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

[KillerServe]

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.

Bagdhatis, Ljubicic, Roddick, Melzer, Davydenko all took care of Nadal during the best year of his career. All of those guys were past prime. During their prime they would have taken out peak Nadal even more easily. Peak Nadal is vastly overrated as those losses prove. That destroys any claim on weak era whatsoever. Fed's era was stronger.

 

[KillerServe]

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.

Those years' were not Djokovic best years??? The guy won a slam in 2008 and was routinely going deep in slams. On top of that you neglect to point out that Roddick was wayyyyyyyy past his prime. His last slam was in 2003!! Prime Roddick would have been much more formidable and would have easily handled Nadal as proven by Roddick defeating Nadal in the best year of his entire career - 2010.

And yes Nadal would level the H2H with Davy now, but only because Davy is way past his prime. No way he would level it against prime Davy, as he also proved in 2010 being way past his prime yet defeating peak Nadal in the best year of his career in 2010.

 

[drm025]

Bagdhatis, Ljubicic, Roddick, Melzer, Davydenko all took care of Nadal during the best year of his career. All of those guys were past prime. During their prime they would have taken out peak Nadal even more easily. Peak Nadal is vastly overrated as those losses prove. That destroys any claim on weak era whatsoever. Fed's era was stronger.

Oh, so beating a player in one non-GS match is now "taking care of" that player? lol

So, Federer was taken care of by Volandri in 2007 and Murray in 2006?

You are reaching, dude.

 

[KillerServe]

Oh, so beating a player in one non-GS match is now "taking care of" that player? lol

So, Federer was taken care of by Volandri in 2007 and Murray in 2006?

You are reaching, dude.

No I think you're just defensive. The data is there proving the case. During Fed's peak year in 2006, he was beaten only by surface GOAT Nadal and future multi-slam winner Murray. During Nadal's peak year of 2010, he was beaten by many of Fed's rivals wayyyyyy past their prime. Sorry, but that proves peak Nadal would not handle Fed's competition as well as Fed did. It didn't only happen once in 2010 it happened FIVE times!!! Roddick, Bags, Davy, Ljubicic, Melzer. So it's not ONE non-GS match. It's FIVE. That's the point with Nadal isn't it? His H2H looks good against the big guys but his losses against the nobodies get spread out and swept under the rug. If any one is reaching, it's you. 2007 Fed was also taken care of by Canas, it was the beginning of his decline as I pointed out earlier. Nadal was nowhere near decline in 2010, he was peak peak and taken care of FIVE times by Fed's past prime rivals. LOLLLLLLL.

 

[drm025]

No I think you're just defensive. The data is there proving the case. During Fed's peak year in 2006, he was beaten only by surface GOAT Nadal and future multi-slam winner Murray. During Nadal's peak year of 2010, he was beaten by many of Fed's rivals wayyyyyy past their prime. Sorry, but that proves peak Nadal would not handle Fed's competition as well as Fed did. It didn't only happen once in 2010 it happened FIVE times!!! Roddick, Bags, Davy, Ljubicic, Melzer. So it's not ONE non-GS match. It's FIVE. That's the point with Nadal isn't it? His H2H looks good against the big guys but his losses against the nobodies get spread out and swept under the rug. If any one is reaching, it's you. 2007 Fed was also taken care of by Canas, it was the beginning of his decline as I pointed out earlier. Nadal was nowhere near decline in 2010, he was peak peak and taken care of FIVE times by Fed's past prime rivals. LOLLLLLLL.

It depends on whether you prefer being extremely consistent and not able to dominate the best players, or have the ability to beat anyone on the big stages and being slightly less consistent. I'll take the latter because at your best you can beat anyone, whereas with the former you have to hope for a fortunate draw .

Federer's legacy is all about consistency and its clear that that's what all Fed fans value. Finals in a row, SFs in a row, QFs in a row, number of weeks at no.1, all have to do with consistency, and Federer has dominated all of those things. Federer is the most consistent player the world has seen, no argument here, I just don't think that necessarily makes him the greatest, though as it stands now, it's hard to pick against Federer as greatest of this era.

Now while he is clearly the most consistent, at the same time, Nadal has a better overall win pct., GS win pct., H2H with rivals throughout his entire career (especially Federer), and the most Masters titles of anyone. These things cannot be ignored, and he clearly still has time to add to his titles.

If you prefer consistency against the field and so-so records against your main competition over holding your own against all main rivals and losing here and there when you aren't playing your best, then we will never agree

 

[jg153040]

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?

So, Fed's results vs the field (without top 4) are about the same in 2011/2012 as were in 2005/06.

You've actually proven a weaker era. That means no young guys to challenge Fed and amazing talents from Fed's era declined too.

Because we know 100% that Fed's game declined in 2011/12 compared to 2006. If Fed is being worse and having the same results, that means outside of top 4, the field is weaker.

We have many evidence where Fed declined:
-Hystorical evidence - Every all-time great declined at that age
-Fed's numbers vs top 4
-Naked eye - Everyone can see he is slower and less explosive
-He makes less winners and more unforced error
-Medical evidence - says any player declined when 29/30 with that kind of mileage
-Basic laws of nature - everything decays and slows down.

So, declining Fed has the same numbers vs the field (bellow top 4).Your numbers are great proof, that the field bellow top 4 got weaker.

Young guns are not as great as they were in Fed's era, where there was Murray, Berdych, Tsonga, Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro... Compared to Dimitrov era.

And Fed's era had much more champions than today. Today we only have top 3 champions: Nole, Rafa, Murray. Fed's era had: old Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, older Kuerten and great guys like Davy, Nalby, Gonzo...

So, no wonder declining Fed can maintain his numbers vs guys outside of top 4, since the field is not as deep.

I would like to see for Sampras for example, how he did vs guys outside of top 4 after his decline.

 

[sam_p]

It depends on whether you prefer being extremely consistent and not able to dominate the best players, or have the ability to beat anyone on the big stages and being slightly less consistent. I'll take the latter because at your best you can beat anyone, whereas with the former you have to hope for a fortunate draw .

Federer's legacy is all about consistency and its clear that that's what all Fed fans value. Finals in a row, SFs in a row, QFs in a row, number of weeks at no.1, all have to do with consistency, and Federer has dominated all of those things. Federer is the most consistent player the world has seen, no argument here, I just don't think that necessarily makes him the greatest, though as it stands now, it's hard to pick against Federer as greatest of this era.

Now while he is clearly the most consistent, at the same time, Nadal has a better overall win pct., GS win pct., H2H with rivals throughout his entire career (especially Federer), and the most Masters titles of anyone. These things cannot be ignored, and he clearly still has time to add to his titles.

If you prefer consistency against the field and so-so records against your main competition over holding your own against all main rivals and losing here and there when you aren't playing your best, then we will never agree

This sums it up nicely!

 

[NatF]

It depends on whether you prefer being extremely consistent and not able to dominate the best players, or have the ability to beat anyone on the big stages and being slightly less consistent. I'll take the latter because at your best you can beat anyone, whereas with the former you have to hope for a fortunate draw .

Federer's legacy is all about consistency and its clear that that's what all Fed fans value. Finals in a row, SFs in a row, QFs in a row, number of weeks at no.1, all have to do with consistency, and Federer has dominated all of those things. Federer is the most consistent player the world has seen, no argument here, I just don't think that necessarily makes him the greatest, though as it stands now, it's hard to pick against Federer as greatest of this era.

Now while he is clearly the most consistent, at the same time, Nadal has a better overall win pct., GS win pct., H2H with rivals throughout his entire career (especially Federer), and the most Masters titles of anyone. These things cannot be ignored, and he clearly still has time to add to his titles.

If you prefer consistency against the field and so-so records against your main competition over holding your own against all main rivals and losing here and there when you aren't playing your best, then we will never agree

Federer's record against the top 10 was better than Nadal's up until this year. So he did dominate the best players...

 

[abmk]

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?

LOL, what a pathetic trolling attempt.

federer's winning % was pretty low before 2003 wimbledon, which is why his overall winning % and GS winning % before 2008 are lesser.

from 2004 to 2007:

315-24 -- 92.92%

from 2008-12 :

327-64 -- 83.63%

 

[drm025]

Federer's record against the top 10 was better than Nadal's up until this year. So he did dominate the best players...

Federer H2H against:
Nadal 10-22
Djokovic 16-15
Murray 9-11

Nadal H2H against:
Federer 22-10
Djokovic 22-17
Murray 13-5

I'm talking about the TOP players of this era, the actual winners.

 

[jg153040]

Federer H2H against:
Nadal 10-22
Djokovic 16-15
Murray 9-11

Nadal H2H against:
Federer 22-10
Djokovic 22-17
Murray 13-5

I'm talking about the TOP players of this era, the actual winners.

Actually, you've proven in your op that the field outside of top4 today is weaker.
If, Fed in his decline has the same results vs the field outside of top4 in 2006 and 2012, that proves, field outside of top4 is weaker today than in 2006.

But we know this, good to have additional evidence. Lack of young guns shows gap in talent between Nadal's and Dimitrov's generation.

Ferrer proves this theory also.

 

[NatF]

Federer H2H against:
Nadal 10-22
Djokovic 16-15
Murray 9-11

Nadal H2H against:
Federer 22-10
Djokovic 22-17
Murray 13-5

I'm talking about the TOP players of this era, the actual winners.

What about the top players of Federer's era? You're ignoring the fact that Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi etc...were Federer's main rivals in atleast 04-05. You also neglect that fact that Federer is 5-6 years older than these players you want to compare him too. It comes across as very arbitary to pick the current top 4...

No other greats are rated based on how they contended with much younger rivals while ignoring their stats versus their same age competition.

 

[drm025]

LOL, what a pathetic trolling attempt.

federer's winning % was pretty low before 2003 wimbledon, which is why his overall winning % and GS winning % before 2008 are lesser.

from 2004 to 2007:

315-24 -- 92.92%

from 2008-12 :

327-64 -- 83.63%

Ok so starting from Nadal's first good year:

2005 to 2008 (and remember this is from age 18-22):
290-48 (86%)

2009 to 2013
323-52 (86%)

So, Nadal has more longevity than Federer even though he has bad knees? Gotcha.

Always thought Federer had the most longevity, but I guess since he clearly declined you can't really claim that.

 

[jg153040]

What about the top players of Federer's era? You're ignoring the fact that Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi etc...were Federer's main rivals in atleast 04-05. You also neglect that fact that Federer is 5-6 years older than these players you want to compare him too. It comes across as very arbitary to pick the current top 4...

No other greats are rated based on how they contended with much younger rivals while ignoring their stats versus their same age competition.

Of course he ignores it. Otherwise he would have to admit 17 majors and 302 weeks is better than 13 majors and 102 weeks. Nobody wants this, it's too boring.

 

[Crisstti]

What about the top players of Federer's era? You're ignoring the fact that Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi etc...were Federer's main rivals in atleast 04-05. You also neglect that fact that Federer is 5-6 years older than these players you want to compare him too. It comes across as very arbitary to pick the current top 4...

No other greats are rated based on how they contended with much younger rivals while ignoring their stats versus their same age competition.

Wait a second, so to compare Fed and Rafa is unfair but to compare Fed and Agassi is OK?.

Also, contending against a young rival should be to a player's benefit while he's on his prime.

 

[drm025]

What about the top players of Federer's era? You're ignoring the fact that Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi etc...were Federer's main rivals in atleast 04-05. You also neglect that fact that Federer is 5-6 years older than these players you want to compare him too. It comes across as very arbitary to pick the current top 4...

No other greats are rated based on how they contended with much younger rivals while ignoring their stats versus their same age competition.

Ok don't bring up Agassi vs. Federer and then talk about same age competition....

Anyway, over the course of Fed's career, the players I mentioned have been the most successful. Maybe you can argue for Hewitt vs. Murray, but I give the edge to Murray for winning 2 slams, making 5 other finals, and 9 masters with the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer around.

Again just showing his H2H with the BEST players he has faced. Nadal beat him in 2004, Murray beat him in 2006, Djokovic beat him in 2007, all during his prime. So age isn't the whole story.

 

[jg153040]

Ok so starting from Nadal's first good year:

2005 to 2008 (and remember this is from age 18-22):
290-48 (86%)

2009 to 2013
323-52 (86%)

So, Nadal has more longevity than Federer even though he has bad knees? Gotcha.

Always thought Federer had the most longevity, but I guess since he clearly declined you can't really claim that.

It looks like this. Fed losing 3 years in his early prime is a big hit. He did almost nothing between 18-22. I agree, this hurts me too. I feel he is more talented to only have 17 majors and 302 weeks. But, what can I do. I learned to live with it.

And you didn't address my theory, that declining Fed having the same results in 2006 and 2012 vs outside of top 4, could mean the field is less deeper last years.

 

[jg153040]

Wait a second, so to compare Fed and Rafa is unfair but to compare Fed and Agassi is OK?.

Also, contending against a young rival should be to a player's benefit while he's on his prime.

It was. That's why Fed was 5-2 off clay at the time. But Nadal didn't make all those finals on HC and grass, for Fed to take advantage of it more.

This also shows Nadal's prowess on clay. That Fed even with an edge wasn't able to defeat him there.

 

[drm025]

What about the top players of Federer's era? You're ignoring the fact that Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi etc...were Federer's main rivals in atleast 04-05. You also neglect that fact that Federer is 5-6 years older than these players you want to compare him too. It comes across as very arbitary to pick the current top 4...

No other greats are rated based on how they contended with much younger rivals while ignoring their stats versus their same age competition.

Well, I'm not sure how many other greats had contemporaries that accomplished practically nothing in the grand scheme of things. Hewitt has 80+ weeks at number 1 and 2 slams, but that was during 2001-2002, before Fed started winning.

So, he has no great contemporaries, how convenient for him.

 

[NatF]

Wait a second, so to compare Fed and Rafa is unfair but to compare Fed and Agassi is OK?.

Also, contending against a young rival should be to a player's benefit while he's on his prime.

No, I'm saying compare them all. Compare Federer's record against Rafa and co. But don't ignore the top guys he was beating in his earlier years. Agassi was much better in 03-05 than Federer has been this year. Infact I'd say Agassi of those years compares very favorably with Federer of 10-13 in terms of level of play.

It depends how often you play them doesn't it? Federer played Nadal more this year than he did in 04-05. Nadal was in his prime since 2005 IMO. If you win a slam and 4 masters then defend the slam the next year you're in your prime. If Federer met Nadal more off clay during his best years I'm sure he would have benefited more. But Nadal couldn't make it to him enough.

 

[drm025]

It looks like this. Fed losing 3 years in his early prime is a big hit. He did almost nothing between 18-22. I agree, this hurts me too. I feel he is more talented to only have 17 majors and 302 weeks. But, what can I do. I learned to live with it.

And you didn't address my theory, that declining Fed having the same results in 2006 and 2012 vs outside of top 4, could mean the field is less deeper last years.

I just think the game has gotten much more physical in recent years, and the young players just can't keep up with it. That's why we're seeing the shift of the older players being more successful and the younger players struggling to break through. Depends on what you think is a stronger field, veterans, or inexperienced young guns.

Either way, since the older players are now on top, a lot of these older players are Fed's contemporaries who just weren't that good, and have been owned by Federer. So since Federer has maintained his level, he can still beat them.

 

[jg153040]

No, I'm saying compare them all. Compare Federer's record against Rafa and co. But don't ignore the top guys he was beating in his earlier years. Agassi was much better in 03-05 than Federer has been this year. Infact I'd say Agassi of those years compares very favorably with Federer of 10-13 in terms of level of play.

It depends how often you play them doesn't it? Federer played Nadal more this year than he did in 04-05. Nadal was in his prime since 2005 IMO. If you win a slam and 4 masters then defend the slam the next year you're in your prime. If Federer met Nadal more off clay during his best years I'm sure he would have benefited more. But Nadal couldn't make it to him enough.

Agassi is a freak. An anomaly. He won most of his majors after being 29 years old. He played his best tennis after 29. But tennis wasn't so physical at the time. This was still possible. I think surfaces homogenization really hurt Fed. On fast surfaces he doesn't have problems today. He can still use his skills. But on slower surfaces, he has issues today.

 

[abmk]

Ok so starting from Nadal's first good year:

2005 to 2008 (and remember this is from age 18-22):
290-48 (86%)

2009 to 2013
323-52 (86%)

So, Nadal has more longevity than Federer even though he has bad knees? Gotcha.

Always thought Federer had the most longevity, but I guess since he clearly declined you can't really claim that.

yeah, but in 2005-07, nadal was losing before the semis in HC majors to Blake, youzhny, gonzalez, ferrer etc ...

also the 2005 clay padding (50 matches on clay ) ; skipping the 2nd half of 2012 ( his weaker half ), indoor matches on several occasions etc. also help in the winning % .

 

[Crisstti]

No, I'm saying compare them all. Compare Federer's record against Rafa and co. But don't ignore the top guys he was beating in his earlier years. Agassi was much better in 03-05 than Federer has been this year. Infact I'd say Agassi of those years compares very favorably with Federer of 10-13 in terms of level of play.

It depends how often you play them doesn't it? Federer played Nadal more this year than he did in 04-05. Nadal was in his prime since 2005 IMO. If you win a slam and 4 masters then defend the slam the next year you're in your prime. If Federer met Nadal more off clay during his best years I'm sure he would have benefited more. But Nadal couldn't make it to him enough.

Oh, OK, fair enough. I'm a little lost on this thread now so I'm not too sure what you were answering to with that post. But the OP was comparing Fed's results against the players he played most (Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick and Hewitt I believe) and against the rest of the field. Then maybe there was a comment about the "best" players Fed's faced, and in that context I'd think it seems fair not to include Agassi (considering when in their careers they played each other)

That seems a bit of an arbitrary way of defining prime, though I guess there's no right way anyway. In a way, Rafa was on his prime then, yet it's also true he'd get clearly better later on, even on clay. But even there, Fed should in theory have had better results versus Rafa, and especially off clay, where yes they didn't meet much because Rafa wasn't yet good enough, but it was still pretty close when they did meet.

 

[Crisstti]

yeah, but in 2005-07, nadal was losing before the semis in HC majors to Blake, youzhny, gonzalez, ferrer etc ...

also the 2005 clay padding (50 matches on clay ) ; skipping the 2nd half of 2012 ( his weaker half ), indoor matches on several occasions etc. also help in the winning % .

And he still had a very high winning %.

He didn't do too badly in the second half of this year...

 

[KillerServe]

It depends on whether you prefer being extremely consistent and not able to dominate the best players, or have the ability to beat anyone on the big stages and being slightly less consistent. I'll take the latter because at your best you can beat anyone, whereas with the former you have to hope for a fortunate draw .

The inability to dominate past-prime nobodies (not past-prime greats like Agassi) at your very PEAK of peaks playing your best tennis, that disqualifies you from GOAT consideration. The only reason Nadal beats Federer on the big stage is because of Fed's weak mentality vs. Nadal. Tennis wise Federer wipes the court with Nadal anytime anywhere.

You say at your best you can beat anyone, but that's the point is it? Nadal was at his best in 2010. He COULD NOT beat 'anyone', he couldn't even beat past prime has beens. Pathetic.

 

[jg153040]

I just think the game has gotten much more physical in recent years, and the young players just can't keep up with it. That's why we're seeing the shift of the older players being more successful and the younger players struggling to break through. Depends on what you think is a stronger field, veterans, or inexperienced young guns.

Either way, since the older players are now on top, a lot of these older players are Fed's contemporaries who just weren't that good, and have been owned by Federer. So since Federer has maintained his level, he can still beat them.

But Fed didn't maintain his level. You would have a point, if he did. Even on the naked eye you can see Fed's level in 2006 was greater than his 2012 level.

Better reflexes, speed, explosiveness, fitness. Isn't medical evidence enough, so we know anyone slows down from 26 to 30 with Fed's mileage? How about hystorical evidence? All guys declining in results after 26?

Today Rafa has to deal with old veterans and inexperienced young guys. Fed had to deal with young guns like Rafa, Nole, Murray. You can't compare that with Dimitrov's generation. Rafa has to deal with Nole and Murray, but so does Fed. Djokovic deprived Fed a lot too, not just Rafa. So you can't say only Rafa has Nole, but Fed didn't have Nole.

My point is Fed declined, but the only reason he maintained results vs other outside top4 guys is because, overall talent pool is not as great as in 2000-2008. You really think guys like Murray improved that much? Fed was still 3-0 vs him in GS finals. Till 2011, Nole had 1 major and beat Fed only once in 2008 in majors.

So it seems that in 2010, Fed had a huge decline, letting Djokovic and Murray to win majors. But even old Fed still had some good matches. Just his consistency suffered. That is decline. FO 11, W 12. The difference is, Fed in 2006 was able to play like that almost every match.

 

[abmk]

And he still had a very high winning %.

He didn't do too badly in the second half of this year...

yes, he still had a pretty high winning % ... just that it'd have dipped to around the same or slightly lesser % from 2005-07 as federer's from 08-12 , had he played a more 'balanced' schedule , shall we say ....

 

[Crisstti]

yes, he still had a pretty high winning % ... just that it'd have dipped to around the same or slightly lesser % from 2005-07 as federer's from 08-12 , had he played a more 'balanced' schedule , shall we say ....

How so?, if he hadn't lost to the players he was losing to on hc in 2005-2008 his winning % could only be better, and given the way he played this year's second half, who's to say he would have done much worse last year...

 

[NatF]

How so?, if he hadn't lost to the players he was losing to on hc in 2005-2008 his winning % could only be better, and given the way he played this year's second half, who's to say he would have done much worse last year...

Djokovic, Murray and Federer were all better last year, with the exception of Djokovic's post USO run. Nadal would have had alot more competition.

 

[Crisstti]

Djokovic, Murray and Federer were all better last year, with the exception of Djokovic's post USO run. Nadal would have had alot more competition.

Djokovic wasn't better last year. And Murray and Fed haven't exactly proven that they'd be that much of a problem for Rafa... I do take your point anyway that they were better last year, but that's no reason to assume Rafa would have done worse last year.

 

[abmk]

Djokovic wasn't better last year. And Murray and Fed haven't exactly proven that they'd be that much of a problem for Rafa... I do take your point anyway that they were better last year, but that's no reason to assume Rafa would have done worse last year.

is that why upto last year, federer was 6-1 vs rafa in the 2nd half of the year, 4-0 at the YEC and 2-1 at wimbledon !?

is that murray is almost even h2h vs rafa on HC !?

 

[abmk]

How so?, if he hadn't lost to the players he was losing to on hc in 2005-2008 his winning % could only be better, and given the way he played this year's second half, who's to say he would have done much worse last year...

you are mixing 2 things here :

1. rafa's record from 05-07 .... which would've been lesser had he played lesser on clay ( esp. 2005 ) and more on fast HC/indoors ...

2. rafa's record after that , in 12 --- he was 42-6 in the first half & wimbledon (88%) .... I think its quite safe to say that % would've dipped had he played the full year ...

 

[NatF]

Djokovic wasn't better last year. And Murray and Fed haven't exactly proven that they'd be that much of a problem for Rafa... I do take your point anyway that they were better last year, but that's no reason to assume Rafa would have done worse last year.

Djokovic was better, aside from his end of season run last year was better from him. Murray and Federer on faster hardcourts not a problem for Rafa? lol. A much worse Federer gave Nadal huge problems at Cincinati this year, the year before he bagelled Djokovic. I doubt Nadal would have gone through that Federer and Djokovic for his Cincinati title. Infact I think Federer in that form (wasn't broken all tournament) would have taken him out. He'd also have Lendl Murray and Djokovic to deal with at the USO. As well as a much better Federer and Murray to contend with at the WTF.

No way does he have as good results.

 

[abmk]

Djokovic was better, aside from his end of season run last year was better from him. Murray and Federer on faster hardcourts not a problem for Rafa? lol. A much worse Federer gave Nadal huge problems at Cincinati this year, the year before he bagelled Djokovic. I doubt Nadal would have gone through that Federer and Djokovic for his Cincinati title. Infact I think Federer in that form (wasn't broken all tournament) would have taken him out. He'd also have Lendl Murray and Djokovic to deal with at the USO. As well as a much better Federer and Murray to contend with at the WTF.

No way does he have as good results.

@ the bold part : you are being a bit 'kind' with that statement... federer would've straight-setted nadal in cincy 12 form , no question ...a much worse federer nearly did so this year ...

 

[NatF]

@ the bold part : you are being a bit 'kind' with that statement... federer would've straight-setted nadal in cincy 12 form , no question ...a much worse federer nearly did so this year ...

I don't like to be so absolute with my statements. I know it's a lost cause but I'd rather convince someone then just argue. But yes Federer was in blistering form in Cincy last year, he would have certainly beaten Nadal who for half the match this year didn't know what to do with Federer. No drops of serve and a bagel to Djokovic. Too much for Nadal to handle on that surface for sure IMO.

 

[drm025]

The difference is, Fed in 2006 was able to play like that almost every match.

Right, and he still lost 4 matches to Nadal, 1 on a fast hard court, and 1 match to a 19-year old Murray. Yet you claim that these players got the advantage over him due to his decline...

 

[drm025]

The inability to dominate past-prime nobodies (not past-prime greats like Agassi) at your very PEAK of peaks playing your best tennis, that disqualifies you from GOAT consideration. The only reason Nadal beats Federer on the big stage is because of Fed's weak mentality vs. Nadal. Tennis wise Federer wipes the court with Nadal anytime anywhere.

You say at your best you can beat anyone, but that's the point is it? Nadal was at his best in 2010. He COULD NOT beat 'anyone', he couldn't even beat past prime has beens. Pathetic.

How can you dominate a player in a year when you play them one time? lol

And no, players of Fed's age don't get lumped together as one player. Nadal played each of them 1 time, and in a non-GS. The result's just is not significant in the long run. Nadal won grand slams on all surfaces that year, something Federer has failed to do.

 

[NatF]

Right, and he still lost 4 matches to Nadal, 1 on a fast hard court, and 1 match to a 19-year old Murray. Yet you claim that these players got the advantage over him due to his decline...

Let me know when Nadal has a 92-5 record in a season. That match against Murray was off the back of a a really tough week in Toronto for Federer. Not to mention it was the only match he lost between June 06 and March of 07! Context is everything...

 

[abmk]

I don't like to be so absolute with my statements. I know it's a lost cause but I'd rather convince someone then just argue. But yes Federer was in blistering form in Cincy last year, he would have certainly beaten Nadal who for half the match this year didn't know what to do with Federer. No drops of serve and a bagel to Djokovic. Too much for Nadal to handle on that surface for sure IMO.

ok, I get it

 

[jg153040]

Right, and he still lost 4 matches to Nadal, 1 on a fast hard court, and 1 match to a 19-year old Murray. Yet you claim that these players got the advantage over him due to his decline...

READ IT! I said almost. And losing 4 matches a year to great players like Murray and Rafa would apply as almost.

I didn't say they had advantage at the time. Only last years. From 2010 on.

I never said peak Fed is invincible. Peak Rafa and Sampras were losing over 10 matches each year too. So, you nag me about Fed's 4 matches vs good players?

But losing only 4 matches to quality guys like Rafa and Murray comes close to invincible as you can get.

 

[KillerServe]

How can you dominate a player in a year when you play them one time? lol

And no, players of Fed's age don't get lumped together as one player. Nadal played each of them 1 time, and in a non-GS. The result's just is not significant in the long run. Nadal won grand slams on all surfaces that year, something Federer has failed to do.

Fine, forget about dominating. How about at least beating them when you are at your BEST! Do you understand that concept? At his BEST Nadal could not beat old players that were way past their best. This is truly pathetic and unworthy of GOAT consideration. Player's getting lumped together...that's what's referred to as the "field". Get familiar with that term, because that's Nadal's achilles heel, especially when said field consists of old timers way past their prime, LOLLLLLL.

 

[Crisstti]

Djokovic was better, aside from his end of season run last year was better from him. Murray and Federer on faster hardcourts not a problem for Rafa? lol. A much worse Federer gave Nadal huge problems at Cincinati this year, the year before he bagelled Djokovic. I doubt Nadal would have gone through that Federer and Djokovic for his Cincinati title. Infact I think Federer in that form (wasn't broken all tournament) would have taken him out. He'd also have Lendl Murray and Djokovic to deal with at the USO. As well as a much better Federer and Murray to contend with at the WTF.

No way does he have as good results.

His end of season run is no small thing (though it might have had something to do with Murray being out). You can't just exclude it and say he was better. He also made and lost in the final of the USO. Can't really remember his results in Canada and Cinci.

I'm not saying Murray and Fed haven't been a problem for Rafa on faster hc. But lately in fact not much and we're talking about last year. Fed played one of his best matches lately against Rafa in Cinci this year, how much better could he have played last year?, also Rafa still beat him in two sets. He could have done worse than that and still won.
Lendl Murray doing better vs Rafa is pure speculation.

He could well have had as good results, or close.

Edit: sorry, the match in Cinci was three sets.

 

[drm025]

Let me know when Nadal has a 92-5 record in a season. That match against Murray was off the back of a a really tough week in Toronto for Federer. Not to mention it was the only match he lost between June 06 and March of 07! Context is everything...

Ok, let's put Federer's 2006 season in context then. He won 8 titles without facing a top 5 player, including the USO. Also, he was 4-4 against top 3 players, that is the BEST players besides him that year.

One of the most consistent seasons ever, dont get me wrong. But it looks a little different in context.

 

[abmk]

His end of season run is no small thing (though it might have had something to do with Murray being out). You can't just exclude it and say he was better. He also made and lost in the final of the USO. Can't really remember his results in Canada and Cinci.

I'm not saying Murray and Fed haven't been a problem for Rafa on faster hc. But lately in fact not much and we're talking about last year. Fed played one of his best matches lately against Rafa in Cinci this year, how much better could he have played last year?, also Rafa still beat him in two sets. He could have done worse than that and still won.
Lendl Murray doing better vs Rafa is pure speculation.

He could well have had as good results, or close.

that was one of federer's '"best" matches in 13 compared to how he was doing from IW until then , but was well below average by his peak standards in 04-07 and clearly below his 'average' level in 12 ..

how much better could he have played last year ? much better ....... don't believe me ? well , ask djokovic ,who got bagelled .... ask the other 4 players in the tournament who couldn't break him as well ....

as far as djokovic in 12 goes, he won canada dropping one set ( to 'weak era' haas :twisted: ), reached final on cincy without losing serve and got bagelled by federer in the final ( lost in straights )

murray had bagelled nadal in their last HC match - tokyo 11 .... they haven't played since then ...

as far as federer is concerned, he'd just dominated rafa in their last match at that time - IW 12 - slow HC - beating him in straights .....

so your statement in bold has no basis in fact at all ....

not sure what you mean by the underlined statement ... rafa beat federer in 3 sets , not 2 .... was down 0-30 on his own serve at the closing stages of the 2nd set , not that far away from losing ...

 

[KillerServe]

Nadal's best year 2010:
71-10 88%

Federer's best year 2006:
92-5 95%

In their best years Federer's winning % was far better. You want to claim weak field in 2006? But Nadal's extra 5 losses came from Fed's field, Bags, Davy, Muller, Roddick, Ljubicic. And not just Fed's field, but PAST PRIME Fed's field. LOLLLLLLLL. Game Set and Match

 

[drm025]

Fine, forget about dominating. How about at least beating them when you are at your BEST! Do you understand that concept? At his BEST Nadal could not beat old players that were way past their best. This is truly pathetic and unworthy of GOAT consideration. Player's getting lumped together...that's what's referred to as the "field". Get familiar with that term, because that's Nadal's achilles heel, especially when said field consists of old timers way past their prime, LOLLLLLL.

Yes, Nadal's achilles heel is the field. That's why he has a better overall win pct. and GS win pct. then Federer. You can't get around that. Maybe that will change as Rafa gets older, but as of now he has performed better against the ENTIRE field than Federer.

But I guess you can get around that because Fed matured late, so the losses in the first few years can't counted against him.

 

[drm025]

Nadal's best year 2010:
71-10 88%

Federer's best year 2006:
92-5 95%

In their best years Federer's winning % was far better. You want to claim weak field in 2006? But Nadal's extra 5 losses came from Fed's field, Bags, Davy, Muller, Roddick, Ljubicic. And not just Fed's field, but PAST PRIME Fed's field. LOLLLLLLLL. Game Set and Match

If you think its game, set, match then that's fine for you. I disagree. Will history remember their win pcts. in those years or the fact that Nadal won slams on three different surfaces, which only Laver has done, I think.

 

[KillerServe]

Yes, Nadal's achilles heel is the field. That's why he has a better overall win pct. and GS win pct. then Federer. You can't get around that. Maybe that will change as Rafa gets older, but as of now he has performed better against the ENTIRE field than Federer.

But I guess you can get around that because Fed matured late, so the losses in the first few years can't counted against him.

Not maybe it will change, it WILL change as Rafa ages, unless he retires to preserve his record, which I predict he will do. Bottom line is despite dominating Fed so much, despite having a better win %, despite having a better GS pct., he STILL is only tied with Federer at the same age in # of GS, DESPITE having an almost 4 year time advantage of winning the first GS.

 

[drm025]

Nadal's best year 2010:
71-10 88%

Federer's best year 2006:
92-5 95%

In their best years Federer's winning % was far better. You want to claim weak field in 2006? But Nadal's extra 5 losses came from Fed's field, Bags, Davy, Muller, Roddick, Ljubicic. And not just Fed's field, but PAST PRIME Fed's field. LOLLLLLLLL. Game Set and Match

And didn't Davydenko beat Nadal at his first tournament after the WTFs in 2009, when he won?? Haha, you people and your past prime nonsense.