other level. But there is no question that he had weak competition. Not his fault but true nevertheless.
Can you precisely tell from which year the ‘strong era’ came into existance? When Federer started declining you mean? Lol…
That’s so cute. So Fed declining right after 2007 when he was 27?! That’s NOT the age to decline in today’s game LOL. He had weakened with Mono in the beginning of 2008 but that’s it. Funny how he was able to win two slams in 2009 after Rafa was injured. I see he held up fine against his old rivals safin and Roddick at Wimbledon haha. Oh and we had Djoko continually improving before he finally got a major win over Fed in USO 2010. Then Djoko reaches another level in 2011 and Fed’s victory at RG is highly commendable though!
2008 onward was a more competitive era and then 2010/11 to 2013/14 it was epic because three GOAT contenders were there and don’t forget Sir Andy Murray who is far better than all of fed’s rivals (excluding Rafa) in the 2003-2007 period. Fed had Rafa in that phase but only on clay..Rafa not good enough on other surfaces then.
26 LOL.
Premature aging brought on by the death of the weak era.
Asif, the strong era came into existence when first Rafa, then Djokovic and Murray turned pro, around 2004 and that’s when Fed stopped being a serial winner. Those 3 players, Nadal, Djoko and Murray became members of the Big 4 whilst virtually all the players Federer used to beat for fun were still playing. That’s proof that Federer’s age group were not up to it.
Fed fanatics love to ignore the concept of age.
Except when it suits them.
Weak Era
-2002-2007
-RIP
-Started when Thomas Johansson won the Australian Open
-Died 2007 marked in 2008 when young 22 yo Rafa beat Fed at prime age of 26 at Wimbledon going on to beating Fed in six straight slam meetings most of which weren’t on clay.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer_Weak_Era
lol. Yeah 2002-2007 is more apt than 2003-2007. Sampras retires and the year saw Johannson winning AO!! My Goodness. Then we saw Ferrero become world no.1 in 2003!!
In Djokovic’s absolute prime years 2014-2016, Federer from weak era stil gave competetion to the absolute beast Djokovic of 2014-2016…with 6-8..While Nadal from ‘strong era’ had 1-9 against prime Djokovic from 2014-2016….It seems more than Nadal, it is Federer who makes a strong era…So, What can we say about this? Should we conclude that it was again a weak era from 2014-2016 that Federer from weak era gave still competetion to prime djokovic (6-8) and Nadal from ‘strong era’ could give zero competetion to Prime Djokovic of 2014-2016 with (1-9)….I eould be astonishing if you could still find any logic about it.
you need to take a pause and understand one thing: there is nothing like ‘Fed from the weak era’!!! Federer is evergreen and has graced the tennis world for all his career. He is arguably the greatest of this generation. It is NOT about Fed but the fact that Fed got to spend a good 3-4 years in a field which is QUITE WEAK. It is not federer’s fault but that doesn’t change the fact that his slam tally would obviously not have been the same if he didn’t have that field! He would still have won many slams but NOT that many, no way! We are talking about three GOAT candidates here don’t forget! when they go head to head again and again, slams will be split! But when these three go against a field of players like Roddick, Safin, hewitt, Ljubicic, Davy they would obviously win the bulk of the slams.
Don’t know what you mean when you say ‘fed from the weak era’ against Prime Djoko in 2014-15. It has nothing to do with Fed! He is the great man. Around that time, he was actually a more well-rounded player than his 2006-07 level and for Djoko to beat him on grass in 4 sets (losing one set in a 10-12 tie break!!) was a huge achievement and showed exactly what I meant. The same fed would have DEMOLISHED all those rivals in 2003-07 phase!
The slams would have been more evenly split. You have to believe this unless you think Hewitt, Roddick etc are of the same caliber to the big 4 (esp big 3).
Note: sorry to any fans of Roddick, hewitt, Safin , Nalby etc. I don’t mean to disrespect them but I just want to assert they are not even close to the ‘RaFedkovic’ trio. Even Sir Andy is a level above all of them.
Tennis has always had ‘dark phases’ where fields are weak. No wonder Juan Carlos Ferrero was world no.1 as well in 2003 ! WHY?! the FIELD was WEAK. Then came a GOAT contender and players like roddick and ferrero were nowhere to be seen around the world no.1 mark!!!
“While Nadal from ‘strong era’ had 1-9 against prime Djokovic from 2014-2016”
Asif must be from one of those infinite parallel universes I’ve heard about.
Dear Ricky, I would love to get a reply and opinion about this enigmatic question:
In Djokovic’s absolute prime years 2014-2016, Federer from weak era stil gave competetion to the absolute beast Djokovic of 2014-2016…with 6-8..While Nadal from ‘strong era’ had 1-9 against prime Djokovic from 2014-2016….It seems more than Nadal, it is Federer who makes a strong era…So, What can we say about this? Should we conclude that it was again a weak era from 2014-2016 that Federer from weak era gave still competetion to prime djokovic (6-8) and Nadal from ‘strong era’ could give zero competetion to Prime Djokovic of 2014-2016 with (1-9)….I would be astonishing if you could still find any logic about it.
Asif, you have to take into consideration that in 2014 Rafa was injured mid way through the season, came back in 2015 playing without confidence. Murray was also coming back from surgery in 2014 and it took him a year or so to get back to normal.
During 2014, Stan beat Djoko at AO, Rafa beat Djoko at FO, Kei beat Djoko at USO and Djoko beat Fed at Wimbledon. In 2015, Stan was the only one who beat Djoko at a slam (FO); Murray lost to Djoko at final of AO and SF of FO; Fed lost to Djoko at finals of Wimbledon and USO. So, Fed wasn’t the only one to challenge Djoko during 2014 and 2015.
Rafa was still beating Fed (at AO in 2014) and Djoko (at FO 2014) before his right wrist injury and then appendicitis. He was leading the race right up to the FO and if not for injury/appendicitis would be the one challenging Djoko all the way. In 2015 Murray ended the year as no.2, so again it’s not Fed who’s the only one to challenge Djoko.
On the contrary Lucky, Asif has to NOT consider those exact things you mention.
#ConfirmatoryBias
All right, this is more like it! Now, you will notice that the only people who talk about “weak era” are Rafa (and Novak) fans. Why? This didn’t start yesterday, obviously. The whole weak era thing started because Nadal fans had to find a way to denigrate Fed’s unprecedented success from 2004-07, so that they could proclaim Nadal the GOAT. All part of a crazy attempt to make H2H a much more important component of overall success than it is. Tennis is about winning and doing well in (the biggest) tournaments, always has been in the open era, and Federer has the best record at that -by far. Here is a stat you may not have come across before. From AO 2004-AO 2010 -a period of 6 years, Federer did not lose at a GS to someone who was not himself a GS champion. He did not lose to a single also-ran (unless you count del Potro). Starting at FO 2010, guess what? He started to age. How can you tell? Not because of his record with Nadal and Djokovic, his peers. Rather, you can tell because he started to lose to those also-rans: Soderling, Berdych, Tsonga; then later Gulbis, Stahhovksy, Robredo. That all started a few months shy of 29, the witching hour for most all great male tennis players (Agassi the one exception). I’ve been saying this for years, but only now can Rafa and Novak fans start to see how it applies to their players as well. Novak’s great run ended at 29. Nadal’s last slam was a year earlier, at 28. In short, the best explanation for Federer’s tailing off in 2010 -*not* in 2008-9, when he won just as many slams as Nadal- was age, not the “strong era” suddenly coming into effect. Nadal himself would never talk about weak or strong era; nor would any professional tennis player. Only fanatics do that.
What has this got to do with predictions and preview of Miami 2017?
You don’t like predictions, remember?
(Some people can be so contrary.)