Good post. Really puts things in perspective when clay is taken away.
Before and after Federer lost #1 to Nadal: How much did his level really decline?
- Thread starter drm025
- Start date
Good post. Really puts things in perspective when clay is taken away.
"If he hadn't declined"
"When you take clay away"
Do you people ever sing a different song? I believe I keep getting reminded that you shouldn't cherry pick and you should look at all results.
Well, that would include pre-prime Fed, prime fed, peak fed, post-peak prime fed, post-prime peak fed, old man fed, and all other variations.
This would also include clay.
Let's look at all the results. Even playing field. No subjectivity.
Sure, I took out some data in some of my posts, but my original post included all results, and that is what I stand by.
"When you take clay away"
Do you people ever sing a different song? I believe I keep getting reminded that you shouldn't cherry pick and you should look at all results.
Well, that would include pre-prime Fed, prime fed, peak fed, post-peak prime fed, post-prime peak fed, old man fed, and all other variations.
This would also include clay.
Let's look at all the results. Even playing field. No subjectivity.
Sure, I took out some data in some of my posts, but my original post included all results, and that is what I stand by.
If you think that Nadal is already the GOAT, then I have no interest in talking to you. Please do not respond to my posts.
There was significant decline, despite the fact that he was still able to achieve a lot after declining. His level of play prior to declining was simply extremely high.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Strawman arguments.
I never said take clay away, I was comparing their exploits aside from clay to show that Federer has been far more dominate across the season than Nadal has. Which is true you only need to see their results. This was in response to being told that Nadal was more dominant than Federer. Which is only true on clay. Everywhere else and Federer is significantly better.
We shouldn't cherry pick OR twist statistics to show that Federer is 'virtually' the same from 08-12 as he was from 04-07. Federer did decline, that doesn't excuse his losses but it explains why he results became worse. We're not isolating invidual wins here we're looking at the bare numbers. What makes more sense, Federer got worse or the entire field including players who he had owned in their best years got better?
The fact is Federer did decline, it was obvious. It is also a fact that he was still capable at playing at a high level, especially in slams. However it's also true that at the top of the game small margins decide matches. Any slight decline is going to be very important against the top players.
Well I'm not concerned with the players he was owning that got 1 or 2 wins against him after 2008. I'm talking more about Nadal and Djokovic.
What makes more sense, Federer dominates for 4 years, turns 27, and just can't win big matches anymore, or younger players who could now be considered all-time greats improve and start to have break out performances?
Once and future GOAT. And I'll respond to whoever I please...
NatF
Bionic Poster
Federer has mono in early 2008, it threw his training off and left him low on confidence due to some bad early losses. His level picked up again in 2009. His serious decline happened in 2010 when he started losing to lesser players like Berdych and Soderling in quarterfinals.
and his decline is all the more reason he isn't GOAT! How can GOAT be based on a fleeting career snuffed by a teenager?
I have no idea what this even means.
Ok then troll, you are now the second person to make it on my ignore list. Respond all you like to me, but I will never see it.
KillerServe
Banned
The former is proven by Federer reaching #1 in 2012.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I'm convinced you're trolling now lol.
Lol, you are the among the trolliest of the fanboy trolls. And a baby to boot.
I am just pointing out how the typical Fed fanboy facade crumples because it is built on ever shifting sands!
"Fed is the GOAT, but only based on his career after 2003 but before 2008! And Nadal isn't better than he is just younger!"
Yes, we've all heard about the mono, he made it to the AO Semis, RG finals, and Wimbledon finals, and produced what many consider the greatest match ever. He then went on to win the USO and finished the year #2. Nobody is 100% for every match, and Federer clearly wasn't severely hindered by the illness. If this is a legit reason for losing then a lot of other players have a ton as well, that's why you have to take it as it is, or you have to analyze every single match to determine if a certain player had an issue they were dealing with.
Berdych is not a nobody, and has backed up his performance with other wins over Federer, and even had a win over him in 2004. Soderling was a reigning finalist at RG and had taken out Nadal the year previously.... Unless that wasn't a real win, how are these bad losses?
NatF
Bionic Poster
I don't think anyone has ever said that. You guys just like making stuff up. I personally think Federer retaking the #1 ranking from his prime rivals is very important for his status.
Note: I don't think Federer is the GOAT, I don't think there is necessarily one. I'd personally put Laver ahead if I had to choose.
??? Why couldn't that prove that he was always capable of winning the big matches but couldn't figure out how to pull it off until late 2011-2012. If his decline started in 2008, wouldn't it get worse and worse as he got older? If you're saying the field was so weak that a very declined Federer would have no problem reaching number 1, then you're worse than people who claim 2003-2007 was a weak era (which includes me)
Not necessarily. You are trying to oversimplify something that is complex. Federer's game began declining in 2007 and continued to decline until today, but the decline was not always linear. He played very well from late 2011 until mid 2012, better than he had in the couple of years prior to that.
LOL a player who is in decline for 5 years, half his career, can't be a serious contender for GOAThood.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
I do agree with that, players tend to get better after 27 usually, don't see why it would be different with Federer.
The truth is, players like Nadal, Murray and Canas showed the way to the rest of the field. That's why Fed became more vulnerable.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
If Fed retires after the Rio Olympics, he will have declined for 10 years lol
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Given that Fed had made 23 consecutive semis before that Söderling loss (which was then followed by another quarterfinal loss), beating players ranked exactly where Söderling and Berdych was ranked in the quarters to get to those semis and had beaten Söderling what - 13? - times in a row before the quarterfinal and never lost, those are def. bad loses.
Imo, Federer declined in 2008 mainly due to mono and the lack of training because of it. His results clearly show that, even if you take Nadal and Djokovic out of it (Nadal beat him 4 times in 2006 and 2008, Fed beat Nadal twice in 06 but never in 2008 - and he was 2-1 against Djokovic in 2008 ).
The real decline should have happened later (say 2010 or so) as he was still quite young.
Below I've reprinted post 18 as you haven't responded to it despite being very active with a lot of other posts:
"Quote:
Originally Posted by drm025 View Post
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..."
Response
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 2-1 against Novak that year).
See more data on the Big 4 vs. top-10 for each year up until the end of 2010 here:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/9...ough-the-years"
Last edited:
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Murray and Canas showed the way to other players, that's why.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Yes, just look at Borg, McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Stich, Chang, Sampras, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian - you continue. They all played their best tennis after 27.....
Completely untrue. Historically, almost every players have won/accomplished much less after 27. Becker, Jmac, Sampras, Wilander, Federer, Edberg, Connors...all were more accomplished before that age.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
So it was all in everyones head? No believe? And then suddenly, the fear was gone?
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Which is a completely new standard to any other time in tennis and heavily inflated by the fact that the next generation has been able to do - well - nothing.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Fear is certainly a factor, but by no means the only factor. If you see it that way, I don't think there's any point continuing the discussion.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Serene clear arguing.
Crisstti
Legend
Really?, due to "match up"?, nothing to do with Nadal being a better player than Djokovic?.
In any case, Fed fans cannot say Rafa was on his prime in 2005-2007 and Fed wasn't in 2008-2009.
The aura of invincibility is key, fed had it all too briefly before it was yanked away. Once it was clear how to beat him, those with sufficient talent (inside top 10) started to do it with fairly good success.
KillerServe
Banned
Isn't the answer obvious? Federer's ability to play brilliant is now available only in flashes. Whereas from 2004-2007 it was available consistently day in day out. That is the very definition of decline. That he can't consistently string together a high level of play for a sustained period of time. In 2012, he was able to string it together for a small sustained period by really going for it, knowing that he had Sampras' weeks at #1 in sight still, proving that when he's playing well he can beat any rival on grass even at this late stage of his career. Thence most of the difference post-2007 is due to his decline, not due to improved play by his main rivals. 2012 proved that when he has a goal and he is injury, his rivals are no match for him, no matter who they are (with the exception of Nadal on clay)
Last edited:
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Before that he did really good, and came out on tops at 31.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Sure.
As for the former, peak Fed would have a much better chance against peak Novak than against peak Nadal due to the match up.
Novak's career is not on pair with Fedal yet and probably never will be, but his best is more or less as good. Nadal is basically just a whole lot harder to play against for Fed (as I'm sure you know) and as is evidenced by how well pre-prime, or whatever you want to call him, Nadal did against Federer compared to how Fed and Nadal did against the field.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I agree that this is either a weak trolling attempt or an unfortunate bout of poor and misguided 'logic'.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
I think it's both. Fed declined and rivals got better - partly due to the bar that Federer set for them.
Nadal is an all time great. Sure, he was pretty darn good in 2005-2007 as well, but he got even better later on.
Djokovic is an all time great too (or will be soon, depending on your def.). He wasn't able to overcome Fed most of the time in 2008-2010, but since he fully came into his own and Fed's decline 'matured' even more, he's been ahead.
Murray, based on his win-loss ratio, is a pretty darn good player too and will likely end up with five slams or more imo - yet he couldn't take down Fed in a slam until 2013.
That said, I do believe peak Fed would win the majority of matches against peak Djoko, simply because he's able to play him pretty close even at this advanced age. Against Nadal, it would always be difficult, but I don't see why Fed couldn't have the upperhand at Wimbledon and the US.
You don't get to #1 with "flashes" of brilliance. You need a consistently high level of play which Federer had from late 2011 through to Wimbledon 2012. And even so, it wasn't all his doing, with Djokovic being burnt out at the end of 2011 after his amazing year and Nadal having knee problems leading up to his 7-month break.
KillerServe
Banned
If that's the case then why couldn't Fed maintain the #1 ranking in 2012?
Sartorius
Hall of Fame
Well it makes sense when the contortions to diminish Federer are equally amazing, arguing Federer's level stayed the same (no wait, it actually improved?) through the years, using percentages.
The point is that fed fanboys find themselves arguing that his claim to goathood rests only on his all to brief prime.
KillerServe
Banned
Poor *********, they only wish their boy could dominate like Fed did 
Poor *********, they only wish their boy could dominate like Fed did
Ha, good one. Anyway, I've been waiting to pull this out.
Since Nadal took the number 1 ranking after 2008 Wimbledon he leads in the following categories: GS wins, year-end number 1s, H2H against main rivals, number of weeks at number 1, GS win pct., Masters titles, overall win pct., and number of titles (tied with Djokovic, but Nadal has more slams and masters). All of this while missing 3 slams, having a 7-month break, and having a Djokovic problem for all of 2011. I'd say that's pretty dominating.
Five years after Federer first gained number 1, he did not lead in all these categories.
Of course there are other factors I haven't included that have more to do with consistency, but I'm not arguing that Federer beats the rest there.
KillerServe
Banned
Interesting, why don't you compile Fed's numbers in those categories from 2004-2007 and put them alongside Nadal's from 2008-2011 for comparison.
I mean basically, what that would show is a more concentrated dominance from Federer, which I don't think anyone argues. I think right now the numbers show a longer dominance from Nadal. He definitely doesn't lead some of the categories as much as Fed in his dominant period, but he does lead them all. I would explain that by pointing out Nadal's competition at the top during his peak compared to Fed's competition.
And right now, I'm not even talking about the whole field, I'm talking about competition at the top. I don't know how you could say that isn't harder now than it was from 2003-2007.
KillerServe
Banned
Federer's competition during his peak has handled Nadal's competition quite well. See Roddick vs. Djokovic, see Hewitt routinely giving Djokovic trouble way past his prime, see Ljubicic, Bagdhatis, Melzer, Davydenko and Roddick beating up on Nadal during his peakiest peak in 2010. All of those guys were well past their prime defeating peak Nadal in 2010. Thence Fed's competition was actually stronger. Nowadays, it's only the top 4 making it to finals. Those top 4 didn't get magically better in 2008 and onward. The more simple explanation for this success is the decline of Federer. Sure there improvement is a factor, but not as big IMO. The proof is Fed's contemporaries taking care of Nadal in 2010, and Fed putting together a short sustained effort to regain #1 just last year.
Last edited:
Wow, I haven't heard about Roddick vs. Djokovic before. 4-5 H2H with 1-1 H2H in GS is not significant, especially when 4 of Roddick's wins came in 2009 and 2010, not Djokovic's best years. And just as with Nadal vs. Davydenko, it's pretty well agreed that another meeting would have leveled the H2H anyway.
If we looked at Fed's competition that you mentioned, Hewitt Roddick, Ljubicic, under 21 Nadal, and compare Nadal's competition, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, there's no comparison, come on.
But that's right, during 2003-2007 nobody else could achieve anything because of Federer.
Similar threads
