Fed's Decline or Competition's Rise?

tudwell · Jul 7, 2013

I think it's utterly impossible to determine in any quantitative fashion whether the changes in results of a single player are due to aging or to increased competition. Something along the lines of the pro-am split before the Open Era might have made that determination a lot easier, but these days it seems circular. Are Tsonga, Berdych, and Del Potro better now because they beat Federer more often? Or is he simply worse as a player? The only constant in Federer's career has been Nadal - he's always struggled with him. He had a highly superior record against Djokovic until 2011 - the year he turned 30 and also the year Djokovic played better than he ever had or has since. He didn't lose to Murray in a slam until he was 31, so is Murray tougher competition than Nalbandian who beat him twice in slams in 2003 alone?

There's just no numbers to look at, unless you look at the kinds of numbers ambk is, which are still very much open to interpretation.

krosero · Jul 7, 2013

BobbyOne said:
krosero, Your endeavour to praise Federer honours you because Roger is a great player but please don't shut your eyes when considering if Federer had a strong or weak competition in his peak years.

I don't understand your argumentation: I never doubted that Nadal was Federer's main rival in that time. Both facts are right: your claim that Nadal was Roger's strongest rival then and my claim that the Nadal of 2004 to 2007 was weaker than the "modern" Nadal.

Our discussion was not about "Who was Federer's strongest rival in Roger's peak years". The question was:"Had Federer weaker competion then than the competition of now?". You critisize me for what I never have done: neglecting the fact that Nadal was Federer's chief rival in his peak years.

Again: Where is the problem with my claim that Nadal was weaker before his peak years?

By the way, Rosewall was not Hoad's chief rival in 1953 because Hoad was not a main rival of Roseewall then. Muscles' chief rivals for No.1 position were Trabert and Seixas. Only Dan would rank Hoad very high for 1953.

Bobbyone, you're right about 1953.

OK, my original post about this subject was in reply to a post by 90sClay, where he framed the argument in a very common way, by listing Nadal among the "new" champions and listing only Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, etc. as the champions of Federer's peak years. But I've been debating this at length with you because I recall you using similar formulations: similar ways of describing Federer's competition. I couldn't remember where, so I did a quick Google search just now and found a couple (I hope you won't consider this an attack on you; as I said, a lot of people lay out the "weak era" argument this way so I think it's a general issue; I'm just quoting you here so you see why I was replying to you).

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=7060186#post7060186

BobbyOne said:
forzamilan90,

Gonzalez and Tilden have awesome records. Both were No.1 for many years.

I don't rank Federer very high because some of his great achievements are caused by the fact that Roger faced rather weak competition in several of his peak years.

While Tilden had to play against Johnston, Cochet and Lacoste, and Gonzalez against Kramer, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert , Hoad and Rosewall plus Laver, Federer played against Hewitt, Roddick and Safin. That makes the difference!.

I still believe that Roche and Newcombe would beat Federer more often than he would beat them, not to speak about Borg and Lendl...

But I'm glad you don't contradict that I rank Laver and Rosewall ahead of Federer.

You see the problem here. You list Tilden's greatest rivals, and Gonzalez's greatest rivals. But when talking about Federer's peak years, you omit the strongest rival that Federer had in those years.

I know you're aware that Nadal was Federer's main rival during his peak years. But I'm talking about a problem of rhetoric: the way arguments are laid out. The argument is often framed this way, so that Federer's peak years are associated most strongly, not with Nadal, but with Roddick, Safin and Hewitt -- thus disadvantaging Federer right from the start in any debate about the quality of rivals.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=6742780#post6742780

BobbyOne said:
abmk, It's pretty unfair to include Nadal and Del Potro in the list of great opponents of prime Federer, because Roger usually lost to Nadal and Del Potro (in their only encounter then).

Rod Laver faced all the great opponents of his time and BEAT THEM ALL (I concede that Gonzalez and Rosewall were on the decline when mostly they played Laver).

It's pretty bold to write that Coria was stronger than both Ralston (Hall of fame) and Drysdale. I guess you have not heard of Ralston and Drysdale too much...

Did you know that Cliff Drysdale beat prime Laver in the 1968 US Open, winning the last two sets by 6-1, 6-1? Could Coria have done the same?

Now here you explicitly argue that Nadal should not be counted as a rival in Federer's peak years. Your reason was that Federer mostly lost to Nadal in those years (which is barely true if you include clay, and not true at all apart from clay).

But that reason can't work either. Let's say we're going to make a list of Roddick's competition. Are we going to omit Federer because Roddick mostly lost to him? Are we going to start the list of Roddick's competitors with Hewitt and Safin, etc? Of course not.

Since you've said in your last post that you regard Nadal as Federer's main rival in his peak years (2004-07), then at this point we really don't disagree. We can move on to the separate question of the quality of the competition; but I'll put those arguments in another post.

tudwell · Jul 7, 2013

Nativenewyorker said:
This is exactly the way I see it. It's both. Fed is definitely in decline, but honestly that's the way it is with any great champion. They all have to get old. He may be able to produce some great tennis, but not consistently and not nearly as often.

I also agree that the level of competitions from 2008-2013 versus 2003-2008 is much higher.

Those are huge chunks of time you're throwing together. I fail to see how 2004 and 2005 were weak years by any standard. They had Federer, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, and Agassi all playing phenomenal tennis, with Nadal playing phenomenal tennis in the latter year if not the first. Those guys are all slam champions and world number ones.

In 2007 Djokovic rose to the top, and he certainly played better in that year than he did in 2009 or 2010.

Conversely, in more recent years we've had Soderling - a thorn in the side of the top players - taken out of the game. Del Potro had to miss a year due to injury. Nadal missed half a year due to injury. Federer has obviously declined. Previous slam champions and world number ones like Roddick and Hewitt are either retired or not contenders for any major titles. Top ten staples like Davydenko and Gonzalez are gone (or might as well be). There's an ebb and flow to everything in tennis. Players come and go, get better and decline. It's impossible to say with any sort of authority whether one era is weaker than another, barring some kind of catastrophe like WWII bringing the European tour to a grinding halt.

Dan Lobb · Jul 7, 2013

BobbyOne said:
krosero, Your endeavour to praise Federer honours you because Roger is a great player but please don't shut your eyes when considering if Federer had a strong or weak competition in his peak years.

I don't understand your argumentation: I never doubted that Nadal was Federer's main rival in that time. Both facts are right: your claim that Nadal was Roger's strongest rival then and my claim that the Nadal of 2004 to 2007 was weaker than the "modern" Nadal.

Our discussion was not about "Who was Federer's strongest rival in Roger's peak years". The question was:"Had Federer weaker competion then than the competition of now?". You critisize me for what I never have done: neglecting the fact that Nadal was Federer's chief rival in his peak years.

Again: Where is the problem with my claim that Nadal was weaker before his peak years?

By the way, Rosewall was not Hoad's chief rival in 1953 because Hoad was not a main rival of Roseewall then. Muscles' chief rivals for No.1 position were Trabert and Seixas. Only Dan would rank Hoad very high for 1953.

Did I hear my name being mentioned?

Yes, I would rate Hoad the number one amateur for 1953.
Won six tournaments almost at the slam level.
Defeated Rosewall 5 to 0 on the year.
Defeated Trabert 2 to 0 on the year.
Lost all four slam matches to Seixas, but humiliated him, literally blowing him off the court, in Davis Cup.

If you ignore Davis Cup, you would get a different result.
But no one ignored the 1953 Davis Cup final.
Kramer offered one pro contract in 1953, to...yes, the one and only.

krosero · Jul 7, 2013

Flash O'Groove said:
Krosero showed that his winning percentage went down as soon as 2007, and later further down. Was it at the hands of Djokovic, the new challenger, or Nadal?

Have a look at his record against Djokovic:
In 2007, Djokovic defeated Fed only once: in Toronto.
In 2008, he beated him again only once, but this time in AO.
in 2009, he beated him twice, in Miami and Rome. A feat that has been accomplished by none other than Roddick, Gasquet, Gulbis, Berdych.
In 2010, he beated Fed once, in the USO SF, 9 month after the AO titles.

That 5 loss to the hand of Djokovic in 4 years: I don't think that these loss explain the diminution of Fed's winning percentage.

And a look at his "record" against Nadal:
From 2005-2007, he lost to Nadal eight time.
From 2008-2010, he lost six time.

Here again, it is not the rise of Nadal which is responsible for his poorer winning percentage, as the amount of lost is constent. His loss against Nadal cannot be used to assess Fed'prim/peak because he was losing against him since the beginning. The only difference is that Nadal was able to go further in non-clay slam, and administer to Fed his usual treatment.

So what is certain is that Fed had a winning percentage over 90% from 2004-2006, and around 80% since 2007, and that this diminution is hardly the responsibility of Nadal or Djokovic. We must conclude that he was vulnerable to a range of second tier players he used to own before, and that is a good indication of decline.

As a reminder, Fed lost only against Nadal, Safin, Nalbandian, Gasquet and Murray between 2005-2006.
In 2007 he turned 26 years old (one step of decline according to Falstaff) and his winning percentage declined of one step. In 2007, he registered loss to Gonzales, Canas, Volandri, Nalbandian. In 2008, he had loss against Fish, Roddick, Stepanek, Simon, Blake, Karlovic. In 2009 he lost to Wawrinka, Tsonga, Benneteau, Del Potro. In 2010 to Baghdatis, Gulbis, Berdych, Soderling, Monfils, etc.

So either all this players reached a higher level that the players of his peak years, Fed declined.

All good points, and yes I made a post about it, I'll just copy and paste it below.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=7085240#post7085240

*********************

Let's look at Federer's win/loss records.

2003: 75-16
2004: 74-6
2005: 81-4
2006: 92-5
2007: 68-9
2008: 66-15
2009: 61-12
2010: 65-13
2011: 64-12
2012: 71-12

There was already a drop in 2007 from the high standards he had set in 2004-06. And that drop was not due to Nadal, because Federer lost to Rafa only twice in ’07, compared to 4 times in ‘06. For whatever reason – probably simply because no one can keep up a perfect standard for long – Federer’s losses were increasing. It would be too much to use the word ‘decline’ for ’07, but I think you could say he was starting to slip.

’08 was a bad year, with 15 losses, nearly as many as he had in ’03. But the drop to 15 losses was not due to Djokovic (who beat Federer only once in ’08, just as in ’07). Nor was it entirely due to Nadal, who beat Federer 4 times (up from 2 times in ’07). He was also just taking bad losses throughout the year, even to people he had owned (Roddick in Miami, Blake at the Olympics).

In ’09 he came back up to some degree, but by then you could clearly see the decline in his game. Some observed him to be slower than at his peak; and his return game against Roddick in the Wimbledon final was clearly inferior to what it had been at his peak.

H2H against Nadal: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N409

H2H against Djokovic:http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=D643

Nitish · Jul 7, 2013

tudwell said:
I think it's utterly impossible to determine in any quantitative fashion whether the changes in results of a single player are due to aging or to increased competition. Something along the lines of the pro-am split before the Open Era might have made that determination a lot easier, but these days it seems circular. Are Tsonga, Berdych, and Del Potro better now because they beat Federer more often? Or is he simply worse as a player? The only constant in Federer's career has been Nadal - he's always struggled with him. He had a highly superior record against Djokovic until 2011 - the year he turned 30 and also the year Djokovic played better than he ever had or has since. He didn't lose to Murray in a slam until he was 31, so is Murray tougher competition than Nalbandian who beat him twice in slams in 2003 alone?

There's just no numbers to look at, unless you look at the kinds of numbers ambk is, which are still very much open to interpretation.

This analysis by falstaff78 is the closest we can come to a quantitative analysis of Federer's decline

falstaff78 said:
Recently I came across some posts still ridiculing the notion that Federer was in decline after 2007. I have posted previously on this topic, but, inspired by the above posts, I would like to present some further evidence.
D/R is the ratio of:
(% of points won on opponents' serves) / (% of points lost on own serve) As I show in this thread, DR is a very powerful summary of a player's performance.
Federer's win percentages by season tell quite a story of decline (93-95% from '04-'06, 88% in '07, 82-84% from '08-'11, and 86% in '12). Of course it is conceivable (though unlikely) that these declining win percentages could have been the result of the entire field getting stronger between 2008 and 2012. To disprove this notion, in a previous thread about historical performances by age I had argued that after the age of 26, performances decline swiftly for all but a few outliers.

The two tables below track Federer's performances in Finals+SFs and QF+R16 matches respectively. (I have lumped together the years in the analysis for simplicity, but I present all the break-outs by year as an appendix below - rest assured they don't change the story)

The table below provides CLEAR evidence that against the top guys, ie in semis and finals he was SIMPLY NOT the same player from 2008 and on, that he was in the golden years 2004-2007.

There is a theory that Federer's level stayed the same after 2007, but that the levels of Murray, Nadal and Djokovic rose, and THAT was the cause of Federer's worse results. To dismiss this theory, please look at the table below, which shows that Federer's performances in semis and finals, against everyone EXCLUDING the Murray, Nadal and Djokovic, also declined after 2007. (Thanks to Tennis Fanatic 070 for the suggestion)

Here is a final table looking at Federer's performances in quarters and rounds of 16. It provides evidence that in these rounds (and presumably earlier ones) Federer's level did not decline after 2007. While consistent performances in middle rounds cannot possibly lead us to conclude that Federer's overall level did not decline, this table might explain the obstinate persistence of the belief that Federer's peak extended post-2007.

Hope this is helpful

- F

krosero · Jul 7, 2013

hoodjem said:
I have heard many declaim the declining footspeed and skills of Monsieur Federer in these, his waning years. Certainly his record is not so dominant in the last three years, as it was 2004-2009.

Alternatively, could the truth be that his competition has simply gotten better with the maturation and improvement of Djokovic and Murray. Now it seems that he has three good players he must consider. (This does nothing to explain a loss to Stakhovsky.)

Maybe the reality is a combination of both. Tennis seems to even more be a "young man's game." Not only is Fed getting older, but also his competition has gotten better.

I do think it's both. The question is essentially a false dilemma; as you seem to be saying, it doesn't need to be either/or.

Right now we've got four alltime greats at the top: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray (I know Murray doesn't have an alltime resume yet but he certainly has the talent and seems to be headed there). That's why it's being called a Golden Era in men's tennis. It's been compared to the Borg/McEnroe/Connors "trivalry."

I think a similar time was when Lendl, Wilander, Becker and Edberg were all at the top and splitting Slams.

On the other hand I think the "Golden Era" label is a bit of hyperbole and too simplistic. We have four great names at the top, but when are we counting from? Murray only started winning majors last summer, and since then Federer has barely won anything on tour and has fallen into undeniable decline. This Federer is certainly not as strong as the Federer of 2004-07.

What about Nadal in 2012-13? He's still the king of clay just as he was in Federer's peak years. But in Federer's peak years he made two Wimbledon finals: these last two years he hasn't been able to get out of the second round at Wimbledon. He hasn't been a force at any non-clay major for a year-and-a-half, and has not actually won a major apart from the French in nearly three years.

The real Golden Era was when Nadal was still healthy and winning, and Djokovic started winning majors again: 2011. Murray, though, was still not a Slam champion, and even a declining Federer in that time period had Andy's number. So really we're talking about three great names in 2011: a declining Federer; and mature Nadal and Djokovic.

Compare that to 2007: a peak Federer, near-peak Nadal and emerging Djokovic. 2011 was a greater lineup but I don't see the night-and-day difference that it's often painted to be.

krosero · Jul 7, 2013

hoodjem said:
Not only is Fed getting older, but also his competition has gotten better. If this is indeed the case, I do wonder where on a chronological graph the two curves intersect?

An interesting question. I don't know if this qualifies as an answer, but it's an old post of mine analyzing how, and at what point, the Djokovic/Federer rivalry reached a turning point.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=7089635#post7089635

******************************

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)

(Federer won the 2007-09 meetings; Djokovic won in '10 and '11).

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.

abmk · Jul 7, 2013

BobbyOne said:
krosero, Your endeavour to praise Federer honours you because Roger is a great player but please don't shut your eyes when considering if Federer had a strong or weak competition in his peak years.

I don't understand your argumentation: I never doubted that Nadal was Federer's main rival in that time. Both facts are right: your claim that Nadal was Roger's strongest rival then and my claim that the Nadal of 2004 to 2007 was weaker than the "modern" Nadal.

Our discussion was not about "Who was Federer's strongest rival in Roger's peak years". The question was:"Had Federer weaker competion then than the competition of now?". You critisize me for what I never have done: neglecting the fact that Nadal was Federer's chief rival in his peak years.

Again: Where is the problem with my claim that Nadal was weaker before his peak years?

By the way, Rosewall was not Hoad's chief rival in 1953 because Hoad was not a main rival of Roseewall then. Muscles' chief rivals for No.1 position were Trabert and Seixas. Only Dan would rank Hoad very high for 1953.

@ bold part : of course you did before. See krosero's post containing your posts that demonstrates the very same - the way you were cherry picking and biasedly arguing before - listing all rivals for gonzalez, tilden but wanting to leave out nadal for federer.

You may be wiser or more informed now, but don't pretend that you were or are right and accuse krosero ( who is pretty unbiased ) of 'shutting' his eyes when it comes to federer's competition in 04-07.

Xavier G · Jul 8, 2013

I agree with most of the points krosero and abmk make here.
Nadal was a strong player from 2005-07, not at max strength of course, but strong. Federer beat him in two Wimbledon finals those years. Rafa has always been a problem for Roger. Rafa was clearly no. 2 from the middle of 2005- through 07. Novak really started coming through in 07 too. Roger faced good competition overall from 04-07, with the likes of Agassi, Safin, Roddick and Hewitt at different times. It's easy to forget how good they were too, but yeah, the competition at the top seems stronger with Novak and Andy now. Del Potro is also there.
I think personally that Federer has ever so slightly been declining since 2007 and it's more marked this year. Roger did very well to rebound the way he did in 09 and again in 2012. He had four amazing years from 04-07. For me, it's a combination of Federer getting older and slightly stronger overall competition.

BobbyOne · Jul 8, 2013

krosero said:
Bobbyone, you're right about 1953.

OK, my original post about this subject was in reply to a post by 90sClay, where he framed the argument in a very common way, by listing Nadal among the "new" champions and listing only Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, etc. as the champions of Federer's peak years. But I've been debating this at length with you because I recall you using similar formulations: similar ways of describing Federer's competition. I couldn't remember where, so I did a quick Google search just now and found a couple (I hope you won't consider this an attack on you; as I said, a lot of people lay out the "weak era" argument this way so I think it's a general issue; I'm just quoting you here so you see why I was replying to you).

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=7060186#post7060186
You see the problem here. You list Tilden's greatest rivals, and Gonzalez's greatest rivals. But when talking about Federer's peak years, you omit the strongest rival that Federer had in those years.

I know you're aware that Nadal was Federer's main rival during his peak years. But I'm talking about a problem of rhetoric: the way arguments are laid out. The argument is often framed this way, so that Federer's peak years are associated most strongly, not with Nadal, but with Roddick, Safin and Hewitt -- thus disadvantaging Federer right from the start in any debate about the quality of rivals.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=6742780#post6742780
Now here you explicitly argue that Nadal should not be counted as a rival in Federer's peak years. Your reason was that Federer mostly lost to Nadal in those years (which is barely true if you include clay, and not true at all apart from clay).

But that reason can't work either. Let's say we're going to make a list of Roddick's competition. Are we going to omit Federer because Roddick mostly lost to him? Are we going to start the list of Roddick's competitors with Hewitt and Safin, etc? Of course not.

Since you've said in your last post that you regard Nadal as Federer's main rival in his peak years (2004-07), then at this point we really don't disagree. We can move on to the separate question of the quality of the competition; but I'll put those arguments in another post.

Thanks, krosero. I think you are right and I am right: Nadal was partly the main rival of Roger (not in 2004) and Nadal was very young then (not in his prime, not the Nadal we learnt to know later).

It's my fault to omit Nadal earlier.

BobbyOne · Jul 8, 2013

Dan Lobb said:
Did I hear my name being mentioned?

Yes, I would rate Hoad the number one amateur for 1953.
Won six tournaments almost at the slam level.
Defeated Rosewall 5 to 0 on the year.
Defeated Trabert 2 to 0 on the year.
Lost all four slam matches to Seixas, but humiliated him, literally blowing him off the court, in Davis Cup.

If you ignore Davis Cup, you would get a different result.
But no one ignored the 1953 Davis Cup final.
Kramer offered one pro contract in 1953, to...yes, the one and only.

Dan, Hoad only did well in Davis Cup. He struggeled in GS tournaments.

NatF · Jul 8, 2013

BobbyOne said:
Thanks, krosero. I think you are right and I am right: Nadal was partly the main rival of Roger (not in 2004) and Nadal was very young then (not in his prime, not the Nadal we learnt to know later).

It's my fault to omit Nadal earlier.

When do you think Nadal peaked on the various surfaces? You seem to think Nadal today e.g. 2013 is more formidable than he was in say 2006/2007.

BobbyOne · Jul 8, 2013

NatF said:
When do you think Nadal peaked on the various surfaces? You seem to think Nadal today e.g. 2013 is more formidable than he was in say 2006/2007.

You know tha answer. You just ask me to blame me. 2013 is not Nadal's best year.

Every player has a pre-peak period, a peak period, and an after-peak period.

Nadal peaked on clay earlier than elsewhere.

2006 was not yet a Nadal peak year. What is your problem?

shakes1975 · Jul 8, 2013

BobbyOne said:
You know tha answer. You just ask me to blame me. 2013 is not Nadal's best year.

Every player has a pre-peak period, a peak period, and an after-peak period.

Nadal peaked on clay earlier than elsewhere.

2006 was not yet a peak year. What is your problem?

I agree. Nadal had an incremental improvement outside of clay.

1477aces · Jul 8, 2013

If federer only won 12 slams like nadal, roddick, hewitt, and safin would be way better. Especially if he won only 4 slams off of clay in only a 3-year time span. Imagine that federer only won slams off of clay from 2005-2007 (his best years), at the 2005W, 2006AO, 2007W, and 2007USO (same pattern as nadal's slam wins off of clay). Then, Roddick would likely have won the 2003, 2004, and 2009W along with the 2006USO to end up with 5 slams. Hewitt would have additionally won the 2004USO and 2005W. Safin would have won the 2004AO too. Roddick or Gonzales (both Fed's contemporaries) would have won the 2007AO, and Baghaditis would likely have won the 2006AO. Agassi would have won the 2005USO. So, Roddick would have had 5 or 6 slams (roughly on par with novak), Hewitt would have 4 slams, and Safin would have 3 slams. Additionally, Baghaditis would have won a slam, and possibly fernando gonzales as well. That matches up pretty well with djokovic and murray career-wise. So, Federer's rivals looked so weak because federer was able to dominate them, whereas nadal's rivals only look so strong because of nadal's comparatively weaker accomplishments off of clay and short period of dominance off of clay.

NatF · Jul 8, 2013

BobbyOne said:
You know tha answer. You just ask me to blame me. 2013 is not Nadal's best year.

Every player has a pre-peak period, a peak period, and an after-peak period.

Nadal peaked on clay earlier than elsewhere.

2006 was not yet a Nadal peak year. What is your problem?

I don't have a problem, just curious about your view on Nadal. I'm glad you don't think 2013 is Nadal's best level of play, 2006 was not a Nadal peak year but his level of play was arguably as high as 2013. We'll have to see how the rest of the year goes for him.

You keep saying Nadal today is better than he was back when Federer was facing him, 2007 Nadal was far better than 2013 Nadal though.

Incognito · Jul 8, 2013

Fed´s decline is like Nadal´s decline on grass and Clay. At their peak nobody stands a chance. Today every tom dick and harry has a chance to beat them.

Incognito · Jul 8, 2013

Nadal was an absolute animal already in 2006 wimbledon final. That was one of his 3 peak years on grass IMO.

I would rank his wimbledon playing level in the finals:

1. 2008
2. 2007
3. 2006
4. 2010
5. 2011

hoodjem · Jul 8, 2013

BobbyOne said:
You know tha answer. You just ask me to blame me. 2013 is not Nadal's best year.

Every player has a pre-peak period, a peak period, and an after-peak period.

Nadal peaked on clay earlier than elsewhere.

2006 was not yet a Nadal peak year. What is your problem?

Nadal's peak year seems to have been 2010.

On clay he seems to have peaked earlier, probably in 2008.

JMHO

Dan Lobb · Jul 8, 2013

BobbyOne said:
Dan, Hoad only did well in Davis Cup. He struggeled in GS tournaments.

He dominated the number one event.

Indio · Jul 8, 2013

For those who believe Nadal is on the way out, his record so far this year is 43-3. Do the numbers lie?

BobbyOne · Jul 9, 2013

Incognito said:
Fed´s decline is like Nadal´s decline on grass and Clay. At their peak nobody stands a chance. Today every tom dick and harry has a chance to beat them.

Incognito, Sorry but I don't see a Nadal decline on clay.

BobbyOne · Jul 9, 2013

NatF and Armada, I have bad news for you. I reached Bud Collins on the phone. I asked him -without insinuating anything- if he believes that Federer is the greatest of all time and he answered "No". I replied:" I think you prefer Laver and Gonzalez" and he answered "and Kenny".

I hope you still consider Bud as a true expert...

Dan Lobb · Jul 9, 2013

BobbyOne said:
NatF and Armada, I have bad news for you. I reached Bud Collins on the phone. I asked him -without insinuating anything- if he believes that Federer is the greatest of all time and he answered "No". I replied:" I think you prefer Laver and Gonzalez" and he answered "and Kenny".

I hope you still consider Bud as a true expert...

Bobby, as you appear to have a contact with Bud, I have often wondered whether or not Bud Collins ever saw Hoad and Gonzales play each other in the 1958-59 period, for example, in the 1958 or 1959 Forest Hills Pro.

I have never heard Collins comment on Hoad's peak form.

BobbyOne · Jul 9, 2013

Dan Lobb said:
Bobby, as you appear to have a contact with Bud, I have often wondered whether or not Bud Collins ever saw Hoad and Gonzales play each other in the 1958-59 period, for example, in the 1958 or 1959 Forest Hills Pro.

I have never heard Collins comment on Hoad's peak form.

Dan, In "History of Tennis", his great encyclopedia, Bud writes: "When his power was focused along with his concentration , Hoad came on like a tidal wave"

He also quotes Gonzalez that nobody could touch the peak Hoad.

I believe that Bud has watched several Hoad matches.

NatF · Jul 9, 2013

BobbyOne said:
NatF and Armada, I have bad news for you. I reached Bud Collins on the phone. I asked him -without insinuating anything- if he believes that Federer is the greatest of all time and he answered "No". I replied:" I think you prefer Laver and Gonzalez" and he answered "and Kenny".

I hope you still consider Bud as a true expert...

Yes I'm sure you spoke to him on the phone lol. I'm glad I'm seperate from the Armada though. I'll probably take what he writes in his book over your phone conversation.

BobbyOne said:
Incognito, Sorry but I don't see a Nadal decline on clay.

He lost sets to Brands and Klizan, infact he lost sets to ALOT of people this season. He has definatley declined. Nadal from 2012 would squash Nadal from 2013 on clay like a bug. He had moments of brilliance like that 5th set versus Djokovic but in general his level was way down. He looked beatable.

BobbyOne · Jul 9, 2013

NatF said:
Yes I'm sure you spoke to him on the phone lol. I'm glad I'm seperate from the Armada though. I'll probably take what he writes in his book over your phone conversation.

He lost sets to Brands and Klizan, infact he lost sets to ALOT of people this season. He has definatley declined. Nadal from 2012 would squash Nadal from 2013 on clay like a bug. He had moments of brilliance like that 5th set versus Djokovic but in general his level was way down. He looked beatable.

NatF, I can sooth you: You still are an important part of the Federer Armada.

Rather than making a joke (?) or using wrong irony, you should have commentated Bud's preference of Rosewall above Federer.

Bud will not write about my conversation with him. I can assure you: he also would not mention you or an Armada member after a conversation with him. But there is a certain difference: Bud knows the difference between a true expert and a pseudo expert...

NatF · Jul 9, 2013

BobbyOne said:
NatF, I can sooth you: You still are an important part of the Federer Armada.

Rather than making a joke (?) or using wrong irony, you should have commentated Bud's preference of Rosewall above Federer.

Bud will not write about my conversation with him. I can assure you: he also would not mention you or an Armada member after a conversation with him. But there is a certain difference: Bud knows the difference between a true expert and a pseudo expert...

Yeah ok then, you sir have a rather inflated ego. As far as being an expert goes, stick to olden tennis as you wouldn't even rank as a pseudo expert on the last 10 years.

I'm not convinced Bud does rank Rosewall over Federer. And if he does then that's fine. Was there any substance to your phone conversation?

forzamilan90 · Jul 9, 2013

BobbyOne said:
NatF and Armada, I have bad news for you. I reached Bud Collins on the phone. I asked him -without insinuating anything- if he believes that Federer is the greatest of all time and he answered "No". I replied:" I think you prefer Laver and Gonzalez" and he answered "and Kenny".

I hope you still consider Bud as a true expert...

Can you ask Bud about Renshaw and how he evaluates him in comparison to 20th century players?

Incognito · Jul 9, 2013

BobbyOne said:
Incognito, Sorry but I don't see a Nadal decline on clay.

when people like tsonga and Dimitrov and other nobodies are giving him problems on his favorite surface, I think that's decline. It's like falla giving fed problems on grass. At their peak Fedal would squash them.

BobbyOne · Jul 9, 2013

NatF said:
Yeah ok then, you sir have a rather inflated ego. As far as being an expert goes, stick to olden tennis as you wouldn't even rank as a pseudo expert on the last 10 years.

I'm not convinced Bud does rank Rosewall over Federer. And if he does then that's fine. Was there any substance to your phone conversation?

NatF, Even if you want: you cannot post without being nasty.

Bud's words were rather clear- but not for you of course...

BobbyOne · Jul 9, 2013

forzamilan90 said:
Can you ask Bud about Renshaw and how he evaluates him in comparison to 20th century players?

Forza, I could try but Bud has not much time on the phone. I also would have liked to ask him about Tommy Haas but there was no time left.

I could imagine that Bud ranks W. Renshaw below the greatest of 20th century.

In my opinion the Dohertys are greater than Renshaw and better to compare with a Tilden or Cochet.

BobbyOne · Jul 9, 2013

Incognito said:
when people like tsonga and Dimitrov and other nobodies are giving him problems on his favorite surface, I think that's decline. It's like falla giving fed problems on grass. At their peak Fedal would squash them.

Incognito, Tsonga and Dimitrov are not nobodies.

NatF · Jul 9, 2013

BobbyOne said:
NatF, Even if you want: you cannot post without being nasty.

Bud's words were rather clear- but not for you of course...

And you can't post without being condescending.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I doubt you actually spoke to Bud Collins on the phone. In his book he writes, "Although Rosewall, the little guy, always seemed to be overshadowed by a rival, first Lew Hoad, then Pancho Gonzales and Rod Laver..." To Rosewall's credit Collins notes that Rosewall was at home on any surface and capable of playing from the baseline or net, especially noting his superb volleys.

For Federer, "Performing in a smooth, seemingly effortless, style, a right-hander using one-handed backhand, he occupies his status as arguably the greatest player ever in men's tennis with rare grace and competitive verve, always in the right place to deliver the right shot from his peerless all court arsenal of angles, spins, volleys and pinpoint serves."

BobbyOne · Jul 9, 2013

NatF said:
And you can't post without being condescending.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I doubt you actually spoke to Bud Collins on the phone. In his book he writes, "Although Rosewall, the little guy, always seemed to be overshadowed by a rival, first Lew Hoad, then Pancho Gonzales and Rod Laver..." To Rosewall's credit Collins notes that Rosewall was at home on any surface and capable of playing from the baseline or net, especially noting his superb volleys.

For Federer, "Performing in a smooth, seemingly effortless, style, a right-hander using one-handed backhand, he occupies his status as arguably the greatest player ever in men's tennis with rare grace and competitive verve, always in the right place to deliver the right shot from his peerless all court arsenal of angles, spins, volleys and pinpoint serves."

NatF. Why so nasty??? Do you really mean I'm a liar???

You only brought the first part of Bud's words. The second is:"Rosewall had the last competitive word".

"He seemed to be overshadowed" does not mean he was weaker.

Alas, I cannot tell you what I mean about you because I could be banned!

But I can assure you that I have had more phone calls with Bud Collins than your idol has won majors...

You are the second who doubts that I am a friend of Rosewall and Collins respectively. Limpinhitter was the first one...(also Phoenix was doubtful). That even though urban has confirmed my words...

NatF · Jul 9, 2013

BobbyOne said:
NatF. Why so nasty??? Do you really mean I'm a liar???

You only brought the first part of Bud's words. The second is:"Rosewall had the last competitive word".

"He seemed to be overshadowed" does not mean he was weaker.

Alas, I cannot tell you what I mean about you because I could be banned!

But I can assure you that I have had more phone call with Bud Collins than your idol has won majors...

You are the third who doubts that I am a friend of Rosewall and Collins respectively. Limpinhitter was the first one...

So Rosewall had to wait for his adversaries to decline? Sounds about right. And I don't think there's many ways to take it, he was #2 behind those other players for most of his career wasn't he?

Touched a nerve I see, I have nothing but your word that you know these people. As demonstrated by some of your comments about modern tennis your word is not infallible nor beyond reproach.

Why should I trust your phone conversation over Bud's actual book? The book says that Bud considers Federer at the very top of all tennis players, no such mention of Rosewall.

BobbyOne · Jul 9, 2013

NatF said:
So Rosewall had to wait for his adversaries to decline? Sounds about right. And I don't think there's many ways to take it, he was #2 behind those other players for most of his career wasn't he?

Touched a nerve I see, I have nothing but your word that you know these people. As demonstrated by some of your comments about modern tennis your word is not infallible nor beyond reproach.

Why should I trust your phone conversation over Bud's actual book? The book says that Bud considers Federer at the very top of all tennis players, no such mention of Rosewall.

NatF: Now it's the right time to put you on my ignore list. But you are not alone: your friend abmk is also there. Fine gentlemen...

A last word since you call me a liar: Giving a wrong opinion about modern tennis is NOT the same as being a liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your accusation is wrong and obnoxious!!!

And: Hoad never dominated Rosewall (only a few months in 1956).

Good bye.

abmk · Jul 9, 2013

NatF said:
So Rosewall had to wait for his adversaries to decline? Sounds about right. And I don't think there's many ways to take it, he was #2 behind those other players for most of his career wasn't he?

Touched a nerve I see, I have nothing but your word that you know these people. As demonstrated by some of your comments about modern tennis your word is not infallible nor beyond reproach.

Why should I trust your phone conversation over Bud's actual book? The book says that Bud considers Federer at the very top of all tennis players, no such mention of Rosewall.

Yeah, trusting a published book over the words of someone who is pretty jealous of the player in conversation. I mean that's completely absurd, no ?

NatF · Jul 10, 2013

abmk said:
Yeah, trusting a published book over the words of someone who is pretty jealous of the player in conversation. I mean that's completely absurd, no ?

Yep, BobbyOne is apparently petty enough to call Collins just to ask him if us guys on an internet forum are wrong

BobbyOne · Jul 10, 2013

NatF said:
Yep, BobbyOne is apparently petty enough to call Collins just to ask him if us guys on an internet forum are wrong

NatF: For your information: I called Bud for several reasons as I do from time to time (sometimes even Bud calls me). What is wrong to ask him about his opinion about Federer's place in history? It was you who once wrote that Bud ranks Roger first (and Rosewall not). I was curious to learn if he really does that way. I doubted your claim. Now I know his real opinion. Why not telling you his true opinion? You would have done the same if you were a friend of Bud's. Your hypocrisy is of world class!

I did not even mention you on the phone: You are just too unimportant...

If you want to know Bud's opinion about Rosewall you should watch the video of Tennis Channel "The 100 greatest players". Sorry that I answered your nasty post. I will try to keep you and abmk on my ignore list!

Dan Lobb · Jul 10, 2013

BobbyOne said:
NatF: Now it's the right time to put you on my ignore list. But you are not alone: your friend abmk is also there. Fine gentlemen...

A last word since you call mer a liar: Giving a wrong opinion about modern tennis is NOT the same as being a liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And: Hoad never dominated Rosewall (only a few months in 1956).

Good bye.

In the 1959-60 season, Hoad had a 6 to 2 edge against Rosewall on the championship circuit.

Overall for the 1952 to 1960 period, Hoad had about a 2 to 1 edge against Rosewall on grass and clay.
Admittedly, after 1960, when Hoad's game declined, Rosewall had a dominant edge.

BobbyOne · Jul 10, 2013

Dan Lobb said:
In the 1959-60 season, Hoad had a 6 to 2 edge against Rosewall on the championship circuit.

Overall for the 1952 to 1960 period, Hoad had about a 2 to 1 edge against Rosewall on grass and clay.
Admittedly, after 1960, when Hoad's game declined, Rosewall had a dominant edge.

Dan, I present you the trophy for being the fiercest Hoad admirer.

In 1959 Rosewall and Hoad were about even. You "forgot" the Grand Prix results.

Muscles was ranked ahead or equal to Hoad most of the 1953 to 1959 period!

Dan Lobb · Jul 10, 2013

BobbyOne said:
Dan, I present you the trophy for being the fiercest Hoad admirer.

In 1959 Rosewall and Hoad were about even. You "forgot" the Grand Prix results.

Muscles was ranked ahead or equal to Hoad most of the 1953 to 1959 period!

I am not a fierce anything, I just follow the facts to where they lead.

I did not forget the Grand Prix de Europe, but that series was less important than the world tournament championship sponsored by Ampol and Qantas, in which all the top players participated in a year-long series of 14 major tournaments.
These were the most important events of the year, designed to determine a world number one.
Hoad was 6 to 2 against Rosewall on the Ampol circuit, winning their meetings at Forest Hills, Kooyong, Roland Garros, The Australian Pro, the L.A. Masters.
Rosewall won twice at Brisbane.

Counting ALL matches played between the two between 1952 and 1960, Hoad has about a two to one edge on grass and clay.
Rosewall had a giant edge after 1960, losing only two minor matches.
This is the best indicator of Hoad's decline in play.

BobbyOne · Jul 10, 2013

Dan Lobb said:
I am not a fierce anything, I just follow the facts to where they lead.

I did not forget the Grand Prix de Europe, but that series was less important than the world tournament championship sponsored by Ampol and Qantas, in which all the top players participated in a year-long series of 14 major tournaments.
These were the most important events of the year, designed to determine a world number one.
Hoad was 6 to 2 against Rosewall on the Ampol circuit, winning their meetings at Forest Hills, Kooyong, Roland Garros, The Australian Pro, the L.A. Masters.
Rosewall won twice at Brisbane.

Counting ALL matches played between the two between 1952 and 1960, Hoad has about a two to one edge on grass and clay.
Rosewall had a giant edge after 1960, losing only two minor matches.
This is the best indicator of Hoad's decline in play.

Dan, How do you explain that Kramer ranked Rosewall ahead of Hoad in 1959? Just curious. I'm aware that Kramer was not always correct.

Dan Lobb · Jul 10, 2013

BobbyOne said:
Dan, How do you explain that Kramer ranked Rosewall ahead of Hoad in 1959? Just curious. I'm aware that Kramer was not always correct.

Kramer? You mean the most emotional and subjective ranking ever concocted?
Kramer changed his mind many times.
In 2006, he ranked the best players chronologically as Vines, Budge, Gonzales, Hoad, Federer.
This last list makes some sense, although I would still accept Rosewall's ranking of the top four;
1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
4) Federer

The top 10 should be filled out with

5) Rosewall
6) Sedgman
7) Budge
8) Vines
9) Sampras
10) Borg

NatF · Jul 11, 2013

---Deleted

NatF · Jul 11, 2013

BobbyOne said:
If you want to know Bud's opinion about Rosewall you should watch the video of Tennis Channel "The 100 greatest players". Sorry that I answered your nasty post. I will try to keep you and abmk on my ignore list!

Just seen the piece on Rosewall, Bud does say he could be the greatest player of all time, says he's just about at the top of his list. He seems to suggest the main reason is his longevity, perhaps I should give him more credit for that. However peak level and dominance wise other greats are better than Rosewall. I guess it depends what you value.

BobbyOne · Jul 11, 2013

NatF said:
Just seen the piece on Rosewall, Bud does say he could be the greatest player of all time, says he's just about at the top of his list. He seems to suggest the main reason is his longevity, perhaps I should give him more credit for that. However peak level and dominance wise other greats are better than Rosewall. I guess it depends what you value.

NatF, Thanks for this serious post.

Bud once said to me (on the phone) that Rosewall might be the GOAT by two reasons: his longevity and his two wins against Laver at Dallas.

Phoenix1983 · Jul 11, 2013

BobbyOne said:
NatF, Thanks for this serious post.

Bud once said to me (on the phone) that Rosewall might be the GOAT by two reasons: his longevity and his two wins against Laver at Dallas.

Longevity should not be a reason for someone to be considered GOAT.

Rosewall's longevity was so great that he managed to play in five Wimbledon finals - yet could win none...

Fed's Decline or Competition's Rise?

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Professional

Legend

Legend

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads