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

[Chanwan]

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.

As for the first bolded part, I don't think you're completely right.
Think McEnroe in 85 (and the rest of his career), think Wilander in 89 (and the rest of his career). Think Sampras' big drop in 01. There are losts of such instances, each having their specific reasons.

As for this particular instance, I think what partly caused it was the effect of mono. Sure, other players improved too. As for whether it was age related or not, I'm not saying it was primarily age-related. Rather, I'm saying that he was young enough to stay on top of his rivals regardless of his age. But that an outside factor - mono - interrupted his 'prime' or whatever we shall call it and made him weaker than he otherwise would have been at that age.

In effect, I'm saying that had Federer not had mono, I would have expected his '2008 year' to have happened a year or two later.

And yes, he could 'push' himself and get extra motivated for the slams. And there probably was a whole lot of fear factor acting in his favor as well. But that still doesn't mean that he played at the same level in the slams - just that his best was still better than 98 % of the other players.

 

[drm025]

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.

You point out things that make it look like a bad loss and ignore the things that suggest otherwise (Soderling is the only man to ever beat Nadal at the French the previous year, making the final, and entered the 2010 French ranked 20 spots higher than the year before, clearly having improved his game) I could see it being a bad loss if Federer just didn't show up, but if I remember correctly Soderling brought it to him and clearly had the power necessary to dominate against anyone.

If Federer really lacked confidence against Nadal no way he comes back from 2 sets down, saving MPs against Nadal at Wimbledon. Federer clearly showed resolve and confidence to take the match to deep in the 5th set, which is why its considered the greatest match ever, both players giving their all and playing at a high level. Sure, you can think Nadal still wouldn't have overtaken him, but there is clearly no way to know. Nadal already took him to a 5th set the year before, and had clearly improved, so don't know how you can predict who would win the next year.

 

[drm025]

As for the first bolded part, I don't think you're completely right.
Think McEnroe in 85 (and the rest of his career), think Wilander in 89 (and the rest of his career). Think Sampras' big drop in 01. There are losts of such instances, each having their specific reasons.

As for this particular instance, I think what partly caused it was the effect of mono. Sure, other players improved too. As for whether it was age related or not, I'm not saying it was primarily age-related. Rather, I'm saying that he was young enough to stay on top of his rivals regardless of his age. But that an outside factor - mono - interrupted his 'prime' or whatever we shall call it and made him weaker than he otherwise would have been at that age.

In effect, I'm saying that had Federer not had mono, I would have expected his '2008 year' to have happened a year or two later.

And yes, he could 'push' himself and get extra motivated for the slams. And there probably was a whole lot of fear factor acting in his favor as well. But that still doesn't mean that he played at the same level in the slams - just that his best was still better than 98 % of the other players.

Did any of those players win 11 slams in a 4 year period? No, they didn't. That's a different kind of domination that we haven't seen before. By saying that a minor case of mono was the reason he could never get it back, you are saying that his dominance was incredibly fragile. For me, it would mean that that level was not sustainable. Sure, 4 years is a long time, but to be that dominant and just suddenly lose it doesn't make as much sense to me as other Tier 1 players (who even caused some problems for Federer during those 4 years) fully maturing and improving. For me, the curve for improving is more exponential and the curve for declining would be much more gradual. Unless that peak level was not sustainable.

 

[Chanwan]

You point out things that make it look like a bad loss and ignore the things that suggest otherwise (Soderling is the only man to ever beat Nadal at the French the previous year, making the final, and entered the 2010 French ranked 20 spots higher than the year before, clearly having improved his game) I could see it being a bad loss if Federer just didn't show up, but if I remember correctly Soderling brought it to him and clearly had the power necessary to dominate against anyone.

If Federer really lacked confidence against Nadal no way he comes back from 2 sets down, saving MPs against Nadal at Wimbledon. Federer clearly showed resolve and confidence to take the match to deep in the 5th set, which is why its considered the greatest match ever, both players giving their all and playing at a high level. Sure, you can think Nadal still wouldn't have overtaken him, but there is clearly no way to know. Nadal already took him to a 5th set the year before, and had clearly improved, so don't know how you can predict who would win the next year.
......

Did any of those players win 11 slams in a 4 year period? No, they didn't. That's a different kind of domination that we haven't seen before. By saying that a minor case of mono was the reason he could never get it back, you are saying that his dominance was incredibly fragile. For me, it would mean that that level was not sustainable. Sure, 4 years is a long time, but to be that dominant and just suddenly lose it doesn't make as much sense to me as other Tier 1 players (who even caused some problems for Federer during those 4 years) fully maturing and improving. For me, the curve for improving is more exponential and the curve for declining would be much more gradual. Unless that peak level was not sustainable.

As for the bolded part, you could also argue that if Federer had confidence against Nadal, he does not go down 2 sets to love at Wimbledon in the first place, I would think.
But clearly, there's no way of knowing - you have your reasons, I have mine. that's the best we've got. And I didn't say he would def. win. But I do think, he would have.

And for the other players raising their level, clearly there's some of that too as I've also said in previous posts. I just think that there's also some of the mono involved and - opposite to you - that that was a significant factor in the drop in his level. If would have happened eventually anyhow, but not that soon.
I basically think that Federer at 26-27 would have been good enough to still keep his edge against the same players who were then even more mature and improved that he was able to overtake for a brief period just last year at 30-31.

As for the level being sustainable or not, clearly it was as he was able to maintain such a dominance longer than any other in the Open Era. You think that it's impossible for the drop to be steep. But of course it will be steep if there is indeed an outside reason that contributes significantly to that decline - i.e. the mono and the after effects of that, including loss of confidence, loss of fear factor/extra belief to your opponents, loss of fitness and training etc. etc. etc.

As for Söderling, it's certainly not the worst loss, he could possibly suffer. And Söderlings superior power thrived in the wet, heavy and slow conditions that day. In effect, Söderling was still able to hit through Federer, whereas Federer wasn't able to hit through Söderling.
But together with him losing to Berdych a few weeks later those loses mark the decisive end of his dominance against the 2nd tier players at the slams.

 

[drm025]

As for the bolded part, you could also argue that if Federer had confidence against Nadal, he does not go down 2 sets to love at Wimbledon in the first place, I would think.
But clearly, there's no way of knowing - you have your reasons, I have mine. that's the best we've got. And I didn't say he would def. win. But I do think, he would have.

And for the other players raising their level, clearly there's some of that too as I've also said in previous posts. I just think that there's also some of the mono involved and - opposite to you - that that was a significant factor in the drop in his level. If would have happened eventually anyhow, but not that soon.
I basically think that Federer at 26-27 would have been good enough to still keep his edge against the same players who were then even more mature and improved that he was able to overtake for a brief period just last year at 30-31.

As for the level being sustainable or not, clearly it was as he was able to maintain such a dominance longer than any other in the Open Era. You think that it's impossible for the drop to be steep. But of course it will be steep if there is indeed an outside reason that contributes significantly to that decline - i.e. the mono and the after effects of that, including loss of confidence, loss of fear factor/extra belief to your opponents, loss of fitness and training etc. etc. etc.

As for Söderling, it's certainly not the worst loss, he could possibly suffer. And Söderlings superior power thrived in the wet, heavy and slow conditions that day. In effect, Söderling was still able to hit through Federer, whereas Federer wasn't able to hit through Söderling.
But together with him losing to Berdych a few weeks later those loses mark the decisive end of his dominance against the 2nd tier players at the slams.

Of course Federer was playing extremely well from 2011-2012, but for me gaining the number 1 wasn't really a result of him overtaking the other Tier I players, but more their inconsistencies/injury. Djokovic had a letdown after winning the USO in 2011, so he was not a factor at the end of 2011, during Federer's run where he won Paris without facing a member of the Big 4 and beat Nadal once at the WTFs, which of course had happened 3 times before. He did beat Nadal at Indian Wells in 2012, meeting Isner in the final, then won Madrid without facing another member of the big 4. His slam results before winning Wimbledon 2012 were losing to Djokovic in USO 2011 SFs, losing to Nadal in AO 2012 SFs, and losing to Djokovic in RG 2012 SFs. Of course his Wimbledon 2012 run beating Murray and Djokovic was impressive, but that alone is not enough to become world number 1. He got there by being more consistent than the rest of the big 4 during that span. It is impressive, though, that he was still there at that age to take it when the opportunity presented itself.

 

[tennis_pro]

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

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

The only thing you proved is that old (27-32) Federer is better than young (18-22) Federer.

 

[tennis_pro]

Of course Federer was playing extremely well from 2011-2012, but for me gaining the number 1 wasn't really a result of him overtaking the other Tier I players, but more their inconsistencies/injury. Djokovic had a letdown after winning the USO in 2011, so he was not a factor at the end of 2011, during Federer's run where he won Paris without facing a member of the Big 4 and beat Nadal once at the WTFs, which of course had happened 3 times before. He did beat Nadal at Indian Wells in 2012, meeting Isner in the final, then won Madrid without facing another member of the big 4. His slam results before winning Wimbledon 2012 were losing to Djokovic in USO 2011 SFs, losing to Nadal in AO 2012 SFs, and losing to Djokovic in RG 2012 SFs. Of course his Wimbledon 2012 run beating Murray and Djokovic was impressive, but that alone is not enough to become world number 1. He got there by being more consistent than the rest of the big 4 during that span. It is impressive, though, that he was still there at that age to take it when the opportunity presented itself.

First of all Federer got back the no 1 spot after Wimbledon AFTER which Nadal didn't play for 7-8 months. Djokovic and Murray were never injured to start with. Djokovic had a bit of a letdown at the end of the end of 2011 but right from the start in 2012 he won Australia, Indian Wells, had SF and F in almost every big tournament he entered (all the finals he lost to Nadal on clay).

"and beat Nadal once at the WTFs, which of course had happened 3 times before"

Hilarious. So it didn't really count then, I guess. We should take away all Nadal's clay titles cause he consistently beat Federer there.

Btw after US Open 2011 (where Federer started his good run) until the end of 2012 Federer went 1-1 against Nadal, 2-3 against Djokovic and 3-2 against Murray. So much for avoiding them.

 

[Chanwan]

First of all Federer got back the no 1 spot after Wimbledon AFTER which Nadal didn't play for 7-8 months. Djokovic and Murray were never injured to start with. Djokovic had a bit of a letdown at the end of the end of 2011 but right from the start in 2012 he won Australia, Indian Wells, had SF and F in almost every big tournament he entered (all the finals he lost to Nadal on clay).

"and beat Nadal once at the WTFs, which of course had happened 3 times before"

Hilarious. So it didn't really count then, I guess. We should take away all Nadal's clay titles cause he consistently beat Federer there.

Btw after US Open 2011 (where Federer started his good run) until the end of 2012 Federer went 1-1 against Nadal, 2-3 against Djokovic and 3-2 against Murray. So much for avoiding them.

+1.
Sure, Djokovic wasn't at the top at the end of 2011. But aside from Federer, no single Big Four player has managed to stay on top of the game for a full calendar year (Nadal had a full year going strong in 2008-2009 though). Being able to perform all year round is what gives you the top ranking in the first place.

 

[drm025]

First of all Federer got back the no 1 spot after Wimbledon AFTER which Nadal didn't play for 7-8 months. Djokovic and Murray were never injured to start with. Djokovic had a bit of a letdown at the end of the end of 2011 but right from the start in 2012 he won Australia, Indian Wells, had SF and F in almost every big tournament he entered (all the finals he lost to Nadal on clay).

"and beat Nadal once at the WTFs, which of course had happened 3 times before"

Hilarious. So it didn't really count then, I guess. We should take away all Nadal's clay titles cause he consistently beat Federer there.

Btw after US Open 2011 (where Federer started his good run) until the end of 2012 Federer went 1-1 against Nadal, 2-3 against Djokovic and 3-2 against Murray. So much for avoiding them.

Djokovic actually won Miami, but lost to Isner at Indian Wells, and lost to Tipsarevic at Madrid.

I only pointed out that Federer has beaten Nadal before at WTFs to show that that win wouldn't show that Federer was playing at a higher level than before.

I didn't say Federer avoided them but that he didn't necessarily overtake them, which the records you gave show. Also, to clarify, I was talking about the period from 2011 Wimbledon to 2012 Wimbledon where he regained the number 1.

I did mention titles that he won without playing the big 4. He actually won Basel, Paris, Rotterdam, and Madrid from late 2011 through Wimbledon 2012 without facing a big 4 player. Also, the players he beat in finals for all of his titles in that period were Nishikori, Tsonga twice, Del Potro, Murray twice, Isner, and Berdych. If anything, this run showed increased consistency against other top ten players. When he did face the big 4 at the biggest stages in the grand slams, he lost every time, except for Wimbledon, which was certainly impressive, but not enough to get the number 1 by itself.

 

[tennis_pro]

Djokovic actually won Miami, but lost to Isner at Indian Wells, and lost to Tipsarevic at Madrid.

I only pointed out that Federer has beaten Nadal before at WTFs to show that that win wouldn't show that Federer was playing at a higher level than before.

I didn't say Federer avoided them but that he didn't necessarily overtake them, which the records you gave show. Also, to clarify, I was talking about the period from 2011 Wimbledon to 2012 Wimbledon where he regained the number 1.

I did mention titles that he won without playing the big 4. He actually won Basel, Paris, Rotterdam, and Madrid from late 2011 through Wimbledon 2012 without facing a big 4 player. Also, the players he beat in finals for all of his titles in that period were Nishikori, Tsonga twice, Del Potro, Murray twice, Isner, and Berdych. If anything, this run showed increased consistency against other top ten players. When he did face the big 4 at the biggest stages in the grand slams, he lost every time, except for Wimbledon, which was certainly impressive, but not enough to get the number 1 by itself.

I'm having a hard time understanding why Djokovic (or anyone else) would deserve the no 1 spot more than Federer based on your criteria.

So Federer won WTF, Dubai, Indian Wells and Wimbledon where he beat a top 4 player (apart from his other titles where he took down several top tenners in a row)

Djokovic won AO and Miami where he beat a top 4 player. Actually since the US Open 2011 those were the only titles he won until Canada 2012 (where Federer was already ranked first).

Don't even get me going with Nadal who didn't even win a single non-clay title for 2,5 years from September 2010 until March 2013.

Your lagic is flawed - you don't have to reproduce 2011-Djokovic or 2004-2007-Federer like results to be ranked no 1. Just because after having 8 dominating seasons in a row from 2004-2011 we don't get a 9th one in 2012 it doesn't mean that the no 1 ranked player in the world doesn't deserve his spot.

 

[drm025]

I'm having a hard time understanding why Djokovic (or anyone else) would deserve the no 1 spot more than Federer based on your criteria.

So Federer won WTF, Dubai, Indian Wells and Wimbledon where he beat a top 4 player (apart from his other titles where he took down several top tenners in a row)

Djokovic won AO and Miami where he beat a top 4 player. Actually since the US Open 2011 those were the only titles he won until Canada 2012 (where Federer was already ranked first).

Don't even get me going with Nadal who didn't even win a single non-clay title for 2,5 years from September 2010 until March 2013.

Your lagic is flawed - you don't have to reproduce 2011-Djokovic or 2004-2007-Federer like results to be ranked no 1. Just because after having 8 dominating seasons in a row from 2004-2011 we don't get a 9th one in 2012 it doesn't mean that the no 1 ranked player in the world doesn't deserve his spot.

I never said he didn't deserve it, where did you get that from? He was the best in that 52-week period for sure. I just said that I wouldn't describe it as him overtaking the other members of the big 4. Of course he did in the rankings, but I think he got some help from them as opposed to him taking it from them. That's why I mentioned the Grand slams outside of Wimbledon, where he still was not able to beat them.

 

[tennis_pro]

I never said he didn't deserve it, where did you get that from? He was the best in that 52-week period for sure. I just said that I wouldn't describe it as him overtaking the other members of the big 4. Of course he did in the rankings, but I think he got some help from them as opposed to him taking it from them. That's why I mentioned the Grand slams outside of Wimbledon, where he still was not able to beat them.

What kind of "help" are you talking about? Your problem is that you can't see that points were more evenly distributed for every member of the big 4 in 2012 as opposed to 2011 when Djokovic owned the tour, not that the dudes suddenly started to play worse which gave Federer a window of opportunity to take back the no 1 ranking. ALL of them still made the semis of almost every big tournament they entered.

-Nadal made the final in Australia, semis in IW/Miami, dominated the clay season.
-Djokovic won Australia, semis in IW, won Miami, made all finals on clay except Madrid
-Murray just missed out on a final in Australia, finals in Dubai, finals in Miami

So what kind of help are you talking about again? Djokovic, Nadal and Murray didn't go anywhere. Nadal did but only AFTER Federer got to no 1.

Btw. Do you think that Nadal climbing to no 1 in 2008 had to do with Federer's downfall (mono, all kinds of weird upsets throughout that season)?

 

[above bored]

People are just being silly trying to argue Federer’s level post 2007 did not take a turn for the worse, despite still being very good. Federer may be the GOAT, but he is not superman. He is still only human. While he may fare better than most, he is not going to be able to completely nullify the multifaceted adverse effects age will have on a player, just as previous players could not. We are all human. We all more or less share the same biology and limitations.

The charts by falstaff78 in the link below illustrate the reality of the situation. Consistently, the most successful period for players at this level has been, in order, the ages of 24, 25, 22 and 23. From the age of 26 there is an acute drop and steady decline thereafter with a small upturn around the age of 30. Federer has mimicked this pattern to the letter. Even in 2007 at the age of 26 we began to see more fluctuations in his level than we had the few years immediately preceding, then getting to No.1 again last year at the age of 30 was the upturn the chart predicts. A few years back I recall seeing similar stats by someone else that illustrated the same thing, but I could not find the post. Federer is following the same pattern, just as most other players who take advantage of their youth will follow a similar pattern.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=453446

 

[Chanwan]

What kind of "help" are you talking about?

Btw. Do you think that Nadal climbing to no 1 in 2008 had to do with Federer's downfall (mono, all kinds of weird upsets throughout that season)?

Good question, I've been arguing that for the whole thread though. So far mostly in vain.

 

[jg153040]

Both sides here are only half right. And both sides don't understand what relative means.

It was both. Fed declined, but also due to evolution new generation improved. It's normal. But that doesn't make Fed any less great. Greatness means how you do vs the world with what you have. Scientists today know more than Einstein. That is only evolution (accumulated knowledge). It has nothing to do with greatness.

Hewitt, Safin started to beat Sampras. Does that mean he was lucky he didn't have to play them and they are greater? Of course not, don't be silly. It's just combination of evolution and decline.

Murray, Rafa, Djokovic are better than Fed. It's evolution and Fed's decline. Nothing to do with being greater than Fed. They just started with more knowledge, that's it.

If Fed was now 23, I'm sure he would also easily destroy them due to evolution and their decline.

 

[Fiji]

Blame it on the mono.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Wow, I was trying to find a thread for another bjsnider thread that I thought might have been started by this poster, one which included graphical charts and statistics for the ages of Grand Slam Winners, but found this gem instead.

Necrobump.

 

[D.Nalby12]

This thread still has a lot of trolling potential.