How good will Nadal/Djokovic be a 30

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
04-07 wasn’t stat padding. Federer beat many quality contemporaries and also held off up coming world class young players.

If they had their prime at same time as Fed, they’d nowhere near 5 Wimbledon or 4 USO that’s for sure. Fed drew the short straw.
Federer dominated till early 2010 despite exiting his peak in 2007, so I don't know what people that talk as though 2007 was the last year when Federer was the leading player are smoking.

 

Lew II

Legend
you do know that highest ranked opponent does NOT equal to the toughest opponent in a given period of time, don't you?
for example, how many matches Kafelnikov lost in a row after reaching the #1?

the player in the QF, had to win 4 BO5 matches within less than 2 weeks.
the player in the SF, had to win 5 BO5 matches within less than 2 weeks.
the player in the final, had to win 6 BO5 matches during 2 weeks.
which makes them very strong in a given point in time.
#1/2 are usually are the most in form players.

Winning 6 matches doesn't equal being a great finalist, as you can see here:


1/2 time finalists are 15-68 in finals. Apparently winning 6 match in a row doesn't mean they were playing really great.
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
you do know that highest ranked opponent does NOT equal to the toughest opponent in a given period of time, don't you?
for example, how many matches Kafelnikov lost in a row after reaching the #1?

the player in the QF, had to win 4 BO5 matches within less than 2 weeks.
the player in the SF, had to win 5 BO5 matches within less than 2 weeks.
the player in the final, had to win 6 BO5 matches during 2 weeks.
which makes them very strong in a given point in time.
Doesn’t this logic negate all weak era discussion pointless (for both 2004-07 and 2016-present). Any player you meet in a slam final would have beaten the same number of opponents (unless we measure slam quality by total number of walkovers), so a slam is a slam is a slam and discussing quality of opponents is useless?
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
Doesn’t this logic negate all weak era discussion pointless (for both 2004-07 and 2016-present). Any player you meet in a slam final would have beaten the same number of opponents (unless we measure slam quality by total number of walkovers), so a slam is a slam is a slam and discussing quality of opponents is useless?
I have never argued about weak era.
Quite the opposite, I always tell:
1. one can only play the opponent that is on the other side of the net
2. if 2 of the big 3 lose before the final, it doesn't negate the achievement of the 3rd one, e.g. Nadal at USO, or Federer in whatever amount of slams he won
3. the amount of tennis professionals increased dramatically, while the prize money technically decreased for lower level players. So, I can't believe that the competition is weaker. Usually more competitors mean a freaking tougher competition.
4. At the very top the amount of prize money increased dramatically. So I can't imagine that all other pros, except for big 3 are not interested in winning.
Once you sum up the reality proven data and leave alone the "fanboy" discussions, many arguments don't make sense.

Yes, I know, the prize money at lower level didn't decrease in absolute numbers, they stayed the same.
But prices attached to most things increased, so back some 20 years ago, one could afford to buy much more for same amount of money like today.
So, in real life, the prize money at Challengers and ITF Futures actually did decrease, as their buying power decreased significantly.
 
Not his fault but he was lucky the #2-4 were so weak.
2004-2007 was before the ITF and ATP mandated homogenization of surfaces, and there was such a thing as surface specialists. All stats comparing an era of surface specialization and diversity to an era of surface homogenization with slower speeds and higher bounce heights are inherently flawed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Lew II

Legend
2004-2007 was before the ITF and ATP mandated homogenization of surfaces, and there was such a thing as surface specialists. All stats comparing an era of surface specialization and diversity to an era of surface homogenization with slower speeds and higher bounce heights are inherently flawed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So suddenly consistent players happened in 2007 and were gone again in 2017?

What was so different for 2007-16 surfaces?
 

RS

Hall of Fame
2004-2007 was before the ITF and ATP mandated homogenization of surfaces, and there was such a thing as surface specialists. All stats comparing an era of surface specialization and diversity to an era of surface homogenization with slower speeds and higher bounce heights are inherently flawed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Surfaces changes big time started in 2001.
 
#1/2 are usually are the most in form players.

Winning 6 matches doesn't equal being a great finalist, as you can see here:


1/2 time finalists are 15-68 in finals. Apparently winning 6 match in a row doesn't mean they were playing really great.
Doesn’t this directly contradict your weak era and elo assertions? You reward Nadal and Djokovic for beating the the highest ranked opponent, while in the 2006 AO, for example, you don’t reward Baghdatis for beating #2 Roddick. If anything, Baghdatis should have a higher rating than Roddick in your model because Baghdatis beat the same players Roddick would have, in addition to beating Roddick (#2 seed). If you apply the same logic to Federer’s victory, he played a harder opponent than Roddick because Baghdatis had all of the victories Roddick would have had, plus a victory over the
second highest ranked player. You’re selectively alternating between historical and predictive analytical models to fit your narrative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

beard

Hall of Fame
I just love this retro threads... (y)

When I see some hard dying Fed fan in old posts, I click on his name to see activity log...

Guess what. Most of those are wanished from forum, and dates are corelated with Fed's worst defeats or Rafole great success... Remember @zagor, he disappeared after W19, for example...

I can just imagine desert after Rafa and/or Novak overcome Fed... :sneaky: This place wont be so interesting, but we have thousands threads like this to relive and enjoy...

I must say I admire @tennis_pro, about his prediction, not because he is right, but because of his consistency of winning about weak era (and he is Fed fan, believe me, so ironic)... Good broken record, gooood......;)(y)
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
I just love this retro threads... (y)

When I see some hard dying Fed fan in old posts, I click on his name to see activity log...

Guess what. Most of those are wanished from forum, and dates are corelated with Fed's worst defeats or Rafole great success... Remember @zagor, he disappeared after W19, for example...

I can just imagine desert after Rafa and/or Novak overcome Fed... :sneaky: This place wont be so interesting, but we have thousands threads like this to relive and enjoy...

I must say I admire @tennis_pro, about his prediction, not because he is right, but because of his consistency of winning about weak era (and he is Fed fan, believe me, so ironic)... Good broken record, gooood......;)(y)
I will be whining 50 years from now too after an 83 year old Nadal beats an 88 year old Fed in Rome because he has an age advantage
 
So suddenly consistent players happened in 2007 and were gone again in 2017?

What was so different for 2007-16 surfaces?
The players didn’t change, the conditions did. Average rally length of each slam by year:



The trend towards homogenization is obvious, 3 slams had equal rally length in 2011 and the range has been ~1 stroke since. It’s only logical that if surfaces are made to be more similar, certain play styles will gain an advantage and be more consistently successful. The ITF and ATP kept making surface changes to result in lower ball speeds and higher bounce heights without studying poly strings, and defensive baseliners gained a competitive advantage as a result. They admitted as much when they lamented not extensively researching poly strings and allowing them to proliferate the professional ranks without any regulations.

It’s nothing to support one player or try and diminish the achievements of another. Look at Djokovic in the 2007 USO final against Fed, he was an aggressive baseliner and was attacking and hitting winners all over the court. He saw the changes that were taking place and adapted, evolving into the best defender/returner/neutralizer to ever play the game.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Dominated til early 2010? :-D He wasn't even close to the best player of 2008, in fact there is a very good argument Djokovic was the true #2 of that year but Nadal was #1 that year by a country mile. And while Federer ended up being the top player for 2009 it sure didn't look that was ever going to happen until the historical RG upset, and I would not say it was a year of dominance by any stretch either.
8 out of 9 major finals (and a semi), 4 majors, that's pretty damn dominant to me. It doesn't necessarily mean he was dominant all the time but as a whole.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Makes me wonder why he's so salty...

He knew this could happen and he had 6-7 years to prepare himself for it.

Still whines like a punk whilst forgetting how many slams his idol vultured before the arrival of prime Nadal and Novak...
Vultured LMAO, this is who Nadal beat in his USO winning editions from the QF onwards: Verdasco, Youzhny, Robredo, Gasquet, Rublev, Anderson, Schwartzman, Berrettini, Medvedev.
 

Lew II

Legend
The players didn’t change, the conditions did. Average rally length of each slam by year:



The trend towards homogenization is obvious, 3 slams had equal rally length in 2011 and the range has been ~1 stroke since. It’s only logical that if surfaces are made to be more similar, certain play styles will gain an advantage and be more consistently successful. The ITF and ATP kept making surface changes to result in lower ball speeds and higher bounce heights without studying poly strings, and defensive baseliners gained a competitive advantage as a result. They admitted as much when they lamented not extensively researching poly strings and allowing them to proliferate the professional ranks without any regulations.

It’s nothing to support one player or try and diminish the achievements of another. Look at Djokovic in the 2007 USO final against Fed, he was an aggressive baseliner and was attacking and hitting winners all over the court. He saw the changes that were taking place and adapted, evolving into the best defender/returner/neutralizer to ever play the game.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The game became more similar across the surfaces, and it's not necessarily because of surfaces, it might be a natural evolution of the game. If players are fitter, stronger and more dedicated they can adapt to all courts.

And it doesn't mean it's easier to be consistent. You have more opponents on all surfaces, rather than just specialists.
 
Last edited:

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
And Federer hasn't won a USO since 2008, why? :D
Bad luck, injuries, facing a fresh Djokovic instead of Exhaustedovic, lack of Schwartzmans and Berrettinis in the final stages of the tournament.

Sort of like with Nadal at the AO the only difference is that Fed won 5x as many USOs as Nadal AOs hehe.
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
The players didn’t change, the conditions did. Average rally length of each slam by year:



The trend towards homogenization is obvious, 3 slams had equal rally length in 2011 and the range has been ~1 stroke since. It’s only logical that if surfaces are made to be more similar, certain play styles will gain an advantage and be more consistently successful. The ITF and ATP kept making surface changes to result in lower ball speeds and higher bounce heights without studying poly strings, and defensive baseliners gained a competitive advantage as a result. They admitted as much when they lamented not extensively researching poly strings and allowing them to proliferate the professional ranks without any regulations.

It’s nothing to support one player or try and diminish the achievements of another. Look at Djokovic in the 2007 USO final against Fed, he was an aggressive baseliner and was attacking and hitting winners all over the court. He saw the changes that were taking place and adapted, evolving into the best defender/returner/neutralizer to ever play the game.
I knew this to be true from the eye test but this chart makes me want to vomit. This is just one more reason why big 3 inflation era resumes can't really be compared 1:1 to older greats like Borg, Laver, Sampras - conditions, tour structure, money, culture, relative prestige, etc. are just far too different.
 
The game became more similar across the surfaces, and it's not necessarily because of surfaces, it might be a natural evolution of the game. If players are fitter, stronger and more dedicated they can adapt to all courts.

And it doesn't mean it's easier to be consistent. You have more opponents on all surfaces, rather than just specialists.
It’s been documented by the ATP, ITF, and multiple tournament officials and tour players. The ATP and ITF are motivated by ratings and act accordingly.

This is one good article with a nice range of sources and facts:

Federer’s win probability against Nadal. No surprise but It shows how Federer is favored as court speed increases:


Wimbledon continues to slow down:


US Open tournament director admits to purposefully slowing courts:


Tournament speeds from 2010-2013:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

RS

Hall of Fame
It’s been documented by the ATP, ITF, and multiple tournament officials and tour players. The ATP and ITF are motivated by ratings and act accordingly.

This is one good article with a nice range of sources and facts:

Federer’s win probability against Nadal. No surprise but It shows how Federer is favored as court speed increases:


Wimbledon continues to slow down:


US Open tournament director admits to purposefully slowing courts:


Tournament speeds from 2010-2013:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AO got faster though.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Yeah, well, bit of a difference when you face Youzhny/Gasquet instead of Federer/Wawrinka which takes like 4+ hours of work.
Didn't Novak also have a 5 setter against Rogi in 2011? Didn't seem to have any impact on him whatsoever so why should I believe this crap affected him in 2010 and 2013 finals?

Why don't you bring up how exhausted Safin was in AO 2004? Or Agassi in US 2005? Each played more gruelling 5 setters than Novak did...

Guess those slams don't count for Rogi then either...
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Sort of like with Nadal at the AO the only difference is that Fed won 5x as many USOs as Nadal AOs hehe.
Yeah all before prime Novak and Nadal...

At least Nadal beat prime Novak there twice. And he would've sent Fed packing in any of his title runs as well.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
The guy has 5 of them. Why did he need to win more?

I swear some of Rafa's fans use this as a reason to bash Fed and it's one of the silliest ever.
Why do you act brand new with me? Im not dissing him at all im saying if the draws were so easy, which YOUR boy is going around saying, then maybe someone besides Nadal should be able to win them. If I need to take it there I will but that's not how I meant it and you already know it. Federer has been in every draw Nadal won a USO in. It is what it is.
 
Top