Since RG05 Federer lost only to the new gen

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Since RG 05 Federer lost Slams only to players who were at least 3 years younger than him, no loss to players of his gen or the previous, that he used to beat in his supposed peak.

Nadal (86) x 9
Djokovic (87) x 9
Del Potro (88) x 2
Berdych (85) x 2
Tsonga (85) x 2
Soderling (84)
Murray (87)
Stahovksy (86)
Gulbis (88)
Cilic (88)
Seppi (84)
Wawrinka (85)
Raonic (90)
Anderson (86)
Millman (89)
Tsitsipas (98)

Only excepetion is Robredo (82) UO13, in the worst moment of his career.

On average he lost to players who were 5.7 years younger than him.

What does it tell us?

I think there is a reason if in 2015 he said "I'm playing my best tennis but I had to adapt to a new generation".
 
Last edited:

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
It tells us he had tough competition in his career.

As opposed to Djokovic who has 0 competition from future gens, and who’s main opponent in one of his peak years was 33 year old Fed who lacked any baseline weapons :laughing:

2015 doesn’t even crack Fed’s top 10 forms. 03,04,05,06,07,08,09,10,11,12,17 all better.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
It tells us he had tough competition in his career.

As opposed to Djokovic who has 0 competition from future gens, and who’s main opponent in one of his peak years was 33 year old Fed who lacked any baseline weapons :laughing:

2015 doesn’t even crack Fed’s top 10 forms. 03,04,05,06,07,08,09,10,11,12,17 all better.
Or maybe his gen sucked and was easily overcome by the new gen, which is still dominating 10 years later.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Or maybe his gen sucked and was easily overcome by the new gen, which is still dominating 10 years later.
Yes, tell us about how Seppi and Millman are still dominating. Tell us about Berdych and Tsonga's domination as well.

At his peak (2004-2007), he lost to Safin, Kuerten and Nadal x 3. So 2 older and one younger GOAT candidate, at his best slam. Then during the rest of his prime, he lost to Nadal × 3, Djokovic and Del Potro. 2 GOAT candidates, one bizarre loss to a next gen player in fantastic form. Nothing at all surprising there.

This has nothing to do with Fed's generation being poor and everything to do with Nadal being so strong. And the lack of losses after his prime to the previous generation is obvious. They were OLD. Why should they beat him?

The fact that you prop up Fed's 2015 season as his best shows your agenda. From 2014-17, he lost to Nadal, Gulbis, Djokovic x 4, Cilic, Seppi, Wawrinka, Raonic and Del Potro. And that's with missing 3 slams. As opposed to Safin, Kuerten and Nadal x 3 in his real peak.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Yes, tell us about how Seppi and Millman are still dominating. Tell us about Berdych and Tsonga's domination as well.

At his peak (2004-2007), he lost to Safin, Kuerten and Nadal x 3. So 2 older and one younger GOAT candidate, at his best slam. Then during the rest of his prime, he lost to Nadal × 3, Djokovic and Del Potro. 2 GOAT candidates, one bizarre loss to a next gen player in fantastic form. Nothing at all surprising there.

This has nothing to do with Fed's generation being poor and everything to do with Nadal being so strong. And the lack of losses after his prime to the previous generation is obvious. They were OLD. Why should they beat him?

The fact that you prop up Fed's 2015 season as his best shows your agenda. From 2014-17, he lost to Nadal, Gulbis, Djokovic x 4, Cilic, Seppi, Wawrinka, Raonic and Del Potro. And that's with missing 3 slams. As opposed to Safin, Kuerten and Nadal x 3 in his real peak.
If the whole gen is better, you struggle in all rounds a bit more, which leads to upsets.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
If that was true "his gen" wouldn't have wins against the so much better "next gen" after 2005.

Can you provide the stats for that for me?

Thanks.

:cool:
Slam winning percentage VS older / VS younger:

Federer 88.15 / 85.1
Hewitt 76.2 / 63.55
Roddick 77.3 / 68.4
Safin 78.2 / 61.8
Ferrero 75.3 / 60.3
Nalbandian 74 / 64.4
Davydenko 72.9 / 53.4
Gonzalez 72.7 / 60
Coria 70 / 50
Haas 69 / 61.3
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
If the whole gen is better, you struggle in all rounds a bit more, which leads to upsets.
That's pretty contrived, even for you. He lost to Seppi because of how strong Lu and Bolleli were? And to Gulbis because of Lacko and Tursunov? Give me a break
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
That's pretty contrived, even for you. He lost to Seppi because of how strong Lu and Bolleli were? And to Gulbis because of Lacko and Tursunov? Give me a break
Big3 were pushed to 5th set by mediocre players tons of times. If their opponents were just a bit better, they would have lost.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Slam winning percentage VS older / VS younger:

Federer 88.15 / 85.1
Hewitt 76.2 / 63.55
Roddick 77.3 / 68.4
Safin 78.2 / 61.8
Ferrero 75.3 / 60.3
Nalbandian 74 / 64.4
Davydenko 72.9 / 53.4
Gonzalez 72.7 / 60
Coria 70 / 50
Haas 69 / 61.3
"Wins of his gen" vs "the next gen" =/= than "Slam winning percentage VS older/ VS younger"

Try again, and this time answer the question that I ask, not the one you would like to ask.

:cool:
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
"Wins of his gen" vs "the next gen" =/= than "Slam winning percentage VS older/ VS younger"

Try again, and this time answer the question that I ask, not the one you would like to ask.

:cool:
We were talking about results against new gen. Younger players are a new gen.

I can't be more precise than this, I'm sorry.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Big3 were pushed to 5th set by mediocre players tons of times. If their opponents were just a bit better, they would have lost.
In all of Fed's peak (2004-2007), he was pushed to 5 by a 'mediocre' player once, by Haas at AO 06. The only other 5 are matches were to Agassi and Nadal, ATGs.

So no, Fed wasn't close to upset 'tons of times at his peak. Bear in mind that in many of old Fed's upsets, he didn't even manage to win 2 sets anyway
 
Last edited:

Lew II

Hall of Fame
In all of Fed's peak (2004-2007), he was pushed to 5 by a 'mediocre' player once, by Haas at AO 06. The only other 5 are matches were to Agassi and Nadal, ATGs.

So no, Fed wasn't close to upset 'tons of times at his peak. Bear in mind that in many of old Fed's upsets, he didn't even manage to win 2 sets anyway
Whatever. Tennis isn't mathematics. It's not like you lose no set when you're peak, 1 set when you're prime, 2 sets when you're out of form, 3 sets when you're old...

A better field can create more upsets. It's hard to play good 28 matches a year.

By the way until WI18 he lost only to players who have been top5, except for WI13, RG14, AO15.
 
Last edited:

canta_Brian

Rookie
Whatever. Tennis isn't mathematics. It's not like you lose no set when you're peak, 1 set when you're prime, 2 sets when you're out of form, 3 sets when you're old...

A better field can create more upsets. It's hard to play good 28 matches a year.

By the way until WI18 he lost only to players who have been top5, except for WI13, RG14, AO15.
Neither is statistics when you are involved.
 

Jonas78

Legend
Since RG 05 Federer lost Slams only to players who were at least 3 years younger than him, no loss to players of his gen or the previous, that he used to beat in his supposed peak.

Nadal (86) x 9
Djokovic (87) x 9
Del Potro (88) x 2
Berdych (85) x 2
Tsonga (85) x 2
Soderling (84)
Murray (87)
Stahovksy (86)
Gulbis (88)
Cilic (88)
Seppi (84)
Wawrinka (85)
Raonic (90)
Anderson (86)
Millman (89)
Tsitsipas (98)

Only excepetion is Robredo (82) UO13, in the worst moment of his career.

On average he lost to players who were 5.7 years younger than him.

What does it tell us?

I think there is a reason if in 2015 he said "I'm playing my best tennis but I had to adapt to a new generation".
Well he practically didnt lose to anyone outside Nadal before FO2010 (except one loss to AO08 champion Djokovic and USO09 champion Delpo). Until FO2010 he only lost to the upcoming champions.

From 2010 and on he was 29y old, and its pretty much expected that the main rivals of a 29y-38y old are younger than him. The right question is why the biggest rivals of a soon-to-be 32y old Djokovic are still older than him?

In other words, i dont quite see your point here.
 
Last edited:

George Turner

Hall of Fame
This thread shows how Federer has.had the toughest competition, demolishing his own generation then competing against ATGs five or six years younger than him.

Djokodal have had zero competition from younger players. The generation five/six years younger than them (thiem, pcb, that's about it) is even worse than the lost gen. There's barely any players of that age bracket ranked in the top 50.

The next gen are not good enough yet to challenge them either, we can't call Tsitsipas elite competition when he's still losing to players like Dzumhur.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Whatever. Tennis isn't mathematics. It's not like you lose no set when you're peak, 1 set when you're prime, 2 sets when you're out of form, 3 sets when you're old...

A better field can create more upsets. It's hard to play good 28 matches a year.

By the way until WI18 he lost only to players who have been top5, except for WI13, RG14, AO15.
Could've fooled me. The only contributions you seem to make to the discussion here are stats, a form of mathematics. It's reasonable to say you lose fewer matches when you're playing better. Federer lost way fewer matches during his actual peak compared to his fabricated peak (2015-16) which is only really held to be his peak by some Djokodal fans.

Your original conclusion has been shown to be flawed. But even if it were true, it's irrelevant to Fed's competition given he's been playing younger generations at slam level since 2005, i.e. for nearly 14 years. So it's not like he's had a free ride
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
This thread shows how Federer has.had the toughest competition, demolishing his own generation then competing against ATGs five or six years younger than him.

Djokodal have had zero competition from younger players. The generation five/six years younger than them (thiem, pcb, that's about it) is even worse than the lost gen. There's barely any players of that age bracket ranked in the top 50.

The next gen are not good enough yet to challenge them either, we can't call Tsitsipas elite competition when he's still losing to players like Dzumhur.
6+ slam finalists by birth year:

1972-80 none
1981 Federer 30
1982-85 none
1986 Nadal 25
1987 Djokovic 24, Murray 11
1988-1995 none?

Both the previous and the following gens didn't produce ATGs, but Federer's gen was weaker than Nadal/Djokovic's gen. The third best of 1986-87 reached more slam finals than 1972-85's second and third best combined.
 
Last edited:

Jonas78

Legend
6+ slam finalists by birth year:

1972-80 none
1981 Federer
1982-85 none
1986 Nadal
1987 Djokovic , Murray
1988-1995 none?

Both the previous and the following gens didn't produce ATGs, but Federer's gen was weaker than Nadal/Djokovic's gen.
And if it was, so what?
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
It tells us that Federer decimated his own generation, and only lost to the very best of the next generation - until he grew so old that he could lose to anyone.
It proves his generation was worse than djokodal. It also says that he is a worse player than Djokodal. They arent that much younger.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Since RG 05 Federer lost Slams only to players who were at least 3 years younger than him, no loss to players of his gen or the previous, that he used to beat in his supposed peak.

Nadal (86) x 9
Djokovic (87) x 9
Del Potro (88) x 2
Berdych (85) x 2
Tsonga (85) x 2
Soderling (84)
Murray (87)
Stahovksy (86)
Gulbis (88)
Cilic (88)
Seppi (84)
Wawrinka (85)
Raonic (90)
Anderson (86)
Millman (89)
Tsitsipas (98)

Only excepetion is Robredo (82) UO13, in the worst moment of his career.

On average he lost to players who were 5.7 years younger than him.

What does it tell us?

I think there is a reason if in 2015 he said "I'm playing my best tennis but I had to adapt to a new generation".
It tells us four things:
  1. Tennis continues to evolve.
  2. As ATGs age, their greatest challenge should come from younger players because in the past a tennis player's peak was around age 24. Tennis in 2005 was becoming more and more competitive, but only at the top, which is why a few players have almost all the titles. The rot we see right now was already starting.
  3. When aging players are not being challenged by younger players, something is really wrong with tennis.
  4. Djokovic is not being challenged at an age when he should be challenged because there is a vacuum currently below the very top. We have not seen anything like it since Laver and Rosewall burst on the scene in 1968.
 
Top