At their best, who would win?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

OK, to the bolded part, that clarifies your argument for me. Yes, I can agree that some of the older champions were arguably equal to the best athletes among the modern champions. No problem with that first statement.

Now, if I understand correctly, you argue that Rosewall, Gonzalez and McEnroe have all lasted into old age because their styles were economical, or less hard on the body, in one way or another. That I also don't take issue with. They all did have economical styles, and all used brains rather than brawn to get their living.

Federer is very similar, and as Urban pointed out, we have already seen some good longevity from him. He won Wimbledon and regained the #1 ranking at the age of 31. Laver won his last Slam event having just turned 31 too; and as you know that was the last year that he was the unquestioned #1. Of course Laver swept all 4 Slams at that age, but he soon dropped off sharply in the majors; and if Federer wins another major it will become very arguable that he has shown greater longevity than Laver. I'm not insisting on such an argument: what I am insisting on is that Federer is already, at worst, approaching levels of longevity achieved by Laver. There's not some wide chasm between the two champions on that score.

Earlier this year Federer was a 31-year-old ranked #1 over three major rivals all younger than him: all 25 or 26 years of age. And he won Wimbledon by beating two of them: Djokovic who was ranked #1 then and was defending Wimbledon champion; Murray who was just weeks away from winning what you regard as a major, and who played very well in the Wimbledon final (almost as well as he did in the Olympic final). Already this is greater longevity than Sampras, who had a superficially similar drought in the Slams before winning his last one: but Pete won no tournaments at all during that drought, unlike Roger who topped the tour rankings. And Pete's last Slam title, at the 2002 USO, was over an old rival whom he had owned, and not over any of the upcoming Slam champions of a new generation; that, again, was unlike Federer's Wimbledon victory.

Federer's longevity has arguably been greater than anyone's since Laver and Rosewall: and I'm including Agassi in there because Andre achieved his late-career success partly because he took a few "walkabout" years in the 90s that saved his body. That is in contrast to Federer who has been playing nonstop, entering all the Slam events, for his entire career.

Tilden, Rosewall and Gonzalez did succeed into their late 30s. Pancho and Ken had strokes, and movement, about as efficient and easy as you can imagine. I get that you appreciate that; I do too. But I can't imagine judging Federer's longevity by that yardstick. There are too many differences.

For one, Pancho benefited from significant periods away from tennis. So did Tilden: he's a particularly bad example to compare against a modern champion because he was an extremely late bloomer. Before 1919 he succeeded very little, and served time in the military, all of which saved his body for his (genuinely great) efforts in later years.

Rosewall did not benefit from any such time away from the grind; and he matured very early, as you know. And he was still threatening to win majors in '74. The more I think about this longevity question, the more I see Rosewall standing out. I used to think of Tilden, Pancho and Ken as pretty much indistinguishable in terms of longevity, but I think now that there's real evidence to give Rosewall the top distinction in that category. He seems to have lasted mainly because of his wonderful style.

But before I get too far off topic -- I was talking about the differences between past eras and today. The game today is a runner's game, as everyone acknowledges. Again, it's not a question of today's game being better. Even those who are partial to past eras can agree that today's game is all about retrieving and grinding -- on hard courts, to boot. And in such a game there is a high premium on the legs. The very instant the legs start to go, in today's running game, a champion will begin falling behind. He can keep up to some degree if he has other options -- as Federer has. But I think any open-minded observation of today's game will make a fan sympathetic in judging how well these players are keeping up, as they age, against a field of retrievers who are among the fastest men that the sport has known. The game really is more than ever about court coverage and speed: and it has very often been said that the first thing to go, with age, is the legs.

2008 and 2009 were the first years that I remember people starting to speculate, or say, that Federer's court coverage was declining. It was still a subtle decline then: but as I said, in this runner's game, the very first drop in court coverage will have an outsize impact in results.

You could see in the 2009 Wimbledon final, against Roddick, that Federer was still serving as well as ever -- perhaps even better than ever -- but that his receiving game had clearly begun to diminish.

As for today, it's not even a question anymore, if you just watch him and then compare against the first Youtube highlights you can find from his peak years. He was not necessarily #1 of all time in sheer footspeed but he moved with an energy and dynamism that even I had forgotten.

Now whether there was some decline before 2009 is a more difficult question. Indisputably, his win/loss record began declining significantly in 2007. In that year he had far fewer victories than in '06, and twice as many losses. Whether that was caused by any slight loss in the legs, or just in the fact that nobody can keep up the pace he had set in previous years, I don't know. But I disagree with you that a great player cannot begin to decline at 27. Sampras, whom you have in the first tier in the GOAT debate, turned 27 in 1998 when his numbers took a clear downturn and his body started giving out on him, particularly toward the end of that year.

(I recall Federer having back problems that may have affected his serve, in early '09. Don't recall if that was his first such trouble.)

These are all general arguments and I still want to post something, on which I'd like your response, about playing level. I've already posted some of it above, showing Federer's high winner/error ratios at his peak. There are a wealth of stats, in modern tennis, that can illustrate a player's level in any given year or across a period of time.

Good points. Now the question is whether it's a runners game because no one wants to take chances or whether it's a runners game because of the technology. If it's the former there can be less wear and tear if the player is good enough to attack successful and end the points earlier. If it's the latter there isn't that much you can do about it.

My gut feeling is that I see a lot of weak returns off the powerful serves of many players today and even if they don't serve and volley I'm sure they can set up the percentages in their favor with some very powerful approach shots. Usually however I don't see a strong approach shot but a powerful drive to control the point.

The other question is whether some players of the recent past ran a lot and also played a lot of tournaments. I'm think specifically of Guillermo Vilas in 1977 for example. He played a ton of tournaments that year and his style was the long grinding style. Legend has it that he practiced for hours before his US Open final against Connors and still had a lot in the tank.

Level of play is always hard to define. For example I can play perfect chess against weak players because they don't present me with any problems to make mistakes. A top player may very well make fewer errors when he was at his peak but was his competition making it easier for him. Was the player making a lesser amount of errors in those days because he was better or because he was getting better shots to hit. A fast opponent would reach shots that would normally be winners and keep the rally going. This would allow for more errors. I'm sure Federer played better tennis a few years ago but I've just pointing out the problems of using stats as a guide to level of play. Just trying to figure what came first, the chicken or the egg? Doe the player make less unforced errors because he's better or because he's handling easier shots?

Nadal's pure serving stats will never look like that of Federer's yet he holds serve extremely well because of his groundies.

Laver can look great against an Arthur Ashe whose style was made to order for Laver but look bad against Marty Riessen the next day because Riessen's style annoyed Laver.

Stats in tennis can be odd. For example I've notice opponents of the Williams sister tend to have a lot fewer winners than they normally would have against regular opponents. To me it's clear that because they are so fast Serena and Venus return shots that would normally would be winners. Are their opponents playing at a lesser level, probably not. Haven't check Clijster matches but I would guess we would find the same thing because of Clijsters's speed.

What we perhaps can do it use the same opponent to compare past matches with recent matches. Problem is that if we use Nadal I believe Nadal improved greatly around 2008 or perhaps a bit before so using older matches of Nadal against Federer may not really be that valid.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by pc1

Guys for all the battles about the strength of Kodes, he was a very good player who really did have a lot of talent.

sure he was, just that IMO, players like hewitt, safin, stich, roddick, murray etc are just clearly better players than him .......

its not like I am comparing kodes to mediocre players and calling him worse than them , is it ?

even players like mecir, rios, nalbandian, tsonga etc are darn good players and highly talented, but they didn't win majors - they faced full fields throughout their careers ....

kodes is nowhere strong enough to be a 3-major champ in full fields .....

the fields in which he won majors were depleted/weak ones with many strong players missing ..... this is a FACT .....kiki refuses to acknowledge this while BSing about "weak era" for federer .... gimme a break !!!!

and kiki even compares him to Vines, #1 player for several years in the 30s !! Again, are you like kidding me ??????

and again and again, just keeps on exposing his ignorance - see the part regarding henman/taylor .....

[pc1]

Originally Posted by abmk

sure he was, just that IMO, players like hewitt, safin, stich, roddick, murray etc are just clearly better players than him .......

its not like I am comparing kodes to mediocre players and calling him worse than them , is it ?

even players like mecir, rios, nalbandian, tsonga etc are darn good players and highly talented, but they didn't win majors - they faced full fields throughout their careers ....

kodes is nowhere strong enough to be a 3-major champ in full fields .....

the fields in which he won majors were depleted/weak ones with many strong players missing ..... this is a FACT .....kiki refuses to acknowledge this while BSing about "weak era" for federer .... gimme a break !!!!

and kiki even compares him to Vines, #1 player for several years in the 30s !! Again, are you like kidding me ??????

and again and again, just keeps on exposing his ignorance - see the part regarding henman/taylor .....

abmk,

I think Kiki's putting us on with some of this with Kodes. I agree with your arguments about Kodes. I think I actually mentioned some of that in my posts. Honestly to mention Vines with Kodes is downright silly. Vines has been called the greatest ever and the reasons aren't bad. Vines (and please don't attack me Federer fans) is a better comparison with Federer than Kodes because so many have called him the GOAT. No one calls Kodes the GOAT. Vines has been argued to be the best athlete in the history of tennis with the best forehand and serve. Vines has also been the top player in the world for many years. Incidentally fyi Vines has the second best winning percentage I believe in majors outside of Bjorn Borg. I'm including Pro Majors in this. Kodes doesn't have that type of resume.

But still I am amused by Kiki's devotion to Kodes. I will say this about Kodes, his best was higher than many top players I've seen. I think his best was higher than Vilas on fast surfaces for example. I've seen Kodes play out of his mind against John Newcombe. Newcombe had to raise the level of his game to defeat Kodes in that US Open final and I can tell you from watching Newcombe that tournament that Newcombe was playing awesome tennis. I don't remember what the predictions were but I'm fairly certain most people didn't give Kodes much of a chance to even make it that close.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Serena for the women.

As for the men, I have heard numerous times on this forum that Rosol would beat anybody at his best.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Serena for the women.

As for the men, I have heard numerous times on this forum that Rosol would beat anybody at his best.

You're right. It's Rosol. He's totally invincible except maybe against Vince Spadea.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Let aside your anger at the fact that Kodes won 2 RG to your darling´s one ( and without a serious rival in the path, by the way)

kiki, I think that one Kodes feat is seldom mentioned: His Wimbledon QF five-setter against Connors in the latter's best year.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

except only nadal can do that consistently and that too mostly on clay and slow , high bouncing surfaces ... didn't work out that well indoors , where he has a grand 1 set in 4 matches ...

others like agassi, nalbandian, djoker, murray,hewitt have tried a lot, but failed most of the times to cause that many problems to federer's BH when he's playing well ..

and regarding volleying , do you think federer would keep on slicing back returns vs volleyers ? doesn't have a decent topspin backhand return ??? really ?? go and watch these matches :

vs sampras @ wimbledon 2001 4R
vs henman @ wimbledon 2003 QF
vs phillippoussis @ wimbledon 2003 F
vs henman @ USO 2004 SF
vs ancic @ wimbledon 2006 QF

he was passing these guys almost at will at times , including on the returning ...

abmk, I have watched the Federer/Henman video and I must concede that Roger played great bh passing shots.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Hahaha Tim Henman, that terrific player that always lost in the semis¡¡¡ only a Britton would regard him so high.

kiki, I must defend Henman. He seems to be the last of those who really could serve and volley. He even troubled Federer and has a 6:7 balance against Roger.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Del Potro never did anything good in life other than his 2009 open win.The Olimpics are just a big exo.

beating Moya on clay is remarkable?

kiki, I contradict: The Olympics are much more than an exo.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, I contradict: The Olympics are much more than an exo.

Of course. I've heard that some players consider it as bigger than a major. I forgot who it was but the person said basically that the European players may consider the Olympics bigger than a major.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

krosero, Thanks that you find praising words for Rosewall's longevity. Probably he is the greatest in that field. But I'm still impressed by the late achievements of Tilden (till in 1946!) and Gonzalez (1964 to 1972).

You have convinced me that Federer is also great in longevity. I agree that both Sampras and Laver are not the epitome of greatness in an advanced age (even though Laver played superbly till 37 in non-majors).

I'm not quite sure about declining at 27/28. As earlier written Tilden (who played since he was 19) reached his peak only at 27 and Segura at 29. It was only the virtual begin of their careers.

I agree that modern baseline tennis might be more demanding than the older tennis. But as pc1 wrote also in older times players were demanded to a high degree by using the heavy wood racquets, by playing also doubles and so on.

I always admired Federer for his service, for his tremendous backhand, his footwork and speed. On the other hand, I sometimes thought that Roger's backhand "weakness" (often too defensive) allows other players, especially Nadal, to attac both his backhand and even forehand because Federer was busy to return the ball by a slice backhand at a cross angle which opened the court for Nadal and Co. Thus Roger was on the run in getting to his forehand which caused some errors. I aslo had the feeling that an excellent volleyer would go for Roger's sliced backhand and troubled him. But where are excellent volleyers today?

Sorry, I'm not a specialist in analysing styles and matches as Paul Metzler, abmk, you and pc1 are (among others of course).

Metzler was a friend of mine and gave me good information about tennis matters.

Yes I agree also with what PC1 wrote about conditions in the past. The past eras were tough in their own way, which I why in my post I didn't make a blanket statement about which era was tougher. I have just been talking about -- for lack of a better term -- leg mileage, ie, the wearing down and slowing down of the legs. In a game that has become all about constant running, the first slight loss in speed, I believe, will have an outsize effect on a player's results. That first slight loss will not be obvious, certainly not to casual observation; but in a game of running and retrieving, the slightest diminishing in a player's court coverage HAS to make a large difference. I can't see how it would be otherwise.

I'm not sure what would be a good analogy with the past. But let's say we're talking about a SV era in which everyone makes their living off their volleys. A player who starts to have problems with his volley will surely start falling behind. That much is obvious, I guess; but I'm saying also that problems with volleys in that era will have an OUTSIZE effect on the player's results, because that's where the player is spending all his time: at the net, volleying. By contrast, someone having problems with his volley today may not fall behind his rivals at all, because volleying is hardly an important part of the game today. Today what you have to do is run and cover the court; and in this sort of game you can expect young legs to thrive and dominate.

Hope at least the principle behind my argument is clear.

Lastly I just want to reiterate that Tilden does not make a good comparison here. What he did from 1912 to 1919 -- his mostly unsuccessful efforts in tournaments, and time spent in the military -- is in no way comparable to Federer's full-time efforts on tour up to the same age (26). I'm not saying that Tilden did NOTHING in that time period; but he was largely unsuccessful; and he had time off. That surely saved him from physical wear and tear.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by krosero

Yes I agree also with what PC1 wrote about conditions in the past. The past eras were tough in their own way, which I why in my post I didn't make a blanket statement about which era was tougher. I have just been talking about -- for lack of a better term -- leg mileage, ie, the wearing down and slowing down of the legs. In a game that has become all about constant running, the first slight loss in speed, I believe, will have an outsize effect on a player's results. That first slight loss will not be obvious, certainly not to casual observation; but in a game of running and retrieving, the slightest diminishing in a player's court coverage HAS to make a large difference. I can't see how it would be otherwise.

I'm not sure what would be a good analogy with the past. But let's say we're talking about a SV era in which everyone makes their living off their volleys. A player who starts to have problems with his volley will surely start falling behind. That much is obvious, I guess; but I'm saying also that problems with volleys in that era will have an OUTSIZE effect on the player's results, because that's where the player is spending all his time: at the net, volleying. By contrast, someone having problems with his volley today may not fall behind his rivals at all, because volleying is hardly an important part of the game today. Today what you have to do is run and cover the court; and in this sort of game you can expect young legs to thrive and dominate.

Hope at least the principle behind my argument is clear.

Lastly I just want to reiterate that Tilden does not make a good comparison here. What he did from 1912 to 1919 -- his mostly unsuccessful efforts in tournaments, and time spent in the military -- is in no way comparable to Federer's full-time efforts on tour up to the same age (26). I'm not saying that Tilden did NOTHING in that time period; but he was largely unsuccessful; and he had time off. That surely saved him from physical wear and tear.

krosero, I can't contradict with your main statements.

But Tilden's little playing in his first years may explain why he was great till 30 or 32 but it cannot explain why he was a force till his forties.

krosero, In Vienna we already have 2013, so I wish you and all other posters a Happy New Year and interesting discussions in the new year.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

krosero, I can't contradict with your main statements.

But Tilden's little playing in his first years may explain why he was great till 30 or 32 but it cannot explain why he was a force till his forties.

krosero, In Vienna we already have 2013, so I wish you and all other posters a Happy New Year and interesting discussions in the new year.

Happy New Year BobbyOne.

My guess is that Tilden was a force into his forties because he was a genius of the game. But Krosero has a great point, perhaps he had less wear on his body.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

Happy New Year BobbyOne.

My guess is that Tilden was a force because he was a genius of the game.

Thanks, pc1. You wrote exactly what I think about Tilden (and Gonzalez and Rosewall).

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

Good points. Now the question is whether it's a runners game because no one wants to take chances or whether it's a runners game because of the technology. If it's the former there can be less wear and tear if the player is good enough to attack successful and end the points earlier. If it's the latter there isn't that much you can do about it.

My gut feeling is that I see a lot of weak returns off the powerful serves of many players today and even if they don't serve and volley I'm sure they can set up the percentages in their favor with some very powerful approach shots. Usually however I don't see a strong approach shot but a powerful drive to control the point.

The other question is whether some players of the recent past ran a lot and also played a lot of tournaments. I'm think specifically of Guillermo Vilas in 1977 for example. He played a ton of tournaments that year and his style was the long grinding style. Legend has it that he practiced for hours before his US Open final against Connors and still had a lot in the tank.

Level of play is always hard to define. For example I can play perfect chess against weak players because they don't present me with any problems to make mistakes. A top player may very well make fewer errors when he was at his peak but was his competition making it easier for him. Was the player making a lesser amount of errors in those days because he was better or because he was getting better shots to hit. A fast opponent would reach shots that would normally be winners and keep the rally going. This would allow for more errors. I'm sure Federer played better tennis a few years ago but I've just pointing out the problems of using stats as a guide to level of play. Just trying to figure what came first, the chicken or the egg? Doe the player make less unforced errors because he's better or because he's handling easier shots?

Nadal's pure serving stats will never look like that of Federer's yet he holds serve extremely well because of his groundies.

Laver can look great against an Arthur Ashe whose style was made to order for Laver but look bad against Marty Riessen the next day because Riessen's style annoyed Laver.

Stats in tennis can be odd. For example I've notice opponents of the Williams sister tend to have a lot fewer winners than they normally would have against regular opponents. To me it's clear that because they are so fast Serena and Venus return shots that would normally would be winners. Are their opponents playing at a lesser level, probably not. Haven't check Clijster matches but I would guess we would find the same thing because of Clijsters's speed.

What we perhaps can do it use the same opponent to compare past matches with recent matches. Problem is that if we use Nadal I believe Nadal improved greatly around 2008 or perhaps a bit before so using older matches of Nadal against Federer may not really be that valid.

Yes all of those are issues that you have to deal with when looking at stats. There is definitely a chicken or egg problem; or to put it most simply, you can't take a player's stats at face value without looking at the quality of the opponent.

Comparing stats across eras is really tricky, not only because conditions change but also because if you look at more than one era you're looking at stats from different statisticians who may have varying methods of counting things like unforced errors, etc.

But the comparison I did upthread, between Federer and Djokovic in their five USO meetings, is free of a lot of the problems associated with stats. You've got the same era, same two players, same stage of the same tournament, same surface.

The argument against Federer seems to be, as BobbyOne wrote, that Federer dominated his main rivals while they were still young and maturing, and began to lose to them regularly when they matured.

The stats for their USO meetings do not support that argument, and even contradict it.

Federer’s winner/error differentials vs Djokovic at USO:
+8 (2007)
+23 (2008 )
+16 (2009)
-16 (2010)
-10 (2011)

Djokovic’s winner/error differentials vs Federer at USO:
-8 (2007)
-4 (2008 )
-2 (2009)
-2 (2010)
+13 (2011)

Djokovic's win in 2010 was when you might say that Djokovic started taking command of this rivalry. That was a kind of turning point. But what stands out the most is the huge drop in Federer's numbers, from the previous year. Djokovic's numbers, from 2009 to 2010, are holding steady. All of which implies very strongly that Djokovic started beating Federer when Federer's level went down: and that's one reason I have a problem with the argument that Federer was more or less still playing the tennis he always played, but started losing because his rivals got better.

I don't see that at all in these numbers.

As for whose peak is higher, Federer's differentials were the highest. Djokovic takes a big jump in level of play in 2011, but even his +13 differential is lower than what Federer had in 2008 and 2009.

Of course what we all wonder next is what was the quality of the defeated opponent. Was Novak just a baby in diapers in '08? Was Federer walking with a cane in 2011?

Obviously, it's easier for Federer to hit 23 more winners than errors in a match if his opponent does not put up much resistance. It's much harder to make all those winners, and make so few errors, if your opponent is putting up a strong resistance with numerous winners and few errors of his own.

But if you combine the differentials, you can find out in which matches the combined level of both players was the highest. That is, you can find out which were the best-played matches.

If you combine the differentials, the best-played of all these matches was 2008. Fed and Djoker, between the two of them, made 19 more winners than errors.

Next best was 2009, followed by 2011. The 2007 match broke even: there were just as many winners as errors in that match. The 2010 match, per the numbers, was the lowest quality of all.

I thought the 2010 match, as I watched it, was not great quality -- not in the first four sets anyway.

Federer not only made a ton of unforced errors: he served at just 52%, his lowest percentage in all five matches.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I always admired Federer for his service, for his tremendous backhand, his footwork and speed. On the other hand, I sometimes thought that Roger's backhand "weakness" (often too defensive) allows other players, especially Nadal, to attac both his backhand and even forehand because Federer was busy to return the ball by a slice backhand at a cross angle which opened the court for Nadal and Co. Thus Roger was on the run in getting to his forehand which caused some errors.

Just wanted to address this: you're right that this is what happens when Nadal meets Federer. Nadal takes slices and rips them into corners. Djokovic, on the other hand, because he is right-handed, takes Federer's slices with his two-hander. And that is not always easy for him. It was a big problem for him in the '07 USO final. Sometimes Federer's short slice is difficult for him simply because a two-hander finds it difficult to do much with that shot.

That's the funny thing about matchups. What is a liability for Federer against Nadal is a strength for him against Djokovic.

Djokovic has no trouble at all with Nadal's pounding crosscourt forehand. Nadal can whale away at it all day, and Novak has no trouble with it, and in fact he gets grooved, because he's always getting the same topspin shot. And when Djokovic gets grooved he's at his most dangerous. But Federer's slices don't allow Djokovic to swing away with the two-hander in the same way; Federer's changes of pace keep Novak from getting into rhythm.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

krosero, I can't contradict with your main statements.

But Tilden's little playing in his first years may explain why he was great till 30 or 32 but it cannot explain why he was a force till his forties.

krosero, In Vienna we already have 2013, so I wish you and all other posters a Happy New Year and interesting discussions in the new year.

Originally Posted by pc1

Happy New Year BobbyOne.

My guess is that Tilden was a force into his forties because he was a genius of the game. But Krosero has a great point, perhaps he had less wear on his body.

Yes, I agree that Tilden's longevity into his 40s can't be explained by what he did before 1919. He had longevity genes, no doubt about that: he lasted far longer than almost any of his peers.

We are couple of hours away from midnight still. Happy New Year!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by krosero

Yes all of those are issues that you have to deal with when looking at stats. There is definitely a chicken or egg problem; or to put it most simply, you can't take a player's stats at face value without looking at the quality of the opponent.

Comparing stats across eras is really tricky, not only because conditions change but also because if you look at more than one era you're looking at stats from different statisticians who may have varying methods of counting things like unforced errors, etc.

But the comparison I did upthread, between Federer and Djokovic in their five USO meetings, is free of a lot of the problems associated with stats. You've got the same era, same two players, same stage of the same tournament, same surface.

The argument against Federer seems to be, as BobbyOne wrote, that Federer dominated his main rivals while they were still young and maturing, and began to lose to them regularly when they matured.

The stats for their USO meetings do not support that argument, and even contradict it.

Federer’s winner/error differentials vs Djokovic at USO:
+8 (2007)
+23 (2008 )
+16 (2009)
-16 (2010)
-10 (2011)

Djokovic’s winner/error differentials vs Federer at USO:
-8 (2007)
-4 (2008 )
-2 (2009)
-2 (2010)
+13 (2011)

Djokovic's win in 2010 was when you might say that Djokovic started taking command of this rivalry. That was a kind of turning point. But what stands out the most is the huge drop in Federer's numbers, from the previous year. Djokovic's numbers, from 2009 to 2010, are holding steady. All of which implies very strongly that Djokovic started beating Federer when Federer's level went down: and that's one reason I have a problem with the argument that Federer was more or less still playing the tennis he always played, but started losing because his rivals got better.

I don't see that at all in these numbers.

As for whose peak is higher, Federer's differentials were the highest. Djokovic takes a big jump in level of play in 2011, but even his +13 differential is lower than what Federer had in 2008 and 2009.

Of course what we all wonder next is what was the quality of the defeated opponent. Was Novak just a baby in diapers in '08? Was Federer walking with a cane in 2011?

Obviously, it's easier for Federer to hit 23 more winners than errors in a match if his opponent does not put up much resistance. It's much harder to make all those winners, and make so few errors, if your opponent is putting up a strong resistance with numerous winners and few errors of his own.

But if you combine the differentials, you can find out in which matches the combined level of both players was the highest. That is, you can find out which were the best-played matches.

If you combine the differentials, the best-played of all these matches was 2008. Fed and Djoker, between the two of them, made 19 more winners than errors.

Next best was 2009, followed by 2011. The 2007 match broke even: there were just as many winners as errors in that match. The 2010 match, per the numbers, was the lowest quality of all.

I thought the 2010 match, as I watched it, was not great quality -- not in the first four sets anyway.

Federer not only made a ton of unforced errors: he served at just 52%, his lowest percentage in all five matches.

krosero, Your arguments are convincing. On the other hand, fact remains that Federer handled Nadal better when Rafa was young and had more problems with him when Nadal was in his prime. Maybe there is a difference between Nadal and Djokovic, both against Federer.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by krosero

Just wanted to address this: you're right that this is what happens when Nadal meets Federer. Nadal takes slices and rips them into corners. Djokovic, on the other hand, because he is right-handed, takes Federer's slices with his two-hander. And that is not always easy for him. It was a big problem for him in the '07 USO final. Sometimes Federer's short slice is difficult for him simply because a two-hander finds it difficult to do much with that shot.

That's the funny thing about matchups. What is a liability for Federer against Nadal is a strength for him against Djokovic.

Djokovic has no trouble at all with Nadal's pounding crosscourt forehand. Nadal can whale away at it all day, and Novak has no trouble with it, and in fact he gets grooved, because he's always getting the same topspin shot. And when Djokovic gets grooved he's at his most dangerous. But Federer's slices don't allow Djokovic to swing away with the two-hander in the same way; Federer's changes of pace keep Novak from getting into rhythm.



Yes, I agree that Tilden's longevity into his 40s can't be explained by what he did before 1919. He had longevity genes, no doubt about that: he lasted far longer than almost any of his peers.

We are couple of hours away from midnight still. Happy New Year!

krosero, fine analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the three top players of the last few years. It probably explains why Nadal did better against Federer than Djokovic did.

Yes, Tilden must had have a special gene. It's almost unbelievable that he lead 5-2 in the deciding set in the 1946 Kalamazoo tournament against world's pro champion, Riggs, before losing that third set only by 6-8. Big Bill was 53 at that time! Maybe a model for aging Roger...

[Moose Malloy]

They're starting to measure how much the players run in individuals matches, actually measured in feet/meters. I see these figures displayed now on tennis broadcasts: I think the players are continuously photographed, or something, because they can tell you how many meters Djokovic has run in the match after two sets, for example. They even display how many meters a certain players has run in the entire season.

I recorded some of those stats and will post them if there's interest

I'm interested.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by pc1

Level of play is always hard to define.

Depends on the case,.

Originally Posted by pc1

For example I can play perfect chess against weak players because they don't present me with any problems to make mistakes.

Yes, but you're not playing in an extremely competitive field of the best professional chess players in the world now, are you?

Originally Posted by pc1

A top player may very well make fewer errors when he was at his peak but was his competition making it easier for him. Was the player making a lesser amount of errors in those days because he was better or because he was getting better shots to hit.

It doesn't has to be either-or, it could be a combination of several factors.

Originally Posted by pc1

A fast opponent would reach shots that would normally be winners and keep the rally going. This would allow for more errors.

Indeed, for example I'd say that the main reason Fed is having significantly more trouble with big hitters today (and in the last few years) than in his best days is because he's nowhere near as fast as he was.

Originally Posted by pc1

I'm sure Federer played better tennis a few years ago

Federer's best tennis came in 2004-2007, more than a few years ago.

Originally Posted by pc1

but I've just pointing out the problems of using stats as a guide to level of play.

Stats don't tell the whole story and are open to interpretation but their value in determining various things shouldn't be dismissed either.

Originally Posted by pc1

Just trying to figure what came first, the chicken or the egg? Doe the player make less unforced errors because he's better or because he's handling easier shots?

It's a valid question but I don't think it has a simple answer, not usually anyway.

Originally Posted by pc1

Nadal's pure serving stats will never look like that of Federer's yet he holds serve extremely well because of his groundies.

Everyone knows that holding serve is a combination of the effectiveness of your serve as a shot and the game backing up that serve.

Originally Posted by pc1

What we perhaps can do it use the same opponent to compare past matches with recent matches. Problem is that if we use Nadal I believe Nadal improved greatly around 2008 or perhaps a bit before so using older matches of Nadal against Federer may not really be that valid.

We've had this discussion before, by and large people don't believe Fed declined in 2008 because of his losses to Nadal but the significant drop in the performance against the field (even excluding Nadal).

Of course the counter argument might be that the field has improved and made Fed look weaker as a consequence but for that theory to hold up we'll have to believe that Mardy Fish, James Blake, Stepanek, Karlovic and Roddick all somehow tremendously improved their games in 2008, needles to say I find the theory that Fed's level dropped to be far more plausible.