Federer fans turning on Novak

[Deleted member 688153]

Between forms and between players.

All that matters in a tournament is how a player is playing.
His name does not earn him points, games, sets, or matches.
He (or she) plays, to the best of their ability at that time, and hopefully does as well as they are capable.

Once the tournament is over, their performance can be counted against their resume.
It is here that players are compared to one another.
Surely you can agree with the above, it seems rather obvious to me.

My overall point is that the name matters little compared to one's form when playing a tournament.
Sure, form is subjective, but the results that it delivers are not.
Note that I am not talking about the specifics of Gonzalez's game at AO 2007 or anything, just the fact that he beat Nadal (and four other guys) and made the final.

Once again - If you lose earlier, you can objectively be said to be, in that tournament, playing worse than a guy who makes it further.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

People don't become more humble from lowering their health levels. Far from it I'm afraid. I suggest that some people here lighten up more.

This needs to be the most balanced and complete forum. I respect the work of @tennis_pro .

We must have all things.

I will become everything.

 

[Noleberic123]

This needs to be the most balanced and complete forum. I respect the work of @tennis_pro .

We must have all things.

I will become everything.

Well I don't respect his work. Every time he posts I lose 10 years of my life just reading. I don't know but to me you sound like your turning to the dark side.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Yeah but what I am trying to say is that Federer has had chances to beat a wider range of players in his slam finals. Djokovic has only had a chance to beat 4. The other members of the big 4 and Tsonga

Indeed he did, and he took almost all of those chances.

Djokovic has not had as many chances, no, but no doubt he will recieve more in the future, and then we will see how he does.
Until then, we cannot punish Federer for this.

Also, Novak has had the chance against Stan.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Well I don't respect his work. Every time he posts I lose 10 years of my life just reading. I don't know but to me you sound like your turning to the dark side.

You should have died a few hundred years ago.

 

[Noleberic123]

Indeed he did, and he took almost all of those chances.

Djokovic has not had as many chances, no, but no doubt he will recieve more in the future, and then we will see how he does.
Until then, we cannot punish Federer for this.

Also, Novak has had the chance against Stan.

True he has. But stan is not a force to be taken lightly.

 

[Noleberic123]

You should have died a few hundred years ago.

My spirit lives on.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

True he has. But stan is not a force to be taken lightly.

Precisely.
Neither is Del Potro when he is at his best (USO 2009 final).

 

[Noleberic123]

Precisely.
Neither is Del Potro when he is at his best (USO 2009 final).

I know. I felt his fury and wrath during Wimbledon 2013.

 

[ABCD]

Which match are you talking about?

The last one 63 36 60. Djokovic is changing his game. Some of ideas how to play were wow. For anyone who doesn't like him it will be a tough ride.

 

[Noleberic123]

The last one 63 36 60. Djokovic is changing his game. Some of ideas how to play were wow. For anyone who doesn't like him it will be a tough ride.

Mwahahahhaha to that!!

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Nadal in 2007 hadn't yet won a HC slam, he was still young.

Fed at the USO 2004 final had never even made a USO final before, but I don't think Roger had read that memo before he stepped out on court.
And as I said earlier, Nadal was World #2 at the time, so no age excuses please.

That wasn't the ideal version of Rafa on HC.

Sorry, I don't quite get the relevance.
Are you saying that victories over Nadal are only valid if he's at his absolute best?

So in Wimby 2010, if Berdych beat Fed and then went on to lose to Rafa, does that make Berdych strong opposition?

It makes him better opposition than the Federer who lost in four to Berdych.
My point exactly, thank you for the assisting example.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Well I don't respect his work. Every time he posts I lose 10 years of my life just reading. I don't know but to me you sound like your turning to the dark side.

You gotta lighten up a bit if it's that damaging . He's just about monkey business. For me, I'm just turning to the all sides - has always been the case. I'm a vast series of fragments that conspire to play devil's advocate.

 

[Noleberic123]

Fed at the USO 2004 final had never even made a USO final before, but I don't think Roger had read that memo before he stepped out on court.
And as I said earlier, Nadal was World #2 at the time, so no age excuses please.


Sorry, I don't quite get the relevance.
Are you saying that victories over Nadal are only valid if he's at his absolute best?


It makes him better opposition than the Federer who lost in four to Berdych.
My point exactly, thank you for the assisting example.

I ask you again. How much better do you think peak Federer is than peak Djokovic?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I ask you again. How much better do you think peak Federer is than peak Djokovic?

Roughly equal.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I ask you again. How much better do you think peak Federer is than peak Djokovic?

Can I phone a friend?

Sorry, I honestly don't know for sure.
Although, I think that he's only a little better on average across all surfaces (depends heavily on surface).

 

[Noleberic123]

Can I phone a friend?

Sorry, I honestly don't know for sure.
Although, I think that he's only a little better on average across all surfaces (depends heavily on surface).

Hmm if I asked that question about a year ago you would have said peak fed is much better

 

[Noleberic123]

Roughly equal.

It's tough to call. Maybe if you have a time machine we can find out?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Hmm if I asked that question about a year ago you would have said peak fed is much better

Probably, yeah.
At my young and tender age, my opinions change quickly and I can mature out of sight.

Still what I'm saying now is probably the best option to go with.

 

[Noleberic123]

Probably, yeah.
At my young and tender age, my opinions change quickly and I can mature out of sight.

Still what I'm saying now is probably the best option to go with.

I think as you get older you realise a lot of things.

 

[CYGS]

All that matters in a tournament is how a player is playing.
His name does not earn him points, games, sets, or matches.
He (or she) plays, to the best of their ability at that time, and hopefully does as well as they are capable.

Once the tournament is over, their performance can be counted against their resume.
It is here that players are compared to one another.
Surely you can agree with the above, it seems rather obvious to me.

My overall point is that the name matters little compared to one's form when playing a tournament.
Sure, form is subjective, but the results that it delivers are not.
Note that I am not talking about the specifics of Gonzalez's game at AO 2007 or anything, just the fact that he beat Nadal (and four other guys) and made the final.

Once again - If you lose earlier, you can objectively be said to be, in that tournament, playing worse than a guy who makes it further.

Ridiculous and self-contradictory again. Federer not making past 2nd round in Paris would still be a tougher component for Djokovic than almost anyone else. Stop repeating yourself, and I will only reply if you have anything NEW and MEANINGFUL to add.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

It's tough to call. Maybe if you have a time machine we can find out?

Djokovic would win on aggregate vis-à-vis both possible transpositions. I'm quite certain, and think it's the nature of things (gradual improvement).

It's a less extreme version of doing the same for Laver and Djokovic. Djokovic would crush Laver.


When answering these questions though, people tend to think in relative terms. People will sometimes cite Fischer as being better than Kasparov because he created a large chasm between himself and the next best rank, but of course he was a worse chess player by objective measure because of the advancements in opening theory that followed (Kasparov came later).

Popular statement is popular.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Analogy:

Sports competition is like a never-ending race and Djokovic joined the race at a later date and at a more advanced period of the race. The race has progressed forward even if the scenery —analogous to a paradigm shift in the game or changing playing conditions — has changed. Djokovic can be argued to be better than Federer but Federer dominated his stint of the never-ending race better than Djokovic has thus far. The race never stops.

Because of this, when dealing with such suppositions, I must wildly speculate how they would do if dropped into any era from the beginning of their careers, starting from scratch. Think about how wild that is for a moment ... an exercise in futility?

Yes.

 

[Noleberic123]

Djokovic would win on aggregate vis-à-vis both possible transpositions. I'm quite certain, and think it's the nature of things (gradual improvement).

It's a less extreme version of doing the same for Laver and Djokovic. Djokovic would crush Laver.


When answering these questions though, people tend to think in relative terms. People will sometimes cite Fischer as being better than Kasparov because he created a large chasm between himself and the next best rank, but of course he was a worse chess player by objective measure because of the advancements in opening theory that followed (Kasparov came later).

Popular statement is popular.

Are you saying we shouldn't really be comparing their two peaks level of play? That's what I got from that. I think though in a span of 9 years not much "gradual improvement" has happened. Peak Federer and peak Djokovic are very comparable. Djokovic and laver are another thing. They are two far apart in eras. Laver stopped playing tennis before Djokovic was even a thought in existence. Djokovic would obviously crush laver you can't compare their two peaks. But that's why we compare achievements.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Are you saying we shouldn't really be comparing their two peaks level of play? That's what I got from that. I think though in a span of 9 years not much "gradual improvement" has happened. Peak Federer and peak Djokovic are very comparable. Djokovic and laver are another thing. They are two far apart in eras. Laver stopped playing tennis before Djokovic was even a thought in existence. Djokovic would obviously crush laver you can't compare their two peaks. But that's why we compare achievements.

I followed it up with another post and yes that's kind of what I'm saying, though it doesn't stop me from trying because I have a fetish for exercises in futility — futile in reaching any tangible and pragmatic ends.

 

[ABCD]

In my book, (up to date) peak Djokovic playing (up to date) peak Federer happened in real life and it was 2015 USOF.

 

[Noleberic123]

I followed it up with another post and yes that's kind of what I'm saying, though it doesn't stop me from trying because I have a fetish for exercises in futility, at least in reaching any tangible and pragmatic ends.

But that's just it. As a tennis fan and a human being you want to discuss these things because your interested. And it's an interesting topic. I don't believe we can ever come to a definite end to a discussion like this but as long as we come to a pragmatic end, there's no harm in having these sorts of discussions.

 

[WarriorRafa]

Fed at the USO 2004 final had never even made a USO final before, but I don't think Roger had read that memo before he stepped out on court.
And as I said earlier, Nadal was World #2 at the time, so no age excuses please.


Sorry, I don't quite get the relevance.
Are you saying that victories over Nadal are only valid if he's at his absolute best?


It makes him better opposition than the Federer who lost in four to Berdych.
My point exactly, thank you for the assisting example.

Rafa may have been No 2 but I don't think his game had developed enough to beat hard hitters or top guys on a consistent basis. There were many improvements that he had to make in his game to challenge on HC's. The victory is valid ofcourse but it's not that Gonzalez was playing out of this world tennis when Rafa was vulnerable on HC's to just about anybody and had losses to many players in slams like Youzhny, Blake, Ferrer. Fed had won multiple slams by then, him winning against Gonzalez was expected

How can Berdych be a tougher opponent than Federer? That too on grass. Just because he beat Fed, that doesn't change the fact that he is mentally weak and has never reached a slam final again( same as Gonzalez btw). If he was as good as his apparent form in Wimby 2010, how come he has done nothing of note since then? It was a fluke win basically. Guys like him would have been considered tough opposition if they had beaten Fedal then and Fedalovic now in multiple slams(on all surfaces preferably). They haven't even reached another slam final let alone win one. If Federer had lost to Falla in the 1st round, are you really saying Falla would be tougher for later round opponents?

 

[Chicharito]

Djokovic would win on aggregate vis-à-vis both possible transpositions. I'm quite certain, and think it's the nature of things (gradual improvement).

It's a less extreme version of doing the same for Laver and Djokovic. Djokovic would crush Laver.


When answering these questions though, people tend to think in relative terms. People will sometimes cite Fischer as being better than Kasparov because he created a large chasm between himself and the next best rank, but of course he was a worse chess player by objective measure because of the advancements in opening theory that followed (Kasparov came later).

Popular statement is popular.

Of course Djokovic would wreck Laver, Berdych would too I'd say. But it isn't always the case that gradual improvement occurs. Especially with one freak of nature. Also 9 years isn't that much, not compared to 45. Also feel the more something advances (level of tennis in this case) then the scope for advancement reduces. The 100m record will have a limit.

How long will it take for Bolt's 9.58 to beaten?

or Sotomayor's high jump record? We are still waiting, although seems imminent.

Of course there could be other 'issues' there but that is a whole different thing.

 

[veroniquem]

No need to mention him. Djokovic is out of any league. What he is doing is something else. What he has done in China, never seen anything like it. The guy will probably finish with >20 majors. When I see Wawrinka, Karlovic, Federer, Lopez etc. Djokovic probably didn't reach his peak.

Edit. I thought your post was ironical, never mind... I think he has reached his peak. He's playing his best tennis right now imo.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Federer not making past 2nd round in Paris would still be a tougher opponent for Djokovic than almost anyone else.

Why? Based on what objective evidence?
Of course one's form can improve in a tournament, but that certainly doesn't mean it will, and in this case, there is no evidence to show that it would.
He won one match, and then lost to Isner. That's the sum total of our objective evidence of his level in Paris.
If he's losing in straights to Isner, how is he going to handle Djokovic?

Stan won a set off Djokovic, so we can say for sure that he would be a tougher opponent than a guy who lost in two to Isner.
Isner lost to Ferrer, and Ferrer lost to Murray, so Murray (Novak's finals opponent) was also definitely playing better tennis.

It seems pretty clear to me that the guy who actually made it through to the final is the toughest possible finals opponent, based on the form all the players show in the tournament.

Stop repeating yourself

I am repeating myself because you have not rebutted what I have said.

and I will only reply if you have anything NEW and MEANINGFUL to add.

Why add new arguments when these ones are still going strong?
Seriously, I am yet to be told how what I am saying is somehow misguided or illogical.

You can leave if you like, that's your prerogative (and concession, I daresay).
I should inform you though that I shall be off to bed before too long, it's 23:30 here and I actually have stuff on tomorrow for once.

But I'm genuinely interested in this debate, so will stick around for a reply at least.
Thank you for your replies and time, by the way.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

In my book, (up to date) peak Djokovic playing (up to date) peak Federer happened in real life and it was 2015 USOF.

Which match of Federer's during 2004-2007 do you think was his best?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Of course Djokovic would wreck Laver, Berdych would too I'd say. But it isn't always the case that gradual improvement occurs. Especially with one freak of nature. Also 9 years isn't that much, not compared to 45. Also feel the more something advances (level of tennis in this case) then the scope for advancement reduces. The 100m record will have a limit.

How long will it take for Bolt's 9.58 to beaten?

or Sotomayor's high jump record? We are still waiting, although seems imminent.

Of course there could be other 'issues' there but that is a whole different thing.

Good post.

The improvements won't always be linear. The distribution of skills change but overall I think the absolute quality of tennis slowly improves.. but we'll get peaks and valleys - a valley is possibly incoming.

There are disciplines in athletics where the peak performance hasn't been bested for a very long time, but overall in athletics it's still clear that things typically slowly improve, especially when looking at the overall performance of say the top 8 finishers in the major events rather than only just looking at world record or winning times and distances. Those athletic events tend to be focused on a very limited set of skills where as tennis is a thorough all round event, where I'd expect the totality of the game to slowly improve even if some aspects are on average worse today - volleys, for example. I mention this as a comparison with athletics, in that some aspects — so the men's triple jump being equivalent to the men's volley, as a crude example — may be worse but that when one looks at all facets there's probably an overall improvement just as when one looks at all the Athletics disciplines, generally slow improvement can be observed.

9 years isn't too much, but if I had to guess whether the sport has gone forward or backwards in terms of absolute quality, I'd have to guess slightly forwards, and that guys are better utilising the potential of the newer rackets and strings. Now of course, I cannot prove this. What I'll say is that sport is a call and response affair, and although some skills displace others and old counters to tactics can be forgotten, generally I see Djokovic as having an unfair advantage in these fantasy match-ups with Federer and Nadal, because he was basically crafted by them and built to destroy them. The whole psychological angle is different, and tends to favour the younger player. In other words, even if we say tennis is at the same overall level (say, taking into account the top 100) today as in 2006, and suggest that both have comparable quality in their peaks, I'd still favour Djokovic to win on aggregate for the aforementioned reasons. HOWEVER, this is only comparing their peaks and not taking into account the longevity of their peaks, where Federer is far more proven with 5 multi-Slam winning seasons.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

During Novaks rise in 2011, federer fans took a liking to Novak. He was the one to stop Nadal's attack on federers title as greatest ever. Now, we see a different view from federer fans everywhere. They never expected this to happen. They are scared now that Novak will be the one to challenge Federer's claim. And this time there is nobody who is looking capable to to stopping Novak like Novak was to Nadal.

As early as the next year this post will be available for ridicule.

Form a cue, please!

 

[ABCD]

Which match of Federer's during 2004-2007 do you think was his best?

Federer vs Nadal 2007 WF.

 

[PeterHo]

Why? Based on what objective evidence?
Of course one's form can improve in a tournament, but that certainly doesn't mean it will, and in this case, there is no evidence to show that it would.
He won one match, and then lost to Isner. That's the sum total of our objective evidence of his level in Paris.
If he's losing in straights to Isner, how is he going to handle Djokovic?

Stan won a set off Djokovic, so we can say for sure that he would be a tougher opponent than a guy who lost in two to Isner.
Isner lost to Ferrer, and Ferrer lost to Murray, so Murray (Novak's finals opponent) was also definitely playing better tennis.

It seems pretty clear to me that the guy who actually made it through to the final is the toughest possible finals opponent, based on the form all the players show in the tournament.


I am repeating myself because you have not rebutted what I have said.


Why add new arguments when these ones are still going strong?
Seriously, I am yet to be told how what I am saying is somehow misguided or illogical.

You can leave if you like, that's your prerogative (and concession, I daresay).
I should inform you though that I shall be off to bed before too long, it's 23:30 here and I actually have stuff on tomorrow for once.

But I'm genuinely interested in this debate, so will stick around for a reply at least.
Thank you for your replies and time, by the way.

No, whoever makes it to the final is not necessarily the toughest opponent.

we have upsets you know.

if an inferior player just happened to strike form on a given day and take out a usually better player, entering the final and "returned to his normal self", then he is an inferior opponent. While the better player might have lost, he would have most likely played at a higher level than the inferior player in the final, because (look at his ranking) he is a player who performs much more consistently, at a higher level, throughout the year.

So no, whoever made the final might just be a fluke, espescially those players who are ranked low.

federer's opponents in those days, in finals, a lot of them were low ranked, normally inferior players.

and using Nadal as no.2 player prior to 2009 is a poor argument. the guy hasn't made a hard court slam final until 09 AO. he was part of the "weak competitor's foundation" federer faced on hard court, although he was strong competition on clay (since 04) then grass (since 06).

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Rafa may have been No 2 but I don't think his game had developed enough to beat hard hitters or top guys on a consistent basis. There were many improvements that he had to make in his game to challenge on HC's.

Yes, I agree with that, but he was still playing a perfectly respectable game, even on HC.
He only lost three sets going into that QF (two against Murray).

The victory is valid ofcourse but it's not that Gonzalez was playing out of this world tennis when Rafa was vulnerable on HC's to just about anybody and had losses to many players in slams like Youzhny, Blake, Ferrer.

I'm not actually suggesting that Gonzalez was necessarily playing insane tennis in that match (even though I believe he was), as it is not particularly important to my central argument. Again, what I'm saying is that Gonzalez was at least playing better than Nadal in that tournament (evidenced by him beating Nadal and continuing to the final, while Nadal lost in the QF), thus he was a tougher opponent in that tournament than Nadal.

Fed had won multiple slams by then, him winning against Gonzalez was expected

The same could be said about a potential Federer-Nadal match in the final of that tournament.
If Nadal had played to his average abilities, he could well have beaten Federer (I don't think he would of though at AO 2007, but that's irrelevant here anyway).
The fact is that Nadal was either playing sufficiently below his usual standard to lose to Gonzalez (in which case Gonzalez was a more worthy opponent for Federer than Nadal in that tournament), or Gonzalez was playing sufficiently above his usual standard to beat Nadal (in which case, Gonzalez is yet again a more worthy opponent than Nadal in that tournament).

How can Berdych be a tougher opponent than Federer? That too on grass.

He isn't average-average, not even close, but in that specific tournament (what we're talking about, not overall resumes), he was a tougher opponent, and the objective evidence for that is that that Berdych actually beat that Federer, first-hand.

Just because he beat Fed, that doesn't change the fact that he is mentally weak and has never reached a slam final again( same as Gonzalez btw).

Again, overall that may well be true, but in that specific tournament, he was a better tennis player than Federer.
If we only ever watched that one tournament, we'd be talking about how Berdych was the second-best ever.
Talking about other tournaments isn't relevant in this case, as those results do not, as a matter of course, impact the results of matches in the current, specific tournament.

If he was as good as his apparent form in Wimby 2010, how come he has done nothing of note since then? It was a fluke win basically.

But that's just it.
I'm not saying that he is, on average, as good as he was at WImbledon 2010.
But his performance in that tournament, which is all I'm talking about here, stands.

If Federer had lost to Falla in the 1st round, are you really saying Falla would be tougher for later round opponents?

Yes!
He would not be tougher than average Federer (lol it wouldn't even be close), but he'd be tougher than lousy Federer who couldn't even beat Falla.
That, good sir, is what I am saying.

In each new match, you are only as good as your form. Your name does not matter.
Your name is earned from your tennis, not the other way around.

Or alternatively, Falla was GOATing, in which case GOATing Falla would also be superior.

What must also be remembered is that your opponents' form is not your fault and you cannot be fairly punished for it.

Do you get what I'm saying?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Federer vs Nadal 2007 WF.

So, based on your previous post, you are saying that you think Federer from the 2007 Wimbledon final (where he was totally clutch and beat Prime Nadal who he has great trouble with) was inferior to the Federer who played the 2015 USO final (where he gave away many crucial points and was as clutch as an automatic gearbox).

Why do you think this is so?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Even supposing it were true, the psychological angles are too severely different. Djokovic is at the peak of his confidence and Federer isn't remotely close. It matters.

It matters a lot.

 

[ABCD]

So, based on your previous post, you are saying that you think Federer from the 2007 Wimbledon final (where he was totally clutch and beat Prime Nadal who he has great trouble with) was inferior to the Federer who played the 2015 USO final (where he gave away many crucial points and was as clutch as an automatic gearbox).

Why do you think this is so?

1) Federer self-assessment. I can't argue with that. However, if Federer didn't say anything, 2) I would still judge to be the case based on 1) Improved backhand, 2) Improved serving, 3) improved anticipation at the net and better net movement. 2015 USO F was 50:50 game and Federer was awesome. I also think that Djokovic has never been better.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

No, whoever makes it to the final is not necessarily the toughest opponent.

we have upsets you know.

Not average-average, but in that tournament, yes they are.

if an inferior player just happened to strike form on a given day and take out a usually better player, entering the final and "returned to his normal self", then he is an inferior opponent.

Firstly, you are presuming that this will definitely happen.
Look at Cilic at the 2014 US Open, it didn't happen then.
Look at Stan at the 2014 Australian Open, it didn't happen then.
Look at Stan at the 2015 French Open, it didn't happen then.
Those are just from the last couple of years.
It didn't happen to Soderling at RG 2009 (at least until the final), he still smashed his opponents in the three rounds subsequent to the Nadal match.
It didn't happen to Gonzalez either, he played the subsequent SF lights-out and wasn't bad against Peak Federer either.

Secondly, if it does, it is not Federer's (or whoever's) fault. We cannot take anything away from them for it.
If an upset occurs, it is either because the top player was in sufficiently poor form for it to happen (so they wouldn't be beating Federer anyway if they were losing to Rosol for example), or the upsetting player was in sufficiently great form for it to happen.
You simply can't say that the victor of a match, in that form, is a worse opponent than the loser of a match (in that form).
There is no objectivity to that.

While the better player might have lost, he would have most likely played at a higher level than the inferior player in the final, because (look at his ranking) he is a player who performs much more consistently, at a higher level, throughout the year.

As I said to another poster just before, we don't know that at all.
The only evidence of their current form we have is a loss to a lower-ranked player, their other results (rolled into ranking) have little bearing on the tournament.
When you go out there, you do not have your name, you only have your racquet and your mind.
Djokovic in 2011 had won 3/4 slams going into the indoor season, yet he was playing awfully for most of it.

federer's opponents in those days, in finals, a lot of them were low ranked, normally inferior players.

AO 2004 - Safin (former World #1)
RG 2004 - Lost to Kuerten (former World #1 and three-time RG champion)
WIM 2004 - Roddick (World #2)
USO 2004 - Hewitt (World #4)
AO 2005 - Lost to Safin (World #4 and former World #1)
RG 2005 - Lost to Nadal (World #4)
WIM 2005 - Roddick (World #2)
USO 2005 - Agassi (World #7 and two-time USO champ), also beat World #3 Hewitt in the SF
AO 2006 - Baghdatis (beat World #5 Davydenko in QF though)
RG 2006 - Lost to Nadal (World #2 and defending champion)
WIM 2006 - Nadal (World #2)
USO 2006 - Roddick (World #9), also beat World #5 Blake in the QF and World #7 Davydenko in the SF
AO 2007 - Gonzalez (World #10), also beat World #6 Roddick in the SF and World #7 Robredo in the QF
RG 2007 - Lost to Nadal (World #2 and two-time defending champion)
WIM 2007 - Nadal (World #2)
USO 2007 - Djokovic (World #3), also beat World #4 Davydenko in the SF and World #5 Roddick in the QF

So during his prime years, two of his sixteen wins/losses at slams were "weak" losses by ranking (and one of then was a former World #1 who was back to form).
I didn't actually expect that to be honest (had never really searched those stats before), but I'm afraid that argument is in ruins.
All of those bar the two bolded were at least as good as anything Nadal or Djokovic have had to go through in terms of ranking of opponents.

And even the two "weak" losses were because those players were on fire (and were still good in the finals against Federer too).
How "inferior" they "normally" are is irrelevant I'm afraid.
That didn't help their opponents in the tournament in question, did it?

the "weak competitor's foundation" Federer faced on hard court, although he was strong competition on clay (since 04) then grass (since 06).

Look above.
That "weak competition" and those "easy draws" practically didn't exist.
They never did, it's a myth.
In 14/16 of his prime tournaments, he faced serious competition (if you want to go off rankings at least).

 

[mattosgrant]

It is quite funny since for awhile they worshipped Djokovic and it was almost entirely based on their Nadal hatred. That they are now turning on Djokovic is a reflection of Djokovic challenging him in more significant ways. Denying him numerous slams, challenging Federer's best year ever, challenging his status as the best ever hard court player, challenging his supremacy on clay. Heck maybe they are indeed scared Djokovic is a threat to his slam record in the long run now.

That is the obvious cause for the switch. I guess it is a welcome change since atleast the phony love they had for him just due to their anti Nadal agenda is gone, and the true feelings and colors are being seen just now.

 

[WarriorRafa]

Yes, I agree with that, but he was still playing a perfectly respectable game, even on HC.
He only lost three sets going into that QF (two against Murray).


I'm not actually suggesting that Gonzalez was necessarily playing insane tennis in that match (even though I believe he was), as it is not particularly important to my central argument. Again, what I'm saying is that Gonzalez was at least playing better than Nadal in that tournament (evidenced by him beating Nadal and continuing to the final, while Nadal lost in the QF), thus he was a tougher opponent in that tournament than Nadal.


The same could be said about a potential Federer-Nadal match in the final of that tournament.
If Nadal had played to his average abilities, he could well have beaten Federer (I don't think he would of though at AO 2007, but that's irrelevant here anyway).
The fact is that Nadal was either playing sufficiently below his usual standard to lose to Gonzalez (in which case Gonzalez was a more worthy opponent for Federer than Nadal in that tournament), or Gonzalez was playing sufficiently above his usual standard to beat Nadal (in which case, Gonzalez is yet again a more worthy opponent than Nadal in that tournament).


He isn't average-average, not even close, but in that specific tournament (what we're talking about, not overall resumes), he was a tougher opponent, and the objective evidence for that is that that Berdych actually beat that Federer, first-hand.


Again, overall that may well be true, but in that specific tournament, he was a better tennis player than Federer.
If we only ever watched that one tournament, we'd be talking about how Berdych was the second-best ever.
Talking about other tournaments isn't relevant in this case, as those results do not, as a matter of course, impact the results of matches in the current, specific tournament.


But that's just it.
I'm not saying that he is, on average, as good as he was at WImbledon 2010.
But his performance in that tournament, which is all I'm talking about here, stands.


Yes!
He would not be tougher than average Federer (lol it wouldn't even be close), but he'd be tougher than lousy Federer who couldn't even beat Falla.
That, good sir, is what I am saying.

In each new match, you are only as good as your form. Your name does not matter.
Your name is earned from your tennis, not the other way around.

Or alternatively, Falla was GOATing, in which case GOATing Falla would also be superior.

What must also be remembered is that your opponents' form is not your fault and you cannot be fairly punished for it.

Do you get what I'm saying?

Yeah, I do Not saying I totally agree but I get where you're coming from.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

So I guess that's it guys.

"Weak era" exposed and put away.
Fun discussion, glad I stayed up for it.
Hopefully dParis will reply to me in the O&E thread and we can prove Climate Change too, but I think this is enough for one day.

From this, I also learnt that:
- Federer didn't even have weak finals opponents and draws most of the time (why did I never research that properly before? :lol: ) - Myth busted.
- That I can make good postings and penetrating arguments on occasion (and if the wind is blowing in the right direction)
- That I am very tired and considering that the time is 00:58 where I am, it is now time for bed.

The above is me when used at the correct dilution rate, but I'll be back to my usual humour and uselessness tomorrow, you can count on it.

 

[PeterHo]

So I guess that's it guys.

"Weak era" exposed and put away.
Fun discussion, glad I stayed up for it.
Hopefully dParis will reply to me in the O&E thread and we can prove Climate Change too, but I think this is enough for one day.

From this, I also learnt that:
- Federer didn't even have weak finals opponents and draws most of the time (why did I never research that properly before? :lol: ) - Myth busted.
- That I can make good postings and penetrating arguments on occasion (and if the wind is blowing in the right direction)
- That I am very tired and considering that the time is 00:58 where I am, it is now time for bed.

The above is me when used at the correct dilution rate, but I'll be back to my usual humour and uselessness tomorrow, you can count on it.

did you miss my point?

lol.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

did you miss my point?

lol.

Which one?
About Nadal from 2007? I answered all the others.

He was still World #2, that's as good as it gets.
Besides, Federer beat Gonzalez (World #10), Roddick (World #6), and Robredo (World #7) to win that tournament.

Even if every single thing I've said tonight was not true, I've also just discovered, as I mentioned above, that the dude didn't even have "weak" draws.
It's a total myth, he was facing single-digit-ranked players all over the place, and often the World #2.

In the face of that, even discounting all else (seeing as it basically renders the rest of my argument moot) there's nothing left.

If we go off the rankings, there was no weak era, ever.
That's facshual infermations, son.
Look at my stats above from 2004-2007.

Can I go to bed now?

 

[PeterHo]

Not average-average, but in that tournament, yes they are.


Firstly, you are presuming that this will definitely happen.
Look at Cilic at the 2014 US Open, it didn't happen then.
Look at Stan at the 2014 Australian Open, it didn't happen then.
Look at Stan at the 2015 French Open, it didn't happen then.
Those are just from the last couple of years.
It didn't happen to Soderling at RG 2009 (at least until the final), he still smashed his opponents in the three rounds subsequent to the Nadal match.
It didn't happen to Gonzalez either, he played the subsequent SF lights-out and wasn't bad against Peak Federer either.

Secondly, if it does, it is not Federer's (or whoever's) fault. We cannot take anything away from them for it.
If an upset occurs, it is either because the top player was in sufficiently poor form for it to happen (so they wouldn't be beating Federer anyway if they were losing to Rosol for example), or the upsetting player was in sufficiently great form for it to happen.
You simply can't say that the victor of a match, in that form, is a worse opponent than the loser of a match (in that form).
There is no objectivity to that.


As I said to another poster just before, we don't know that at all.
The only evidence of their current form we have is a loss to a lower-ranked player, their other results (rolled into ranking) have little bearing on the tournament.
When you go out there, you do not have your name, you only have your racquet and your mind.
Djokovic in 2011 had won 3/4 slams going into the indoor season, yet he was playing awfully for most of it.


AO 2004 - Safin (former World #1)
RG 2004 - Lost to Kuerten (former World #1 and three-time RG champion)
WIM 2004 - Roddick (World #2)
USO 2004 - Hewitt (World #4)
AO 2005 - Lost to Safin (World #4 and former World #1)
RG 2005 - Lost to Nadal (World #4)
WIM 2005 - Roddick (World #2)
USO 2005 - Agassi (World #7 and two-time USO champ), also beat World #3 Hewitt in the SF
AO 2006 - Baghdatis (beat World #5 Davydenko in QF though)
RG 2006 - Lost to Nadal (World #2 and defending champion)
WIM 2006 - Nadal (World #2)
USO 2006 - Roddick (World #9), also beat World #5 Blake in the QF and World #7 Davydenko in the SF
AO 2007 - Gonzalez (World #10), also beat World #6 Roddick in the SF and World #7 Robredo in the QF
RG 2007 - Lost to Nadal (World #2 and two-time defending champion)
WIM 2007 - Nadal (World #2)
USO 2007 - Djokovic (World #3), also beat World #4 Davydenko in the SF and World #5 Roddick in the QF

So during his prime years, two of his sixteen wins/losses at slams were "weak" losses by ranking (and one of then was a former World #1 who was back to form).
I didn't actually expect that to be honest (had never really searched those stats before), but I'm afraid that argument is in ruins.
All of those bar the two bolded were at least as good as anything Nadal or Djokovic have had to go through in terms of ranking of opponents.

And even the two "weak" losses were because those players were on fire (and were still good in the finals against Federer too).
How "inferior" they "normally" are is irrelevant I'm afraid.
That didn't help their opponents in the tournament in question, did it?


Look above.
That "weak competition" and those "easy draws" practically didn't exist.
They never did, it's a myth.
In 14/16 of his prime tournaments, he faced serious competition (if you want to go off rankings at least).

1. you fail to acknowledge that upsets DO happen -> that a player in the final can easily be an inferior opponent.

2. you fail to recognise that "upsets" were a lot more common during 2000-2007, compared to 2008-2015 -> which shows the top players in the earlier period were weak (not consistent high performers).

3. i do not agree that cilic or stan are "toughest opponents". They are lucky in their slam wins.
cilic - faced a tired federer, then a worn out nishikori.
stan - beat nole just by a few points, then beat an injured nadal
stan - beat an old federer on slow clay, then beat a non-top 10 player, then beat Nole who was obviously WORN OUT by firstly Nadal and then Murray and played 3 days in a row including the final.

4. it is not federer's fault, but the reality is, federer was LUCKY. And luck is always a factor in any success in LIFE, you have to admit.

5. ranking is irrelevant when you are comparing the no.2 player roddick against the no.2 player in the strong era, ie. Nadal or Djokovic. nobody in this world would think a peak roddick is a better competitor than a peak nadal or djokovic.

6. in fact the no.2 player of federer's generation (those in his age group), is a lot more inferior than the no.3 player of nadal''s generation (andy murray).

 

[PeterHo]

the biggest failures of federer in the end are

1. started to lose against a young rival while he was at his peak. never managed to turn around the rivalry

2. never truely dominated a strong competition.

the biggest achievement he has are

1. dominated for many years, non great players

2. managed to play at near his peak level for many years

 

[Deleted member 688153]

1. you fail to acknowledge that upsets DO happen -> that a player in the final can easily be an inferior opponent.

2. you fail to recognise that "upsets" were a lot more common during 2000-2007, compared to 2008-2015 -> which shows the top players in the earlier period were weak (not consistent high performers).

3. i do not agree that cilic or stan are "toughest opponents". They are lucky in their slam wins.
cilic - faced a tired federer, then a worn out nishikori.
stan - beat nole just by a few points, then beat an injured nadal
stan - beat an old federer on slow clay, then beat a non-top 10 player, then beat Nole who was obviously WORN OUT by firstly Nadal and then Murray and played 3 days in a row including the final.

4. it is not federer's fault, but the reality is, federer was LUCKY. And luck is always a factor in any success in LIFE, you have to admit.

5. ranking is irrelevant when you are comparing the no.2 player roddick against the no.2 player in the strong era, ie. Nadal or Djokovic. nobody in this world would think a peak roddick is a better competitor than a peak nadal or djokovic.

6. in fact the no.2 player of federer's generation (those in his age group), is a lot more inferior than the no.3 player of nadal''s generation (andy murray).

I was serious about bed, so I will reply to this tomorrow.

But looking over it, it's another easy put away I'm afraid.
The issue is, these common arguments are weak, but they thrive as a result of requiring time and effort to rebut (time and effort I happened to be willing to put in this evening but that most won't).

I'll give you a taster of my reply though:
-Nadal thrived off the back of a weak clay era then, you cannot have your cake and eat it too
-"Luck" and other excuses? Oh dear.
-If ranking is irrelevant, what is? Achievements? If so, go back to my very first post.

"Weak Era" has more logical holes than the colander I drained my pasta with tonight.

Night.

 

[junior74]

Novak is turned on by Federer fans? Yikes