Is Roger Federer now past his prime?

Unless I see some news that Federer has been nursing some sort of injury, I'm of the opinion that he is past his prime. He started off the year strong winning the Australian open, but struggled at the French Open and made a very disappointing exit this week at Wimbledon. S recent performance just hasn't had that "Roger-esque" quality to it that his play in 2006 and 2007 had (reaching the finals in all 8 grand slams and winning six during the two year span).

He made 3 of the 4 finals in 2008, but only managed one win (Nadal seemed to be rising to the top at the time). With Nadal struggling a bit in 2009, Roger again made all four finals and won two. I would suggest that Roger peaked in 2006 and 2007 - he was simply dominant and I honestly am not sure there was anyone even close.

Still, he is SO GOOD that he was still able to be dominant in 2009 during a year when I would argue he didn't play his best tennis. At this point, Federer can still win any tournament, but whereas in past years he could win against strong opponents while almost on cruise control, I think he needs to be playing some of his best tennis to win a major. I would still pick him as the favorite to win the US Open, but his march to the finals isn't quite the certainty that it used to be.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.