If that's true, how can you explain your theory that Federer was past
his peak at 27?

I think you said because players are a little slower as they age they
are therefore lesser tennis players? I always thought this idea of
yours was batshit crazy and made no sense. You can still be a better
tennis player even if you are slower and weaker as you age. What you
gain in experience and knowledge far exceeds what you lose in a bit of
speed, thus making you a better *tennis* player. If this doesn't apply
to Roger then he must be lacking in a lot of champion qualities. We
can't have a goat who's so deficient he can't improve his tennis after
27. You'd think in Roger's case he most definitely would have improved
as he aged, given all the variety and skill he's supposed to possess,
which give him even more options to win points. I think the players who
really do become lesser tennis players as they age are the 1 dimensional
types who can't compete after their 1 big shot, eg serve, loses it's
power. Those types have nothing to fall back on. Roger is the exact
opposite, he was rich in variety/options, even moreso than Djokovic.

He also says Djokovic is the best ever and that can no longer be
debated, but he said we can still debate who are our favorite players : )



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC8xa_EJ7Sk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)