If the Federer era was weak, what was missing to make it strong?!..

[mike danny]

Era strength indeed decided by 2 or 3 matches, lol

Well, the strength of Fed's era was decided by literally 1 match LOL.

 

[mike danny]

What do you mean reality? If we only look at the reality aka the numbers Djokovic towes above everybody. but that does not tell the full Story right? Im not even biased i can asure you that. Im interested in your opinion tho so you think fed >>> everybody else easily?

No, never believed that. But I do think he was better in his 20's than his 30's.

 

[Born_to_slice]

Era after that one was the strongest in history so mugs on TTW think everything else is weak.

 

[The Guru]

Sure, I'll trust your clearly unbiased judgement over actual reality.

 

[Tennfan123]

A fellow Goat who had his number in the rivalry and beat him in slam finals.
Oh, wait …

 

[mike danny]

I don't think I ever claimed something close to his post.

 

[Neptune]

Fed in 20s
8-17 against Rafa
6-8 against Murray

Fed in 30s
8-7 against Rafa
8-3 against Murray

 

[SonnyT]

Nadal was only good at non-RG slams when he was younger. When he got older, he started concentrating on RG.

Federer figured out Murray as they played more and more. Same with Djokovic, Murray upset him at UO & WB earlier in their careers.

 

[tudwell]

Fed in 20s
8-17 against Rafa
6-8 against Murray

Fed in 30s
8-7 against Rafa
8-3 against Murray

If I counted right, Fed was 6-5 against Nadal off of clay while in his 20s. He was 8-6 off of clay in his 30s. Thats not much different and suggests the bulk of the difference is just that they met a ton on clay when Fed was in his 20s and made it deep in most clay tourneys while they almost never met on clay after Fed’s 30th birthday.

 

[socallefty]

The champions who grew up with gut exited from title stages early and had to retire due to not being able to compete well with players playing with poly. The first generation that grew up with poly was still very young and figuring out how to win consistently on big stages. It was a transitionary period between technologies where there were not enough older players capable of winning Slams anymore.

 

[SonnyT]

The Federer era met its natural end when Nadal started beating Federer at non-RG slams.

 

[Razer]

I have an observation that with the departure of serve and volley players, practically from 2003 they started to abandon this way of playing.

In 2000, there was still Sampras, Rafter, Ivanisevic, and in general, the serve and volley game was still there, and after 2003 it started to disappear.

And I think that's when Roger started to dominate, because there was no pressure at a net like that...

Patrick Rafter has a record of 3:0 and hasn't won a single match, maybe who knows, if such players had continued to play from 2003 to 2006, he would have dominated so much?!..

Then, from 2007, strong counterpunchers or defense players had to appear if no one put pressure on him to serve and volley.

And maybe that's why many people say that the Federer era was weak, because his three years were easy and pleasant, and there were no serve and volley players.

And I want to emphasize that this handful of players such as Feliciano Lopez, Nicolas Mahut, Ivo Karlovic are still not at the same level as in the 80s and 90s!!

So, in order to stop Federer, players had to appear who were strong from deep inside the court, and with that, they had to play better passing shots when Roger went to the net.

And it seems that the Federer era was not that weak at all, but the biggest weakness of his era was the departure from the serve and volley style!!!.

And as I know, playing at the net is crucial in tennis!!!. and yet it is used less and less effectively!!!.

Sampras to Nadal/Djokovic era is the SNV to Baseline era transition phase, but it is also worth being noted that Nalbandian, Safin did possess the game from the back of the court to beat Federer, it is just that they were either too unfit or a bit volatile in form. Departure from Serve and Volley did create a vacuum but Fed's rival did have the game to fill it, but they did not have the fitness.

 

[TMF]

since Murray and Stan are better players than Davydenko, Nalbandian, Roddick its fine i guess.

 

[Pheasant]

Fed's racket change made a big difference against virtually everybody except Djokovic.

2014-2017, HTH records(with new 97 inch racket):
Berdych: 8-0
Murray: 5-0
Nadal: 6-1(2019 FO loss and 2014 AO loss)
Total: 20-1, .952
record vs top 5: 21-10, .677
record vs top 10: 47-17, .734

From 2010-2013, HTH records(with 90 inch stick)
Berdych: 3-5
Murray: 5-5
Nadal: 3-9(3-5 away from clay)
Total: 11-19, .367 winning pct
record vs top 5: 23-25, .479
record vs top 10: 46-34, .575

Unfortunately, the Djoker didn't care about Fed's new racket. He's the exception. Fed with the new racket only could muster up a 6-9, .400 record vs Djoker from 2014-17.

I forget which author it was. But he said it was time for Fed to change his racket, since it no longer took and ATG to beat him straight up. Some of those stats that I posted are from that article from 10+ years ago. Brad Gilbert owned a pro shop in 2011. He wouldn't even sell Fed's 90 inch stick, because it was way too easy to shank balls. He had a lot of requests for that racket. That right there tells me all that I need to know about that antiquated racket.

You have to give the Maestro some credit for staying competitive during his 30s against a monster like Djokovic. Look at Connors vs Lendl. Lendl won the last 17 matches of that series. In one case, Lendl beat Connors 6-0 6-0. And that double-bagel happened before Lendl reached #1 while Connors was still #3 in the world. Some of those matches were complete demolitions. Fed at least kept the scores respectable. Fed lost only 2 matches of those 15 matches vs Djoker in straight sets(6-3 6-4 and 6-4 6-3). And yet, Fed beat Djoker in straight sets 5 times.

Hats off to Djoker. He owns virtually all of the key records. He's the best of the Big 3. He won that race fair and square. But let's not trash Federer. That dude was a true heavyweight. And he has some pretty cool records of his own. Trashing Federer is indirectly trashing Djoker and vice versa. Trashing any single one of the big 3 is trashing the other two anyway.

As for weak eras go, all 3 of the Big 3 have benefitted immensely. They all had massive advantages over previous generations. There's no way that I believe that Federer was 2 1/2 times better than Lendl because 20=2.5 x 8. That's nonsense in my book. The same goes for the other two.

Edit: fed was 47-17 vs top 10 with the new racket and 46-34 vs top 10 with old racket.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Fed's racket change made a big difference against virtually everybody except Djokovic.

2014-2017, HTH records(with new 97 inch racket):
Berdych: 8-0
Murray: 5-0
Nadal: 6-1(2019 FO loss and 2014 AO loss)
Total: 20-1, .952
record vs top 5: 21-10, .677
record vs top 10: 46-34, .575

From 2010-2013, HTH records(with 90 inch stick)
Berdych: 3-5
Murray: 5-5
Nadal: 3-9(3-5 away from clay)
Total: 11-19, .367 winning pct
record vs top 5: 23-25, .479
record vs top 10: 47-17, .734

Unfortunately, the Djoker didn't care about Fed's new racket. He's the exception. Fed with the new racket only could muster up a 6-9, .400 record vs Djoker from 2014-17.

I forget which author it was. But he said it was time for Fed to change his racket, since it no longer took and ATG to beat him straight up. Some of those stats that I posted are from that article from 10+ years ago. Brad Gilbert owned a pro shop in 2011. He wouldn't even sell Fed's 90 inch stick, because it was way too easy to shank balls. He had a lot of requests for that racket. That right there tells me all that I need to know about that antiquated racket.

You have to give the Maestro some credit for staying competitive during his 30s against a monster like Djokovic. Look at Connors vs Lendl. Lendl won the last 17 matches of that series. In one case, Lendl beat Connors 6-0 6-0. And that double-bagel happened before Lendl reached #1 while Connors was still #3 in the world. Some of those matches were complete demolitions. Fed at least kept the scores respectable. Fed lost only 2 matches of those 15 matches vs Djoker in straight sets(6-3 6-4 and 6-4 6-3). And yet, Fed beat Djoker in straight sets 5 times.

Hats off to Djoker. He owns virtually all of the key records. He's the best of the Big 3. He won that race fair and square. But let's not trash Federer. That dude was a true heavyweight. And he has some pretty cool records of his own. Trashing Federer is indirectly trashing Djoker and vice versa. Trashing any single one of the big 3 is trashing the other two anyway.

As for weak eras go, all 3 of the Big 3 have benefitted immensely. They all had massive advantages over previous generations. There's no way that I believe that Federer was 2 1/2 times better than Lendl because 20=2.5 x 8. That's nonsense in my book. The same goes for the other two.

Federer isn't just heavyweight. He is super heavyweight in men's tennis. I have seen Nole shaking with nervousness against the relentless attack of Federer in IW2015 and Wimbledon2015. Now we know it happened with others as well but I have not seen anyone challenge Nole like Federer on fast hard courts and Rafa on clay courts.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Fed in 20s
8-17 against Rafa
6-8 against Murray

Fed in 30s
8-7 against Rafa
8-3 against Murray

Care to provide the numbers against the third fellow as well?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

If I counted right, Fed was 6-5 against Nadal off of clay while in his 20s. He was 8-6 off of clay in his 30s. Thats not much different and suggests the bulk of the difference is just that they met a ton on clay when Fed was in his 20s and made it deep in most clay tourneys while they almost never met on clay after Fed’s 30th birthday.

You did a slight mistake, actually Fed was 8-5 against Nadal off-clay in his 30s. They also played more often on Fed’s two favourable surfaces grass and indoors hard (6 times) while Fed was in his twenties compared to his 30s (4 times). Those two points together I do think make a difference here.

 

[Neptune]

Care to provide the numbers against the third fellow as well?

*************************
Fed in 20s
8-17 against Rafa
14-9 against Nole
6-8 against Murray
28-34 overall

Fed in 30s
8-7 against Rafa
9-18 against Nole
8-3 against Murray
25-28 overall

*************************
Rafa in 20s
17-10 against Fed
22-26 against Nole
17-7 against Murray
56-43 overall

Rafa in 30s
1-5 against Fed
6-4 against Nole
0-0 against Murray
6-9 overall

*************************
Nole in 20s
23-18 against Fed
25-21 against Rafa
22-11 against Murray
70-50 overall

Nole in 30s
4-1 against Fed
4-5 against Rafa
0-0 against Murray
8-6 overall

 

[mtommer]

Eras aren't strong or weak.

Exactly, and it's something that the actual players never make the mistake of (save for maybe Krygios).

 

[mike danny]

You did a slight mistake, actually Fed was 8-5 against Nadal off-clay in his 30s. They also played more often on Fed’s two favourable surfaces grass and indoors hard (6 times) while Fed was in his twenties compared to his 30s (4 times). Those two points together I do think make a difference here.

And keep in mind that Nadal also scored 4 wins over 30’s Fed in his worst stretch