2004-2009, 2011-2016, and 2018-2023 Competition Compared Purely with Data

[zvelf]

First of all, forgive the super long post, but detail is needed for understanding. After Kralingen put up stats for Federer and Djokovic’s peak periods, 2004-2009 and 2011-2016, respectively, and Djokovic age 30s period, 2018-2023 in this thread, I decided to take a deep dive into the strength of competition in each of these periods by looking only at data. Djokovic fans decry Federer’s peak as a weak era. Federer fans decry Djokovic’s 30s as a weak era. Well, if these are weak, how weak are they in comparison to each other. Can the data tell us?

So I took the 12 players whom Federer and Djokovic played the most in these periods and gave them each a strength rating. I was originally going to choose 10 players, but 3 players tied for most played against Djokovic (6 times) in 10th position for 2018-2023, and whichever one of them I chose arbitrarily would affect the final data slightly. (Actually, more than 3 players played Djokovic 6 times in 2018-2023, but my tiebreaker rule was who played Djokovic in slams more, and these 3 players still all played Djokovic 3 times in slams over this period. My tiebreaker ended up dropping Dominic Thiem, who played Djokovic 6 times but only twice in slams during this period, and Thiem’s strength weighting was much higher than the ones who made the cut: Kevin Anderson, Hubert Hurkacz, and Jan-Lennard Struff.)

So what’s the most common sense strength rating? Well, I took into account the number of slams won, the number of slam runners-up, the number of slam semifinals reached, the number of total titles won, peak ranking, and win/loss record while looking at these numbers ONLY DURING these periods of play against Federer or Djokovic. If I only looked at slams won and not finalists and semis, that wouldn’t be a very helpful indicator as the Big 3 won almost all the slams during these periods. Who it would help immensely is Djokovic 2011-2016 as that’s when Murray and Wawrinka won 3 slams each. But runner-up should not be weighted the same as a slam, so I weighted it as half as much and reaching semifinals as a quarter as much. Again, if I weighted runners-up and semifinalists even less than this, it would just make Big 4 + Wawrinka’s strength points even stronger.

The one element that needs clarification is the highest ranking score. The way my points for rankings work is if you’re #1 during a given period, you score 100%, #2 is 95%, #3 is 90%, and so on until #20 gets 5%. Every single player evaluated made the top 10 in their respective playing periods except Struff, whose highest ranking between 2017-2023 was #21 and so he got a big fat zero for this aspect of the strength rating.

On top of all of this, everything is graded on a curve based on what was the highest achievement any of these competitors got in these areas. So for example, the highest number of grand slam wins by any Federer or Djokovic opponent in these periods was 6 for 2004-2009 Nadal and 2018-2023 Nadal. So everyone’s grand slam score is a percentage out of 6. Those Nadals would get a score of 1.000. 2011-2016 Murray’s 3 grand slam wins score is 0.500 (3/6). The highest win percentage is 2018-2023 Nadal’s 84.2% so everyone’s win percentage is a percentage out of 84.2%. 2018-2023 Nadal’s score here is 1.000. 2011-2016 Berdych’s 70.1% is worth 0.832 (70.1/84.2). Grading on a curve allows our final strength rating to mean something as we will see in a moment.

All of the different elements are weighted to provide a final score for each player:

slams won x 0.2105 + slam runners-up x 0.1053 + slam semifinals x 0.0526 + titles won x 0.2105 + peak ranking score x 0.2105 + win percentage x 0.2105 with the weighted factors summing to 1.000

So 2004-2009 Nadal’s 0.89 means he is 89% from being the perfect opposing player given his comparison to the peak performance of all the other elements among all opponents of Federer and Djokovic in these periods. 2004-2009 Nadal is 6/6 slams won (1 x 0.2105) + 2/6 slam runners-up (.3333 x 0.1053) + 3/9 slam semifinals (0.3333 x 0.0526) + 36/36 titles won (1 x 0.2105) + #1 peak ranking (1 x 0.2105) + 82.98% win percentage (82.98 / 84.19 x 0.2105) = 0.89

But we’re not done with weighting yet. It matters how much you play somebody. If you play 0.89 Nadal 5% of the time vs. 10% of the time, your strength of competition is a lot different. And I decided to give slam matches double the weight of a non-slam match. Total matches played + total slam matches played = what I’ll call opposition points. So the final strength of the opposition score is a weighted average of a players score x opposition points / total opposition points among the 12 players played. Or another way to explain it is that the final strength of opposition = players score x (total matches played + total slam matches played) / (total matches played + total slam matches played of all 12 opponents).

And we’re still not done because you have to proportion to all matches played within a period. Djokovic played his 12 players 196 times, far more than Federer played his 12, which was 148 times. I proportioned by “opposition points” to make slam matches worth double of a non-slam match.

 

[zvelf]

So before I get to the findings, let me say that while I expected strength of competition to be highest for 2011-2016, weaker for 2004-2009, and weakest for 2018-2023 (and that is what it turned out to be), I went in as impartially as possible with no clear expectations for what the exact numbers would be and let them fall wherever they did. And I was surprised by them. Also, while I did some of this with code, some tweaks were done manually, so there is the possibility that I have typos here for which I apologize in advance, and if you notice anything, please let me know.

Here are the 12 players for each period used in the comparison ordered from left to right by most matches played and if that is tied, by most slam matches played:

Here are the results of the analysis:

First note that these 12 players for each era represent 29.8% of all of 2004-2009 Federer’s matches, an astounding 40.3% of 2011-2016 Djokovic’s matches, and 30.2% of all of 2018-2023 Djokovic's matches so that’s a strong sample of their competition. So what surprised me most here is how much stronger 2011-2016 is than either of the other eras. This is because, across all 3 periods, Djokovic had the second (Murray), third (Nadal), and fifth (Federer) toughest opponents compared to 2004-2009 having just the toughest (Nadal) and 2018-2023 having just the fourth toughest (Nadal) out of the top 5. Huge kudos to Nadal for having 3 of the 4 toughest versions on the list. Djokovic’s 2011-2016 score is 0.594 so his top 12 opponents (proportional to total matches played + total slam matches played) performed at almost a 60% level relative to the maximum performance of all players from 2004-2009, 2011-2016, and 2018-2023. 2004-2009 at 0.375 is only 63% as strong as 2011-2016 and 2018-2023 at .337 is only 57% as strong as 2011-2016. The other reason 2011-2016 is much tougher is that Djokovic had to play the best players far, far more times. 2011-2016 Djokovic played Murray, Federer, and Nadal a combined 80 times, which was 16.4% of all his matches played during this period! 2004-2009 Federer played Nadal, Roddick, and Hewitt only 49 times, 9.9% of his matches played during this period, and 2018-2023 Djokovic only played Medvedev, Tsitsipas, and Zverev 37 times, 10.8% of his matches played during this period.

Perhaps of most interest to a lot of people here and what could be the headline of another thread is that 2018-2023 is 90% as strong as 2004-2009, so clearly a bit weaker but not by leaps and bounds. I think that 2018-2023 may feel weaker than it is (aside from fan bias) is because it followed an incredibly strong era (possibly the strongest ever) and so the drop feels sharper.

Now what if you combined 2011-2016 and 2018-2023’s strength of opposition (relative to number of matches played + number of slam matches played because Djokovic played 41% more matches in 2011-2016 than in 2018-2023)? Djokovic still scores 0.528. Federer’s adjusted score becomes 0.419, but that means 2004-2009 strength of opposition is still 79% of 2011-2016 and 2018-2023 combined, meaning Djokovic still had notably stronger competition overall than Federer did in 2004-2009.

If you don’t want to take matches-played-weighting into account and just take the difference between Djokovic’s 2011-2016 and 2018-2023, then his score is 0.470 strength of opposition, which is still 12% higher than Federer’s strength of opposition for 2004-2009. To restate, using the statistical lens most favorable to Federer, Djokovic’s total strength of opposition in combining strong and weak periods is 12% stronger competition than 2004-2009 Federer’s peak period just as 2004-2009 is 11% stronger than Djokovic’s weakest competition period.

 

[zvelf]

Other things that surprised me was that 2011-2016 Murray was not only the opponent who 2011-2016 Djokovic played the most often (in 28 matches total and 10 times in slams), but this Murray was also that Djokovic’s strongest opponent in that period with a score of 0.83, just edging Nadal’s 0.81. That is certainly owing to Nadal’s dip in form in 2015-2016.

2004-2009 Nadal (0.89) is the strongest opponent that anyone in any of these periods faced. Again, 2011-2016 Murray (0.83) is 2nd, 2011-2016 Nadal (0.81) is 3rd, 2018-2023 Nadal (0.78) is 4th, 2011-2016 Federer (0.70) is 5th, and 2018-2023 Medvedev (0.63) is 6th. Giving credence to Federer fans who say Roddick is underrated, he places as 7th toughest opponent (0.58) across all 36 versions of opponents here, just barely above 8th place 2011-2016 Wawrinka (0.57). 2004-2009 Djokovic (0.55) places 9th (keep in mind that this Djokovic did not play the full tour in 2004-2005), and tied for 10th are 2011-2016 Ferrer (0.51) and 2018-2023 Zverev (0.51). This tie is amusing to me because I think of the two of them as the most accomplished men to never win a slam. Easily at the bottom is Struff with 0.13, far below even second-worst Shapovalov at 0.27.

Also interesting is that 2004-2009 Nadal has a higher score, 0.89, than 2011-2016 Nadal at 0.81. Again, this is surely due to Nadal’s drop-off in 2015-2016, but 2004-2009 Nadal’s win-loss is 83% compared to 82% for 2011-2016 Nadal, so only a 1% point difference. Looking at the data, Nadal partly makes up for 2015-2016 with 2013, easily one of his two best years on tour along with 2010. 2013’s 92.0% winning percentage is easily the highest of Nadal’s career along with 2018’s 91.8%, but he played almost half as many matches in 2018 as in 2013.

I can’t emphasize enough that the numbers shown here are how these players performed in ONLY these specific years. So some of you might be thinking, how could Robin Soderling be beneath Tommy Haas or Taylor Fritz? Well, that might be because your memory is off. Easily Soderling’s best year on tour was 2010, which was not included in the 2004-2009 evaluation. 2009 was his second-best year in terms of deep tournament runs, but even in 2011, his last year on tour, he had a much better win percentage, 81%, compared to 2009’s 68%. We tend to remember a player’s peak and if that’s what you remember about Soderling, that was 2010. Before 2009, Soderling kind of sucked when his average ranking was #39 and he had never gotten past the 3rd round of a slam. Similarly, 2004 and 2005 were pretty good years for Marat Safin, but his best years on tour were 2000 and 2002, which do not fall into the 2004-2009 period. Hewitt is also noted as a big Federer rival, but Hewitt’s career was plagued with injury, and his performance took a big dip after 2005, which is to say he was only in his prime for 1/3 of Federer’s 2004-2009 and his peak year was 2001. Before 2004, which is to say before peak Fed, Hewitt was 7-2 against Federer.

I also want to reinforce that these are not necessarily the very strongest players who Federer or Djokovic played in these years. They are the players whom Federer and Djokovic played the most. So Alcaraz or prime Thiem for 2018-2023 Djokovic missed the cut. On this side note, had Alcaraz made the list, he would have rated 0.56, which is just below 2011-2016 Wawrinka’s 0.57 and above 2004-2009 Djokovic’s 0.55. That’s very impressive given that Alcaraz’s score is only for the 3 years he’s been on tour, 2021-2023, half the amount of time 2011-2016 Stan had to accumulate similar numbers. More similarly, 2004-2009 Djokovic only played 2006-2009 full-time on tour, but Alcaraz has very slightly better numbers with one less year on tour.

For the curious 2018-2023 Thiem, who would have been the 13th opponent listed against 2018-2023 Djokovic, scored 0.49, higher than any other Djokovic opponent in this period except for Nadal, Medvedev, and Zverev among the 12 most played and Alcaraz who is not among the 12 most played. For comparison, Thiem has the same score as 2004-2009 Murray. This Thiem could have been much higher but was vastly hampered by injury. His 2018-2020 win percentage is 72.5% compared to 48.2% for 2021-2023.

So is this the last word on this debate? No. To get a 100% complete picture, one would have to do this analysis for every single player that both Federer and Djokovic played in these respective periods. That said, this analysis covers 30-40% of the matches they played in these respective periods and if you did a 100% analysis, I don’t think the numbers would change drastically. That’s because these are mostly the toughest players Federer and Djokovic played, the players who could continually get deep into numerous tournaments to face them many times. (Yes, Struff is a fluke. He only ever played Djokovic in 1 quarterfinal, at Cincinnati, and they never met in a final or semifinal of any tournament. Through luck of the draw, Struff just happened to face Djokovic many times early in draws, but there are outliers in any data.) If you look at the other end of the data of one-off players Federer and Djokovic played in early rounds of tournaments, the qualifiers, the lucky losers, the players outside the top 50, I’m almost certain their numbers would be about the same and wouldn’t affect the analysis here.

 

[Milanez82]

Really thorough analysis but sometimes numbers can't tell the full story. Case in point Roddick and Wawrinka which are weighted equal. Roddick was never a true threat to Federer once Federer started dominating while Stan really pushed Djokovic and beat him 3 times on the biggest stage making him a bigger threat to deal with then say Murray who was higher ranked.

 

[RS]

Who played at a higher level?

1. Federer Wim 11 QF or Federer AO 12 SF
2. Nadal AO 12 final or Djokovic USO 11 final
3. Djokovic AO 16 final or Nadal Wim 07 final
4. Wawrinka AO 17 SF or Djokovic Wim 22 final
5. Wawrinka RG 15 final or Djokovic AO 13 final

 

[RS]

Other things that surprised me was that 2011-2016 Murray was not only the opponent who 2011-2016 Djokovic played the most often (in 28 matches total and 10 times in slams), but this Murray was also that Djokovic’s strongest opponent in that period with a score of 0.83, just edging Nadal’s 0.81. That is certainly owing to Nadal’s dip in form in 2015-2016.

2004-2009 Nadal (0.89) is the strongest opponent that anyone in any of these periods faced. Again, 2011-2016 Murray (0.83) is 2nd, 2011-2016 Nadal (0.81) is 3rd, 2018-2023 Nadal (0.78) is 4th, 2011-2016 Federer (0.70) is 5th, and 2018-2023 Medvedev (0.63) is 6th. Giving credence to Federer fans who say Roddick is underrated, he places as 7th toughest opponent (0.58) across all 36 versions of opponents here, just barely above 8th place 2011-2016 Wawrinka (0.57). 2004-2009 Djokovic (0.55) places 9th (keep in mind that this Djokovic did not play the full tour in 2004-2005), and tied for 10th are 2011-2016 Ferrer (0.51) and 2018-2023 Zverev (0.51). This tie is amusing to me because I think of the two of them as the most accomplished men to never win a slam. Easily at the bottom is Struff with 0.13, far below even second-worst Shapovalov at 0.27.

Also interesting is that 2004-2009 Nadal has a higher score, 0.89, than 2011-2016 Nadal at 0.81. Again, this is surely due to Nadal’s drop-off in 2015-2016, but 2004-2009 Nadal’s win-loss is 83% compared to 82% for 2011-2016 Nadal, so only a 1% point difference. Looking at the data, Nadal partly makes up for 2015-2016 with 2013, easily one of his two best years on tour along with 2010. 2013’s 92.0% winning percentage is easily the highest of Nadal’s career along with 2018’s 91.8%, but he played almost half as many matches in 2018 as in 2013.

I can’t emphasize enough that the numbers shown here are how these players performed in ONLY these specific years. So some of you might be thinking, how could Robin Soderling be beneath Tommy Haas or Taylor Fritz? Well, that might be because your memory is off. Easily Soderling’s best year on tour was 2010, which was not included in the 2004-2009 evaluation. 2009 was his second-best year in terms of deep tournament runs, but even in 2011, his last year on tour, he had a much better win percentage, 81%, compared to 2009’s 68%. We tend to remember a player’s peak and if that’s what you remember about Soderling, that was 2010. Before 2009, Soderling kind of sucked when his average ranking was #39 and he had never gotten past the 3rd round of a slam. Similarly, 2004 and 2005 were pretty good years for Marat Safin, but his best years on tour were 2000 and 2002, which do not fall into the 2004-2009 period. Hewitt is also noted as a big Federer rival, but Hewitt’s career was plagued with injury, and his performance took a big dip after 2005, which is to say he was only in his prime for 1/3 of Federer’s 2004-2009 and his peak year was 2001. Before 2004, which is to say before peak Fed, Hewitt was 7-2 against Federer.

I also want to reinforce that these are not necessarily the very strongest players who Federer or Djokovic played in these years. They are the players whom Federer and Djokovic played the most. So Alcaraz or prime Thiem for 2018-2023 Djokovic missed the cut. On this side note, had Alcaraz made the list, he would have rated 0.56, which is just below 2011-2016 Wawrinka’s 0.57 and above 2004-2009 Djokovic’s 0.55. That’s very impressive given that Alcaraz’s score is only for the 3 years he’s been on tour, 2021-2023, half the amount of time 2011-2016 Stan had to accumulate similar numbers. More similarly, 2004-2009 Djokovic only played 2006-2009 full-time on tour, but Alcaraz has very slightly better numbers with one less year on tour.

For the curious 2018-2023 Thiem, who would have been the 13th opponent listed against 2018-2023 Djokovic, scored 0.49, higher than any other Djokovic opponent in this period except for Nadal, Medvedev, and Zverev among the 12 most played and Alcaraz who is not among the 12 most played. For comparison, Thiem has the same score as 2004-2009 Murray. This Thiem could have been much higher but was vastly hampered by injury. His 2018-2020 win percentage is 72.5% compared to 48.2% for 2021-2023.

So is this the last word on this debate? No. To get a 100% complete picture, one would have to do this analysis for every single player that both Federer and Djokovic played in these respective periods. That said, this analysis covers 30-40% of the matches they played in these respective periods and if you did a 100% analysis, I don’t think the numbers would change drastically. That’s because these are mostly the toughest players Federer and Djokovic played, the players who could continually get deep into numerous tournaments to face them many times. (Yes, Struff is a fluke. He only ever played Djokovic in 1 quarterfinal, at Cincinnati, and they never met in a final or semifinal of any tournament. Through luck of the draw, Struff just happened to face Djokovic many times early in draws, but there are outliers in any data.) If you look at the other end of the data of one-off players Federer and Djokovic played in early rounds of tournaments, the qualifiers, the lucky losers, the players outside the top 50, I’m almost certain their numbers would be about the same and wouldn’t affect the analysis here.

Unrelated but were do you fit the competition in 2003 and 2010 and 2017 here?

 

[zvelf]

Really thorough analysis but sometimes numbers can't tell the full story. Case in point Roddick and Wawrinka which are weighted equal. Roddick was never a true threat to Federer once Federer started dominating while Stan really pushed Djokovic and beat him 3 times on the biggest stage making him a bigger threat to deal with then say Murray who was higher ranked.

Right. The analysis isn't about whether a player is a matchup threat for Federer or Djokovic. It's basically saying these are the players that they played against the most in this period of time and this is how well these player performed against the entire field during this time.

Unrelated but were do you fit the competition in 2003 and 2010 and 2017 here?

I don't. They are ignored. I'm just using the periods of time that Kralingen selected as when Federer and Djokovic were at peak or near peak performance and measured the competition against them in those periods.

 

[xFedal]

Right. The analysis isn't about whether a player is a matchup threat for Federer or Djokovic. It's basically saying these are the players that they played against the most in this period of time and this is how well these player performed against the entire field during this time.


I don't. They are ignored. I'm just using the periods of time that Kralingen selected as when Federer and Djokovic were at peak or near peak performance and measured the competition against them in those periods.

Might have to do bigger numbers if Novak continues winning slams in 2024, then Fed 04-10 Novak 11-16 and 2018-2024? Is Djokovic 2023-2024 competiton getting tougher ? playing Carlos in multiple slams, avenging 2021 USO final defeat to Med at USO23?

 

[Milanez82]

Might have to do bigger numbers if Novak continues winning slams in 2024, then Fed 04-10 Novak 11-16 and 2018-2024? Is Djokovic 2023-2024 competiton getting tougher ? playing Carlos in multiple slams, avenging 2021 USO final defeat to Med at USO23?

One could say Alcaraz is comparable to young Rafa(in terms of running down everything, winning a lot young, though Alcaraz is way more offensive).
Main difference is Federer was 24-26 when fending off Nadal while Djokovic is trying to do it at 36-37 which makes it significantly more impressive.
Alcaraz is guaranteed to improve even more and if Djokovic can come up with some more vintage performances, we are in for some classics!

 

[itrium84]

Thank you @zvelf
Whenever I see you created a thread or made a comment, I know I'll enjoy reading before I actually start to read.
This is extremely thorough analysis, and after a surface scan, it's obvious you went extra mile to make it as objective as possible, with zero agenda of any kind. Respect.

Now, during your introduction post I realized your goal, and I already knew that whatever the results are, they will be extremely hard to dispute. If they showed Fed actually had stronger opposition, I would have no valid counterargument.
Although I always had an eye-test gut feeling + basic statistical data showing Novak's opposition was stronger, I never made serious strong/weak era arguments, exactly because I never seen such a deep analysis you now provided.
This thread is one of the most important threads this sub-forum has ever had, I'm not exaggerating. Thank you.

My expectations about placement of these 3 periods coincided with your results, but my proportions were way off!
My feeling was that Novak's 2011-2016 was stronger than Fed's 2004-2009, but not by so much. I expected 2004-09 to be stronger than 2018-23, but not by such a slim margin.

Your analysis is an eye-opener, well-founded and strong argument.

 

[itrium84]

@Kralingen What's your take on this?

 

[zvelf]

Thank you @zvelf
Whenever I see you created a thread or made a comment, I know I'll enjoy reading before I actually start to read.
This is extremely thorough analysis, and after a surface scan, it's obvious you went extra mile to make it as objective as possible, with zero agenda of any kind. Respect.

Now, during your introduction post I realized your goal, and I already knew that whatever the results are, they will be extremely hard to dispute. If they showed Fed actually had stronger opposition, I would have no valid counterargument.
Although I always had an eye-test gut feeling + basic statistical data showing Novak's opposition was stronger, I never made serious strong/weak era arguments, exactly because I never seen such a deep analysis you now provided.
This thread is one of the most important threads this sub-forum has ever had, I'm not exaggerating. Thank you.

My expectations about placement of these 3 periods coincided with your results, but my proportions were way off!
My feeling was that Novak's 2011-2016 was stronger than Fed's 2004-2009, but not by so much. I expected 2004-09 to be stronger than 2018-23, but not by such a slim margin.

Your analysis is an eye-opener, well-founded and strong argument.

Thanks, itrium! That is a very generous compliment, and I am very touched by your sentiments. My thoughts on the debates in this forum is that certainly everyone has their biases including me and that data and statistics can certainly be misapplied or misleading. I work in data and reporting, but maybe I misapplied something here, and if so, I hope I can be honest enough to admit to my mistake and fix it. But the bigger point is that I don’t want to have my conclusion set up first after which I’m just engaging in confirmation bias in looking for the evidence to support it and rejecting anything that doesn’t. That happens too much in the world now, especially in politics, and that just damages people’s perceptions of reality.

 

[Kralingen]

Have to say, I admire the sheer effort and this is an excellent follow-through and execution of a sober and evidence-based analysis. And yeah, genuinely good research, very difficult to pull off.

So, I think as always any study is limited by its methodology, and in this case as soon as I realized the methodology was a weighted average of results I immediately guessed 2011-16 would be the winner, as it included arguably the most stable top 8/10 of the entire Open Era and also saw the most surface homogeneity ever.

I do think 04-09 is hurt by the fact that Hewitt Safin and Agassi, so important in 04-05, were either ruined by injury or retired and basically shells of themselves from 06-09, as well as the fact that it included more “surface specialists” than any other period, but again measuring stuff like this weighting in surface as well as “place in player’s career” etc to designate in good form/out of good form would genuinely be close to impossible.

Still, illuminating read.

This site needs much more like this and I hope to see more of it. I wonder how best we can look to quantify some of the contextual stuff.

 

[DSH]

Who played at a higher level?

1. Federer Wim 11 QF or Federer AO 12 SF
2. Nadal AO 12 final or Djokovic USO 11 final
3. Djokovic AO 16 final or Nadal Wim 07 final
4. Wawrinka AO 17 SF or Djokovic Wim 22 final
5. Wawrinka RG 15 final or Djokovic AO 13 final

You don't get tired, do you?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Still waiting for an actual game analysis to come up, instead of observing the results. E.g. I'm not rating Medvedev with his historically feeble game, no matter how many still weaker opponent performances he converts. The game takes two to play.

 

[Benf15harp]

What’s it’s means???

 

[RS]

Still waiting for an actual game analysis to come up, instead of observing the results. E.g. I'm not rating Medvedev with his historically feeble game, no matter how many still weaker opponent performances he converts. The game takes two to play.

That comes automatically in the responses.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Really thorough analysis but sometimes numbers can't tell the full story. Case in point Roddick and Wawrinka which are weighted equal. Roddick was never a true threat to Federer once Federer started dominating while Stan really pushed Djokovic and beat him 3 times on the biggest stage making him a bigger threat to deal with then say Murray who was higher ranked.

Perhaps a similar threat, just handled differently.

 

[NatF]

Perhaps a similar threat, just handled differently.

Yeah Wawrinka is definitely more of a threat to Djokovic but whether he's more threatening universally is another matter.

 

[zvelf]

I do think 04-09 is hurt by the fact that Hewitt Safin and Agassi, so important in 04-05, were either ruined by injury or retired and basically shells of themselves from 06-09, as well as the fact that it included more “surface specialists” than any other period, but again measuring stuff like this weighting in surface as well as “place in player’s career” etc to designate in good form/out of good form would genuinely be close to impossible.

Still, illuminating read.

This site needs much more like this and I hope to see more of it. I wonder how best we can look to quantify some of the contextual stuff.

Thanks. Yeah, 2004-2009 Federer's competition level is hurt by some of his most frequent competitors having off years for some significant portion of that period, Nadal and Roddick aside. Hewitt is often cited as Federer's third biggest competitor in this era, but young Djokovic played Fed just as many times (14) and was also the better player based on results than Hewitt. Hewitt is more impactful than Murray because of how many times he played against Federer, but young Murray was the fourth most difficult opponent for Federer based on Murray's results against the field, not Hewitt. From a matchup perspective, Murray was the second-most difficult opponent as he was the only player here other than Nadal who had a winning head-to-head against peak Fed.

Still waiting for an actual game analysis to come up, instead of observing the results. E.g. I'm not rating Medvedev with his historically feeble game, no matter how many still weaker opponent performances he converts. The game takes two to play.

One assumption in my analysis is that however weaker the top players are for any particular generation, the level of the entire field remains roughly the same because strength of opposition is measuring results against the field. The argument seems to be that the generation of Dimitrov, Raonic, and Nishikori and the generation of Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas are weaker than in the past because they struggled against an aging Big 3. I can certainly buy that certain players in the top 15 range just happen to be weaker than previous players in the same 15 range, but it's hard to buy that somehow the vast majority of players on the entire tour, hundreds of players over time, suddenly all dropped some significant level over the course of 10 years. So maybe Medvedev is playing against a weaker top 15, but he is most likely not playing against a weaker top 200. How would anyone even go about proving that? But given the assumption that the field is roughly stable, Medvedev was around Roddick's level, actually slightly better, based on their performances against the field. Nishikori and Raonic are roughly equivalent to Nalbandian. Tsitsipas is equivalent to Davydenko. Prime Zverev is equivalent to baby Murray. In other words, if you replaced the Dimitrov, Nishikori, Raonic generation with Davydenko, Gonzalez, and Nalbandian, you'd get some pretty similar results and then Davydenko, Gonzalez, and Nalbandian would get called the Lost Gen. If you replaced the Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas generation with Roddick, the Hewitt of 2004-2009, and young Murray, you'd get similar results.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

One assumption in my analysis is that however weaker the top players are for any particular generation, the level of the entire field remains roughly the same because strength of opposition is measuring results against the field. The argument seems to be that the generation of Dimitrov, Raonic, and Nishikori and the generation of Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas are weaker than in the past because they struggled against an aging Big 3. I can certainly buy that certain players in the top 15 range just happen to be weaker than previous players in the same 15 range, but it's hard to buy that somehow the vast majority of players on the entire tour, hundreds of players over time, suddenly all dropped some significant level over the course of 10 years. So maybe Medvedev is playing against a weaker top 15, but he is most likely not playing against a weaker top 200. How would anyone even go about proving that? But given the assumption that the field is roughly stable, Medvedev was around Roddick's level, actually slightly better, based on their performances against the field. Nishikori and Raonic are roughly equivalent to Nalbandian. Tsitsipas is equivalent to Davydenko. Prime Zverev is equivalent to baby Murray. In other words, if you replaced the Dimitrov, Nishikori, Raonic generation with Davydenko, Gonzalez, and Nalbandian, you'd get some pretty similar results and then Davydenko, Gonzalez, and Nalbandian would get called the Lost Gen. If you replaced the Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas generation with Roddick, the Hewitt of 2004-2009, and young Murray, you'd get similar results.

Isn't this the classic consistency vs peak argument? It seems that measuring results means inconsistent players with high peaks are punished unless their peaks resulted in winning. It also seems that having a larger pool of top competitors hurts their individual results due to being ousted by other top competitors.

Take Roddick vs Medvedev in HC slams, Medvedev technically has two AO finals to Roddick's none, but was Roddick really worse in 04/05 than Medvedev in 21/22 - doubt; I rather think he just lost to fellow in-form top players Safin and Hewitt, while Medvedev only had Tsitsipas pre-final, who doesn't measure up to those in terms of level off clay at all. At the USO, Medvedev reached the final this year, but was he better than Roddick in 07 (that "mythical peak" loss to Fed) or even 08 (lost in tight-ish four to Djokovic who I reckon was better than this one)? Again, doubt. In fact, I rather think that Roddick was better, but he had other players better than him even before the final, in those stronger times.

This I believe is the crux of the Career Inflation Era argument and the source of endless fedfan lamentations, that the top level of the current crop is so feeble than Djokovic, far removed from his own prime, deals with them quite easily when he brings his current best, i.e. particularly in slams. It doesn't matter how consistent or not they are when the ceiling is low and so readily exposeable by the 1.5 players capable of it. Of course, this is technically unprovable with what numbers we have available so it's down to observations, but I do believe I know what I see. Unfortunately, people who believe 2023 Medvedev routines 2005 Agassi also believe they know what they see, hence we're stuck.

 

[zvelf]

So one interesting part that I left out is giving 2004-2009 Federer and 2011-2023 and 2018-2023 Djokovic strength ratings based on the criteria here. So the best any of their competitors managed were these numbers within any given 6-year period:

6 slams won
6 major runner-ups
9 major semifinals
36 titles won
Peak ranking #1
84.2% win percentage

In comparison, this is what 2004-2009 Federer achieved:

12 slams won
6 major runner-ups
9 major semifinals
50 titles won
Peak ranking #1
89.7% win percentage

This is what 2011-2016 Djokovic achieved:

11 slams won
7 major runner-ups
4 major semifinals
48 titles won
Peak ranking #1
89.5% win percentage

This is what 2018-2023 Djokovic achieved:

12 slams won
3 major runner-ups
1 major semifinals
28 titles won
Peak ranking #1
86.1% win percentage

Among the competitors, 2004-2009 Nadal had the highest strength rating of 0.89. His numbers were 89% of being what the perfect competitor to Federer and Djokovic achieved in these periods.

2004-2009 Federer’s score is 1.27.
2011-2023 Djokovic’s is 1.25.
2018-2023 Djokovic’s is 1.07.

That’s pretty mindboggling that they are so much higher. Even so, I personally think Nadal’s level is very close to Federer’s and Djokovic’s, but he just never had the sustained peaks over a 6-year period that they did. His achievements are more spread out. Also, 2010, Nadal’s best year, is not included in the analysis.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Federer had an era and Djokovic had 2 eras.

Nadal is yet to have an era but Carlos will pretty soon.

 

[No_Kwan_Do]

Right. The analysis isn't about whether a player is a matchup threat for Federer or Djokovic. It's basically saying these are the players that they played against the most in this period of time and this is how well these player performed against the entire field during this time.

Indeed. Good analysis as well.

For example, it basically demonstrates that whilst Murray wasn't very good against the Big 3, he was still pretty dominant over the rest of the field between 2011-2016, which were his prime/peak years. 81.9% is an extremely respectable winning percentage.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Indeed. Good analysis as well.

For example, it basically demonstrates that whilst Murray wasn't very good against the Big 3, he was still pretty dominant over the rest of the field between 2011-2016, which were his prime/peak years. 81.9% is an extremely respectable winning percentage.

Murray is Nole's second most important rival in these years. After 2016 he was injured and he couldn't play on high level. I think more than Thiem and Zverev, it was Murray who had chance to make dent vs big 3 from 2016 onwards. He won't have beaten them H2H but at least stopped a few times as he was capable of that.

 

[jm1980]

Still waiting for an actual game analysis to come up, instead of observing the results. E.g. I'm not rating Medvedev with his historically feeble game, no matter how many still weaker opponent performances he converts. The game takes two to play.

Any subjective analysis of the game inevitably leads to unprovable and unfalsifiable statements that support one's favorite player. Nonsense like "Medvedev doesn't make the Top 10 in 03-07" or "Hewitt would win 10+ Slams in this era"

 

[FedeRadi]

Great post! Well done.

I'm not overly surprised with the results.
There's a lot of "weakest era of all time" mumble in this forum about last years, but it makes sense to me that post-2018 Djokovic competition is comparable with Federer prime competition.
Medvedev achievements say he's at least comparable to Roddick, and likely he will be clearly greater when all will be said and done: prime for prime he's not weaker competition.
Zverev is slamless, but had great results otherwise, Tsitsipas is a consistent player.
The biggest difference between 2004-09 Fed's comp and 2018-23 Nole's comp is probably a better Nadal in 2004-09, but this is mostly for his 2008/AO09 performances.

If we have 3 years period(Excluding 2010 "Nadal" year and 2020 "Covid" year), I would bet on something like this:

1) 2011-13 Djokovic Comp
2-3) 2007-2009 Federer Comp / 2014-16 Djokovic Comp
4) 2021-2023 Djokovic Comp
5) 2004-2006 Federer Comp
6) 2017-2019 Federer/Djokovic Comp (But maybe this can make up a position for Djokovic from mid 2018 or Federer until mid 2018, depending of whether you're misuring Djokovic or Federer competition)

Take Roddick vs Medvedev in HC slams, Medvedev technically has two AO finals to Roddick's none, but was Roddick really worse in 04/05 than Medvedev in 21/22 - doubt; I rather think he just lost to fellow in-form top players Safin and Hewitt, while Medvedev only had Tsitsipas pre-final, who doesn't measure up to those in terms of level off clay at all. At the USO, Medvedev reached the final this year, but was he better than Roddick in 07 (that "mythical peak" loss to Fed) or even 08 (lost in tight-ish four to Djokovic who I reckon was better than this one)? Again, doubt. In fact, I rather think that Roddick was better, but he had other players better than him even before the final, in those stronger times.

Roddick lost to Safin and Hewitt.
Medvedev beat Tsitsipas.
Tsitsipas performed, against the field, better than Safin and Hewitt in the periods considered.
The most common sense conclusion is that Medvedev deserves more than Roddick to be a 2-time AO Finalist.

Yes, it may be that Hewitt and Safin were unconsistent and peaking in these tournaments while playing awful in other tournaments, while Tsitsipas is a high floor/low ceiling player who was consistently good but not great, but we can say literally anything with reasoning like this one.
But we can consider these outliers, who don't confute the overall conclusion of the analysis.

Speaking with some Fed's fan there are, indeed, ton of outliers like this, I quote some examples I heard in these years:
"Murray played better in 2012 WIM final than in most finals against Djokovic."
"Safin in 2005 AO SF/Del Potro RG SF or USO F played were much tougher opponents than Wawrinka 2015 RG F/Nishikori 2014 US SF or even Murray in most of his finals." (When the first ones are similar or worse players who made upset/nearly made upsets against a similar ATG)
"20-21 years old Nadal in 2006/07 was peak grass, better than 25 years old one in 2011." Pretty much the same for clay(2005-07 against 2012-2014) (When, reasonably, one player at 25 years old is peak, at 20-21 has yet to mature)

My understanding is playing against a more offensive player like Federer makes easier for the opponent to look good: he plays his match, hit his winners. The opponent plays his match, hit his shots but it's clear that, most times, there isn't much he can do, Federer will have better shots and will do more winners.
For an opponent is harder look good against a more defensive player Djokovic(Or Nadal): he wears the opponent, gives him uncomfortable balls, recovers balls that could be winners and makes the opponent miss and look bad.
I think that is one of the main reasons because eye-test don't match stats when we talk about Djokovic and Federer competition.
Obviously, not all is black and white like this, but generally I think Federer play make him looks better, Djokovic play make opponents look worse.

 

[FedeRadi]

Among the competitors, 2004-2009 Nadal had the highest strength rating of 0.89. His numbers were 89% of being what the perfect competitor to Federer and Djokovic achieved in these periods.

2004-2009 Federer’s score is 1.27.
2011-2023 Djokovic’s is 1.25.
2018-2023 Djokovic’s is 1.07.

That’s pretty mindboggling that they are so much higher. Even so, I personally think Nadal’s level is very close to Federer’s and Djokovic’s, but he just never had the sustained peaks over a 6-year period that they did. His achievements are more spread out. Also, 2010, Nadal’s best year, is not included in the analysis.

I think he didn't sustained a peaks over those 6-year periods.
If you did something like this considering 2008-2013 you obtain something near Federer's and Djokovic's results. Maybe not greater than 1.20, because Nadal was ever a bit more inconsistent than Fedovic, but pretty sure better than 1.00.

2004-09 Nadal was taken down by his "baby" years.
2011-16 Nadal was taken down from his hiatus in 2015-16.
2018-23 Nadal was clearly post-prime.

You didn't consider a 6 year period with all his best years(Like 2008-13 would be) like Nole 2011-16 or Federer 2004-09.

Edit: If I understand the calculus, Nadal 2008-13 score would be 1.09.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Any subjective analysis of the game inevitably leads to unprovable and unfalsifiable statements that support one's favorite player. Nonsense like "Medvedev doesn't make the Top 10 in 03-07" or "Hewitt would win 10+ Slams in this era"

There's no "objective" way to reach conclusions about the level of play on display, so what's the point then?

 

[zvelf]

Obviously, not all is black and white like this, but generally I think Federer play make him looks better, Djokovic play make opponents look worse.

That is an interesting observation that I never thought about.

I think he didn't sustained a peaks over those 6-year periods.
If you did something like this considering 2008-2013 you obtain something near Federer's and Djokovic's results. Maybe not greater than 1.20, because Nadal was ever a bit more inconsistent than Fedovic, but pretty sure better than 1.00.

2004-09 Nadal was taken down by his "baby" years.
2011-16 Nadal was taken down from his hiatus in 2015-16.
2018-23 Nadal was clearly post-prime.

You didn't consider a 6 year period with all his best years(Like 2008-13 would be) like Nole 2011-16 or Federer 2004-09.

Edit: If I understand the calculus, Nadal 2008-13 score would be 1.09.

I haven't done the calculation, but you're right about that 6-year stretch giving Nadal much better numbers.

 

[itrium84]

There's no "objective" way to reach conclusions about the level of play on display, so what's the point then?

Zvelf just provided an eleborate analysis on opposition strength, as objective as possible... Results do speak much about these mini-eras, we don't need to pretend it's all worthless.
When you define "level of play", maybe we can try to measure it?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Zvelf just provided an eleborate analysis on opposition strength, as objective as possible... Results do speak much about these mini-eras, we don't need to pretend it's all worthless.
When you define "level of play", maybe we can try to measure it?

Results replacing level is indeed the source of trouble. But we're very far away from having the data on the qualities of every shot (pace, spin, placement (depth/angle) etc), given that what little data there is is kept private by companies, so all we have are our eyes to observe and the brain to make sense of it. Everyone has their own mind though, so no matter what I write it won't be universally convincing for lack of "objectivity", and we're largely left preaching to the choir of the like-minded.

 

[ActualTennisPlayer]

So before I get to the findings, let me say that while I expected strength of competition to be highest for 2011-2016, weaker for 2004-2009, and weakest for 2018-2023 (and that is what it turned out to be), I went in as impartially as possible with no clear expectations for what the exact numbers would be and let them fall wherever they did. And I was surprised by them. Also, while I did some of this with code, some tweaks were done manually, so there is the possibility that I have typos here for which I apologize in advance, and if you notice anything, please let me know.

Here are the 12 players for each period used in the comparison ordered from left to right by most matches played and if that is tied, by most slam matches played:

Here are the results of the analysis:

First note that these 12 players for each era represent 29.8% of all of 2004-2009 Federer’s matches, an astounding 40.3% of 2011-2016 Djokovic’s matches, and 30.2% of all of 2018-2023 Djokovic's matches so that’s a strong sample of their competition. So what surprised me most here is how much stronger 2011-2016 is than either of the other eras. This is because, across all 3 periods, Djokovic had the second (Murray), third (Nadal), and fifth (Federer) toughest opponents compared to 2004-2009 having just the toughest (Nadal) and 2018-2023 having just the fourth toughest (Nadal) out of the top 5. Huge kudos to Nadal for having 3 of the 4 toughest versions on the list. Djokovic’s 2011-2016 score is 0.594 so his top 12 opponents (proportional to total matches played + total slam matches played) performed at almost a 60% level relative to the maximum performance of all players from 2004-2009, 2011-2016, and 2018-2023. 2004-2009 at 0.375 is only 63% as strong as 2011-2016 and 2018-2023 at .337 is only 57% as strong as 2011-2016. The other reason 2011-2016 is much tougher is that Djokovic had to play the best players far, far more times. 2011-2016 Djokovic played Murray, Federer, and Nadal a combined 80 times, which was 16.4% of all his matches played during this period! 2004-2009 Federer played Nadal, Roddick, and Hewitt only 49 times, 9.9% of his matches played during this period, and 2018-2023 Djokovic only played Medvedev, Tsitsipas, and Zverev 37 times, 10.8% of his matches played during this period.

Perhaps of most interest to a lot of people here and what could be the headline of another thread is that 2018-2023 is 90% as strong as 2004-2009, so clearly a bit weaker but not by leaps and bounds. I think that 2018-2023 may feel weaker than it is (aside from fan bias) is because it followed an incredibly strong era (possibly the strongest ever) and so the drop feels sharper.

Now what if you combined 2011-2016 and 2018-2023’s strength of opposition (relative to number of matches played + number of slam matches played because Djokovic played 41% more matches in 2011-2016 than in 2018-2023)? Djokovic still scores 0.528. Federer’s adjusted score becomes 0.419, but that means 2004-2009 strength of opposition is still 79% of 2011-2016 and 2018-2023 combined, meaning Djokovic still had notably stronger competition overall than Federer did in 2004-2009.

If you don’t want to take matches-played-weighting into account and just take the difference between Djokovic’s 2011-2016 and 2018-2023, then his score is 0.470 strength of opposition, which is still 12% higher than Federer’s strength of opposition for 2004-2009. To restate, using the statistical lens most favorable to Federer, Djokovic’s total strength of opposition in combining strong and weak periods is 12% stronger competition than 2004-2009 Federer’s peak period just as 2004-2009 is 11% stronger than Djokovic’s weakest competition period.

Thanks for the great analysis and effort.

I did not read all, but I think having 12 players is a bit too much.

Big 3 caliber players are not going to loose against a player ranked number 12. If they loose, than it would be against a top player in the QF or SF.
Therefore, I think you should use 3-7 players.

 

[itrium84]

Thanks for the great analysis and effort.

I did not read all, but I think having 12 players is a bit too much.

Big 3 caliber players are not going to loose against a player ranked number 12. If they loose, than it would be against a top player in the QF or SF.
Therefore, I think you should use 3-7 players.

Yeah, you should read it all.

 

[ActualTennisPlayer]

Yeah, you should read it all.

Does reading all invalide my point? I quickly skimmed it and couldn’t find anything against my point

 

[Fabresque]

I just think all of this in general is a fruitless endeavor despite you putting in an earnest and thoughtful effort. It's a good read, but this idea about era's, weakness/strength, etc.. it's all subjective to me.

The likes of Tsitsipas, Zverev, Medvedev, are they as good as Tsonga, Berdych, Roddick, etc? Who knows.

People keep using this idea of "Djokovic and Nadal are still winning so clearly everybody else sucks". Djokovic and Nadal are literally pure, unadulterated outliers. They're the two best players ever, they could play some genetically modified freakshow meant to win every tennis match ever and they'd still find a way to beat it.

Look at the other oldie's. Cilic, Delpo, Tsonga, Ferrer, etc... They're all gone or about to be gone. The new generation completely replaced them. Even the likes of Dimitrov, Raonic, etc.. have been replaced with Zverev, Rublev, Tsitsipas. I think that's a better gauge to see if this is truly a "weak era". If Cilic, Delpo, Tsonga, were all still around and still strutting around the top 5-10 beating people, then yep, this would be classed as a weak era to me. But they're not, they're all gone. Fully replaced by the young guys.

The reality is that we cannot and never will be able to quantifiably measure how weak or strong an era was. A lot of people here will rag on about this being an embarrassment of a generation. Andy Roddick was on Twitter during the RG final, and he live-tweeted saying that "Anybody from my generation who thinks they can compete with these guys has no clue". And he specifically mentioned that the movement in the game is different now. If the game from the 80's changed 20 years later to the game in the 2000's, why is it not possible that the game from the 2000's is different to the game 20 years later? The movement is better, the baselining is tougher, strokes are much, much heavier than they used to me. Players are hitting with more depth, better angles, and the overall conditioning is much higher than before. The games evolved, it's totally different to when people from 20 years ago played, even players from 10 years ago. And with that, it's completely impossible to judge if one era is better than another. Who knows.

 

[NatF]

I just think all of this in general is a fruitless endeavor despite you putting in an earnest and thoughtful effort. It's a good read, but this idea about era's, weakness/strength, etc.. it's all subjective to me.

The likes of Tsitsipas, Zverev, Medvedev, are they as good as Tsonga, Berdych, Roddick, etc? Who knows.

People keep using this idea of "Djokovic and Nadal are still winning so clearly everybody else sucks". Djokovic and Nadal are literally pure, unadulterated outliers. They're the two best players ever, they could play some genetically modified freakshow meant to win every tennis match ever and they'd still find a way to beat it.

Look at the other oldie's. Cilic, Delpo, Tsonga, Ferrer, etc... They're all gone or about to be gone. The new generation completely replaced them. Even the likes of Dimitrov, Raonic, etc.. have been replaced with Zverev, Rublev, Tsitsipas. I think that's a better gauge to see if this is truly a "weak era". If Cilic, Delpo, Tsonga, were all still around and still strutting around the top 5-10 beating people, then yep, this would be classed as a weak era to me. But they're not, they're all gone. Fully replaced by the young guys.

The reality is that we cannot and never will be able to quantifiably measure how weak or strong an era was. A lot of people here will rag on about this being an embarrassment of a generation. Andy Roddick was on Twitter during the RG final, and he live-tweeted saying that "Anybody from my generation who thinks they can compete with these guys has no clue". And he specifically mentioned that the movement in the game is different now. If the game from the 80's changed 20 years later to the game in the 2000's, why is it not possible that the game from the 2000's is different to the game 20 years later? The movement is better, the baselining is tougher, strokes are much, much heavier than they used to me. Players are hitting with more depth, better angles, and the overall conditioning is much higher than before. The games evolved, it's totally different to when people from 20 years ago played, even players from 10 years ago. And with that, it's completely impossible to judge if one era is better than another. Who knows.

lol guys from Federer's generation were still competing with Djokovic to at least some degree in 2011 onwards and Djokovic's movement is certainly not better now than in 2012 for example.

 

[Fabresque]

lol guys from Federer's generation were still competing with Djokovic to at least some degree in 2011 onwards and Djokovic's movement is certainly not better now than in 2012 for example.

Which guys from Fed’s generation?

 

[NatF]

Which guys from Fed’s generation?

Federer, Ferrer, Haas, Karlovic, Robredo, Hewitt all from Fed's gen and either had competitive matches with post 2011 Djokovic or outright beat him - ofcourse Karlovic did it without moving.

 

[Fabresque]

Federer, Ferrer, Haas, Karlovic, Robredo, Hewitt all from Fed's gen and either had competitive matches with post 2011 Djokovic or outright beat him - ofcourse Karlovic did it without moving.

Djokovic-Ferrer H2H: 16-5 (11-1 post 2011)
Djokovic-Haas H2H: 6-3 (5-1 post 2011)
Djokovic-Robredo H2H: 7-2 (2-1 post 2011)
Djokovic-Hewitt H2H: 6-1 (2-0 post 2011)
Djokovic-Karlovic H2H: 1-2 (0-1 post 2011)

4 wins. 4 effing wins combined from this group vs Djokovic 2011-.

The only match where he lost that held any real significance was the 2011 Tour Finals, when Ferrer beat him.

Karlovic beat him once post 2011 because they’ve only played once. But yes this means he’s got his number.

You just enjoy lying for no reason, fella?

 

[NatF]

Djokovic-Ferrer H2H: 16-5 (11-1 post 2011)
Djokovic-Haas H2H: 6-3 (5-1 post 2011)
Djokovic-Robredo H2H: 7-2 (2-1 post 2011)
Djokovic-Hewitt H2H: 6-1 (2-0 post 2011)
Djokovic-Karlovic H2H: 1-2 (0-1 post 2011)

4 wins. 4 effing wins combined from this group vs Djokovic 2011-.

The only match where he lost that held any real significance was the 2011 Tour Finals, when Ferrer beat him.

Karlovic beat him once post 2011 because they’ve only played once. But yes this means he’s got his number.

You just enjoy lying for no reason, fella?

I said they were still competing with him at least to a degree when he was a better mover than now. But ofcourse you've now taken that as "hE has HiS nuMba duuuuh".

Four wins and many more lost sets to guys close to the nadire of their career so yeah point stands. Of course Federer looms large here too.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I just think all of this in general is a fruitless endeavor despite you putting in an earnest and thoughtful effort. It's a good read, but this idea about era's, weakness/strength, etc.. it's all subjective to me.

The likes of Tsitsipas, Zverev, Medvedev, are they as good as Tsonga, Berdych, Roddick, etc? Who knows.

People keep using this idea of "Djokovic and Nadal are still winning so clearly everybody else sucks". Djokovic and Nadal are literally pure, unadulterated outliers. They're the two best players ever, they could play some genetically modified freakshow meant to win every tennis match ever and they'd still find a way to beat it.

Look at the other oldie's. Cilic, Delpo, Tsonga, Ferrer, etc... They're all gone or about to be gone. The new generation completely replaced them. Even the likes of Dimitrov, Raonic, etc.. have been replaced with Zverev, Rublev, Tsitsipas. I think that's a better gauge to see if this is truly a "weak era". If Cilic, Delpo, Tsonga, were all still around and still strutting around the top 5-10 beating people, then yep, this would be classed as a weak era to me. But they're not, they're all gone. Fully replaced by the young guys.

The reality is that we cannot and never will be able to quantifiably measure how weak or strong an era was. A lot of people here will rag on about this being an embarrassment of a generation. Andy Roddick was on Twitter during the RG final, and he live-tweeted saying that "Anybody from my generation who thinks they can compete with these guys has no clue". And he specifically mentioned that the movement in the game is different now. If the game from the 80's changed 20 years later to the game in the 2000's, why is it not possible that the game from the 2000's is different to the game 20 years later? The movement is better, the baselining is tougher, strokes are much, much heavier than they used to me. Players are hitting with more depth, better angles, and the overall conditioning is much higher than before. The games evolved, it's totally different to when people from 20 years ago played, even players from 10 years ago. And with that, it's completely impossible to judge if one era is better than another. Who knows.

There have been no major technological changes since the introduction of polyester strings, that's why the game is almost the same as it was in 2003 (except with less top talent, that is). Beats me how you guys can watch top matches from back then, especially Federer matches, and somehow believe they wouldn't fly in current times.

 

[TheNachoMan]

There have been no major technological changes since the introduction of polyester strings, that's why the game is almost the same as it was in 2003 (except with less top talent, that is). Beats me how you guys can watch top matches from back then, especially Federer matches, and somehow believe they wouldn't fly in current times.

Fed was making slam finals from 2011-2019 too, so it’s not like he’s some bum who fizzled out as soon as a new crop of players arrived.

 

[zvelf]

Does reading all invalide my point? I quickly skimmed it and couldn’t find anything against my point

Evaluating less opposition cannot be better than evaluating more opposition when trying to determine level of difficulty faced. Even with weak opponents, it matters because by definition, weaker opponents means weaker opposition. Struff is a very weak opponent, far weaker than anyone else here, and he brings down 2018-2023 Djokovic's strength of opposition number.

Results replacing level is indeed the source of trouble. But we're very far away from having the data on the qualities of every shot (pace, spin, placement (depth/angle) etc), given that what little data there is is kept private by companies, so all we have are our eyes to observe and the brain to make sense of it. Everyone has their own mind though, so no matter what I write it won't be universally convincing for lack of "objectivity", and we're largely left preaching to the choir of the like-minded.

I'm a bit confused with regards to what you would like to see. Are you saying that level of play is more important than results? Don't good results mean good level of play in general? I mean, yeah, a player can win with poor form in one match here and there but they can't win with poor level of play in many matches. Strength of opposition here is determined by how these players performed in slams, in how many titles they won, in their winning percentage, and how highly they were ranked. Surely within a 6-year period, those results indicate well what their average level of play was during that period. And everyone considered played Federer and Djokovic between 6 and 28 times within a 6-year period. So yeah, their level of play may have been higher or lower in any given match, but over the course of a dozen matches over many years, it should roughly even out to what their average level of play was. Maybe a player is an outlier here or there even in that respect, but with 12 players considered, outliers in one direction or other, weaker or stronger, should also even out. In this analysis, note that I did not factor in the H2H records that Federer and Djokovic had against these opponents, so the actual results of the matches themselves against these opponents are not a consideration.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I'm a bit confused with regards to what you would like to see. Are you saying that level of play is more important than results? Don't good results mean good level of play in general? I mean, yeah, a player can win with poor form in one match here and there but they can't win with poor level of play in many matches. Strength of opposition here is determined by how these players performed in slams, in how many titles they won, in their winning percentage, and how highly they were ranked. Surely within a 6-year period, those results indicate well what their average level of play was during that period. And everyone considered played Federer and Djokovic between 6 and 28 times within a 6-year period. So yeah, their level of play may have been higher or lower in any given match, but over the course of a dozen matches over many years, it should roughly even out to what their average level of play was. Maybe a player is an outlier here or there even in that respect, but with 12 players considered, outliers in one direction or other, weaker or stronger, should also even out. In this analysis, note that I did not factor in the H2H records that Federer and Djokovic had against these opponents, so the actual results of the matches themselves against these opponents are not a consideration.

Well, I like Waspsting's match reports, though I do believe his analytical approach can be misleading at times.

I don't think the efficiency in dispatching lesser players is that much correlated with one's top level. For instance, you can skate through the draw (often a relatively weak draw), then a top opponent arrives and bam, you're toast. To use the same example as before, both Roddick and Medvedev made 4 QF+ ventures at the USO in those respective periods - I don't think that means they're at the same level there. I just don't believe in Medvedev at all after seeing the harsh limitations of his game and think Federer in particular own him extremely badly, maybe worse than Ferrer.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Really thorough analysis but sometimes numbers can't tell the full story. Case in point Roddick and Wawrinka which are weighted equal. Roddick was never a true threat to Federer once Federer started dominating while Stan really pushed Djokovic and beat him 3 times on the biggest stage making him a bigger threat to deal with then say Murray who was higher ranked.

You read all that? LOL. We don't need a lengthy dissertation to know the A Prime Big 3 with Roddick, Hewitt, Old Agassi, Safin, Nalbandian, Tsonga, Gonzales etc. is far superior to this crap we see on tour today. Today doesn't even past the eye test or smell test

 

[NatF]

Fed was making slam finals from 2011-2019 too, so it’s not like he’s some bum who fizzled out as soon as a new crop of players arrived.

Federer was right there with Djokovic for most of their careers, Agassi was competitive with Fed, Connors was competitive with Agassi etc...tennis does evolve but the biggest changes are technology.

 

[Fabresque]

I said they were still competing with him at least to a degree when he was a better mover than now. But ofcourse you've now taken that as "hE has HiS nuMba duuuuh".

Four wins and many more lost sets to guys close to the nadire of their career so yeah point stands. Of course Federer looms large here too.

He also lost a set to Enzo Coucaud once. Losing is losing, doesn’t matter how you slice the pie.

 

[NatF]

He also lost a set to Enzo Coucaud once. Losing is losing, doesn’t matter how you slice the pie.

It's sad that I'm not even surprised by this level of reply.

 

[itrium84]

Does reading all invalide my point? I quickly skimmed it and couldn’t find anything against my point

There's logic behind that choice of 12 opposition players, it seemed to me you implied it was random.
More players included in analysis - more complete and reliable results.