French Open

[JohnDoe]

I don't think Nadal can beat Federer's record. Even if Federer doesn't win another slam again, Nadal needs to completely dominate the next two years to have a chance, because his physical break down is inevitable. That style of play just won't allow him to keep up that level. If Federer has regressed this much at 29, Nadal's regression is going to be much uglier.

[Fredo]

I don't think Federer regressed that much. It's hard for him to keep up with up threat coming from more than 1 front, the Djokovic's, Del Potro's, Murray's and Nadal's and he's done this remarkably well in the last 3 or 4 years.

[RichC]

I don't think Federer regressed that much. It's hard for him to keep up with up threat coming from more than 1 front, the Djokovic's, Del Potro's, Murray's and Nadal's and he's done this remarkably well in the last 3 or 4 years.

there is a really decent crop of talent in the game at the moment, winning 1 slam is bloody hard and he still's managed to win one every season since 2003

he's just having to work harder to win one - good for us spectators!

[badpiggy]

Haven't been into tennis for years but watching that match today, it felt like Pete Sampras had never happened. I'm sure that ultimately I'm being tennis-ignorant saying that but I think Sampras was instrumental in a lot of people moving away from the sport as an enjoyable experience.

[Darkon]

Haven't been into tennis for years but watching that match today, it felt like Pete Sampras had never happened. I'm sure that ultimately I'm being tennis-ignorant saying that but I think Sampras was instrumental in a lot of people moving away from the sport as an enjoyable experience.

Are you refering to Sampras dominating? or something else?

If the first then it was really only wimbledon he ever dominated like noone else before him, he never managed to win Roland Garros for example. But he was phenomenal on faster pitch types.

[Shaggy]

I don't think Federer regressed that much. It's hard for him to keep up with up threat coming from more than 1 front, the Djokovic's, Del Potro's, Murray's and Nadal's and he's done this remarkably well in the last 3 or 4 years.

I think he has. I don't know what the stats say but he seems to make a lot more unforced errors these days. He nets an infuriating amount of forehands.

[RichC]

I think he has. I don't know what the stats say but he seems to make a lot more unforced errors these days. He nets an infuriating amount of forehands.

I think this is also partly down to the increase of genuine contenders out there - back when he was starting his domination his main worries were Nalbadian and Roddick who are good players weren't anywhere his level.

[badpiggy]

Are you refering to Sampras dominating? or something else?

If the first then it was really only wimbledon he ever dominated like noone else before him, he never managed to win Roland Garros for example. But he was phenomenal on faster pitch types.

I mean his relentless serve and volley game. Obviously he had way more to his game than that but to a casual fan like me, he made for very boring tennis.

[Darkon]

In that respect I agree, he was very one-dimensional although phenomal at it

[Fredo]

I think he has. I don't know what the stats say but he seems to make a lot more unforced errors these days. He nets an infuriating amount of forehands.

He's put under more pressure therefore he makes more mistakes.

[Shaggy]

I think this is also partly down to the increase of genuine contenders out there - back when he was starting his domination his main worries were Nalbadian and Roddick who are good players weren't anywhere his level.

He's put under more pressure therefore he makes more mistakes.

True, but regardless of other factors or reasons for his regression, I still think he's regressed.

I don't think he's quite the same player as he was. He's 29, has young twins...it's natural.

[RichC]

True, but regardless of other factors or reasons for his regression, I still think he's regressed.

I don't think he's quite the same player as he was. He's 29, has young twins...it's natural.

true - tennis is probably not the all important thing in his life as it once was.

Still $65M in prize money + sponsorship - he's not done badly (chuck in 16 slams with that as well!)

[Fredo]

I think he's still done remarkably well amidst all of that. He's not dominating as much as he was but who is at the moment? Nadal is the one undisputed force on clay but there are up and coming players who will be challenging his hegemony and already have been. Djokovic has improved and is providing a tough challenge. I don't think anyone can dominate Tennis the way Sampras and Federer have done anymore, not these days anyway. So because of this, I don't think he has regressed that much though it's indisputable that at 29, his best years are behind him.

[Arn]

I think he has. I don't know what the stats say but he seems to make a lot more unforced errors these days. He nets an infuriating amount of forehands.

He decided to change a part of his game. That is why he make more errors. He decided to take the ball much earlier to up the pace to have a chance against the big hitters like Nadal and Del Potro.

It is a more risky game but that is what decided to do.

[Buzzo]

True, but regardless of other factors or reasons for his regression, I still think he's regressed.

I don't think he's quite the same player as he was. He's 29, has young twins...it's natural.

I'd be interested to see a stat of players whose careers dip when they have kids..!

I can think of loads of times you see someone playing sport and think, 'he's not as good as he was a year ago" only to find out they have kids aged under 2...