Comparing Federer and Nadal and Slam Performances After Post-Peak

[McEnroeisanartist]

After the 2010 Australian Open, Federer was 28.5, and had won 5 of the last 10 grand slams, reached the final in four other grand slams, and a semifinal. I don't think any one would have predicted that in the next 14 Grand Slams, he would win only one grand slam.

After the 2012 French Open, Nadal was 26, and had won 5 of the last 10 grand slams, reached the final in three other grand slams, and two quarterfinals. What were people predicting for his career at that time? In his next five grand slams, he won one grand slam, lost in the 2nd round, and lost in three first rounds (DNPs count as lost in first round in my judgement).

 

[Bobby Jr]

Why would you compare apples with oranges in that way? Either compare them at 26 or wait until Nadal is 28.5 and the compare.

 

[Magnetite]

Weird post, but last year, many people on this board were calling for Nadal to retire this year.

 

[10is]

False analogy for the sake of contrivance. Federer's peak ended in 2007.

 

[zam88]

False analogy for the sake of contrivance. Federer's peak ended in 2007.

While that was the last year he had ultra elite results, as a Federer fan, how can one not be peak when they reach 3 GS finals winning 1 (2008), and all 4 GS finals (winning 2) in 2009, followed up by another slam in the first event of 2010?


What is a peak.. the magnus opus year of their career only? if so, couldn't we argue that 2006 was better than 2007?

I think that we can reasonably say that the decline off peak started noticeably in the spring/summer of 2010... and he was still good enough to win a slam and several masters.

Now we are firmly off-peak and past the point of recovering.

 

[tennis_pro]

I agree with the DNP = 1st round loss policy. If you're sick/injured/tired/more excuses and you withdraw it means that if you decided to play you'd lose your first match. Nadal in his last 4 Slam tournaments has a win and 3 first round losses.

 

[tennis_pro]

While that was the last year he had ultra elite results, as a Federer fan, how can one not be peak when they reach 3 GS finals winning 1 (2008), and all 4 GS finals (winning 2) in 2009, followed up by another slam in the first event of 2010?


What is a peak.. the magnus opus year of their career only? if so, couldn't we argue that 2006 was better than 2007?

I think that we can reasonably say that the decline off peak started noticeably in the spring/summer of 2010... and he was still good enough to win a slam and several masters.

Now we are firmly off-peak and past the point of recovering.

Peak = usually a 2-4 year period when you produce your career best tennis. Examples: Sampras 1993-1997, Federer 2004-2007, Nadal 2008-2010, Borg 1978-1980, Lendl 1985-1987. Sometimes it's just a stand-out year like Djokovic 2011, Wilander 1988, McEnroe 1984.

Prime = usually a 6-8 year period of sustained high level. Examples: Sampras 1993-2000, Federer 2003-2010, Borg 1974-1981, Lendl 1982-1989

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Fed has only been able to pick up some slams in the last 4-5 years while Rafa has been injured.

 

[tennis_pro]

Fed has only been able to pick up some slams in the last 4-5 years while Rafa has been injured.

I agree.

2008 US Open - Nadal tired
2009 French Open - Nadal injured
2009 Wimbledon - Nadal still injured
2010 AO - Nadal still injured despite doing great at the end of 2009 (bar the WTF) and early 2010
2012 Wimbledon - Nadal injured? Or injured and tired? Not sure.

 

[jg153040]

Fed has only been able to pick up some slams in the last 4-5 years while Rafa has been injured.

So, what. If Rafa was injured that means Fed and others can beat him anyway. Injured is the same as not good enough.

Being healthy is a skill.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Injured is the same as not good enough.

Patently nonsensical; injury does not influence or act as a measure of ability.

 

[Russeljones]

Wait, is it set that Nadal peaked 2.5 years earlier and started his decline on the same schedule as Fed? Akward proposition.

 

[10is]

Peak = usually a 2-4 year period when you produce your career best tennis. Examples: Sampras 1993-1997, Federer 2004-2007, Nadal 2008-2010, Borg 1978-1980, Lendl 1985-1987. Sometimes it's just a stand-out year like Djokovic 2011, Wilander 1988, McEnroe 1984.

Prime = usually a 6-8 year period of sustained high level. Examples: Sampras 1993-2000, Federer 2003-2010, Borg 1974-1981, Lendl 1982-1989

Exactly !

 

[jg153040]

Patently nonsensical; injury does not influence or act as a measure of ability.

Haha. Thanks for this, you just made my day. Everyone can see your post now.

 

[Backspin1183]

I don't understand why almost every tennis likes to compare Rafa and Roger. Maybe because they've been the most successful players of their era. But we shouldn't forget their near 5 years age difference. Comparing Nadal with Djokovic and Murray would make more sense as they're of same age, Rafa just a year older.

 

[Russeljones]

I don't understand why almost every tennis likes to compare Rafa and Roger. Maybe because they've been the most successful players of their era. But we shouldn't forget their near 5 years age difference. Comparing Nadal with Djokovic and Murray would make more sense as they're of same age, Rafa just a year older.

Probably the same reason people compare Senna and Schumacher. The best in any field compel the onlookers to draw comparisons.

 

[10is]

Ability wise:

Senna = Federer (I can only go off of clips since Senna was way before my time but he was certainly the Federer of F1 in terms of pure, raw talent.)

Schumacher = Nadal (Especially in terms of Schumarchian style cheating (i.e. break-testing etc.) and getting away with it)

Prost = Lendl

Djokovic = Sebestian Vettel

Fangio = Laver

 

[Russeljones]

Ability wise:

Senna = Federer

Schumacher = Nadal

Prost = Lendl

Would Senna have become World Champion with Benetton Renault? I think you know the answer.

 

[10is]

Would Senna have become World Champion with Benetton Renault? I think you know the answer.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Haha. Thanks for this, you just made my day. Everyone can see your post now.

Unlike you, who lies, spins and runs when cornered, I stand by my facts.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Ability wise:

Senna = Federer (I can only go off of clips since Senna was way before my time but he was certainly the Federer of F1 in terms of pure, raw talent.)

Schumacher = Nadal (Especially in terms of Schumarchian style cheating (i.e. break-testing etc.) and getting away with it)

Prost = Lendl

One of the most enlightened posts here ever - the Lendl/Prost pairing especially.

(However, the Fed/Senna, Nadal/Schumy analogy fails slightly because it's Federer who has the greater numbers.)

 

[tennis_pro]

Unlike you, who lies, spins and runs when cornered, I stand by my facts.

There's no such thing as "your facts" but your opinion.

And btw - only a fool doesn't change his mind.

 

[TMF]

Patently nonsensical; injury does not influence or act as a measure of ability.

If your injured and inability to play, then you have no ability.

 

[MichaelNadal]

The posts on here get worse by the day. Even when I don't think it's possible.

 

[helloworld]

Peak = usually a 2-4 year period when you produce your career best tennis. Examples: Sampras 1993-1997, Federer 2004-2007, Nadal 2008-2010, Borg 1978-1980, Lendl 1985-1987. Sometimes it's just a stand-out year like Djokovic 2011, Wilander 1988, McEnroe 1984.

Prime = usually a 6-8 year period of sustained high level. Examples: Sampras 1993-2000, Federer 2003-2010, Borg 1974-1981, Lendl 1982-1989

Sampras prime ended in 1998. 1999-2000 was already past his prime, but he still could produce great tennis from time to time.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

If your injured and inability to play, then you have no ability.

As noted to anotherr, your post is patently nonsensical; injury does not influence or act as a measure of ability.

On the other hand, some used "mono" as an excuse for some other guy's failings, so by your criteria inapplicable forces such as injury--or illness means he has no ability.

 

[TMF]

As noted to anotherr, your post is patently nonsensical; injury does not influence or act as a measure of ability.

On the other hand, some used "mono" as an excuse for some other guy's failings, so by your criteria inapplicable forces such as injury--or illness means he has no ability.

If you can't play due to injury, then you don't have the ability to play.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

If you cannot play due to fake "mono" claims, then you don't have the abilty to play.

 

[fednad]

If you cannot play due to fake "mono" claims, then you don't have the abilty to play.

Further proof that you actually hate Fed.
But why? Did you have designs to buy the cow that was gifted to Roger in Siwtzerland?