Federer's age disadvantage myth

[Lew II]

We've heard lots of times that Federer is 10-21 against Djokodal in Slams because he had an age disadvantage.

But excluding matches against each other, Big3 all have a much higher win percentage against players younger than them than they do against players older than them.

vs older / vs younger:

Federer 88.1% / 91.4%
Nadal 87.1% / 93.0%
Djokovic 88.7% / 94.2%

So is being older really a disadvantage?

 

[ollinger]

Big3 all have a much higher win percentage against players younger

Federer 88.1% / 91.4%

It never fails to amuse what some consider "a much higher win percentage," in this case about 3 percent, the other players not much more than that. Step back from meaningless statistics and think about the very young and inexperienced qualifiers and such that these players play in the early rounds of tournaments. Lumping them in with the tour regulars faced in later rounds and trying to draw a meaningful conclusion from that is ludicrous.

 

[RS]

Federer has been at a disadvantage IMO in the Djokovic H2H but not by anywhere near as much as people claim. People forget he had the form to compete he lost too many close matches he could have won not all of that was due to a disadvantage.

 

[blablavla]

We've heard lots of times that Federer is 10-21 against Djokodal in Slams because he had an age disadvantage.

But excluding matches against each other, Big3 all have a much higher win percentage against players younger than them than they do against players older than them.

vs older / vs younger:

Federer 88.1% / 91.4%
Nadal 87.1% / 93.0%
Djokovic 88.7% / 94.2%

So is being older really a disadvantage?

@Lew II being old is an advantage these days, really.
Just recently, I was watching how:
JC Ferrero, 40 years old, was defeating Nadal in RG 2019
Sampras was dominating W 2019 in a way never seen before
Safin, 40 years old, at AO 2020 was blowing away all the youngsters, including a man named Federer who is just working on his game, preparing to enter his prime age.

except that, wait, this was a day dream, just like much of the Wonderland facts and stats.

In fact, the mind blowing percentages that you post, might be due to the fact that the current crop of players 19 - 27 years old are just not good enough.
Please compare the achievements of current crop of players aged 21 - 23 years old: Berrettini, Khachanov, Garin, Hurkacz, Coric, Harris, Zverev, Rublev, Fritz, Opelka, Bublik, Paul, Kwon, Tiafoe, Tsitsipas, de Minaur, Ruud, Humbert, Ymer
with some "youngsters" of the past like:
Safin. Born in 1980. 20 years later, in 2000 he became second youngest #2 in ranking. Won USO 2000, defeating Pistol Pete in the final. Reached #1 in rankings. All in 2000 while was 20 years old.
Hewitt. Born in 1981. 20 years later in 2001 became world #1. Won USO 2001, defeating Pistol Pete in the final. All in 2000 while was 20 years old.
Roddick. Born in 1982. 21 years later won USO 2003 and later reached #1 in raking in 2003
JC Ferrero. Born in 1980. 23 years later won RG at the age and reached #1 in ranking in 2003
Nadal. Born in 1986. 19 years later won RG 2005 defeating Roger on the way. Reached #2 in rankings. In 2008, at the age of 22 reached #1 in rankings
Djokovic. Born in 1987. 21 years later won AO 2008, defeating Hewitt and then Roger en route. In 2011 reached #1 in ranking, at the age of 24

 

[KINGROGER]

Overall % doesn’t mean much when Fed’s problem was just 2 guys. He still owned most of the younger players.

 

[RS]

Overall % doesn’t mean much when Fed’s problem was just 2 guys. He still owned most of the younger players.

Welcome back.

 

[mike danny]

Federer has been at a disadvantage IMO in the Djokovic H2H but not by anywhere near as much as people claim. People forget he had the form to compete he lost too many close matches he could have won not all of that was due to a disadvantage.

Well, there are at least a couple matches Fed would have prevented from going 5 if younger: USO 2011 and Wimb 2019.

 

[RS]

Well, there are at least a couple matches Fed would have prevented from going 5 if younger: USO 2011 and Wimb 2019.

Federer has no excuse of Wim 19 though Djokovic was in worst form. USO 11 yeah you could say Federer would have won if he was in his prime but for me when you have MPs and are 2 sets up you have to win age or not.

 

[mike danny]

Federer has no excuse of Wim 19 though Djokovic was in worst form. USO 11 yeah you could say Federer would have won if he was in his prime but for me when you have MPs and are 2 sets up you have to win age or not.

Perhaps.

Federer did go sway sort of in sets 3 and 4 at the USO. Not as bad as 2010 USO though.

As for Wimb, well if Djokovic was as bad as you say, it was totally age why Roger lost because I don't believe such a bad Djokovic would just beat a younger Fed. And I blame age because Fed did not win a single damn tiebreak which is very unlike him.

 

[RS]

Perhaps.

Federer did go sway sort of in sets 3 and 4 at the USO. Not as bad as 2010 USO though.

As for Wimb, well if Djokovic was as bad as you say, it was totally age why Roger lost because I don't believe such a bad Djokovic would just beat a younger Fed. And I blame age because Fed did not win a single damn tiebreak which is very unlike him.

Djokovic was not bad in the Wim 19 but Federer was in better form. In Wim 15 or something then yeah you can say that was a disadvantage for Federer. Federer went away in USO 11 but that match was his in parts. I do not know what happened the breakers Djokovic was excellent in the breakers in 2019 Federer did fall badly on the breakers though.

 

[King No1e]

Perhaps.

Federer did go sway sort of in sets 3 and 4 at the USO. Not as bad as 2010 USO though.

As for Wimb, well if Djokovic was as bad as you say, it was totally age why Roger lost because I don't believe such a bad Djokovic would just beat a younger Fed. And I blame age because Fed did not win a single damn tiebreak which is very unlike him.

Interesting pattern: Up to the 5th set, Wimbledon 19 F was the exact opposite of USO10 SF: Djokovic was clutch in a close 1st and 3rd set, while Federer cruised in sets 2 and 4.
The 5th set was the same story, though. 40-15

 

[Clay lover]

Lol doing well against useless gen doesn't mean you're not old.

 

[Lew II]

Lol doing well against useless gen doesn't mean you're not old.

The older gen was not exactly filled with ATGs either. Of players born from 1972 to 1985 Federer was the only to reach more than 5 slam finals.

 

[Clay lover]

The older gen was not exactly filled with ATGs either. Of players born from 1972 to 1985 Federer was the only to reach more than 5 slam finals.

This is completely irrelevant. I am saying that Federer doing well against players younger than him has completely no bearing on how well he fares against fellow ATGs.

 

[beast of mallorca]

We've heard lots of times that Federer is 10-21 against Djokodal in Slams because he had an age disadvantage.

But excluding matches against each other, Big3 all have a much higher win percentage against players younger than them than they do against players older than them.

vs older / vs younger:

Federer 88.1% / 91.4%
Nadal 87.1% / 93.0%
Djokovic 88.7% / 94.2%

So is being older really a disadvantage?

Federinas will find excuses when ever they can

 

[blablavla]

The older gen was not exactly filled with ATGs either. Of players born from 1972 to 1985 Federer was the only to reach more than 5 slam finals.

that is because the guys born 1972 - 1984 didn't enter their prime yet.
wait for a few more years, and you'll see them in all finals.
just be patient.

 

[Lew II]

.

 

[travlerajm]

.

NextGen should just retire now then?

 

[Lew II]

NextGen should just retire now then?

Your argument about young gen being bad is basically "because we say so".

 

[blablavla]

Your argument about young gen being bad is basically "because we say so".

no @Lew II it is because next generation that will enter the prime age and therefore will dominate the ATP Tour will be guys born in 1972 - 1984.
I bet on following, in no specific order, please bookmark me:
- Sampras
- Agassi
- Kuerten
- Safin
- Hewitt
- Roddick
- JC Ferrero

also Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Rusedski, Philipousis and Rafter might be good, though I am a tad skeptical about them.

 

[travlerajm]

Your argument about young gen being bad is basically "because we say so".

Not mine. The current generation of ATP players in their 20’s is the first generation in the history of the game to be incontrovertibly worse than the generation that preceded it.

And you can’t just blame the Big3. There are plenty of other players from Federer and Djokovic’s generations who also started benefiting by having more success in their early 30’s than in their 20’s when their same-age peers got old, declined or retired, and got replaced on the tour by inferior younger players. Guys like Anderson, Isner, Fognini, Bautista-Agut, Ferrer.

 

[mike danny]

Federinas will find excuses when ever they can

Yeah, tell us again how well has Rafa done in his 30's against the only ATGs he has had?

 

[ABCD]

If Federer level declined over the years, it is logical to expect that his H2H against Djokovic, Nadal and Murray (5-6 years younger players) goes down in age-dependent manner. However, he dramatically improved his H2H against Nadal and Murray in the last 4-5 years.

 

[Lew II]

If Federer level declined over the years, it is logical to expect that his H2H against Djokovic, Nadal and Murray (5-6 years younger players) goes down in age-dependent manner. However, he dramatically improved his H2H against Nadal and Murray in the last 4-5 years.

True. How is age a disadvantage if he improved his h2h in the last years?

 

[tudwell]

If the level of tennis is always steadily improving, then why is it easier to beat younger players than it is older players?

 

[travlerajm]

If the level of tennis is always steadily improving, then why is it easier to beat younger players than it is older players?

Easy. Because each individual player is steadily improving, so the younger player never catches up.

 

[blablavla]

then Sampras and Agassi should be beating Fed and Djokovic and Nadal.
Oh wait, Borg should defeat all of them, he has more years of training.
And then comes Laver.

 

[travlerajm]

then Sampras and Agassi should be beating Fed and Djokovic and Nadal.
Oh wait, Borg should defeat all of them, he has more years of training.
And then comes Laver.

I find that my groundstrokes keep getting better with age. My serve... not so much.

 

[blablavla]

I find that my groundstrokes keep getting better with age. My serve... not so much.

Footwork?
Enough endurance for BO3 / BO5?
Ability to bring your best 4 or 5 times during the week?
Or 7 times during 2 weeks in case of GS?
Going deep enough on 14 occasions through the year? Or how many tournaments are being counted these days

I guess there is a reason why Fed generation retired.
Look no further than Djokodal generation, some start to retire, like Berdych, others are plagued by injuries.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[travlerajm]

Footwork?
Enough endurance for BO3 / BO5?
Ability to bring your best 4 or 5 times during the week?
Or 7 times during 2 weeks in case of GS?
Going deep enough on 14 occasions through the year? Or how many tournaments are being counted these days

I guess there is a reason why Fed generation retired.
Look no further than Djokodal generation, some start to retire, like Berdych, others are plagued by injuries.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

When you get older, it’s the recovery time that gets you. Poor 30-year-old Sampras had to play in an era of SuperSaturday back-to-back Best-of-5 semi and final when 20-year-old guys Safin and Hewitt arrived.

 

[blablavla]

When you get older, it’s the recovery time that gets you. Poor 30-year-old Sampras had to play in an era of SuperSaturday back-to-back Best-of-5 semi and final when 20-year-old guys Safin and Hewitt arrived.

indeed, and recovery as well.

 

[One Handed Dynasty]

True. How is age a disadvantage if he improved his h2h in the last years?

Because he’s the greatest of all time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 768841]

Noooo!!!! You can’t
Just keep performing
At a high level at an
Older age!! It’s
Impossible!!!!


Ha ha, OHBH goes wooooosh

 

[travlerajm]

This thread reminds me of Andy Murray's despondent runner-up speech at W 2012. Paraphrasing: "My coach told me before the final 'this is your best chance to finally win a slam. You get to play against Roger, and he's 30 years old.' "

 

[Lew II]

Slam wins over top ranked Big3:

Nadal 10
Djokovic 8
Federer 3

Someone has to explain to me how an opponent ranked #1 (or #2 if you're #2) can be declined.

 

[ADuck]

It may be because the generation before Nadal/Fed/Djokovic faced them before they were mature players and simultaneously did not have the required longevity for that to be undone (they retired before that could be the case). What you've posted does show however that the Big 3 (before they had matured) were worse than they are now (as oldies).

 

[Lew II]

Slam wins over top ranked Big3:

Nadal 10
Djokovic 8
Federer 3

Off clay:

Djokovic 8
Nadal 3
Federer 2

If this doesn't tell you who reached the higher level on hard/grass...

 

[beard]

Federer reversed his h2h with Nadal at older age... What we need more to prove age is not crucial in tennis?... We can't just say he is old, there are numerous factors we need to look at... Fedal rivalry timeline is great example...

 

[blablavla]

Off clay:

Djokovic 8
Nadal 3
Federer 2

If this doesn't tell you who reached the higher level on hard/grass...

are you implying that clay is not an official ATP surface?
something like wood? or asphalt?

 

[Lew II]

are you implying that clay is not an official ATP surface?
something like wood? or asphalt?

It is, but a complete player wins on different surfaces, especially hardcourt which is the main surface.

 

[blablavla]

It is, but a complete player wins on different surfaces, especially hardcourt which is the main surface.

Ok, if "but a complete player wins on different surfaces" then why are you removing clay?
Cause Novak is losing to Rafael on clay?
FYI check how many GS and Masters titles on HC Nadal won before trying to imply that he is not a complete player.

 

[Lew II]

Ok, if "but a complete player wins on different surfaces" then why are you removing clay?
Cause Novak is losing to Rafael on clay?
FYI check how many GS and Masters titles on HC Nadal won before trying to imply that he is not a complete player.

I'm not removing anything, I'm just putting into contest.

AO: Djokovic 3 > Nadal 1
RG: Nadal 7 > Djokovic 0
WI: Djokovic 3 > Nadal 1
UO: Djokovic 2 > Nadal 1

Djokovic had more wins over top ranked Big3 in three Slams out of four.

 

[blablavla]

I'm not removing anything, I'm just putting into contest.

AO: Djokovic 3 > Nadal 1
RG: Nadal 7 > Djokovic 0
WI: Djokovic 3 > Nadal 1
UO: Djokovic 2 > Nadal 1

Djokovic had more wins over top ranked Big3 in three Slams out of four.

sorry buddy, but you did exclude clay, cause then Novak looks better.
but as you said, a complete player shall play on all surfaces.

Off clay:

Djokovic 8
Nadal 3
Federer 2

If this doesn't tell you who reached the higher level on hard/grass...

 

[Marfrilau]

Federer reversed his h2h with Nadal at older age... What we need more to prove age is not crucial in tennis?... We can't just say he is old, there are numerous factors we need to look at... Fedal rivalry timeline is great example...

It's not unlikely to win the lottery jackpot. I know a friend who knew someone who won it. This is a great example of why it's not unlikely to win the lottery jackpot.

Pointing out the exception is not the winning argument you seem to think it is...

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Out of curiosity, what is Federer’s record against players younger than Djokovic? We established in another thread that the difference between Nadal and Djokovic for this group was negligible.

 

[junior74]

Slam wins over top ranked Big3:

Nadal 10
Djokovic 8
Federer 3

Someone has to explain to me how an opponent ranked #1 (or #2 if you're #2) can be declined.

Off clay:

Djokovic 8
Nadal 3
Federer 2

If this doesn't tell you who reached the higher level on hard/grass...

Federer won 10 slams or so before Novak was a top 10 player... so this makes no sense

 

[tennis_pro]

Well, kinda. You just missed the fact that Nadal and Djokovic are so much better than generations useless that age doesnt really matter here. That's why Federer is still more than relevant at 38.

 

[beard]

It's not unlikely to win the lottery jackpot. I know a friend who knew someone who won it. This is a great example of why it's not unlikely to win the lottery jackpot.

Pointing out the exception is not the winning argument you seem to think it is...

You can win lottery once... Fed is winning against Nadal regularly...

 

[Towny]

It's not about younger players always having an advantage against older players or vice versa. It's about players having a prime and being either closer to or further away from it. Players' forms can go up and down for various reasons but generally they have a roughly defined period in which their physical, mental and technical strengths produce their best tennis. Given the obvious physical element, age tends to be a big factor in this. In general terms, after a certain point a player gets further away from their prime as they get older.

With regard to the Big 3 dynamic, Federer being older than Nadal and Djokovic means that their primes haven't happened at the same time. Earlier on, this was an advantage for Federer. For example, in 2006, Federer was in his prime and Djokovic wasn't (advantage Federer). However, as the years have progressed, this became an advantage for the younger Djokovic and Nadal. For example, in 2014, Djokovic was in his prime and Federer wasn't (advantage Djokovic). To illustrate this point, let's look at the H2H of one of the 'Big 4s' of the past: Connors, Borg, McEnroe and Lendl:

Connors: born 1952
Borg: born 1956
McEnroe: born 1959
Lendl: born 1960

Connors-Borg: overall H2H 8-15 from 1973-81 (6-2 (75%) 73-77, 2-13 (13%) 78-81)
Connors-McEnroe: overall H2H 14-20 from 1977-91 (12-14 (46%) 77-84, 2-6 (25%) 84-91)
Connors-Lendl: overall H2H 13-22 from 1979-92 (13-12 (52%) 79-85, 0-10 (0%) 86-92)
Borg-McEnroe: overall H2H 7-7 from 1978-81 (4-3 (57%) 78-79, 3-4 (43%) 80-81)
Borg-Lendl: overall H2H 6-2 from 1979-81 (3-1 (75%) 79-80, 3-1 (75%) 80-81)
McEnroe-Lendl: overall H2H 15-21 from 1980-1992 (14-12 (54%) 80-86, 1-9 (10%) 86-92)

(N.B. I've split the rivalries in half by year and if an odd number of years, I've split the middle year in half by number of matches)

As we can see, in almost every case the younger player does better in the latter half of the rivalry than the older player. The exception is Borg-Lendl, likely because Borg retired still a couple of years before Lendl won his first slam. Had Borg stayed on the tour until the mid-eighties, I expect we would have seen a trend matching the other rivalries, but that is speculation.

Now, in terms of other ATGs, the only ones Federer has had a real rivalry with are Agassi, Nadal and Djokovic (no, I don't count Murray). Looking at those numbers:

Agassi-Federer: overall H2H 3-8 from 1998-2005 (2-0 (100%) 98-01, 1-8 (11%) 02-05)
Federer-Nadal: overall H2H 16-24 from 2004-2019 (9-17 (35%) 04-11, 5-7 (42%) 12-19)
Federer-Djokovic: overall H2H 23-27 from 2006-2020 (16-14 (53%) 06-13, 7-13 (35%) 13-20)

Fed-Agassi and Fedovic follow this pattern. Fedal doesn't, largely because of more matches on clay earlier in the rivalry (14 in the first half, 2 in the second half) and Federer's 2017, where Federer uniquely had the mental edge over Nadal.

Overall, it seems clear to me that the older player in the rivalry will eventually be at a disadvantage to the younger player. This has especially been true of the Fedovic rivalry.