Povl Carstensen
Legend
And instead people are discussing who had the best second serve in the third round of some tourna, hillarious...
Is the notion of "Prime Federer" problematic?
- Thread starter Nadalgaenger
- Start date
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Profound.
.
Feather
Legend
Ok, I'll explain how it's a load of crap.
I've recently been training a couple of juniors. I often play matches against them and I'm still undefeated
That means my winning percentage is 100%, now does that mean I can beat Roger and Rafa? I mean look how good I am I can't be beat by these guys so that must mean I can beat anybody right?
Now do you see how stupid your point is? His winning percentage comes from beating guys not named Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic. If he had to deal with these 2 guys being the same age as him, he would have a LOT more trouble winning majors, he certainly wouldn't be going on his merry ways not to mention in your stupid analysis would he be winning the grandslam twice.
You got your own analysis wrong too btw. You said you would compare them at the equal age. Well in 2005 Nadal was 18 turning 19. That means you need to put Fed at 18 turning 19 in 2005, 19 -> 20 in 2006, 20 -> 21 in 2007. Therefore, no way he's getting WIM 07 pal. There's one wrong thing you got already.
In your hypothtical situation, it would go like this:
2005:
Rafa, Fed(2000 equivalent), Novak(2006 equivalent) 18 -> 19
Rafa >> RG , Fed >> 0 , Novak >> 0
Slam count: Rafa = 1, Fed = 0, Novak = 0
2006:
Rafa, Fed(2001) & Novak(2007) 19 -> 20
Rafa >> RG & WIM, Fed >> 0, Novak >> USO
Slam count: Rafa = 3, Fed = 0, Novak = 1
2007:
Rafa, Fed(2002) & Novak(2008) 20 -> 21
Rafa >> RG & WIM, Fed >> 0, Novak >> AO & USO
Slam count: Rafa = 5, Fed = 0, Novak = 3
2008:
Rafa, Fed(2003) & Novak(2009) 21 -> 22
Rafa >> RG & WIM, Fed >> 0, Novak >> USO
Slam count: Rafa = 7, Fed = 0, Novak = 4
2009:
Rafa, Fed(2004) & Novak(2010) 22 -> 23
Rafa >> AO, Fed >> WIM & USO, Novak >> 0
Slam count: Rafa = 8, Fed = 2, Novak = 4
2010:
Rafa, Fed(2005) & Novak(2011) 23 -> 24
Rafa >> RG & WIM, Fed >> USO, Novak >> AO
Slam count: Rafa =10, Fed = 3, Novak = 5
2011:
Rafa, Fed(2006) & Novak(2012) 24 -> 25
Rafa >> RG, Fed >> WIM & USO, Novak >> AO
Slam count: Rafa = 11, Fed = 5, Novak = 6
2012:
Rafa, Fed(2007) & Novak(2013) 25 -> 26
Rafa >> RG, Fed >> AO, WIM & USO, Novak >> 0 (We are yet to see his 2013 USO form though, but I highly doubt he'll have better WIM form than 07 Fed)
Slam count: Rafa = 12, Fed = 8, Novak = 6
OK? That's how it would pan out, you compare their equivalent form of those tournaments. The year win % has no bearing on it whatsoever.
Firstly, it's silly to respond to this hypothetic post based on subjectivity and biases.
However, if Roger and Rafa were born in the same year, it would have given Roger more RGs. Did you see how he played in RG 2011 when he was couple of months closer top 30? Do you honestly think that 30 year old Rafa or Novak can match Roger in that year?
Roger was really good in 2006. On clay too! When Roger was at his best on clay, Rafa was also at his best. If you incorporate the same age logic, then Roger will have great advantage against Rafa on clay after they both turn 26 or 27.
Maybe Roger end up with even more slams than he has now when they all are at same age, ypu never know. I, for once, don't see Rafa and Novak playing well after late 20s. Murray may play longer with better results.
Last edited:
Great post....he would probably end up with the same amount of slams if not more with majority of his slams coming after 25
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
LOL sorry I'm not buying what you're selling. I gave a detailed analysis and I'm not going to type the same thing over and over again.
His forced errors were equal, his winner rate was equal, but his UE rate was better in 08 as was his serving. There is nothing worse on Nadal's behalf in the 2008 final compared to 2007 apart from negligent differences that most likely would've dropped if the 07 final went another 90 points.
I already explained it. Fed had 18 more UE but had 24 more W and the forced errors were equal (well the negligent difference aside)
Extrapolate? LOL wtf do you think you're doing? You can't extrapolate anything there is NO WAY to tell how the match in 07 would've panned out had it gone 90 points longer, you're using data to determine a possiblility and then trying to use it to prove a point. LOL when a guy gets desperate to win an internet...
abmk
Bionic Poster
your so called detailed analysis is totally flawed ....
how was his winner rate about equal in both yet UE rate clearly better in 08 ? going by %s or per total no of points , his winner % rate was better in 2007 by just as much margin as his UE rate was lower in 2008 ....
at his rates in 2007, he'd have hit 4 more winners in 2007 and 4 more UEs in comparison to 2008 ....
that's why I put in plain numbers by extrapolation
his serving being better in 08 is already reflected in his forced error count ... which is why I said he was better from the ground in 07
lol, pray tell, how were his forced errors equal or the difference negligent ? it was more than 2% difference ( more than any other other parameters compared here ) ....... he'd have forced 9 more errors from rafa if he had kept up the rate that he did in 2007 in comparison to 2008 ...
I only did that because you couldn't get your head around on how to interpret %s ........
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Why respond then?
Let's just wait and see how well 30 year old Rafa and Novak play first shall we...
Ludicrous. Peak Fed couldn't beat teenage Nadal now he's going to beat 26 year old Nadal. Do tell me, how well did Federer do at RG when he was 26 and turning 27 (hint: that was 2008 :lol
Well you don't see, whoop dee doo. No, seriously that is solid evidence.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
You just don't understand do you? You don't get the rate by going 50/323 gives you = 15.4%. Of course the chances are it's going to look better in 07 than 08 because 08 went for 90 points more. What you do is (since you didn't bother to read what I wrote the first time), is you go 323/50 = 6.46 That's the amount of W Rafa hit in 2007 every 6-7 points. In 2008 he had 413/60 = 6.88, again a winner every 6-7 points. THAT'S how it was equal.
The UE rate goes 323/24 = an UE hit every 13-14 points (on average) for 2007. For 2008 its 413/27 = an UE every 15-16 points.
pray tell?
That 2% difference is skewed by the fact that 07 went 90 points shorter. I already explained how it was equal, not my fault you don't understand how to work out the rates and compare.
That's because you're doing it wrong. lol. You compare by calculating how often they were hitting W, UE and forced errors. I showed clearly he was forcing errors against Rafa in 07 on average every 4.25 points (again we'll call it every 4-5 points). In 08 it was every 4.69 points. Once again every 4-5 points.
Equal or negligent difference at best.
abmk
Bionic Poster
you miss a simple point here ........ the % of points involving winners and forced errors is quite a bit more than that of UEs .......
UE% in 2007 : 17.95%
FE% in 2007 : 46.44%
winners % in 2007 : 35.6%
UE% in 2008 : 19.1%
FE% in 2008 : 44.8%
winners% in 2008 : 36.1%
therefore the difference in rate per total no of points as far unforced errors, winners and forced errors are concerned do not have the same effect on the match .....
here's another clue :
---------------------------------------
going by the rate of UEs in 2007, rafa hit an unforced error every 13.46 points in wim 07 final... putting that to a total of 413 points, he gets yeah, that's right , 30.68 UEs ~31 .......duh !!!!!!!
7 more unforced errors in 90 more points .... to put it in another way ....
4 more UEs than in the actual 2008 final
---------------------------------------
going by the rate of errors forced by federer in 2007, he forced an error from rafa every 4.25 points, putting that to a total of 413 points, he gets yeah, 97 errors forced from rafa ( in contrast to the actual 88 that he did ) ........
21 more forced errors in 90 more points ....to put it in another way ...
9 more forced errors than in the actual 2008 final ....
---------------------------------------
here's a math clue : when you do a rate comparison -> no of points taken per "parameter", the lesser the no of points taken per "parameter", the more significant the difference in rate becomes ..........
the difference b/w a forced error per 4.25 points and that b/w a forced error per 4.69 points is most certainly not negligible .....
neither is the difference b/w a winner per 6.46 points and per 6.88 points ....
you do not round it up when you are talking of points taken per parameter ....
putting a generic example here, no "extrapolation" :
player A has an unforced error every 13 points, but forces an error every 4.5 points
player B has an unforced error every 15 points, but forces an error every 5 points ...
so you think the unforced error rate difference b/w the players is significant, but the forced error rate difference is negligible ? really ? LOL !
take a total of 360 points .....
player A has 28 unforced errors, forces 80 errors from B
player B has 24 unforced errors, forces 72 errors from A
and you say I am doing it wrong ?
zagor, Gorecki,
finally, a probable worthy successor to Professor Nadal_Freak, what do you say ?
The_Order,
finally, I'll put this again :
what makes you think that quality automatically decreases as the match becomes longer ?
if a player is off the charts on a parameter, then there is a very good chance that it will go down if the match is longer ... but that's it ...
not the case here
in this case, fed actually played better in the last 3 sets compared to the first 2 sets ....
taking another example, the fed-roddick final in 2009 didn't dip in quality in the final set ......though it went to 16-14 in the 5th
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
you miss a simple point here ........ the % of points involving winners and forced errors is quite a bit more than that of UEs .......
UE% in 2007 : 17.95%
FE% in 2007 : 46.44%
winners % in 2007 : 35.6%
UE% in 2008 : 19.1%
FE% in 2008 : 44.8%
winners% in 2008 : 36.1%
therefore the difference in rate per total no of points as far unforced errors, winners and forced errors are concerned do not have the same effect on the match .....
here's another clue :
---------------------------------------
going by the rate of UEs in 2007, rafa hit an unforced error every 13.46 points in wim 07 final... putting that to a total of 413 points, he gets yeah, that's right , 30.68 UEs ~31 .......duh !!!!!!!
7 more unforced errors in 90 more points .... to put it in another way ....
4 more UEs than in the actual 2008 final
---------------------------------------
going by the rate of errors forced by federer in 2007, he forced an error from rafa every 4.25 points, putting that to a total of 413 points, he gets yeah, 97 errors forced from rafa ( in contrast to the actual 88 that he did ) ........
21 more forced errors in 90 more points ....to put it in another way ...
9 more forced errors than in the actual 2008 final ....
---------------------------------------
here's a math clue : when you do a rate comparison -> no of points taken per "parameter", the lesser the no of points taken per "parameter", the more significant the difference in rate becomes ..........
the difference b/w a forced error per 4.25 points and that b/w a forced error per 4.69 points is most certainly not negligible .....
neither is the difference b/w a winner per 6.46 points and per 6.88 points ....
you do not round it up when you are talking of points taken per parameter ....
putting a generic example here, no "extrapolation" :
player A has an unforced error every 13 points, but forces an error every 4.5 points
player B has an unforced error every 15 points, but forces an error every 5 points ...
so you think the unforced error rate difference b/w the players is significant, but the forced error rate difference is negligible ? really ? LOL !
take a total of 360 points .....
player A has 28 unforced errors, forces 80 errors from B
player B has 24 unforced errors, forces 72 errors from A
and you say I am doing it wrong ?
zagor, Gorecki,
finally, a probable worthy successor to Professor Nadal_Freak, what do you say ?
The_Order,
finally, I'll put this again :
what makes you think that quality automatically decreases as the match becomes longer ?
if a player is off the charts on a parameter, then there is a very good chance that it will go down if the match is longer ... but that's it ...
not the case here
in this case, fed actually played better in the last 3 sets compared to the first 2 sets ....
taking another example, the fed-roddick final in 2009 didn't dip in quality in the final set ......though it went to 16-14 in the 5th
LOL, keep trying pal.
Here's the facts:
Federer 07 08:
W = 65 89 +24
UE = 34 52 -18
Therefore his additional UEs in 08 were cancelled out by his additional W in 08. In fact the W were higher than the UE by +6. This is a clear indication of one aspect of his game that was better.
The forced errors were 76 in 07 and 88 in 08. So, since 08 has 12 more forced errors over 90 more points, it's obvious Fed was forcing errors off Rafa at a higher rate in 07 than 08. BUT let's look into things a little deeper...
The percentage was every 4.25 points in 07 and in 08 it was every 4.69 points. You cannot play 0.ANYTHING amount of points. That's why I said 4-5 points because in reality that's what makes sense.
However, let's play your little game here, and let's give Fed the +6 he gained from his additional winners (afterall winning a point with a winner is not worse than winning a point with a forced error as they're both the same value). Now, that 88 becomes 94, which in turn makes it 413/94 = 4.39. Those additinoal 6 winners make up for the forced error difference.
Do you really want to tell me that that is not a negligent difference? Not to mention Rafa's cleaner game in 08 would have had a say in the amount of errors Fed could force just as it did with the UE.
Federer played at an equal level in both 07 & 08 finals... Deal with it, your lover boy got beat when he was just as good as the prior year (which is considered a peak year). The conclusion is in that final Fed was playing his peak level tennis and Rafa was still too good for him.
Furthermore, Fed's points won on return was 34% in 08 and 35% in 07. Again a percentage that is equal. In fact if Rafa had to serve 40-50 more points in 07 it's highly unlikely that Fed would have kept that 35%, not to mention Rafa was serving better in 08 so if anything Federer was returning better in 08.
I don't know why you mention zagor and gorecki though, both are known Fed lovers and will be biased towards him as well. But I'm not the one who needs to extrapolate and make **** up to suit my argument. I'm using the facts and the only way you have to argue against them is to make data up. Once again there is NO WAY to tell how the 07 match would've panned out had they played an additonal 90 points.
The facts are that the stats are very, very close and considering the additional drama the 08 final had that 07 didn't have, it's amazing they could keep playing at that level and keep those numbers up. FACT Fed played the same level in both finals, Rafa played better in 08, Rafa won 08 and lost 07 for that reason.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
ha ha, you still don't get the math ?
this is not %s where you can round off .... its rate ....
didn't I just show you that the difference b/w 4.5 points per forced error and 5 points per forced error over a course of 360 points is 8 forced errors ? that's not negligible .....
rounding it to 4-5 points per forced error is outright dumb
over a course of 360 points, forced error per 4 points gives you 90 forced errors , forced error per 5 points gives you 72 forced errors. a difference of 18 forced errors ......
ha ha ha ........you fail and fail big time at math
why should we just give him 6 ? going by the forced error rate , over the course of the wim 08 match, he should've had 9 more .....
the increase in fed's rate of UE in 2008 was very slightly more than his increase in winner rate in 08 ..... his forced error rate was distinctly better in 07 than in 08 ...
the +6 difference in W/UE ...now that is an instance where the match going on longer has had an impact ......
and again, its not a "game", that's why I gave a generic example leaving aside extrapolation, using same amount of points to show the effect of differences in rate ...
lol, again, with this longer match BS ........ explain how would fed's return % decrease automatically if the match went on longer ?
that wasn't for anything regarding fed/nadal ....... that's an inside joke .....and lol @ calling gorecki a known fed lover .... he dislikes fed ( only a bit lesser than he dislikes nadal )
nope, we don't know ....but going by the rate or %s, statistically, fed's performance was lower in 08, nadal's about even ....
and you still haven't explained why you think the match quality would decrease it went on as long as the wim 08 final did ....
or in general why it always decreases if the match is longer
we're not talking about an isner-mahut case here ....
fed's rate of winners+forced error slightly higher in 07, UE rate lower in 07, therefore better by a distinct, though not big margin in 07
rafa's difference in winner rate and unforced error rate in 07 and 08 balance out, forced error rate is as close as it gets...
again, statistically, rafa's level is as close as it gets, fed's is a bit below ..
You can't even get basic math right, LOL !!
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
ha ha, you still don't get the math ?
this is not %s where you can round off .... its rate ....
didn't I just show you that the difference b/w 4.5 points per forced error and 5 points per forced error over a course of 360 points is 8 forced errors ? that's not negligible .....
rounding it to 4-5 points per forced error is outright dumb
over a course of 360 points, forced error per 4 points gives you 90 forced errors , forced error per 5 points gives you 72 forced errors. a difference of 18 forced errors ......
ha ha ha ........you fail and fail big time at math
That's why I said every 4-5 points. You can't hit an error every 4.25 points, it's either every 4 or every 5. You're the one doing dumb things like making data up to back up your point because you know you're wrong lol.
LOL are you serious, I just explained in wimbledon 2007 Fed hit only 34 UE, in wim 08 he hit 52 that's an increase of 18 and they ccurred at a higher rate in 08 than 07 for Fed. HOWEVER, he hit 65 W in 07 and 89 in 08. That's an increase of 24, SIX MORE POINTS than the UE difference.
Now it's not my fault that you can't understand that those extra six points are winners which hold the same value as a forced error since either way you win the point, that's where the six comes from genius. Not my problem if you can't hack it.
Of course, because you're dividing by a number that is 90 points more than the other.
If you play one set, you win 30 points, the set goes for 50 you and hit 9W get 8UE and 13FE. Now, your "rate" of W = 18%, UE = 16% and FE = 26%.
Now let's say you go the second set, to keep that exact rate up is highly unlikely. Let's say the second set goes for 65 points. You win 35, 10W, 10UE & 15 FE. The rate now becomes:
(10+9) / (50+65) = 16.5% >> 1.5% drop in rate despite hitting one more winner.
(10+8 ) / (50+65) = 15.6% >> 0.4% drop despite getting 2 more UE off opponent.
(15+13) / (50+65) = 24.3% >> 1.7% decrease despite getting 2 more FE.
Can your brain understand now that the length of matches affect the results? In the example, you hit 1 more W, get 2 more UE and force 2 more errors from opponent when compared to the first set, yet the rate is dropping. Why? Because 15 extra points were played. The players don't play at the same rate for the whole match. If your opponent raises his game and wins more points, extending the set how is that your fault or an indication that you're not playing just as well? This is what happened in WIM08, Rafa raised his level which is why the match was longer. That is no indication that Fed's level dropped. If the second set went for 50 points also, then the rate would be higher, but in our case, the 08 WIM final went for 90 points longer which means they played at the high level for longer and very slight dips in percentages is what one would expect.
LOL oh and why is that, because it works against Federer? LOL you're hilarious. You can't accept that Fed was playing more aggressive game in 08 and it yielded an additional 6 points.
It has very little to do with the length of the match btw. We are looking at 2008 stats and comparing to 2007, he hit 18 more UE, but 24 more winners. This is the same match we're takling about here how does the length affect that? LOL, if you want to go by rates, then Fed would continue to hit more W than UE in 08 and the distance would be more than 6 points lol.
Because Rafa served better in WIM08 duh. Fed's return was only 1% lower despite facing 51 more higher quality serves from Rafa in 08 compared to 07.
I haven't ever seen one positive Gorecki post re Nadal...
I have explained how longer match affects the result already in this post. I shouldn't need to though, if you had common sense you would know that when you are dividing by 90 more and the increases in the W and UE are up by 20 or so of course the rates are going to be lower.
And you can't go by a rate in 07 at all, first that assumes that both players would keep that rate if the match went for an extra 90 points. I've already showed why that is highly unlikely.
Well, I've already showed how much fail you have at understanding how to analyse tennis matches, it's you who doesn't understand basic math and that when you divide by significantly bigger numbers (90 more) than it is highly unlikely to keep going at the same or better rate.
Plus you fail to understand the amount of pressure and tension the players had in the 08 final compared to 07, yet despite that they still somehow managed to keep the numbers incredibly close in most categories.
I'm telling you, stop embarrassing yourself. Fed played equally as well in both finals and Rafa was better in 08.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
how on earth can't a player hit an error every not rounded no of points ?
for example, ......... he hits 10 errors out of 45 points .........an error every 4.5 points, isn't that a perfectly realistic scenario ?
how much more of a fool do you want to make of yourself ? :lol:
again, winners wise, fed was better in 08, but the difference in his unforced error rate the other way around was more ...
therefore (W-UE) rate was better in 07
and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that once you are well into the positive, as the match goes on longer, the W-UE differential increases if the rate is the same .......... see the wimbledon 09 final for another example ....
same for when you are well in the negative , see the AO 2012 final for example, djoker was -12 in W/UE, nadal was -27
nope, rafa was playing well and backing up his serve just as well in 2007 as he did in 2008 ; he was playing better from the ground ....
while rafa saved some of the BPs in 2008 with very good play, federer blew some of them with bad returning ...
jeez, learn to read .... I said "he dislikes fed ( only a bit lesser than he dislikes nadal )" ...... read it slowly ....
in case you still didn't get it, he doesn't like federer ....he doesn't like nadal either ...
no, they don't clueless ..... you've just avoided the question .. I'm not talking about the absolute numbers here, I'm talking about %s or rates ...how is it given that it decreases as the match goes on longer ... I already gave two examples to contradict , fed's performance in the last 3 sets was better than his performance in the first 2 sets in 08 final ... the quality did not drop in the 5th set of the wimbledon 09 final though it went to 16-14 in the 5th ....
again, LOL, you fail so hard at basic math that it is getting ridiculously funny now......take it %wise or rate wise, statistically, there is nothing to chose b/w nadal's performance in both the finals, fed's was better in 2007
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
lol, ha ha, you have a wonderful way of shooting yourself in the foot ......
look at your total points as well ...30 out of 50 points in the first case
35 points out of 65 points in the 2nd case
so only 5 more points out of the "next"/"extra" 15 ? that's supposed to be an improvement statistically ?????
category wise,
only one more winner in 15 more points ?
in the first part, you have 9 winners out of 50 points , in the 2nd part, you have 10 winners out of 65 points
so isn't only 1 more winner in 15 more points an actual decrease in rate/quality ? LOL !
unforced error % difference in your case is not significant enough ..
forced error rate, take the rate of the 2nd case itself, slower rate, 15 FE out of 65 points, that is a forced error every 4.33 points
so over 15 "extra" points, wouldn't you expect him to have a gap of more than 2 forced errors , it should be 15/4.33 ........ ~3.46
and that is at the slower rate, not the faster one ....
LOL, ha ha ha ha ha
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
never thought it was a crime to have an opinion about the most suspicious tennis player of all times
but anyway, i have been rather absent but i guess people miss me a lot!!!!
forzamilan90
Legend
Ooof good thing I stay out of this thread, I'd lose my mind
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Discussions between ABMK and The Order:
They certainly love battling with each other. It sometimes needs the following music playing in the background, because the fight is pretty much already there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbAhkNctkiE
The rounds represent the pages.
Last edited by a moderator:
IgnatusP
Banned
Of course Federer has dropped. You only have to watch his matches to realize that.
Nadal has also dropped, whereas Djokovic has improved quite a bit. That's why Djokovic killed the field in 2011. In 2012 his level went down quite a bit, but it's still better than what it was before 2011.
Nadal has also dropped, whereas Djokovic has improved quite a bit. That's why Djokovic killed the field in 2011. In 2012 his level went down quite a bit, but it's still better than what it was before 2011.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
lol, ha ha, you have a wonderful way of shooting yourself in the foot ......
look at your total points as well ...30 out of 50 points in the first case
35 points out of 65 points in the 2nd case
so only 5 more points out of the "next"/"extra" 15 ? that's supposed to be an improvement statistically ?????
category wise,
only one more winner in 15 more points ?
in the first part, you have 9 winners out of 50 points , in the 2nd part, you have 10 winners out of 65 points
so isn't only 1 more winner in 15 more points an actual decrease in rate/quality ? LOL !
unforced error % difference in your case is not significant enough ..
forced error rate, take the rate of the 2nd case itself, slower rate, 15 FE out of 65 points, that is a forced error every 4.33 points
so over 15 "extra" points, wouldn't you expect him to have a gap of more than 2 forced errors , it should be 15/4.33 ........ ~3.46
and that is at the slower rate, not the faster one ....
LOL, ha ha ha ha ha
Umm, you seem to be forgetting that there's another player on the other side of the net who may have picked up his game and you know, actually started playing better, which in turn caused him to win more points and hence extend the set duration compared to the previous set.
I know it's hard for you to fathom, but it proves my point perfectly that Nadal played BETTER in WIM08 and hence there were more points played because Fed was clearly playing just as good. Because of these extra points, the rates were HARDER to keep up. The fact that they're still very close goes to show that there was NO quality drop in the WIM08 final.
I'm tired of going around in circles with you, it was fun for a while but now it's just tedious. You have no understanding of reality, you seem to think that because the rates were slightly higher in 07 that automatically means they were playing better which is rubbish because the rate is affected by the amount of points played as I have clearly pointed out.
You seem to think a player can hit an error every 4.whatever points when in reality and for the last time, it is IMPOSSIBLE to play 0.anything of a point. The distribution is what changes for example:
4/1/4/1/4/1/5/1/4/1/5/1/4/1/5/1 = 8 FE / 35 points played = (on average) 4.38
5/1/4/1/5/1/4/1/5/1/5/1/4/1/5/1 = 8 FE / 37 points played = (on average)
4.63
So regardless of the distribution difference, it's still a FE every 4-5 points.
In my small example, it is a 0.25 difference and it is therefore NEGLIGENT. I added the 6 additional winners to the FE stat that Fed got in 08 and the difference was 4.39 - 4.25 = 0.14 difference. LOL. By not adding the additional 6 winners to Fed's FE stat what you are saying is that Fed did worse by hitting more winners instead of FE which is ludicrous. So if Nadal had got his racquet onto those extra 6 winners and hit them in the net, Fed would have 94 FE in WIM 08 and the W (now +18 over 2007 instead of +24) and UE (+18 from 2007) differences still would've been cancelled out.
So, I know you will no doubt respond with some bull crap, but that 0.14 difference is over an additional 90 points and coupled with the FACT that Nadal played better in WIM08, it's obvious that Fed's level was just as good as the previous year. You have no real counter argument here, it's just the same crap over and over and over, trying desperately to prove your idol "declined" in his level from 07 final to 08 final to try and discredit Nadal from doing what your ballerina was NEVER able to do and that's beat his main rival at his best major.
Nadal declined significantly in his 2011 RG form compared to 2010, yet your idol still could only barely manage a set
In Rome 2006, your idol boy was at the absolute pinnacle of his powers, played (imo) his highest clay court level of tennis and Rafa was not playing his best yet he STILL won. Despite only being a teen...
You have to face the fact that Nadal OWNS Federer. That's why he beat him at Wimbledon, he raised his game to a level that your boy couldn't overcome despite playing just as well as he was in his peak year 2007.
You make a stupid point saying that we would all claim weak era last from 04-08 if Fed had won the final. Like as if you wouldn't change your station re Fed's peak years from 04-06 if Nadal had knocked him off in 07 final...
2006 was the WORST year in terms of competition. Hewitt and Roddick's level dropped, Nadal's level dropped and he wasn't at AO06, there was no Novak or Murray to deal with yet, Agassi was a dead man walking, Safin was injured and we saw legends like Ivan Ljubicic and James Blake climb to #3 and #4 in the world DESPITE their **** showings at the slams. (Well Ivan did ok I guess QF in AO and SF in RG but didn't win any Masters and was hopeless at WIM and USO yet still finished ranked so high).
You make stupid comparisons to the AO12 final and WIM09 final. Those are matches against different opponents, that changes the WHOLE dynamic.
And before you quite clearly said Rafa served better in WIM08, now you say he was backing up his serve just as well in both matches.
Face it, you've had to make stats up by extrapolating and you've had to change your tune. What's the matter, desperately trying to prove something? All I've done is use the stats which you kindly posted, I haven't made crap up or changed my tune on anything.
My original verdict was Rafa played better and Fed played just as well. Despite your desperate and overly defensive posts, my verdict remains unchanged, and it will forever remain so, because the stats will never change.
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
I live for the day when The_Order and Ambk will shake hands and say "We can agree to disagree."
DragonBlaze
Hall of Fame
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Obvious troll is obvious, no?
I think the notion of prime anyone is problematic. Fans always remember those matches where their favourite played their absolute best, were totally in the zone, with perfect timing and reading their opponent and the court with ease, which probably coincides with it being a top opponent, but one who was slightly sluggish for whatever reason.
When it comes to their rivals, they might remember their good matches, but they have a habit of making excuses for why their opponent didn't play well instead of giving credit for impressive play.
When it comes to their rivals, they might remember their good matches, but they have a habit of making excuses for why their opponent didn't play well instead of giving credit for impressive play.
IgnatusP
Banned
All I know is that anyone who claims Federer hasn't declined must get his noggin checked. Fed is about 60% of prime Fed now. It's amazing he's doing as well as he is, but when you start with an incredible level, 60% of that is still pretty good.
Nadal right now is about 85% of prime Nadal. And Djokovic is probably around 80-85% of prime Djokovic at the moment.
Nadal right now is about 85% of prime Nadal. And Djokovic is probably around 80-85% of prime Djokovic at the moment.
NatF
Bionic Poster
IgnatusP
Banned
I thought about mentioning that, but I didn't feel in a cruel mood.And poor old Murray in #3 is probably at 100%
But he had an amazing season last year, nonetheless. I think he will win more slams at some point.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
That will never happen. It is basically a game of dumb and dumber, the same thing as the never ending arguments between TMF and kiki.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
You mean TMF and yourself...
abmk
Bionic Poster
eh no, you can't seem to fathom the reality that federer was better in wimbledon 2007 and rafa was about the same statistically in both wimbledons
you can't fathom that both the 6-2 sets in the wim 07 final were much closer than the scorelines suggests.
the quality of wim 07 was pretty good throughout whereas it picked up only from 2 and half sets in wim 08 .......
there was more drama in Wim 08, but the quality was better in 07 ....
expand that to 300-400 points, on an absolute level the difference becomes magnified ...
You have no real counter argument here, it's just the same crap over and over and over, trying desperately to prove your idol "declined" in his level from 07 final to 08 final to try and discredit Nadal from doing what your ballerina was NEVER able to do and that's beat his main rival at his best major.
Nadal declined significantly in his 2011 RG form compared to 2010, yet your idol still could only barely manage a set
In Rome 2006, your idol boy was at the absolute pinnacle of his powers, played (imo) his highest clay court level of tennis and Rafa was not playing his best yet he STILL won. Despite only being a teen...
You have to face the fact that Nadal OWNS Federer. That's why he beat him at Wimbledon, he raised his game to a level that your boy couldn't overcome despite playing just as well as he was in his peak year 2007.
nope, I've always given nadal credit for winning wimbledon over federer. That was a massive achievement. Just that federer wasn't playing as well as he did in 2007 ........
My POV is that the weakness in federer's resume is that he didn't get one CC win over rafa @ RG ( 2005,06,07,11 ) and one more in CC masters ( rome 2006 or even hamburg 2008 ) ; and maybe one of wim 08 or AO 2009, that's it ...
It would be stupid to expect him to lead the h2h vs rafa overall when half their matches have been on clay and they didn't meet that much on HC at fed's prime ....
nope, because fed would still have done pretty well in all the 4 slams ..his best ever AO , very well at RG, wimbledon and USO ....
OTOH, if fed had won wim 08, it would've completely messed up the federer haters .....
nadal's level dropped from what exactly ?
he played better in 2006 CC season and much better in 2006 grass court season ....
roddick's form wasn't good in the first half, but he was good in the 2nd half. nalbandian and davydenko were also playing well ....
2010 wasn't that much better really .... nadal dominant ; federer, djokovic and murray AWOL for large parts, soderling no better than in 2009 ...delpo gone missing after a fine 2009 ...
I wasn't making a direct comparison b/w the 2 matches, clueless. I was using them as examples to say that the W/UE differential expands in the + or - direction as the length of the match progresses depending on how extremity of the surface - fast or slow ..But then you are too dense to get that ...
yes, rafa served better in wimbledon 2008, but backed up his serve just as well in wimbledon 2007
how difficult is it to make the distinction ? :roll:
sampras served better in USO 2001 QF, but agassi backed up his serve just as well as sampras did... the difference in the serving of nadal in wim 07 and wim 08 isn't as drastic as the serves of sampras/agassi, but the point stands
of course you haven't, you remain as clueless as ever ... I only extrapolated to show the difference, because you have near zero clue of how %s or rates work ...........
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
again, you fail to realise that on a grass court, with two good quality players, the W/UE differential increases as the length of the match increases ...... LOL, major fail, as usual .........
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
well, its just fun when he makes statements like :
there is no significant difference b/w 4 points per forced error and 4.5 points per forced error. For a match of length say 360 points , the difference is a whole 10 points .........
but there is a significant difference b/w 13 points per forced error and 15 points per forced error. For a match of length say 360 points, the difference is ~ 4 points.
what else can I say ?
Last edited:
Because it's natural, logical. Most athletes in and out of Tennis peaked during the age Federer peaked. Not everyone could sustain their prime health the way Novak has been able to largely.
Fed started losing to the same players he'd beat probably in the middle of a drug bender post-2007. Hell even in 2007.
Some amount of burnout was in play too. Ask Borg.
Backerer wasn't nearly the same player as Peakerer though he was a brilliant, brilliant player still til 2019.
Fed started losing to the same players he'd beat probably in the middle of a drug bender post-2007. Hell even in 2007.
Some amount of burnout was in play too. Ask Borg.
Backerer wasn't nearly the same player as Peakerer though he was a brilliant, brilliant player still til 2019.
Oh it's definitely his problem. There's no way to quantify the percentage drop but he was never the same after 2013. The period he mugged around slamless is what killed the race for him.
By the time he found a second-wind, it was too little too late in the grand scheme of things.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
There are ways to gauge % drops
Nothing of the empirical, peer-reviewed kind. Just selective numbers from one group vs another hoping to explain away each group's pretty biased takes.
Federer wasn't quite what Djokovic of mid-30s is, but he was still a terrific player with a bad back in some years, and busted knees in the other years. When he was fit and raring to go, only peak Novak could reliably take home down after 2014. Good stuff. Even if diminished, I'm glad that he stuck around for as long as he did. He added meaning to Djokovic's Wimbledon tally.
Similar threads
