Why should 2014-17 Federer be less prime than 2007-10 Djokovic?
Fed is basically punished by Lew for longevity and consistency.
In nole’s “best year ever” he lost 3 times to old Fed, once to karlovic, once to Murray and once to Wawrinka.
The point being Nole didn’t have any worthy rivals in 2015
old Fed, washed up Nadal, pigeon Murray. All Roddick, Hewitt, old Agassi level guys.The point being Nole didn’t have any worthy rivals in 2015
At least Fed had a prime ATG on one surface
I totally disagree, but that's beside the point. The thread is about their h2h and clearly the younger two have an advantage. Tell me, why is it that you can say weak era and I cant? Federer was old and Nadal was past his best after 2013. Murray couldn't really do anything with Djokovic and Wawrinka was practically created by him.
Federer led the H2h on HC through 2012. Nadal avoided him at his peak on HC and everyone knows that. Nadal stole some easy wins in 2013 during Fed's worst year on tour. Fed ultimately gained the advantage again in the h2h over the last few meetings. Nice cherry picking with outdoor HC btw. Again, I said he had a match up problem with Nadal anyways. Also half the matches they played were on clay during Fed's peak. Another fact you are ignoring like most of you do.
Federer led the h2h with Djokovic until 2015. He's simply a victim of his own success and longetivy. How everyone ignores age is insane. You won't if another ATG suddenly emerges. Doesn't look like that will be a problem though does it?
Was it 8-2 before 2017?
3 of Nadal's wins on clay, one against Fed with a wobbly ankle and the one loss to Murray when Federer was dead tired. And 170 thousand to 0 against the field.
Funny how some of you are trying to find all other explanations than age for when players win slams, when age is clearly the most convincing stat. This is a textbook example of a normal distribution:
Now lets see if Big4 are exceptions:
Federer won 75% of his slams 2004-2010 (age23-29)
Djokovic won 73% of his slams 2011-2016 (age24-29)
Nadal won 65% of his slams 2008-1014 (age22-28). Let me also add that outside this years Nadal won just as many slams before 22y as after 28y.
Murray won all his slams in his 20s.
If varying competition was/is the relevant factor, and age is irrelevant, we shouldnt see a normal distribution for slams won/age.
Why? We are talking about when players win slams or reach slam finals, and the numbers sinse 1968 are pretty large. And as i just showed, Big4 are no exception.
Each player doesnt peak at the exact same year, and of course there are differences in level of competition. Thats why you need large numbers to even out the confounding factors. I think Big4 fits pretty well into the normal distribution.
Federer prime years: 6 Wimbledon titles 5 USO 4 AO 1 RG
Its you guys who refuse to consider age as a relevant factor when the proof is overwhelming, that have an unscientific approach.
2015-2018 says hi.
Yeah it would be the first time in the history of the forum that a thread stays exactly on topic
If only it was that simple Lew
I dont see the point. All these threads are about the exact same thing; desperately trying to disprove that age is relevant, when the numbers convincingly show that it is in fact very relevant.
I have a feeling it's by choiceWhat do you mean?
It IS "simple Lew".
Was it 8-2 before 2017?
Great post. Shame Nadal couldn’t return the favour and meet Fed at Wimbledon but then Cincy, USO, Madrid indoors.
So Djokovic needs 2 Slams in the next 3.5 years to equal the Fed's Slam/Age ratio for the first time in his career.
