Roger : best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

zagor said:

Dear Lord Krosero, are you a practicing Buddhist or something? I mean, I admire your patience but it's somewhat sad to see such a wasted effort.

I can just imagine you in a boardroom with Bobby, Pc1 and Kiki patiently trying to explain to them step by step what aggressive margin is, analysing Fed's overall career and his performances against presumed weak era players compared to Nadal and Novak, drawing a parallel between Fed's career and those of other open era greats like Sampras and Lendl etc. all the while Bobby is snoring, Kiki is yawning and Pc1 is pretending to listen but is in fact sleeping with his eyes open.

After your exhausting and thorough presentation you'd receive the following answers:

Pc1 - Good sir, I always maintained that Fed is a superb player with very good FH and movement but I cannot in my good conscience agree with your premise that Federer is perfect, if he was he'd never lose a match - after that he goes on a random tangent about wooden vs modern racquets, winning percentages and Laver's gigantic forearm.

BobbyOne - Weak era, as my official peak + longevity list show, Nadal, Novak and Murray (a very recent addition, he took a long time to reach his peak) have a much higher peak than Federer who is an average talent with weak BH, weak volley, no touch shots, an overall failure as a player who's nowhere near being a GOAT candidate, now the divine creature known as Muscles on the other hand bla bla bla bla bla bla.....

Kiki would promptly call you a Justin Bieber fan and then start reminiscing about the golden era.

Click to expand...

zagor said:

Dear Lord Krosero, are you a practicing Buddhist or something? I mean, I admire your patience but it's somewhat sad to see such a wasted effort.

I can just imagine you in a boardroom with Bobby, Pc1 and Kiki patiently trying to explain to them step by step what aggressive margin is, analysing Fed's overall career and his performances against presumed weak era players compared to Nadal and Novak, drawing a parallel between Fed's career and those of other open era greats like Sampras and Lendl etc. all the while Bobby is snoring, Kiki is yawning and Pc1 is pretending to listen but is in fact sleeping with his eyes open.

After your exhausting and thorough presentation you'd receive the following answers:

Pc1 - Good sir, I always maintained that Fed is a superb player with very good FH and movement but I cannot in my good conscience agree with your premise that Federer is perfect, if he was he'd never lose a match - after that he goes on a random tangent about wooden vs modern racquets, winning percentages and Laver's gigantic forearm.

BobbyOne - Weak era, as my official peak + longevity list show, Nadal, Novak and Murray (a very recent addition, he took a long time to reach his peak) have a much higher peak than Federer who is an average talent with weak BH, weak volley, no touch shots, an overall failure as a player who's nowhere near being a GOAT candidate, now the divine creature known as Muscles on the other hand bla bla bla bla bla bla.....

Kiki would promptly call you a Justin Bieber fan and then start reminiscing about the golden era.

Click to expand...

Flash O'Groove said:

2012 is difficult to fit in the general trend though. He lost before the SF only twice: against Roddick in Miami and against Berdych in USO. If I recall correctly, except these two, only Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro were able to beat him last year. In this regard, using Krosero's methodology to identify playing peak, 2012 is a peak season for Fed. It's what the data show, but it doesn't fit with the general theory...

This lead to a question for Krosero (in particular):

Federer was so dominant in 2004-2006 that he hardly lose against low ranked players: only the top players could beat him. We can clearly identify 2007-2008 as the years when he declined: he began to lose against players he used to own, AND, it is very unlikely that all these players rose their level at that moment. What of 2012?

What about players which are not as dominant as Federer? Roddick used to lose against low ranked players in his peak years. Nadal used to be dominant for the first half of the year, and then vulnerable to a lot of players. Which years do you identify as their peak years? In particular, what do you do of Nadal 2011 season, when he was extremely consistent and solid, but was systematically beaten by Nole? Is 2011 one of his peak years?

Click to expand...

abmk said:

I think krosero just mentioned as one of the methodologies that could be used.

In 2012, federer also lost to ~33 year old haas in the halle final and to isner in the davis Cup

IMO, one should never used "only" one parameter to evaluate this.

There are multiple things at play - one is of course the win loss records ; if you've watched the season, your impression ; another is performance at big events & smaller events , surface-wise split up , reading up some of the descriptions of players rise/fall or specific matches , stats in some of the matches etc etc ...

Click to expand...

Flash O'Groove said:

That was fun, but you are though with pc1. It does look like a post pc1 could wrote, but what's the problem? His view are argued enough no?

You are also to kind with BobbyOne. The good sir never care to write such a long explanation, especially if he answer to somenone who wrote 10 pages of arguments.

Now, who could write this?

"The owls are not what they seems?"

Click to expand...

Flash O'Groove said:

Now, who could write this?

"The owls are not what they seems?"

Click to expand...

forzamilan90 said:

Somebody who has seen a damn, fine TV show. Damn fine I say.

Click to expand...

Flash O'Groove said:

You deserve a donut.

Click to expand...

Flash O'Groove said:

That was fun, but you are though with pc1. It does look like a post pc1 could wrote, but what's the problem? His view are argued enough no?

You are also to kind with BobbyOne. The good sir never care to write such a long explanation, especially if he answer to somenone who wrote 10 pages of arguments.

Now, who could write this?

"The owls are not what they seems?"

Click to expand...

forzamilan90 said:

Would rather have some cherry pie and coffee.

Click to expand...

zagor said:

Dear Lord Krosero, are you a practicing Buddhist or something? I mean, I admire your patience but it's somewhat sad to see such a wasted effort.

I can just imagine you in a boardroom with Bobby, Pc1 and Kiki patiently trying to explain to them step by step what aggressive margin is, analysing Fed's overall career and his performances against presumed weak era players compared to Nadal and Novak, drawing a parallel between Fed's career and those of other open era greats like Sampras and Lendl etc. all the while Bobby is snoring, Kiki is yawning and Pc1 is pretending to listen but is in fact sleeping with his eyes open.

After your exhausting and thorough presentation you'd receive the following answers:

Pc1 - Good sir, I always maintained that Fed is a superb player with very good FH and movement but I cannot in my good conscience agree with your premise that Federer is perfect, if he was he'd never lose a match - after that he goes on a random tangent about wooden vs modern racquets, winning percentages and Laver's gigantic forearm.

BobbyOne - Weak era, as my official peak + longevity list show, Nadal, Novak and Murray (a very recent addition, he took a long time to reach his peak) have a much higher peak than Federer who is an average talent with weak BH, weak volley, no touch shots, an overall failure as a player who's nowhere near being a GOAT candidate, now the divine creature known as Muscles on the other hand bla bla bla bla bla bla.....

Kiki would promptly call you a Justin Bieber fan and then start reminiscing about the golden era.

Click to expand...

zagor said:

How do you like your coffee?

Click to expand...

pc1 said:

Someone asked my opinion and I gave it. I've seen Federer's backhand and Laver's backhand so I understand their shots. Should I lie and cater to people? I think people want my true opinion on that question.

Now if someone wrote if I thought Federer had a better serve than Laver I would say yes. Would I have to gave examples at that point? It's still opinion.

Click to expand...

NatF said:

Federer has won Wimbledon outside of his prime years, why must he reach an additional 4 finals? The game is different nowadays, accept it and get a clue. It's not possible to compete at your peak level until well into your 30's.

Click to expand...

krosero said:

I know you're just trying to have fun but I need to make it clear for the record that I do not see my exchanges with PC1, BobbyOne and Kiki as a waste of time and I have had worthwhile exchanges with them before. Also I know for a fact that they read what I write with interest even when they disagree -- or even when they don't reply.

What I'm trying to do, for anyone who's interested, is have some substantive debate not just about the players but about methods -- particularly methods of studying matches and analyzing stats. I've had worthwhile exchanges about these things particularly with PC1 and that's simply where my interest is.

I know it's inevitable and even necessary that we talk about each other but so many threads deteriorate when we get caught up doing that.

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Thanks for your support.I can´t imagine we are posting in...former pro player talk¡¡¡

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

kiki, Yes, now both TT forums are seemingly overtaken by the Federer fanatics.Whre is the expertise of the posters?

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Yes, I am a Golden Boy, like Gianni Rivera..but I am sure that newtard Milan fanatic like Forza, doesn´t even know who he was.

Click to expand...

World Beater said:

who was #345 in rosewalls time?

Tell me ..

Does such a player even exist?

Click to expand...

abmk said:

here, I'll put it bluntly :

players decline significantly by 29 in the modern game , if you don't understand or observe that, that's your ignorance .... sampras wasn't winning even a single title at that age, McEnroe declined after 85, when he was 26 or so , wilander declined after 88, when he was ~24 or so ...so many examples ....

you actually need to watch federer's game at his peak and now with your eyes wide open ... the difference is day and night tbh .... only on a few occasions , he can bring out his best ....

laver declined at 33 or so, but then he matured at around 25 years, federer's peak started when he was 22

Click to expand...

abmk said:

no, not the same, not even close ... sampras had several shots at the french open @ his prime ...

rosewall didn't ....

Click to expand...

krosero said:

With regard to the weak era theory, I put this question to you twice before, about peak level of play. Federer beat the peak versions of Roddick, Hewitt and Davydenko more comprehensively than Nadal and Djokovic have been able to do against older versions of those men. At best, Nadal and Djokovic have sometimes beaten the old versions of those men as badly as Federer beat the peak versions -- but that's it.

Now this suggests strongly that Federer's peak level of play was higher than what has (yet) been shown by Nadal and Djokovic. Do you disagree, and in what way? What would be your explanation for those H2H records?

You have not answered me before, and I would not press the issue, except that here again you're arguing with me about a weak era -- so I'm bringing this up again.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

I have heard that Agassi did rather well till 35...

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

kiki, Yes, now both TT forums are seemingly overtaken by the Federer fanatics.Whre is the expertise of the posters?

Click to expand...

krosero said:

I know you're just trying to have fun but I need to make it clear for the record that I do not see my exchanges with PC1, BobbyOne and Kiki as a waste of time and I have had worthwhile exchanges with them before. Also I know for a fact that they read what I write with interest even when they disagree -- or even when they don't reply.

What I'm trying to do, for anyone who's interested, is have some substantive debate not just about the players but about methods -- particularly methods of studying matches and analyzing stats. I've had worthwhile exchanges about these things particularly with PC1 and that's simply where my interest is.

I know it's inevitable and even necessary that we talk about each other but so many threads deteriorate when we get caught up doing that.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

krosero, Nadal and Djokovic are significantly younger than Federer and were not in their prime when they faced Hewitt and so on.

Federer beat a certain Baghdatis in a major final...

Click to expand...

zagor said:

Both Davydenko and Roddick beat Nadal in his best career years.

Click to expand...

krosero said:

Rosewall was 36 that year. And the previous year you said he was exhausted as well (at Wimbledon), further closing the gap between the two.

I'm glad you agree partly that Federer was exhausted. That's fine. I'm not asking anyone to consider that the MAIN factor in the Olympic final.

I have not said that Federer loses majors today because he's always exhausted. That would be exaggerating. I only say that a 30-year-old does not recover as quickly as a 25-year-old -- you saw that in January near the end of the his match with Murray, after a five-setter with Tsonga.

Federer's win/loss record started dropping significantly in 2007 (right about the same age that Sampras started leaving his peak). As I pointed out to you in another thread, those extra losses were not to Nadal or to Djokovic; in '07 he cut down dramatically on his losses to Nadal and yet came out with more losses overall for the year because he started losing to lower-ranked players; in '08 he began losing to players he had previously owned, and those new losses occurred BEFORE he began losing to Rafa that year.

Simply put, starting in '07 his nearly-perfect seasons came to an end and he started having losses to low-ranked players.

That was a another question that I put to you before. If we typically use yearly win/loss records to judge when a player reaches his peak and when he starts declining, then why do you not conclude that Federer's level started dropping off in 2007-08? Look at his yearly win/loss records: and look at the rankings of the players he was losing to.

It is really is not the picture you have been implying, in which Federer has been playing more or less to the same level as always but has simply been taking new losses to alltime greats.

(If you don't use yearly win/loss records to judge peaks and declines, fine; I'm not saying that's the best measure of when a player begins to decline; but in that case I'd like to know what other measure you use for it. How do you judge when a player has begun to decline?)

Click to expand...

krosero said:

Your two arguments are not the same. I have the same objection Zagor had: when you say that Murray only reached his peak level in the second half of 2012, it looks like a blatant refusal to credit Federer with a win over peak Murray at Wimbledon. I say 'blatant' in this case because of course the Olympic final took place only two or three weeks later. You've cut the line very thin there and it just looks like a bias against one player.

The biggest problem I have here is that your argument is circular. If you pick Murray's first win over Federer as the beginning of his peak, then of course it follows, necessarily, that Federer only beat Murray before Andy was in his peak. Federer can't possibly win that argument, if you're simply identifying Murray's first win over Federer as the beginning of his peak.

It's a completely circular argument.

Now, if you actually observed specific things in the Wimbledon and Olympic finals that supported your argument for Murray playing at a much higher level in the second match, that would be something else. But it really looks like you've merely picked Murray's first big win and presumed that he must have had a big psychological breakthrough that carried him to victory.

That's what makes the argument circular. If you merely pick a man's first big victory as the start of his peak then of course his opponents before then only beat him before he reached his peak.

This is why I make a push repeatedly for people to look at specific matches, to study them, and to look at match statistics. Without looking at the specific events, all you've got is fans talking generally -- and uselessly -- about peaks and declines. "He was not at his peak!" "Yes he was!"

There is NO way out of that mess without making at attempt to study matches. There HAS to be some way to measure level of play, or else we simply make blank assertions or assumptions about it.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

NDQ, I don't have problems with people from other countries, you idiot. I only have problems with a GOAT who loses to a man from Tunisia with a ranking of 488 or 2034...

Click to expand...

Flash O'Groove said:

2012 is difficult to fit in the general trend though. He lost before the SF only twice: against Roddick in Miami and against Berdych in USO. If I recall correctly, except these two, only Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro were able to beat him last year. In this regard, using Krosero's methodology to identify playing peak, 2012 is a peak season for Fed. It's what the data show, but it doesn't fit with the general theory...

This lead to a question for Krosero (in particular):

Federer was so dominant in 2004-2006 that he hardly lose against low ranked players: only the top players could beat him. We can clearly identify 2007-2008 as the years when he declined: he began to lose against players he used to own, AND, it is very unlikely that all these players rose their level at that moment. What of 2012?

What about players which are not as dominant as Federer? Roddick used to lose against low ranked players in his peak years. Nadal used to be dominant for the first half of the year, and then vulnerable to a lot of players. Which years do you identify as their peak years? In particular, what do you do of Nadal 2011 season, when he was extremely consistent and solid, but was systematically beaten by Nole? Is 2011 one of his peak years?

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

krosero, My logic regarding peak and not peak Murray is logic.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

Flash, You should adapt your thesis with abmk's. He says that 2007 was a year or decline while you say it was a peak year. And you contradict yourself with the Federer peak years:" 2007,2008 decline"!, and "2011 peak year?".

???

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

World Beater, Rosewall never faced No.345 but you can be sure that he would not have lost a set to him, you Rosewall hater (see your former post).

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

I agree that it's good to watch the players. Unfortunately I missed the W. final (no broadcasting here).

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

krosero, Thanks for your patience towards me. Your fellow Federer fans would have insulted me already at that point.

I regret that you also are a Federer worshipper.

All the great players of the past have been very strong at an advanced age with the only exceptions of Borg (even though he might have succeeded longer) and McEnroe who got an illness. And Sampras who also is overrated.

Federer declined at age 26? I can't believe. That's an age when most greats started to dominate significantly. And these players of the past did play more than Federer ever did (at least the old pros).

A main criterion for greatness is longevity.

I never refused to say that Federer is an excellent player. I only state he is not a GOAT candidate (weak era, weaknesses).

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

krosero, Nadal and Djokovic are significantly younger than Federer and were not in their prime when they faced Hewitt and so on.

Federer beat a certain Baghdatis in a major final...

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

krosero, Thanks for your patience towards me. Your fellow Federer fans would have insulted me already at that point.

I regret that you also are a Federer worshipper.

All the great players of the past have been very strong at an advanced age with the only exceptions of Borg (even though he might have succeeded longer) and McEnroe who got an illness. And Sampras who also is overrated.

Federer declined at age 26? I can't believe. That's an age when most greats started to dominate significantly. And these players of the past did play more than Federer ever did (at least the old pros).

A main criterion for greatness is longevity.

I never refused to say that Federer is an excellent player. I only state he is not a GOAT candidate (weak era, weaknesses).

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

I have heard that Agassi did rather well till 35...

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

NDQ, I don't have problems with people from other countries, you idiot. I only have problems with a GOAT who loses to a man from Tunisia with a ranking of 488 or 2034...

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

krosero, My logic regarding peak and not peak Murray is logic.

Click to expand...

Flash O'Groove said:

That was fun, but you are though with pc1. It does look like a post pc1 could wrote, but what's the problem? His view are argued enough no?

You are also to kind with BobbyOne. The good sir never care to write such a long explanation, especially if he answer to somenone who wrote 10 pages of arguments.

Now, who could write this?

"The owls are not what they seems?"

Click to expand...

qindarka said:

He isn't being tough on pc1 at all. He likes to appear objective but is really just as biased as any of the others and the pretense makes it more annoying.

Should have added the part where BobbyOne, despite touting his experience and age, goes off crying when people disagree with him.

Click to expand...

NadalDramaQueen said:

Relax, Bobby. Your true colors are starting to show through again.

I checked the match and Federer was still the winner, learn history!

Edit: I removed my quote since your post got deleted.



How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

qindarka, I don't cry when people disagree with me. I just am disappointed by wrong logic and constant insulting me.

Click to expand...

krosero said:

I know you're just trying to have fun but I need to make it clear for the record that I do not see my exchanges with PC1, BobbyOne and Kiki as a waste of time and I have had worthwhile exchanges with them before. Also I know for a fact that they read what I write with interest even when they disagree -- or even when they don't reply.

What I'm trying to do, for anyone who's interested, is have some substantive debate not just about the players but about methods -- particularly methods of studying matches and analyzing stats. I've had worthwhile exchanges about these things particularly with PC1 and that's simply where my interest is.

I know it's inevitable and even necessary that we talk about each other but so many threads deteriorate when we get caught up doing that.

Click to expand...

NatF said:

Then how can you live with yourself?

Click to expand...

Carsomyr said:

In 1975, a year in which Rosewall was ranked #2 (like Federer), he lost a set against this guy, whose highest ranking was 178.

Click to expand...

Flash O'Groove said:

Bobby, can you answer to one of my previous post where I wrote that tennis players hit their peak at 24-25 and begin their decline as soon as 26? I proposed a link to a very interesting work made by Falstaff78. You may be much more convincing if you could answer to it that by throwing some individual case to show a general point ("I have heard that Federer did win Wimbledon past his prime....").

Click to expand...