Did the august1971-june86 generation help Federer in 2003-07/09?

[Deleted member 307496]

As I expected, no stat from you.

Reality: 86-87 ---> three ATGs, 88-99 can't be rated yet

 

[TahoeTennis]

Hell yeah we did because Gen x is goat

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Think we got your point the first 10,000 times you said it. j/k.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I am Federer's age. He, Nadal and Djokovic can thank me for deciding not to pursue tennis as a career or none of them would have ever won a slam

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Stats cannot apply to the earlier eras, when the surfaces were more polarized. You cannot use stats with players like Ivanisevic and Krajicek.

In 1959-1971 these ATGs were born: McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Sampras.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Highest Grand Slam winning percentage in the Open Era.

In bold players born in 1959-71
In capital italics players born in 1972-84
Underlined players born in 1985-90

1) Borg
2) Nadal
3) FEDERER
4) Djokovic
5) Sampras
6) Connors
7) Lendl
8) McEnroe
9) Murray
10) Agassi
11) Becker
12) Wilander
13) Edberg
14) Ashe
15) Courier
16) Vilas
17) Tsonga
18) RODDICK
19) KAFELNIKOV
20) Wawrinka
21) Kodes
22) Tanner
23) Orantes
24) Cilic
25) Raonic
26) Stich
27) Berdych
28) SAFIN
29) Del Potro
30) Noah

 

[KINGROGER]

Winning % isn’t the be all and end all and doesn’t tell us how certain players played on the day.

Your ATG Murray with his high win % for examples had quite a few stinkers vs both Federer and Djokovic in slam finals...

Also Federer had to face 2 peak/prime ATG 5 years younger from age 26-34. These things even out.

Not to mention 04 Roddick at Wimbledon, 04 Agassi at USO for example are no worse than 2011 Nadal at USO or 2013 Djokovic at USO in level those tournaments. Form matters too not just name.

 

[Thomas195]

Also Federer had to face 2 peak/prime ATG 5 years younger from age 26-34. These things even out.

Well, Sampras was neither peak nor prime at that time.

Besides, 1999-2001 Agassi (he won half of his Slams during those years) was quite different from 2003-2005 Agassi.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Winning % isn’t the be all and end all and doesn’t tell us how certain players played on the day.

Your ATG Murray with his high win % for examples had quite a few stinkers vs both Federer and Djokovic in slam finals...

Also Federer had to face 2 peak/prime ATG 5 years younger from age 26-34. These things even out.

Not to mention 04 Roddick at Wimbledon, 04 Agassi at USO for example are no worse than 2011 Nadal at USO or 2013 Djokovic at USO in level those tournaments. Form matters too not just name.

Look at the winning percentage of the big4 in finals or semifinals (rounds that express top form) against other players. It's something like 90% or even more.

Consistency and peak go together. The skills to be consistent and to have a high peak are the same.

 

[NatF]

Well, Sampras was neither peak nor prime at that time.

Besides, 1999-2001 Agassi (he won half of his Slams during those years) was quite different from 2003-2005 Agassi.

He wasn't that different on HC IMO, he was still able to play prime'ish tennis here and there. His grass and clay game were gone though.

Look at the winning percentage of the big4 in finals or semifinals (rounds that express top form) against other players. It's something like 90% or even more.

Consistency and peak go together. The skills to be consistent and to have a high peak are the same.

They are? How did you work that one out? They're fundamentally different, consistency is more average level over a period of time - peak is how well you play when everything is clicking.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Murray has 28 wins and 2 losses in finals since 2008 against non-big3. If everyone can have a high peak, and Murray's peak is nothing special, I wonder why these players lost nearly every single final.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Finals against non-big4:

murray 31-5 (86.1%)
nadal 52-9 (85.2%)
djokovic 31-6 (83.8%)
federer 76-21 (78.4%)

@Sabratha

 

[Jonas78]

Highest Grand Slam winning percentage in the Open Era.

In bold players born in 1959-71
In capital italics players born in 1972-84
Underlined players born in 1985-90

1) Borg
2) Nadal
3) FEDERER
4) Djokovic
5) Sampras
6) Connors
7) Lendl
8) McEnroe
9) Murray
10) Agassi
11) Becker
12) Wilander
13) Edberg
14) Ashe
15) Courier
16) Vilas
17) Tsonga
18) RODDICK
19) KAFELNIKOV
20) Wawrinka
21) Kodes
22) Tanner
23) Orantes
24) Cilic
25) Raonic
26) Stich
27) Berdych
28) SAFIN
29) Del Potro
30) Noah
31) Ferrer

As i have said earlier, if you think Fed got It easy, then you are indirectly saying he would do worse In another period. And i really dont see what could make him win less.

Born 5 years earlier? Come on, he would be peaking from 1998, and still have 2004-2007. 5 years later? He would still be In his early thirties, with Murray injured, Djoker playing like crap, and Rafa at the end of his career.

Thing is, Fed didnt have It easy, he was facing the rest of peak Big4 from his late twenties.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

As i have said earlier, if you think Fed got It easy, then you are indirectly saying he would do worse In another period. And i really dont see what could make him win less.

Born 5 years earlier? Come on, he would be peaking from 1998, and still have 2004-2007. 5 years later? He would still be In his early thirties, with Murray injured, Djoker playing like crap, and Rafa at the end of his career.

Thing is, Fed didnt have It easy, he was facing the rest of peak Big4 from his late twenties.

Don't care about time travel tennis. I analize what happened in reality, and in my opinion reality is that he won mostly in a weak era.

 

[Jonas78]

Don't care about time travel tennis. I analize what happened in reality, and in my opinion reality is that he won mostly in a weak era.

Well then what you are doing is pretty meaningless. You say Fed had it easy, but he would have It easy no matter which era be played? . Which players didnt have "easy years?" Rafa 2008, 2010, 2013? Djoker 2013-2016?

According to most polls, the strongest years are 2009,2011,2012, and even in those years Roger won 3 slams.

 

[Plamen1234]

Federer won 51 matches in straight set in that year.

In june-september he won 62 sets and lost 7, and 6 of them were to Djokovic.

This doesnt disprove what I say.Djokovic main competition was 6 year old player than him. Meanwhile for most of the time Federer competition have been younger players.Djokovic in 2015 played 4 GS finals,3 of them was with older players than him.

 

[Thomas195]

Consistency and peak go together. The skills to be consistent and to have a high peak are the same

According to your logic, Krajicek must have won 10 Wimbledons.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Murray has 33 wins and 4 losses in finals and semifinals of slams/YEC/masters/olympics against non big-3

@Sabratha

 

[mike danny]

I think the next generation are better than the lost generation that Novak feasted on in 2014-2016. This current generation inst as good as the weak era gen that Federer dominated. They're just a better enough than the lost generation that they exposed Djokovic's weaknesses. Djokovic set a standard and the players that came after the lost gen had to study his game and learn how to beat him. Hence why he has now lost to players like Chung, Zverev, Thiem, and Edmund.

Hee didn't even feats on them that much. In arguably the best season of his career, in 2015, he didn't have to face a single player 25 or younger in a GS semi or final.

 

[mike danny]

You’ll have to churn out a lot more and better content to convince anyone.


Firstly, it makes zero sense to compare retired players to active players.

Hewitt at the end of 2005 had a WP of 76.6. After that year he was done as an elite player.

Ferrero was done as an elite player after his illness in ‘04, at which point his WP was 69.2.

Safin at 65% at the end of ‘05, Coria was at 70% at the end of ‘05, before his serving yips got really bad.

I could go on and on. How about giving the younger players a chance to decline and see their WP plummet? Otherwise the comparison is seriously skewed.

I will grant you that the top guys are more consistent now, but that is as much due to the tour getting acclimated to poly strings as any kind of organic improvement in player ability. The upset potential is lesser with the emergence of poly. In many ways that’s as much a detriment to the game as it has been a benefit.

Secondly, and I say this for the umpteenth time: the 2008 Wimbledon final was universally thought to have represented a changing of the guard. Since then, Federer has won 8 slams to Nadal’s 11. They’ve played amongst the same competition for 10 years since Nadal began his peak and Federer, despite being 5 years older and the much more accomplished player beforehand, has still made it close. That effectively shuts the door on this discussion.

What completely shuts the door on this discussion is that after the AO 2009 final, when Nadal was deemed as a complete player on all surfaces, Federer has still won more non-clay slams than Nadal, 6 to 4 and after 2009 AO, when Fed's prime was approaching its end, he has won as many non-clay slams as Rafa in his entire career. Basically after age 27, Fed has won as many non-clay slams as Rafa in his entire career, despite Rafa becoming a complete player on all surfaces, who also had the age advantage to win more, yet didn't.

 

[NatF]

Murray has 33 wins and 4 losses in finals and semifinals of slams/YEC/masters/olympics against non big-3

@Sabratha

Indeed Murray is very good at beating the players he's supposed to beat.

In slam matches when the best aim to peak Murray is 5-20, losing 9 of them in straight sets. Beating Berdych or Ferrer isn't indicative of a high peak level IMO.

 

[mike danny]

All you need to do is pay attention: players were still getting used to poly in the early 2000s, Federer included (despite flashes of brilliance, the man was still inconsistent up until 2004.) That plays a small part, as does more variety in surface speed.

Also, many of the top players from around that time were eventually ravaged by injury.

Hewitt: need not even go into it. Man was burdened with injury after injury and as a result lost his wheels and could not continue as a top player.

Agassi: the sciatica forced him to retire.

Safin: missed most of 2003 and much of 2005.

Haas: constantly injured during his prime years.

Kuerten: hip done for by 28.


2008-2016 was remarkably unaffected by injury when compared to other periods of the game. The top 5/10 was excellent and healthy, although the rest of the top 100 was a little less deep than the top 100 from 2003-2007. On the whole, I give it the edge over 2003-2007, but not by overwhelming margins.

Another thing: 2007 was as good a year as any so it perplexes me when people lump it in with the others. Nadal was well in his prime that year. The main difference between the two versions of Nadal was that in 2008 he won a close 5-set final at Wimbledon, and in ‘07 he lost a close 5-setter. But his level was not appreciably higher. Federer was still in the midst of his historic run, Djokovic was a worthy #3 (certainly better in those two years than he was in 09/10), with Roddick, Gonzalez, Nalbandian, Davydenko and Ferrer rounding out a great top 10.


2017-2018: tennis has arguably never been more ravaged by injury. Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga, Wawrinka, Raonic, Kyrgios and Nishikori all missed significant time. Federer was indisposed by the bad back for about a month.

You’ll find that if you compare the Top 8 from 2016 to 2017, 6 of the top 8 from 2016 did not qualify for the YEC in 2017. All 6 spent a significant time on the shelf.

Any other questions?

Does it really perplex you? The reason is obvious. Federer still ended up with 3 slams that year despite good efforts from Nadal and Djokovic. If he had lost 1 or both of the slam finals that he won vs Nadal and Djokovic in 2007, the strong era would have commenced then. Conversely, the weak era would have extended until 2010 if Fed had won the Wimb 2008 and AO 2009 finals.

 

[mike danny]

@Lew

Players born before 1972-85 were affected by the racket changes too. Then why did they have much better results than the 1972-85 generation?


Which years, specifically? Bit of a broad comparison.


If it’s for players born from 1962-1971, it helps that many of those successful players were from the late 60s and early 70s (like Sampras, Agassi and Becker).

So, they were playing with graphite by the time they were kids/teens. Little more time to adjust, no? The players from 1975-1982 mostly began playing with poly in their 20s, by the time their games and bodies had already developed.

Mind you, I don’t hold the 1975-1982 talent pool in particularly high esteem. I’m just demonstrating how ridiculously hyperbolic you’re being.


Even if we add arbitral 10 points of winning percentage to all the 1972-85 generation or other free wins, the best players other than Federer would still be two midgets and a player with no backhand. Does that may mean anything?

Looks like you’re demonstrating that yourself.

One more time. And another time after that. And 100x time for good measure, or as long as you keep beating the same drum:

Since the time Nadal was supposed to have dethroned Federer, Roger has won 8 slams to Nadal’s 11, with Nadal leading the h2h by a slender 11-9 margin. This is them competing against the very same set of players, with Nadal five years younger and Federer already being the games dominant player for four years before that. What gives? Why is older Fed acquitting himself so well against this competition?

Wait, you're telling me that Federer has had a better H2H against Nadal since 2009 than before?

Weak era myth busted.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

This doesnt disprove what I say.Djokovic main competition was 6 year old player than him. Meanwhile for most of the time Federer competition have been younger players.Djokovic in 2015 played 4 GS finals,3 of them was with older players than him.

Novak has never played a slam final against a younger opponent if one wants to consider Murray older due to being a week older than him. He's had a younger opponent in 6 master finals out of all his GS/YEC/Master finals.

 

[mike danny]

Surely that’s balanced out by Djokovic (in 14-16) Nadal (17 - present) having zero upcoming young players to challenge them at slams? Their main competition is grandpa Federer who has been on tour for 20 years and is still number 1! 14 years after he first got there.

Djokovic and Nadal are in their 30's and they have yet to face a young player in a slam final

 

[mike danny]

Even ATG players being factors in 30s isn't that common. At least it wasn't back then, the only one for a very long past period was Andre Agassi. And he certainly competed against Federer way more than Chang.

It's not about excluding generations, it's about picking the right players. You might as well mock any other very good player for not being on ATG level of good and say Federer benefited from that. Agassi and Nadal certainly posed a way bigger challenge to Federer in that period than Chang ever did, even if one really cares about their ages at that time, but for some reason you erased both of them.

Nadal is always erased from discussions involving Fed's era. It's nothing new. Instead, Baghdatis is always mentioned.

 

[mike danny]

Murray isn't an ATG and Hewitt and Roddick aren't as far off him as you'd like to believe.

If Hewitt and Roddick are jokes compared to Murray, then Djokovic is also a joke compared to Federer.

 

[mike danny]

Think we got your point the first 10,000 times you said it. j/k.

He didn't even try to cover it by saying things like "Delete" or "Double".

 

[mike danny]

This doesnt disprove what I say.Djokovic main competition was 6 year old player than him. Meanwhile for most of the time Federer competition have been younger players.Djokovic in 2015 played 4 GS finals,3 of them was with older players than him.

All 4 were with players older than him Murray is a week older than Novak.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Djokovic and Nadal are in their 30's and they have yet to face a young player in a slam final

So? A player's peak is in his late20s/early30s.

Djokovic doesn't even play slam finals anymore, and Nadal reached only 3 semifinals in the last 15 slams. If there's a weak era again, Federer is the one who's taking advantage.

 

[NatF]

So? A player's peak is in his late20s/early30s.

Djokovic doesn't even play slam finals anymore, and Nadal played only 3 in the last 15 slams. If there's a weak era again, Federer is the one who's taking advantage.

No.

 

[Plamen1234]

All 4 were with players older than him Murray is a week older than Novak.

Yeah i forgot about that.If Djokovic lets say returns to decent form for the HC season one of his main rivals there will be 37 year old Federer - so lucky.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

No.

Results are influenced by many factors.

 

[Thomas195]

Results are influenced by many factors.

There was no technological advantage between Sampras/Agassi and say, Becker, who also grew up with graphite.

The only turning points in tennis history were 1984-1985 and 2000-2002 regarding technology.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

There was no technological advantage between Sampras/Agassi and say, Becker, who also grew up with graphite.

The only turning points in tennis history were 1984-1985 and 2000-2002 regarding technology.

I won't list you all the possible factors which can influence results, I don't even think I know or remember them all.

 

[NatF]

Results are influenced by many factors.

Factors like generally players being closer to their peak in their mid 20's than early 30's?

 

[Jonas78]

Should start a new thread:

"How much did Federer born in 1981 help Nadal and Djokovic?"