Federer and Nadal - their h2h vs the field in their primes.

[Steve0904]

All this proves is that Federer had an amazing prime. And that you don't have to be in your prime to have the best results.

We can also compare players pre-prime and post-prime. But most of the people choose prime vs prime. I don't know why. I never saw a post: Who wins - pre-prime Fed or pre-prime Sampras?

I'm not saying it is worth more. But obviously when you are in your prime you have the best chance to maximize your results. And some people didn't take advantage of this.

Why can't I compare prime vs prime? Others compare even prime vs non prime. Or pre-prime vs prime. Or pre-prime vs pre-prime.

I can't compare post-prime vs post-prime yet, since Nadal didn't have post prime yet. But now when he is finally out of his prime it's ok.

And instead of same old boring stuff 17 vs 11 slams that has been done to death I did something new for a change. I didn't see anyone who used this system before.

You can do whatever you like, but what of any significance are you trying to prove? That Roger had a fantastic prime, and a better one than Nadal? Sure most rational people would admit that. Problem is by the wording of the OP it looks like you're rubbing it in, therefore even the good Nadal fans are getting understandably defensive.

And this criteria you've arbitrarily come up with that we kind of know is fact, but doesn't work for every player is a bad way to try and prove anything important. You've created strict criteria for a loose, abstract idea that it seems everyone has to follow.

A bit of constructive criticism here: This thread could've been fine, if you had given room for debate. Perhaps asked a question, and stated that you were looking for serious answers. Believe it or not, that still works.

 

[DRII]

It was. Unless you think 2010 Novak who didn't beat a top 10 player until the USO semi was strong competition lol. Roddick actually leads the h2h with Djokovic...

Nole's new level of ascendancy began at the 2010 USO. sorry if that fact somehow negates any other theories you may have

I suggest you watch the 2010 USO final again and rationally/dispassionately assess Nole's level. It was very high and extremely close to his 2011 level...

I mean my gosh, the scorelines of the 2010 USO semi and the 2011 USO semi were practically identical with the same two players (Federer/Nole) competing. That shows you that there could not have been some huge disparity in Nole’s form between the two events…

 

[NatF]

Nole's new level of ascendancy began at the 2010 USO. sorry if that fact somehow negates any other theories you may have

I suggest you watch the 2010 USO final again and rationally/dispassionately assess Nole's level. It was very high and extremely close to his 2011 level...

I mean my gosh, the scorelines of the 2010 USO semi and the 2011 USO semi were practically identical with the same two players (Federer/Nole) competing. That shows you that there could not have been some huge disparity in Nole’s form between the two events…

Roll your eyes if you want. Fact is Novak was in poor form all year, his form in the 09 semi his lost to Federer was higher and that was over in straights. I've watched the final recently, it was certainly not even close to his 2011. Anyone sad attempt by you to tout Nadal's USO 2010 level as the highest display of hardcourt tennis ever lol.

So the same two players are always going to put on the same level of match? News to me. Federer played better in the 11 semi final match, as did Djokovic. In 2010 Federer played a pretty subpar match...Both raised their level in the second encounter in 2011.

 

[Sorana fan]

Yes, but I wanted to be fair and use the same age.

Then use Fed 2003-2006

 

[Steve0904]

Nole's new level of ascendancy began at the 2010 USO. sorry if that fact somehow negates any other theories you may have

I suggest you watch the 2010 USO final again and rationally/dispassionately assess Nole's level. It was very high and extremely close to his 2011 level...

I mean my gosh, the scorelines of the 2010 USO semi and the 2011 USO semi were practically identical with the same two players (Federer/Nole) competing. That shows you that there could not have been some huge disparity in Nole’s form between the two events…

Going in order:

1. No it did not. You would have to start at the AO of 2011. Nole's level in the 2010 USO SF and F was anywhere between average and good, but not really at all close to his 2011 level. After the USO SF and F Djokovic still got beaten by Federer 3 times after that so I don't agree with your opinion.

2. No it was not. If it was he probably would've beaten Nadal in the 2010 final.

 

[DRII]

OK, since you are so nice I will throw you a bone. What is the definition of a different competition? Is it the level of play? Is it their records?

I mean Rosol was tough competition for Nadal but he doesn't have the numbers.
Sometimes a top player plays badly and he isn't the toughest competition.

Just give me exact time frames when Federer had / didn't have competition.
And how do you measure the level of competition? It's easy for you to dismiss a theory. But you have to substitute it with your own. If you even have any.
How is there any scientific way to prove what is the level of competition?

Let's say 2 players play. One loses. Does this mean one is better or the other was just bad? How do you measure this since you compare them relative to the others?

I would really like to hear your scientific way of measuring the competition since you are so smart.

there is no scientific way to prove what the level of competition is for any given time period. However, i have eyes and discernment, and anyone who paid attention to the game during the given time spans (2004-07 for Federer vs 2008-2011 for Nadal) would clearly see that 04-07 was certainly weaker than 08-11. one time span had 3 all time greats capable of winning slams on multiple surfaces (08-11), while the other (04-07) is characterized by the ascension of one all time great(perhaps greatest) dealing with comparative pigeons like Hewitt/Roddick or just great potentials like Safin or aging legends like Agassi or a clay Goat that had not shown his best form on other surfaces yet…

 

[DRII]

Roll your eyes if you want. Fact is Novak was in poor form all year, his form in the 09 semi his lost to Federer was higher and that was over in straights. I've watched the final recently, it was certainly not even close to his 2011. Anyone sad attempt by you to tout Nadal's USO 2010 level as the highest display of hardcourt tennis ever lol.

So the same two players are always going to put on the same level of match? News to me. Federer played better in the 11 semi final match, as did Djokovic. In 2010 Federer played a pretty subpar match...Both raised their level in the second encounter in 2011.

Oh so Federer and Nole both increased their level at the exact same rate and amount from 2010 USO to 2011 USO

sure, whatever you say...

 

[NatF]

Oh so Federer and Nole both increased their level at the exact same rate and amount from 2010 USO to 2011 USO

sure, whatever you say...

Why is that stranger then them both playing at the exact same level two years in a row? It's not actually that simple anyway, there are changes in momentum during a match where one player plays better and vica versa. However generally speaking the 2011 match was of higher quality.

Federer went on an unbeaten run after the USO 2011 that lasted until the AO, needless to say Djokovic's 2011 form was way higher than his 2010 form. So yes both were playing better in their 2011 semi.

 

[DRII]

Going in order:

1. No it did not. You would have to start at the AO of 2011. Nole's level in the 2010 USO SF and F was anywhere between average and good, but not really at all close to his 2011 level. After the USO SF and F Djokovic still got beaten by Federer 3 times after that so I don't agree with your opinion.

2. No it was not. If it was he probably would've beaten Nadal in the 2010 final.

first off, Nole's had several very close matches where he was nearly beaten in 2011, even though he was undefeated for a very long match span. meaning his level was not 100% consistent in his great match winning run in 2011, that much should be obvious.

I haven't seen a hard court performance from another player (given recent conditions - poly strings etc) that shows they would have defeated Nadal in the 2010 USO. I've seen Federer match Nadal's 2010 USO performance but given the inherent intangibles that negatively affect Federer, his peak would have still lost to that Nadal.

 

[DRII]

Why is that stranger then them both playing at the exact same level two years in a row? It's not actually that simple anyway, there are changes in momentum during a match where one player plays better and vica versa. However generally speaking the 2011 match was of higher quality.

Federer went on an unbeaten run after the USO 2011 that lasted until the AO, needless to say Djokovic's 2011 form was way higher than his 2010 form. So yes both were playing better in their 2011 semi.

because the scorelines were too similar to suggest that, thats literally a one and a billion happening.

and i agree that 2011 was better for both, but not by the margin you were earlier suggesting...

 

[jg153040]

there is no scientific way to prove what the level of competition is for any given time period. However, i have eyes and discernment, and anyone who paid attention to the game during the given time spans (2004-07 for Federer vs 2008-2011 for Nadal) would clearly see that 04-07 was certainly weaker than 08-11. one time span had 3 all time greats capable of winning slams on multiple surfaces (08-11), while the other (04-07) is characterized by the ascension of one all time great(perhaps greatest) dealing with comparative pigeons like Hewitt/Roddick or just great potentials like Safin or aging legends like Agassi or a clay Goat that had not shown his best form on other surfaces yet…

Ok, a decent theory. But how do you know that 3 all time greats capable of winning slams doesn't have to do with Feds decline? That could prove that 04-07 was very strong but Fed was in his prime stopping them. But 08-11 appears stronger because of Feds decline so he let others to win slams.

How can you tell? Maybe prime Fed would stop Nadal and Djokovic on non clay. And making Djokovic look like Hewitt and limit Nadals domination on clay, like in his prime.

Both theories yours and mine are possible. But you can't prove either.
So what now?

 

[TennisMaven]

Ok, a decent theory. But how do you know that 3 all time greats capable of winning slams doesn't have to do with Feds decline? That could prove that 04-07 was very strong but Fed was in his prime stopping them. But 08-11 appears stronger because of Feds decline so he let others to win slams.

How can you tell? Maybe prime Fed would stop Nadal and Djokovic on non clay. And making Djokovic look like Hewitt and limit Nadals domination on clay, like in his prime.

Both theories yours and mine are possible. But you can't prove either.
So what now?

Well apparently his eyes are the only ones that reveal the actual truth. All others' eyes only provide delusion, LOL.

 

[Cup8489]

You said "prime" in your title yet left out Nadal's 2008? You know, the only other year where he won more than RG?

Fine compare 2008-2011. Nadal was number one at some point in all four years, the only years this is true.

 

[Cup8489]

Well apparently his eyes are the only ones that reveal the actual truth. All others' eyes only provide delusion, LOL.

How delusional of you!

 

[jg153040]

You can do whatever you like, but what of any significance are you trying to prove? That Roger had a fantastic prime, and a better one than Nadal? Sure most rational people would admit that. Problem is by the wording of the OP it looks like you're rubbing it in, therefore even the good Nadal fans are getting understandably defensive.

And this criteria you've arbitrarily come up with that we kind of know is fact, but doesn't work for every player is a bad way to try and prove anything important. You've created strict criteria for a loose, abstract idea that it seems everyone has to follow.

A bit of constructive criticism here: This thread could've been fine, if you had given room for debate. Perhaps asked a question, and stated that you were looking for serious answers. Believe it or not, that still works.

I have proven that you don't have to be in your prime to have the best results or vice versa. That is plenty.

And that people shouldn't use results when defining primes.

 

[Cup8489]

Then use Fed 2003-2006

Ah I see. So we're to throw out one of Federer's peak years and add one of Nadal's. . Hmm. Doesn't seem any more fair than using 2009-2012. Do you realize that? Probably not.

 

[smoledman]

Fed is GOAT is GOAT.

 

[DRII]

Ok, a decent theory. But how do you know that 3 all time greats capable of winning slams doesn't have to do with Feds decline? That could prove that 04-07 was very strong but Fed was in his prime stopping them. But 08-11 appears stronger because of Feds decline so he let others to win slams.

How can you tell? Maybe prime Fed would stop Nadal and Djokovic on non clay. And making Djokovic look like Hewitt and limit Nadals domination on clay, like in his prime.

Both theories yours and mine are possible. But you can't prove either.
So what now?

Sorry, but Nadal was beating prime Federer on all surfaces besides indoor low bounce and was very close on grass pre 2008.

One thing you Federer supporters constantly bring up, to bolster his status as GOAT, is his amazing consistency. its littered all throughout this very thread, and I happen to largely agree with. Federer has won nearly as many slams (70%) post 2007 that he did pre 2008. this is the first year where it looks like Federer is probably incapable of winning a slam based solely on his own form unless he gets very lucky. so for you to argue that Federer's supposed decline is the only reason Nadal and Nole are able to win on multiple slam surfaces is quite hypocritical.

However, I ultimately agree that there is no way to 'prove' which era was stronger; just like there's no way to prove if a tree falls but no one is there to hear it fall, that any sound was generated...

 

[BobbyOne]

Like the title says. Their h2h vs the field during their ages from 23-26.

Federer : age 23-26 , 2004-2007
h2h vs the field : 317-25



Nadal : age 23-26 , 2009-2012
h2h vs the field : 243-46

To put it into perspective:

Federer has a lifetime percentage of 81.5

Nadal has a lifetime percentage of 83.3

Federer's peak was in a rather weak era...

 

[TennisMaven]

Sorry, but Nadal was beating prime Federer on all surfaces besides indoor low bounce and was very close on grass pre 2008.

Hmmm, if Nadal was beating prime Federer of all people on ALL surfaces you say before 2008, ANDDDDD the era from 2004-2007 was weak as you claim, then why didn't Nadal win any slams off clay before 2008? Hell if he had gotten to some finals on HC slams before 2008 he would have had his pigeon Fed consistently waiting in the final for him

please, no NAdal's game off clay wasn't developed enough, he was after all beating PRIME Federer!!!!!

 

[Steve0904]

I have proven that you don't have to be in your prime to have the best results or vice versa. That is plenty.

And that people shouldn't use results when defining primes.

Sure, but that is not plenty, most people know that anyway. Most people, if they are going to compare two players to determine who is better, they will take their best year(s) regardless of age. That's where your criteria fails. You have to use results to some extent at some point.

 

[TennisMaven]

Sure, but that is not plenty, most people know that anyway. Most people, if they are going to compare two players to determine who is better, they will take their best year(s) regardless of age. That's where your criteria fails. You have to use results to some extent at some point.

Yeah but I think what he's saying is that that's bad. OTherwise you have guys like Mustard claiming Nadal wasn't prime at AO2008, but he was from FO2008 to some small tournament at end of 2008 but then fell out of prime at USO2008, and on and on. OP is saying that's just cherry picking. I kinda agree with that.

 

[Slayer]

here is empirical evidence that 22-26 is, at least ON AVERAGE a top flight player's prime.

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

everyone is not the same of course, so without further analysis I am not taking a position on EXACTLY when nadal's prime was. but there is overwhelming statistical proof that 22-26 is in the ballpark.

Great write-up there and very interesting to see! It's a fair bit more convincing that I thought it would be.

However, it doesn't help OP much as this allows 22-25 as a possible physical prime for a tennis player, and I think this was the main argument of the Nadal-side.

I still disagree with putting a blanket 'athlete prime' age across all disciplines. Sports like triathlon and cycling have a much older prime than gymnasts, for example. All of these would still be athletes, however.

However, it seems that whilst I was sleeping, the conversation has moved on, so I don't even know if anyone cares anymore haha.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

To put it into perspective:

Federer has a lifetime percentage of 81.5

Nadal has a lifetime percentage of 83.3

Federer's peak was in a rather weak era...

That is because he developed a bit later than Nadal. If you take it from say when the both hit top 5, or won their first major, it is probably very even.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

there is no scientific way to prove what the level of competition is for any given time period.

Exactly.

However, i have eyes and discernment, and anyone who paid attention to the game during the given time spans (2004-07 for Federer vs 2008-2011 for Nadal) would clearly see that 04-07 was certainly weaker than 08-11. one time span had 3 all time greats capable of winning slams on multiple surfaces (08-11), while the other (04-07) is characterized by the ascension of one all time great(perhaps greatest) dealing with comparative pigeons like Hewitt/Roddick or just great potentials like Safin or aging legends like Agassi or a clay Goat that had not shown his best form on other surfaces yet…

But if Federer was not there, 04-07 would have been "stronger". You would have had a period with multiple major winners and Nadal on top.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Ok, a decent theory. But how do you know that 3 all time greats capable of winning slams doesn't have to do with Feds decline? That could prove that 04-07 was very strong but Fed was in his prime stopping them. But 08-11 appears stronger because of Feds decline so he let others to win slams.

And this.
.

 

[NadalAgassi]

No 04-07 would not be considered strong without Federer. It would have been even more of a joke than it already was. 18 year old Nadal would have first taken over the #1 ranking (unofficialy before the new weekly rankings came out, but based on the already collected points) before even winning a slam, and merely by reaching his first slam final, even if he had lost that one to Puerta; and with no other quarterfinals of slams prior to that, and only a few career ATP titles. 19 year old Nadal would have ended 2005 #1 by thousands of points despite a wonderous 6-3 record in the non French slams. 2006 would have seen the rise of Davydenko and Ljubicic at various points to World #2 and James Blake as the WTF, possibly U.S Open winner, and year end #2 or #3. We would have seen stupendous slam winners such as Marcos Baghdatis (Australian Open) and possibly Mario Ancic or Robert Kendrick (Wimbledon), and a French Open final of Nadal vs Ljubicic. I could go on, but there is really no point.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Sorry, but Nadal was beating prime Federer on all surfaces besides indoor low bounce and was very close on grass pre 2008.

But still Federer was 5-2 against Nadal off clay pre 2008.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

No 04-07 would not be considered strong without Federer. It would have been even more of a joke than it already was. 18 year old Nadal would have first taken over the #1 ranking (unofficialy before the new weekly rankings came out, but based on the already collected points) before even winning a slam, and merely by reaching his first slam final, even if he had lost that one to Puerta; and with no other quarterfinals of slams prior to that, and only a few career ATP titles. 19 year old Nadal would have ended 2005 #1 by thousands of points despite a wonderous 6-3 record in the non French slams. 2006 would have seen the rise of Davydenko and Ljubicic at various points to World #2 and James Blake as the WTF, possibly U.S Open winner, and year end #2 or #3. We would have seen stupendous slam winners such as Marcos Baghdatis (Australian Open) and possibly Mario Ancic or Robert Kendrick (Wimbledon), and a French Open final of Nadal vs Ljubicic. I could go on, but there is really no point.

It is still circular arguing. You might as well say that Federer made the competition look weak. Him going nr 1 last year supports that.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Sure, but that is not plenty, most people know that anyway. Most people, if they are going to compare two players to determine who is better, they will take their best year(s) regardless of age. That's where your criteria fails. You have to use results to some extent at some point.

But still Federers best three years are far better than Nadals.

 

[TMF]

It is still circular arguing. Youi might as well say that Federer made the competition look weak.

See, that's the problem. Suppose Roger never win a single slam and those 17 slams are distributed across the field. One will argue there's greater depth/strength of the field.

Him going nr 1 last year supports that.

Correct. He reclaimed the #1 ranking destroyed the weak competition theory.

 

[DeShaun]

This thread title says it all. Was the amount by which Roger was better than Rafa (at subduing the field) so as to offset the simple fact of their H2H record? Did Roger tame the same field so much better than Rafa as to counterbalance Rafa's H2H dominance of him? No, I don't think so. But Rafa always benefited from being so many (six?) years years younger than Roger, and from sort of straddling the Federer and Djokovic eras respectively.

After all, when we look at the facts, Rafa didn't hold onto the number one ranking for very long after dethroning Federer, which makes Rafa's game seem to owe something tangible and significant to the idea that is was designed (by Toni?) specifically to thwart Federer only--like Rafa were some kind of one trick pony--instead of building Rafa's game up in an arguably more balanced way, which might have better-ensured that this so called all time great held onto the number one ranking longer than he really was able actually to, i.e., a period more befitting an all time great-candidate--before Novak stormed Rafa's palace so to speak, knocking down chairs an kicking over tables, with shocking ease.

Yeah, so Rafa's most fervent devotees may have some difficulty living this down or explaining it away because, Rafa was torn asunder in '11 immediately following his very best year on tour.

 

[Cup8489]

No 04-07 would not be considered strong without Federer. It would have been even more of a joke than it already was. 18 year old Nadal would have first taken over the #1 ranking (unofficialy before the new weekly rankings came out, but based on the already collected points) before even winning a slam, and merely by reaching his first slam final, even if he had lost that one to Puerta; and with no other quarterfinals of slams prior to that, and only a few career ATP titles. 19 year old Nadal would have ended 2005 #1 by thousands of points despite a wonderous 6-3 record in the non French slams. 2006 would have seen the rise of Davydenko and Ljubicic at various points to World #2 and James Blake as the WTF, possibly U.S Open winner, and year end #2 or #3. We would have seen stupendous slam winners such as Marcos Baghdatis (Australian Open) and possibly Mario Ancic or Robert Kendrick (Wimbledon), and a French Open final of Nadal vs Ljubicic. I could go on, but there is really no point.

Not sure what you're on about. Nadal was in the top 10 before FO win in 2005: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=30.05.2005&r=1&c=#

But after winning he became number 3, not number 2. http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=06.06.2005&r=1&c=#

So he wouldn't have "been number 1 without even winning a major".

Also, It's likely that Hewitt may have benefitted considerably from Federer being nonexistant, including possibly winning the 2004 USO and having a more sizeable lead over Nadal by the end of FO 2005.

If your point is that Nadal could possibly be ranked number 1 for winning FO, which was among 10 titles he took that year, it's not that surprising. He was an incredible player, and you're doing him a disservice suggesting that it wouldn't have been deserved. There's been plenty of examples of people being number 1 despite holding only one slam.

We've actually gotten accustomed to an individual winning more than one slam a year for the most part; it's not really that common.

 

[jg153040]

Sorry, but Nadal was beating prime Federer on all surfaces besides indoor low bounce and was very close on grass pre 2008.

One thing you Federer supporters constantly bring up, to bolster his status as GOAT, is his amazing consistency. its littered all throughout this very thread, and I happen to largely agree with. Federer has won nearly as many slams (70%) post 2007 that he did pre 2008. this is the first year where it looks like Federer is probably incapable of winning a slam based solely on his own form unless he gets very lucky. so for you to argue that Federer's supposed decline is the only reason Nadal and Nole are able to win on multiple slam surfaces is quite hypocritical.

However, I ultimately agree that there is no way to 'prove' which era was stronger; just like there's no way to prove if a tree falls but no one is there to hear it fall, that any sound was generated...

See, this is the problem. You are being hypocritical saying that Federer was only able to win slams because he was in a weak era.

At the same time I say that they were only able to win because of Feds decline and you calling me hypocritical.

I'm honest and saying you can't prove either. But you want to use the theory that makes Fed look worse and just devalue his slam count. And overvalue Nadals slam count. At the same time ignoring the fallacy that if Federer is a weak era champion, you are awarding Djokovic and Nadal that they were able to win against him.

I can also use my theory and overvalue Feds slam count if I choose. So we are at square one.

Maybe both is true. Federer took advantage when Nadal and Djoker weren't
in their primes. Also they took advantage when Fed wasn't in his prime.

So if you are logical and fair: either both eras are weak or both eras are strong. Either you award the same value for all players or none.

Because then we can just go by feelings and it will be a mess. Because any era where someone is dominating too much appears "weak".

And to add, it doesn't really matter if you beat a journeyman in a slam or not.
Because daily form means that a slam champion can play badly and a journeyman can play on the same level as the elite.

Margins are low, this means even lower ranked player can get on a run and plays on the elite level for a tournament.

So whoever you beat it means that you beat a person who currently is displaying the best level of play.

 

[furryballs]

how many of these matches are on clay?

 

[jg153040]

No 04-07 would not be considered strong without Federer. It would have been even more of a joke than it already was. 18 year old Nadal would have first taken over the #1 ranking (unofficialy before the new weekly rankings came out, but based on the already collected points) before even winning a slam, and merely by reaching his first slam final, even if he had lost that one to Puerta; and with no other quarterfinals of slams prior to that, and only a few career ATP titles. 19 year old Nadal would have ended 2005 #1 by thousands of points despite a wonderous 6-3 record in the non French slams. 2006 would have seen the rise of Davydenko and Ljubicic at various points to World #2 and James Blake as the WTF, possibly U.S Open winner, and year end #2 or #3. We would have seen stupendous slam winners such as Marcos Baghdatis (Australian Open) and possibly Mario Ancic or Robert Kendrick (Wimbledon), and a French Open final of Nadal vs Ljubicic. I could go on, but there is really no point.

The problem with your theory is that someone would get Federer points.
Not just Nadal. Because those amazing players that Federer was able to stop would go deep in slams and they were able to stop Nadal off clay.

So they would get more points and Nadal would not be nr.1 as early as you think. Even if he was that doesn't mean weak era. It would mean Nadal is so good.

Yes we would see those guys you mentioned as slam winner. This just proves how good they are and only Federer was able to stop them because those years he was from another planet.

But Nadal on clay is from another planet also. Even pre-prime he was owning even prime Fed on clay. That is unheard of. Because Federer is amazing on clay.

Not just their results. Their level of play is amazing. Just watch them in their primes how amazing they play. They probably have the best forehands and footwork in history of the sport.

So there is a good reason Federer is called the goat and Nadal the clay goat.
Not undisputed of course but they are on the top of any goat lists.

So the only "failure" Federer has is that he wasn't able to defeat the clay goat.
Because of this he also wasn't able to win the grand slam. If you want to fault Federer because of this, be my guest. It's fair. And if because of this he can't be the goat it's ok.

But besides this, there isn't a lot you can fault Federer with.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

Fair enough. Look, Federer is a great player, no doubt about it. And I'm not going to question his achievements. All I'm saying is that Nadal has had far more problems during his career than Federer, and thus trying to compare a 3 or 4 year "prime" period is just not going to work.

ok. how about let's compare the results against the field for a 10 year period and disregard the primes completely. will nadal's problematic inconsistencies render that statistic moot as well? it seems a little convenient of an argument for nadal. all players levels fluctuate through out their careers. djokovic killed it, winning 3 slams in 2011 but managed to only win 1 in 2012.

a prime is a prime. perhaps attaching a fixed number of consecutive years to it does nothing except make the idea of a prime more quantifiable, but even if we take their 4 best, not-necesarlly-sequential years into account, federer would still have the better stats against the field.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

In 80 odd matches vs the top 4, Fed wins 44% of the time, Joker 48%, Rafa is at whopping 63% and Murray is at 42%, though Murray he has only played around 50 times vs the top 4. Fed also has a losing record versus Murray and Nadal, while Nadal has a winning record vs all of the top 4. It is No wonder Murray and Joker say that Rafa is the greatest player ever.

 

[jg153040]

In 80 odd matches vs the top 4, Fed wins 44% of the time, Joker 48%, Rafa is at whopping 63% and Murray is at 42%, though Murray he has only played around 50 times vs the top 4. Fed also has a losing record versus Murray and Nadal, while Nadal has a winning record vs all of the top 4. It is No wonder Murray and Joker say that Rafa is the greatest player ever.

Well still better than having losing record to Rosol or Davydenko. At least Nadal and Murray are slam winners.

And why didn't you include Ferrer? He was nr.4 for a long time lately.

Ferrer who has at least 5 wins vs Djoker, Murray and Nadal including grand slam wins.

What is Feds record against Ferrer?

 

[NatF]

To put it into perspective:

Federer has a lifetime percentage of 81.5

Nadal has a lifetime percentage of 83.3

Federer's peak was in a rather weak era...

Federer has a higher win percentage (the best of all time) on hardcourts and grass, Nadal isn't number 2 on either of those surfaces either. He's simply extremely dominant on clay which pushes up his win percentage. That's the perspective. Federer is better on hards and grass, Nadal much better on clay.

Nadal's peak year 2010 was an exceptionally weak year, you don't know what you're talking about. The world #3 that year had to wait till the USO to even score a win versus a top 10 player. So not sure how Nadal's peak faced stronger competition.

Sorry, but Nadal was beating prime Federer on all surfaces besides indoor low bounce and was very close on grass pre 2008.

One thing you Federer supporters constantly bring up, to bolster his status as GOAT, is his amazing consistency. its littered all throughout this very thread, and I happen to largely agree with. Federer has won nearly as many slams (70%) post 2007 that he did pre 2008. this is the first year where it looks like Federer is probably incapable of winning a slam based solely on his own form unless he gets very lucky. so for you to argue that Federer's supposed decline is the only reason Nadal and Nole are able to win on multiple slam surfaces is quite hypocritical.

However, I ultimately agree that there is no way to 'prove' which era was stronger; just like there's no way to prove if a tree falls but no one is there to hear it fall, that any sound was generated...

Federer has also beaten prime Nadal on all surfaces, the only period where the h2h was truly one sided was 08-09 after Federer suffered from mono and mentally checked out. Otherwise Federer has always scored some wins versus Nadal.

As for slam losses the more significant stat is that since 2010 he hasn't once made the semi's of all 4 slams. Berdych, Tsonga etc...aren't better players than the guys he used to face. It's because he's declined. As for competition at the top the only signficant edition has been Novak who's also stopped Nadal from winning multiple slams, probably more so than Federer.

Nadal and Novak are good enough to win on all surfaces, I don't know if anyone other than a rabbid troll would say otherwise. But peak Federer would have likely won atleast a few of those close encounters with his younger rivals. I think that's the major difference.

2011 was a strong year, 2008 was also a fairly strong year. Otherwise I'd rate Federer's competition in 2004, 2005 and in 2007 higher. Novak disappeared in 09 and 10 for the most part.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

In 80 odd matches vs the top 4, Fed wins 44% of the time, Joker 48%, Rafa is at whopping 63% and Murray is at 42%, though Murray he has only played around 50 times vs the top 4. Fed also has a losing record versus Murray and Nadal, while Nadal has a winning record vs all of the top 4. It is No wonder Murray and Joker say that Rafa is the greatest player ever.

if professional tennis was comprised of 4 individuals, then rafa takes the cake. sadly it isnt.

 

[jg153040]

2011 was a strong year, 2008 was also a fairly strong year. Otherwise I'd rate Federer's competition in 2004, 2005 and in 2007 higher. Novak disappeared in 09 and 10 for the most part.

It's really impossible to say which year is stronger or not. Year 2012 had 4 different slam winners. Maybe this means all 4 equally sucked. Or it could mean FEDAL declined so others could capitalize. Or it could mean only Murray improved at the end of the season. Or only Djoker declined at the end of the season. Or combinations of everything.

That is why I completely ignore any weak era theories. Because than you don't have facts any more but just guessing and personal bias.

So the most logical is to assume all eras are strong. Since EVERY player plays against the BEST competition AVAILABLE to him at the time.

Why is beating any player better than beating any other? It doesn't make sense since the player with the best level of play makes the slam final.

There are no weak draws and strong draws. At the end it all evens out.

 

[jg153040]

if professional tennis was comprised of 4 individuals, then rafa takes the cake. sadly it isnt.

Yes, sure if you look it like this. But there is a fallacy here. First 5 year gap.
They should be the same age.

The second is that Fed has a game that is best for the entire field. If he were to play only 3 guys he would maybe change his game to beat only 3 styles.

His talent focus is vs entire field. But if he would focus his talent to just 3 guys he probably would do better He wouldn't have to conserve energy he could just grind 5 hours.

I don't know, but you can't just assume that if there were only four players that they would still beat Fed. The whole dynamic changes.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

Yes, sure if you look it like this. But there is a fallacy here. First 5 year gap.
They should be the same age.

The second is that Fed has a game that is best for the entire field. If he were to play only 3 guys he would maybe change his game to beat only 3 styles.

His talent focus is vs entire field. But if he would focus his talent to just 3 guys he probably would do better He wouldn't have to conserve energy he could just grind 5 hours.

I don't know, but you can't just assume that if there were only four players that they would still beat Fed. The whole dynamic changes.

i made my statement to point out to who i was responding to how misleading it is to bring one's head to head record against 3 other specific individuals in a sport that has so many more dynamics other than playing 3 other people, including having to best/outlast a whole 2000-man tour.

 

[jg153040]

i made my statement to point out to who i was responding to how misleading it is to bring one's head to head record against 3 other specific individuals in a sport that has so many more dynamics other than playing 3 other people, including having to best/outlast a whole 2000-man tour.

Yeah and I did agree. I just added some stuff. It was meant in general. I know that you know this and you aren't making those fallacies.

And to add, even if we use top 4, what top 4 do we use? Best 4 in the era?
Current top 4? Why not top 4 in Feds prime?

But returning back to the OP. Well pre-prime vs pre-prime, Nadal did better than Federer. So I don't know what the problem is. Maybe because people usually care more about primes. Or maybe some people are upset with any stats that don't favour Nadal.

 

[DRII]

Exactly. But if Federer was not there, 04-07 would have been "stronger". You would have had a period with multiple major winners and Nadal on top.

just having multiple slam surface winners does not alone mean a certain time period is stronger.

qualitative judgment of individual players is a significant factor in assessing era or time span strength.

 

[DRII]

No 04-07 would not be considered strong without Federer. It would have been even more of a joke than it already was. 18 year old Nadal would have first taken over the #1 ranking (unofficialy before the new weekly rankings came out, but based on the already collected points) before even winning a slam, and merely by reaching his first slam final, even if he had lost that one to Puerta; and with no other quarterfinals of slams prior to that, and only a few career ATP titles. 19 year old Nadal would have ended 2005 #1 by thousands of points despite a wonderous 6-3 record in the non French slams. 2006 would have seen the rise of Davydenko and Ljubicic at various points to World #2 and James Blake as the WTF, possibly U.S Open winner, and year end #2 or #3. We would have seen stupendous slam winners such as Marcos Baghdatis (Australian Open) and possibly Mario Ancic or Robert Kendrick (Wimbledon), and a French Open final of Nadal vs Ljubicic. I could go on, but there is really no point.

Exactly!!!!

 

[DRII]

It is still circular arguing. You might as well say that Federer made the competition look weak. Him going nr 1 last year supports that.

No, him going to #1 last year shows he had not substantially declined in by 2012.

so far this year, his physical decline is rather obvious. i don't know if this is a short-term acute situation (just having back issues) or if his longevity is finally catching up to him...

 

[DRII]

This thread title says it all. Was the amount by which Roger was better than Rafa (at subduing the field) so as to offset the simple fact of their H2H record? Did Roger tame the same field so much better than Rafa as to counterbalance Rafa's H2H dominance of him? No, I don't think so. But Rafa always benefited from being so many (six?) years years younger than Roger, and from sort of straddling the Federer and Djokovic eras respectively.

After all, when we look at the facts, Rafa didn't hold onto the number one ranking for very long after dethroning Federer, which makes Rafa's game seem to owe something tangible and significant to the idea that is was designed (by Toni?) specifically to thwart Federer only--like Rafa were some kind of one trick pony--instead of building Rafa's game up in an arguably more balanced way, which might have better-ensured that this so called all time great held onto the number one ranking longer than he really was able actually to, i.e., a period more befitting an all time great-candidate--before Novak stormed Rafa's palace so to speak, knocking down chairs an kicking over tables, with shocking ease.

Yeah, so Rafa's most fervent devotees may have some difficulty living this down or explaining it away because, Rafa was torn asunder in '11 immediately following his very best year on tour.

I guess Nadal's numerous injuries have escaped your attention! that has much more to do with him not holding on to number 1 longer.

and you may think Nadal's game only troubles Federer, but the truth is it overtakes nearly every other player, especially other top players as his winning H2H attest to...

 

[THE FIGHTER]

I guess Nadal's numerous injuries have escaped your attention! that has much more to do with him not holding on to number 1 longer.

and you may think Nadal's game only troubles Federer, but the truth is it overtakes nearly every other player, especially other top players as his winning H2H attest to...

it's incredibly mysterious that he doesnt have the best yearly win percentage if his game overtakes nearly every other player. i suggest restructuring of the percentage system.