Is the notion of "Prime Federer" problematic?

[The_Order]

that's just in your la la land where ferrero was a pushover (you changed your tune slowly on this) in AO 2004, hewitt only had one competitive set in AO 2004 & wimbledon 2004, where gonzo didn't play well after set 1 in AO 2007, where agassi had physical problems in USO 2004, where rafa has a better return than hewitt ( LMAO !) , where djokovic played better in the USO 2007 final than roddick did in the USO 2007 QF , where you judge davy's play in AO 2006 only by his W/UE , but don't have a clue about the no of errors he forced from federer until I mentioned that ...... etc etc

First of all, I haven't changed any tune, Ferrero was a pushover in AO04, he was fortunate enough to get one of the easiest draws in history to reach the semi's in the first place. The only reason he was there to face Fed was because he himself only had to beat a bunch of journeymen.

The Hewitt one competitive set is based on you saying that Rafa wasn't competitive in the 4th set against Fed in WIM06. You can't have it both ways. As for WIM04, you're full of crap, I said Rafa's WIM06 match against Fed was tougher than Hewitt's 04 match and it was.

Gonzo's level clearly dropped off after set 1 and was clearly nervous in his first major final (LOL at you bringing up past major champions and comparing them to Gonzo BTW)

Said Rafa's overall return was better than Hewitt's and it is, the stats prove that. Also proved that Rafa's HC return stats aren't that far off Djokovic's. But then you had to switch your tune to fast HC after I proved you wrong

Djokovic did play better than Roddick. He also beat Roddick in the Masters leading to the USO.

A lot of Davydenko forced errors were from his high first serve % and Fed not being in great form, but from the ground he was hitting way more errors than W.

your boy nadal couldn't even manage 90+% in one year ..including in 2010, when fed, djoker and murray were AWOL for large parts, he kept losing to garcia lopez, old ljubicic, melzer etc

How can he keep losing to GGL, when he lost to him only once in a match that he obviously didn't give a stuff about?

Ljubicic scraped through against Rafa who still hadn't found his form. Rafa's form came when the clay sason started. Fed lost to Baghdatis in the third round.

Meltzer played lights out and deserved it. Well done to him.

If there was no Novak in 2011, Nadal's winning percentage would've been 90+%. Pity nobody like that turned up from 04-07...

yeah, obviously post-prime, he is expected to have more crappy matches ... berdych in particular happened to get lucky to meet him more when he was off ......

federer beat berdych in straights in more than half of their matches from 2005-09 ....including 3 straight-set wins at majors .....

That's only because Berdych was pre-prime...

look at the rafa-berdych h2h early on and look at how it is now ...only pre-prime rafa had problems with him ... just as only post-prime fed has problems with him .... berdych would at max get an occasional win here and there over prime federer ... there's nothing in his game to suggest otherwise ...

LOL you can't compare Rafa's h2h with Berdych to Fed's. That's just incredibly dumb. They have different game styles. Rafa has a leading h2h against almost everybody that he's played at least 4-5 times.

fed at his peak handled big hitters easily .... unless they were absolutely zoned in and able to keep up mentally, they didn't stand that much of a chance ....

So why didn't he handle Berdych in Athens?

oh, he isn't ? really ?

from 2009, overall tsonga : 206-89 (69.83%)
from 2009, overall berdych : 213-103 (67.4%)


in slams , in the same time-frame,

tsonga : 54-16 (77.14%)
berdych : 45-17 (72.58%)

yeah, conclusively proves tsonga isn't/wasn't as consistent as berdych from 2009 till now ....

I'm talking about these days, not since 2009. Tsonga was gone in the second round at US12. And yes I know Berdych went out rnd1 in WIM12 but at least that was to Gulbis in 3 tight TB sets, Tsonga got beat by Klizan including copping a breastick.

and yet had a better winning % in 2011 and 2012 than birdman did ... his mid to late 2009 was clearly better than berdych's form at any time , we know that ...

JMDP wasn't much of a threat to any of the big 4 in the majors in 2011 and 2012. He did have really good matches like WIM11, and RG12.

but even in 2011, 2012 he wasn't behind berdych by much by any parameter ....

I said his form hasn't been like late09 until just recently.

nope, soderling was playing well at quite a few other events - wimbledon 2009/10 and USO 2009/2010 ..... in other events like miami 2010 and then in his last tournament at bastaad on clay he smashed berdych 6-1,6-0 and ferrer 6-2,6-2

Hmmm, that's funny, I thought Nadal's WIM2010 was easy, guess you forgot he beat well playing Soderling...

Sod's best was RG and indoors you're a fool if you think otherwise.

err, what ? you said fed is still in top 4 .... I explained why ...how on earth is that cr*p ..... LOL !

And I explained why he was #1.

it sure as hell didn't show any effect in USO 2004 ... face it you are just plain clueless ......

agassi though had problems played some inspired tennis in that stretch in USO 2005 final ... that was his last hurrah ; but again, you conveniently ignore that fed straight-setted him at the AO in 2005 when agassi's physical problems were lesser and federer had given him a big thrashing in the YEC 2003 final

Agassi fought through the pain because he knew he didn't have many opportunities left, but you are a fool if you think he was 100% physically.

rafa didn't play well at queens in 2010, 2011 as well .....

fed at his prime wasn't vulnerable in the early rounds of wimbledon like rafa was .... federer's form in wimbldon 2009 and 2010 was day and night ......rosol just completed what haase/petzschener/soderling/youzhny didn't.

Halle 12 was worse than Queens 2010 and 11.

Fed's lost in the first round of WImbledon 3 times. That's more than Nadal becuase Nadal has never ever lost in the first round of a major and you had absolutely no response when you made some bs claim that he only had to beat **** weak opponents compared to Federer's mountain struggle Andreev and then I listed everyone of Rafa's tough first round opponents. It was good to see you disappear again...

 

[DeShaun]

The point is that Fed may be as good now as he was in 2007 or maybe EVEN BETTER!

We have no objective data to demonstrate that his level has dropped other than the fact that he loses more. But most of his losses are to the other top 3 guys. If they weren't around to cause him problems he might still win 3 GS/year. Who would stop him, Tsonga?? Ferrer? Really only Berdych is the obstacle...

When you say that we have no objective data, the first thought that springs to my mind is how much slower his foot speed presently appears on TV than in years previous. This could easily be objectified. I appreciate your efforts but I think that this premise in particular is a bit shaky.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Your premise is that Federer never actually declined, but Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray simply improved and started preventing him from winning so often. To test this, I've added up Federer's record excluding matches against those three, both for 2004-2007 and for 2008-present. They are as follows:

From 2004-2007, Federer went 306-14 against players other than Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray-- a winning average of 95.6%.

From 2008-present, Federer has gone 318-35 against players other than Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray-- a winning average of 90.1%.

Against players other than Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray, Federer has lost over twice as often from 2008 through present as he did from 2004-2007. He remains a great player, but is clearly not as good as he was in his prime years

EXCELLENT stats. This is EXACTLY what I was looking for. I concede the point. Of course one could argue that both Fed's greatness and that of Nadal, Djoker, and Murray have raised the overall level of tennis well above that of 04-07...

But this is the kind of empirical evidence I was looking for to gauge Fed's performance against players outside the Big 4.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

EXCELLENT stats. This is EXACTLY what I was looking for. I concede the point. Of course one could argue that both Fed's greatness and that of Nadal, Djoker, and Murray have raised the overall level of tennis well above that of 04-07...

But this is the kind of empirical evidence I was looking for to gauge Fed's performance against players outside the Big 4.

Yet I wonder what the win percentage versus non-Big 4 players in 2012 would look like...

I think the stats are skewed somewhat by Fed's AWFUL 2008 season, where he seemed capable of losing to anybody! (he lost to James friggin' Blake at the Olympics, Karlovic in Cincy, and Simon in Montreal among others!!!)

 

[spinovic]

EXCELLENT stats. This is EXACTLY what I was looking for. I concede the point. Of course one could argue that both Fed's greatness and that of Nadal, Djoker, and Murray have raised the overall level of tennis well above that of 04-07...

But this is the kind of empirical evidence I was looking for to gauge Fed's performance against players outside the Big 4.

I think this is absolutely true. I think Federer's dominance and consistency forced whoever wanted to challenge him to do the same. Nadal was the first to step up, then Djokovic...and now Murray to a lesser degree. Murray is clearly better, and has distanced himself, from anyone outside this group, but at the same time I have a hard time putting him on the level of the other 3 at this point.

But, to back up, if we're going on the premise that the other guys "raised" their games (and/or Fed's decline began), shouldn't we include Fed's overall record from '04-07 and compare it to the record excluding the other three from that point on.

I'm not sure about stats, but my eyes told me that Federer's peak was '04-06. His decline started in 2007, but he's been able to maintain a ridiculous level for a guy on the backside of his career. What changed? I think physically...his movement is not as good as it was. He lost a step, or half-step, or however you want to word it. At least, that is how it looked to me.

But, I think his great footwork and amazing variety in his game, along with the experience and knowledge he has, allows him to compensate for it to some degree. I don't think 2009 Delpo could have knocked Federer off of any court in his prime. JMO

Rafa is the exception. He, as you noted, has always played Federer tough on any surface pretty much (the only exception is their first meeting on grass).

 

[BigServer1]

Yet I wonder what the win percentage versus non-Big 4 players in 2012 would look like...

I think the stats are skewed somewhat by Fed's AWFUL 2008 season, where he seemed capable of losing to anybody! (he lost to James friggin' Blake at the Olympics, Karlovic in Cincy, and Simon in Montreal among others!!!)

I think the rest of the field was better in Fed's prime than it is now, personally. I don't think Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Del Po (unheathly DelPo that we've seen 10X more than healthy, awesome DelPo) don't match up to the guys from Fed's prime era like Roddick in his prime, Safin, Hewitt. The overall field was a bit deeper, yet Fed's record then was better outside of Nadal/Murray/Djokovic.

Fed is still a great player, but he's not the player he was 6-10 years ago.

 

[TCG]

Not sure if its a serious thread or just trolling. Of course Roger is not in his prime anymore. Just watch his matches in 04-07 to see how much he declined.

 

[augustobt]

Is this thread serious? Is someone really trying to argue that Federer 2011 was the same level than, for example, his 2005 incarnation?

Dude... stahp.

 

[Magnetite]

Give me empirical evidence that people get slower as they get older.

Or do you think being slower is an advantage in tennis?

Does the OP even play tennis?

Someone show me empirical evidence that the OP plays tennis.

 

[rajah84]

I think I can help.

I think what you're want to say is that Federer at his best would still have a hard time beating prime Nadal and Djokovic. I think most objective Fed fans realize that.

He would be owned by Nadal, and we know this. And his main rival would be Djokovic.

 

[TCG]

I think I can help.

I think what you're want to say is that Federer at his best would still have a hard time beating prime Nadal and Djokovic. I think most objective Fed fans realize that.

He would be owned by Nadal, and we know this. And his main rival would be Djokovic.

Where can Nadal own Fed apart from RG? The guy had to play his best match ever to topple Fed at Wimbledon. US open plays as fast as Wimbledon. I cant see Fed losing to Rafa there in his prime. Australian open is the only place they would be even. Wim, US Roger has the upper hand, Rafa at RG and a tough fight at Aus open.

Regarding Djoker, he can be can give Roger a tough fight at Aus and RG. Wimbledon and US open Roger blows him away in his prime.

Frankly all this talk trying to compare a player in his prime against next generation players is a bit silly. You can put that hypothesis to any player and say he will have a hard time winning slams. For example you can say Rafa only wins at RG if he is up against Prime Roger and Prime Djoker. Djoker only wins Aus open if he is up against Prime Rafa and Prime Roger. Every great will have less slams if he plays against other greats in their primes. So I don't see any merit in these kind of arguments which can be used to demean any tennis great.

 

[spinovic]

Is this thread serious? Is someone really trying to argue that Federer 2011 was the same level than, for example, his 2005 incarnation?

Dude... stahp.

I think Federer should peak within the next 5-10 years. Thankfully, he didn't have to play anyone to win those first 11 slams...literally. They just gave him the trophies. Only Roland Garros stood firm and wouldn't do it and naturally, Federer couldn't win when he actually had to play.

Hopefully, he can keep improving into his 40's...no doubt he should finish with 20+ slams as he continues to get better and faster with age. Despite the competition, 10 more years of SF's should result in 3 slams or more just on the law of averages.

This is great news for Federer fans worldwide. Mirka may not be happy though, as she might want him to stay home at some point.

 

[timnz]

Ok, well Prime Djokovic of 2011 could beat him in 3!!! Basically Fed played a brilliant match in 2011 at the French. Otherwise Novak owned him that year. He won 7 out of the first 8 sets they played on HC that year...

Come now....that really doesn't tell the full story does it? Federer had 2 match points against Djokovic at the US open semis that year. In other words djokovic won by the skin of his teeth.

 

[abmk]

First of all, I haven't changed any tune, Ferrero was a pushover in AO04, he was fortunate enough to get one of the easiest draws in history to reach the semi's in the first place. The only reason he was there to face Fed was because he himself only had to beat a bunch of journeymen.

lol, just because ferrero had an easy draw doesn't mean he wasn't playing well, clueless ........

The Hewitt one competitive set is based on you saying that Rafa wasn't competitive in the 4th set against Fed in WIM06. You can't have it both ways. As for WIM04, you're full of crap, I said Rafa's WIM06 match against Fed was tougher than Hewitt's 04 match and it was.

I already said that rafa in wim 06 was better ( not by that much ) than hewitt in wim 04 QF, but hewitt was closer to making it 2 all ....

I also said fed was up 2 breaks, 5-1 ... that's not that competitive, vs hewitt in AO 04, the 2nd and 4th set were just by a break each

are you that clueless to think just because in the end scorelines were somewhat similar , they were equally competitive ?

Do you think that the 1st set of USO 95 where agassi was actually a bit better till sampras broke him in the final game was similarly competitive to the 2nd set in the wimbledon 99 final where agassi was holding on to his serve with very high difficulty and sampras was cruising ? LOL !

both sets were 6-4, but if you say they were similarly competitive to anyone sane who saw those matches, they'd laugh at you .....

Gonzo's level clearly dropped off after set 1 and was clearly nervous in his first major final (LOL at you bringing up past major champions and comparing them to Gonzo BTW)

no, it didn't clueless ... gonzo's level was pretty much the same, federer raised his level

I mentioned players who weren't that nervous in their first slam finals . How the hell is that irrelevant ?

Said Rafa's overall return was better than Hewitt's and it is, the stats prove that. Also proved that Rafa's HC return stats aren't that far off Djokovic's. But then you had to switch your tune to fast HC after I proved you wrong

lol, wut ? hewitt's return stats are clearly better than nadal's on HC and on grass ... this inspite of hewitt playing more on the faster courts in comparison, despite having had more of post-prime years than rafa , despite rafa's ground game being clearly better than hewitt's

hewitt at his peak was one of the best returners of all time, rafa , not even close to it ...

go ahead , make a poll, want to see some laughter on this

regarding fast HC, lol yeah, because returning on slow HC and fast HC is very similar , LOL ...it also doesn't take into consideration that rafa has had more of peak years than djokovic has had ......

Djokovic did play better than Roddick. He also beat Roddick in the Masters leading to the USO.

ha ha ha , LOL ........... you are clueless and a hypocrite to the boot , not to mention totally shameless as well ... after having been owned completely by the stats and not even having seen the QF still post this sort of garbage ....

since when did playing and beating a player in a masters before the USO mean he was playing better in the USO final than roddick did in the USO QF

A lot of Davydenko forced errors were from his high first serve % and Fed not being in great form, but from the ground he was hitting way more errors than W.

lol, again, like I said, you are totally clueless .... fed played well in that davydenko match ..

of course davydenko had a pretty good 1st serve % in that match, that was part of him playing well ... fed did make some errors off the return, but it wasn't high at all, in fact he returned well ... both were playing well off the ground .... again, ou have no clue because you haven't watched .....

How can he keep losing to GGL, when he lost to him only once in a match that he obviously didn't give a stuff about?

Ljubicic scraped through against Rafa who still hadn't found his form. Rafa's form came when the clay sason started. Fed lost to Baghdatis in the third round.

Meltzer played lights out and deserved it. Well done to him.

If there was no Novak in 2011, Nadal's winning percentage would've been 90+%. Pity nobody like that turned up from 04-07...

I said he kept losing to players like so and so .....

actually rafa was playing well from doha 2010 onwards ... not his very best, but he was playing well from doha 2010 ..

rafa's record in 2011 was 69-15 ...even if we remove those 6 losses to djokovic and "assume" he'd beat the other player across the net every single time, he'd still be 75-9 (89.28%) , still less than 90 ....

he didn't do it 2010 either with fed/djoker/murray AWOL for large parts ..didn't do it in 2008 either ....

That's only because Berdych was pre-prime...


LOL you can't compare Rafa's h2h with Berdych to Fed's. That's just incredibly dumb. They have different game styles. Rafa has a leading h2h against almost everybody that he's played at least 4-5 times.

lol, wut ? I was referring to the complete turnaround in the h2h , not about rafa just "leading" the h2h.. even djoker owns berdych thoroughly .....

So why didn't he handle Berdych in Athens?

it was a one-off ....Also, just FTR, Olympics in 2004 was nowhere close to being as significant in tennis as it became in 2008 and even lesser in comparison to what it was in 2012 ....

he thrashed berdych plenty of other times ... again, you'd know if you actually watched some of those matches ....

I'm talking about these days, not since 2009. Tsonga was gone in the second round at US12. And yes I know Berdych went out rnd1 in WIM12 but at least that was to Gulbis in 3 tight TB sets, Tsonga got beat by Klizan including copping a breastick.

and the h2h records I showed was since 2009 , berdych has only been a little more consistent off late in comparision

that doesn't invalidate what I said regarding the h2h of fed vs tsonga/berdych

berdych also lost to llodra in 1R in USO 2010 , 1R to Stephane Robert (#140 ) in RG 2011 as well ....

JMDP wasn't much of a threat to any of the big 4 in the majors in 2011 and 2012. He did have really good matches like WIM11, and RG12.

we were talking about h2h overall ... JMDP was also playing well at basel 2012, YEC 2012, olympics 2012 , dubai 2012 etc .....

berdych wasn't a "threat" to the top 4 in 2011 and 2012 apart from AO 2012 and USO 2012 ....

Hmmm, that's funny, I thought Nadal's WIM2010 was easy, guess you forgot he beat well playing Soderling...

Sod's best was RG and indoors you're a fool if you think otherwise.

lol, when the hell did I say sod's best wasn't at RG and indoors ? It was .... you said he only played well there ... That's not true . He's played well in quite a few other tourneys as well .... face it, you just got owned big time ...

And I explained why he was #1.

lol, ha ha ha , well past his prime federer can overtake nadal/djoker at #1, yet you expect safin & even nalbandian to take away #1 from peak federer

HA HA HA HA HA

Agassi fought through the pain because he knew he didn't have many opportunities left, but you are a fool if you think he was 100% physically.

he had no problems in USO 2004, AO 2005 ... problems were in USO 2005 . that's just your ignorance speaking ...

Halle 12 was worse than Queens 2010 and 11.

Fed's lost in the first round of WImbledon 3 times. That's more than Nadal becuase Nadal has never ever lost in the first round of a major and you had absolutely no response when you made some bs claim that he only had to beat **** weak opponents compared to Federer's mountain struggle Andreev and then I listed everyone of Rafa's tough first round opponents. It was good to see you disappear again...

lol, I was actually a bit busy, but will respond to that ....

 

[abmk]

No he had a slight case of mono and it was well gone by the time the clay season started. It's just a **** excuse to cover up for all the beatings Nadal gave him.

I mentioned mono for AO 2008 in particulaar , get a clue ... never said he had mono after that ... but still that was the start of the decline and was a factor ...

even before he met nadal in 2008, he lost to pre-prime murray at dubai 2008, got thrashed by fish at IW 2008 and lost to roddick in miami 2008 ....

never used mono for the losses to nadal specifically ... in fact, I've mentioned before that fed played well in MC 2008 ( apart from the 1R match ) and in hamburg 2008

I've already explained how Federer was better in WIM08 than 07.

that's not true , he was a bit better going into the final in 2008, but he was quite a bit better in the final in 2007..

And you're conveniently skipping Shangai where pre-prime Nadal beat prime Davydenko.

Of those 6 wins, one of them was where Rafa had to retire so really it's 5 wins. On top of that, as I said Rafa was losing to every top 10 player when he made his 09 comeback so those 2 losses against Davy aren't anything special. I already explained how Doha 2010 wasn't a surface issue that caused Rafa to lose, he lost it mentally because he hadn't won a title for 10 months at the time and got nervous when it came time to win the final. Same thing happened this year against Zeballos, although Rafa was far from his best he was nervous in his first final in ages and lost. Doha 2011 Nadal was coughing on court.

So yeah, Davydenko's only really special win against Nadal was Miami08. You keep harping on about how lucky Berdych is to run into Fed when he's not in good form but you happily switch stations when it comes to Nadal v Davydenko.

davydenko was on a roll in that indoors match in 2008 and would've beat him anyways ...

similar case with YEC 2009, he'd have beat rafa anyways ... he beat fed,delpo and soderling there ....

shanghai 2009 and doha 2011 are not that easily predictable if rafa was playing well ....

lol @ the zeballos comparision ... that was after a 7-8 month hiatus from rafa ... completely different scenario from doha 2010 ...

lol @ berdych comparision as well , it couldn't be because federer at his prime dominated him and handled his pace with ease, including thrashing in straights in more than half of their matches at that time, could it ?

So, you're saying that Rafa and Novak have better defence than those guys? Not what you were saying before...

yeah, they do have better defense, but its not day and night like you make it out to be. Show me one place where I said hewitt, davy have better defence than rafa/novak . LOL !

your point was about fed's FH going off vs very good defenders... that happened very rarely at his peak, even vs rafa ..... not vs hewitt, davy, ferrer, coria (esp on clay) .... either ...

lol. What's the matter, got nothing else?

Everybody knows Rafa was clearly injured heading into WIM12. Fed wasn't injured heading into Dubai 06 where a returning Rafa beat his arse in the final.

no , rafa wasn't injured. He just got plain beat by #100 rosol. fed only lost to #2 nadal ...

No he wasn't that darn good. As I said if Fed was born in 1986 he would have about 7-8 majors by now and Rafa would have 13. Completely different landscape.

that's only in your la la land . rafa would have 9-11 majors, fed would have 9-12 majors

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7279130&postcount=87

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I didn't have the time to read the whole tread, but here is a piece I wrote elsewhere on the matter.

On Fed's prime:

Statistics provided by Falstaff have proven in a convincing way that most players decline as soon as 26 years old. Fed might differ from this pattern, but his success is not a good measure of it.

Success is not a strong indicator of players prime/peak for the very best, because they have success even out of their prime/peak. Nadal had a 80% winning percentage of clay in 2005, and won 40% of his HC master 1000 titles this years. I agree he wasn't fully developped on HC and grass at the moment.

You say that Fed met less success from 2008 onward, not because of him declining, but because Nadal and Djokovic rose their level. Krosero showed that his winning percentage went down as soon as 2007, and later further down. Was it at the hands of Djokovic, the new challenger, or Nadal?

Have a look at his record against Djokovic:
In 2007, Djokovic defeated Fed only once: in Toronto.
In 2008, he beated him against only once, but this time in AO.
in 2009, he beated him twice, in Miami and Rome. Since 2009, Fed have also been beaten in these tournaments by none other than Roddick, Gasquet, Gulbis, Berdych.
In 2010, he beated Fed once, in the USO SF, 9 month after the AO titles.

That 5 loss to the hand of Djokovic in 4 years: I don't think that these loss explain the diminution of Fed's winning percentage. Truth be told is: if Federer benefitted from a weak era, Djokovic was part of it.

And a look at his "record" against Nadal:
From 2005-2007, he lost to Nadal eight time.
From 2008-2010, he lost six time.

Here again, it is not the rise of Nadal which is responsible for his poorer winning percentage. His loss against Nadal cannot be used to assess Fed'prim/peak because he was losing against him since the beginning. The only difference is that Nadal was able to go further in non-clay slam, and administer to Fed his usual treatment in tournament which were more important to Fed.

So what is certain is that Fed had a winning percentage over 90% from 2004-2006, just under 90% in 2007, and these percentage include is defeats against Nadal. Since 2008, his winning percentage are around 80%, a big diminution, which is hardly the responsibility of Nadal or Djokovic. We must conclude that he was vulnerable to a range of second tier players he used to own before, and that is a good indication of decline.

 

[The_Order]

lol, just because ferrero had an easy draw doesn't mean he wasn't playing well, clueless ........

Doesn't matter how well he was playing he beat a bunch of journeymen and was never ever going to be a danger against a player like Fed. He was a pushover end of story.

I already said that rafa in wim 06 was better ( not by that much ) than hewitt in wim 04 QF, but hewitt was closer to making it 2 all ....

LOL how the **** is being up 5-4 serving for a set and winning another one in a TB not closer to taking it to 5 than winning a set in a TB and being up a break early in the other set?

How is 2 TB sets not closer to taking it to 5 than one TB set?

Only when you're trying to make some bs point as usual.

I also said fed was up 2 breaks, 5-1 ... that's not that competitive, vs hewitt in AO 04, the 2nd and 4th set were just by a break each

are you that clueless to think just because in the end scorelines were somewhat similar , they were equally competitive ?

But Rafa broke Fed's serve, something Hewitt couldn't do. Fed's serve was never as safe against Rafa as it was against Hewitt, there was no guarantee he'd serve it out when up 5-3 either.

Do you think that the 1st set of USO 95 where agassi was actually a bit better till sampras broke him in the final game was similarly competitive to the 2nd set in the wimbledon 99 final where agassi was holding on to his serve with very high difficulty and sampras was cruising ? LOL !

both sets were 6-4, but if you say they were similarly competitive to anyone sane who saw those matches, they'd laugh at you .....

No, but that's a completely different scenario.

no, it didn't clueless ... gonzo's level was pretty much the same, federer raised his level

I mentioned players who weren't that nervous in their first slam finals . How the hell is that irrelevant ?

You compared Gonzo to guys who he isn't even in the league of.

lol, wut ? hewitt's return stats are clearly better than nadal's on HC and on grass ... this inspite of hewitt playing more on the faster courts in comparison, despite having had more of post-prime years than rafa , despite rafa's ground game being clearly better than hewitt's

hewitt at his peak was one of the best returners of all time, rafa , not even close to it ...

go ahead , make a poll, want to see some laughter on this

I said overall, that includes every surface in case you don't understand the meaning of that word.

The argument was that Rafa has a better return than Hewitt and he obviously has considering it is adaptable to all surfaces whereas Hewitt's sucks on clay. If Hewitt is such a great returner than Nadal then why has Hewitt got such a **** record against Karlovic, yet Rafa has beat him every time, even in 2004 on carpet

regarding fast HC, lol yeah, because returning on slow HC and fast HC is very similar , LOL ...it also doesn't take into consideration that rafa has had more of peak years than djokovic has had ......

LOL what a load of **** Djokovic is only 1 year younger than Rafa and if Novak couldn't reach his peak earlier that's his fault.

ha ha ha , LOL ........... you are clueless and a hypocrite to the boot , not to mention totally shameless as well ... after having been owned completely by the stats and not even having seen the QF still post this sort of garbage ....

since when did playing and beating a player in a masters before the USO mean he was playing better in the USO final than roddick did in the USO QF

It shows that Novak was in great form and playing well for the US HC season you moron. Roddick played one good match against Fed in the QF, how do you know he would play that well if he had made the final? Fed (according to you) played better in the QF yet was defintely more consistent than Roddick ever was, so tell me was Roddick going to suddenly play at that same level if he had reached the final against Novak? The answer is HIGHLY unlikely and Novak would've beat his arse again.

lol, again, like I said, you are totally clueless .... fed played well in that davydenko match ..

of course davydenko had a pretty good 1st serve % in that match, that was part of him playing well ... fed did make some errors off the return, but it wasn't high at all, in fact he returned well ... both were playing well off the ground .... again, ou have no clue because you haven't watched .....

LOL Fed's return game wasn't great he converted only 4/10 BP and his return points won was in the 30% range. It's ok though, keep back-pedalling it's hilarious.

I said he kept losing to players like so and so .....

actually rafa was playing well from doha 2010 onwards ... not his very best, but he was playing well from doha 2010 ..

Yes in matches that didn't matter. When it mattered he didn't lose once the clay season started.

rafa's record in 2011 was 69-15 ...even if we remove those 6 losses to djokovic and "assume" he'd beat the other player across the net every single time, he'd still be 75-9 (89.28%) , still less than 90 ....

he didn't do it 2010 either with fed/djoker/murray AWOL for large parts ..didn't do it in 2008 either ....

LOL as if beating Novak in all those finals wouldn't have boosted his confidence against other fools he lost to.

Again, you danced around the fact that Fed never had to deal with anyone in the same hemisphere as Novak 2011 during his "peak years" of 04-07. If he did there's no chance in hell he'd have 90% win streak.

lol, wut ? I was referring to the complete turnaround in the h2h , not about rafa just "leading" the h2h.. even djoker owns berdych thoroughly .....

Still don't explain much. Peak Fed pounded on pre-prime Berdych, but now he can't do ****.

it was a one-off ....Also, just FTR, Olympics in 2004 was nowhere close to being as significant in tennis as it became in 2008 and even lesser in comparison to what it was in 2012 ....

he thrashed berdych plenty of other times ... again, you'd know if you actually watched some of those matches ....

Doesn't matter, Berdych still accomplished what your other great era pals couldn't (apart from Safin and Nalbandian)

and the h2h records I showed was since 2009 , berdych has only been a little more consistent off late in comparision

that doesn't invalidate what I said regarding the h2h of fed vs tsonga/berdych

berdych also lost to llodra in 1R in USO 2010 , 1R to Stephane Robert (#140 ) in RG 2011 as well ....

we were talking about h2h overall ... JMDP was also playing well at basel 2012, YEC 2012, olympics 2012 , dubai 2012 etc .....

berdych wasn't a "threat" to the top 4 in 2011 and 2012 apart from AO 2012 and USO 2012 ....

Doesn't matter, I was referring to these days where Berdych is more consistent than Tsonga (there's a reason he's ranked higher) and Berdych definitely posed more of a threat at the majors in 2012 than Tsonga did against the top 4. Tsonga's only great match was RG12 against Novak. He did ok in WIM12 semi against Murray, but not better than Berdych v Rafa in AO and v Fed in USO.

lol, when the hell did I say sod's best wasn't at RG and indoors ? It was .... you said he only played well there ... That's not true . He's played well in quite a few other tourneys as well .... face it, you just got owned big time ...

Nonsense, when I said he played well at RG and indoors that was compared to all the other tourney's he played. He was definitely not playing well enough to beat Fed or Rafa in tournaments other than RG or indoors.

lol, ha ha ha , well past his prime federer can overtake nadal/djoker at #1, yet you expect safin & even nalbandian to take away #1 from peak federer

HA HA HA HA HA

Where did I make this expectation?

Fed took #1 but he only did it by beating Novak in 1 major and Murray in 1 major. WOW. He got beat by Novak in 2011USO, he got beat by Rafa in 2012AO, he got beat by Novak in 2012RG, but manages to beat Novak in WIM12 and suddenly he's made this heroic effort to overtake Nadal and Novak. LMAO, call back when he actually beats them consistently in majors he hasn't beat Nadal in 6 years

he had no problems in USO 2004, AO 2005 ... problems were in USO 2005 . that's just your ignorance speaking ...

Umm, he had problems since he was born you fool. And USO05 wasn't a walk in the park for him, Agassi gave him quite a battle until the fourth set. This coming after a string of 5 setters and clearly not being 100% physically against "peak" Fed. LOL peak godly Fed struggled against an old cripple...

lol, I was actually a bit busy, but will respond to that ....

bull****, you just haven't come up with a rubbish excuse yet.

 

[The_Order]

I mentioned mono for AO 2008 in particulaar , get a clue ... never said he had mono after that ... but still that was the start of the decline and was a factor ...

even before he met nadal in 2008, he lost to pre-prime murray at dubai 2008, got thrashed by fish at IW 2008 and lost to roddick in miami 2008 ....

never used mono for the losses to nadal specifically ... in fact, I've mentioned before that fed played well in MC 2008 ( apart from the 1R match ) and in hamburg 2008

He lost to pre prime Murray in 2006 as well, but nice to see you leave out that detail. He lost to Fish who was playing the best tennis of his career at the time and he lost to Roddick WOW, he finally lost one to Andy ring the alarm bells.

Fed also played really well in WIM08, but it wasn't enough to beat Rafa.

that's not true , he was a bit better going into the final in 2008, but he was quite a bit better in the final in 2007..

No, he wasn't better at all, he was similar if not better considering he was dealing with a better Nadal.

The stats are very similar;

2007
71% first serve
24ACES
3DF
71% 1st serve pts won
62% 2nd serve pts won
209k fastest serve
193k avg 1st serve
148k avg 2nd serve
35% return pts won
34UE

2008
66% 1st serve
25ACES
2DF
73% 1st serve pts won
57% 2nd serve pts won
207k fastest serve
189 avg 1st serve
157 avg 2nd serve
34% return points won
52UE

Now obviously those stats in 2008 are slightly lower because the match lasted a lot longer. Considering Nadal was playing better as well and it's amazing how close Fed's stats are to his 2007 final performance.

Face it Fed was at his very best in WIM08 and got beat.

davydenko was on a roll in that indoors match in 2008 and would've beat him anyways ...

similar case with YEC 2009, he'd have beat rafa anyways ... he beat fed,delpo and soderling there ....

Yeah, let's take your word for it.

shanghai 2009 and doha 2011 are not that easily predictable if rafa was playing well ....

lol @ the zeballos comparision ... that was after a 7-8 month hiatus from rafa ... completely different scenario from doha 2010 ...

But both involve Rafa not winning a title for a lengthy period of time. Do you really think Rafa would lose a clay final if he wasn't nervous?

lol @ berdych comparision as well , it couldn't be because federer at his prime dominated him and handled his pace with ease, including thrashing in straights in more than half of their matches at that time, could it ?

So, you're carrying on about peak Fed dominating a pre prime Berdych? Impressive.

yeah, they do have better defense, but its not day and night like you make it out to be. Show me one place where I said hewitt, davy have better defence than rafa/novak . LOL !

your point was about fed's FH going off vs very good defenders... that happened very rarely at his peak, even vs rafa ..... not vs hewitt, davy, ferrer, coria (esp on clay) .... either ...

Coureir and Hewitt agree with me, who agrees with you?

You said many times that Hewitt's defence is comparable to Rafa's where it is quite clearly not at the same level.

no , rafa wasn't injured. He just got plain beat by #100 rosol. fed only lost to #2 nadal ...

So explain the marks on his left knee from injections, oh that's right you can't.

Fed also lost to #101 player in his PEAK :lol:

that's only in your la la land . rafa would have 9-11 majors, fed would have 9-12 majors

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7279130&postcount=87

LOL what a load of rubbish, Fed in WIM 03 was S&V, NO WAY IN HELL he'd beat Rafa of WIM08 form.

And the Roddick thing in 06 is absolutely ridiculous, almost as dumb as the quote in my sig. As if Roddick wasn't extremely confident he could beat a kid Murray in WIM06 LMFAO.

Rafa would have all of his current majors + WIM06 & 07. Deal with it. There's no way he'd lose to Fed in AO09 because Fed's AO04 final form wasn't anything better. In fact his serve was even worse.

As for WIM 2010, highly unlikely that Rafa would lose to Fed there having already beat him in WIM08. Fed would not have the same confidence against Rafa as he did in WIM07. His WIM05 was because at that time Hewitt and Roddick were his lapdogs, he knew he was going to beat them before the tournament even started. No way he'd ever had that feeling before facing Nadal.

 

[spinovic]

I didn't have the time to read the whole tread, but here is a piece I wrote elsewhere on the matter.

On Fed's prime:

Statistics provided by Falstaff have proven in a convincing way that most players decline as soon as 26 years old. Fed might differ from this pattern, but his success is not a good measure of it.

Success is not a strong indicator of players prime/peak for the very best, because they have success even out of their prime/peak. Nadal had a 80% winning percentage of clay in 2005, and won 40% of his HC master 1000 titles this years. I agree he wasn't fully developped on HC and grass at the moment.

You say that Fed met less success from 2008 onward, not because of him declining, but because Nadal and Djokovic rose their level. Krosero showed that his winning percentage went down as soon as 2007, and later further down. Was it at the hands of Djokovic, the new challenger, or Nadal?

Have a look at his record against Djokovic:
In 2007, Djokovic defeated Fed only once: in Toronto.
In 2008, he beated him against only once, but this time in AO.
in 2009, he beated him twice, in Miami and Rome. Since 2009, Fed have also been beaten in these tournaments by none other than Roddick, Gasquet, Gulbis, Berdych.
In 2010, he beated Fed once, in the USO SF, 9 month after the AO titles.

That 5 loss to the hand of Djokovic in 4 years: I don't think that these loss explain the diminution of Fed's winning percentage. Truth be told is: if Federer benefitted from a weak era, Djokovic was part of it.

And a look at his "record" against Nadal:
From 2005-2007, he lost to Nadal eight time.
From 2008-2010, he lost six time.

Here again, it is not the rise of Nadal which is responsible for his poorer winning percentage. His loss against Nadal cannot be used to assess Fed'prim/peak because he was losing against him since the beginning. The only difference is that Nadal was able to go further in non-clay slam, and administer to Fed his usual treatment in tournament which were more important to Fed.

So what is certain is that Fed had a winning percentage over 90% from 2004-2006, just under 90% in 2007, and these percentage include is defeats against Nadal. Since 2008, his winning percentage are around 80%, a big diminution, which is hardly the responsibility of Nadal or Djokovic. We must conclude that he was vulnerable to a range of second tier players he used to own before, and that is a good indication of decline.

Anyone that has actually watched Federer's career knows he has declined.

Roddick is enough proof of that. Federer had no trouble with Roddick in slam finals or any other tournament during his run of dominance, when he was playing his best. But, in 2009, they played one of the most epic 5-set matches in history, with Federer breaking Roddick's serve one time in the entire match, on Roddick's 38th service game. Why would Federer, if he's getting better, suddenly struggle on his best surface against a guy he had owned on every surface?

Look at Fed and Roddick's history - Federer leads 21-3 in the H2H.

From 2001-03, Federer won 5 of 6 meetings. Federer won 4 in straight sets and lost only 3 sets total in the six matches. Two of the 6 went to a decisive set - Basel in 2001 (Fed won) and Canada 2003 (Roddick won).

From 2004-07, they met 10 times with Federer winning them all, again losing only 3 sets total. Only one time did a match go to a decisive set and that was in the 2006 Masters Cup RR.

From 2008-12, Federer won 6 of 8 meetings, but lost 8 sets total and five of the matches went to a decisive set. Miami 2008 (Roddick won), Miami 2009 (Federer won), Madrid 2009 (Federer won), Wimbledon 2009 (Federer won), and Miami 2012 (Roddick won).

 

[abmk]

He lost to pre prime Murray in 2006 as well, but nice to see you leave out that detail. He lost to Fish who was playing the best tennis of his career at the time and he lost to Roddick WOW, he finally lost one to Andy ring the alarm bells.

Fed also played really well in WIM08, but it wasn't enough to beat Rafa.

yeah, fed did play well in wim 08 as well, but I mentioned MC and hamburg specifically because he didn't play well at RG and I didn't want to imply fed wasn't playing well in the CC season at all ....

murray beat fed who was tired from 4 consecutive 3-setters in canada in 2006 ...there were no byes at that time ..

federer didn't just get defeated by fish, he got pummeled big time ... his movement was total awful ...

then the loss to roddick in miami

it wasn't just one loss, it was all those losses in a row and the way he was playing at that time ....these had absolutely nothing to do with rafa ...

No, he wasn't better at all, he was similar if not better considering he was dealing with a better Nadal.

The stats are very similar;

2007
71% first serve
24ACES
3DF
71% 1st serve pts won
62% 2nd serve pts won
209k fastest serve
193k avg 1st serve
148k avg 2nd serve
35% return pts won
34UE

2008
66% 1st serve
25ACES
2DF
73% 1st serve pts won
57% 2nd serve pts won
207k fastest serve
189 avg 1st serve
157 avg 2nd serve
34% return points won
52UE

Now obviously those stats in 2008 are slightly lower because the match lasted a lot longer. Considering Nadal was playing better as well and it's amazing how close Fed's stats are to his 2007 final performance.

Face it Fed was at his very best in WIM08 and got beat.

jeez, ever think of something called forced errors ?

and no, LOL, the match stats aren't poorer in wim 08 because the match lasted longer.... if anything fed played better in the last 3 sets than in the first 2 ...

care to bring up a similar comparison for rafa ? those stats are closer than fed's .....

But both involve Rafa not winning a title for a lengthy period of time. Do you really think Rafa would lose a clay final if he wasn't nervous?

reasons for him being titleless very different. He was coming from a layoff in mid-2012 to beginning of 2013, not so in doha 2010 ....

So, you're carrying on about peak Fed dominating a pre prime Berdych? Impressive.

if you paid attention, I was very clear on the aspect of fed handling berdych's pace with ease ... its nowhere near the case now ... that doesn't have to do with berdych improving his consistency , just fed's reflexes and game in general declining .....

Coureir and Hewitt agree with me, who agrees with you?

their exact quotes and the context ?

You said many times that Hewitt's defence is comparable to Rafa's where it is quite clearly not at the same level.

yes, comparable, never said it was better ....

in fact, I myself remember saying here on TT quite some time ago about what rafa was able to do on the run that was striking, not just his movement .... maybe I'll dig that up in a while

So explain the marks on his left knee from injections, oh that's right you can't.

Fed also lost to #101 player in his PEAK :lol:

not in a slam, LOL ...

LOL what a load of rubbish, Fed in WIM 03 was S&V, NO WAY IN HELL he'd beat Rafa of WIM08 form.

ha ha ha ha ha , now that was funny ...........fed's form was absolutely ridiculous in wim 03 ( esp semis and finals ), both at the net and from the ground ... just game-wise he'd definitely beat nadal of wim 08 .....

its just your plain ignorance .......

And the Roddick thing in 06 is absolutely ridiculous, almost as dumb as the quote in my sig. As if Roddick wasn't extremely confident he could beat a kid Murray in WIM06 LMFAO.

lol, no its not ......see the last part of my reply

Rafa would have all of his current majors + WIM06 & 07. Deal with it. There's no way he'd lose to Fed in AO09 because Fed's AO04 final form wasn't anything better. In fact his serve was even worse.

yeah, LOL, very clear that his serve was crappy throughout in AO 2009 final and his serve was very good after set 1 in the AO 2004 final ... only in your nadal la la land is it anything otherwise ...


and it wasn't just rafa in AO 2009, he wasn't serving well in the whole tourney , just had the worst serving in that final ... if it was because of rafa, his groundgame wouldn't be that good ....in fact his serving went south from paris 2008 ( back injury ) till about rome 2009 where he slowly started regaining it ....

As for WIM 2010, highly unlikely that Rafa would lose to Fed there having already beat him in WIM08. Fed would not have the same confidence against Rafa as he did in WIM07. His WIM05 was because at that time Hewitt and Roddick were his lapdogs, he knew he was going to beat them before the tournament even started. No way he'd ever had that feeling before facing Nadal.

nadal would have a good chance of losing to fed in wim 08 form wise .... as far as wim 05 goes, roddick had pushed him hard in their previous wimbledon encounter .... so no one sane would say it was a given that he'd beat roddick ...

and yeah, confidence only matters when it comes to rafa, but not for roddick ...LOL !

 

[Relinquis]

question for you guys doubting that federer was better when he was younger... Are you 30 or older?

If not, then, no offense, but you do not know what you're talking about. At 30 you find out that you have joints, that your body has limits, that it doesn't always heal, that there are bounds to stamina, that energy is finite... in other words, you find out that you are mortal.

In my mid 20s I was still a god, now, post 30, I know I'm only a man and have to adapt to this knowledge accordingly... Federer is no different. If anything it makes what he has achieved since his prime all the more impressive.

 

[spinovic]

question for you guys doubting that federer was better when he was younger... Are you 30 or older?

If not, then, no offense, but you do not know what you're talking about. At 30 you find out that you have joints, that your body has limits, that it doesn't always heal, that there are bounds to stamina, that energy is finite... in other words, you find out that you are mortal.

In my mid 20s I was still a god, now, post 30, I know I'm only a man and have to adapt to this knowledge accordingly... Federer is no different. If anything it makes what he has achieved since his prime all the more impressive.

Amen to that. It sucks.

 

[keithfival]

The basic point is that Fed still dominates most of the field. He just is not significantly better than the other top 3.

There is absolutely no question that if Fed had started 5 years later and had to compete with Nadal, Djok, Murry for all those early slams he would have won fewer. This is plain as day, just look at who he faced in finals: Baghdatis, Gonzales, Philippousis, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, 35 year-old Andre. I mean come on people, they were often cakewalks by today's standards.

On the other hand, he could only play the matches he had and his streaks of Semis and Finals during those years are certainly among the most impressive in all of sports, regardless of the field. I don't think anyone else could have won that consistently, slam after slam, and not one time ever just have a bad day and lose in the quarters in 6 years! It is even more impressive considering his less-cautious style of play. This is perhaps the most impressive part to me.

So, in conclusion, yes, he was fortunate to have a chunk of years there before Nadal/Djok 2.0 arrived, and no, I don't think he would have won as much with Nadal/Djok there, but, the unbelievable consistency with which he won in those 6 years is still one of the greatest sports records of all-time and I don't think anyone else would have done it, or even close really, even against the same field.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

There is absolutely no question that if Fed had started 5 years later and had to compete with Nadal, Djok, Murry for all those early slams he would have won fewer. This is plain as day, just look at who he faced in finals: Baghdatis, Gonzales, Philippousis, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, 35 year-old Andre. I mean come on people, they were often cakewalks by today's standards.

On the other hand, he could only play the matches he had and his streaks of Semis and Finals during those years are certainly among the most impressive in all of sports, regardless of the field. I don't think anyone else could have won that consistently, slam after slam, and not one time ever just have a bad day and lose in the quarters in 6 years! It is even more impressive considering his less-cautious style of play. This is perhaps the most impressive part to me.

So, in conclusion, yes, he was fortunate to have a chunk of years there before Nadal/Djok 2.0 arrived, and no, I don't think he would have won as much with Nadal/Djok there, but, the unbelievable consistency with which he won in those 6 years is still one of the greatest sports records of all-time and I don't think anyone else would have done it, or even close really, even against the same field.

It make sense that he would have won less with peak Djokovic and peak Nadal around. Likewise, both of them would have won less with peak Federer around. Nadal would have no more difficulty at RG, but outside...he began to reach the finals when Fed had already began his decline. And Djokovic way later. Nadal and Djokovic (especially Djokovic) are also lucky to be younger than him and to be able to reach their best years when he is no longer what he was.

 

[RoddickAce]

To the OP, what's the empirical evidence to support the notion of pre-prime Nadal and post-prime Agassi?

I'm not saying that there isn't any, but I would be interested to see if you gathered any evidence yourself to make those claims before using them to say that there's no evidence for "post-prime" federer.

Also, if you cite players back then as "empirical evidence", say Safin, Hewitt and Roddick, then it would be beneficial to consider whether they were post-prime, pre-prime, prime as well. So it gets more and more complicated, and the logic becomes circular.

Conclusion: "prime" is all relative and it's hard to determine empirically, rather, it is based on observations of one's ability and through common sense, ie: age and injuries, average age when players retire, etc.

 

[mightyrick]

Conclusion: "prime" is all relative and it's hard to determine empirically, rather, it is based on observations of one's ability and through common sense, ie: age and injuries, average age when players retire, etc.

"Prime" in any sport ordinarily refers to a given period of consecutive years in a player's career where they had the most success. It usually is fairly objective. Some players peak early. Some peak late. Some have more than one peak.

The only thing that varies from sport-to-sport is the length of the prime period in years. For some sports, it is three years. For some, it is five. For team sports.. the length can vary based on playing position.

But when you look at Federer, it is pretty obvious where is prime was...

 

[TMF]

All of this what if this and that player was 5 years younger is pointless. You can say same for Sampras...what if he was 5 years younger and have to face peak Becker or Edberg. Or what if Rosewall and even Gonzales(who beat laver when he was 40) was 5 years younger, how much laver would have won less?

You put any past great player in the same situation and the answer will be the same....they would have won less.

 

[TMF]

"Prime" in any sport ordinarily refers to a given period of consecutive years in a player's career where they had the most success. It usually is fairly objective. Some players peak early. Some peak late. Some have more than one peak.

The only thing that varies from sport-to-sport is the length of the prime period in years. For some sports, it is three years. For some, it is five. For team sports.. the length can vary based on playing position.

But when you look at Federer, it is pretty obvious where is prime was...

The unlucky players are the Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, etc. whereas the players that are much younger players in their prime don't have to deal with the best of Fed's years.

 

[Nitish]

There is absolutely no question that if Fed had started 5 years later and had to compete with Nadal, Djok, Murry for all those early slams he would have won fewer. This is plain as day, just look at who he faced in finals: Baghdatis, Gonzales, Philippousis, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, 35 year-old Andre. I mean come on people, they were often cakewalks by today's standards.

On the other hand, he could only play the matches he had and his streaks of Semis and Finals during those years are certainly among the most impressive in all of sports, regardless of the field. I don't think anyone else could have won that consistently, slam after slam, and not one time ever just have a bad day and lose in the quarters in 6 years! It is even more impressive considering his less-cautious style of play. This is perhaps the most impressive part to me.

So, in conclusion, yes, he was fortunate to have a chunk of years there before Nadal/Djok 2.0 arrived, and no, I don't think he would have won as much with Nadal/Djok there, but, the unbelievable consistency with which he won in those 6 years is still one of the greatest sports records of all-time and I don't think anyone else would have done it, or even close really, even against the same field.

He might have won less till 26-27 but after that he would be racking up slams cause there is no way nadal or djoko maintain their level in their late 20's and early 30's like Fed.Then we would be considering 25-29 as Fed's prime as he would have most of his success during that period.

 

[keithfival]

He might have won less till 26-27 but after that he would be racking up slams cause there is no way nadal or djoko maintain their level in their late 20's and early 30's like Fed.Then we would be considering 25-29 as Fed's prime as he would have most of his success during that period.

Good point. We'll have to see how long Nadal/Djok maintains and also if Murray ever really gets to 2.0, but that could well have been true. If it was though, that would confirm OP's point, as "Prime Fed" wouldn't refer to his youthful "peak powers", it would just refer to the period when Nadal/Djok weren't around to compete with him and he dominated the rest of the field, regardless of his age.

Who knows, but I think it's a good point, he may have racked up the slams on the back end after they burned out.

 

[tennisplayer1993]

The unlucky players are the Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, etc. whereas the players that are much younger players in their prime don't have to deal with the best of Fed's years.

Wow at Federer's losses in the 1st round in Wimbledon early on his career. I would have never guessed he would have won 7 by now

 

[TMF]

Wow at Federer's losses in the 1st round in Wimbledon early on his career. I would have never guessed he would have won 7 by now

I'm not talking about teenage Federer, but during his best years when he denied Hewitt, Roddick, and Nadal(except on clay) and company from winning slam. Also, Safin was the only one who got one slam, and it wasn't easy...he faced a match point at the 2005 AO. It was not until 2008 which open the door for the field to get their chance since he's declining.

Any players is unlucky to face Federer during 2004-07.

 

[Benhur]

Right, so Fed is the only player in the Open Era who doesn't age but like wine only gets better! Empirical evidence, seriously? Use your eyes.

Just because he didn't drop out of top 10 and isn't losing before QF in slams doesn't mean he's as good as he was.

In addition to not being allowed to age, Fed also seems to be the only player whose solid performances past his prime are used against him.

Gotta like TW logic though, Fed's prime is now lasting a decade but Nadal's prime was 4 months in 2008, great stuff.

I've noticed you get extraordinarily touchy and defensive with the subject of primes and peaks regarding Federer.

The notion of prime can be flexible and ample, not limited to peak years. To illustrate:

Connors prime was early 1973 through 1985 (13 years), with various non consecutive peak years, especially 74, 76 78, 82

Lendl was in his prime from 1980 through at least 1990 (11 years) His peak years were 82, 85, 86, 87 and 89.

Federer has been in his prime since about 2002 all the way to the present (11 years). His peak years were clearly 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, with 2008 not far behind.

Nadal has been in his prime since 2004 all the way to the present (9 years). His peaks were 2005, 2008 and 2010, with 2011 not far.

During any time of a player’s prime, performances at or very near peak capacity can be observed. What determines the peak years is the frequency of these performances.

Once the prime is gone, performances at peak capacity become either extremely rare or nonexistent.

Once Federer goes 2 years without winning a major, we may conclude his prime has ended. Not before.

 

[tennisplayer1993]

I've noticed you get extraordinarily touchy and defensive with the subject of primes and peaks regarding Federer.

The notion of prime can be flexible and ample, not limited to peak years. To illustrate:

Connors prime was early 1973 through 1985 (13 years), with various non consecutive peak years, especially 74, 76 78, 82

Lendl was in his prime from 1980 through at least 1990 (11 years) His peak years were 82, 85, 86, 87 and 89.

Federer has been in his prime since about 2002 all the way to the present (11 years). His peak years were clearly 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, with 2008 not far behind.

Nadal has been in his prime since 2004 all the way to the present (9 years). His peaks were 2005, 2008 and 2010, with 2011 not far.

During any time of a player’s prime, performances at or very near peak capacity can be observed. What determines the peak years is the frequency of these performances.

Once the prime is gone, performances at peak capacity become either extremely rare or nonexistent.

Once Federer goes 2 years without winning a major, we may conclude his prime has ended. Not before.

He was injured a lot in 2004 (Nadal). I wouldn't consider that a prime year for him

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Federer has been in his prime since about 2002 all the way to the present (11 years). His peak years were clearly 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, with 2008 not far behind.

When you put it like that, it is easy to say that it looks like his prime was 2004-2007/8. But anyway, it is just a matter of definition.

 

[FEDERERNADAL13]

Let's put these 3 stars all at the same age...

So here are the winning % of each of the big 3 from the year they were 19 to the present:

Aged 19: Rafa- 89%, Novak- 69%, Roger- 70%
Aged 20: Rafa- 83%, Novak-78%, Roger- 73%
Aged 21: Rafa- 82%, Novak- 79%, Roger- 82%
Aged 22: Rafa- 88%, Novak- 80%, Roger- 93%
Aged 23: Rafa- 83%, Novak- 77%, Roger- 95%
Aged 24: Rafa- 88%, Novak- 92%, Roger- 95%
Aged 25: Rafa- 81%, Novak- 86%, Roger- 88%
Aged 26: Rafa- 88%, Novak- N/A, Roger- 81%

*Note: Since Roger’s birthday is in August, 3 out of the 4 majors are before his birthday, so I aged him accordingly (e.g. he was 30 in 2012, because he turned 31 after the first 3 majors). This argument is not about which age you’d put the players at in specific years, so please don’t argue that part.
I want to look at the possible results from these years, please just take in to consideration that this is possible... You don’t necessarily have to agree!

Let's assume they all start when Rafa first won RG, 2005:

2005: In 2005, Rafa would clearly be better than the other two, but still only went to one major in that year. Slams- Rafa 1, Novak 0, Roger 0

2006: Rafa wins RG and WI, as he got to the finals losing to Roger in reality. Roger is in the middle of his poor 2002 season, and Novak is still not there yet. Slams- Rafa 3, Novak 0, Roger 0

2007: Rafa wins RG again, Roger gets WI, Novak wins the US open (lost to Roger last time). Total slams- Rafa 4, Novak 1, Roger 1

2008: Rafa wins RG yet again, but now we are in to the most successful Fed. He had a poor 2008 in real life, but that is now replaced with the dominant Fed of 2004. He had a 93 win percent, compared to 88% and 77%. He wins AO, Wimbledon, and USO. He would beat Rafa at Wimbledon IMO. Slams- Rafa 5, Novak 1, Roger 4

2009: Possibly Roger's most lethal season (2005) put in to a year with Rafa losing to Soderling, and Nole having a tough year. Watch out everyone! Roger gets the AO, FO, WI, and USO. That's the Grandslam, and gets Roger up to 6 in a row. Slams: Rafa 5, Novak 1, Roger 8

2010: Possibly Rafa’s best season (2010) vs Possibly Roger’s (2006) vs Novak’s best season (2011). I think Rafa gets RG, but Roger gets Wimbledon and USO, and Novak gets the AO. Nole is not amazing on grass, and post-prime Fed had matchpoints to peak Novak at the USO that year, so Prime Fed should get the USO win IMO. Slams- Rafa 6, Novak 2, Roger 10

2011: This year is Rafa’s 2011 vs Novak’s 2012 vs Rogers 2007. I think it’s safe to say Roger has a big advantage here. His winning % is 95%, Novak’s is 86%, and Rafa’s is 81%. Post Prime Roger took a set off of Rafa at RG, so I could see absolute peak Roger getting it done against the poor-formed Rafa of 2011. AO would be a battle between Nole and Roger, could go either way, I’d lean on Roger here based on his slam lead over Novak given the 95%-86% advantage in winning %. He would be at his peak at Wimby still, and 2011 Rafa was no match for Novak on grass, let alone prime Fed. So, that’s another Grandslam for Fed, and, another 6 in a Row for the man. Slams- Rafa 6, Novak 2, Roger 14

2012: It would be very hard to predict this season, as Roger had a tough 2008 by his standards, and Nole hasn’t completed his 2013 season. Roger did get to 3 slam finals though, so you can definitely see him winning some. Nole would win the AO, Rafa would get RG, then he would get hurt at Wimby. Roger should take it (as 30 year old Fed won, so 28 year old surely would too), and 2012 USO would be up in the air. Again, I’d lean towards Roger as Murray beat Novak in real life, and Roger in 2008 won the tournament. Slams- Rafa 7, Novak 3, Roger 16.

Conclusion: I was lenient to Fed in close matches, but IMO he should get the nod because of his superior win % in all of those events. Based on these results, Fed would have not only 2 calendar year Grandslams, but 2 runs of 6 in a row. 3 AO, 2 RG, 6 WI (in a row), 5 USO (in a row), I think those numbers are even better than they were before even though there are fewer total slams. Then, of course, there’s the declines of the players. Roger’s Win percentage is around 84% for the years from 2009-2012, and I doubt the other two can match that, since they only did 3 times and twice in their whole careers as a whole.

 

[wangs78]

So many times on here we hear how much greater "Prime Fed" was than Murrovic or Prime Nadal.

And yet what empirical evidence do we have that Federer is SIGNIFICANTLY worse than he was in 04-07?

Of course his record was much better then and he dominated at the Slams, but the fact remains that Fed ALWAYS struggled against Nadal (see for instance his 6-3, 6-3 loss to pre-Prime Rafa in Miami at the height of Fed's dominance in '04 or even his hard-fought victory in "05 on the same court).

"Prime" Fed escaped from the clutches of Pre-Prime Nadal at Wimbledon in 2007 and from Djokovic 1.0 at the US Open in 2007. Anyone who rematches those matches would concede that he could easily have lost these matches had a few points gone differently.

So basically still dominates the field outside of the Big 3. The only difference is that Nadal, Djoker, and Murray are GREAT players, whereas Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin, post-Prime Agassi, and Hewitt were merely very good ones.

In terms of overall effectiveness, Federer is absolutely worse today than he was in 2004-2007. For whomever says this is not apparent, then he/she is a poor judge of tennis. Prime Federer was leaps and bounds ahead of today's Fed in terms of quickness, agility and explosiveness. If you look at matches from back then, Fed's defense would easily match up with (or exceed) today's Djokovic and Prime Nadal. Just look at matches from back then. Fed had an impenetrable defense, and because his court coverage was so expansive, he was able to get in position and hit winners from all over the court. He can't do this anymore against his top rivals because he spends too much time STRETCHING for balls because he simply can't get into position as well as before. His repertoire of shots and tactics may be slightly better than before, but that will never overcome physical prowess. To summarize in one sentence, Prime Fed, because of his better movement, was playing offense a lot more than today's Fed, who is on his heels playing defense more often than he used to.

 

[The_Order]

Let's put these 3 stars all at the same age...

So here are the winning % of each of the big 3 from the year they were 19 to the present:

Aged 19: Rafa- 89%, Novak- 69%, Roger- 70%
Aged 20: Rafa- 83%, Novak-78%, Roger- 73%
Aged 21: Rafa- 82%, Novak- 79%, Roger- 82%
Aged 22: Rafa- 88%, Novak- 80%, Roger- 93%
Aged 23: Rafa- 83%, Novak- 77%, Roger- 95%
Aged 24: Rafa- 88%, Novak- 92%, Roger- 95%
Aged 25: Rafa- 81%, Novak- 86%, Roger- 88%
Aged 26: Rafa- 88%, Novak- N/A, Roger- 81%

*Note: Since Roger’s birthday is in August, 3 out of the 4 majors are before his birthday, so I aged him accordingly (e.g. he was 30 in 2012, because he turned 31 after the first 3 majors). This argument is not about which age you’d put the players at in specific years, so please don’t argue that part.
I want to look at the possible results from these years, please just take in to consideration that this is possible... You don’t necessarily have to agree!

Let's assume they all start when Rafa first won RG, 2005:

2005: In 2005, Rafa would clearly be better than the other two, but still only went to one major in that year. Slams- Rafa 1, Novak 0, Roger 0

2006: Rafa wins RG and WI, as he got to the finals losing to Roger in reality. Roger is in the middle of his poor 2002 season, and Novak is still not there yet. Slams- Rafa 3, Novak 0, Roger 0

2007: Rafa wins RG again, Roger gets WI, Novak wins the US open (lost to Roger last time). Total slams- Rafa 4, Novak 1, Roger 1

2008: Rafa wins RG yet again, but now we are in to the most successful Fed. He had a poor 2008 in real life, but that is now replaced with the dominant Fed of 2004. He had a 93 win percent, compared to 88% and 77%. He wins AO, Wimbledon, and USO. He would beat Rafa at Wimbledon IMO. Slams- Rafa 5, Novak 1, Roger 4

2009: Possibly Roger's most lethal season (2005) put in to a year with Rafa losing to Soderling, and Nole having a tough year. Watch out everyone! Roger gets the AO, FO, WI, and USO. That's the Grandslam, and gets Roger up to 6 in a row. Slams: Rafa 5, Novak 1, Roger 8

2010: Possibly Rafa’s best season (2010) vs Possibly Roger’s (2006) vs Novak’s best season (2011). I think Rafa gets RG, but Roger gets Wimbledon and USO, and Novak gets the AO. Nole is not amazing on grass, and post-prime Fed had matchpoints to peak Novak at the USO that year, so Prime Fed should get the USO win IMO. Slams- Rafa 6, Novak 2, Roger 10

2011: This year is Rafa’s 2011 vs Novak’s 2012 vs Rogers 2007. I think it’s safe to say Roger has a big advantage here. His winning % is 95%, Novak’s is 86%, and Rafa’s is 81%. Post Prime Roger took a set off of Rafa at RG, so I could see absolute peak Roger getting it done against the poor-formed Rafa of 2011. AO would be a battle between Nole and Roger, could go either way, I’d lean on Roger here based on his slam lead over Novak given the 95%-86% advantage in winning %. He would be at his peak at Wimby still, and 2011 Rafa was no match for Novak on grass, let alone prime Fed. So, that’s another Grandslam for Fed, and, another 6 in a Row for the man. Slams- Rafa 6, Novak 2, Roger 14

2012: It would be very hard to predict this season, as Roger had a tough 2008 by his standards, and Nole hasn’t completed his 2013 season. Roger did get to 3 slam finals though, so you can definitely see him winning some. Nole would win the AO, Rafa would get RG, then he would get hurt at Wimby. Roger should take it (as 30 year old Fed won, so 28 year old surely would too), and 2012 USO would be up in the air. Again, I’d lean towards Roger as Murray beat Novak in real life, and Roger in 2008 won the tournament. Slams- Rafa 7, Novak 3, Roger 16.

Conclusion: I was lenient to Fed in close matches, but IMO he should get the nod because of his superior win % in all of those events. Based on these results, Fed would have not only 2 calendar year Grandslams, but 2 runs of 6 in a row. 3 AO, 2 RG, 6 WI (in a row), 5 USO (in a row), I think those numbers are even better than they were before even though there are fewer total slams. Then, of course, there’s the declines of the players. Roger’s Win percentage is around 84% for the years from 2009-2012, and I doubt the other two can match that, since they only did 3 times and twice in their whole careers as a whole.

What a load of biased ****.

So because Rog did better against journeymen, that means he'd beat Rafa as well? LOL.

Here's the truth pal...

If Fed was born in 1986, then:

2005:
Rafa = turning 19, Fed = turning 19 (his 2000)
Rafa wins RG, Fed wins nothing.
Slam count: Rafa = 1, Fed =0

2006:
Rafa = turning 20, Fed = turning 20 (his 2001)
Rafa wins RG and WIM, Fed wins nothing.
Slam count: Rafa = 3, Fed = 0

2007:
Rafa = turning 21, Fed = turning 21 (his 2002)
Rafa wins RG and WIM again, Fed wins nothing.
Slam count: Rafa = 5, Fed = 0

2008:
Rafa = turning 22, Fed = turning 22 (his 2003)
Rafa wins RG and WIM again, Fed wins nothing. Novak wins AO.
Reason: Fed S&V in 2003 WIM, that would not work against 2008 Rafa at WIM. Not to mention that in this hypothetical situation, Rafa would be full of confidence having been a multiple major champion and 2 time WIM champ. Fed would not be as confident against Nadal as he was against Roddick and Philippoussis.
Slam count: Rafa = 7, Fed = 0, Novak = 1

2009:
Rafa = turning 23, Fed = turning 23 (his 2004)
Rafa wins AO, Fed wins WIM and USO.
Reason: Fed played better in AO 09 final than he did in AO04 final. His serving in the AO09 final is blamed for the loss, yet his numbers in 2004 were even worse. Rafa at the height of his game and full of confidence against Fed would take him out in 4 tight sets. RG, Fed's 04 RG campaign wasn't that impressive, had he run into Del Potro in his RG04 form he would've lost. WIM and USO are Fed's though no doubt about it.
Slam count: Rafa = 8, Fed = 2, Novak = 1

2010:
Rafa = turning 24, Fed = turning 24 (his 2005)
Rafa wins RG, WIM & USO, Fed wins AO
Reason: Fed in 2005 WIM was in great form, but he only had to beat his pigeons in Hewitt and Roddick. Rafa in 2010 form was formidable in the second week, he easily took care of Sod, Murray and Berdych. Huge toss up on who would win, Fed fans will go with Fed, Rafa fans will go with Rafa. I go with Rafa because again in this hypothetical situation, Rafa would have already beat Fed at Wimbledon before so he takes that confidence into the match and takes it in 5 sets. USO 2010 Rafa vs 2005 USO Fed, another close one to call, but Fed in USO05 struggled against a crippled 35 year old for most of the final, 2010 Rafa would be MUCH tougher than that, so the nod goes to Rafa in 4 tight sets.
Slam count: Rafa = 11, Fed = 3, Novak = 1

2011:
Rafa = turning 25, Fed = turning 25 (his 2006)
Rafa wins RG, Fed wins WIM & USO, Novak wins AO.
Reason: Fed's AO06 was a weak one. His form was patchy throughout the tournament and had he run into Novak of 2011 he would've been beat no questions. However, Fed in 2006 form gets through Tsonga, and beats both Novak and Rafa to take WIM. In 2011 Fed had MP against Novak, no doubt in 2006 form he would've won that match and gone on to beat Rafa as well in the final.
Slam count: Rafa = 12, Fed = 5, Novak = 2

2012:
Rafa = turning 26, Fed = turning 26 (his 2007)
Rafa wins RG, Fed wins WIM & USO, Novak wins AO.
Reason: Rafa was unbeatable in 2012 RG. Fed won WIM 12 in reality, so no doubt his 2007 form would've been enough to take the title. He'd also get passed Berdych as well as Murray and Novak in the USO. AO goes to Novak, since Fed isn't great on plexicushion and getting through both Rafa and Novak will be too much for him.
Slam count: Rafa = 13, Fed = 7, Novak = 3

2013:
Rafa = turning 27, Fed = turning 27 (his 2008 )
So far, Novak wins AO.
Reason: Novak in 2013 form would be WAY too much for Fed AO08 form to handle.
Current Slam count: Rafa = 13, Fed = 7, Novak = 4

Now, many could argue that Fed would take AO12 since his 07 form was really good. In that case...

Slam count: Rafa = 13, Fed = 8, Novak = 3

There could also be a tossup between WIM2010 and USO2010 going either way. The fair thing to do would be to give one each to Rafa and Fed. In that case...

Slam count: Rafa = 12, Fed = 8-9, Novak = 3-4

EITHER WAY, Rafa would be leading the slam count at this point.

CONCLUSION: Fed was lucky he was born in 1981 and had to face weaker opposition at the majors to rack up his slam count. He's defintely one of the greatest of all time, but to call him the greatest because he constantly beat lap dogs in Hewitt, Roddick, old Agassi and one slam wonders that doesn't make him the greatest.

 

[kishnabe]

What a load of biased ****.

So because Rog did better against journeymen, that means he'd beat Rafa as well? LOL.

Here's the truth pal...

If Fed was born in 1986, then:

2005:
Rafa = turning 19, Fed = turning 19 (his 2000)
Rafa wins RG, Fed wins nothing.
Slam count: Rafa = 1, Fed =0

2006:
Rafa = turning 20, Fed = turning 20 (his 2001)
Rafa wins RG and WIM, Fed wins nothing.
Slam count: Rafa = 3, Fed = 0

2007:
Rafa = turning 21, Fed = turning 21 (his 2002)
Rafa wins RG and WIM again, Fed wins nothing.
Slam count: Rafa = 5, Fed = 0

2008:
Rafa = turning 22, Fed = turning 22 (his 2003)
Rafa wins RG and WIM again, Fed wins nothing. Novak wins AO.
Reason: Fed S&V in 2003 WIM, that would not work against 2008 Rafa at WIM. Not to mention that in this hypothetical situation, Rafa would be full of confidence having been a multiple major champion and 2 time WIM champ. Fed would not be as confident against Nadal as he was against Roddick and Philippoussis.
Slam count: Rafa = 7, Fed = 0, Novak = 1

2009:
Rafa = turning 23, Fed = turning 23 (his 2004)
Rafa wins AO, Fed wins WIM and USO.
Reason: Fed played better in AO 09 final than he did in AO04 final. His serving in the AO09 final is blamed for the loss, yet his numbers in 2004 were even worse. Rafa at the height of his game and full of confidence against Fed would take him out in 4 tight sets. RG, Fed's 04 RG campaign wasn't that impressive, had he run into Del Potro in his RG04 form he would've lost. WIM and USO are Fed's though no doubt about it.
Slam count: Rafa = 8, Fed = 2, Novak = 1

2010:
Rafa = turning 24, Fed = turning 24 (his 2005)
Rafa wins RG, WIM & USO, Fed wins AO
Reason: Fed in 2005 WIM was in great form, but he only had to beat his pigeons in Hewitt and Roddick. Rafa in 2010 form was formidable in the second week, he easily took care of Sod, Murray and Berdych. Huge toss up on who would win, Fed fans will go with Fed, Rafa fans will go with Rafa. I go with Rafa because again in this hypothetical situation, Rafa would have already beat Fed at Wimbledon before so he takes that confidence into the match and takes it in 5 sets. USO 2010 Rafa vs 2005 USO Fed, another close one to call, but Fed in USO05 struggled against a crippled 35 year old for most of the final, 2010 Rafa would be MUCH tougher than that, so the nod goes to Rafa in 4 tight sets.
Slam count: Rafa = 11, Fed = 3, Novak = 1

2011:
Rafa = turning 25, Fed = turning 25 (his 2006)
Rafa wins RG, Fed wins WIM & USO, Novak wins AO.
Reason: Fed's AO06 was a weak one. His form was patchy throughout the tournament and had he run into Novak of 2011 he would've been beat no questions. However, Fed in 2006 form gets through Tsonga, and beats both Novak and Rafa to take WIM. In 2011 Fed had MP against Novak, no doubt in 2006 form he would've won that match and gone on to beat Rafa as well in the final.
Slam count: Rafa = 12, Fed = 5, Novak = 2

2012:
Rafa = turning 26, Fed = turning 26 (his 2007)
Rafa wins RG, Fed wins WIM & USO, Novak wins AO.
Reason: Rafa was unbeatable in 2012 RG. Fed won WIM 12 in reality, so no doubt his 2007 form would've been enough to take the title. He'd also get passed Berdych as well as Murray and Novak in the USO. AO goes to Novak, since Fed isn't great on plexicushion and getting through both Rafa and Novak will be too much for him.
Slam count: Rafa = 13, Fed = 7, Novak = 3

2013:
Rafa = turning 27, Fed = turning 27 (his 2008 )
So far, Novak wins AO.
Reason: Novak in 2013 form would be WAY too much for Fed AO08 form to handle.
Current Slam count: Rafa = 13, Fed = 7, Novak = 4

Now, many could argue that Fed would take AO12 since his 07 form was really good. In that case...

Slam count: Rafa = 13, Fed = 8, Novak = 3

There could also be a tossup between WIM2010 and USO2010 going either way. The fair thing to do would be to give one each to Rafa and Fed. In that case...

Slam count: Rafa = 12, Fed = 8-9, Novak = 3-4

EITHER WAY, Rafa would be leading the slam count at this point.

CONCLUSION: Fed was lucky he was born in 1981 and had to face weaker opposition at the majors to rack up his slam count. He's defintely one of the greatest of all time, but to call him the greatest because he constantly beat lap dogs in Hewitt, Roddick, old Agassi and one slam wonders that doesn't make him the greatest.

Roddick, Hewitt, Safin at their best is way better than having to win in a era of pushers. Djokovic, Murray, Nadal, Ferrer...are nasty tennis.

Right now is a weak era....so disgusting slow courts of high bouncing boring tennis.

 

[Nitish]

What a load of biased ****.

So because Rog did better against journeymen, that means he'd beat Rafa as well? LOL.

Here's the truth pal...

If Fed was born in 1986, then:

2005:
Rafa = turning 19, Fed = turning 19 (his 2000)
Rafa wins RG, Fed wins nothing.
Slam count: Rafa = 1, Fed =0

2006:
Rafa = turning 20, Fed = turning 20 (his 2001)
Rafa wins RG and WIM, Fed wins nothing.
Slam count: Rafa = 3, Fed = 0

2007:
Rafa = turning 21, Fed = turning 21 (his 2002)
Rafa wins RG and WIM again, Fed wins nothing.
Slam count: Rafa = 5, Fed = 0

2008:
Rafa = turning 22, Fed = turning 22 (his 2003)
Rafa wins RG and WIM again, Fed wins nothing. Novak wins AO.
Reason: Fed S&V in 2003 WIM, that would not work against 2008 Rafa at WIM. Not to mention that in this hypothetical situation, Rafa would be full of confidence having been a multiple major champion and 2 time WIM champ. Fed would not be as confident against Nadal as he was against Roddick and Philippoussis.
Slam count: Rafa = 7, Fed = 0, Novak = 1

2009:
Rafa = turning 23, Fed = turning 23 (his 2004)
Rafa wins AO, Fed wins WIM and USO.
Reason: Fed played better in AO 09 final than he did in AO04 final. His serving in the AO09 final is blamed for the loss, yet his numbers in 2004 were even worse. Rafa at the height of his game and full of confidence against Fed would take him out in 4 tight sets. RG, Fed's 04 RG campaign wasn't that impressive, had he run into Del Potro in his RG04 form he would've lost. WIM and USO are Fed's though no doubt about it.
Slam count: Rafa = 8, Fed = 2, Novak = 1

2010:
Rafa = turning 24, Fed = turning 24 (his 2005)
Rafa wins RG, WIM & USO, Fed wins AO
Reason: Fed in 2005 WIM was in great form, but he only had to beat his pigeons in Hewitt and Roddick. Rafa in 2010 form was formidable in the second week, he easily took care of Sod, Murray and Berdych. Huge toss up on who would win, Fed fans will go with Fed, Rafa fans will go with Rafa. I go with Rafa because again in this hypothetical situation, Rafa would have already beat Fed at Wimbledon before so he takes that confidence into the match and takes it in 5 sets. USO 2010 Rafa vs 2005 USO Fed, another close one to call, but Fed in USO05 struggled against a crippled 35 year old for most of the final, 2010 Rafa would be MUCH tougher than that, so the nod goes to Rafa in 4 tight sets.
Slam count: Rafa = 11, Fed = 3, Novak = 1

2011:
Rafa = turning 25, Fed = turning 25 (his 2006)
Rafa wins RG, Fed wins WIM & USO, Novak wins AO.
Reason: Fed's AO06 was a weak one. His form was patchy throughout the tournament and had he run into Novak of 2011 he would've been beat no questions. However, Fed in 2006 form gets through Tsonga, and beats both Novak and Rafa to take WIM. In 2011 Fed had MP against Novak, no doubt in 2006 form he would've won that match and gone on to beat Rafa as well in the final.
Slam count: Rafa = 12, Fed = 5, Novak = 2

2012:
Rafa = turning 26, Fed = turning 26 (his 2007)
Rafa wins RG, Fed wins WIM & USO, Novak wins AO.
Reason: Rafa was unbeatable in 2012 RG. Fed won WIM 12 in reality, so no doubt his 2007 form would've been enough to take the title. He'd also get passed Berdych as well as Murray and Novak in the USO. AO goes to Novak, since Fed isn't great on plexicushion and getting through both Rafa and Novak will be too much for him.
Slam count: Rafa = 13, Fed = 7, Novak = 3

2013:
Rafa = turning 27, Fed = turning 27 (his 2008 )
So far, Novak wins AO.
Reason: Novak in 2013 form would be WAY too much for Fed AO08 form to handle.
Current Slam count: Rafa = 13, Fed = 7, Novak = 4

Now, many could argue that Fed would take AO12 since his 07 form was really good. In that case...

Slam count: Rafa = 13, Fed = 8, Novak = 3

There could also be a tossup between WIM2010 and USO2010 going either way. The fair thing to do would be to give one each to Rafa and Fed. In that case...

Slam count: Rafa = 12, Fed = 8-9, Novak = 3-4

EITHER WAY, Rafa would be leading the slam count at this point.

CONCLUSION: Fed was lucky he was born in 1981 and had to face weaker opposition at the majors to rack up his slam count. He's defintely one of the greatest of all time, but to call him the greatest because he constantly beat lap dogs in Hewitt, Roddick, old Agassi and one slam wonders that doesn't make him the greatest.

I agree with you on the analysis for the most part may be 1 or two more slams to fed but fed did what what he had to do to beat safin,hewitt etc it's unfair to consider he would have played the same way against djokovic like he did against hewitt or safin he might have improved his serve and backhand a lot earlier if guys like djoko or murray were around back then.

 

[TCG]

What a load of biased ****.

So because Rog did better against journeymen, that means he'd beat Rafa as well? LOL.

Here's the truth pal...

If Fed was born in 1986, then:

2005:
Rafa = turning 19, Fed = turning 19 (his 2000)
Rafa wins RG, Fed wins nothing.
Slam count: Rafa = 1, Fed =0

2006:
Rafa = turning 20, Fed = turning 20 (his 2001)
Rafa wins RG and WIM, Fed wins nothing.
Slam count: Rafa = 3, Fed = 0

2007:
Rafa = turning 21, Fed = turning 21 (his 2002)
Rafa wins RG and WIM again, Fed wins nothing.
Slam count: Rafa = 5, Fed = 0

2008:
Rafa = turning 22, Fed = turning 22 (his 2003)
Rafa wins RG and WIM again, Fed wins nothing. Novak wins AO.
Reason: Fed S&V in 2003 WIM, that would not work against 2008 Rafa at WIM. Not to mention that in this hypothetical situation, Rafa would be full of confidence having been a multiple major champion and 2 time WIM champ. Fed would not be as confident against Nadal as he was against Roddick and Philippoussis.
Slam count: Rafa = 7, Fed = 0, Novak = 1

2009:
Rafa = turning 23, Fed = turning 23 (his 2004)
Rafa wins AO, Fed wins WIM and USO.
Reason: Fed played better in AO 09 final than he did in AO04 final. His serving in the AO09 final is blamed for the loss, yet his numbers in 2004 were even worse. Rafa at the height of his game and full of confidence against Fed would take him out in 4 tight sets. RG, Fed's 04 RG campaign wasn't that impressive, had he run into Del Potro in his RG04 form he would've lost. WIM and USO are Fed's though no doubt about it.
Slam count: Rafa = 8, Fed = 2, Novak = 1

2010:
Rafa = turning 24, Fed = turning 24 (his 2005)
Rafa wins RG, WIM & USO, Fed wins AO
Reason: Fed in 2005 WIM was in great form, but he only had to beat his pigeons in Hewitt and Roddick. Rafa in 2010 form was formidable in the second week, he easily took care of Sod, Murray and Berdych. Huge toss up on who would win, Fed fans will go with Fed, Rafa fans will go with Rafa. I go with Rafa because again in this hypothetical situation, Rafa would have already beat Fed at Wimbledon before so he takes that confidence into the match and takes it in 5 sets. USO 2010 Rafa vs 2005 USO Fed, another close one to call, but Fed in USO05 struggled against a crippled 35 year old for most of the final, 2010 Rafa would be MUCH tougher than that, so the nod goes to Rafa in 4 tight sets.
Slam count: Rafa = 11, Fed = 3, Novak = 1

2011:
Rafa = turning 25, Fed = turning 25 (his 2006)
Rafa wins RG, Fed wins WIM & USO, Novak wins AO.
Reason: Fed's AO06 was a weak one. His form was patchy throughout the tournament and had he run into Novak of 2011 he would've been beat no questions. However, Fed in 2006 form gets through Tsonga, and beats both Novak and Rafa to take WIM. In 2011 Fed had MP against Novak, no doubt in 2006 form he would've won that match and gone on to beat Rafa as well in the final.
Slam count: Rafa = 12, Fed = 5, Novak = 2

2012:
Rafa = turning 26, Fed = turning 26 (his 2007)
Rafa wins RG, Fed wins WIM & USO, Novak wins AO.
Reason: Rafa was unbeatable in 2012 RG. Fed won WIM 12 in reality, so no doubt his 2007 form would've been enough to take the title. He'd also get passed Berdych as well as Murray and Novak in the USO. AO goes to Novak, since Fed isn't great on plexicushion and getting through both Rafa and Novak will be too much for him.
Slam count: Rafa = 13, Fed = 7, Novak = 3

2013:
Rafa = turning 27, Fed = turning 27 (his 2008 )
So far, Novak wins AO.
Reason: Novak in 2013 form would be WAY too much for Fed AO08 form to handle.
Current Slam count: Rafa = 13, Fed = 7, Novak = 4

Now, many could argue that Fed would take AO12 since his 07 form was really good. In that case...

Slam count: Rafa = 13, Fed = 8, Novak = 3

There could also be a tossup between WIM2010 and USO2010 going either way. The fair thing to do would be to give one each to Rafa and Fed. In that case...

Slam count: Rafa = 12, Fed = 8-9, Novak = 3-4

EITHER WAY, Rafa would be leading the slam count at this point.

CONCLUSION: Fed was lucky he was born in 1981 and had to face weaker opposition at the majors to rack up his slam count. He's defintely one of the greatest of all time, but to call him the greatest because he constantly beat lap dogs in Hewitt, Roddick, old Agassi and one slam wonders that doesn't make him the greatest.

Can you do the same thing year by year if Rafa and Djoker were born in 1981? How many slams would each end up with? Rafa wont win a slam anywhere except RG.

 

[The_Order]

yeah, fed did play well in wim 08 as well, but I mentioned MC and hamburg specifically because he didn't play well at RG and I didn't want to imply fed wasn't playing well in the CC season at all ....

Ok so, the conclusion is mono didn't have anything to do with his form from the clay season onwards of 2008.

murray beat fed who was tired from 4 consecutive 3-setters in canada in 2006 ...there were no byes at that time ..

So? That excuse can be made for Nadal more than Fed. For example Hamburg 07, WTF2010. Truth is, it's their own fault if they had to play 3 or 5 setters before the match. Teenage Murray beat peak Fed. Deal with it.

federer didn't just get defeated by fish, he got pummeled big time ... his movement was total awful ...

then the loss to roddick in miami

it wasn't just one loss, it was all those losses in a row and the way he was playing at that time ....these had absolutely nothing to do with rafa ...

Did I say that those losses had anything to do with Rafa? No doubt his mono affected his form, but it was well and truly gone by the time the clay season started. It does not indicate a decline at all, it was a drop off in form due to the illness, but once he recovered he played at his peak level again until Nadal destroyed his confidence beating him over and over and over and over again :lol:

jeez, ever think of something called forced errors ?

and no, LOL, the match stats aren't poorer in wim 08 because the match lasted longer.... if anything fed played better in the last 3 sets than in the first 2 ...

care to bring up a similar comparison for rafa ? those stats are closer than fed's .....

Yeah, I'll gladly bring up how Nadal had 27UE in WIM08 and 24 in WIM07. The length of the match DEFINITELY affects those stats. Only 3 errors more yet the amount of games played was higher by 9 games iinm and length was greater in 08 by quite a bit.

That proves Nadal's ground game was a lot cleaner, giving less errors away. For some reason I can't find the W stats for 08 final.

As for the serve, I think it was obvious Rafa was also serving better in 08 than 07. The stats prove it too though:

2007:
71% 1st serve
1ACE
2DF
69% 1st serve won (81/118 )
57% 2nd serve won
178k avg 1st serve
148 avg 2nd serve

2008:
73% 1st serve
6ACES
3DF
69% 1st serve won (110/159)
59% 2nd serve won
181k avg 1st serve
157k avg 2nd serve

Nadal is higher in every category on the serve as well. Not to mention it's ahrder to keep those percentages high when the match goes longer...

So better serving, cleaner ground game Nadal was better in 08 than 07.

You have an extremely weak counter argument here and it's because you know you're wrong again.

reasons for him being titleless very different. He was coming from a layoff in mid-2012 to beginning of 2013, not so in doha 2010 ....

Yes the reasons are different but the nerves affected his play regardless of the reason.

if you paid attention, I was very clear on the aspect of fed handling berdych's pace with ease ... its nowhere near the case now ... that doesn't have to do with berdych improving his consistency , just fed's reflexes and game in general declining .....

Absolute rubbish, you give Berdych absolutely no credit here for improving his game. When Fed was beating on him, he was in his peak and Berdych was what? Ranked around about the 20's or 30's if you average it from 04-09.

their exact quotes and the context ?

Can't remember the exact quotes, and it is impossible for me to link to anything said during commentary, but I remember the matches.

Nadal v Fed AO2012, Hewitt said something like the reason Fed is losing more now at the majors is because Rafa and Novak came along.

Also said he hasn't noticed much difference in Fed's game from now till when he was peak (can't remember if that was during the AO12 sf or the AO13sf)

Courier said the stuff about his FH in the Murray SF or the Tsonga QF (can't remember exactly)

yes, comparable, never said it was better ....

in fact, I myself remember saying here on TT quite some time ago about what rafa was able to do on the run that was striking, not just his movement .... maybe I'll dig that up in a while

Wrong, it is not comparable, comparable means similar. The defence is not similar, face it you keep getting owned and you just love it.

not in a slam, LOL ...

Doesn't matter where it was, a loss is a loss and he lost to #101 ranked player in his peak. Rafa wasn't peak in WIM12 and furthermore, I like your explanation for the marks on his knee from the injections...

Look at his left knee and you can see 3 spots:

ha ha ha ha ha , now that was funny ...........fed's form was absolutely ridiculous in wim 03 ( esp semis and finals ), both at the net and from the ground ... just game-wise he'd definitely beat nadal of wim 08 .....

its just your plain ignorance .......

Lol no it wasn't absolutely ridiculous, Philippousis pushed him to TB in 2 of the 3 sets. Anyone who thinks Rafa in WIM08 form would not win against Fed in 03 form is a fool and you're one of them!

lol, no its not ......see the last part of my reply

Do you honestly think Roddick wasn't extremely confident he could beat a teenager in a Wimbledon match in 06? LOL what a huge pile of horse ****, wrong again and as usual.

yeah, LOL, very clear that his serve was crappy throughout in AO 2009 final and his serve was very good after set 1 in the AO 2004 final ... only in your nadal la la land is it anything otherwise ...


and it wasn't just rafa in AO 2009, he wasn't serving well in the whole tourney , just had the worst serving in that final ... if it was because of rafa, his groundgame wouldn't be that good ....in fact his serving went south from paris 2008 ( back injury ) till about rome 2009 where he slowly started regaining it ....

Oh really? Care to post the serve stats comparing Fed's match against Roddick from AO09 to his match against Roddick in AO07? Go ahead post them.

nadal would have a good chance of losing to fed in wim 08 form wise .... as far as wim 05 goes, roddick had pushed him hard in their previous wimbledon encounter .... so no one sane would say it was a given that he'd beat roddick ...

and yeah, confidence only matters when it comes to rafa, but not for roddick ...LOL !

LOL since that 04 WIM match Fed dominated Roddick. In Bangkok he bagelled him. There was no way he was worried about Andy.

And now we've also changed our tune from Rafa definitely losing against Fed in WIM08 if he were playing in 03 form to having only a good chance of losing. All in the same post too. Just goes to show you don't even believe in the crap you're spouting.

 

[abmk]

Ok so, the conclusion is mono didn't have anything to do with his form from the clay season onwards of 2008.

that started a decline ... not saying it didn't have anything to do with clay season from 2008 onwards ...but I'm not going to use it as an "excuse" even when he played well .......

Yes the reasons are different but the nerves affected his play regardless of the reason.

he wasn't even playing that well game-wise vs zeballos ...understandable because he had come off a long lay-off

he was playing well game-wise since doha 2010

him being titleless because he couldn't cut it vs the top players for that stretch of time is not an "excuse" ...can't be excusing him for that

I'd say the same for federer vs rafa at RG 2011 ... him getting nervous ( in part because of their history, in particular on clay ) is not an excuse. Its "understandable", but he should've been better than that ....

Absolute rubbish, you give Berdych absolutely no credit here for improving his game. When Fed was beating on him, he was in his peak and Berdych was what? Ranked around about the 20's or 30's if you average it from 04-09.

of course berdych improved his game, no question , but it still would be nowhere near enough for more than on occasional win here and there vs peak federer ...

him crumbling many times vs nadal/djoker even now also supports that .....

he just has more confidence vs a declining federer because he happened to get lucky in comparision to the others like delpo/soderling/tsonga and get more of off-form federer

Can't remember the exact quotes, and it is impossible for me to link to anything said during commentary, but I remember the matches.

Nadal v Fed AO2012, Hewitt said something like the reason Fed is losing more now at the majors is because Rafa and Novak came along.

Also said he hasn't noticed much difference in Fed's game from now till when he was peak (can't remember if that was during the AO12 sf or the AO13sf)

Courier said the stuff about his FH in the Murray SF or the Tsonga QF (can't remember exactly)

get the exact quotes with proof, then we can continue on this ...

of course nadal/novak playing well will/would have an effect on federer's major count ... but fed's major decline is the bigger factor ...

lol, I'd call hewitt's comment insane if he said that federer's game in 2013 AO SF was anywhere near his peak .... after that thrashing at USO 2004 final, especially, LOL ! the forehand in that match was something else .........

wouldn't be that surprised in comparison if he said it in the 2012 AO SF, esp in the 1st set when he started off very well .... not that I agree with it ...

Lol no it wasn't absolutely ridiculous, Philippousis pushed him to TB in 2 of the 3 sets. Anyone who thinks Rafa in WIM08 form would not win against Fed in 03 form is a fool and you're one of them!

lol, so ? fed didn't face a single break point in the entire match and played brilliantly ...both TBs he was well in control .... scud was also playing well ...

fed should've really broken him in the 3rd set, but just missed a FH by a bit on BP .... one of his very few unforced errors in that entire match ...

you have no clue about how well federer was playing in the semi and the finals ... the semi was arguably his finest match on grass ....the final was pretty close to that as well ....

Do you honestly think Roddick wasn't extremely confident he could beat a teenager in a Wimbledon match in 06? LOL what a huge pile of horse ****, wrong again and as usual.

it had to do with the fact that he was in a slump @ that time ..... major part of which had to do with him not being able to overcome federer

LOL since that 04 WIM match Fed dominated Roddick. In Bangkok he bagelled him. There was no way he was worried about Andy.

he dominated andy even before wimbledon 04 ( only one loss in 6-7 matches IIRC and many straight-set wins among them ) ..... their 2004 wimbledon encounter was a fiercely contested one ... this was strictly about roddick at wimbledon in 2005 because of their wimbledon 2004 encounter ...

And now we've also changed our tune from Rafa definitely losing against Fed in WIM08 if he were playing in 03 form to having only a good chance of losing. All in the same post too. Just goes to show you don't even believe in the crap you're spouting.

I said game-wise, he'd definitely beat rafa ....

good chance of losing ,the mental part comes into the picture here. Its b/w first final and that of the crushing @ RG 08 .... not that sure which would have a greater effect ..but then again, you can't read properly, can you ?

 

[Povl Carstensen]

He's defintely one of the greatest of all time, but to call him the greatest because he constantly beat lap dogs in Hewitt, Roddick, old Agassi and one slam wonders that doesn't make him the greatest.

Federer was nr 1 last year 5-7 years of his peak. Of course he would do even better in his prime, give it a rest.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

I agree with you on the analysis for the most part may be 1 or two more slams to fed but fed did what what he had to do to beat safin,hewitt etc it's unfair to consider he would have played the same way against djokovic like he did against hewitt or safin he might have improved his serve and backhand a lot earlier if guys like djoko or murray were around back then.

Exactly, see post above.

 

[adil1972]

Nadal is the only guy who can stop Prime Federer. If it wornt for Nadal, Federer would of won 8 straight slams. Djok was no match for prime Fed just look at the h2h it was a blow out

agree 10 char

 

[FEDERERNADAL13]

What a load of biased ****.

So because Rog did better against journeymen, that means he'd beat Rafa as well? LOL.

Here's the truth pal....

So let me get this straight... Going off winning % (a cut and dry statistic that cannot be argued) is "a load of biased ****", but going based on subjective things such as form and confidence and weak vs. strong eras is the truth?

You make me laugh my friend!

From a reasonable stand point, which way makes more sense: analyzing facts that we are giving, or drawing conclusions that we make ourselves based on subjective criteria that many people will disagree with? And don't tell me that Roger playing in a weak era or not being as good as prime Rafa are facts, because you have no way to prove them. Prime Fed wins by #of slams, dominance everywhere else, and win %.... Hard to argue against that!

My point was that Fed, based on his ridiculous winning % in his best years and even his bad ones, would still be able to win what he did (maybe be more) if he was born at the same time rafa and Novak were. As you could see in my post, a few years match up really well for him (ie one of Fed's best seasons with Rafa's 2009 and Novaks's 2010.

I argued using fact, you argued using opinion... Now who is going off biased ****?

 

[tacou]

So many times on here we hear how much greater "Prime Fed" was than Murrovic or Prime Nadal.

And yet what empirical evidence do we have that Federer is SIGNIFICANTLY worse than he was in 04-07?

Of course his record was much better then and he dominated at the Slams, but the fact remains that Fed ALWAYS struggled against Nadal (see for instance his 6-3, 6-3 loss to pre-Prime Rafa in Miami at the height of Fed's dominance in '04 or even his hard-fought victory in "05 on the same court).

"Prime" Fed escaped from the clutches of Pre-Prime Nadal at Wimbledon in 2007 and from Djokovic 1.0 at the US Open in 2007. Anyone who rematches those matches would concede that he could easily have lost these matches had a few points gone differently.

So basically still dominates the field outside of the Big 3. The only difference is that Nadal, Djoker, and Murray are GREAT players, whereas Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin, post-Prime Agassi, and Hewitt were merely very good ones.

I do not understand your argument OP..Federer is at worst the 2nd or 3rd best to ever play the game. He is 31 now. When he was 25-27 he was playing tennis at a much higher level, his "prime," and it was incredible.

If 2013 Roger played 2005 Roddick at Wimbledon, I'd put my money on the latter. Heck, vs. 05 Berdych might still be toughh...

 

[NatF]

What a load of biased ****.

So because Rog did better against journeymen, that means he'd beat Rafa as well? LOL.

Here's the truth pal...

If Fed was born in 1986, then:

2005:
Rafa = turning 19, Fed = turning 19 (his 2000)
Rafa wins RG, Fed wins nothing.
Slam count: Rafa = 1, Fed =0

2006:
Rafa = turning 20, Fed = turning 20 (his 2001)
Rafa wins RG and WIM, Fed wins nothing.
Slam count: Rafa = 3, Fed = 0

2007:
Rafa = turning 21, Fed = turning 21 (his 2002)
Rafa wins RG and WIM again, Fed wins nothing.
Slam count: Rafa = 5, Fed = 0

2008:
Rafa = turning 22, Fed = turning 22 (his 2003)
Rafa wins RG and WIM again, Fed wins nothing. Novak wins AO.
Reason: Fed S&V in 2003 WIM, that would not work against 2008 Rafa at WIM. Not to mention that in this hypothetical situation, Rafa would be full of confidence having been a multiple major champion and 2 time WIM champ. Fed would not be as confident against Nadal as he was against Roddick and Philippoussis.
Slam count: Rafa = 7, Fed = 0, Novak = 1

2009:
Rafa = turning 23, Fed = turning 23 (his 2004)
Rafa wins AO, Fed wins WIM and USO.
Reason: Fed played better in AO 09 final than he did in AO04 final. His serving in the AO09 final is blamed for the loss, yet his numbers in 2004 were even worse. Rafa at the height of his game and full of confidence against Fed would take him out in 4 tight sets. RG, Fed's 04 RG campaign wasn't that impressive, had he run into Del Potro in his RG04 form he would've lost. WIM and USO are Fed's though no doubt about it.
Slam count: Rafa = 8, Fed = 2, Novak = 1

2010:
Rafa = turning 24, Fed = turning 24 (his 2005)
Rafa wins RG, WIM & USO, Fed wins AO
Reason: Fed in 2005 WIM was in great form, but he only had to beat his pigeons in Hewitt and Roddick. Rafa in 2010 form was formidable in the second week, he easily took care of Sod, Murray and Berdych. Huge toss up on who would win, Fed fans will go with Fed, Rafa fans will go with Rafa. I go with Rafa because again in this hypothetical situation, Rafa would have already beat Fed at Wimbledon before so he takes that confidence into the match and takes it in 5 sets. USO 2010 Rafa vs 2005 USO Fed, another close one to call, but Fed in USO05 struggled against a crippled 35 year old for most of the final, 2010 Rafa would be MUCH tougher than that, so the nod goes to Rafa in 4 tight sets.
Slam count: Rafa = 11, Fed = 3, Novak = 1

2011:
Rafa = turning 25, Fed = turning 25 (his 2006)
Rafa wins RG, Fed wins WIM & USO, Novak wins AO.
Reason: Fed's AO06 was a weak one. His form was patchy throughout the tournament and had he run into Novak of 2011 he would've been beat no questions. However, Fed in 2006 form gets through Tsonga, and beats both Novak and Rafa to take WIM. In 2011 Fed had MP against Novak, no doubt in 2006 form he would've won that match and gone on to beat Rafa as well in the final.
Slam count: Rafa = 12, Fed = 5, Novak = 2

2012:
Rafa = turning 26, Fed = turning 26 (his 2007)
Rafa wins RG, Fed wins WIM & USO, Novak wins AO.
Reason: Rafa was unbeatable in 2012 RG. Fed won WIM 12 in reality, so no doubt his 2007 form would've been enough to take the title. He'd also get passed Berdych as well as Murray and Novak in the USO. AO goes to Novak, since Fed isn't great on plexicushion and getting through both Rafa and Novak will be too much for him.
Slam count: Rafa = 13, Fed = 7, Novak = 3

2013:
Rafa = turning 27, Fed = turning 27 (his 2008 )
So far, Novak wins AO.
Reason: Novak in 2013 form would be WAY too much for Fed AO08 form to handle.
Current Slam count: Rafa = 13, Fed = 7, Novak = 4

Now, many could argue that Fed would take AO12 since his 07 form was really good. In that case...

Slam count: Rafa = 13, Fed = 8, Novak = 3

There could also be a tossup between WIM2010 and USO2010 going either way. The fair thing to do would be to give one each to Rafa and Fed. In that case...

Slam count: Rafa = 12, Fed = 8-9, Novak = 3-4

EITHER WAY, Rafa would be leading the slam count at this point.

CONCLUSION: Fed was lucky he was born in 1981 and had to face weaker opposition at the majors to rack up his slam count. He's defintely one of the greatest of all time, but to call him the greatest because he constantly beat lap dogs in Hewitt, Roddick, old Agassi and one slam wonders that doesn't make him the greatest.

Wimbledon in 2003 played faster than it did in 08, Federer may not have tried to serve and volley versus Rafa. I'd say it was a tossup.

Rafa was an early bloomer, Federer wasn't, obviously Rafa would pick up more slams early on. He could decline far more quickly than Federer did which could make up the difference considering how long Federer has hung around.

 

[The_Order]

that started a decline ... not saying it didn't have anything to do with clay season from 2008 onwards ...but I'm not going to use it as an "excuse" even when he played well .......

No it didn't start a decline, it caused a bad period of play which he overcame by the time the clay season began. He played very well in the clay season and even against Rafa in those clay finals. No signs of decline there mate, the decline came when Nadal dismantled his confidence.

he wasn't even playing that well game-wise vs zeballos ...understandable because he had come off a long lay-off

Doesn't matter if he wasn't playing well, he is the greatest clay courter of all time, when he's not playing well it should still be good enough to beat guys like Zeballos. The nerves were what affected him in the crucial moments especially that second set TB.

he was playing well game-wise since doha 2010

him being titleless because he couldn't cut it vs the top players for that stretch of time is not an "excuse" ...can't be excusing him for that

I'd say the same for federer vs rafa at RG 2011 ... him getting nervous ( in part because of their history, in particular on clay ) is not an excuse. Its "understandable", but he should've been better than that ....

I'm not saying Rafa should be excused, I'm just giving a reason as to why he lost that Doha final. How else can you explain Rafa playing well enough to bagel Davydenko and get up an early break in the next set to all of a sudden losing composure and alowing him back into the match?

Davydenko built his h2h lead on HC when he was in the best form of his career and Rafa was in his worst (which was his 2009 return where he struggled against every top 10 opponent excluding Tsonga).

Miami08 is the only win against Rafa that impresses me, the rest don't really tell you anything. Doha 2011 Rafa was clearly sick, he was coughing on court.

The Miami 08 loss is cancelled out by the Shanghai win, the rest are all fortunate circumstances for Davydenko and unfortunate for Nadal. The YEC loss I can agree with you that Davy was playing too well anyway, but that doesn't cover the other 09 HC loss, the 2010 & 2011 Doha losses nor does it cover for the match where Nadal had to retire.

of course berdych improved his game, no question , but it still would be nowhere near enough for more than on occasional win here and there vs peak federer ...

him crumbling many times vs nadal/djoker even now also supports that .....

he just has more confidence vs a declining federer because he happened to get lucky in comparision to the others like delpo/soderling/tsonga and get more of off-form federer

So, back pedalling again. You just said it had NOTHING to do with Berdych improving, now you say it does. Of course it would be an occasional win here and there, Berdych is nowhere near the calibre of Federer, but it cannot be denied that Berdych troubles Fed when he is playing well.

get the exact quotes with proof, then we can continue on this ...

Ok, just as soon as you can show me the exact error reading difference between the radar guns at AO04 and AO09.

You want the proof, go watch the matches again, if you can't be stuffed doing that, then bad luck, it doesn't change the truth, I wouldn't make it up out of thin air.

of course nadal/novak playing well will/would have an effect on federer's major count ... but fed's major decline is the bigger factor ...

And here's where you're wrong. Federer hasn't had a major decline. A major decline implies he can't consistently make the QF and SF of majors, let alone get to the finals and win one beating the #1 player (who made it to the past 6 major finals) and Murray. You try and make it sound like peak Fed would triple bagel them with a couple of golden sets thrown in there. My advice, learn English and the meaning of words you use in particular.

Of course, Fed is not as good as he used to be, that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying he hasn't declined as much as all you ***** are leading on.

lol, I'd call hewitt's comment insane if he said that federer's game in 2013 AO SF was anywhere near his peak .... after that thrashing at USO 2004 final, especially, LOL ! the forehand in that match was something else .........

wouldn't be that surprised in comparison if he said it in the 2012 AO SF, esp in the 1st set when he started off very well .... not that I agree with it ...

You may not agree with Hewitt, just like you don't agree with many other pros. But Hewitt is a VERY good source to get the information from. He's played peak Fed and he's played post prime Fed as well, he has no reason to make that sort of comment unless he really believes it and if there's anything that can be said about Hewitt it's that he's as honest as they come.

lol, so ? fed didn't face a single break point in the entire match and played brilliantly ...both TBs he was well in control .... scud was also playing well ...

fed should've really broken him in the 3rd set, but just missed a FH by a bit on BP .... one of his very few unforced errors in that entire match ...

you have no clue about how well federer was playing in the semi and the finals ... the semi was arguably his finest match on grass ....the final was pretty close to that as well ....

I have a very big clue, I'm an Aussie so I was behind Mark during that Wimbledon run as were most of my friends. I know how well Fed was playing but if you seriously think that he'd be entering the final with the same confidence he had against Mark when facing a 2 time WIM defending champ you're absolutely kidding yourself. Not to mention Rafa's game is like kryptonite against Fed. He'd find it VERY difficult to work his way into the match.

it had to do with the fact that he was in a slump @ that time ..... major part of which had to do with him not being able to overcome federer

Answer the question, do you really believe that Roddick wouldn't have been extremely confident against a teenage boy at Wimbledon, having made the final the past 2 years?

It's a load of crap you're spouting and it's not getting you anywhere.

he dominated andy even before wimbledon 04 ( only one loss in 6-7 matches IIRC and many straight-set wins among them ) ..... their 2004 wimbledon encounter was a fiercely contested one ... this was strictly about roddick at wimbledon in 2005 because of their wimbledon 2004 encounter ...

Who are you kidding Roddick wasn't playing the same aggressive tennis in 05 WIM compared to 04. LOL he almost lost to a lucky loser in the second round, not to mention Grosjean almost beat him and even freakin Thomas Johansson gave him a tough battle. Only an idiot would've given Roddick a chance in that WIM 05 final.

I said game-wise, he'd definitely beat rafa ....

good chance of losing ,the mental part comes into the picture here. Its b/w first final and that of the crushing @ RG 08 .... not that sure which would have a greater effect ..but then again, you can't read properly, can you ?

Absolute rubbish. Let's get this straight, just because Fed's game worked well against Roddick and was good enough to get through Philippoussis does not mean it would definitely beat Rafa especially when in his WIM08 form. Rafa in form is a nightmare for Fed on just about any surface. Fed WIM03 would not be beating Rafa WIM08, even WIM07 Rafa would beat WIM03 Fed.

BTW, I like how you side stepped some of the other points, in case you missed them could you please:

- Post the serve stats from Federer in his AO09 SF against Roddick and also post the serve stats from Federer in his AO07 SF against Roddick.

- Explain the knee injection marks on Rafa's knee in WIM12 and explain WHY he'd have them if he wasn't injured.

- Explain how Rafa was better in WIM07 based on the stats I posted and also if you can, post the WIM08 Winners stats because I can't find them anywhere.

Thank you.