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

[KillerServe]

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.

Sure, you have to disagree with facts and rationalize in order to keep your hero's legacy intact. History will remember neither, history will only remember # of GS, and if Nadal does not catch up, he will be forgotten relative to Federer.

 

[KillerServe]

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.

How old was Davydenko in 2009? How old was Nadal?

 

[jg153040]

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.

Yeah, this is strange. Nadal dominates his rivals more than Fed, has a better win %. Started winning majors 4 years before Fed.

How on earth can Fed end up with more weeks nr.1 at the same age?
Doesn't make sense.

 

[NatF]

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.

Why are you limiting it to top 5? Federer faced many on the rise players in his draws in 2006. Blake, Gonzalez etc...weren't always in the top 10 when Federer played them but they were on the rise and would be by the end of the year. Someone like Tommy Haas has always been a dangerous opponent when in form. Even now at 35 he still hovers around just outside the top 10. Which is exactly where he was in 2006 when he was younger and abit better. You limiting it to the top 3 is ridiculous. Not every era had such a distinction between the top 3 players and the rest of the top 10.

Federer faced 3 top 10 players back to back including a resurgent Andy Roddick in the final. His USO draw that year was tougher than either of Nadal's.

 

[drm025]

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.

The fact that Nadal and Federer are tied with GSs at the same age is a testament to Nadal, not Federer. How many slams did Nadal miss due to injury? And didn't Federer have the most dominant year 4-year period in history (2004-2007)? Yet, Nadal still has the same amount of slams....

 

[NatF]

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.

Nadal has a better win percentage because he dominates clay so much. Break it down by surface and you see that Federer is clearly much better on hardcourts and grass.

 

[drm025]

Why are you limiting it to top 5? Federer faced many on the rise players in his draws in 2006. Blake, Gonzalez etc...weren't always in the top 10 when Federer played them but they were on the rise and would be by the end of the year. Someone like Tommy Haas has always been a dangerous opponent when in form. Even now at 35 he still hovers around just outside the top 10. Which is exactly where he was in 2006 when he was younger and abit better. You limiting it to the top 3 is ridiculous. Not every era had such a distinction between the top 3 players and the rest of the top 10.

Federer faced 3 top 10 players back to back including a resurgent Andy Roddick in the final. His USO draw that year was tougher than either of Nadal's.

Sure, he had good opponents, but what the rankings tell you is that the consistency for those players was not there. The era was not weak due to talent, it was weak due to CONSISTENCY. Those players could not bring their best to every match, and that's why you had Nadal as number 2 since he was 18...

 

[abmk]

Sure, he had good opponents, but what the rankings tell you is that the consistency for those players was not there. The era was not weak due to talent, it was weak due to CONSISTENCY. Those players could not bring their best to every match, and that's why you had Nadal as number 2 since he was 18...

I could be wrong, but I think nadal was 15 in 2006 ....... oh wait .....

or maybe , it wasn't just the consistency of the top players back then, but rather more of the homogenisation now and the slightly lower ranked players not being that much of a threat as they used to be .....

 

[KillerServe]

The fact that Nadal and Federer are tied with GSs at the same age is a testament to Nadal, not Federer. How many slams did Nadal miss due to injury? And didn't Federer have the most dominant year 4-year period in history (2004-2007)? Yet, Nadal still has the same amount of slams....

LOL, talk about excuses. Sorry, but you don't get credit for injuries. As for Federer yes he did have the most dominant 4-year period against a field that when it became past prime, dominated Nadal in his best year, LOLLLLLL.

 

[Crisstti]

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 ...

Yes, he beat him in three sets, sorry lol. I suddenly remembered him winning the first set with a bh some minutes after the other post.
Anyway, his level in that first set wasn't lower than in 2012. And him playing better in the other sets in 2012 (hypothetically) doesn't in any way guarantee he'd have beaten Rafa this year.

Before that Tokyo final in 2011 Murray had not been doing well against Rafa on hc, in fact he last beat him on a slam in 2010, a while ago already. Nothing to make up think he would have beat him at the USO. Also Rafa wasn't in a good place mentally in 2011 compared to 2012.

 

[drm025]

LOL, talk about excuses. Sorry, but you don't get credit for injuries. As for Federer yes he did have the most dominant 4-year period against a field that when it became past prime, dominated Nadal in his best year, LOLLLLLL.

Oh, so we're back to dominating again, oy vey. So Ill go back to this, Federer was dominated by Hrbaty in 2004, Federer was dominated by Berdych in 2004, Federer was dominated by Murray in 2006, Federer was dominated by Volandri in 2007, the list goes on...

Your definition of dominating is losing one match in a non-GS.

I am not saying Nadal is a more consistent tennis player than Federer! I already Federer that title. That's all you people have, consistency.

 

[jg153040]

The fact that Nadal and Federer are tied with GSs at the same age is a testament to Nadal, not Federer. How many slams did Nadal miss due to injury? And didn't Federer have the most dominant year 4-year period in history (2004-2007)? Yet, Nadal still has the same amount of slams....

I agree sort of, that Nadal did overachieve and Fed did underachieve.

At least if we extrapolate from their dominant periods and Fed not having serious injuries.

I guess this is a testament to Nadal. Fed always had higher expectations from the start.

But still, 17 majors and 302 weeks ain't that bad.

 

[NatF]

Sure, he had good opponents, but what the rankings tell you is that the consistency for those players was not there. The era was not weak due to talent, it was weak due to CONSISTENCY. Those players could not bring their best to every match, and that's why you had Nadal as number 2 since he was 18...

Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi were very consistant in 04-05. In past era's players have been #1 winning less than what Nadal did in his early years.

Federer met Nadal 6 times in 2006, as many meetings as Djokovic/Nadal in 2011. Nadal was a strong #2 from the moment he arrived. The field was weaker in 2006 then the years before or after. But 2010 was also weak, Federer, Murray and Djokovic all declined immensely from their previous years level. Del Potro was injured and Davydenko fell off. You had Roddick and Ljubacic way past their best years contending for back to back masters titles taking out Nadal along the way.

The weak era theory is a myth.

 

[drm025]

LOL, talk about excuses. Sorry, but you don't get credit for injuries. As for Federer yes he did have the most dominant 4-year period against a field that when it became past prime, dominated Nadal in his best year, LOLLLLLL.

Right, but injuries do mean that Federer had more opportunities to win, that's all I'm saying.

 

[KillerServe]

Oh, so we're back to dominating again, oy vey. So Ill go back to this, Federer was dominated by Hrbaty in 2004, Federer was dominated by Berdych in 2004, Federer was dominated by Murray in 2006, Federer was dominated by Volandri in 2007, the list goes on...

Your definition of dominating is losing one match in a non-GS.

I am not saying Nadal is a more consistent tennis player than Federer! I already Federer that title. That's all you people have, consistency.

Murray is a star. Volandri and don't forget Canas. 2007 was the beginning of the decline. Hrbaty also dominated Nadal, LOLLLLLLLLLL. Bad choice here fella. So let's compile a list shall we of who beat Federer at his peak in 2006 and Nadal at his peak in 2010 . Shall we???????

All we have is consistency?? LOL, how about also the insignificant record of the # of GS LOLLLLLLLL

 

[KillerServe]

Right, but injuries do mean that Federer had more opportunities to win, that's all I'm saying.

Well I was never able to play a GS. Nadal had way more opportunities than me, therefore I am as good. LOLLLLLLLLL.

 

[abmk]

Yes, he beat him in three sets, sorry lol. I suddenly remembered him winning the first set with a bh some minutes after the other post.
Anyway, his level in that first set wasn't lower than in 2012. And him playing better in the other sets in 2012 (hypothetically) doesn't in any way guarantee he'd have beaten Rafa this year.

actually, his level in the 1st set lower than it was in 12, especially the returning .... and the other part of your post is just plain desperate stretching and wishful thinking ...

face it, based on their respective forms, nadal would be struggling to get a set vs federer in cincy 12 form, let alone winning the match

Before that Tokyo final in 2011 Murray had not been doing well against Rafa on hc, in fact he last beat him on a slam in 2010, a while ago already. Nothing to make up think he would have beat him at the USO. Also Rafa wasn't in a good place mentally in 2011 compared to 2012.

and murray was in much worse condition mentally in 2011 than in 12 with lendl, the difference much starker than rafa's ( which was mainly against djokovic anyways, not the rest of the field ) .....but you tend to focus only on rafa ......that's your problem ....

rafa did win USO 11 match vs murray convincingly, but before that it was a very close match in YEC 10 that rafa edged out ...

before that murray straight-setted him in toronto and AO 10 ..

so no ... what you say isn't based on fact/reality etc .....

 

[drm025]

Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi were very consistant in 04-05. In past era's players have been #1 winning less than what Nadal did in his early years.

Federer met Nadal 6 times in 2006, as many meetings as Djokovic/Nadal in 2011. Nadal was a strong #2 from the moment he arrived. The field was weaker in 2006 then the years before or after. But 2010 was also weak, Federer, Murray and Djokovic all declined immensely from their previous years level. Del Potro was injured and Davydenko fell off. You had Roddick and Ljubacic way past their best years contending for back to back masters titles taking out Nadal along the way.

The weak era theory is a myth.

You're talking about one year 2010, which I'm not saying is the most dominant season ever. I'm talking about an era 2003-2007. The consistency of Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal in those years nowhere near approaches the consistency of Federer, Djokovic, Murray from 2008-2013.

 

[drm025]

Well I was never able to play a GS. Nadal had way more opportunities than me, therefore I am as good. LOLLLLLLLLL.

Have you won 13 GS by the age of 27???

Are you serious right now?

 

[KillerServe]

Have you won 13 GS by the age of 27???

Are you serious right now?

Injuries is just an excuse, it cannot be brought up. If you can't play a GS then you were not good enough. Health is a part of tennis skill. Nadal has incredible mental tenacity, Fed has great health during his peak years. If you say Nadal missed slams, then I say Federer lost to Nadal on the big stage not because of tennis, but because of mental lapses.

 

[drm025]

Murray is a star. Volandri and don't forget Canas. 2007 was the beginning of the decline. Hrbaty also dominated Nadal, LOLLLLLLLLLL. Bad choice here fella. So let's compile a list shall we of who beat Federer at his peak in 2006 and Nadal at his peak in 2010 . Shall we???????

All we have is consistency?? LOL, how about also the insignificant record of the # of GS LOLLLLLLLL

I'm not using my definition of domination, I'm using yours which is obviously ridiculous.

And yes, Federer has the GSs, and I have nowhere claimed that Nadal is greater than him right now. In the case, that it gets closer, that's when all you have is consistency.

 

[KillerServe]

Have you won 13 GS by the age of 27???

Are you serious right now?

What about some poor kid in Nigeria who potentially has the skill to be the real GOAT, but never got the opportunity. If you don't play a slam you can't get credit for it.

 

[drm025]

Injuries is just an excuse, it cannot be brought up. If you can't play a GS then you were not good enough. Health is a part of tennis skill. Nadal has incredible mental tenacity, Fed has great health during his peak years. If you say Nadal missed slams, then I say Federer lost to Nadal on the big stage not because of tennis, but because of mental lapses.

Right, because injuries are always the athlete's fault. You ever heard the term "unlucky injury"?

Federer has been extremely lucky to have never had a major injury.

 

[KillerServe]

I'm not using my definition of domination, I'm using yours which is obviously ridiculous.

And yes, Federer has the GSs, and I have nowhere claimed that Nadal is greater than him right now. In the case, that it gets closer, that's when all you have is consistency.

Consistency is critical for GOAT legacy, vs losing to past prime losers when you are at your best. I wasn't even talking about domination, I was just talking about beating old players when you are at your best which Nadal was incapable of in 2010.

 

[KillerServe]

Right, because injuries are always the athlete's fault. You ever heard the term "unlucky injury"?

Federer has been extremely lucky to have never had a major injury.

It's no one's fault. If he was born genetically inferior in a certain department, that's his problem. You don't get credit for it. You snooze, you loose. You have no clue whether Federer was in fact 'lucky' as you say to not be injured. You're just pulling that out of your asss.

 

[drm025]

If you can't play a GS then you were not good enough.

Also, this is not valid statement. Ever heard of Monica Seles?

 

[drm025]

It's no one's fault. If he was born genetically inferior in a certain department, that's his problem. You don't get credit for it. You snooze, you loose. You have no clue whether Federer was in fact 'lucky' as you say to not be injured. You're just pulling that out of your asss.

Ok, so Federer has never lost focus during a tennis match in his entire career? That's all it takes, one false step. Yes, he is fortunate.

 

[KillerServe]

Also, this is not valid statement. Ever heard of Monica Seles?

Sure, IMO Monica had the potential to be the GOAT and would have overtaken Graf and Navratilova in my opinion. But it didn't happen. You don't get credit for it. It's just a woulda coulda shoulda. She is not mentioned with the likes of Steffi or Martina.

 

[KillerServe]

Ok, so Federer has never lost focus during a tennis match in his entire career? That's all it takes, one false step. Yes, he is fortunate.

Federer has constantly lost focus in matches against Nadal, that's the only way Nadal can beat him at tennis. It's always on Federer's racquet.

 

[NatF]

You're talking about one year 2010, which I'm not saying is the most dominant season ever. I'm talking about an era 2003-2007. The consistency of Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal in those years nowhere near approaches the consistency of Federer, Djokovic, Murray from 2008-2013.

Maybe the surfaces are more homogenized now...the AO is slower so is the USO. Both of these have been reported and are obvious.

Hewitt lost only to the eventual winner in slams from 04 to 05. He lost to Federer 5 times in slams during that period. Roddick made the final of Wimbledon in back to back years, he lost in the quarters of the AO to an on fire Safin (not a bad loss) and to Joachim Johansson also not a bad loss considering how well he was playing. If you gave the players you mentioned those draws I doubt they'd come through unscathed.

In 2005 Roddick slumped following all those Federer thrashings but he still made the Semi's of the AO. Infact barring 05 Roddick didn't miss a quarter final at the USO from 2001 all the way up to 2009. He also lost some tight matches to Federer and Gasquet (who was playing his greatest match) in 2007. So all in all he was fairly consistant even outside of his best years.

Nadal was making multiple slam finals a year since 2006. He was unlucky at the hardcourt slams because he ran into on fire players like Gonzalez and Blake. Djokovic lost only to Nadal and Federer in slams in 2007 and was playing much better tennis than in 2010 and 2009.

There was also a more dangerous top 10 in those years. Agassi still played great at the slams especially the USO. You had Safin at the AO. Nalbandian at the AO was also excellent. Then there were other threats in the lower ranks, more more than today. You had young players like Berdych who didn't have his consistancy but was just as dangerous when he got hot. Blake who in 2005 was climbing after all his personal troubles etc...

There are litterally no threats to the top guys these days outside a few members of the top 10.

 

[jg153040]

You're talking about one year 2010, which I'm not saying is the most dominant season ever. I'm talking about an era 2003-2007. The consistency of Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal in those years nowhere near approaches the consistency of Federer, Djokovic, Murray from 2008-2013.

Hey, Fed had to play Murray and Djokovic too. Not just Rafa. Funny mentioning Murray as a competition to Rafa and yet they didn't play a single GS final. And haven't played for almost 3 years now. Yeah, Rafa had Fed but Fed had Rafa too, lol.

Haha, your reasoning is funny. Obviously Fed can't play against himself, so Rafa had it tougher. The same way Rafa had it easy on clay, because he didn't play 8 RG champions.

 

[drm025]

Consistency is critical for GOAT legacy, vs losing to past prime losers when you are at your best. I wasn't even talking about domination, I was just talking about beating old players when you are at your best which Nadal was incapable of in 2010.

Yes consistency is critical, which both Nadal and Fed have, I'm just saying Fed is the most consistent.

Also, why is Nadals 2010 season better than his 2013 season? I might argue for 2013, actually. But I'm assuming your picking 2010 because he won 3 slams, because that's what matters, that is the biggest stage. 3 slams in a row on different surfaces, wow wouldnt it be nice if Federer (the most versatile player) had done that?

 

[KillerServe]

Yes consistency is critical, which both Nadal and Fed have, I'm just saying Fed is the most consistent.

Also, why is Nadals 2010 season better than his 2013 season? I might argue for 2013, actually. But I'm assuming your picking 2010 because he won 3 slams, because that's what matters, that is the biggest stage. 3 slams in a row on different surfaces, wow wouldnt it be nice if Federer (the most versatile player) had done that?

Nicer is about all you can say. Pretty meaningless though. I'd rather have 3 slams/year multiple times no matter what surface they were on. Yes 2013 was a great year for Nadal too after having a nice 7 month vacation which no other player had access to.

 

[drm025]

Nicer is about all you can say. Pretty meaningless though. I'd rather have 3 slams/year multiple times no matter what surface they were on. Yes 2013 was a great year for Nadal too after having a nice 7 month vacation which no other player had access to.

They didn't have access? So they were forced to play tennis? Nadal had knee problems and wasn't afraid to take an extended break, because he his confident in his game and knows he can beat anyone.

Other players are probably too afraid to take that long of a break because they would miss precious opportunities to win more titles. Not Nadal.

 

[NatF]

Yes consistency is critical, which both Nadal and Fed have, I'm just saying Fed is the most consistent.

Also, why is Nadals 2010 season better than his 2013 season? I might argue for 2013, actually. But I'm assuming your picking 2010 because he won 3 slams, because that's what matters, that is the biggest stage. 3 slams in a row on different surfaces, wow wouldnt it be nice if Federer (the most versatile player) had done that?

Give Federer from 2005-2007, 2009, those draws and Federer would have won the Grand Slam. Nadal's draw to his FO title was the biggest joke I've ever seen. One single solitary top 10 player and one extra top 20 player lol.

Youzhny in the semi's of the USO and a Djokovic just off the back of his first top 10 win of season and a 5 setter in the final? Nadal capitalized on a very weak field, atleast Federer had a surface GOAT blocking his path at the French.

 

[jg153040]

Yes consistency is critical, which both Nadal and Fed have, I'm just saying Fed is the most consistent.

Also, why is Nadals 2010 season better than his 2013 season? I might argue for 2013, actually. But I'm assuming your picking 2010 because he won 3 slams, because that's what matters, that is the biggest stage. 3 slams in a row on different surfaces, wow wouldnt it be nice if Federer (the most versatile player) had done that?

USO and AO are very different. So, Fed sort of did it 3 times. While also making RG final and winning WTF. How more complete can you get?

Fed made at least 5 finals at AO,USO,RG,WTF,W. How much more versatile do you want? Who in the history has better record?

 

[drm025]

USO and AO are very different. So, Fed sort of did it 3 times. While also making RG final and winning WTF. How more complete can you get?

Fed made at least 5 finals at AO,USO,RG,WTF,W. How much more versatile do you want? Who in the history has better record?

I'm pretty sure I said Federer (the most versatile player).

I was only showing that Nadal is also versatile.

 

[KillerServe]

They didn't have access? So they were forced to play tennis? Nadal had knee problems and wasn't afraid to take an extended break, because he his confident in his game and knows he can beat anyone.

Other players are probably too afraid to take that long of a break because they would miss precious opportunities to win more titles. Not Nadal.

Fine then you can say most players play through injury, Nadal takes half year breaks at the slightest twitch. Has any other big 4 player taken off so much time? Only Murray recently who had a real operation, not knee massages.

 

[drm025]

Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi were very consistant in 04-05. In past era's players have been #1 winning less than what Nadal did in his early years.

Federer met Nadal 6 times in 2006, as many meetings as Djokovic/Nadal in 2011. Nadal was a strong #2 from the moment he arrived. The field was weaker in 2006 then the years before or after. But 2010 was also weak, Federer, Murray and Djokovic all declined immensely from their previous years level. Del Potro was injured and Davydenko fell off. You had Roddick and Ljubacic way past their best years contending for back to back masters titles taking out Nadal along the way.

The weak era theory is a myth.

From 2004-2007, Roddick win pct. is 78%, 236-68, Hewitt's in 75%, 173-58.

Any other Federer contemporaries who you want me to check on?

Again, they lacked consistency.

 

[NatF]

From 2004-2007, Roddick win pct. is 78%, 236-68, Hewitt's in 75%, 173-58.

Any other Federer contemporaries who you want me to check on?

Again, they lacked consistency.

I've never said Roddick and Hewitt was consistant in 04-07. I said they were consistant in 04-05. There was no lack of consistancy there. From 03-05 Roddick's win percent was 80%, higher than Djokovic's average from 08-10.

 

[drm025]

I've never said Roddick and Hewitt was consistant in 04-07. I said they were consistant in 04-05. There was no lack of consistancy there. From 03-05 Roddick's win percent was 80%, higher than Djokovic's average from 08-10.

Ok, were talking about Federer's dominant years though which were from 2004-2007.

Davydenko win pct. is 64%, 211-119
Nalbandian win pct. is 69%, 153-70
Safin win pct. is 63%, 137-79

Seriously though, who was consistent from 2004-2007? haha

Nadal win pct. is 82%, 238-54

Hmm, not too bad, so I guess leave it to Nadal from ages 17-21 to give some consistency.

 

[drm025]

I've never said Roddick and Hewitt was consistant in 04-07. I said they were consistant in 04-05. There was no lack of consistancy there. From 03-05 Roddick's win percent was 80%, higher than Djokovic's average from 08-10.

Let's get the rest of the top 4 players from 2004-2007

Blake: 66%, 163-83
Djokovic: 70%, 121-51

So, that covers all top 4 players from 2004-2007

Roddick: 78%
Hewitt: 75%
Safin: 63%
Nadal: 82%
Davydenko: 64%
Blake: 66%
Djokovic: 70%

Talk about consistency.

 

[NatF]

Ok, were talking about Federer's dominant years though which were from 2004-2007.

Davydenko win pct. is 64%, 211-119
Nalbandian win pct. is 69%, 153-70
Safin win pct. is 63%, 137-79

Seriously though, who was consistent from 2004-2007? haha

Nadal win pct. is 82%, 238-54

Hmm, not too bad, so I guess leave it to Nadal from ages 17-21 to give some consistency.

You're not worth talking to you. Should have given up on you 10 posts ago. I will finish with this.

Davydenko didn't become a top player until atleast 2005 and even then he was on a steady climb. If you want to assess his consistancy as a top player atleast do it from when he became a top player! Nalbandian was hit and miss but much more dangerous than most of the top 10 today. Safin was injured alot so had lots of early losses. He disappeared completely after the 2005 AO really. You're just twisting data here really. And it's pathetic.

Federer's main rivals in 2007 were Nadal, Djokovic and then Roddick. Also including Nadal's win percentage from 2004 before he was even a rival of Federer is dishonest.

My suggestion, is if you want to be less of a tool and appear less like a bias twit. Look at the yearly win loss records instead of lumping them all together. The top 10 flucated in Federer's best years, the top 10 of 2006 was almost completely different to 2004/2005. That doesn't mean the players who were on top in 04/05 weren't consistant for those years! At the end of the day does it matter if a player can't replicated their form from one year to the next? It certainly doesn't in the context of evaluating that year. Hewitt fading away in 2006 due to injuries doesn't mean he wasn't a very good play in the years previous.

2004-2005 were strong years, 2006 was alot weaker because many of the top players from the previous years were injured or slumping (like in 2010). The field grew stronger again in 2007 with Nadal and Djokovic playing some of their best tennis.

Just seen you've included James Blake and Djokovic win percent from 04-07, you've now completely proven you're an idiot well done. Djokovic who didn't become a top player till 2007 is now being judged as a rival from 04-07. And Blake's win percentage is being included, the man who in 2004;

"While practicing with Robby Ginepri for the Masters event in Rome, he broke his neck when he slipped on the clay and collided with the net post. In July, his father died of stomach cancer. At the same time, Blake developed shingles, which temporarily paralyzed half his face and blurred his sight."

You're including his results while recovering and while he tried to regain some ranking. For shame.

 

[Crisstti]

Nicer is about all you can say. Pretty meaningless though. I'd rather have 3 slams/year multiple times no matter what surface they were on. Yes 2013 was a great year for Nadal too after having a nice 7 month vacation which no other player had access to.

Lol at mentioning the injury lay off as somehow a good thing for Nadal. Yet Fed misses some training due to mono in 2009 and it affects his whole year according to some.

 

[TMF]

Lol at mentioning the injury lay off as somehow a good thing for Nadal. Yet Fed misses some training due to mono in 2009 and it affects his whole year according to some.

That's a lie. No one ever said Federer contracted mono in 2009.

 

[drm025]

You're not worth talking to you. Should have given up on you 10 posts ago. I will finish with this.

Davydenko didn't become a top player until atleast 2005 and even then he was on a steady climb. If you want to assess his consistancy as a top player atleast do it from when he became a top player! Nalbandian was hit and miss but much more dangerous than most of the top 10 today. Safin was injured alot so had lots of early losses. He disappeared completely after the 2005 AO really. You're just twisting data here really. And it's pathetic.

Federer's main rivals in 2007 were Nadal, Djokovic and then Roddick. Also including Nadal's win percentage from 2004 before he was even a rival of Federer is dishonest.

My suggestion, is if you want to be less of a tool and appear less like a bias twit. Look at the yearly win loss records instead of lumping them all together. The top 10 flucated in Federer's best years, the top 10 of 2006 was almost completely different to 2004/2005. That doesn't mean the players who were on top in 04/05 weren't consistant for those years! At the end of the day does it matter if a player can't replicated their form from one year to the next? It certainly doesn't in the context of evaluating that year. Hewitt fading away in 2006 due to injuries doesn't mean he wasn't a very good play in the years previous.

2004-2005 were strong years, 2006 was alot weaker because many of the top players from the previous years were injured or slumping (like in 2010). The field grew stronger again in 2007 with Nadal and Djokovic playing some of their best tennis.

Just seen you've included James Blake and Djokovic win percent from 04-07, you've now completely proven you're an idiot well done. Djokovic who didn't become a top player till 2007 is now being judged as a rival from 04-07. And Blake's win percentage is being included, the man who in 2004;

"While practicing with Robby Ginepri for the Masters event in Rome, he broke his neck when he slipped on the clay and collided with the net post. In July, his father died of stomach cancer. At the same time, Blake developed shingles, which temporarily paralyzed half his face and blurred his sight."

You're including his results while recovering and while he tried to regain some ranking. For shame.

Yes I am a tool and a bias twit when I say that Federer is the most versatile, the most consistent player, and at the moment considered the greatest player of this era, when I am not a Fed fan.

You can leave, but I will leave you with this:

Federer - 2004-2007

Other top 4 players win pct.:
Nadal (ages 17-21) - 82%
Roddick - 78%
Hewitt - 75%
Djokovic - 70%
Blake - 66%
Davydenko - 64%
Safin - 63%

Nadal 2008-2013

Other top 4 players win pct.:
Djokovic - 84%
Federer - 82%
Murray - 80%
Ferrer- 73%

Again, not knocking the talent during Fed's years, just knocking consistency, the top players today are way more consistent, whether it be due to homogenization, or whatever, they are more consistent. Therefore, it is harder to beat the top players. I'm not talking about top ten, I'm talking about the top players. The players that are winning titles.

 

[NatF]

That's a lie. No one ever said Federer contracted mono in 2009.

Actually I think it was a typo not a lie...

 

[Crisstti]

That's a lie. No one ever said Federer contracted mono in 2009.

2008. Whatever. My point stands.

 

[jg153040]

2008. Whatever. My point stands.

You are confusing facts with opinions.

Fed's level dropped due to mono = fact.

Using this as an excuse for his losses = opinion.

 

[Crisstti]

You are confusing facts with opinions.

Fed's level dropped due to mono = fact.

Using this as an excuse for his losses = opinion.

Fact: Federer missed no time from the tour due to mono. He missed some training that's all.

Fact: Nadal missed close to 8 months from the tour (and for the most part from training) due to his knee.

Fact: to claim Fed was negatively affected by his missed training and Rafa was helped by (MUCH larger) his missed training and playing is blatantly absurd.