mike danny
Bionic Poster
Same way 23 year old Djokovic in 2010 is considered pre-prime while 23 year old Fed in 2004 was peak.
Do people truly understand tennis ?
- Thread starter Raining hopes
- Start date
Objective observer
Semi-Pro
Objective observer
Semi-Pro
Djokovic became gluten free in 2011 and had a clear increase in level
Also he was considered prime in 2007-2010 unlike Federer who only entered his at over 22
mike danny
Bionic Poster
He wasn't peak if he sucked outside slams.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
You can't get any closer to winning than having MP. I don't need any stupid stat to tell me otherwise.
Objective observer
Semi-Pro
Lol
I was saying if you didn't watch the match or the score and went off the stats alone Federer would be much closer to Djokovic in 2015 which is a fact
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
That's how good Federer was / has been. Homogenisation helped as well. Djokovic posted similar results in 2012-14 (considering he also met Fedal in two semis) while not being at his best either.
The devil is really in the details - check the number of five-setters played and you'll see. Federer at his peak was one of the best frontrunners who just didn't let it go to five against lesser players, the only exceptions being Haas in AO 06 when Federer was struggling with his ankle and was honestly fortunate to come through and win the title (that's his only major win that actually has some weakness about it based on his patchy play), and Nalbandian in TMC 05 when Federer was visibly hurt and effectively gave away two sets (was actually planning to skip but it would've been an utter disaster since all the other top 5 players - Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt and Agassi - uniquely ended up injured as well, so the orgs convinced him to play with an extra money bonus) - so verifiably not in full fitness on either occasion. The other five-setters were against Agassi (USO 04) and Nadal (Wim 07, Rome 06 for non-slams), two ATGs playing at an appropriately high level.
But come 2008, see who he now plays five sets against: Tipsarevic (AO 08), Andreev (USO 08), Berdych (AO 09, was two sets to love up even). Unbelievable that the tour would suddenly improve so much that an apparently fit Federer (yeah, had mono in AO 08, didn't really tell until the semi tbh, just like Nadal's abdominal injury in USO 09 didn't tell until the semi yet was entirely obvious when it did) would suddenly start playing five-setters against those guys. [Roddick not included, because with some more luck/clutchness he may have well taken Fed to 5 even in 2004, so him playing a tight match against a slightly declined Federer in 2009 was not surprising except for the mental aspect (i.e. having the guts to push Fed all the way, shame about that one volley).]
Objective observer
Semi-Pro
Federer in 2015 was more competitive with Djokovic throughout the match.
In 2011 he had periods where he was higher than Djokovic but also many downswings hence the more lopsided stats
NatF
Bionic Poster
Why are you bringing this up again - in another thread no less?
We already discussed this.
Objective observer
Semi-Pro
robthai
Hall of Fame
Though his results at the slams remained consistent during 08-09 period, he was often getting pushed to 5 sets in the early stages of every slam except Wimbledon. During his 03-07 he rarely got taken to 4 sets in the early stages of slams. To say his level was exactly the same at slams during 08-09 is dishonest.
NatF
Bionic Poster
That's more of a subpoint.
robthai
Hall of Fame
Fed was getting pushed to 5 by his pigeons during 08-09. I highly doubt 04-07 Fed gets pushed to 5 sets by a player like tipsarevic. He probably doesn't go 5 sets against Andreev in the 4th round, nor would he get taken to 5 sets by Berdych like at the Australian Open 09 4th round. Does peak Fed go 2 sets to 1 down vs a much older Tommy Haas?
Objective observer
Semi-Pro
Ok I can agree mostly with that
Still, it's hard for me to find any genuine difference between say 2007 and 2008 Wimbledon Federer. He just seemed less confident against Nadal in 2008 that's it. He destroyed all his other opponents before the final plus he barely beat nadal in 2007 anyway
NatF
Bionic Poster
Confidence e.g. the mental aspect is huge. He basically gave Nadal a two set head start by completely lacking the required intensity for a slam final - bit of an exaggeration.
Federer's best play on grass was clearly 03-06, in 07 his return numbers dropped significantly but I do think his level was roughly similar in 07-09 - probably in that order as well.
Objective observer
Semi-Pro
Smart of you to make Federer's peak end at AO 07
I was about to ask you the difference between 2007 and 2008 wimbledon Fed then I realized even 2007 is a drop in level from before
Objective observer
Semi-Pro
Mental aspect doesn't point to any physical decline
I do think Federer played a few matches in 2008/9 at a higher level than 2007 - for example monte carlo 2008 was clearly better than 2007
I agree with the decline in grass after 03-06
robthai
Hall of Fame
Yes I agree with this. There is not much difference between Wimbledon 2007 and Wimbledon 2008 Federer. It was mostly mental. Nadal was more confident against Federer, hence why he played better in 2008. That beat down at Roland Garros was significant. Federer was less confident than Nadal in 2008 so he started poorly. Once he was down 2 sets I think he relaxed a little and started to play better, rain delay certainly helped him.
Its similar to how Nadal couldn't beat Djokovic in 2011. A lot of it had to do with confidence.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Physically there was definitely a difference in early 2008, he was over mono by the clay season but he'd missed training blocks going back to the off season. Physically he didn't look the same to me but it's hard to say, at that level even a couple of percentage can make a big difference.
The clay season in 2008 was actually decent from Federer, but every slam in 2007 was better for the most part - maybe the last couple of rounds at the USO in 2007 were slightly better? But then I think there was maybe a bit more wind in the 2007 final IIRC.
B
BrokenGears
Guest
Objective observer
Semi-Pro
Yeah I agree that RG loss in 2008 probably affected Federer a lot for a long time more than his own physical decline
Objective observer
Semi-Pro
Yeah I agree he was suprisingly bad on hard in 2008 even after wimbledon
Other than USO I don't think he even made a 500 or above final on hard
2007 final was slightly worse than 2008 in the USO probably due to wind as you said
B
BrokenGears
Guest
Only Fedr fans have a complete and clear understanding of the tennis game
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Small difference tbh. I agree with Nat that 07/08/09 are all close, can't just assert 07 Federer would have 100% beaten 08 Nadal. Nadal's 07 and 08 Wimbledon level was also very close, though. 07 he struggled early on (context is important though - rain delays, youzhny peaking before injury), but straightened up his game in QF and was in full flight after that. SO can't assert 08 Nadal would've totally beaten 07 Federer either. 03-06 was a bit better yet mainly due to return, Nadal would still make it close though as he always did, but epecting him to win against peak Fed on grass is terribly rich.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
You say this, yet you fault Federer for not taking Djokovic to 5 sets from 2015 onwards . See the inconsistency with your statements ?
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
This is quite inspired.
O
OhYes
Guest
Probably, but considering Novak had most difficult path to them from all 3...
robthai
Hall of Fame
in which case he gets the easiest ending out of the 3. So whats the issue here? All their slams are inflated.
O
OhYes
Guest
Who says he gets easiest ending ? We don't know that yet. We can't tell how many Slams Novak will win, will there be good enough young players rising to stop him, how long will Nadal stay competitive like in this years Wimby, and will Federer be again on his level from 2015.
And let me insert here Fedal level from 2017/2018 where they managed to raise their number of Slams bcs Novak was injured.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Novak had the luxury of playing 1-2 years where Fedal injury and changing raquet tuning.
I don’t think his path was the toughest.
I don’t think his path was the toughest.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Excellent post – still, I am not sure if Federer is getting enough credit for his 2-11 in slam H2H. Yes, it was on grass, and yes Nadal was still a boy unfamiliar with the bad-bounce play, but Federer brought his A-game, fought like a lion, and clinched those historic two victories against the admittedly fragile wide-eyed teenage boy Nadal. Federer also should get more credit for playing his heart out the other 11 times following he faced Nadal in slams.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Stan won 3 majors, Andy won 3 majors, Cilic won a major - all under Djokovic's peak period.
He only has himself to blame for not adding to his count. Federer and Nadal , make it count when they get there. Federer loses to ATG and Nadal barely loses when he gets to a final. Djokovic lost to less than Stellar players (relative).
He only has himself to blame for not adding to his count. Federer and Nadal , make it count when they get there. Federer loses to ATG and Nadal barely loses when he gets to a final. Djokovic lost to less than Stellar players (relative).
Raining hopes
Hall of Fame
You break my heart.Sir, and my sarcasm detector too
Meles
Bionic Poster
Based on stats its hard to deny that Federer's peak was 2004-2007, but you bring up a fair point as nearly every other player in the game is peaking in their late 20's and even early 30's.
So by the norms for most players Federer should have been formidable from 2008 through 2012, but he really wasn't. Then of course we have 2015-2018 strong, strong performance outside of injuries and one has to wonder what on earth was going on 2008-2012? I suspect was far too conservative and stubborn to abandon his old game and retool. He needed to make changes in racket, etc. back in 2008. Now ancienterer and wiserer, can't rule out another miraculous Fed retool coming into 2019. My serious take is that Federer adapted to Poly strings better than any of the other non-clay courters which made his life easier from 2003-2007 (and not many would deny 2006 into early 2007 was weak sauce; i.e Nole had really easy on early hard in 2007). Then a new breed of hard court baseline play started to show up and he refused to adapt. His clay court performance is the most interesting area where for 2009 he finally had a much betterer serve game, but his clay return numbers already were dropping quite a bit (peak ending in 2009 as you say, but also probably could have changed racket earlierer and been much more viable, let's not forget 2011 RG SF).
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Totally debatable given the weakness of 2014-present.
O
OhYes
Guest
In which FRed also won 3
so says the one who keeps the picture of Sampras up who has now dropped to what, 5th best?
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
Still #1 in our hearts
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yes, Fed took advantage as well.
But since Novak is 6 years younger, naturally he has taken advantage the most by winning 8 slams.
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
Federer is currently the holder of the most GS titles, therefore by that measure is GOAT. He will retire next year, or announce his retirement next year for 2020. Nadal and Djo will still play and the discussion will always be, can they catch him and pass him to become GOAT.
Not really difficult to understand.
The nuances of stats to support a convoluted GOAT claim is everything else you read.
Not really difficult to understand.
The nuances of stats to support a convoluted GOAT claim is everything else you read.
O
OhYes
Guest
If so, Roger has won 15 easy ones.
Similar threads
