Originally Posted by kraggy
Your logic is spot on as far as saying that reaching slam finals is not a sole indicator of playing form. However Fed's declining win-loss record doesn't tell us whether Fed declined or whether the competition caught up or whether both happened.
I think a good indication of a decline would be the number of losses to players outside the top 10. If this number increases significantly, that is a sure sign of decline. Unfortunately Fed has such a spotless record that if he goes from 300-0 to 295-5 , people will call that a decline. Statistically though, I would argue that you need much more of a deviation to make a claim like that.
I'm not saying Fed couldn't have declined, I'm just saying it's kind of hard to prove it.
As a fan, we always want to believe that if our player had played at their best level they would have won. As a Nadal fan, I'd like to believe that a fully fit Nadal would have beaten Soderling at the FO. But I have no way of providing strong enough evidence to support this.
I agree with you,it's hard to prove either way and maybe it's a combination of both.stronger competition and Fed's natural decline of skills.My issues was with Jackson Vile applying double standards to Fed when compared to Pete.
However there is a difference between level of play and achievements.For example even if Fed say won a calendar grand slam this year(won those matches against Nadal and Delpo)I would still consider his actual level of play to be higher in 2005 even though this year achievement wise would have been much greater.
Or another example,IMO of all the slams this year Fed's level of play was the highest in AO even though he lost,now he had a bad serving day against Nadal in the final and played relatively poor on big points but overall IMO he played great from the baseline,reminded me of his peak play,FO and Wimbledon he mostly won on mental strength and fitness.
Originally Posted by jackson vile
In the past two years Roger is playing less ( due to the fact that he has achieved and set all the records he wanted), and is all and the field is much much stronger. Take a look at the new standard, it is much greater, the new players are amazing even when the are sucking ie Novak.
To say Roger's decline starts with a 68-9 W-L ratio is complete ignorance and incompetence. Reaching the final of everysingle slam in one year is not a decline.
When we talk about Pete, we are talking about him not making the finals in slams, with a 50/50 W-L ratio and 1-0 titles etc.
Roger has to face a much much stronger field now, and his desire is for slams now explaining is mixed results as masters and other tournaments. Also won the french the same year he made the final of all 4 slams, what decline????
****s are full of excuses and it is pathetic.
In ending the field is far stronger than any field Roger has ever played in before, Roger is playing less, let me know when Roger #1 stops making slam finals #2 has a W-L ratio of 50/50.
Being out played is not a decline, you just can't accept that Roger is beatable like the rest of the players, DEAL WITH IT
I already answered this post and you still haven't answered my question,given that we look at reaching slam finals as a sole indicator,was Sampras more in decline in 1996 and 1998 than in 2000?