mike danny
Bionic Poster
Sure. This is the only arguement that exists... Not that Fed was very good or something....
Mental strength: Federer and Djokovic
- Thread starter La_Para
- Start date
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
1. The only relevant point you make is Federer played more, which is reasonable. Not that I failed to notice it, but I dont have time and energy to do a detailed analysis.
Even % of BPs converted, after losing first set etc are all affected by Federer's longer play.
2. I did hope someone to raise that logic. Every stat can be attacked that way. I mean it. The point of the exercise was to give reasonable estimate of their clutch performance, when all of them combine. I didnt make a point based on one stat. Hope you get it.
3. After winning first set is not a stupid one. It shows how strong you are to close out matches. It tests your "fear of winning". These are listed in ATP's site in their reliability stats.
Noelan
Legend
Federer had to defend becaouse ATP slowed conditions, poor thing, ATP works against him .... And Murray>>> Safin, Roddick, Davydenko, Goznales, Haas, Bagdhatis, Ferrero... name it..
Course in modern tennis is changing- more and more players in later stages of their careers achieved better results,and there are fewer and fewer young players able to develop so quickly in the top.In 10 years maybe this course will change again.
Course in modern tennis is changing- more and more players in later stages of their careers achieved better results,and there are fewer and fewer young players able to develop so quickly in the top.In 10 years maybe this course will change again.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
In the end "toughness" is usually measured by winning and how players win. When players have streaks, we assume they are tough mentally during that time.
So no one is going to be seen to be nearly as mentally tough as Nadal on clay. Other than that the top players have all had ups and downs at least partially linked to their peak years.
So no one is going to be seen to be nearly as mentally tough as Nadal on clay. Other than that the top players have all had ups and downs at least partially linked to their peak years.
Noelan
Legend
Don't get me wrong hes very good, for me personally the best offansive player , but mental strenght is not his favor forte as previous poster want to prove. Here we speak about Novak and Nadal not about Roddick, Bagdatis, Ferrero, Safin ets.. cos Fed is really miles ahead compared to them in mental strenght department.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, I pretty much agree with this poast. One can't really determine causality from stats like these.
Yes, stats such as these can be attacked this way, and that's way making claims from them is problematic. Most of them don't really determine anything about the causality; they are just just-so stories, and it is very possible to make up other just-so stories that explain most of the stats.
This is an unfounded inference. One can just as well say that winning from one set up shows that you well when you can relax more and don't have to battle as hard mentally. And when including from one set down, why not mention from two sets down? As far as I know, Fed has the more than anyone of those. That could very well be interpreted as a sign that he is supreme at scrambling mentally when he is having a bad day. And afaik, Nadal has very few of those win, which could be a sign that he is not as good at scrambling mentally when his game is off. But – in line with my point here – such theories are just conjectures. It's okay to use stats to form some theories of course, but some humility as to what the stats really show is good.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
In fairness though, Djokovic's top tier competition has been tougher than Federer's was back in the day so it stands to reason that he isn't able to destroy his opponents in the same way.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
No one can prove that .
Fed was number 1 in year 2004 and again in 2012. If the top tier competition is tougher now, he cannot become number 1 at age 31 and be number 2 at age 33, with a fair chance of reaching number 1 at age 34.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
1. First have in mind we are debating a subject that is not written anywhere. How good Nadal is Federer is etc are all subjective. I can have nothing to show for my claim yet believe Isner serves better than Roddick. So how am I going to tell others Isner serves better? Data points. Of one kind? Na. Of many kinds. How many of them? As many as possible. This is where I tried to provide as many stats that I could to get an indicator. I have relied on ATP's website as well as some other sources.
Does Federer really have a match-up problem against Nadal? Most of them happened on clay, no? Yes. The rest happened less no? Yes. So a logical conclusion cannot be formed? You can argue that, but not for me. The point is 10-23 h2h tells you the story to X degree. Of course it is not perfect. There are A and B lower than X, and determinable or nondeterminable degrees Y and Z that are higher.
It is quite clear, or should be at least, for any sensible sport follower that stats present that X degree. The higher degrees are always welcome. I did what I could present with, rather than pulling out conclusion of thin air. I dont need the humility to explain because the factor X should be apparent for anyone with commonsense. That the combined set of data points indicate something to X degree. You can form an opinion based on X or not depending on how sound you think X overall is. You can also rubbish it if you think some factor disturbs the overall balance of X. But you can not pinpoint individual weakness of various attributes of X. Because it's the totality of the entire set of stats that is being the indicator here. Any degree higher than X for most laymen like me would be unattainable.
For eg, your point that Federer's age/longer play should be considered is a valid one. Because it affects the totality of my inference. But things like Federer's peak play ended matches before final etc isn't valid one because that is nitpicking individual attributes. You can do that to anything.
I can provide ace rate, first serve %, double fault rate, mean serve speed etc and not prove but indicate one is a better server. On the other hand one can also criticize it saying it doesn't consider the tournament, the quality of opposition etc which while is fair, doesn't disqualify the findings of the original guy. In any stat analysis we give law of averages like principles a lot more importance. Stats, records etc are there for a reason. It's not complete, but it's the most objective way to approach.
2. It is not an unfounded inference. Let's agree to disagree, but at least few in ATP is with me. As I said before, it can be attacked, but it adds to my view of what mental strength is.
Indeed it shows scrambling mentality. It's otherwise called choking. To not choke you need a certain degree of mental strength. In other words another data point for me.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Dont you know Federer's level dipped, otherwise he was whipping Nadal and Djokovic 15-0 each?
Last edited:
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
I dont want to comment anything on weak era, but I will expose a few weak arguments from you.
1. You gotta consider the same sample size when you are doing this exercise. Surely Roddick, Nalbandian and Davy are better players outside Fedalovic and arguably Murray, but you have already excluded around 2 of them - Nadal and Djokovic - from the latter generation already. In your case if your two references are Federer and Djokovic, then the comparison should be Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Safin, Hewitt against Nadal, Murray, Del Potro, Ferrer. Be reasonable.
2. Because there is no argument Federer himself was a weak player. He can be no.2 at 33 because he is that good. Agassi, Henman, Ferrer etc have done well to be in top 10 past their peak years.
3. Benneteau's, Haas's and Lopez's cases indicate that there is not enough depth in today's game. Though 10-30 rank material it still is a relevant point.
4. The case of Fish, Melzer, Youzhny and Robredo is slightly different. I do not think they indicate something. I can point to similar players in the past doing the same. Spadea was 30 in 2005 when he achieved his career best ranking of 18. Schuttler was 28 when he went as high as 5, El Aynaoui was 31 when he was rank 14 in 2003. What I do mean is it's not unheard of for players outside their prime to languish around 20s.
Melzer is a solid player btw when he is on.
5. Ferrer's case is even different. He has actually worked very hard to reach where he is today, playing tournaments day in day out. His fitness and work ethics are top notch. He has turned to be a grinder to show for his consistency. Clubbing him with others is not fair imo. I rate him a tier below Roddick and Hewitt, but even in those years with his today's game he is going to be top 6-8.
6. Ah then a string of h2h reasonings. Quite bad attempt. A beat B beat C so A > C logic.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
You didn't even refute or understand a single thing I said, but you continue to smash out a wall of irrelevant nonsense that doesn't address what I wrote. It seems that you don't have much experience with topics like stats and causality. You're not so concise with terminology when discussing these issues either. All of this makes a serious discussion unattainable.
Yes you can disagree to the same degree that you can disagree that 2+2=4. Logic is follows necessary rules. It is an unfounded inference to say that this stat shows anything true about "your fear of winning" or any other sort of mental strength. Again, this is the point of just-so stories, and you clearly didn't understand it, or else we wouldn't have to go over it again. That the ATP has the stats and gives them a name like "reliability index" doesn't mean that they "are with you" in that it shows something that "tests your fear of winning" or anything meaningful about mental strength.
Do you even read? Winning from two sets down is choking? Sure. I don't even . . .
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
You don't think Federer, Nadal and Murray are better than Safin, Hewitt and Roddick?! :shock:
Unfortunately you are comparing apples to oranges. Those guys were not in the shape of Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. I have no doubt D,N and M are all better all around players, but outside of Nadal's forehand they don't have any massive weapons. Roddick had one of the best serves of all time, Safin had a lethal backhand and very good serve as well.
The way people grow up playing tennis changes, and you can't always teach an old dog new tricks. Del Po is an example of old school 90's and '00 mentality working against the top guys. He hits the ball very big and is solid off both wings but doesn't move as well as the top 3.
All I am trying to say is that one way isn't necessarily better than another. Roddick beat Nadal off the ground in Miami during his peak year on HC and has a winning H2H against Djoker (don't freak out, I am not saying he is better) and also took down Murray at Wimbledon when he was on a mission. It can be argued the field is weaker now (Top 50) than it was 10 years ago, save for 2 or 3 guys like Nishikori and Wawrinka.
As for the OP, I don't think this is even close, at least between the two. Federer has terrific mental strength against everyone except Djokovic and Nadal. He is the best front runner IMO even over Nadal, however he does not have the belief when the going gets tough. I will give this to Djoker.
Bukmeikara
Legend
1. I dont find your logic here. Nadal is a rival to Fed as much is he to Djokovic. My point was that 3 players from Federers weak era probably have more wins against the top 3 than a "X" size of guys that reached top 10 in 2011-2014. My point being that after the decline/retirement from Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Davydenko the likes of Djokovic, Murray and on some degree Nadal were able to dominate post 2010.
2. If Federer is good enough to be number 2 with a chance for number 1 at 33 than imagine how good he was in his prime years. This is easy to understand.
3. Until 2014 most guys in top 20 were from Federers era, imagine the lack of dept. And again I dont get your point, Robredo in his peak years was a solid top 20.Ten years later he is again top 20 being past his best physical prime. On paper Tommy declined but yet he still has the same ranking which means that the overall quality has just dropped.
4. The difference between number 18(Spadea) and number 9/10(Monaco, Fish, Melzer) is a Slam title in number of points. So please what are you trying to say here? Schuttler is just turning 28 when he reached number 5 which is still a prime year for tennis.
5. Here is a stat, from 2001-2009 Ferrer never reached a Master final(exclude the WTF) with Federers generation, 81 tries and from 2010-2014 he reached 7 from 45. There is no late peaking/finding your mojjo that can explain this thing. Simple put, the overall quality dropped so that someone like Ferrer from a constant top 20 to raise to a constant top 8.
Bukmeikara
Legend
Are you drunk? We are talkin about Federer. Nadal and Djokovic are better than everyone that Roger met but the facts stands that their best years came after Federers generation declined post 2009. If Murray doesnt reach number 1 he would always be slighly below SAfin, Hewitt and Roddick. The fact is that with 2 Slam titles, 1 Slam final and Olympic title Murray was 3.000 points behind Novak in the ranking. He is not capable for consistentcy that would put him on the top unlike the other 3 who did it with Federer, Sampras, Kuerten, Agassi and Federer around.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Joker is not the choker.
Joker is the comeback king and Fed is the fifth set choker.
Joker is the comeback king and Fed is the fifth set choker.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
You can't say that Murray is slightly behind Safin, Hewitt and Roddick just because he never reached number 1. Let's face it, he also would have reached the top had he been playing in the same era as them but when you have Fedalovic constantly standing in your way it's always going to be a tough task. Admittedly Murray's consistency is nowhere near on the same level as Fed, Nadal and Novak but it's certainly better than the consistency Safin, Hewitt and Roddick showed in their prime which is why I would rank him above them any day of the week.
Bukmeikara
Legend
Hewitt, Roddick and Safin had reached number 1 in the same era as Federer. Murray consistancy is based on the lack of dept below the top 5 post 2010.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
Federer doesn't DF on a championship point. Joker does it in French Open finals.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
To be honest I don't think Murray would ever do what Roddick did in 2003. He won Montreal,Cincy and USO all in a row.
I don't think Murray ever won 3 straight big tournaments in a row
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
They were never number 1 when Fed really hit his stride though. I find it hard to believe that Murray would never have been #1 any time between '00-03 had he been born a few years earlier.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
Murray at one point was the reigning US Open and Wimbledon champion. Had Olympic gold medal in singles too.
Bukmeikara
Legend
And yet he was 3000k points behind Djokovic.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
There is no way of gaining knowledge about this, "and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" . . .
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Transpose Novak to Fed's entry into ATP.
Safin , Hewitt and Roddick would have careers like what Novak has today.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Federer was pretty good in 2003 when Roddick was #1. It's quite possible Murray would of been #1 at his peak but it's also possible he wouldn't of made it. You do realize that Hewitt, Safin and Roddick were #1 when they were around 20-21 years old? You think 08-09 Murray is going to be #1 in that era? Hell no.
Give a bit of respect to those past champion it's no small feat to reach #1 at 20-21 years old.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
Yep. He was still better than Roddick was, no?
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
But I'm talking about Murray here, not Novak. :?
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
How do you know these things so surely?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Trolls are often sure of their own opinions...
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
If Fed did not decline after AO 2010 ,then Novak would have had the same career as Safin or Hewitt or Roddick.
Nadal was there as a competitor then and now.
I frankly don't see any difference in competition.
Bukmeikara
Legend
He achieve more for sure but Roddick was close Usa title and Wimbledon final after that.
Noelan
Legend
Watching their matches
Surely as all worshipers here knew how player A would destroy player B, if they only had to play at A desired peak.
No metter how much you want to make that era strong , it's not. Plain and simple. And I am sure that I'm not alone with that view.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Watching their matches
Surely as all worshipers here knew how player A would destroy player B, if they only had to play at A desired peak.
No metter how much you want to make that era strong , it's not. Plain and simple. And I am sure that I'm not alone with that view.
They didn't peak at the same time in the same period, so comparisons are meaningless. If Hewitt was born the same date as Murray, it's impossible for us to tell how he'd do.
If people actually believe that the likes of Roddick, Safin and Hewitt are of the same caliber of player as Novak is let alone Murray then I really do question whether fans on this forum have really low IQ levels. Any respectable sports analyst will have Novak in the top 8 of players in the open era.
Novak's career stats as of 2014 -
1) GS - 7
2) M1000 - 20
3) WTF - 4
4) ATP 500 - 11
This guy is one of the greatest to have ever played, he is in a class of his own, if you were to ask Roddick and Safin whether they can be compared to Novak then they would laugh at you. I am sorry but this is the reality, Fed's main competitors were Baby Nadal, Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian & Roddick all through 2004 - 2007. This is not Fed's fault he had mentally weak players in front of him but after 2009 the likes of Nole and Nadal proved that they were in a different category to the likes of Nalbandian & Roddick, they were mentally tougher and this shows in matches against the likes of Fed. As I said, Fed's competition were mentally weak, they were not fighters as Nadal, Nole & Murray were but this is not Fed's fault he had to play whoever was in front of him
Novak's career stats as of 2014 -
1) GS - 7
2) M1000 - 20
3) WTF - 4
4) ATP 500 - 11
This guy is one of the greatest to have ever played, he is in a class of his own, if you were to ask Roddick and Safin whether they can be compared to Novak then they would laugh at you. I am sorry but this is the reality, Fed's main competitors were Baby Nadal, Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian & Roddick all through 2004 - 2007. This is not Fed's fault he had mentally weak players in front of him but after 2009 the likes of Nole and Nadal proved that they were in a different category to the likes of Nalbandian & Roddick, they were mentally tougher and this shows in matches against the likes of Fed. As I said, Fed's competition were mentally weak, they were not fighters as Nadal, Nole & Murray were but this is not Fed's fault he had to play whoever was in front of him
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
I don't think people are comparing Hewitt and Safin with Novak, but with Murray. And you're logic is faulty nonetheless. Achievements don't say anything about playing level compared to other eras. You can't compare players from different timeframes and eras. If you put player A from era Y, and player B from era Z into the same era, it is impossible to know how they would do. Therefore, the claims you are making are meaningless. They rely on assuming the conclusion, which is a logical fallacy.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
If only some fan base has a grudge, it has to be Rafa's, he had to face peak Fed , followed by peak Novak.
Fed was a monster till AO 2010. One cannot evaluate the current era based on his success or failure ,because he has since then declined.
On the other hand, Novak started winning at age 24, which is really really late, after Fed had fully declined and Rafa was not a force anywhere outside FO.
Novak fans should not talk about competition.
Fed was a monster till AO 2010. One cannot evaluate the current era based on his success or failure ,because he has since then declined.
On the other hand, Novak started winning at age 24, which is really really late, after Fed had fully declined and Rafa was not a force anywhere outside FO.
Novak fans should not talk about competition.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Federer 2010-2014 > Safin, Hewitt or Roddick 2004-2008.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Started winning what? If you mean slams he was actually 20 at the time.
Chico
Banned
While Fed started winning at much earlier age of 23. :roll: Fed fanboys are becoming really ridiculous here.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Yes, Fed was late as well. But Fed went on a tear thereafter for 7 years.
Imagine a tennis landscape without Federer (which is what Novak is enjoying) - Roddick, Hewitt and Safin would be having 5 majors each at a minimum.
Rafa is the one who is affected most. But he made good use of two transition years -2010 and 2013 - to win 4 non clay majors. So, no big loss to him as well in the end.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
But, wasn't 2008 AO more an aberration ? No one tipped Novak to win any majors till 2011 USO ??
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Come on! Djokovic was number three in the world in 2007, the year before he won his first slam and he had won a few Masters 1000 titles already in 2007 at age 19. He was expected to win slams from a young age which is more than you can say about most of the younger players out there today.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Don't get me wrong. Novak was the clear No.3 from 2007-2009. But Fedal were at their peak. So, no one gave a chance for Novak to win any major. We don't even need to look at the betting odds. He was a good USO player from day one, but Fed was strong there.
In 2010, he was horrible.
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
Don't know about that. All i know is that you always have Rafa in your head and in your posts. There might be some Projection going on here......:twisted::twisted:
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
You do realize that I said something nice about Rafa ?
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
The premise still stands......you always think about Rafa....
just poking you. just teasing buddy. You know me
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
But Djokovic did win a major at the AO in 2008 and he beat Federer along the way. All I am saying is that Djokovic did win a slam at age 20 and he was projected to do big things from a young age unlike most players these days. He was right in there with Federer and Nadal at age 19 battling it out and giving them headaches. I think people always predicted that he would win a slam. What they did not predict was that he would win a slam in 2008 and then not win another one for three more years. That is an odd trajectory.
I am not a Djokovic fan but the fact is that he had to battle and still has to battle against two of the greatest players of all time in Nadal and Federer. Not easy.
Similar threads
- Poll
