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

[Graf=GOAT]

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.

Nadal was helped by the 8 month break because it gave him time to heal his physical injuries and recharge mentally, while Fed played on with mono in 2008, losing to players he shouldn't have, thus affecting his confidence.

If Federer had taken a break in early 2008, skipped the clay season to avoid the massacre in RG, he'd be in physical and mental shape to beat Nadal on grass and that confidence would have likely carried him to AO win as well. Instead he gets crushed at RG, narrowly loses Wimby and chokes 2009 AO.

 

[drm025]

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.

Anyone with an opinion on this?

 

[NatF]

Grrrr I'll bite one last time to try and get my message across;

IMO 2004-2005 were strong years, I won't argue too much about 2006 which was definately a step down.

The Win/loss percent for top players in 2004/2005 was (all rounded to the nearest percent);

Hewitt: 105-27 80%

Roddick: 133-32 81%

Agassi: 75-25 75%

Coria: 94-41 70%

Nalbandian: 78-33 70%


Some year specific numbers;

Moya 2004: 59-19 76%
Nadal 2005: 79-10 89%
Ljubicic 2005: 57-24 70%

As you can see there were plenty of consistant players during 04-05. Members of the top 10 varried abit but most of them maintained a high winning percentage of 70+% if that's what you think is the best measure of consistancy.

Roddick/Hewitt especially were frequently at the tail end of tournaments as their 80% win percentage shows. In 2005 Nadal burst onto the scene with a crazy win percentage of 89%. So there was consistancy for atleast a couple of years. I don't deny that 2006 was alot weaker, but a year is not an era.

In 2007:

Nadal: 70-15 82%
Djokovic: 68-19 78%

Considering that Ferrer is the #3 player this year I don't think Federer's best years minus 2006 come off that badly tbh. In 2010 Murray's win loss record was 46-18 for 70%. Djokovic was 61-18 for 77%. Federer was 65-13 for 83%. 2010 doesn't match up to 2004-2005.

 

[drm025]

Grrrr I'll bite one last time to try and get my message across;

IMO 2004-2005 were strong years, I won't argue too much about 2006 which was definately a step down.

The Win/loss percent for top players in 2004/2005 was (all rounded to the nearest percent);

Hewitt: 105-27 80%

Roddick: 133-32 81%

Agassi: 75-25 75%

Coria: 94-41 70%

Nalbandian: 78-33 70%


Some year specific numbers;

Moya 2004: 59-19 76%
Nadal 2005: 79-10 89%
Ljubicic 2005: 57-24 70%

As you can see there were plenty of consistant players during 04-05. Members of the top 10 varried abit but most of them maintained a high winning percentage of 70+% if that's what you think is the best measure of consistancy.

Roddick/Hewitt especially were frequently at the tail end of tournaments as their 80% win percentage shows. In 2005 Nadal burst onto the scene with a crazy win percentage of 89%. So there was consistancy for atleast a couple of years. I don't deny that 2006 was alot weaker, but a year is not an era.

In 2007:

Nadal: 70-15 82%
Djokovic: 68-19 78%

Considering that Ferrer is the #3 player this year I don't think Federer's best years minus 2006 come off that badly tbh. In 2010 Murray's win loss record was 46-18 for 70%. Djokovic was 61-18 for 77%. Federer was 65-13 for 83%. 2010 doesn't match up to 2004-2005.

Cherry-picking.

 

[NatF]

Cherry-picking.

I think you meant to say another word beginning with 'c' like concede maybe. Considering I just showed you that there were consisant players in Federer's best years. The fact that they weren't consistant for the whole 4 years stretch is irrelevent. Every year is different. In 2004 and 2005 there were consistant and dangerous opponents in the top 10 as much as any year since 2008 with the exceptions of 2011-2012. You seem fixed on forcusing on the records of players for the whole 4 stretch which ignores dips and highs in form from those players and different ones.

 

[drm025]

Let me add titles, since I don't think you're getting the point.

Federer - 2004-2007

Other top 4 players win pct.:
Nadal (ages 17-21) - 82% 3 GS, 9 masters (9 of these titles on clay)
Roddick - 78% 0 GS, 2 masters
Hewitt - 75% 0 GS, 0 masters
Djokovic - 70% 0 GS, 2 masters
Blake - 66% 0 GS, 0 masters
Davydenko - 64% 0 GS, 1 masters
Safin - 63% 1 GS, 2 masters

Nadal 2008-2013

Other top 4 players win pct.:
Djokovic - 84% 6 GS, 14 masters
Federer - 82% 5 GS, 7 masters
Murray - 80% 2 GS, 9 masters
Ferrer- 73% 0 GS, 1 master

Sure, 2008-2013 is a longer time to get titles, but Federer's prime was only 2004-2007.

 

[drm025]

dips and highs in form from those players and different ones.

I would say this is equivalent to inconsistency..... Which is all I'm saying. 2008-2013 is a longer span and 3 players other than Nadal have had 80% win percentage.

 

[NatF]

If you're going to compare the number of titles won atleast make it far, you're comparing 4 years to 5!

Your method also ignores;

- The fact that Safin was injured in 2005 (and parts of 2004) and his career as top player was ended.
- Hewitt suffered injuries and was never said after 2005.
- Blake was nearly crippled in 2004
- Djokovic wasn't a top player until 2007.
- Davydenko wasn't a top player until 2005.
- Nadal was a top player in 2005.

So your analysis is ladden with bias. You talk about comparing top players, then look at their win percentage outside of the years when they were actually top players! Then you come your conclusions about consistency and act like I don't get it.

You want to do a serious comparison (which is clearly not your agenda) then look at the win percentage of those players when they were actually ranked in the top 4. Otherwise you're criticizing them for not having the consistancy of a top 4 player when they're ranked #20 and lower! Which hardly seems far does it?

Federer's prime was 2003 to 2009 BTW.

Dips and highs caused by injuries is inconsistancy? What baring does it have on 2005 if Hewitt becomes injured? Does it mean he wasn't a great player the year before? It's nonsensical. You're not even trying to discuss my points. You're just posting the same refutted nonsense.

 

[drm025]

If you're going to compare the number of titles won atleast make it far, you're comparing 4 years to 5!

Your method also ignores;

- The fact that Safin was injured in 2005 (and parts of 2004) and his career as top player was ended.
- Hewitt suffered injuries and was never said after 2005.
- Blake was nearly crippled in 2004
- Djokovic wasn't a top player until 2007.
- Davydenko wasn't a top player until 2005.
- Nadal was a top player in 2005.

So your analysis is ladden with bias. You talk about comparing top players, then look at their win percentage outside of the years when they were actually top players! Then you come your conclusions about consistency and act like I don't get it.

You want to do a serious comparison (which is clearly not your agenda) then look at the win percentage of those players when they were actually ranked in the top 4. Otherwise you're criticizing them for not having the consistancy of a top 4 player when they're ranked #20 and lower! Which hardly seems far does it?

Federer's prime was 2003 to 2009 BTW.

Dips and highs caused by injuries is inconsistancy? What baring does it have on 2005 if Hewitt becomes injured? Does it mean he wasn't a great player the year before? It's nonsensical. You're not even trying to discuss my points. You're just posting the same refutted nonsense.

My argument is that those players were inconsistent during the entirety of Federers reign from 2004-2007. You can pick out years here and there that were good for a certain player but that doesn't change the fact that they could not consistently challenge Federer during those years.

How can you argue consistency while talking about only certain periods of time. Consistency is developed over a long period of time.

And if this timeframe was not the peak for any other player, then Federer's peak matches up with no one else's.

 

[jg153040]

Let me add titles, since I don't think you're getting the point.

Federer - 2004-2007

Other top 4 players win pct.:
Nadal (ages 17-21) - 82% 3 GS, 9 masters (9 of these titles on clay)
Roddick - 78% 0 GS, 2 masters
Hewitt - 75% 0 GS, 0 masters
Djokovic - 70% 0 GS, 2 masters
Blake - 66% 0 GS, 0 masters
Davydenko - 64% 0 GS, 1 masters
Safin - 63% 1 GS, 2 masters

Nadal 2008-2013

Other top 4 players win pct.:
Djokovic - 84% 6 GS, 14 masters
Federer - 82% 5 GS, 7 masters
Murray - 80% 2 GS, 9 masters
Ferrer- 73% 0 GS, 1 master

Sure, 2008-2013 is a longer time to get titles, but Federer's prime was only 2004-2007.

What's your point? You are just using circular reasoning. Nobody can prove if Fed's competition improved or he declined or both. You are just using a lot of smoke. But this is basically just another attempt at using "weak era" fallacy.
You just do it with more style, massaging numbers a bit more, but in the end it's the same.

 

[NatF]

My argument is that those players were inconsistent during the entirety of Federers reign from 2004-2007. You can pick out years here and there that were good for a certain player but that doesn't change the fact that they could not consistently challenge Federer during those years.

How can you argue consistency while talking about only certain periods of time. Consistency is developed over a long period of time.

Why does it matter if there was a set group of 3 individuals challenging Federer? Why is that better than having a changing group of top players who all still reach the same heights?

Just because player A is consistant doesn't mean he's necessarily a challenge either. Every year is different, injuries form etc...they all have an effect on level of player. Murray and Djokovic are highly regarded generally because of what they accomplished from 2011 onwards. Yet you include them in years like 2010 where they were quite frankly rather weak.

There's no set time period for consistancy. You can talk about consistancy in many senses. If I choose to reflect on each year individually and the players that were playing well why is that wrong? Surely it makes more sense to judge each year on it's merits rather than picking 4 year and then 5 year periods and judging a player on his win/loss ranking years before he even plays Federer!

 

[drm025]

My point is that Federer's results have been more affected by the rise of better players than a decline due to his age. Obviously Federer wasn't playing the same as 2006, but no player plays exactly the same level year after year. I think most rational people believe it has to do with both. But, I'm trying to say that the caliber of players improved, more so than Fed declined.

 

[KillerServe]

Federer's play was more affect by his decline than the rise of other players which affected his results minimally. The proof is Federer's own generation past prime owning Nadal in his best year.

 

[drm025]

Federer's play was more affect by his decline than the rise of other players which affected his results minimally. The proof is Federer's own generation past prime owning Nadal in his best year.

How do I turn this loop off? lol Get one other person to back you up in saying that Nadal was owned in any way in the year 2010.

That's all I really have to say on this matter. Can someone please back me up here?

Was Nadal owned by past-prime players from Fed's generation in 2010?

 

[drm025]

Why does it matter if there was a set group of 3 individuals challenging Federer? Why is that better than having a changing group of top players who all still reach the same heights?

Just because player A is consistant doesn't mean he's necessarily a challenge either. Every year is different, injuries form etc...they all have an effect on level of player. Murray and Djokovic are highly regarded generally because of what they accomplished from 2011 onwards. Yet you include them in years like 2010 where they were quite frankly rather weak.

There's no set time period for consistancy. You can talk about consistancy in many senses. If I choose to reflect on each year individually and the players that were playing well why is that wrong? Surely it makes more sense to judge each year on it's merits rather than picking 4 year and then 5 year periods and judging a player on his win/loss ranking years before he even plays Federer!

All I know is people talk about Federer's prime not matching up with Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, so they are not his main rivals.

Then who did his prime years (2004-2007) match up with?

Roddick's best year was 2003
Hewitt's best years were 2001-2002
Davydenko achieved his best results from 2008-2009
Safin was mainly done after 2005
Blake's best year, 2006, he lost 25 times
Nadal broke out in 2005 and was strong on clay from 2005-2007
Djokovic had some strong performances in 2007, beating both Nadal and Federer in Canada.

Whereas from 2008-2013, Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, and Murray have all had sustained periods of consistent results at the same time. 80+% win pct. and at least 11 big titles for each player.

I'd say that's more competition at the top.

 

[jg153040]

All I know is people talk about Federer's prime not matching up with Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, so they are not his main rivals.

Then who did his prime years (2004-2007) match up with?

Roddick's best year was 2003
Hewitt's best years were 2001-2002
Davydenko achieved his best results from 2008-2009
Safin was mainly done after 2005
Blake's best year, 2006, he lost 25 times
Nadal broke out in 2005 and was strong on clay from 2005-2007
Djokovic had some strong performances in 2007, beating both Nadal and Federer in Canada.

Whereas from 2008-2013, Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, and Murray have all had sustained periods of consistent results at the same time. 80+% win pct. and at least 11 big titles for each player.

I'd say that's more competition at the top.

Who says consistency means more competition? I think those guys from Fed's era were much more dangerous. Different styles and surfaces. You didn't know who will be in finals, you had to adjust. Anyone could be in a final/semi.

And Nadal won most of his majors before 2011. At the time Murray and Nole didn't have any majors yet. Fed and Rafa both won most of their majors between 2005-2010.

How can you say Fed didn't decline much? After AO 2010, he won one major in four years. Before he was winning 3 majors / year.

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

 

[KillerServe]

How do I turn this loop off? lol Get one other person to back you up in saying that Nadal was owned in any way in the year 2010.

That's all I really have to say on this matter. Can someone please back me up here?

Was Nadal owned by past-prime players from Fed's generation in 2010?

I don't need anyone to back me up. The facts bear it out. He was beaten by old timers way past their prime at his peak. Nuff said.

 

[drm025]

Who says consistency means more competition? I think those guys from Fed's era were much more dangerous. Different styles and surfaces. You didn't know who will be in finals, you had to adjust. Anyone could be in a final/semi.

And Nadal won most of his majors before 2011. At the time Murray and Nole didn't have any majors yet. Fed and Rafa both won most of their majors between 2005-2010.

How can you say Fed didn't decline much? After AO 2010, he won one major in four years. Before he was winning 3 majors / year.

Well the top players today are more consistent and have won more, so how do you rationalize that Fed's generation were better players?

It's interesting how 4 players dominating means the field is weak, but 1 player dominating means the field is strong. Especially when that field changes, and that one player is no longer solely dominant.

 

[Chanwan]

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.

Of course he did - and to a much higher degree than Nadal from 2008-2013. You realize, your talking about 2004-2009 here?

 

[drm025]

I don't need anyone to back me up. The facts bear it out. He was beaten by old timers way past their prime at his peak. Nuff said.

A single loss in a season to a player in a non-GS means nothing to me and I think most people, so you can say that as much as you want.

It depends on whether you prefer those losses or losses to a much less-experienced 20 year old. Pick your poison.

 

[Chanwan]

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.

Nor were those Roddick's best years. And no, that is by no means agreed. If Davy-Nadal met on HC, would you really give Nadal the 80-20 advantage given he trails 6-1 on that surface? The h2h's are close for a reason. And 9 and 11 matches in both rivalries are enough for a trend.

 

[Chanwan]

A single loss in a season to a player in a non-GS means nothing to me and I think most people, so you can say that as much as you want.

Am I on your ignore list for some unknown reason - post 73 reprinted below:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by drm025 View Post

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?"

Response
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 (and this is to your general framework in the thread - i.e. the way you are using your stats)
But it's also a bit arbitrary to exclude his main rivals in your stats. He has worse results now
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""

 

[drm025]

Of course he did - and to a much higher degree than Nadal from 2008-2013. You realize, your talking about 2004-2009 here?

Dude, I think you're right with that one, I figured out I messed up after I posted, haha lot of numbers. Either way, I guess the main point was that Nadal has in fact shown a certain level of dominance since he gained the number 1 ranking, that a lot of people don't really credit him with.

 

[KillerServe]

A single loss in a season to a player in a non-GS means nothing to me and I think most people, so you can say that as much as you want.

It depends on whether you prefer those losses or losses to a much less-experienced 20 year old. Pick your poison.

Sure a single loss. But it wasn't a single loss. It was FIVE losses to old men from Fed's era

 

[drm025]

Am I on your ignore list for some unknown reason - post 73 reprinted below:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by drm025 View Post

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?"

Response
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""

How is this relevant to what you quoted? Can you just respond more concisely? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[Chanwan]

How is this relevant to what you quoted? Can you just respond more concisely? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

It's not relevant to what I quoted, but I've posted that response to you twice in the thread already without an answer - so I figured I would just repost it to your newest post - which the relevant posts from you inside my post.

I'll make your posts easier to see - just a sec.

 

[drm025]

Nor were those Roddick's best years. And no, that is by no means agreed. If Davy-Nadal met on HC, would you really give Nadal the 80-20 advantage given he trails 6-1 on that surface? The h2h's are close for a reason. And 9 and 11 matches in both rivalries are enough for a trend.

It's not a trend when the H2H's are 1 match apart. That means the outcome of one match could have changed the entire H2H. It's also not significant when the H2Hs are 1-1 and 0-0 in GSs and when you are talking about non-greats such as Roddick and Davydenko.

 

[jg153040]

Well the top players today are more consistent and have won more, so how do you rationalize that Fed's generation were better players?

It's interesting how 4 players dominating means the field is weak, but 1 player dominating means the field is strong. Especially when that field changes, and that one player is no longer solely dominant.

Since when is 4 players the field? The field is all players.

This strong/weak is relative anyway. It's just what world you use. Nadal doesn't beat any RG champs on clay, so the field is weak. Or, he is that dominant? Fed's competition looks bad, because he is too dominant. It's just how you phrase it, basically.

And numbers don't mean anything for current form anyway. Djokovic has 6 HC majors. How can you prove his level was higher than let's say Gonzo in AO 07 final? I mean accomplished players can play at a lower level on any given day and journeymen can play at an amazing level. Rosol vs Rafa? Soderling FO 09?

How do you know Rafa was playing badly or Rosol playing at a GS level? Since you can compare them only to each other. Maybe Rosol made Rafa play badly.

I thought you were too smart to use circular reasoning. Why do you use it? You seem way too smart for that.

 

[jhhachamp]

All I know is people talk about Federer's prime not matching up with Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, so they are not his main rivals.

Then who did his prime years (2004-2007) match up with?

Roddick's best year was 2003
Hewitt's best years were 2001-2002
Davydenko achieved his best results from 2008-2009
Safin was mainly done after 2005
Blake's best year, 2006, he lost 25 times
Nadal broke out in 2005 and was strong on clay from 2005-2007
Djokovic had some strong performances in 2007, beating both Nadal and Federer in Canada.

Federer was extremely dominant from 2004-2007, which is why many players appeared to have better years outside of those years. Make no mistake, all of the players you listed played a high level of tennis during 2004-2007.

 

[Chanwan]

Dude, I think you're right with that one, I figured out I messed up after I posted, haha lot of numbers. Either way, I guess the main point was that Nadal has in fact shown a certain level of dominance since he gained the number 1 ranking, that a lot of people don't really credit him with.

It's all good. And it's true, 3 year end No. 1 out of six, most slams, most Masters, most weeks at No. 1. Nadal has surely been the best player since 2008 and has showed a certain level of dominance in this period.

But you could also view it as him being the best player from 2008-2010 (somewhat ahead of Fed) and Novak being the best player from 2011-2013 (somewhat ahead of Nadal).

 

[jg153040]

Sure a single loss. But it wasn't a single loss. It was FIVE losses to old men from Fed's era

I hate Nadal fans skewing numbers and applying different set of rules for Rafa.

When Fed dominates, it's a weak field. When Rafa beats 0 RG champs at RG, it means he is the goat.

Newbs, lol.

 

[Chanwan]

It's not a trend when the H2H's are 1 match apart. That means the outcome of one match could have changed the entire H2H. It's also not significant when the H2Hs are 1-1 and 0-0 in GSs and when you are talking about non-greats such as Roddick and Davydenko.

I didn't mean trend in that sense - but in the sense that we can trust the results okay as they played enough matches. But that they are pretty even in those matches. So - no clear trend in the sense of one being better than the other. But trend that they are pretty much equal in the h2h

 

[drm025]

It's all good. And it's true, 3 year end No. 1 out of six, most slams, most Masters, most weeks at No. 1. Nadal has surely been the best player since 2008 and has showed a certain level of dominance in this period.

But you could also view it as him being the best player from 2008-2010 (somewhat ahead of Fed) and Novak being the best player from 2011-2013 (somewhat ahead of Nadal).

True, and I didn't mean to ignore your posts, you are one of the most reasonable posters I have seen on this thread. There's just been a lot of posts....

 

[drm025]

I didn't mean trend in that sense - but in the sense that we can trust the results okay as they played enough matches. But that they are pretty even in those matches. So - no clear trend in the sense of one being better than the other. But trend that they are pretty much equal in the h2h

I'd need to see more GS matches for it to be significant to me, that's just my opinion.

 

[Chanwan]

I'd need to see more GS matches for it to be significant to me, that's just my opinion.

Fair enough. I would have loved to see Davy-Rafa in a hard court slam. I think Davy could give Rafa a run for his money. Remember how well he was playing against Fed in AO 2010? And that was one of Federer's best tournaments in recent years.

And no worries about the ignored posts - just found it odd given how active you were with the rest of the posters.

I can wait - but would like to hear your response, when you have the time.

 

[eldanger25]

This whole topic is derived from people defining prime subjectively instead according to a clear definition applied to all players. You can't just define "prime" according to accomplishments - you've got to pick some objective time period and then look at it.

I think there are basically three options for what prime means:

1. A player's twenties - from their 20th birthday (or the calendar season they turned 20) until the day before their 30th birthday (or the calendar season they turned 30). This draws in early and late bloomers, and lets you compare rivals who're several years apart (like Fed and Nadal, or Connors and McEnroe). But it also could draw in some pretty raw years on one end and/or declining results on the other.

2. Ages 23 - 27 (same as above - first day of age 23 until last day of age 27, or the accompanying tennis seasons). This encompasses the usual time period when athleticism and experience/wisdom intersect at their highest plane. But it can be limiting, and can exclude some real peaks on both sides (like Nadal in 2008, Connors in 1974 and 1982, Agassi in 1999, a big chunk of Pete's 1993/94 run, etc.).

3. Ages 22 - 28 (same protocol as above) - this splits the difference between the two other options, and lets you draw in age 22, often when a great player is just harnessing his brilliance (think Fed in the first half of 2004, Borg in the summer of 1978), as well as age 28, when a great player can still compete physically with the young guns and has the peak experience to "find solutions," in Nadal's famous phrase, over the course of matches and tournaments.

So you could define Fed's prime as:

1. Roughly US Open 2001 through US Open 2011 - 20 to 29. This has a fun narrative - Djokovic put the last nail in the coffin of Fed's prime with his MP return a few years ago - but probably is too all-encompassing.

2. Roughly US Open 2004 through US Open 2009 - ages 23 to 27. This is the most favorable to Fed, and seems to correspond with his results/consistency at the majors (winner or finalist at every major during this time period besides AO '05 and 08 and RG '05), starting with him demolishing Hewitt in 2004 and including his indian summer of 2009, with the return to number 1, the long-desired RG/Channel Slam, big titles on all 3 surfaces, and honorable battles with Rafa and JMDP in Melbourne and Queens.

3. Roughly US Open 2003 through US Open 2010 - ages 22 to 28. This draws in his wonderful results at age 22 - taking flight at YEC '03, AO '04, and leaving Roddick/Hewitt/Safin behind during the first half of 2004 - as well as his near-dominant run in Melbourne 2010; but it also includes more patches of inconsistency and disappointment during the first half of 2010.

Anyway, I'd use this criteria - rather than Nadal starting to out-perform him consistently enough to take the number 1 ranking - to see where Fed's level started to decline. Options 2 or 3 - ages 23 to 27 or 22 - 28 - seems about right to me. I could be talked into 22 - 27 as well.

By the way, if you go by athletic prime as 23-27, then Rafa and Fed never played during each other's prime (which only intersected during Nadal's injury-riddled summer of 2009). If you go by 22-28, then you've got Rafa's 3 famous wins at RG and SW19 '08 and Melbourne '09, as well as Fed's victory in Rafa's backyard after the latter's draining SF with Djoker.

 

[drm025]

Response
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.

So what if Federer beat Soderling 12 times in a row? (it wasn't 13) You cant expect someone to never lose to a player ever, thats unrealistic if you ask me. They had only played once at Roland Garros and that was the year before in Soderling's first GS final after beating Nadal, so you could expect nerves. Obviously, that sparked a good stretch for him as he was ranked no. 5 by the 2010 French. So he was top-5, the reigning finalist, and the only player in history to beat Nadal at the French open. If that's a bad loss, then your expectations are ridiculously high if you ask me.

For me, I just cannot say that Fed's level was significantly affected in 2008 when he made AO SFs, RG finals, Wimby finals (regarded as best match in history) and winning USO. Sure, he could have had to take it easier due to the disease at the smaller events, explaining the odd losses. But the GS performances tell me that in the big moments he still had the ability to play high-level tennis when he needed to. Not saying there was no effect, saying that it was not significant, and many players play with minor issues. The final at Wimbledon 2007 proved that Nadal could stick with Federer on grass.

 

[KillerServe]

as well as Fed's victory in Rafa's backyard after the latter's draining SF with Djoker.

Don't forget for Fed the after effects of mono in 08 and the back problems at AO09.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Oh yeah. Mono, the silent slam killer.

 

[KillerServe]

Me Rafa Nadal. Me tired. Me no win. Boo hoo hoo. Me take 7 months off, Me tired

 

[drm025]

But it's also a bit arbitrary to exclude his main rivals in your stats. He has worse results now
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""

I agree that worse results after 2007 would be due to both rivals improving and Fed declining, but I think the curve for improving is much sharper than the curve for declining. I don't think you can be as dominant as Federer was from 2004-2007 and just lose it suddenly the next year.

As for the performance against top ten players in 2008, as you said he had mono. But like I said, the GS performances to me show that he could pull out high-level tennis when he wanted. I would say some of the losses in the smaller tournament especially early in the year were due to him not wanting to push himself when he's not feeling 100%. That does not indicate a decline in his level due to age, for me.

Later in the year, you have the loss to Blake at the olympics. Which again, Federer had never loss to him, but I don't see how you can expect Federer to never ever lose to a quality player. I've seen the match, Blake was apparently extra motivated to be representing his country at the olympics and played at a very high level. He had a couple losses to Simon, but this was his best year, finishing the top 8, and why Simon was even at the WTFs to play Federer. They had never played before, so it's not like Fed had dominated him before 2008, and the match at the AO 2011 showed that Simon's game could cause problems for Fed when he was completely healthy. Murray clearly was improving by 2008, made the USO final his first GS final, and had beaten Federer before.

So, overall I don't see a sudden decline in Fed's level in 2008, I see some other circumstances.

 

[drm025]

Oh yeah. Mono, the silent slam killer.

I've actually been waiting for you to show up on this thread, haha. Can you please talk some sense into KillerServe for me? I've been dying over here, lol.

 

[drm025]

This whole topic is derived from people defining prime subjectively instead according to a clear definition applied to all players. You can't just define "prime" according to accomplishments - you've got to pick some objective time period and then look at it.

I think there are basically three options for what prime means:

1. A player's twenties - from their 20th birthday (or the calendar season they turned 20) until the day before their 30th birthday (or the calendar season they turned 30). This draws in early and late bloomers, and lets you compare rivals who're several years apart (like Fed and Nadal, or Connors and McEnroe). But it also could draw in some pretty raw years on one end and/or declining results on the other.

2. Ages 23 - 27 (same as above - first day of age 23 until last day of age 27, or the accompanying tennis seasons). This encompasses the usual time period when athleticism and experience/wisdom intersect at their highest plane. But it can be limiting, and can exclude some real peaks on both sides (like Nadal in 2008, Connors in 1974 and 1982, Agassi in 1999, a big chunk of Pete's 1993/94 run, etc.).

3. Ages 22 - 28 (same protocol as above) - this splits the difference between the two other options, and lets you draw in age 22, often when a great player is just harnessing his brilliance (think Fed in the first half of 2004, Borg in the summer of 1978), as well as age 28, when a great player can still compete physically with the young guns and has the peak experience to "find solutions," in Nadal's famous phrase, over the course of matches and tournaments.

So you could define Fed's prime as:

1. Roughly US Open 2001 through US Open 2011 - 20 to 29. This has a fun narrative - Djokovic put the last nail in the coffin of Fed's prime with his MP return a few years ago - but probably is too all-encompassing.

2. Roughly US Open 2004 through US Open 2009 - ages 23 to 27. This is the most favorable to Fed, and seems to correspond with his results/consistency at the majors (winner or finalist at every major during this time period besides AO '05 and 08 and RG '05), starting with him demolishing Hewitt in 2004 and including his indian summer of 2009, with the return to number 1, the long-desired RG/Channel Slam, big titles on all 3 surfaces, and honorable battles with Rafa and JMDP in Melbourne and Queens.

3. Roughly US Open 2003 through US Open 2010 - ages 22 to 28. This draws in his wonderful results at age 22 - taking flight at YEC '03, AO '04, and leaving Roddick/Hewitt/Safin behind during the first half of 2004 - as well as his near-dominant run in Melbourne 2010; but it also includes more patches of inconsistency and disappointment during the first half of 2010.

Anyway, I'd use this criteria - rather than Nadal starting to out-perform him consistently enough to take the number 1 ranking - to see where Fed's level started to decline. Options 2 or 3 - ages 23 to 27 or 22 - 28 - seems about right to me. I could be talked into 22 - 27 as well.

By the way, if you go by athletic prime as 23-27, then Rafa and Fed never played during each other's prime (which only intersected during Nadal's injury-riddled summer of 2009). If you go by 22-28, then you've got Rafa's 3 famous wins at RG and SW19 '08 and Melbourne '09, as well as Fed's victory in Rafa's backyard after the latter's draining SF with Djoker.

You can't just choose ages to define a prime, because it's different for every player. Look at the 2 players that everyone has been talking about, Federer and Nadal.

I, personally, don't know how there can be a specific time when you enter your prime and a specific time when you just aren't there anymore. It has to be more gradual than that.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

You can't just choose ages to define a prime, because it's different for every player. Look at the 2 players that everyone has been talking about, Federer and Nadal.

I, personally, don't know how there can be a specific time when you enter your prime and a specific time when you just aren't there anymore. It has to be more gradual than that.

You are absolutely right. Players also can catch a second wind, like Fed did in 2012 even after their "prime" officially ends.

 

[eldanger25]

You can't just choose ages to define a prime, because it's different for every player. Look at the 2 players that everyone has been talking about, Federer and Nadal.

I, personally, don't know how there can be a specific time when you enter your prime and a specific time when you just aren't there anymore. It has to be more gradual than that.

That's precisely why you choose an age range and try to compare. Otherwise these comparisons eventually fall apart.

 

[eldanger25]

You are absolutely right. Players also can catch a second wind, like Fed did in 2012 even after their "prime" officially ends.

Players can achieve great things before, during, and after their athletic "prime." The greats almost always do.

 

[drm025]

Players can achieve great things before, during, and after their athletic "prime." The greats almost always do.

If you can do great things before, during, and after that what in the world is the point of determining a player's prime and how do you know it even exists?

 

[eldanger25]

If you can do great things before, during, and after that what in the world is the point of determining a player's prime and how do you know it even exists?

Lots of ways, but a dumbed down way is to figure out roughly at what time of life athletes' minds and bodies are at their sharpest at around the same time. There'll always be outliers - guys like Borg and Nadal who were physical freaks and mentally tough right off the bat as teens, and guys like Connors whose will was so tremendous he was competing with guys 10 years younger (and far fresher athletically) at semifinals and finals in the mid 1980s during his mid 30s. There are also guys like Agassi and Haas whose distractions or injuries left them fresher later in their careers.

But for the vast majority of the tens of thousands of guys who tried to make it in professional tennis, there's usually a time period (roughly, mid 20s) when mind and body are in sync. That's the mythical "prime."

Otherwise you might as well swap the word "prime" for "resume." Using age ranges is imperfect, but it's more interesting to me than just throwing numbers around without context and syncing "prime" to best results.

Fed reclaiming #1 in 2012 is a huge part of his legacy precisely because it was years after his prime ended, and he passed three guys still in theirs (though Nadal was hurt). It wasn't a "second" prime. Just like a huge part of Nadal's legacy is him streaking out the gate in his teens well before he had the experience to peak as a tactician/problem solver. He was just that good that quickly.

 

[Chanwan]

So what if Federer beat Soderling 12 times in a row? (it wasn't 13) You cant expect someone to never lose to a player ever, thats unrealistic if you ask me. They had only played once at Roland Garros and that was the year before in Soderling's first GS final after beating Nadal, so you could expect nerves. Obviously, that sparked a good stretch for him as he was ranked no. 5 by the 2010 French. So he was top-5, the reigning finalist, and the only player in history to beat Nadal at the French open. If that's a bad loss, then your expectations are ridiculously high if you ask me.

For me, I just cannot say that Fed's level was significantly affected in 2008 when he made AO SFs, RG finals, Wimby finals (regarded as best match in history) and winning USO. Sure, he could have had to take it easier due to the disease at the smaller events, explaining the odd losses. But the GS performances tell me that in the big moments he still had the ability to play high-level tennis when he needed to. Not saying there was no effect, saying that it was not significant, and many players play with minor issues. The final at Wimbledon 2007 proved that Nadal could stick with Federer on grass.

Regarding the first bolded part, it is and it isn't. Federer is 16-1 against Söderling (4-1 on clay) having lost exactly one!! set outside that RG match (US Open 2009 in a 8-6 in a TB). And Fed was the reigning champion and four time reigning finalist.
So given that he had one the previous 23 matches in slam quarterfinals, it is a bad loss against a player he owned before and even after that match.
And so is the loss against Berdych.

As for the latter bolded part, Federer was so dominant in 2004-2007 that he's 95 % (or whatever the percentage was) in 2008 was still good enough to make it to those big matches, but not enough to keep winning.
Remember, the 2008 W-final was decided 9-7 in the fifth. If you do admit there was an effect, then those are the very tight matches that get affected by that effect.
And yes, Nadal showed the year before, he was ready to compete on grass. I just don't think he would have overtaken him quite yet had Federer's season not been so subpar prior to Wimbledon. And had Federer been able to put in a more decent performance at the FO final thus not giving Nadal as big a confidence boost as he got and himself as big a confidence breaker as he got. Those are the things that decide tight matches like that Wimbledon-final.