Since RG05 Federer lost only to the new gen

Go to the link which @Zhilady referred to. You'll see a breakdown for every decade. Trend seems to go on until 10s.
It shows there were more finalists in 2010s decade after the age of 27 than 26 and younger which confirms what I have been saying. This era is different from other eras and players are playing longer and at a great level in advanced age. To say someone has severely physically declined at 26 just doesn't add up.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
Or maybe his gen sucked and was easily overcome by the new gen, which is still dominating 10 years later.
New gens overcoming current gens happens in all generations.

Well, all but one (which is still dominating 10 years later).
 

Zhilady

Professional
It shows there were more finalists in 2010s decade after the age of 27 than 26 and younger which confirms what I have been saying. This era is different from other eras and players are playing longer and at a great level in advanced age. To say someone has severely physically declined at 26 just doesn't add up.
Major finals at 25 = 14
Major finals at 26 = 8
Major finals at 27 = 9

There is a decline from 25 to 26/27.

Either way, we're talking about Federer's decline in 2008, which was in the 2000s. Let's look at the data for that decade, which is more relevant than the data from this decade.

In the 2000s:
Major finals at 22: 12
Major finals at 23: 12
Major finals at 24: 12
Major finals at 25: 9
Major finals at 26: 12
Major finals at 27: 7
Major finals at 28: 4

Federer was 26 in 2007 and declined in 2008, the year he turned 27. And as you can see from the data from the 2000s, there is a decline from 26 to 27. Case closed. Jojojojo! :-D
 
You should also show how Djokaristas pull things out of their rear ends, like you are, when facts and stats prove them wrong.

Decline does not equal death. 8 Slams in 11 years is a decline compared to 11 Slams in 4 years. This should be understandable enough for even a kindergartener like you. Jojo. :-D
Your stats proved my point. See the next post.

Yea he won 11 grand slam in 4 years over a joke of a field with players who were mostly pushovers. Take away Nadal and Djoker and he would have ran the tables in that era too. He would have easily won 3 Slams in both 2008 and 2009, but you live in the Federista bubble.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
You're reasonable and seem nice so I won't bother you. You make valid points but yea Lendl maintained his advantage over everyone except Edberg I think.
I may not be making the point I want to make. Djokovic is without any doubt one of the greatest players we've ever seen. I'm not debating that. But because of the nature of present competition he's not facing anyone dangerous at this time who is on the level I believe he was on at his peak. I don't believe he is as good as he was when he was absolutely on top. You may disagree. But because of the nature of competition right now, there is no one who can stop him other than Nadal on clay, if Nadal stays healthy and gets more movement back. I'm not knocking Novak in any way. I'm just saying that right now he has no competition from younger players. I'm saying he is taking advantage of current weak competition.

I think Fed did the same thing in 2017. It's not normal for someone his age to do what he did. Everything is currently out of balance.

I'm not super familiar with Lendl and his competition as he got older. But it seems to me, just by looking at the Edberg/Lendl H2H, that the match-up swung in favor of Edberg when Lendl hit his very late 20s and early 30s. What I'm trying to say is that Novak has no one like that to challenge him. There is no one 6 years younger who in any way fits the mold of an ATG. This is what we don't know yet. Are there any young players now who will grow into that? Are players going to continue winning slams later and later, so that we don't know who is going to be the next guy with a whole bunch of slams?
 
Major finals at 25 = 14
Major finals at 26 = 8
Major finals at 27 = 9

There is a decline from 25 to 26/27.

Either way, we're talking about Federer's decline in 2008, which was in the 2000s. Let's look at the data for that decade, which is more relevant than the data from this decade.

In the 2000s:
Major finals at 22: 12
Major finals at 23: 12
Major finals at 24: 12
Major finals at 25: 9
Major finals at 26: 12
Major finals at 27: 7
Major finals at 28: 4

Federer was 26 in 2007 and declined in 2008, the year he turned 27. And as you can see from the data from the 2000s, there is a decline from 26 to 27. Case closed. Jojojojo! :-D
Wrong. You said he severely declined and players declined after 25 and said this graph proved it but it doesn't. Finalists 26 and under = 35. Finalists 27 and over = 47. I thought players were so much better at 25 and under even in this era? You are wrong and obviously haven't been following tennis if you think the trend right now is that players in their late 20s are too "physically declined" to be factor. The reality is that they are dominating. Yea the case is closed, but closed on your vastly incorrect argument. Jajaja. :laughing::-D
 
No, they don't. You're kind of dumb, eh?

Djokovic won 11 Slams over a joke of a field in 2011-2016. In the strong era of 2004-2009, he won a grand total of 1 Slam. Like I said, I can play this circular argument game too! Jojojojojo :-D
Yea throw those insults blinded Federista because that's all you have. That and empty, hot air. Jajaja!

Sure. Yes let's add 2004-2006 into that when Djoker was 16-19 years old, and in 2004 wasn't even on tour. Where was Federer at that age? Losing to a bunch of nobodies everywhere. Yours is not a circular argument. It's desperation and panic. :laughing::laughing:
 

Zhilady

Professional
Wrong. You said he severely declined and players declined after 25 and said this graph proved it but it doesn't. Finalists 26 and under = 35. Finalists 27 and over = 47.
These are false figures. We're talking about Federer in 2008, which was in the 2000s, right? In the 2000s, here are the stats:
Finals up to the age of 26: 78
Finals past the age of 26: 22


As you can see, a vast decline in the numbers. Why are you considering 2010s stats for something that happened in the 2000s? Shouldn't you be considering 2000s stats for something that happened in the 2000s? Jojojojojojojo! :-D
 
These are false figures. We're talking about Federer in 2008, which was in the 2000s, right? In the 2000s, here are the stats:
Finals up to the age of 26: 78
Finals past the age of 26: 22


As you can see, a vast decline in the numbers. Why are you considering 2010s stats for something that happened in the 2000s? Shouldn't you be considering 2000s stats for something that happened in the 2000s? Jojojojojojojo! :-D
No we are talking about this decade which shows you are wrong. The 2000s was 10-20 years ago. We are talking about how players are aging in this era. Keep moving that goal post but it won't help you.
 

Zhilady

Professional
No we are talking about this decade which shows you are wrong. The 2000s was 10-20 years ago. We are talking about how players are aging in this era. Keep moving that goal post but it won't help you.
We were talking about Federer declining past the age of 26, which happened in 2008. 2008 was in the 2000s.

Careful, you might hurt your back moving all those goalposts :laughing::laughing::laughing:
 
I may not be making the point I want to make. Djokovic is without any doubt one of the greatest players we've ever seen. I'm not debating that. But because of the nature of present competition he's not facing anyone dangerous at this time who is on the level I believe he was on at his peak. I don't believe he is as good as he was when he was absolutely on top. You may disagree. But because of the nature of competition right now, there is no one who can stop him other than Nadal on clay, if Nadal stays healthy and gets more movement back. I'm not knocking Novak in any way. I'm just saying that right now he has no competition from younger players. I'm saying he is taking advantage of current weak competition.

I think Fed did the same thing in 2017. It's not normal for someone his age to do what he did. Everything is currently out of balance.

I'm not super familiar with Lendl and his competition as he got older. But it seems to me, just by looking at the Edberg/Lendl H2H, that the match-up swung in favor of Edberg when Lendl hit his very late 20s and early 30s. What I'm trying to say is that Novak has no one like that to challenge him. There is no one 6 years younger who in any way fits the mold of an ATG. This is what we don't know yet. Are there any young players now who will grow into that? Are players going to continue winning slams later and later, so that we don't know who is going to be the next guy with a whole bunch of slams?
Djoker has yet to face a real challenge from the younger generation but that challenge can present itself at any time now. He had to fend off Nadal and Federer for most of his career so now is his vacuum phase it seems, but that is not indefinite.
 

Zhilady

Professional
This is ridiculous even for your standards. :laughing:
Is your butt sore from all the kicking it just got? Jojojojojo!

Funny how you didn't address the fact that 2008 was in the 2000s. Face it, you've been embarrassed and humiliated. Take your ball and go home. Jojojojo! :-D
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
We'll it's 25-22 now. My point was that H2H isn't a good argument to use against Djokovic when Novak leads Fedr
From 2006 - 2010, Federer established a 13-6 lead in the H2H.
From 2011 - 2015, Djokovic established a 16-9 lead in the H2H.

Peak/prime Federer had 5 years to establish a +7 lead over 'baby' Djokovic. All things fair, we should give peak/prime Djokovic 5 years to takeover the lead from 'old' Federer. The H2H at the end of 2015: 22-22.

The Federer/Djokovic H2H officially ends in a dead-heat.
 

Zhilady

Professional
We'll it's 25-22 now. My point was that H2H isn't a good argument to use against Djokovic when Novak leads Fedr
Let's assume Federer's prime to be 2003 WTF - 2010 AO (a stretch of 25 Slams) and Djokovic's prime to be 2011 AO - 2016 FO (a stretch of 22 Slams). Note that I am actually being generous to Djokovic by considering a shorter window as favorable to him.

Matches in the timeframe favoring Federer (during Federer's prime and Djokovic's pre-prime): 14
Matches in the timeframe favoring nobody (during Federer's post-prime and Djokovic pre-prime): 5
Matches in the timeframe favoring Djokovic (during Federer's post-prime and Djokovic's prime): 26

That's 14 matches that favored Federer to 26 matches that favored Djokovic, going by their ages.


Look, it's really very simple. We either go by solid facts, or we make up excuses. Going by facts, Federer achieved a lot more than Djokovic so far. If you're going to make excuses for that, even more valid excuses can be made for Federer's H2Hs against Djokovic and others.
 
We were talking about Federer declining past the age of 26, which happened in 2008. 2008 was in the 2000s.

Careful, you might hurt your back moving all those goalposts :laughing::laughing::laughing:
Since you are talking about Federer making Slam finals though let's have a look.

21- 1 final
22- 2 finals
23- 2 finals
24- 4 finals
25- 4 finals
26- 3 finals
27- 4 finals
28- 2 finals
29- 1 final

Well let's see. Federer made 3 more finals at 26 and 27 than he did at 22 and 23 but he supposedly had a massive physical decline after 25. Federista logic and excuses never fail to amaze. 21-24 = 9 grand slam finals. 26-29 = 10 grand slam finals. Fail. Jaja! :-D
 

King No1e

Legend
Let's assume Federer's prime to be 2003 WTF - 2010 AO (a stretch of 25 Slams) and Djokovic's prime to be 2011 AO - 2016 FO (a stretch of 22 Slams). Note that I am actually being generous to Djokovic by considering a shorter window as favorable to him.

Matches in the timeframe favoring Federer (during Federer's prime and Djokovic's pre-prime): 14
Matches in the timeframe favoring nobody (during Federer's post-prime and Djokovic pre-prime): 5
Matches in the timeframe favoring Djokovic (during Federer's post-prime and Djokovic's prime): 26

That's 14 matches that favored Federer to 26 matches that favored Djokovic, going by their ages.


Look, it's really very simple. We either go by solid facts, or we make up excuses. Going by facts, Federer achieved a lot more than Djokovic so far. If you're going to make excuses for that, even more valid excuses can be made for Federer's H2Hs against Djokovic and others.
I wasn't even using the H2H argument to say Djokovic is better than Fedr. 20>15, and it's pretty clear cut at the moment
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Djoker has yet to face a real challenge from the younger generation but that challenge can present itself at any time now. He had to fend off Nadal and Federer for most of his career so now is his vacuum phase it seems, but that is not indefinite.
I would agree with that. You probably don't know anything about me. I was bored out of my mind during Fed's peak. It was Fed, Fed, Fed, and the only change was when Nadal won on clay.

I'm also totally bored with clay, because Nadal has mostly shut out everyone for over a decade. It is exciting for me to see Nadal break through off clay. It was exciting to see Novak and Fed break through on clay. It was exciting to see Murray and Wawrinka break through. It's been exciting to see Fed comeback in 2017, and it's been exciting to see Novak come back last year because I enjoyed seeing smug haters have to eat crow.

But I don't want to see Novak win 6 in a row. It's too much. This is bad for tennis. I would not mind seeing him win RG, because it would be amazing to see a man do the NCGS twice, which would be a record.

My observations have nothing to do with being a fan. I would prefer to see tennis have more surprises. I would like to see more parity. And I would like to see a young guy win a major again.
 
Federer has the matchup advantage vs Djokovic.
The 25-22 H2H says a lot about both of them, 1. That Federer controlled the matchup until he was just too old, and 2. That Djokovic reversed a 13-6 H2H and overcame his worst matchup.
I'm not as proud of that as I am of Djokovic leading Nadal, although I don't want to celebrate prematurely with that one.
Don't see Djole fans admit that often, nice of you. The way Federer constantly gave trouble to Djokovic despite the latter's nearly always better form since 2011 onwards (of course they didn't meet when Novak was busy playing tosh :p) should clearly attest to it, but too many are caught in the old-fed-is-peak-fed thinking. It's not as big as the Fedal matchup though, for sure. In the end we have a rock-paper-scissors balance, which adds to the spice
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Don't see Djole fans admit that often, nice of you. The way Federer constantly gave trouble to Djokovic despite the latter's nearly always better form since 2011 onwards (of course they didn't meet when Novak was busy playing tosh :p) should clearly attest to it, but too many are caught in the old-fed-is-peak-fed thinking. It's not as big as the Fedal matchup though, for sure. In the end we have a rock-paper-scissors balance, which adds to the spice
Old Federer solved Nadal's and Murray's puzzle though.

IMO Djokovic in 2015 improved his return and started reading Federer's serve much better, neutralizing his main weapon.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
I see three winners over age 31. Where do get 4 from? I must have an error.

And what is 187?

I have 6 in a row. Where are you getting 10 from?
These were 31+ years old winners since Wimbledon 1972:

Ashe WI 1975
Connors UO 1983
Sampras UO 2002
Agassi AO 2003
Wawrinka UO 2016
Federer AO 2017
Nadal RG 2017
Federer WI 2017
Nadal UO 2017
Federer AO 2018
Nadal RG 2018
Djokovic WI 2018
Djokovic UO 2018
Djokovic AO 2019

10 in the last 10 slams.
4 in the previous 177 (not 187).
 
Last edited:
Old Federer solved Nadal's and Murray's puzzle though.

IMO Djokovic in 2015 improved his return and started reading Federer's serve much better, neutralizing his main weapon.
The Murray puzzle solved itself, with older Federer only meeting him in some of Fed's pet tournaments.

The Nadal Federer conquered was not the one that troubled him before, neither was Federer. Age is a changer.

Lol at the last paragraph.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Gentle reminder:

“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practised for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.”
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Gentle reminder:

“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practised for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.”
Gentle reminder: "I was in control of the match".

:cool:
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
The Murray puzzle solved itself, with older Federer only meeting him in some of Fed's pet tournaments.

The Nadal Federer conquered was not the one that troubled him before, neither was Federer. Age is a changer.

Lol at the last paragraph.
Federer's winning percentage against top10 not named Djokovic (since 2008):

2015 - 92.3
2017 - 87.5
2014 - 82.4

2010 - 70.6
2012 - 70
2009 - 65
2011 - 64.3
2018 - 50
2008 - 35.7
2013 - 33.3
2016 - 25

Are you sure that Djokovic beat a declined version of Federer? :unsure:
 
Last edited:

King No1e

Legend
Don't see Djole fans admit that often, nice of you. The way Federer constantly gave trouble to Djokovic despite the latter's nearly always better form since 2011 onwards (of course they didn't meet when Novak was busy playing tosh :p) should clearly attest to it, but too many are caught in the old-fed-is-peak-fed thinking. It's not as big as the Fedal matchup though, for sure. In the end we have a rock-paper-scissors balance, which adds to the spice
"Old Fed is peak Fed" is such a dumb assessment, even though Fedr always says "i'm better than ever" doesn't mean the stats bear it out. people saying he was better in 2015 than 2005, just to prop up djokovic, smh. Fed at 34 beat Nole 3 times, in straight sets, in 2015, and that says everything you need to know about Federer.
That said, the opposite argument "novak only won because fed was old, therefore it doesn't count" is even dumber. Fed only won in 2004-06 because Agassi was old, therefore it doesn't count. Lendl only won in the late 80's because Connors was old, therefore it doesn't count.
 
Last edited:
"Old Fed is peak Fed" is such a dumb assessment, even though Fedr always says "i'm better than ever" doesn't mean the stats bear it out. people saying he was better in 2015 than 2005, just to prop up djokovic, smh. Fed at 34 beat Nole 3 times, in straight sets, in 2015, and that says everything you need to know about Federer.
Fun fact: GOATerer shut Djole out on return 4 times on 14-15 (MC, Shanghai 14, Dubai, Cincy 15). The rest managed three times combined (Tsonga in Canada 14, Ivo in Doha 15, Berdych in Paris 15 - underrated match, 7-6 7-6).
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
Not everyone declines so much that they struggle to get beat mugs right? But dude declined on HC in a BO5 because the results tell so:

2012 UO: Lost to Berdych in 4 (LOL)
2013 AO: Lost to Murray (lol)
2013 UO: Lost to Robredo in straight sets (ROFL)
2014 AO: Lost to Nadal in straight sets (this is bad)
2014: UO: Lost to Cilic in straight sets (LOL)
2015 AO: Lost to Seppi (ROFL)
2015 UO: Finally had an okay F result.

Furthermore, you telling me Djokovic declined in 16 Wimb-18 RG to win 3 consecutive Slams. No bud, that just won't cut it. Mug level > Peak Djokovic level.

So let's be reasonable, Djokovic and Federer display different level at ages, played in different circumstances. In the end, if Djoke is good in his 30s, does not mean Fed was too.

It's like saying: "Ronaldo was amazing at 33, Raul was already at Schalke but still was peak though. Benzema was simply better than peak Raul. Raul at 33 was peak because Ronaldo was too. Raul even made it to a CL QF with Schalke, so peak as hell no"
Actually, Fed has been good in his 30's. It's just that he has had genuine younger competition to play against instead of Zverev, Tsitispas and co.

Djokovic in my view is not a better player in his 30's than Federer because their competition is just night and day different.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
So how do you explain Fed losing to Fish, Roddick, Stephanek, Simon x 2, Karlovic and Blake? Nothing to do with Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. He went from 92-5 in 2006 to 66-15 in 2008. Being pushed to 5 in the hard court slams by Tipsarevic and Andreev. Losing in straights to Djokovic at the AO in spite of beating him in straights at the USO just a few months prior. Your preconceived notion that he just simply can't decline at that age doesn't tally up with what actually happened
Fed had a losing H2H against the top 10 in 2008. Yet Nadal and Djokovic were responsible for his poor performances that year :rolleyes:

Mind you, 2008 was the only year outside 2013,2016 and 2018 in which Fed had a losing record against the top 10. This tells you something.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
It means his generation (outside of a brief few instances like Safin/Nalbandian ) basically stepped on the court already defeated and bent over. Its why old geriatric Brokeback Agassi during that time was basically the only player who put up some resistance. A freakin Sampras-era holdover with sciatica.
What about Federer in 2015? The only one outside Djokovic to reach multiple slam finals and he was 34 years old...
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Fed had a losing H2H against the top 10 in 2008. Yet Nadal and Djokovic were responsible for his poor performances that year :rolleyes:

Mind you, 2008 was the only year outside 2013,2016 and 2018 in which Fed had a losing record against the top 10. This tells you something
He was just all over the place that year. He had decent-ish form in the slams and bizarrely during the clay season but outside of that, he was well below par. Not even a single hard court masters final and a RR loss at the YEC? Peak Fed, for sure
 

Zhilady

Professional
Since you are talking about Federer making Slam finals though let's have a look.

21- 1 final
22- 2 finals
23- 2 finals
24- 4 finals
25- 4 finals
26- 3 finals
27- 4 finals
28- 2 finals
29- 1 final

Well let's see. Federer made 3 more finals at 26 and 27 than he did at 22 and 23 but he supposedly had a massive physical decline after 25. Federista logic and excuses never fail to amaze. 21-24 = 9 grand slam finals. 26-29 = 10 grand slam finals. Fail. Jaja! :-D
Looks like either you don't know how a curve works, or you don't understand it. Federer got better from 22/23 until he was 24/25 and then started getting worse. The point is that he started to decline a little from the age of 25. Not that he declined from 22/23. The only one failing is your brain in understanding kindergarten math. Jojo! :-D
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
As opposed to Djokovic who has 0 competition from future gens...
Imagine not only if Federer, but if Pete had 0 competition from future gens. He would share the Wimbledon record, and hold the stand-alone record at the USO if he hadn't faced strong young gun Safin at 2000 USO, or Federer at 2001 Wimbledon, or Hewitt at 2001 US Open.
 
Top