Federer at 25 FAR superior than Murray now

[Raz11]

Originally Posted by ctoth666

Yes, but also no. Regardless, those statistics matter, although you can choose to ignore them if it's convenient for you. Not only are the 2/3 of his losses in majors all from the same three guys, but approx. half of all of his losses are from the same three guys. Federer did get back to number one last year, which means that he is still very much dominant over the rest of the field. In fact, if you look at the differential of his losses between 2004-2007 and 2008-2013, the difference is completely accounted for by Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal. Of course Federer isn't at his peak right now, but that doesn't change the fact that he has a losing record against these guys. If anyone wants to suggest that if Federer, Murray, Nadal, and Djokovic were all playing at their absolute best at the same time that Federer would still have dominated like he did from 2004-07, that's completely BS. I bet he doesn't pass Sampras on the all-time list.

What makes Federer an all time great is longevity, to be able to play at a high level over a decade. Sure Federer might have lost 5 slams during 04-07 if he had this kind of competition but Federer might have also won 5 more slams during his post prime years. Djokovic, Murray and especially Nadal has yet to show us that they can play at a high level during their late 20s and it won't be enough to stop Federer from winning during his late years.

[Raz11]

Originally Posted by ctoth666

Statistics are also useless when you create context for them.

Federer Prime vs Kuerten Post-Prime

Majors: 0-1

Seriously. The top guys are better now than they were. In 2006, James Blake and Davydenko finished the year in the top four. Since 2008, the top four has been gridlocked by the same four guys...and these are also Federer's post-prime years. Interesting.

So what we both have is useless statistics. What still stands is that Federer has 17 slams and those three have a combine count of 17.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by ctoth666

Yes, but also no. Regardless, those statistics matter, although you can choose to ignore them if it's convenient for you. Not only are the 2/3 of his losses in majors all from the same three guys, but approx. half of all of his losses are from the same three guys. Federer did get back to number one last year, which means that he is still very much dominant over the rest of the field. In fact, if you look at the differential of his losses between 2004-2007 and 2008-2013, the difference is completely accounted for by Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal. Of course Federer isn't at his peak right now, but that doesn't change the fact that he has a losing record against these guys. If anyone wants to suggest that if Federer, Murray, Nadal, and Djokovic were all playing at their absolute best at the same time that Federer would still have dominated like he did from 2004-07, that's completely BS. I bet he doesn't pass Sampras on the all-time list.

You don't know that, and no one does except all speculation. Hewitt/Roddick/Safin/Gonzo/Ferrero/Ljubicic/Davydenko/Coria, etc. and early bloomer Nadal have faced a better version of Federer.

Nole/Nadal/Murray are face a deteriorating Federer. When a player is 5 or 6 years apart the H2H doesn't say much because their prime years aren't overlapped. That's not a good comparison. Fed should be compare to players at around his age, like the players I've listed above. Why? because they all met each other at their prime years.

[Raz11]

While the top 4 are great players and deserve to be at the top, the slowing down and homogenizing of the courts have made it much easier to dominate. If the courts were faster, upsets would have been much more frequent since it is easier to get hot and remain at that level for 5 sets on faster courts.

[ctoth666]

Originally Posted by Raz11

While the top 4 are great players and deserve to be at the top, the slowing down and homogenizing of the courts have made it much easier to dominate. If the courts were faster, upsets would have been much more frequent since it is easier to get hot and remain at that level for 5 sets on faster courts.

Yes it certainly has. No argument there. Again, for the record, I think Federer is the greatest player in the history of the Open Era. He is brilliant, and perhaps his best form is better than anyone else's. But winning majors and being ranked number one etc. are not so much about the overall level of competition but rather the level at the very top, because these are the men who are really competing for major titles. The rest is filler. I'm trying to look at this as objectively as possible, and my conclusion is that Federer is facing stiffer competition than he did in the mid 2000's. I suppose it's the natural ebb and flow of competition. Another important observation for me is that there is not a single player from Federer's generation, with the exception of maybe Ferrer (and he's not really even a contender) who is relevant today. This could mean several different things, but regardless, they've been phased out. Federer is still competing for majors, but now he has company.

[rajah84]

Originally Posted by McEnborg

This Federer criticism is a freaking joke. The guy is HANDS DOWN the greatest player ever. Joko or Nadal might be able to catch him, but they need a lot more wins and longevity.

Federer has lost at least 1/2 or 1 full step and yet, he's still one of the top 4 players in the world.

Does anyone honestly think Joko, Rafa or Murray will be as good at age 31 as Roger is now?? If you do, you're delusional.

Federer in his prime from 2006 beats Murray, Joko and Rafa on hard court 90% of the time. The fact that Roger still gets to GS semis or finals and won Wimbledon last year is amazing. Look at his record, consistency, longevity, and all the indicators--he's the greatest ever. There is NO DEBATE --maybe in 3 or 4 years if Novak and/or Rafa win more slams and titles...BUT NOT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And your point is?

Federer really does attract insecure people.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by rajah84

And your point is?

Federer really does attract insecure people.

.. And their main mission in life is trying to convert everyone they possibly can. Its worse then Jonestown. Always trying to push their "Hands down greatest ever' rhetoric on to people and when people don't agree with their premise, they gang up like a pack of wild swiss wolves

"oh dont insult my federer". "please love Roger"

If hes the hands down GOAT, he shouldnt have been so pathetic vs. his main rival on the big stage.

Fed is in discussion for GOAT. But to say he's "hands down" the greatest, is pure bunk. Since GOAT represents "all time" and tennis existed before the Open Era

[McEnborg]

Originally Posted by rajah84

And your point is?

Federer really does attract insecure people.

I'm not insecure nitwit. I get irritated with uninformed people like you.

[McEnborg]

If hes the hands down GOAT, he shouldnt have been so pathetic vs. his main rival on the big stage.

Fed is in discussion for GOAT. But to say he's "hands down" the greatest, is pure bunk. Since GOAT represents "all time" and tennis existed before the Open Era[/quote]


Nadal has beaten Federer mainly at the French. No one has argued he's the best clay courter ever. But, overall, Federer could do more in his prime than any player ever. Just ask Pete Sampras, McEnroe and Rod Laver. They have ALL been on record saying Fed is the best ever.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by *Sparkle*

They look pretty stupid too IMO.

I do worry for the hard-core Fed fans who have spent that last however many years quoting just how many slams he's won compared to any and everyone else, whenever he faces any hint of criticism for anything, and even when he's not. It's going to be a tough few years for them and the rest of us if they can't take any enjoyment from anything less than total domination.

Well, that is the revealing part of their outlook: if they were so confident about Federer's status, they would not need to flood this board with attacks on Djokovic, Murray, or re-post meaningless stats, while trying to ignore history Federer did not make.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by ctoth666

Flimsy Argument. Let's get statistical. Since 2004...

Federer vs Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal

Overall: 35-42
Majors: 11-14

Federer vs Everyone Else

Overall: 612-47
Majors: 218-7

Eh? This has nothing to do with what I posted.

The points I raised:

-Fed certainly wasn't in ominous form in 2009 AO, a good form but nothing special for his (high)standards.

-Nadal wasn't less than 100% as evidenced by the fact that that was the only time he won AO.

-Gonzo wasn't as weak of an opponent in AO as you made him out to be given that he demolished Nadal there in his run to the final.


Now go back to your fantasy land in which Fed doesn't have 17 slams or something, that has nothing to do with the argument I made.

[smoledman]

Looking how Fed utterly and easily dominated 2006, this rings true.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by zagor

Eh? This has nothing to do with what I posted.

The points I raised:

-Fed certainly wasn't in ominous form in 2009 AO, a good form but nothing special for his (high)standards.

-Nadal wasn't less than 100% as evidenced by the fact that that was the only time he won AO.

-Gonzo wasn't as weak of an opponent in AO as you made him out to be given that he demolished Nadal there in his run to the final.


Now go back to your fantasy land in which Fed doesn't have 17 slams or something, that has nothing to do with the argument I made.

Nadal doesn't need to be 100% to beat Federer.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Nadal doesn't need to be 100% to beat Federer.

on clay, he doesn't ...

outside of clay, he does vs a federer playing atleast decent tennis ...

funny how when trying to 'degrade' federer, *******s like you are disrespecting the efforts of rafa himself ; when in reality rafa turned up close to his very best on majority of the occasions when he met fed ...

[abmk]

at the thread , lol, there isn't any need to create a thread like this ... fed at 25 was the probably the best player of all time, let alone a player like murray, who isn't close to an ATG .....

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

on clay, he doesn't ...

outside of clay, he does vs a federer playing atleast decent tennis ...

funny how when trying to 'degrade' federer, *******s like you are disrespecting the efforts of rafa himself ; when in reality rafa turned up close to his very best on majority of the occasions when he met fed ...

Funny, weren't you the one saying Rafa played better quality in the 07 final than 08 WIM?

Rafa clearly wasn't 100% at AO09 after that gruelling semi he had his knees taped up all tournament.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Funny, weren't you the one saying Rafa played better quality in the 07 final than 08 WIM?

eh, no ... I said that rafa played better from the baseline in the 2007 final, but served better in the 2008 final ... a bit better overall in 2008, giving the benefit of doubt to rafa's better serving over federer's worse returning in wim 08 ... but close , very close in both ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

Rafa clearly wasn't 100% at AO09 after that gruelling semi he had his knees taped up all tournament.

he played darn well in the finals; in how many matches has he played better by a distance at the AO vs a decent opponent ? yeah, right ..no match ...

djoker didn't have a problem slugging it out for longer vs rafa in AO 2012 after having played a long 5-setter vs murray ...

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

eh, no ... I said that rafa played better from the baseline in the 2007 final, but served better in the 2008 final ... a bit better overall in 2008, giving the benefit of doubt to rafa's better serving over federer's worse returning in wim 08 ... but close , very close in both ...

ok so Rafa wasn't at his best level in WIM07 thank you for finally admitting that.

Originally Posted by abmk

he played darn well in the finals; in how many matches has he played better by a distance at the AO vs a decent opponent ? yeah, right ..no match ...

djoker didn't have a problem slugging it out for longer vs rafa in AO 2012 after having played a long 5-setter vs murray ...

But Nadal doesn't have a CVAC egg...

Oh and now decent opponents matter do they? weren't you cacking on about the level the players play at mattering more than rankings....

Verdy played the match of his life just like Wawrinka did against Novak.

And Nadal played better in 2012 AO semi v Fed.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Nadal doesn't need to be 100% to beat Federer.

It's not just about beating Fed but winning the whole tourney.

If Nadal was less than 100% in the year he won the actual tourney what was he in all those years in which he got spanked in straight sets against Gonzo, Tsonga, Murray, Ferrer? 20%?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

ok so Rafa wasn't at his best level in WIM07 thank you for finally admitting that.

he was ... just because he was a bit better in 2008, doesn't mean he wasn't at his best in the 2007 final... best doesn't include only 'one' match .. it includes a bunch of matches where a player played at a very high level, where there isn't a significant gap in the playing level

Originally Posted by The_Order

But Nadal doesn't have a CVAC egg...

Oh and now decent opponents matter do they? weren't you cacking on about the level the players play at mattering more than rankings....

Verdy played the match of his life just like Wawrinka did against Novak.

And Nadal played better in 2012 AO semi v Fed.

let's not get into the CVAC egg or any other similar controversial topics regarding recovery .....

when I say decent opponents, I mean players who were playing well .... that includes verdasco in AO 2009

better by how much in any of those 2 matches - AO 2009 SF or AO 2012 SF ? not much of a difference at all .... IMO, in fact he played a bit better in the AO 2009 F than in the AO 2012 SF ... federer was plainly worse in AO 2012 ...

AO 2009 SF vs verdasco, nadal was at his defensive best, but he wasn't making many of those amazing offensive shots as he did vs fed in the finals ... different methods, but very similar level IMO ...