Federer game is more complete than Djokovic

[abmk]

Very result oriented analysis of yours that ends at exactly 2010 AO for peak. No technical aspect on why his level was lower, no stats around serve speeds, fh / bh shot speeds, first serve % ( Again not result oriented metric like winners etc as they are all competition dependent too).

I didn't state it because some things are obvious. But even obvious things need to be to you.
fed's movement declined by half a step after AO 10. as did his FH, BH, return, passing shots. net game also till edberg helped shore it up in 14-15. But of course his movement had declined further in 14-later compared to 10-12.

djokovic's BH, return, movement had also declined after mid-16 or so. fh and intensity/consistency also post AO 19.
the absolute massive suckage of the field in the inflation era even more so post COVID-19 just hides it better.

I see you didn't have the guts to address fed in 07-09 and competition there with fed winning 6 of the 12 slams. kitne kaayar ho be?

My analysis is based on reality and evaluation of level, not just results
fed was clearly better in 11 USO-12 Cincy than in AO 17-AO 18 and he won 1 slam in the former as opposed to 3 in the latter.
Djoko was significantly better in 12-14 than in 19-21 and Djoko won 3 slams in the former as opposed to 6 in the latter.

yeah, winners shouldn't be brought in because you are afraid it will expose your blatant ignorance/Djoko blind propaganda.
but you ask for fh/bh shot speeds which aren't available for majority of the matches. kuchh to sharam karo.
fed's serve didn't decline anyways and I never said it did - so no point in first serve%, serve speeds etc. that's the shot that declines last for majority of players anyways.

 

[Mike Sams]

I wonder if it would've been different if Federer was Djokovics age and Djokovic Federer age especially with prime Federers lightning quick reaction speed. I wish we could see that alternate universe lol

The courts were too slow for Federer to fully utilize his attacking game against elite defenders like Djokovic.

 

[mahatma]

I didn't state it because some things are obvious. But even obvious things need to be to you.
fed's movement declined by half a step after AO 10. as did his FH, BH, return, passing shots. net game also till edberg helped shore it up in 14-15. But of course his movement had declined further in 14-later compared to 10-12.

djokovic's BH, return, movement had also declined after mid-16 or so. fh and intensity/consistency also post AO 19.
the absolute massive suckage of the field in the inflation era even more so post COVID-19 just hides it better.

I see you didn't have the guts to address fed in 07-09 and competition there with fed winning 6 of the 12 slams. kitne kaayar ho be?

My analysis is based on reality and evaluation of level, not just results
fed was clearly better in 11 USO-12 Cincy than in AO 17-AO 18 and he won 1 slam in the former as opposed to 3 in the latter.
Djoko was significantly better in 12-14 than in 19-21 and Djoko won 3 slams in the former as opposed to 6 in the latter.

yeah, winners shouldn't be brought in because you are afraid it will expose your blatant ignorance/Djoko blind propaganda.
but you ask for fh/bh shot speeds which aren't available for majority of the matches. kuchh to sharam karo.
fed's serve didn't decline anyways and I never said it did - so no point in first serve%, serve speeds etc. that's the shot that declines last for majority of players anyways.

Sad, that you are true Pappu.

Here is the list of all the players from 2013-18 and their ratings on shots. Clearly Federer was right up there during this time and still wasn't winning.
And yes, Federer was one of the best during this time frame as well.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/474-ballotatp2/69a1bf15b4b561e2afc2/optimized/full.pdf

 

[abmk]

Sad, that you are true Pappu.

Here is the list of all the players from 2013-18 and their ratings on shots. Clearly Federer was right up there during this time and still wasn't winning.
And yes, Federer was one of the best during this time frame as well.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/474-ballotatp2/69a1bf15b4b561e2afc2/optimized/full.pdf

abey tu to Pappu nahi, Maha Pappu nikla. Bringing in an absolute joke as proper analysis:

from 13-18

no nadal, but dimi in top FHs in that list?
nadal's BH there, but not Djokovic's ?
fed, sock and Cilic are the 3 best returners and not Murray, Djoko, Nadal in some order?
13-18 federer better mover than djokovic, nadal who aren't among top 3?
no Wawa among the best 1 handed backhands?

ye to maha chutiya analysis hai

Please stop embarassing the words chutiya and stupid.

the only areas in which fed was possibly top 3 in 13-18 as a whole is serve clutchness (not even serve - Karlovic, Isner, Kyrgios, Raonic have better serve as standalone shots) and net game/feel (ok, you can throw in one handed BH if you are splitting BHs as 1-handed and 2-handed)

well FH was best in 17-early 18, but lesser in injury affected 13/16 and in 14/15 when not fully adjusted to the new racquet.
so maybe top 5 for whole of 13-18, but not in top 3 (nadal, delpo, djoko)

definitely not top 3 in movement or returning (djoko, murray, nadal are top 3 in some order for both at the very least)

 

[Biotic]

Wow... Another big win for hypothetical Fred.

You have to wonder are all these people fans of real life Federer or some imaginary unbeatable dude from the (self)imposed romanticized past.

 

[mahatma]

abey tu to Pappu nahi, Maha Pappu nikla. Bringing in an absolute joke as proper analysis:

from 13-18

no nadal, but dimi in top FHs in that list?
nadal's BH there, but not Djokovic's ?
fed, sock and Cilic are the 3 best returners?
13-18 federer better mover than djokovic, nadal?
no Wawa among the best 1 handed backhands?

ye to maha chutiya analysis hai

Please stop embarassing the words chutiya and stupid.

the only areas in which fed was possibly top 3 in 13-18 as a whole is serve and net game/feel (ok, you can throw in one handed BH if you are splitting BHs as 1-handed and 2-handed)
well FH was best in 17-early 18, but less so in injury affected 13/16 and in 14/15 when not fully adjusted to the new racquet.
so maybe top 5 for whole of 13-18, but not in top 3 (nadal, delpo, djoko)

definitely not top 3 in movement or returning (djoko, murray, nadal are top 3 in some order for both at the very least)

Dude you need a proper rehab. Maybe retire from ttw just like your god who just retired from pro tennis.

Arguing against you whose opinion matter 0 to the world vs someone who is actively persuing analytics growth in tennis and is well known. Choice is rather simple. You can laugh or cry all you want as being a fan of 3rd wheeler, hardly matters. I know you are a b***hurt fed fan and will do anything to defend Federer. But sorry, it's over. Maybe focus in former players section for glory.

 

[abmk]

Dude you need a proper rehab. Maybe retire from ttw just like your god who just retired from pro tennis.

Arguing against you whose opinion matter 0 to the world vs someone who is actively persuing analytics growth in tennis and is well known. Choice is rather simple. You can laugh or cry all you want as being a fan of 3rd wheeler, hardly matters. I know you are a b***hurt fed fan and will do anything to defend Federer. But sorry, it's over. Maybe focus in former players section for glory.

so you think fed was a better mover in 13-18 than djokovic/nadal/murray ?
so you think fed/cilic/sock were better returners in 13-18 than djokovic/nadal/murray ?

do you have any shame at all?
you gotta be beyond pappu to believe that just because some crappy analysis with 1/100th baked data told you so.
no, you just googled through something and brought in to support you distortion filled propaganda without actually checking or thinking.
Lets see if you admit analysis is very flawed. I'll give you one or 2 more chances before deciding your are too mendacious not to be in the ignore list.
Do you have one ounce of integrity?

I'm saying djokovic/nadal were better than fed in 13-18 including return, movement (&FH for nadal, BH for djoko) and that makes me blindly defending fed? in which Pappu land?

I've watched many matches of tennis from 70s onwards (though not live), unlike you who has probably only watched from 2011 or so.
I've been on TTW much before you were and will be there long after you are gone when Djokovic retires. I've been posting in pro player ,general and former sections since I joined in late 2008.

Fed's the BOAT and the GOAT regardless of what a Pappu level djokovic propagandist like you thinks

 

[mahatma]

so you think fed was a better mover in 13-18 than djokovic/nadal/murray ?
so you think fed/cilic/sock were better returners in 13-18 than djokovic/nadal/murray ?

do you have any shame at all?
you gotta be beyond pappu to believe that just because some crappy analysis with 1/100th baked data told you so.
no, you just googled through something and brought in to support you distortion filled propaganda without actually checking or thinking.
Lets see if you admit analysis is very flawed. I'll give you one or 2 more chances before deciding your are too mendacious not to be in the ignore list.

I've watched many matches of tennis from 70s onwards (though not live), unlike you who has probably only watched from 2011 or so.
I've been on TTW much before you were and will be there long after you are gone when Djokovic retires. I've been posting in live, general and former since I joined in late 2008.

Fed's the BOAT and the GOAT regardless of what a Pappu level djokovic propagandist like you thinks

Lol a bionic poster losing it because all his life what he believed in is turning out to be false. A perfect melt down. Though you got it on yourself. There are various other studies which have Federer FH/BH and serve rated as the top 3 in 2013-18 period, but I know you won't read them and go by your tinted eye test of game.

You can put me in your ignore list and be happy in your fantasy land of Federer. lol.

 

[mike danny]

Djokovic more complete as a baseliner, Fed more complete as a player overall, IMO.

 

[mike danny]

The enormous hole in Federer’s BH, which led to his opponents targeting it constantly. You can’t ignore/exclude it when you’re stating who the most complete player is, because it doesn’t represent the full picture.

Djokovic doesn't have a 1HBH for this comparison to make sense.

 

[chjtennis]

I agree that Roger's timing is better than anyone, but I still think that he slapped his backhand to his detriment when he could have used a little more shoulder to turn it into a vicious weapon on neutral balls. He still would have been able to hit his half volleys and angles on the run, but the added power from a solid drive would have made him less vulnerable off the backhand wing in neutral rallies.

To time the ball well and early, you need compact swing. If Roger swung like Stan, he wouldn't have been able to command the rally inside or close to the baseline like he used to. Stan tends to stay back very often because he needs that much time to swing big. Dimitrov cannot play fast like Roger because he tends to swing big rather than time the ball early like Roger. As a result, he is often found at the back of the court. His movement looks a little like Rogi's, but his game is very different from Fed's game. If any player wants to take the ball as early as Roger, he just cannot swing all out big, especially with the BH.

 

[abmk]

Lol a bionic poster losing it because all his life what he believed in is turning out to be false. A perfect melt down. Though you got it on yourself. There are various other studies which have Federer FH/BH and serve rated as the top 3 in 2013-18 period, but I know you won't read them and go by your tinted eye test of game.

You can put me in your ignore list and be happy in your fantasy land of Federer. lol.

I was making fun of no nadal, but dimi in top FHs in that list. you didn't address that.
I was making fun of movement part. you didn't address that.
I was making fun of return part. you didn't address that.
I was making fun of wawa not being in the 1-H BH list. you didn't address that.

admit that it is clearly flawed if you have an ounce of integrity.

I already said serve is arguable (but I'd take Karlovic, Isner, Kyrgios and Raonic serves as standalone shots).
Fed's not top 3 in BH either for sure including all BHs. this one seperates 1 handed and 2 handed backhands. djoko, murray, nadal, wawa and Nishi have better BHs in this period for sure. If there is any study that shows fed's BH as top 3 for 2013-18, please show me. I'd like a good laugh.

I already told you the top 3 FHs for the 13-18 period would be nadal, delpo and djoko. djoko's over fed for this period. only a muppet can think that's blindly supporting fed.
fed's 2004-12 FH was of course better than djoko's FH in any long enough time period.
fed's FH is either 4th or 5th for 2013-18 IMO, depending on how you take Stan's. Stan's was better in slams, fed's more consistent in non-slams.
But it was outright best or tied best or 2nd best in every year from 2004-12. overall, best FH in that period.
if you don't see the difference, that's just terribly tinted glasses.

the arrogance/delusions of the ********* army and the VB with their shamelessness and propaganda will go down in a year or two. including you deluding yourself that me destroying their nonsense left right is having a meltdown.

the thing I can't believe is that tennis has been weak for such a long period (2016-current), even more so post COVID-19. never happened before in the open era.
2 generations of uselessness (more so in slams) from 89 to 99 born.
vulturing won't change prime to prime level or completeness of game - if you know actual proper analysis.

the fantasy land stuff is just hilarious coming from you who has permanent residency in the fantasy land of Djokovic and hasn't even watched much tennis before 2011 or so (you didn't even bother to contradict, so I am assuming that's true)

 

[socallefty]

To time the ball well and early, you need compact swing. If Roger swung like Stan, he wouldn't have been able to command the rally inside or close to the baseline like he used to. Stan tends to stay back very often because he needs that much time to swing big. Dimitrov cannot play fast like Roger because he tends to swing big rather than time the ball early like Roger. As a result, he is often found at the back of the court. His movement looks a little like Rogi's, but his game is very different from Fed's game. If any player wants to take the ball as early as Roger, he just cannot swing all out big, especially with the BH.

Nice post which obliquely brings up the problem of 1HBHs and why it is being eclipsed. On slow courts, you need big swings which require staying back to generate big power to hit through defensive players and deal with high bounce. You need 1HBHs like Wawrinka, Thiem and Tsitsipas to be effective. On fast courts, a 1HBH player needs to hit the ball on the rise to be aggressive which requires a compact swing and also a compact swing helps to play defense on fast courts especially with low bounce like grass. But, this kind of compact swing is not best for generating huge power or dealing with high bounce on slow clay which is why Federer could never be amongst the best on clay.

So, there is no 1HBH swing which is suitable for all the bounces and all the court speeds anymore for today’s power baseline game. Now, 2HBH players who can hit volleys and slice with 1HBHs are the best of all worlds and it is today’s textbook style.

 

[abmk]

The enormous hole in Federer’s BH, which led to his opponents targeting it constantly. You can’t ignore/exclude it when you’re stating who the most complete player is, because it doesn’t represent the full picture.

fed's BH not an enormous hole at all. only one who got the better of it at his prime consistently was nadal with his FH on slower, higher bouncing surfaces.
of course there are times when others have too, but fed's flipped the tables on occasions/been about even.

of course they are going to target fed's BH considering the FH.

djoko's BH is of course better, doesn't mean fed's BH is a big hole at all.

 

[RS]

They are closely matched game wise.

Djokovic ranks ahead now though.

 

[TheFifthSet]

You know **** gets real when both parties are breaking out insults in Hindi lolz

@mahatma, these lists are suspect for a number of reasons. Statistics are, of course, objective. But as I’ve said before, they don’t linearly address subjective questions. It’s hard to make heads or tails of some of these methodologies. Take the criteria for what constitutes effective returning…it seems to inherently favour aggressive, go-for-broke returners, as they’re likelier to win a higher quantity of 0-3 stroke shots. That’s…a jarring way of measuring returning success. Two of the three listed, Cilic and Sock, have anemic returning game %’s and mediocre %’s of returns in play…they just happen to win the points they DO secure in less shots. I imagine even Karlovic would score high marks for this type of “returning efficiency."

Nor are the stroke effectiveness ratings transparent; how are winners/errors actually weighed? Is this a per-point or cumulative rating? Are preceding shots (e.g a big serve leading to a +1 forehand put-away) considered? If not, why?

The endurance ratings are especially head-scratching. Time on court? That’s influenced by a multitude of things, not least of which time between points and general ability as a player (can’t score a high rating if you’re not making it deep into tournaments, regardless of actual cardiovascular endurance).

And, um, the footwork/speed category measures neither footwork nor speed.

I could go on and on with my snobby armchair criticism, but since you’re touting this paper I imagine you’re informed enough to enlighten me? There’s certainly some data here, but there’s a disconnect between the cold-hard #’s and what they purport to measure.

 

[RS]

At least I can't be blamed for this thread.

 

[MurraysMetalHip]

Djokovic doesn't have a 1HBH for this comparison to make sense.

Your logic makes no sense.

 

[MurraysMetalHip]

At least I can't be blamed for this thread.

For once.

 

[Biotic]

At least I can't be blamed for this thread.

One small step for TTW, one giant step for RS

 

[MurraysMetalHip]

fed's BH not an enormous hole at all. only one who got the better of it at his prime consistently was nadal with his FH on slower, higher bouncing surfaces.
of course there are times when others have too, but fed's flipped the tables on occasions/been about even.

of course they are going to target fed's BH considering the FH.

djoko's BH is of course better, doesn't mean fed's BH is a big hole at all.

It is a major hole when you consider how many majors it likely cost him.

 

[RS]

I was making fun of no nadal, but dimi in top FHs in that list. you didn't address that.
I was making fun of movement part. you didn't address that.
I was making fun of return part. you didn't address that.
I was making fun of wawa not being in the 1-H BH list. you didn't address that.

admit that it is clearly flawed if you have an ounce of integrity.

I already said serve is arguable (but I'd take Karlovic, Isner, Kyrgios and Raonic serves as standalone shots).
Fed's not top 3 in BH either for sure including all BHs. this one seperates 1 handed and 2 handed backhands. djoko, murray, nadal, wawa and Nishi have better BHs in this period for sure. If there is any study that shows fed's BH as top 3 for 2013-18, please show me. I'd like a good laugh.

I already told you the top 3 FHs for the 13-18 period would be nadal, delpo and djoko. djoko's over fed for this period. only a muppet can think that's blindly supporting fed.
fed's 2004-12 FH was of course better than djoko's FH in any long enough time period.
fed's FH is either 4th or 5th for 2013-18 IMO, depending on how you take Stan's. Stan's was better in slams, fed's more consistent in non-slams.
But it was outright best or tied best or 2nd best in every year from 2004-12. overall, best FH in that period.
if you don't see the difference, that's just terribly tinted glasses.

the arrogance/delusions of the ********* army and the VB with their shamelessness and propaganda will go down in a year or two. including you deluding yourself that me destroying their nonsense left right is having a meltdown.

the thing I can't believe is that tennis has been weak for such a long period (2016-current), even more so post COVID-19. never happened before in the open era.
2 generations of uselessness (more so in slams) from 89 to 99 born.
vulturing won't change prime to prime level or completeness of game - if you know actual proper analysis.

the fantasy land stuff is just hilarious coming from you who has permanent residency in the fantasy land of Djokovic and hasn't even watched much tennis before 2011 or so (you didn't even bother to contradict, so I am assuming that's true)

Have you ever met Federer?

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

USO 10 was djoko saving those 2 MPs and fed was the worse player in the match anyways
While fed did lose USO 11 due to a choke, fed had edged out Djoko in RG 11 mentally being clutch.
Also beat djoko convincingly in Wim 12 including a cluthc 3rd set.

it has to do with age/physicality from 2014 onwards. That leads to mental doubts. If not for age, those mental doubts wouldn't come into the picture.
If you want more proof, I suggest, you look at fed being 6-4 in Bo3 in 14-early 16 while being 0-4 in Bo5 (slams)




See above.

Somewhat true, I think. Where the body goes, the mind will follow. Ever tried to focus/make decisions whilst knackered? Bery tough, no? Fed always did a very good job of looking like he wasn't tired when he was; like possuming in reverse. Truly the more noble choice.

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

@abmk if you are so sure about your claims why do you feel the need to go on and on for pages everytime someone disagree with you ?

 

[RS]

For once.

Not really. Every thread is a flame war.

Anyway I promised to lay off the threads.

 

[abmk]

@abmk if you are so sure about your claims why do you feel the need to go on and on for pages everytime someone disagree with you ?

because they keep coming up with more wrong stuff to defend their previous wrong stuff. So I address those as well.

 

[abmk]

It is a major hole when you consider how many majors it likely cost him.

yeah? like how many?
only 2 at his prime - RG 06 and Wim 08. then AO 11 past prime maybe.
RG 07, AO 09 - fed's BH held up well even if he lost.
RG 05 was just general inconsistency.
of course in USO 08/09, he beat djoko bh to bh. Murray in AO 10 as well.

 

[mahatma]

You know **** gets real when both parties are breaking out insults in Hindi lolz

@mahatma, these lists are suspect for a number of reasons. Statistics are, of course, objective. But as I’ve said before, they don’t linearly address subjective questions. It’s hard to make heads or tails of some of these methodologies. Take the criteria for what constitutes effective returning…it seems to inherently favour aggressive, go-for-broke returners, as they’re likelier to win a higher quantity of 0-3 stroke shots. That’s…a jarring way of measuring returning success. Two of the three listed, Cilic and Sock, have anemic returning game %’s and mediocre %’s of returns in play…they just happen to win the points they DO secure in less shots. I imagine even Karlovic would score high marks for this type of “returning efficiency”.

Nor are the stroke effectiveness ratings transparent; how are winners/errors actually weighed? Is this a per-point or cumulative rating? Are preceding shots (e.g a big serve leading to a +1 forehand put-away) considered? If not, why?

The endurance ratings are especially head-scratching. Time on court? That’s influenced by a multitude of things, not least of which time between points and general ability as a player (can’t score a high rating if you’re not making it deep into tournaments, regardless of actual cardiovascular endurance).

And, um, the footwork/speed category measures neither footwork nor speed.

I could go on and on with my snobby armchair criticism, but since you’re touting this paper I imagine you’re informed enough to enlighten me? There’s certainly some data here, but there’s a disconnect between the cold-hard #’s and what they purport to measure.

Btw I didn't break out any insults in Hindi. That's @abmk style. I have tried to keep it civil. Just that Fed fans aren't able to take objective analysis and prefer eye test over cold hard numbers.

Also Federer as mentioned in the above papers have been in top 3-5 in fh shot speeds and accuracy, bh lower - but that has been the case all his career. His serve was as big as in 2013-18 period as was in 04-09 period. So I don't know what the decline was really in '13-18 vs '04-09. Half a step in movement. Really. Let's agree that Djokovic started playing better and it was independent of any non-existent decline of Federer.

 

[RS]

Who wins these matches?

1. Murray Wim 15 SF vs Murray Wim 10 SF
2. Djokovic USO 18 final vs Djokovic USO 08 SF
3. Nadal USO 13 SF vs Djokovic USO 18 SF
4. Murray Wim 10 vs Djokovic Wim 22
5. Murray USO 08 SF vs Djokovic USO 09 SF
6. Murray Wim 13 SF vs Federer Wim 14 SF

 

[Biotic]

Who wins these matches?

1. Murray Wim 15 SF vs Murray Wim 10 SF
2. Djokovic USO 18 final vs Djokovic USO 08 SF
3. Nadal USO 13 SF vs Djokovic USO 18 SF
4. Murray Wim 10 vs Djokovic Wim 22
5. Murray USO 08 SF vs Djokovic USO 09 SF
6. Murray Wim 13 SF vs Federer Wim 14 SF

 

[abmk]

Btw I didn't break out any insults in Hindi. That's @abmk style. I have tried to keep it civil. Just that Fed fans aren't able to take objective analysis and prefer eye test over cold hard numbers.

Also Federer as mentioned in the above papers have been in top 3-5 in fh shot speeds and accuracy, bh lower - but that has been the case all his career. His serve was as big as in 2013-18 period as was in 04-09 period. So I don't know what the decline was really in '13-18 vs '04-09. Half a step in movement. Really. Let's agree that Djokovic started playing better and it was independent of any non-existent decline of Federer.

objective stuff:

best 4 year period: fed from 2004-07 (11 slams, 3 YECs)
best prime period of ~ 6 years: 2003 YEC to 2010 AO (15 slams, 4 YECs)
fed has 5+ slams at 3 venues (AO, Wim, USO)
top or 2nd best in 3 slams - AO/Wim/USO.
fed has 23 GS semis in a row and 18/19 grand slam finals 2005 Wim to 2010 AO.
65 match streak on grass and 56 on HC
24 finalswon in a row.

you are the one who ran away when I pointed fed won 6 slams in 3 years in 2007-09 with competition being pretty good.


fed's FH was best or tied or 2nd best in 2004-12. 4th or 5th at best in 2013-current.
if that's not a decline, what else is?
it was near unplayable at his peak in 2004-07.
13-current doesn't compare to 2004-07 fed fh in any way. 2008-2012 FH was also clearly better than 13-current.

fed's returning also declined. 26.3% return games won v top 20 in 2004-09 vs only 21.6% v top 20 in 2013-current. (It was 22.4% from 2010 to 2012)
as did passing shots.
fed's BH declined from AO 10 till 13 end. improved back to an extent under Edberg and Ljubicic. but best phase for BH was still 06-07.
06-07 > 17-early 18 > 04-05 > 08-09 > 10-12 > 13/16 for fed BH

movement was already have a step down after AO 10. further down from 13 onwards.

putting some numbers without knowing context or what you are measuring isn't objective analysis. you can neither do objective nor subjective analysis. So please!
you didn't address the flaws in the paper because you didn't read it properly.

 

[mahatma]

objective stuff:

best 4 year period: fed from 2004-07 (11 slams, 3 YECs)
best prime period of ~ 6 years: 2003 YEC to 2010 AO (14 slams, 4 YECs)
fed has 5+ slams at 3 venues (AO, Wim, USO)
top or 2nd best in 3 slams - AO/Wim/USO.
fed has 23 GS semis in a row and 18/19 grand slam finals 2005 Wim to 2010 AO.
65 match streak on grass and 56 on HC
24 finalswon in a row.

you are the one who ran away when I pointed fed won 6 slams in 3 years in 2007-09.


fed's FH was best or tied or 2nd best in 2004-12. 4th or 5th at best in 2013-current.
if that's not a decline, what else is?
it was near unplayable at his peak in 2004-07.
13-current doesn't compare to 2004-07 fed fh in any way. 2008-AO 10 FH was also clearly better than 13-current.

fed's returning also declined.
as did passing shots.
fed's BH declined from AO 10 till 13 end. improved back to an extent under Edberg and Ljubicic. but best phase for BH was still 06-07.
06-07 > 17-early 18 > 04-05 > 08-09 > 10-12 for fed BH

movement was already have a step down after AO 10. further down from 13 onwards.

putting some numbers without knowing context or what you are measuring isn't objective analysis. you can neither do objective nor subjective analysis. So please!
you didn't address the flaws in the paper because you didn't read it properly.

While you won't understand as you are too result oriented while objectively analysing a player. There is no point showing results as a measure of peak. Don't know how to point this without you being not carried away by results again.

Competition started playing better since '10 and that's why peak Federer wasn't good enough. That's the reality. Stats around serve speed, fh shot speed, bh shot speed, movement efficiency, returning, net play - they all point towards the same thing.

If a player A peak is x while a player B reached a 1.5x peak, the argument of player A having a decline is moot.

Remove Djokovic from 2011 onwards and Federer would have been at 25+ slams. It wasn't a decline of Federer, it was Djokovic rising above Federer esp in hard courts during this time.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Btw I didn't break out any insults in Hindi. That's @abmk style. I have tried to keep it civil. Just that Fed fans aren't able to take objective analysis and prefer eye test over cold hard numbers.

Also Federer as mentioned in the above papers have been in top 3-5 in fh shot speeds and accuracy, bh lower - but that has been the case all his career. His serve was as big as in 2013-18 period as was in 04-09 period. So I don't know what the decline was really in '13-18 vs '04-09. Half a step in movement. Really. Let's agree that Djokovic started playing better and it was independent of any non-existent decline of Federer.

Well not so fast my concerns with the findings remain unaddressed.

Numbers can be objective while also failing to meaningfully address our value-laden terms.

I’ve basically demonstrated that the return rating doesn’t really cohere with any of our definitions of ‘good returning’…so a bit of clarity on the rest (especially groundstroke criteria) would be helpful.

 

[The Fedfather]

Btw I didn't break out any insults in Hindi. That's @abmk style. I have tried to keep it civil. Just that Fed fans aren't able to take objective analysis and prefer eye test over cold hard numbers.

Also Federer as mentioned in the above papers have been in top 3-5 in fh shot speeds and accuracy, bh lower - but that has been the case all his career. His serve was as big as in 2013-18 period as was in 04-09 period. So I don't know what the decline was really in '13-18 vs '04-09. Half a step in movement. Really. Let's agree that Djokovic started playing better and it was independent of any non-existent decline of Federer.

Now, I know you didn't just reproach Federer fans' analysis and then said that you don't know what Federer's decline was.

Talking about cold hard numbers since that's so important, from '04 to '09 Federer made 24 Slam SFs. From '13 to '18 he made 11 semis. In that entire period he lost to Djokovic a whole of 4 times. The conclusion is clear. Decline? Non-existent. Peak Federer was just struggling against the mega improved, super advanced field of 2013-2018.

Not the greatest, perhaps, but a superhuman. Through ageing, injuries, surgeries Federer just stayed at the one constant peak/prime physical level. That's the level of analysis from those who shame others for relying on their perception of watching the game.

 

[NatF]

The same people that claim Fed didn't decline over 15 years will swear blind about the improvements Djokovic made in 2011. Bit hypocritical no...

 

[RS]

Good job

 

[mahatma]

Now, I know you didn't just reproach Federer fans' analysis and then said that you don't know what Federer's decline was.

Talking about cold hard numbers since that's so important, from '04 to '09 Federer made 24 Slam SFs. From '13 to '18 he made 11 semis. In that entire period he lost to Djokovic a whole of 4 times. The conclusion is clear. Decline? Non-existent. Peak Federer was just struggling against the mega improved, super advanced field of 2013-2018.

Not the greatest, perhaps, but a superhuman. Through ageing, injuries, surgeries Federer just stayed at the one constant peak/prime physical level. That's the level of analysis from those who shame others for relying on their perception of watching the game.

Another user becoming only result oriented.

We all know field was so much better in '10+. Federer's pumped up cv had to take a hit when the field was stacked.

Throw me numbers around his game to tell me I am wrong. Not results pls. Results is an outcome of not just how you play, but also how the field plays against you.

 

[abmk]

While you won't understand as you are too result oriented while objectively analysing a player. There is no point showing results as a measure of peak. Don't know how to point this without you being not carried away by results again.

Competition started playing better since '10 and that's why peak Federer wasn't good enough. That's the reality. Stats around serve speed, fh shot speed, bh shot speed, movement efficiency, returning, net play - they all point towards the same thing.

If a player A peak is x while a player B reached a 1.5x peak, the argument of player B having a decline is moot.

Remove Djokovic from 2011 onwards and Federer would have been at 25+ slams. It wasn't a decline of Federer, it was Djokovic rising above Federer esp in hard courts during this time.

I brought in that to show the +es for federer, which you mostly ignore since you didn't watch sh*t before 2011 or so.

rest of it is absolutely wrong.

there is no stat to measure movement.
pretty sure fed's fh speed was higher in 04-09 than in 13-18. but we don't have much data for 04-09 fh speeds.
fed's returning also declined. 26.3% return games won v top 20 in 2004-09 vs only 21.6% v top 20 in 2013-current. (It was 22.4% from 2010 to 2012)

LMAO at competition only being better from 10 onwards. 07-09 wasn't strong?
07-09 was atleast as good as 11-13 and way better than any year afterwards - each of them.


Also as pointed out above:

"Talking about cold hard numbers since that's so important, from '04 to '09 Federer made 23 (corrected) Slam SFs. From '13 to '18 he made 11 semis. In that entire period he lost to Djokovic a whole of 4 times. "

So the difference of 12 slam semis that has nothing to do with Djokovic/Nadal at all since fed didn't meet Nadal/Djokovic before the semi.

fed was losing to tsonga, stak, robredo, gulbis, cilic, seppi, raonic, Millman, Anderson in slams in 13-18.
that's your tougher competition?

your statement is like saying 2007-09 djoko was just as good as 2011-16 djoko, but kept getting beat by prime fedal in slams (4x by fed, 4x by nadal)

 

[abmk]

Another user becoming only result oriented.

We all know field was so much better in '10+. Federer's pumped up cv had to take a hit when the field was stacked.

Throw me numbers around his game to tell me I am wrong. Not results pls. Results is an outcome of not just how you play, but also how the field plays against you.

No, it wasn't in the real world at all.
07-09 > 11-13 (by a bit)
04-06 > 14-16
and obviously both better than 17-current.

 

[Deleted member 779124]

Don't you people have lives rather than getting into a shouting match? LOL

 

[mahatma]

Well not so fast my concerns with the findings remain unaddressed.

Numbers can be objective while also failing to meaningfully address our value-laden terms.

I’ve basically demonstrated that the return rating doesn’t really cohere with any of our definitions of ‘good returning’…so a bit of clarity on the rest (especially groundstroke criteria) would be helpful.

Federer return points won in first serve were in the range of +/- 1% during the 2004-18 period. Same was the case in second serve return points won %. Both numbers being 30%+ and 50%+ YoY in the 15 year period.

 

[The Fedfather]

Another user becoming only result oriented.

We all know field was so much better in '10+. Federer's pumped up cv had to take a hit when the field was stacked.

Throw me numbers around his game to tell me I am wrong. Not results pls. Results is an outcome of not just how you play, but also how the field plays against you.

What are the numbers you can show me demonstrating that Federer on average didn't become slower? What are the numbers that show his FH and BH stayed the same in terns of spin, speed, net clearance, UEs percentage? The report you cited earlier doesn't provide any comparative data from which one can infer that Federer's game didn't decline by 2013. Idk why you're acting like it did.

 

[mahatma]

Don't you people have lives rather than getting into a shouting match? LOL

Defending a view is life. #ttwwarrior lol

 

[Deleted member 779124]

At least I can't be blamed for this thread.

Finally.

 

[Biotic]

What's with all this backhand talk? Federer made the most of an era where having any kind of backhand whatsoever was REDUNDANT. No wonder federinas talk about Federer not really needing an elite BH back in the day when his FH was doing wonders againt LOUSY competition. I mean, why would anyone need a BH in the Udomchoke era???

 

[The Fedfather]

What's with all this backhand talk? Federer made the most of an era where having any kind of backhand whatsoever was REDUNDANT. No wonder federinas talk about Federer not really needing an elite BH back in the day when his FH was doing wonders againt LOUSY competition. I mean, why would anyone need a BH in the Udomchoke era???

To go for the CYGS at 34 years old. Ask Djokovic

 

[abmk]

Federer return points won in first serve were in the range of +/- 1% during the 2004-18 period. Same was the case in second serve return points won %. Both numbers being 30%+ and 50%+ YoY in the 15 year period.

v top 20:

Federer had 26.3% return games won in 2004-09
22.4% from 2010 to 2012.
21.6% in 2013-18.
its actually 29.1% from 2004-07 in fed's best 4 years. would be an absolute joke to equate with 13-18.

v top 20:
fed won 32.5% first serve points in 2004-09 vs only 30% in 2013-19.
fed won 51.3% second serve points in 2004-09 vs only 48.5% in 2013-19.

so what you are you talking about?

 

[Deleted member 779124]

Defending a view is life. #ttwwarrior lol

Not like this. TTW debates a fun now and again but this thread does both Fed and Novak injustice.

 

[The Fedfather]

Not like this. TTW debates a fun now and again but this thread does both Fed and Novak injustice.

"In war, whichever side may call itself the victor, there are no winners, but all are losers."

 

[mahatma]

v top 20:

Federer had 26.3% return games won in 2004-09
22.4% from 2010 to 2012.
21.6% in 2013-current.
its actually 29.1% from 2004-07 in fed's best 4 years. would be an absolute joke to compare vs 13-current.

v top 20:
fed won 32.5% first serve points in 2004-09 vs only 30% in 2013-19.
fed won 51.3% second serve points in 2004-09 vs only 48.5% in 2013-19.

so what you are you talking about?

Clearly top 20 was better in '13+ era. You proved my point. Thanks.