2004-2006 vs. 2014-2016

[Towny]

2014-16 Federer, Murray and Wawrinka had better results than any of Federer's 2004-06 opponents---> Fact

2004-06 Federer would have beaten them or players of the same caliber ---> Opinion

Early-mid thirties Federer went 5-0 against Murray in this period, including 2 slam wins, and 5-2 against Wawrinka, having 1 loss at RG (which Fed didn't win in 2004-6 anyway) and beating him at both Wimbledon and US open. Also went on to beat Stan at AO17. There's no evidence that either of these two would have had any impact on Fed's slam count had he played them in 2004-2006. That would simply be your opinion

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Early-mid thirties Federer went 5-0 against Murray in this period, including 2 slam wins, and 5-2 against Wawrinka, having 1 loss at RG (which Fed didn't win in 2004-6 anyway) and beating him at both Wimbledon and US open. Also went on to beat Stan at AO17. There's no evidence that either of these two would have had any impact on Fed's slam count had he played them in 2004-2006. That would simply be your opinion

Of course it is my opinion.

Facts instead are 2014-16 Federer, Murray and Wawrinka had very good results.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Slam and YEC semifinals reached:

2014-16 Federer 9
2014-16 Murray 8
2014-16 Wawrinka 8

2004-06 Roddick 5
2004-06 Hewitt 5
2004-06 Nalbandian 5

 

[NBP]

Murray lost slams to Djokovic, Djokovic, Federer.

Nadal to Hewitt, Muller, Blake.

Nada won 11 titles, a slam and 4 Masters, but but but Murray lost to better players so he must have been stronger competition

 

[NatF]

2014-16 Federer, Murray and Wawrinka had better results than any of Federer's 2004-06 opponents---> Fact

2004-06 Federer would have beaten them or players of the same caliber ---> Opinion

So 14-16 Federer, Murray and Wawrinka having better results makes them better players than anyone (bar Federer) from 2004-2006?

But Federer overall having better results than Djokovic doesn't make him a better player than Djokovic?

 

[Deleted member 757377]

So 14-16 Federer, Murray and Wawrinka having better results makes them better players than anyone (bar Federer) from 2004-2006?

But Federer overall having better results than Djokovic doesn't make him a better player than Djokovic?

Both valid.

2004-06 Fed had better results against worse opponents.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Nada won 11 titles, a slam and 4 Masters, but but but Murray lost to better players so he must have been stronger competition

In slams yes, huge difference in losses.

wins over top-10:

2015 murray 12
2005 nadal 5

Nadal had a better single surface season, I can give you that.

 

[Towny]

2004-06 Fed had better results against worse opponents

You've determined they're worse opponents based on results at slams, top 10 wins etc. Why then do you not determine Federer's level being very high in 2004-6 based on his results then. Entirely inconsistent

 

[robthai]

You've determined they're worse opponents based on results at slams, top 10 wins etc. Why then do you not determine Federer's level being very high in 2004-6 based on his results then. Entirely inconsistent

he doesn't because it wouldn't favor his narrative.

 

[underground]

Kids these days grew up watching Rafa and Novak, so you can't expect much. A 15 year old would have missed out completely witnessing Fed's prime and then he comes in and sees his performances this year, obviously gonna start spewing crap on here.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

You've determined they're worse opponents based on results at slams, top 10 wins etc. Why then do you not determine Federer's level being very high in 2004-6 based on his results then. Entirely inconsistent

When did I write Federer's level was not high? It is overrated but high.

As I said, great results against not great opponents.

 

[Deleted member 763024]

Roger was great at his peak, Djoko is great during his.

Donno why these have to be mutually exclusive.

As to whose peak beats whom, that's a hypothetical discussion colored by everyone's biases.

IMO, since Djokovic followed Fed, his level is higher just because that's how tennis evolves (not a clean comparison, but roughly speaking). Does not negate what a player did in their prime. You can go down the chain of past champions in the same way.

 

[KINGROGER]

2014-16 Federer, Murray and Wawrinka had better results than any of Federer's 2004-06 opponents---> Fact

2004-06 Federer would have beaten them or players of the same caliber ---> Opinion

Yeah definitely. 04-06 Fed would’ve been quaking in his boots at the prospect at facing his slam pigeons Murray and Wawrinka

 

[KINGROGER]

Of course it is my opinion.

Facts instead are 2014-16 Federer, Murray and Wawrinka had very good results.

Another fact is those guys did no better at slams vs Nole than Roddick, Hewitt, Old Agassi in 2004-2006 (actually old Agassi did better at 04 USO than 2015 Fed did vs Nole) did vs Fed.

Wawrinka is the only one who won multiple slams vs Djokovic... and he certainly isn’t beating Fed anywhere off clay.. unlikely at RG either in all honesty.

Wawrinka is the only guy who did better than the 04-06 bunch... even then Fed lost 2 slams to Nadal and 1 to Safin.

 

[Towny]

When did I write Federer's level was not high? It is overrated but high.

How are you determining his level is overrated? Based on the results of his opponents?

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Slam and YEC semifinals reached:

2004-06 Roddick 5
2004-06 Hewitt 5
2004-06 Nalbandian 5

2007-09 Nadal 9
2007-09 Djokovic 8
2007-09 Roddick 4

2011-13 Murray 10
2011-13 Federer 9
2011-13 Nadal 8

2014-16 Federer 9
2014-16 Murray 8
2014-16 Wawrinka 8

 

[KINGROGER]

Slam and YEC semifinals reached:

2004-06 Roddick 5
2004-06 Hewitt 5
2004-06 Nadal 4

2007-09 Nadal 9
2007-09 Djokovic 8
2007-09 Roddick 4

2011-13 Murray 10
2011-13 Federer 9
2011-13 Nadal 8

2014-16 Federer 9
2014-16 Murray 8
2014-16 Wawrinka 8

That doesn’t determine level, only consistency.

As an example, 2015 USO Federer was no better or tougher than 2004 Agassi or 2006 Roddick.

 

[NatF]

Slam and YEC semifinals reached:

2004-06 Roddick 5
2004-06 Hewitt 5
2004-06 Nalbandian 5

2007-09 Nadal 9
2007-09 Djokovic 8
2007-09 Roddick 4

2011-13 Murray 10
2011-13 Federer 9
2011-13 Nadal 8

2014-16 Federer 9
2014-16 Murray 8
2014-16 Wawrinka 8

So 2011-2013 Murray was the best of the bunch?

 

[Deleted member 757377]

So 2011-2013 Murray was the best of the bunch?

It's just one of the many stats that show he was very good.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

That doesn’t determine level, only consistency.

As an example, 2015 USO Federer was no better or tougher than 2004 Agassi or 2006 Roddick.

To be consistent you need high level.

Murray is basically the only exception to most consistent players being the most winning.

Most slam wins:

1) Federer ---> 20 titles
2) Djokovic ---> 14
3) Nadal ---> 17
4) Connors ---> 8
5) Agassi ---> 8
6) Lendl ---> 8
7) Sampras ---> 14
8) Murray ---> 3
9) Edberg ---> 6
10) McEnroe ---> 7

Highest winning percentage:

1) Borg ---> 11
2) Nadal ---> 17
3) Federer ---> 20
4) Djokovic ---> 14
5) Sampras ---> 14
6) Connors ---> 8
7) Lendl ---> 8
8) McEnroe ---> 7
9) Murray ---> 3
10) Agassi 8

 

[Towny]

Most slam wins:

1) Federer ---> 20 titles
2) Djokovic ---> 14
3) Nadal ---> 17
4) Connors ---> 8
5) Agassi ---> 8
6) Lendl ---> 8
7) Sampras ---> 14
8) Murray ---> 3
9) Edberg ---> 6
10) McEnroe ---> 7

Ferrer (0 slams, one final) 145 slam match wins
Wilander (7 slams, 11 finals) 144 slam match wins
Berdych (0 slams, one final) 143 slam match wins
Borg (11 slams, 16 finals) 141 slam match wins

Please tell me that you don't believe that you can equivocate the levels of these guys

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Ferrer (0 slams, one final) 145 slam match wins
Wilander (7 slams, 11 finals) 144 slam match wins
Berdych (0 slams, one final) 143 slam match wins
Borg (11 slams, 16 finals) 141 slam match wins

Please tell me that you don't believe that you can equivocate the levels of these guys

Please write winning percentage too, as I did.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

I'm tired.

Hopefully the improvement Djokovic had to do to win in 2011-16 will allow him to have it easier in the next years.

 

[tudwell]

Nadal had a better single surface season, I can give you that.

He had three times as many hard court titles and twice as many hard court Masters as Murray did in 2015.

He also had a match win percentage of over 82% to Murray's 77%. Any way you slice it, Nadal 2005 is better than Murray 2015 on hard courts.

 

[SuperSpinner]

Slam and YEC semifinals reached:

2014-16 Federer 9
2014-16 Murray 8
2014-16 Wawrinka 8

2004-06 Roddick 5
2004-06 Hewitt 5
2004-06 Nadal 5

Exactly, so 2004-2006 is stronger since the top guys were losing more against the field.

 

[upchuck]

Did I not speak the truth?

Andy Murray of 2014-2016 would not be stopping Fed from winning majors. He may be more accomplished, but he wouldn't be tougher to beat.

You said Murray and Wawrinka in 14-16 were not better than Hewitt et al in 04-06. You are wrong.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

He had three times as many hard court titles and twice as many hard court Masters as Murray did in 2015.

He also had a match win percentage of over 82% to Murray's 77%. Any way you slice it, Nadal 2005 is better than Murray 2015 on hard courts.

Who cares about hardcourt and grass 2005 Nadal, he couldn't get past the early rounds of the four biggest tournaments.

First time I hear about 2005 Nadal being a factor outside clay.

 

[tudwell]

Who cares about hardcourt and grass 2005 Nadal, he couldn't get past the early rounds of the four biggest tournaments.

First time I hear about 2005 Nadal being a factor outside clay.

That's just the stats, man. Nadal made the final or won at all but one of the hard court masters he played. Murray has never been that good on hard courts.

Their slam campaigns are similar, too. Nadal as an unseeded player at the Australian lost a close match to eventual finalist peak Hewitt, just as Murray lost to a top hard court player of his era. Both took out at least one seed on their way. They both had poor losses at the U.S. Open.

 

[KINGROGER]

You said Murray and Wawrinka in 14-16 were not better than Hewitt et al in 04-06. You are wrong.

Yeah maybe they’re a bit better, but not to the extent where they’d represent elite slam competition for someone like prime Fed.

No one was beating that guy apart from Nadal on clay/Wimbledon and a peak performance at AO.

 

[Chanwan]

You said Murray and Wawrinka in 14-16 were not better than Hewitt et al in 04-06. You are wrong.

I'm still looking to your comeback on this one:
Murray's h2h vs. the big 3 in that time frame:

Muzz vs. Fed: 0-5 and 1-12 in sets, including a bagel and a breadstick
Muzz vs. Djoko: 3-13. And before Rome 2016 - when Djoko had already started to slow down - it was 1-12 (and the vast majority weren't even close, Muzz failed to win a set in 7 out of those 12).
Muzz vs. Rafa: 2-3 (note, this was by far the worst period in Rafa's career, yet he came away with a h2h lead vs. Muzz).

In other words, the great Andy Murray of 2014-2016 spend the first 2.4 years of that time frame going down 1-17 to Fedovic (failing to win a set in 11 out of those 17). Let that sink in[/QUOTE]

 

[Deleted member 757377]

That's just the stats, man. Nadal made the final or won at all but one of the hard court masters he played. Murray has never been that good on hard courts.

Their slam campaigns are similar, too. Nadal as an unseeded player at the Australian lost a close match to eventual finalist peak Hewitt, just as Murray lost to a top hard court player of his era. Both took out at least one seed on their way. They both had poor losses at the U.S. Open.

LOL there's no reasoning with you, goodbye.

 

[mike danny]

You said Murray and Wawrinka in 14-16 were not better than Hewitt et al in 04-06. You are wrong.

Even if they were, they would not be stopping Roger anywhere.

 

[tudwell]

LOL there's no reasoning with you, goodbye.

Who did Murray beat at the Australian that's so impressive? Berdych? He's only slightly superior to Youzhny, who Nadal beat. They both lost as soon as they ran into a top 4 seed. Murray just had a better seeding and so didn't play one until the final.

Also, Nadal would have won three hard court Masters by Murray's standards. He won the first two sets of the Miami final. He didn't have the luxury of only playing best of 3 like Murray did.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

I'm still looking back to your comeback on this one:
Murray's h2h vs. the big 3 in that time frame:

Muzz vs. Fed: 0-5 and 1-12 in sets, including a bagel and a breadstick
Muzz vs. Djoko: 3-13. And before Rome 2016 - when Djoko had already started to slow down - it was 1-12 (and the vast majority weren't even close, Muzz failed to win a set in 7 out of those 12).
Muzz vs. Rafa: 2-3 (note, this was by far the worst period in Rafa's career, yet he came away with a h2h lead vs. Muzz).

In other words, the great Andy Murray of 2014-2016 spend the first 2.4 years of that time frame going down 1-17 to Fedovic (failing to win a set in 11 out of those 17). Let that sink in

The great Federer is 8-18 in slam finals/semis against Djokovic and Nadal and has a worse h2h than them against Murray.

Let that sink in.

Grandpa Federer won last 9 matches against Murray and Nadal.

Let that sink in.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Who did Murray beat at the Australian that's so impressive? Berdych? He's only slightly superior to Youzhny, who Nadal beat. They both lost as soon as they ran into a top 4 seed. Murray just had a better seeding and so didn't play one until the final.

Also, Nadal would have won three hard court Masters by Murray's standards. He won the first two sets of the Miami final. He didn't have the luxury of only playing best of 3 like Murray did.

I feel you're trolling.

 

[KINGROGER]

The great Federer is 8-18 in slam finals/semis against Djokovic and Nadal and has a worse h2h than them against Murray.

Let that sink in.

Grandpa Federer won last 9 matches against Murray and Nadal.

Let that sink in.

Respectable score considering the age difference between them and the clay skew vs Nadal.


The number would be a lot healthier had Nole not lost directly the round before facing Fed in 09-10 4 times.

 

[tudwell]

I feel you're trolling.

I'm just presenting the facts. I'm not saying one player is better than the other, but Nadal had a better hard court season in 2005 than Murray did in 2015, as evidenced by his superior ability to win big titles.

 

[KINGROGER]

I'm just presenting the facts. I'm not saying one player is better than the other, but Nadal had a better hard court season in 2005 than Murray did in 2015, as evidence by his superior ability to win big titles.

Murray’s opponents had more top 10 wins and GS SF/F.

 

[Pheasant]

I'm going the other way with this. Rather than saying that Fed's peak years from his age 33 seasons on, I'm going to go with his younger years. It seems no more ludicrous.

Fed's peak was from 1999-2003. As a case in point, he was good enough in 2001 to end Sampras' winning streak at Wimbledon. During that time frame, he went 2-7 vs Hewitt. Fed and Hewitt were both born in 1981. Nalbandian was 5-1 vs Federer during this same time frame. And Naldbandian was born in 1982. I.e, Fed has no age excuses here.

Peak Fed was owned by Hewitt and Nalbandian. Once Hewitt and Nalbandian passed their peaks, Fed started beating them, similar to how Fed finally started beating Nadal once Rafa passed his peak(Fed is 5-1 vs Rafa since 2014; Fed's alleged peak and Nadal's declining "old" years).

 

[Deleted member 757377]

I'm just presenting the facts. I'm not saying one player is better than the other, but Nadal had a better hard court season in 2005 than Murray did in 2015, as evidenced by his superior ability to win big titles.

Dimitrov 2017 > Federer 2011/2012/2014/2015

More big titles.

 

[tudwell]

Dimitrov 2017 > Federer 2011/2012/2014/2015

More big titles.

That's irrelevant. This is about Murray and Nadal and who was the stronger number 2, and clearly it's Nadal in 2005 since he was the better player on both clay and hard courts (though obviously grass goes to Murray).

 

[Deleted member 757377]

That's irrelevant. This is about Murray and Nadal and who was the stronger number 2, and clearly it's Nadal in 2005 since he was the better player on both clay and hard courts (though obviously grass goes to Murray).

No give grass too to Nadal, I'm sure you can find a way.

 

[upchuck]

Slam and YEC semifinals reached:

2014-16 Federer 9
2014-16 Murray 8
2014-16 Wawrinka 8

2004-06 Roddick 5
2004-06 Hewitt 5
2004-06 Nadal 5

It is an unquestionable fact that the best players between 14-16 were more consistent and reliable than the best players between 04-06. And that's the best reason to believe that era was stronger than the other one.

Even if they were, they would not be stopping Roger anywhere.

Doesn't matter. That's not the topic of the thread.

Yeah maybe they’re a bit better, but not to the extent where they’d represent elite slam competition for someone like prime Fed.

No one was beating that guy apart from Nadal on clay/Wimbledon and a peak performance at AO.

The insecurity of Fed fans on fire as usual today. You've taken a thread about which era had tougher competition and made it into a question about whether the players in the second era would beat Federer if they played in the first one. Heads up: this thread isn't about Federer.

 

[tudwell]

It is an unquestionable fact that the best players between 14-16 were more consistent and reliable than the best players between 04-06. And that's the best reason to believe that era was stronger than the other one.

No doubt 2008 through 2012, when all of the big four were at or near the top of their game (and you had some other big players like Del Potro and Soderling) was superior to what came before. But it's also superior to what's come after. It was a rare thing to see three all time greats and another phenomenal player all in very good form at the same time.

But I don't think there's a sizable difference between the competition in 2014-2016 and 2004 and 2005. Federer, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Agassi, and in 2005 Nadal were all in great form, with other great second-tier players like Nalbandian (easily superior to the second-tier players of 2014 through 2016 - Berdych, Ferrer, Raonic, etc.). In 2006, Hewitt, Safin, and Agassi all succumbed to injuries or old age. That was a pretty weak year. Nadal wasn't as good on hard courts either, compared with 2005. Sure, no one in 04 and 05 was as consistent as Federer, Murray, and Wawrinka were in 2014 and 2015, but on the flip side there were a lot more top-tier players one could run into in that period.

But I also think weak era debates are always hopelessly circular. Some eras stand out to me (the late 70s through 81 with Connors, Mac, Borg and at the tail end Lendl all playing phenomenal tennis, for example), but outside those I think it's a little silly to try to compare things with too fine a comb.

 

[Towny]

I'm really tired of the double standards here. Fed apologists get bashed for making claims about his form apparently not based on objective stats. And we get torrents of posts and threads about Fed's record against top 10, against Djokodal, Fed's rivals records etc on the pretext that they're simply posting objective stats, nothing more. But they're not are they? The clear implication is that Federer won titles in a weaker era and therefore they don't count as much as Novak's. But that's not an objective stat is it? It's an opinion, and a largely unsubstantiated one at that.

Federer beat down all of his competition except for Nadal on clay at his peak. In his thirties, he has had huge success against Novak's rivals, even more than Novak himself. Djokovic went 1-3 against Wawrinka in slams 2014-2016, Fed went 2-1. Federer hasn't lost a match to Murray since AO13, Djokovic has lost several. Yet apparently, peak Federer would win less in this era? Please

 

[upchuck]

No doubt 2008 through 2012, when all of the big four were at or near the top of their game (and you had some other big players like Del Potro and Soderling) was superior to what came before. But it's also superior to what's come after.

Not disputing that.

second-tier players like Nalbandian (easily superior to the second-tier players of 2014 through 2016 - Berdych, Ferrer, Raonic, etc.)

I struggle to see how Nalbandian was superior to Berdych, much less "easily" so. The only thing we know for sure is that Nalbandian throughout his career was not anywhere near as consistent and reliable as Berdych and Ferrer were.

Sure, no one in 04 and 05 was as consistent as Federer, Murray, and Wawrinka were in 2014 and 2015, but on the flip side there were a lot more top-tier players one could run into in that period.

How so? Even if true, that's almost certainly because the second-tier group was so comparably inconsistent compared to the second-tier group of 14-16.

 

[tudwell]

Not disputing that.
I struggle to see how Nalbandian was superior to Berdych, much less "easily" so. The only thing we know for sure is that Nalbandian throughout his career was not anywhere near as consistent and reliable as Berdych and Ferrer were.
How so? Even if true, that's almost certainly because the second-tier group was so comparably inconsistent compared to the second-tier group of 14-16.

What I mean is if you're Djokovic in 2014-2016, you're basically worried about three other players in grand slam contention: Federer, Murray, and Wawrinka. Nadal for small portions of those years (he basically went AWOL at the slam level after RG 2014). If you're Federer in 2004-2006, you're worried (at various times) about Nadal, Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Ferrero - all players who won at least one slam either in those years or shortly before, all holding number one either shortly before that period or shortly after. Those are the top contenders - not as consistent as the top contenders in Djoko's era, and maybe not quite at the same high level (though Nadal and Safin are at least as tough as Wawrinka), but there are more of them to run into, so the field is potentially stacked.

And Ferrer and Berdych, as consistent as they were, could never do what Nalbandian did in the fall of 2007. When he was fit and motivated, he was a much tougher match for the top players than either of those guys.

 

[Druss]

2004 > 2014 (slightly)
2005 >> 2015
2016 = 2006

Verdict: 2004-06 > 2014-16 (not by much though).

 

[Deleted member 757377]

What I mean is if you're Djokovic in 2014-2016, you're basically worried about three other players in grand slam contention: Federer, Murray, and Wawrinka. Nadal for small portions of those years (he basically went AWOL at the slam level after RG 2014). If you're Federer in 2004-2006, you're worried (at various times) about Nadal, Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Ferrero - all players who won at least one slam either in those years or shortly before, all holding number one either shortly before that period or shortly after. Those are the top contenders - not as consistent as the top contenders in Djoko's era, and maybe not quite at the same high level (though Nadal and Safin are at least as tough as Wawrinka), but there are more of them to run into, so the field is potentially stacked.

And Ferrer and Berdych, as consistent as they were, could never do what Nalbandian did in the fall of 2007. When he was fit and motivated, he was a much tougher match for the top players than either of those guys.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/most-gs-wins-by-year-top10.629649/

Here you can see that secondary players in 2014-16 won more matches than secondary players in 2004-06, despite having to deal with a better top-4.

 

[abmk]

2004 > 2014 (slightly)
2005 >> 2015
2016 = 2006

Verdict: 2004-06 > 2014-16 (not by much though).

I don't quite agree.

Not IMO.
2004 > 2014
2005 >> 2015
2006 > 2016

2014 was an OK year, but 2004 was clearly stronger
2015 was relatively weak, on par with 2006. but 2005 was considerably stronger
2006 was relatively weak, but 2016 was even weaker.