This is cherry picking of stats. You have to compare against Universal set.
He lost to Nalbandian both the times he played in 2007 but defeated him all three times when he played him in 2008 or later. That means Federer became actually stronger after 2007. No? Federer lost to Gasquet in 2005 in his first match but lost just once more only in their next 18 matches. Doesn't that mean Fed was weakest in 2005?? Of course my arguments are wrong as you can't cherry pick stats like this and for the similar reason your stats hold little value.
Throughout his career Fed lost little outside big 4 and so you pick any period, pick players whom he lost to in that period and compare his numbers against those players in some other period of same duration. You'll find the same results.
For example in 2007 he lost to Fernando Gonzalez but won both the matches he played against him after 2007. So Fed got stronger after 2007? Your argument is simply selective bias without any solid foundation.
I would like to put this to rest. I've compiled a chart of Federer's overall win-loss records with and without the big 4 and split them into two 7 year periods, 2004-2010 and 2011-2017. No cherry-picking, just cold hard facts. Just a disclaimer, I manually looked at his win-loss record vs the big 4, so there could be some human error there. Feel free to point out any errors, if ever.
His performance vs the field is greatly exaggerated by both Federer's fans and detractors.
Feds detractors like to state that his level was constant, that he still beat everyone else but only lost to the other members of the big 4. This is clearly not the case as we see his win% vs the field drops from 93% to 88.59% if we compare the two periods 2004-2010 and 2011-2017. His win% in the former period is consistently at 90% or above, with the exception of 2010, whereas in the latter, it is more inconsistent. There is also a huge drop-off in his win% and his matches won after 2006.
Most importantly, he played 100 more matches over the course of the first period, indicating he generally went deeper into tournaments.
Feds fans, on the other hand, like to state that he was beaten more often by Nadal and Djokovic because of a general decline which coincided with his decline over the field as well. While there is an element of truth to this, Fed has shown remarkable resilience against the field in 2011, 2012, 2015 and 2017 (above 90 win%). We have to remember that his 2016 and 2013 years were plagued by injury. He is able to attain a win % similar to the latter half of his prime years in 2007-2010, though it is clear he is past his peak.
Fed in his 30's still generally beats the field outside the big 4 9 out of 10 times.
Ultimately, you guys just need to be more balanced in your views. Both sides have valid points, and both sides should be more open-minded when it comes to their assessment of Fed's level throughout the years.
Fed has been and still is an extremely consistent player, but there has definitely been a gradual decline over the years. This is not peak Fed.
From left to right: Wins-Losses, Big 4 Wins-Big 4 Losses, Overall Win %, Overall Win % less Big 4 record. Sorry I can't organize the table better, I can't seem to upload the original image.
2004 74-6 0-1 92.50% 93.67%
2005 81-4 2-1 95.29% 96.34%
2006 92-5 4-5 94.85% 100.00%
2007 68-9 6-3 88.31% 91.18%
2008 66-15 3-8 81.48% 90.00%
2009 61-12 5-6 83.56% 90.32%
2010 65-13 7-4 83.33% 86.57%
PERIOD 1 507-64 27-28 88.79% 93.02%
2011 64-12 2-7 84.21% 92.54%
2012 71-12 6-6 85.54% 91.55%
2013 45-17 0-7 72.58% 81.82%
2014 73-12 6-3 85.88% 88.16%
2015 63-11 6-5 85.14% 90.48%
2016 21-7 0-1 75.00% 77.78%
2017 52-5 4-0 91.23% 90.57%
PERIOD 2 389-76 24-29 83.66% 88.59%
