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

[jg153040]

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...

Yes, Nadals peak level of play is amazing. Nobody argues against this. The point is he can't replicate his peak play for longer periods of time.

It's a shame he has injuries. But maybe they are also the result of his peak play.He has to train and play very hard to be able to have such an amazing peak play.

But why should Federer be penalized because of this? He had his share of injures. He also has chronic back problem. But he manages his schedule better and he developed a style for longevity.

All greats have amazing peak play. But the only difference between them and Federer is that he can sustain his peak for longer periods of time. Consistency. That is why he is regarded as the best of the modern era.

 

[DRII]

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.

first off, I never said that Federer only won slams because he was in a weak era (04-07), however he certainly won more slams during that time because of weaker competition. if he had to face prime Nadal, Nole, and Murray during that time his slam count would most certainly have been reduced and reduced more substantially than that of Nadal or Nole applying the inverse scenario. of course there is no way to prove this, as both of us have been saying, but thats my assessment. mainly because I consider prime Nadal, Nole, and Murray to be superior to prime Hewitt, Roddick, and the prime Safin we saw (mental issues and lack of dedication); if Safin actually fully dedicated himself and not suffered from various injuries, i would hold 04-07 much higher than I do now. and as far as placing prime Federer in 08 and onward, i don't think the difference would be that substantial because i don't consider Federer's level to have declined that much from his peak till about 2012 (negating certain small pockets). as a matter of fact (IMO), Federer's worst year post 08 as far as form goes was 2009, which was actually one of his better slam years (making every final and winning two including his first French)...

 

[DRII]

Yes, Nadals peak level of play is amazing. Nobody argues against this. The point is he can't replicate his peak play for longer periods of time.

It's a shame he has injuries. But maybe they are also the result of his peak play.He has to train and play very hard to be able to have such an amazing peak play.

But why should Federer be penalized because of this? He had his share of injures. He also has chronic back problem. But he manages his schedule better and he developed a style for longevity.

All greats have amazing peak play. But the only difference between them and Federer is that he can sustain his peak for longer periods of time. Consistency. That is why he is regarded as the best of the modern era.

I've said, basically, the exact same thing; to which you argued against me. so where is the confusion

 

[jg153040]

I've said, basically, the exact same thing; to which you argued against me. so where is the confusion

Yes, we mostly agree. Except for some lack of competition for Federer.
It could be argued both ways. Federer was in his peak so he made Hewitt and Roddick and Safin look like they are weak. Maybe if current generation faced 25,26 years old Federer they would have the same numbers as Hewitt, Roddick..
Except for Nadal on clay.

You don't know how it would go if all were 25 years old at the same time.
You could argue both ways. Federer did better before because there were no peak Djoker, Murray, Nadal. But now they are doing better because there is no Peak Federer. So it goes both ways.

There is also this butterfly effect. Federer was so good because competition didn't see anything like this before. Federer was the evolution of tennis.
If Federer and current players were the same age they wouldn't have the advantage seeing Federer play for so long. And time to figure out his game.
Also no fitness advantage.

This generation is the product of Federer. If they are the same age, their level wouldn't be as high because of this.

So it is logical to assume there is no weak competition. And only count achievements. Just because a player has a resume why does this mean he is the tougher competition? Soderling has nothing, but he was the only one to exhibit the level of play to defeat FEDAL in RG. The only one.

If we go down this path that competition is easier or tougher it is a very slippery slope. You can then say, nobody was able to challenge Sampras in WB finals. Or Nadal on clay. They had it easy.

If you are the best you are supposed to have it easier. That's the point, isn't it?

 

[Steve0904]

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.

Absolutely. I agree with that too. Cherry picking a few months here and there. That's not what most people, even the most hardcore Nadal fans do anyway. That's just Mustard being Mustard.

 

[Steve0904]

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

Yeah sure, but again everyone knows that anyway even if they won't admit it. All I'm saying is, the logic doesn't work for every player, and it's not necessary to toot Federer's horn this way.

 

[jg153040]

Yeah sure, but again everyone knows that anyway even if they won't admit it. All I'm saying is, the logic doesn't work for every player, and it's not necessary to toot Federer's horn this way.

What's your point? No logic works for every player. Some players have better coaches, better genetics, better health, mental state, better family...
Should we just abolish atp rankings and stop discussing tennis?

 

[Steve0904]

What's your point? No logic works for every player. Some players have better coaches, better genetics, better health, mental state, better family...
Should we just abolish atp rankings and stop discussing tennis?

My point is, this discussion could've been better if you weren't so strict on the parameters of a prime for ALL tennis players because prime is such an abstract subject. Not everybody believes it has to be between the ages of 23-26, and if keep these strict parameters when people try to tell you they have a different idea of what a prime is, all it tells us is who had a better period between the ages of 23-26. To me, at least that is useless information.

Look at a guy like Ferrer for example. He was not great at all between the ages of 23-26, but he's played much better tennis later in his career than he did between those ages. To me, that is not post-prime for Ferrer just because he's not between those ages. It means his prime has happened after the 23-26 period, and the reason why I think this is because Ferrer is playing plain better than he ever has the last few years tennis wise, not just results wise.

 

[zagor]

Absolutely. I agree with that too. Cherry picking a few months here and there. That's not what most people, even the most hardcore Nadal fans do anyway. That's just Mustard being Mustard.

I get the impression that most of them do actually, maybe not to the degree that Mustard does but most of it is some variation on "Nadal is undefeated when healthy and not in baby or massive decline stages of his career".

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Should we just abolish atp rankings

Absolutely. A 2-year ranking system would be far better for tennis, as it would mean players who are injured, like JPotro, or RNadal don't have to sink so low in the rankings. Then, the Protected Ranking isn't needed, and fewer wildcard-wh0res like LHewitt hang around.

 

[Steve0904]

I get the impression that most of them do actually, maybe not to the degree that Mustard does but most of it is some variation on "Nadal is undefeated when healthy and not in baby or massive decline stages of his career".

True yes, but I still don't see why (if we were going to pick a 4 year stretch for Nadal's prime) we couldn't use 2008-2011 with no stupid stops in between for injury/parents divorcing/getting his *** handed to him by Djokovic.

I mean, what time did he really miss in 2009? He wins AO and IW. He's never won Miami anyway and I believe he lost to Delpo who of course went on to win the USO that year. He wins MC, Rome, and Barcelona, makes finals of Madrid. He misses Wimbledon, ok fine then just don't count it. He loses at RG. Shouldn't mean he's not in his prime all of a sudden especially considering he had clobbered his 3 previous opponents and looked on course to dominate at RG again.

What baffles me is that people make excuses for his losses after Wimbledon, as if he dominates the fall HC season through to the end of the year like he dominates clay. It's not as if he's ever been some world beater after Wimbledon. Also I believe he lost to Delpo again in Canada, yet again another loss on a HC to the guy that destroyed Nadal in the USO SF and went on to beat Federer in 5 to win the title. How are these losses indicative that he's out of his prime. It's not like he lost to some scrub that year stomach tear or not.

Then of course we have 2011. So are we supposed to just discount it all of a sudden even though that was some of Nadal's best HC tennis in his entire career? Keeping in mind that Djokovic has always had a better H2H against Nadal on HC even before 2011. It would be the equivalent of Federer fans discounting 2006 because he had a 2-4 record against Nadal, but his only other loss that year was to Murray, and it's his best year results wise.

It's simply ludicrous. Note that I'm not arguing with you I'm just trying to be logical about Nadal's "prime", whenever that is.

 

[jg153040]

My point is, this discussion could've been better if you weren't so strict on the parameters of a prime for ALL tennis players because prime is such an abstract subject. Not everybody believes it has to be between the ages of 23-26, and if keep these strict parameters when people try to tell you they have a different idea of what a prime is, all it tells us is who had a better period between the ages of 23-26. To me, at least that is useless information.

Look at a guy like Ferrer for example. He was not great at all between the ages of 23-26, but he's played much better tennis later in his career than he did between those ages. To me, that is not post-prime for Ferrer just because he's not between those ages. It means his prime has happened after the 23-26 period, and the reason why I think this is because Ferrer is playing plain better than he ever has the last few years tennis wise, not just results wise.

Well I can accept your opinion of prime. I use athletic prime. But you are dismissing my prime theory without your own. This doesn't help.I need something to replace it with.

Give me your definition of their primes and give me how they did.

 

[Steve0904]

Well I can accept your opinion of prime. I use athletic prime. But you are dismissing my prime theory without your own. This doesn't help.I need something to replace it with.

Give me your definition of their primes and give me how they did.

Your prime theory is fine if that's really what you think. But I don't think it works if you're trying to blanket it over all players. Obviously I don't think it's a simple concept. My best (rather loose) definition of prime would probably be the period where they had their best results (for most comparisons between two players.) But again I don't think that works for all players. (e.g Agassi). He only had 3 majors before 1999, but his level of play in 1995 for example was better than anything 1999 and beyond IMO. He also skipped a few AO's and Wimbledon's, but then we do not know how he would've done in those tournaments. Our best guess is that he would've done rather average at Wimbledon, but great at the AO's he skipped, and I don't believe all of them were due to injury.

For most players, like Federer and Nadal it is between the ages of about 22-26.

And if I was going to take Nadal's I would change it from the years you used. I think it's between 2008-2011. Of course Federer's peak/prime is easily defined as 2004-2007. You are right there IMO.

To me, prime and results are closely tied, but obviously not totally the same. Example: Djokovic. It's clear to every sane person that Novak's best year was 2011 results wise. It's also clear by the simple human eye test that it was the year he played his best tennis even if we don't look at results, but IMO it is not a coincidence that they are closely tied together as opposed to his drop off in these subsequent years. I also don't think it was a coincidence that it came in the year he turned 24, so you clearly have a point about age. I am simply trying to say that primes are not the same for all players, and as such, shouldn't be defined to be within a certain age range exactly, with no wiggle room.

 

[jg153040]

Your prime theory is fine if that's really what you think. But I don't think it works if you're trying to blanket it over all players. Obviously I don't think it's a simple concept. My best (rather loose) definition of prime would probably be the period where they had their best results (for any two players.) But again I don't think that works for all players. (e.g Agassi). He only had 3 majors before 1999, but his level of play in 1995 for example was better than anything 1999 and beyond IMO. He also skipped a few AO's and Wimbledon's, but then we do not know how he would've done in those tournaments. Our best guess is that he would've done rather average at Wimbledon, but great at the AO's he missed.

For most players, like Federer and Nadal it is between the ages of about 22-26.

And if I was going to take Nadal's I would change it from the years you used. I think it's between 2008-2011. Of course Federer's peak/prime is easily defined as 2004-2007. You are right there IMO.

Well so this is almost the same as mine. Maybe I should use their birthdays yes. That would be even more fair and accurate.

 

[Steve0904]

Well so this is almost the same as mine. Maybe I should use their birthdays yes. That would be even more fair and accurate.

I've edited that quote you used. Just an FYI if you're interested. Have I offended you in any way or am I misreading what you've typed? Sorry if I have. Is that part about the birthdays supposed to be sarcasm? Serious question.

 

[jg153040]

I've edited that quote you used. Just an FYI if you're interested. Have I offended you in any way or am I misreading what you've typed? Sorry if I have. Is that part about the birthdays supposed to be sarcasm? Serious question.

No, I realized something when you used Nadals 2008. That I used the years when they both turned 23. I realized that I should use the time span from their 23rd birthday to their 27th birthday. And not the start of the year they turned 23.

Don't worry, you've been great.

 

[Steve0904]

No, I realized something when you used Nadals 2008. That I used the years when they both turned 23. I realized that I should use the time span from their 23rd birthday to their 27th birthday. And not the start of the year they turned 23.

Don't worry, you've been great.

Oh ok. No hard feelings then. But I'm using the year Nadal turned 22 up until the year he turned 25. I don't think prime should be restricted any more than it is by using their birthdays.