Before and after Federer lost #1 to Nadal: How much did his level really decline?

[drm025]

I looked at some numbers before and after Nadal took #1 from Federer after 2008 Wimbledon. It is widely accepted that Federer was out of his peak by that point when he had just turned 27. This is actually the average age of Nadal and Djokovic right now. Doesn't look like they're slowing down due to age anytime soon, yet one could argue their style of play is much more punishing on their bodies than Federer's.

Either way, let's look at overall win pct. and GS win pct. before and after 2008 Wimbledon for Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic.

Overall Win Pct.
Before and including 2008 Wimbledon:
Nadal - 309-73 (80.9%)
Federer - 594-143 (80.6%)
Djokovic - 159-60 (73%)

After:
Nadal - 349-56 (86%)
Djokovic - 384-72 (84%)
Federer - 329-72 (82%)

GS Win Pct.
Before and including 2008 Wimbledon:
Federer - 155-25 (86%)
Nadal - 75-13 (85%)
Djokovic - 46-14 (77%)

After:
Nadal - 96-10 (91%)
Djokovic - 112-16 (88%)
Federer - 105-16 (87%)

What stands out to me is that Federer's overall win pct. and GS win pct. is actually better after 2008 Wimbledon than before (this includes his down year in 2013). There is clear improvement for Nadal after and Djokovic was obviously at a much higher level after.

The place where you see the dropoff for Federer is in the H2H against the players that he has met the most times (the top 4 for him are Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt, and Roddick). Looking at those 4 his H2H before and including 2008 Wimbledon is 41-23 (64%) and after it is 24-25 (49%).

It looks like Federer's results against the majority of the field have actually improved after the age of 27. Where he's done worse is against the players that he faces the most, mainly Nadal and Djokovic, who have clearly improved after that point. Does this mean his overall level dropped, or a few players improved and surpassed him?

 

[NatF]

I looked at some numbers before and after Nadal took #1 from Federer after 2008 Wimbledon. It is widely accepted that Federer was out of his peak by that point when he had just turned 27. This is actually the average age of Nadal and Djokovic right now. Doesn't look like they're slowing down due to age anytime soon, yet one could argue their style of play is much more punishing on their bodies than Federer's.

Either way, let's look at overall win pct. and GS win pct. before and after 2008 Wimbledon for Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic.

Overall Win Pct.
Before and including 2008 Wimbledon:
Nadal - 309-73 (80.9%)
Federer - 594-143 (80.6%)
Djokovic - 159-60 (73%)

After:
Nadal - 349-56 (86%)
Djokovic - 384-72 (84%)
Federer - 329-72 (82%)

GS Win Pct.
Before and including 2008 Wimbledon:
Federer - 155-25 (86%)
Nadal - 75-13 (85%)
Djokovic - 46-14 (77%)

After:
Nadal - 96-10 (91%)
Djokovic - 112-16 (88%)
Federer - 105-16 (87%)

What stands out to me is that Federer's overall win pct. and GS win pct. is actually better after 2008 Wimbledon than before (this includes his down year in 2013). There is clear improvement for Nadal after and Djokovic was obviously at a much higher level after.

The place where you see the dropoff for Federer is in the H2H against the players that he has met the most times (the top 4 for him are Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt, and Roddick). Looking at those 4 his H2H before and including 2008 Wimbledon is 41-23 (64%) and after it is 24-25 (49%).

It looks like Federer's results against the majority of the field have actually improved after the age of 27. Where he's done worse is against the players that he faces the most, mainly Nadal and Djokovic, who have clearly improved after that point. Does this mean his overall level dropped, or a few players improved and surpassed him?

How well Federer did versus the field compared from 1998 to 2008 includes several years where he was not even a top 20 players. A better measure would be to compare his win percent from 2003 to 2008 and then 2008 to 2013.

Weak trolling attempt. No one disagrees with Federer being a superior player in 2008 compared to 2002 or 2001. What they disagree with is comparing his form in say 2010 to 2005 and saying there was no decline.

 

[drm025]

Federer's the only tennis player I know where periods of his career just don't count. He's too young, he's past his prime, he has mono, etc. The result of every match is final and all results count. Before Wimbledon 2008, you cannot use age as an excuse. After Wimbledon 2008, it is feasible that age could cause a decline in results. What I show is that after the age of 27, his overall winning pct. and GS winning pct. is better, period. All I'm suggesting is that his age did not cause as significant a drop as people seem to think.

How is posting numbers and asking a question about the numbers, trolling? haha

 

[KillerServe]

Looking at the overall % is completely stupid. Here are the winning % breakdowns for Federer year by year since he became peak.

2004 93%
2005 95%
2006 95%
2007 88%
2008 81%
2009 84%
2010 83%
2011 84%
2012 86%
2013 73%

The facts show there was a dramatic drop off in 2008 and continued to be maintained at a lower level thereafter. Even in 2007 the beginnings of the decline began to manifest when comparing to 2004-2006. 2008 was his second worst year since his peak and Nadal was lucky there to be ready to take advantage of Federer's dramatic decline that year from his peak. Without Federer's dramatic decline in 2008 (in part due to mono) as dictated by the factual evidence, there would be no breakthrough year for Nadal. As Federer has implied in the past, all of Nadal's success effectively rests on his racquet.

 

[drm025]

If we want to limit his career more, which people think is more fair, we can look from 2003-2007 and from 2008-2012. If we're not including before 2003, then we aren't including 2013, either, I think that's fair.

Let's look at win percentage over the field not including the 4 players he's faced the most (Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt, Roddick) since I'm arguing that results dipped due to Nadal and Djokovic improving.

2003-2007: 359-31 (92%)
2008-2012: 301-39 (89%)

While obviously, 2003-2007 is going to be better, I still don't think the difference is as significant as people think.

 

[KillerServe]

But why lump anything together at all? Just look at the yearly breakdowns, it becomes quite obvious.

 

[NatF]

Federer's the only tennis player I know where periods of his career just don't count. He's too young, he's past his prime, he has mono, etc. The result of every match is final and all results count. Before Wimbledon 2008, you cannot use age as an excuse. After Wimbledon 2008, it is feasible that age could cause a decline in results. What I show is that after the age of 27, his overall winning pct. and GS winning pct. is better, period. All I'm suggesting is that his age did not cause as significant a drop as people seem to think.

How is posting numbers and asking a question about the numbers, trolling? haha

When people talk about him declining they mean he declined since his peak/prime of 2003 to 2007. Compare his results from his best years versus now and you'll get the answer of whether or not he's declined. Including years like 2000 where he went 36-30 will twist the evidence and make it seem like he's been playing at a higher level than even his 'so called' best years. But anyone with sense will see through you.

Let me break it down for you;

1998: 2-3
1999: 13-17
2000: 36-30
2001: 49-21
2002: 58-22
2003: 78-17
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
2013: 45-17

You should be counting GS winning percentage since he started winning slams etc...counting it before is treating it as if Federer didn't mature and improve which he did. Obviously what Federer accomplished in those years counts, but they're irrelevent to his decline in 2008 and onwards because he improved so much from 2003 onwards.

 

[drm025]

But why lump anything together at all? Just look at the yearly breakdowns, it becomes quite obvious.

I'm lumping it together because the main reason people give for he decline is his age. That's the only way to look at it to compare only age and considering no other factors. All the results before a certain age and all the results after a certain age.

 

[KillerServe]

Federer losses to players NOT named Djoko, Murray, Nadal since his peak till end 2008:

2004: 5 losses: Berdych, Hrbaty, Kuerten, Costa, Henman
2005: 3 losses: Nalbandian, Gasquet, Safin
2006: 0 losses
2007: 6 losses: Gonzalez, Nalbandian (2), Volandri, Canas (2)
2008: 8 losses: Simon (2), Blake (2), Karlovic, Stepanek, Roddick, Fish

Once again dramatic decline in 2008 with the beginnings of it happening in 2007. These are opponents outside the big 4!

Moreover, look in 2008 at the quality of the opponents lost to, Blake, Stepanek, Fish, Karlovic???? LOL. If that doesn't show dramatic decline compared to losses previous year, then not sure what does. Once again, lucky Nadal was ready and waiting to pounce on Federer's decline. However, credit to Nadal for taking his chances when he had them.

 

[drm025]

Here are the season broken down without the 4 players he's faced the most/his rivals (Djokovic, Nadal, Hewitt, Roddick), since I am only trying to talk about the rest of the field.

2003: 76-15 (84%)
2004: 65-6 (93%)
2005: 75-3 (96%)
2006: 86-1 (99%)
2007: 57-6 (90%)
2008: 63-9 (88%)
2009: 52-8 (87%)
2010: 58-10 (85%)
2011: 60-5 (92%)
2012: 68-7 (91%)

2006 was clearly his best year, but the results are a little more even this way. Was he more affected by age at 28,29 than he was at 30,31? The years where he turned 30 and 31 he had over 90% win pct. over the rest of the field.

 

[Backspin1183]

Nadal ended Federer's peak in 2008. Nadal had become very good by then, and it was time for Fed's peak to fade.
Fed's best was no longer good enough for the new Rafa.

Similarly, in 2011, Nadal's best was no longer good enough for the new Djokovic.

In 2012 and 2013, the new improved Rafa came back to defeat Djokovic and finally take back his #1 ranking.

Can Djokovic do the same? It's yet to be seen. He's currently on a 24 match winning streak. Nole fans hope he retains his AO title and win RG too.

 

[drm025]

Federer losses to players NOT named Djoko, Murray, Nadal:

2004: 5 losses: Berdych, Hrbaty, Kuerten, Costa, Henman,
2005: 3 losses: Nalbandian, Gasquet, Safin
2006: 0 losses
2007: 6 losses: Gonzalez, Nalbandian (2), Volandri, Canas (2)
2008: 8 losses: Simon (2), Blake (2), Karlovic, Stepanek, Roddick, Fish

Moreover, look in 2008 at the quality of the opponents lost to, Blake, Stepanek, Fish, Karlovic???? LOL. If that doesn't show dramatic decline compared to losses previous year, then not sure what does. Once again, lucky Nadal was ready and waiting to pounce on Federer's decline. However, credit to Nadal for taking his chances when he had them.

I'm not including Murray it's hard to call him a main rival of Federer. Federer's even played Davydenko more times and Del Potro just as much. Either way, what happens if you go further along to 2012? Why stop at 2008? Just wondering.

 

[KillerServe]

I'm lumping it together because the main reason people give for he decline is his age. That's the only way to look at it to compare only age and considering no other factors. All the results before a certain age and all the results after a certain age.

Absolutely ridiculous and non-sensical. You can't on the one hand talk about decline from a peak and then include years before his peak. It's illogical.

 

[KillerServe]

I'm not including Murray it's hard to call him a main rival of Federer. Federer's even played Davydenko more times and Del Potro just as much. Either way, what happens if you go further along to 2012? Why stop at 2008? Just wondering.

As in the previous post, 2008 and onwards it's a steady much lower winning % than his peak years.

 

[drm025]

Federer losses to players NOT named Djoko, Murray, Nadal since his peak till end 2008:

2004: 5 losses: Berdych, Hrbaty, Kuerten, Costa, Henman
2005: 3 losses: Nalbandian, Gasquet, Safin
2006: 0 losses
2007: 6 losses: Gonzalez, Nalbandian (2), Volandri, Canas (2)
2008: 8 losses: Simon (2), Blake (2), Karlovic, Stepanek, Roddick, Fish

Once again dramatic decline in 2008 with the beginnings of it happening in 2007. These are opponents outside the big 4!

Moreover, look in 2008 at the quality of the opponents lost to, Blake, Stepanek, Fish, Karlovic???? LOL. If that doesn't show dramatic decline compared to losses previous year, then not sure what does. Once again, lucky Nadal was ready and waiting to pounce on Federer's decline. However, credit to Nadal for taking his chances when he had them.

Actually, he only lost to Blake once in 2008, so 7 losses. Either way moving on with losses outside the big 4:
2009: 6 losses
2010: 9 losses
2011: 5 losses
2012: 6 losses

3 of these seasons are comparable to 2004 and 2007...

 

[NatF]

Actually, he only lost to Blake once in 2008, so 7 losses. Either way moving on with losses outside the big 4:
2009: 6 losses
2010: 9 losses
2011: 5 losses
2012: 6 losses

3 of these seasons are comparable to 2004 and 2007...

Your argument hinges on whether or not the other members of the big 4 were playing better tennis than the people Federer was virtually unbeaten against in his peak years. Federer was unbeaten against players like Blake and Roddick in years where they were playing much better tennis than in 2008.

Gasquet, Safin and Nalbandian played special matches, some of the best of their lives to beat Federer in 2005. Compare that to 2008 where he lost meekly to people he would have usually crushed a couple of years prior.

 

[KillerServe]

Actually, he only lost to Blake once in 2008, so 7 losses. Either way moving on with losses outside the big 4:
2009: 6 losses
2010: 9 losses
2011: 5 losses
2012: 6 losses

3 of these seasons are comparable to 2004 and 2007...

Blake had a walkover, it's still technically 2 losses. But not comparable to 2005 and 2006. Therefore there was a dramatic drop off in 2008 with the beginnings coming in 2007.

 

[Chanwan]

Actually, he only lost to Blake once in 2008, so 7 losses. Either way moving on with losses outside the big 4:
2009: 6 losses
2010: 9 losses
2011: 5 losses
2012: 6 losses

3 of these seasons are comparable to 2004 and 2007...

But it's also a bit arbitrary to exclude his main rivals. He has worse results
a) against his main rivals (whom he used to beat) and
b) against the field

When you exclude the main rivals from the field percentage, what you see is a player good enough to still beat most players outside top-5 (not surprising given he's one of the best players ever to play the game), but no longer able to go toe-to-toe with his main rivals.
Your argument, I suppose?, is then that that alone has to do with the rivals getting better.

A more reasonable explanation would be kind of in between - rivals got better, Federer got worse. But when a 29-31 year old Federer can pretty much hang with Novak from 2010-2012 that suggests to me that he would be able to more than hang with him had they been the same age or had Fed been at his 2004-2007 level in 2010-2012. Nadal is a separate case due to the match-up, which meant that Nadal was always a tough customer for Federer. But even Nadal, he managed to do 6-8 against up until the end of 2007. Since then, it's 4-14.

If you take a look at his percentage against top-10 players, there's a dramatic drop from
80-100 percent in 2004-2007 to 41 % in 2008, which cannot simply be explained by Rafa/Novak (he was 1-1 against Novak that year, as far as I recall).
See more data on the latter up until the end of 2010 here:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-they-faired-against-top-10-through-the-years

 

[NatF]

But it's also a bit arbitrary to exclude his main rivals. He has worse results
a) against his main rivals (whom he used to beat) and
b) against the field

When you exclude the main rivals from the field percentage, what you see is a player good enough to still beat most players outside top-5 (not surprising given he's one of the best players ever to play the game), but no longer able to go toe-to-toe with his main rivals.
Your argument, I suppose?, is then that that alone has to do with the rivals getting better.

A more reasonable explanation would be kind of in between - rivals got better, Federer got worse. But when a 29-31 year old Federer can pretty much hang with Novak from 2010-2012 that suggests to me that he would be able to more than hang with him had they been the same age or had Fed been at his 2004-2007 level in 2010-2012. Nadal is a separate case due to the match-up, which meant that Nadal was always a tough customer for Federer. But even Nadal, he managed to do 6-8 against up until the end of 2007. Since then, it's 4-14.

If you take a look at his percentage against top-10 players, there's a dramatic drop from
80-100 percent in 2004-2007 to 41 % in 2008, which cannot simply be explained by Rafa/Novak (he was 1-1 against Novak that year, as far as I recall).
See more data on the latter up until the end of 2010 here:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-they-faired-against-top-10-through-the-years

Federer was 2-1 versus Djokovic in 2008, he didn't lose to Rafa anymore than in 2006. The difference was that he didn't score 2 wins against him either. His decline was irrespective of what Nadal and Djokovic were doing.

 

[octobrina10]

Looking at the overall % is completely stupid. Here are the winning % breakdowns for Federer year by year since he became peak.

2004 93%
2005 95%
2006 95%
2007 88%
2008 81% - 27 years old
2009 84%
2010 83%
2011 84%
2012 86%
2013 73%

It's amaizing that Fed got old (declined) at such a young age - before his 27th birthday!

Rafa's win %
2008 88% (22 years old)
2010 88%
2011 82%
2012 88%
2013 91% (27 years old)

 

[drm025]

Federer was 2-1 versus Djokovic in 2008, he didn't lose to Rafa anymore than in 2006. The difference was that he didn't score 2 wins against him either. His decline was irrespective of what Nadal and Djokovic were doing.

Well without them, it's feasible that he could have won 10 more slams after the start of 2008...

(2008 AO FO Wimby, 2009 AO, 2010 USO, 2011 AO FO USO, 2012 AO FO)

 

[sam_p]

I looked at some numbers before and after Nadal took #1 from Federer after 2008 Wimbledon. It is widely accepted that Federer was out of his peak by that point when he had just turned 27. This is actually the average age of Nadal and Djokovic right now. Doesn't look like they're slowing down due to age anytime soon, yet one could argue their style of play is much more punishing on their bodies than Federer's.

Either way, let's look at overall win pct. and GS win pct. before and after 2008 Wimbledon for Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic.

Overall Win Pct.
Before and including 2008 Wimbledon:
Nadal - 309-73 (80.9%)
Federer - 594-143 (80.6%)
Djokovic - 159-60 (73%)

After:
Nadal - 349-56 (86%)
Djokovic - 384-72 (84%)
Federer - 329-72 (82%)

GS Win Pct.
Before and including 2008 Wimbledon:
Federer - 155-25 (86%)
Nadal - 75-13 (85%)
Djokovic - 46-14 (77%)

After:
Nadal - 96-10 (91%)
Djokovic - 112-16 (88%)
Federer - 105-16 (87%)

What stands out to me is that Federer's overall win pct. and GS win pct. is actually better after 2008 Wimbledon than before (this includes his down year in 2013). There is clear improvement for Nadal after and Djokovic was obviously at a much higher level after.

The place where you see the dropoff for Federer is in the H2H against the players that he has met the most times (the top 4 for him are Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt, and Roddick). Looking at those 4 his H2H before and including 2008 Wimbledon is 41-23 (64%) and after it is 24-25 (49%).

It looks like Federer's results against the majority of the field have actually improved after the age of 27. Where he's done worse is against the players that he faces the most, mainly Nadal and Djokovic, who have clearly improved after that point. Does this mean his overall level dropped, or a few players improved and surpassed him?

Clear and irrefutable demonstration that Federer's career depended on winning titles before Nadal fully matured. Had Nadal and Federer been the same age Federer would be sitting on about 8 GS.

 

[NatF]

Well without them, it's feasible that he could have won 10 more slams after the start of 2008...

(2008 AO FO Wimby, 2009 AO, 2010 USO, 2011 AO FO USO, 2012 AO FO)

That's just because the field sucks. If you put 08-12 Federer in 03-07 he wouldn't have won 12 slams.

 

[sam_p]

It's amaizing that Fed got old (declined) at such a young age - before his 27th birthday!

Rafa's win %
2008 88% (22 years old)
2010 88%
2011 82%
2012 88%
2013 91% (27 years old)

Yes, he is a fragile flower, only capable of his peak from 2003-t faded as 2008 OR he's an also ran that faded as soon as Nadal came along and stamped on him...

 

[drm025]

That's just because the field sucks. If you put 08-12 Federer in 03-07 he wouldn't have won 12 slams.

Right.... All those mental giants from the 2003-2007 era certainly would have held him down..

I don't know why it can't mean that his level it still quite high, but there are now other all-time greats around that can challenge him.

 

[KillerServe]

It's amaizing that Fed got old (declined) at such a young age - before his 27th birthday!

Rafa's win %
2008 88% (22 years old)
2010 88%
2011 82%
2012 88%
2013 91% (27 years old)

I agree. That's why I've always said Nadal playing style being harder on his body is an absolute myth.

 

[jhhachamp]

I looked at some numbers before and after Nadal took #1 from Federer after 2008 Wimbledon. It is widely accepted that Federer was out of his peak by that point when he had just turned 27. This is actually the average age of Nadal and Djokovic right now. Doesn't look like they're slowing down due to age anytime soon, yet one could argue their style of play is much more punishing on their bodies than Federer's.

Either way, let's look at overall win pct. and GS win pct. before and after 2008 Wimbledon for Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic.

Overall Win Pct.
Before and including 2008 Wimbledon:
Nadal - 309-73 (80.9%)
Federer - 594-143 (80.6%)
Djokovic - 159-60 (73%)

After:
Nadal - 349-56 (86%)
Djokovic - 384-72 (84%)
Federer - 329-72 (82%)

GS Win Pct.
Before and including 2008 Wimbledon:
Federer - 155-25 (86%)
Nadal - 75-13 (85%)
Djokovic - 46-14 (77%)

After:
Nadal - 96-10 (91%)
Djokovic - 112-16 (88%)
Federer - 105-16 (87%)

What stands out to me is that Federer's overall win pct. and GS win pct. is actually better after 2008 Wimbledon than before (this includes his down year in 2013). There is clear improvement for Nadal after and Djokovic was obviously at a much higher level after.

The place where you see the dropoff for Federer is in the H2H against the players that he has met the most times (the top 4 for him are Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt, and Roddick). Looking at those 4 his H2H before and including 2008 Wimbledon is 41-23 (64%) and after it is 24-25 (49%).

It looks like Federer's results against the majority of the field have actually improved after the age of 27. Where he's done worse is against the players that he faces the most, mainly Nadal and Djokovic, who have clearly improved after that point. Does this mean his overall level dropped, or a few players improved and surpassed him?

The (major) problem with your analysis is that you lump together Federer's prime years (late 2003-early 2008) with his early career years, which were by far his worst years. As such, the statistics that stand out are actually completely worthless.

If you properly analyzed his career by breaking it into 3 different segments (early years, prime years, and later years), you would see that he was a vastly superior player from late 2003-early 2008 than he was from early 2008 until now. You would also see that from early 2008 until now, Federer has been a vastly superior player than he was from the start of his career until late 2003.

 

[drm025]

The (major) problem with your analysis is that you lump together Federer's prime years (late 2003-early 2008) with his early career years, which were by far his worst years. As such, the statistics that stand out are actually completely worthless.

If you properly analyzed his career by breaking it into 3 different segments (early years, prime years, and later years), you would see that he was a vastly superior player from late 2003-early 2008 than he was from early 2008 until now. You would also see that from early 2008 until now, Federer has been a vastly superior player than he was from the start of his career until late 2003.

But you wouldn't see the same thing for Nadal would you? Why does Fed get a pass for maturing late? That excuses all of his losses before? Don't think so, he was the same person when he lost those matches. They count, there is no breaking up a career into segments. All results count.

 

[jhhachamp]

Federer's the only tennis player I know where periods of his career just don't count. He's too young, he's past his prime, he has mono, etc. The result of every match is final and all results count. Before Wimbledon 2008, you cannot use age as an excuse. After Wimbledon 2008, it is feasible that age could cause a decline in results. What I show is that after the age of 27, his overall winning pct. and GS winning pct. is better, period. All I'm suggesting is that his age did not cause as significant a drop as people seem to think.

What are you talking about? Federer's career arc has been a very typical career arc for a tennis player. He struggled initially, improved and had his best years between 23-27, after which he began to decline. There is nothing unusual about. I have no idea what you mean when you say that periods of his career do not count.

 

[NatF]

Right.... All those mental giants from the 2003-2007 era certainly would have held him down..

I don't know why it can't mean that his level it still quite high, but there are now other all-time greats around that can challenge him.

His level was high, especially in 2012. But he was very patchy in 2008 and 2010 especially.

Hewitt, Roddick and Agassi are mentally stronger players than Murray and pre 2011 Djokovic. The field in 2010 was a joke. Check Murray's win loss record in 2009 then compare to 2010. Look at Djokovic's results in 2010, he had to wait till September to get a top 10 win. Both of them were slumping and Federer barely made a semi final appearence after his AO win till the second half of the year.

 

[drm025]

What are you talking about? Federer's career arc has been a very typical career arc for a tennis player. He struggled initially, improved and had his best years between 23-27, after which he began to decline. There is nothing unusual about. I have no idea what you mean when you say that periods of his career do not count.

Every loss he has outside of late 2003-2007 has an excuse whether it be that he was too young, he had mono, or he's too old mono. According to most Fed fans it is not possible that other players improved and got the better of him. Federer had his peak, did well, and now everything else is just a bonus, with all losses not really counting because he's old. I know people make excuses for other players too, but I'm tired of seeing this.

 

[jhhachamp]

2003-2007: 359-31 (92%)
2008-2012: 301-39 (89%)

While obviously, 2003-2007 is going to be better, I still don't think the difference is as significant as people think.

The results are not that far apart because you are cherry picking to make it look as close as possible. Few would argue that Federer from 2008-2012 was a better player than he was for most of 2003, when he was still very inconsistent. Take 2003 off of and it would more clearly shows the difference. The best way to look at it without attempting to cherry pick to make the results look better is to just look at each year, as posted by another person. The decline is obvious.

2004 93%
2005 95%
2006 95%
2007 88%
2008 81%
2009 84%
2010 83%
2011 84%
2012 86%
2013 73%

 

[drm025]

Every loss he has outside of late 2003-2007 has an excuse whether it be that he was too young, he had mono, or he's too old mono. According to most Fed fans it is not possible that other players improved and got the better of him. Federer had his peak, did well, and now everything else is just a bonus, with all losses not really counting because he's old. I know people make excuses for other players too, but I'm tired of seeing this.

Didn't mean to put the second "mono" in there, haha. It should just say he's too old.

 

[drm025]

The results are not that far apart because you are cherry picking to make it look as close as possible. Few would argue that Federer from 2008-2012 was a better player than he was for most of 2003, when he was still very inconsistent. Take 2003 off of and it would more clearly shows the difference. The best way to look at it without attempting to cherry pick to make the results look better is to just look at each year, as posted by another person. The decline is obvious.

2004 93%
2005 95%
2006 95%
2007 88%
2008 81%
2009 84%
2010 83%
2011 84%
2012 86%
2013 73%

If you only look at this numbers and say that means he declined, you are saying that his opponents have absolutely zero effect on how well he does. Pretty arrogant, I would say.

 

[jhhachamp]

Absolutely ridiculous and non-sensical. You can't on the one hand talk about decline from a peak and then include years before his peak. It's illogical.

Agreed 100%.

 

[TMF]

Federer is best since 2004-2007. Like any player, he's a human being and has every right to decline. No player has ever dominate the sport by winning 11 in 4 years or one era. There's no proof that he wouldn't have dominate in the same matter if he was playing in any era. It's all speculating.

 

[KillerServe]

If you only look at this numbers and say that means he declined, you are saying that his opponents have absolutely zero effect on how well he does. Pretty arrogant, I would say.

Kinda like this thread

 

[jhhachamp]

Right.... All those mental giants from the 2003-2007 era certainly would have held him down..

I don't know why it can't mean that his level it still quite high, but there are now other all-time greats around that can challenge him.

It is still high, but clearly below what it was from late 2003 until early 2008 (and it declined from early 2007 to early 2008 as well).

 

[jhhachamp]

But you wouldn't see the same thing for Nadal would you? Why does Fed get a pass for maturing late? That excuses all of his losses before? Don't think so, he was the same person when he lost those matches. They count, there is no breaking up a career into segments. All results count.

What does Nadal have to do with this? No, I would not say the same thing about Nadal because he is a different player.

What do you mean when you say that Federer got a free pass for maturing late? I honestly have no idea what you mean by that. Federer reached his prime around 23 years old, which is a normal age. He still did many amazing things despite not maturing as early as Nadal. If he had reached his prime as early as Nadal, he would likely have cleaned up on majors from 2000-2003 (a very weak period) and approached 30 majors. He did not come close to 30 majors, which is evidence that those early losses do count against him.

 

[jhhachamp]

If you only look at this numbers and say that means he declined, you are saying that his opponents have absolutely zero effect on how well he does. Pretty arrogant, I would say.

Nope, that is not what I am saying at all, it is a bit of both. The level of competition improved and Federer declined (which is obvious and easy to show by looking through his results without trying to cherry pick).

 

[sam_p]

But you wouldn't see the same thing for Nadal would you? Why does Fed get a pass for maturing late? That excuses all of his losses before? Don't think so, he was the same person when he lost those matches. They count, there is no breaking up a career into segments. All results count.

Yes, and it is time to point out that like Borg, Nadal has dominated from his arrival. This pattern is GOATworthy. The real greatest of all time has dominated from day 1, and is going on almost a decade now...

 

[sam_p]

What are you talking about? Federer's career arc has been a very typical career arc for a tennis player. He struggled initially, improved and had his best years between 23-27, after which he began to decline. There is nothing unusual about. I have no idea what you mean when you say that periods of his career do not count.

Yes, Federer's career is "typical". Typical of a player who dominated briefly in a weak era a, before the GOAT strode in like Hercules...

 

[NatF]

Yes, and it is time to point out that like Borg, Nadal has dominated from his arrival. This pattern is GOATworthy. The real greatest of all time has dominated from day 1, and is going on almost a decade now...

Dominating is winning the same single slam every year? Dominating is 4 consecutive seasons of winning atleast 2 slams a year.

 

[TMF]

Yes, Federer's career is "typical". Typical of a player who dominated briefly in a weak era a, before the GOAT strode in like Hercules...

Strong or weak era you can't prove it, especially when Roger proved his haters wrong by reclaiming the #1 ranking in 2012 when he was a few years past his prime.

Roger's best(2004-07) could have dominate more, same, or less had he played in another era. Who knows.

 

[sam_p]

Dominating is winning the same single slam every year? Dominating is 4 consecutive seasons of winning atleast 2 slams a year.

Says you, I say it is being the best player of your era. No one has or can match Nadal for winning over time. When he reaches 17 GS, all reasonable people will concede that Federer's "dominance" was transitional and conditional (on Nadal being <21 years of age).

 

[NatF]

Says you, I say it is being the best player of your era. No one has or can match Nadal for winning over time. When he reaches 17 GS, all reasonable people will concede that Federer's "dominance" was transitional and conditional (on Nadal being <21 years of age).

The best player of the era has 17 slams. Let me know when Nadal catches up then we can talk.

9 > 3
7 > 2

That's how Nadal compares to Federer on hardcourts and grass. It's not particularly close is it? Nadal is better than Federer on about 30% of the tours surfaces that's it. Infact he's only just inside the top 10 all time on hardcourts and grass, yet he's the GOAT? lol.

 

[sam_p]

The best player of the era has 17 slams. Let me know when Nadal catches up then we can talk.

9 > 3
7 > 2

That's how Nadal compares to Federer on hardcourts and grass. It's not particularly close is it? Nadal is better than Federer on about 30% of the tours surfaces that's it. Infact he's only just inside the top 10 all time on hardcourts and grass, yet he's the GOAT? lol.

You don't read so goodly does you?

 

[drm025]

Nope, that is not what I am saying at all, it is a bit of both. The level of competition improved and Federer declined (which is obvious and easy to show by looking through his results without trying to cherry pick).

Right, and nowhere did I say there was no decline. I said I think it's less than most people think, looking at what he still was able to achieve.

Killerserve, what about this thread is arrogant? Where have I even made a clear assertion about anything that implies I think I'm right and everyone else is wrong? I'm just saying what I think and why I think it.

 

[sam_p]

The best player of the era has 17 slams. Let me know when Nadal catches up then we can talk.

9 > 3
7 > 2

That's how Nadal compares to Federer on hardcourts and grass. It's not particularly close is it? Nadal is better than Federer on about 30% of the tours surfaces that's it. Infact he's only just inside the top 10 all time on hardcourts and grass, yet he's the GOAT? lol.

And aren't you a charter member of the "fed and Nadal aren't in the same era" crew? So now when it suits you they are...

Federer is nothing without that brief gasp of greatness - after he matured at 23 and before he became decrepit at 27 :twisted:

 

[NatF]

And aren't you a charter member of the "fed and Nadal aren't in the same era" crew? So now when it suits you they are...

Federer is nothing without that brief gasp of greatness - after he matured at 23 and before he became decrepit at 27 :twisted:

Nope, you don't know me atall. They're clearly from the same era, they're not from the same generation though. Hence their primes haven't overlapped completely.

Federer is nothing without that brief gasp of greatness? lol. Without it he still has a career like Djokovic's. He's won 5 slams since 2008, he would have won way more if he hadn't declined. He also won his first slam at 22.