Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Maybe he just doesn't know that there are sharks floating around in this forum waiting to dissect every word he utters.
Fed explains why he skipped the clay court season
- Thread starter BeatlesFan
- Start date
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
Your numbers are self-revealing.
In 2004 he lost as many matches to non big 4 as in 2011. Doesn't it mean that his 2011 was as good as 2004? There goes all theories of decline out of the window. It is different while same performance allowed him to grab three GS in 2004 in 2011 he had to contend with just one runners up position. In fact, on this parameter, Federer performance of 2011 was better than his 2007 performance his another 3 slam year. I would extend same numbers to 2012 the year where Fed lost just 6 matches to non-bog 4. Which is another year on par with 2007 but had to contend with just one GS. 2009 was also at par with 2007, 6 losses each, but he manages to grab two GS as could avoid Nadal at both.
You also have to consider the fact that once aura of invincibility was gone player become more vulnerable having taken beating like 6-3,6-1, 6-0 Federer definitely would have lost some confidence that would impact his numbers against other lesser players as well and margin is narrow enough to be accounted on that parameter.
Though I agree that in 2010 he had otherwise bad year as well.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
They were still stronger than Volandri, Canas etc. 2007 Federer was losing to players of much inferior levels. Also in 2008, when you are giving beatings at the start of the year, (Djokovic AO and Murray Dubai), you start losing to other players as well.
Zhilady
Professional
No, because he won 3 Slams in 2004 and 0 in 2011. Not to mention the rest of his results.
Is your comprehension poor, or are you not too bright? I just showed you that Federer lost almost twice as many matches against non-big-4 players in 2008-2011 than in 2004-2007. Even going by your cherry-picked metric, Federer was way better in 2004-2007 than he was in 2008-2011.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
Isn't that what we are talking about? In 2004 he performed at the same level (against non big 4) as in 2011 but still he managed to win 3 GS because there was no big 4 to compete with for GS titles. The theories that he declined overall get busted with this logic.
In 2003-2007 (5 yrs period) he lost 31 times to non big 4 players but still won 12 GS. From 2008-2012 he lost 33 times to non big 4 but won only 5 GS.
I don't claim to be very bright but there are different ways at looking the same data and you should not be condescending towards someone who is looking at numbers from different angle than yours.
Point remains that even after 2007 there were many years where he performed at the same level against rest of the fields and thats why these theories of general decline are bogus.
Zhilady
Professional
Okay, so why not use the same reasoning for Nadal?
Number of non-big-4 losses for Nadal in...
2008: 8
2010: 7
2017: 7
Does that mean Nadal hasn't declined from 2008/2010 and was playing at the same level in 2017 as he was in 2008/2010?
2003 wasn't even a prime year for Federer and there was no big 4 in 2003. I would concede that Federer was better in 2008 and 2009 than he was in 2003. We're comparing Federer in 2004-2007 to Federer in 2008-2011. Your agenda is confusing you.
Federer's prime years are 2004-2007. He lost almost twice as many matches in 2008-2011 as he did in 2004-2007 against non-big-4 players. So, by your own metric, Federer declined from 2004-2007 in 2008-2011.
You're not looking at numbers from a different angle. You are blatantly misrepresenting the numbers. Again, here is what the numbers are:
14 losses in 2004-2007.
27 losses in 2008-2011.
So, even by your own metric, Federer performed much worse in 2008-2011 than he did in 2004-2007. There is no arguing against it.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
Where did I say that Nadal declined? A declined player doesn't win a French Open without losing a set. With age you lose on some aspects but improves on some others. Nadal of today doesn't have the same movement that he had 10 years ago but this Nadal is shrewder than what was 10 years ago. He goes to kill point earlier and has more power and consistency in his backhand. All defeats that Federer gave to him last year are as relevant as they would have been 10 years ago and as relevant as Federers series defeats to Djokovic in GS for last 5 years.
So that’s 3 in 2007
2008 - Blake, Karlovic, Roddick, Simon, Simon, Fish, Stepanek
So 3 vs 7
You’re totally right! 2008 was same level as 2004-2007! Field got too strong for *********.
zagor
Bionic Poster
The main reason for that being that he won't play FO, which is BO5.
As I said, find an ATP example otherwise it's apples and oranges comparison.
zagor
Bionic Poster
This all makes sense, but given the advances in his game since early 2017, perhaps fraudulent thinking. Does he fear winning Madrid?
He won't transition to a different surface just to play one CC masters. It's easier for him to skip it all-together, spend some quality time with his family (important from a mental and emotional aspect) and prepare for grass which is his bread and butter.
Clearly, he's in a worse position than last year where he was going into grass season with winning IW-Miami double but we'll see how it goes.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Maybe he just doesn't know that there are sharks floating around in this forum waiting to dissect every word he utters.
Or maybe he doesn't give a **** and is content to say whatever he wants at this point. I like grass more than clay so I'm gonna take a break, laters.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
Lol.. Numbers are clearly given above but you are choosing to ignore. In 2007 he lost 6 times to non-big 4 players and in 2008 lost 7 times. Hardly any difference against rest of the fields. IN fact he was better than 2007, against rest of fields in 2011 and same in 2012 but sadly couldn't get past rest of big 4 despite being on the same level which had given him 3 slam years earlier.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
He's still entering the grass season as the AO champion. Should be enough of a confidence booster.
Zhilady
Professional
Well, you’re wrong, but at least you’re consistent in how you’re wrong.
Either way, Federer had 27 losses in 2008-2011 to his 14 losses in 2004-2007. Your argument doesn’t hold up.
Zhilady
Professional
You must be trolling now. The numbers say the very opposite. You’re the one ignoring them.
27 > 14. 2004-2007 > 2008-2011. Cherry-picking 1 year out of 4 doesn’t change the big picture. Repeat after me. 27 > 14. 27 > 14. 27 > 14. So 2004-2007 > 2008-2011.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
Federer lost to non big -4 in 2011 just 5 times. This performance was better than his 2007 performance, the year he won 3 GS (he lost 6 times that year) and was as good as his 2004 performance. Even his 2012 performance was as good as 2007 performance.
Overall in 2003-07 he lost to Non big-4 31 times while between 2008-12 33 times. Amazing consistency. He managed to play at the same level for at least 10 years.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
ca
Calm down my friend.. I was referring to number of losses he had in 2007. PauperRoger was assuming that he lost just 3 matches to non big 4 in 2007 but in fact he lost 6, that you also posted.
Calm down my friend.. I was referring to number of losses he had in 2007. PauperRoger was assuming that he lost just 3 matches to non big 4 in 2007 but in fact he lost 6, that you also posted.
Zhilady
Professional
Again with your cherry-picking. Shouldn’t you be looking at the universal set? 27 > 14. So 2004-2007 > 2008-2011.
Anyway, if we’re going to cherry-pick, going by your metric, Federer was at his peak in 2005-2006. So he gradually got better from 2003 to 2006, and then he got worse from 2006 to 2012.
I guess you’ve established it then. Federer was at his peak in 2005-2006. He started declining in 2007.
2003 wasn’t a prime Federer. I’ve already acknowledged that he was better in 2008-2009 than he was in 2003. We’re comparing Federer’s peak years of 2004-2007 to his 2008-2011. What’s next, you’re going to include 2002 as well just to further your agenda?
27 > 14. 2004-2007 > 2008-2011. End of.
Absolutely clueless. LOL at equating 2007 indoors Nalbandian to likes of Fish, Blake, Karlovic, Simon haha, Nalbandian a player who has always troubled Federer vs a bunch of pigeons he always used to beat before 08.
Also:
04 win % - 93%
05 win % - 95%
06 win % - 85%
07 win % - 88%
08 win % - 81%
Titles: 11, 11, 12, 8 then.... 4
Yeah, clearly at the same level in 08 than 04-07. Your head is in the clouds.
Also lol at 2011 being better vs the field than 2007...
2011 Fed lost to Tsonga at Wimbledon from 2 sets up... lost in straights to Djokovic and also choked huge leads at the USO to him... 07 Fed wouldn’t do any of that, 11 was better indoors and RG that was it.
2011 Fed lost to Tsonga at Wimbledon from 2 sets up... lost in straights to Djokovic and also choked huge leads at the USO to him... 07 Fed wouldn’t do any of that, 11 was better indoors and RG that was it.
Last edited:
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
@Zhilady One can make a case of 2003 Fed being better than 2008 or at least the season being one. I did so here: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/rank-federers-seasons.595671/page-2#post-12200094
Zhilady
Professional
I guess you could, but I just think 2008-2009 were better than 2003. And when I, personally, concede that, it makes no sense to keep bunching 2003 together with 2004-2007 in an argument with me. It would be like me bunching 2013 together with 2008-2012 when ForumMember concedes that Federer wasn’t as good in 2013 as he was in 2005-2006. It just makes no sense to be doing that. It’s a deliberately dishonest way of arguing.
I would say:
More consistent at slams in 08.
High peak at Wimbledon / YEC in 03
More consistent in general in 03
Better on clay in 08
Vady_Vamos
New User
No he did. Safin, Kuerten, surviving against old Agassi, etc
05 Safin at AO >>>>> any version of Berdych or Tsonga and Kuerten in 04 had his last big win at RG and was a clay legend. Fed wasn’t quite at his clay peak, only the faster Hamburg he was decent.
Pheasant
Legend
Spot on, as usual. All anybody has to do is watch how well Safin played in the 2000 USO final or at the 2005 AO semi and final to see how deadly this guy was. Safin, when healthy, had 138 mph bomb serves, destroyed the ball with his backhand, had very good movement, and could play the net fairly well. But his deadliest weapon was his return of serve. Sampras, when he was interviewed after the 2000 USO final, was dumbfounded at how well Safin could return his serves. He said that he tried everything with his serves, but nothing worked. I remember seeing the match and figured that was it for Sampras. Luckily, I was wrong since Sampras had one more memorable tourney on his home court at the USO in 2002.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
You clearly know nothing about tennis so stop talking about it.
Equating Safin, Kuerten and even old Agassi with Tsonga and Berdych is laughable.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
07 one loses to Canas, Volandri, Gonzalez.. Tsonga,Djokovic infinitely better player than mugs whom Federer of 2007 used to lose to.
Yes. Federer’s level in 2011 aged 29-30 was the same as his level aged 25-26.
Just as Djokovic in 2017-2018 is the same level as 2014-2015, only the field got stronger.
abmk
Bionic Poster
again, including 2003 when it has been clearly said that 2003 was not a part of fed's prime ?
2004-07 : 14 losses to non big-4
2008-11 : 27 losses to non big-4
to be precise:
2004-07 :
2004: 74-6
2005: 81-4
2006: 92-5
2007: 68-9
total = 317-24 (92.96%)
excluding Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, (6-8,5-1 and 1-1)
it is : 305-14 (95.61%)
2008: 66-15
2009: 61-12
2010: 65-13
2011: 64-12
total = 254-52 (83%)
excluding Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, (3-9, 9-9 and 5-7)
it is : 237-27 (89.77%)
thats a ~6% difference vs all players minus big 4. A significant one.
abmk
Bionic Poster
He was talking about slams over there. Read properly. The only time Federer met any of Canas, Volandri, Gonzalez in a slam in 07 was vs Gonzalez in AO 07 final and he won that in straight sets.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
Oh I forgot players necessarily decline with the age. That's why 22 years old Fed in 2003 was best.. he started declining after that.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
If in the above statement you could point out slam word even a single time, i'll become lifelong Fed fan. He mentioned something like indoors, would like to get educated on Indoor grandslams.
Zhilady
Professional
No, according to your proposed metric, he got better from 2003 to 2006, and then started declining in 2007.
abmk
Bionic Poster
"2011 Fed lost to Tsonga at Wimbledon from 2 sets up... lost in straights to Djokovic and also choked huge leads at the USO to him."
wimbledon is a slam
USO is a slam
the lost in straights is a reference to AO 2011 --- would be obvious if you had bothered to apply your mind a little.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
lol at amazing inference. He did mention Indoors also in continuation as well, which you chose to ignore."2011 Fed lost to Tsonga at Wimbledon from 2 sets up... lost in straights to Djokovic and also choked huge leads at the USO to him."
wimbledon is a slam
USO is a slam
the lost in straights is a reference to AO 2011 --- would be obvious if you had bothered to apply your mind a little.
Pheasant
Legend
Keep the argument going, guys. This is entertaining. I want to hear more on how Fed's 2011 season is somehow in the same universe as his 2007 season. Or that his level of play in 2011 was on par with his level of play in 2007. I.e, I want to know why Fed's 0-slam season during a year that he turned 30 is better than his 3-slam season when he was 25-26 years old. This will be good.
Zhilady
Professional
I think it’s because cherry-picked stats, when they are misrepresented on top of that, tell us so.
I’d say from 2004-2006 was his absolute concentrated peak, with 2007 being a slight dip from 2006 (less consistent outside slams) but still peak/clutch at slams/WTF and with 2003, 2007, 2008, 2009-2010 having other certain peak level tournaments.
Yes, players usually decline with age. See Federer post 2013 when he couldn’t hit his old FH because he was adjusting to a new racket.
The gist of it I get is, he played at an identical level but didn’t win slams thanks to peak Djokovic. Nowhere is the 2 set choke vs Tsonga mentioned at all.
That 2011 (and 08 too) straight sets scoreline was misleading. I feel the match was way more competitive than the score line. 2007 Fed in that form vs 2011 Djokovic would be an epic battle, not a beat down."2011 Fed lost to Tsonga at Wimbledon from 2 sets up... lost in straights to Djokovic and also choked huge leads at the USO to him."
wimbledon is a slam
USO is a slam
the lost in straights is a reference to AO 2011 --- would be obvious if you had bothered to apply your mind a little.
Same applies to 07 USO final too should’ve been 4 sets.
augustobt
Legend
Good that you mentioned it. Like when Nadal claimed he played TWO MATCHES with APPENDICITIS?!
zagor
Bionic Poster
Sure, there are positives to build on (AO, Rotterdam, winning streak and reaching #1) but just saying that he's not on a roll like he was last year. Still, he's Fed and it's grass, definitely shouldn't be underestimated despite his age.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
He was an inch away from winning IW despite not playing his best. The Miami loss would have occurred anyway. The guy is 36 after all.
Federer should be fine confidence wise. Won his 20th major and became the oldest world no.1. These are much bigger and meaningful accomplishments than winning the Sunshine Double.
Plus last year he was more rested because of his 6 month layoff.
Zhilady
Professional
If you're drunk, it's dangerous to drive. No way is anyone drinking and driving!
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Youre not exactly Einstein
Zhilady
Professional
And you’re exactly Borat.
Zhilady
Professional
Did Federer not find out Nadal was joining in 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015?
Similar threads
