Some facts about Nadal

[Deleted member 77403]

Federer was 26 in August 2007, therefore USO 2007 counts. Fact.

Where did yoy get the idea that Nadal and Djokovic had 2 all-time greats at their peak when he won all his majors? Djokovic only in 2011 was peak and Federer wasn't peak anymore after 2007.

Nadal had a three year period of peak when neither Federer and Djokovic were in theirs. 2008-2010 aren't considered peak years for either Federer or Djokovic. Yes, you can say prime, but certainly not peak. Nadal's three year peak period of 2008-2010 did not overlap with the other two imo. Federer had come out of his peak by end of 2007. Djokovic was yet to enter his peak in 2011.

 

[JackGates]

Yeah, unlike most here, I go by the evidence. Yeah, it seems unlikely that Fed is as good as ever, but I know what I'm seeing.

He is compensating for slight age decline with new skills, so he is as good as before.

Why are chess players better at age 35 if the brain starts to decline at age 25?

 

[mike danny]

Nadal had a three year period of peak when neither Federer and Djokovic were in theirs. 2008-2010 aren't considered peak years for either Federer or Djokovic. Yes, you can say prime, but certainly not peak. Nadal's three year peak period of 2008-2010 did not overlap with the other two imo. Federer had come out of his peak by end of 2007. Djokovic was yet to enter his peak in 2011.

Everyone with common sense knows that.

 

[-NN-]

Yeah, unlike most here, I go by the evidence. Yeah, it seems unlikely that Fed is as good as ever, but I know what I'm seeing.

He is compensating for slight age decline with new skills, so he is as good as before.

Why are chess players better at age 35 if the brain starts to decline at age 25?

All that experience and building up fuller theory and figuring out what works over years of trial and error and testing systems. Takes a long time to become a true master in all those systems and openings and end-game nuance often develops kinda late. Like (I think it was you) said before, there are different arcs of peaks and they never align at their apex at the same time, so we never see the true theoretical peak of any sportsperson.

For example, Fed said some mildly alarming things in the aftermath of winning the 2018 AO. He wasn't thinking about the match all the time as his mind was wandering about, pondering what it would mean to win #20. I dunno if it was some fetish over the pretty number "20" or a feeling of time running out in the back of his mind, or a feeling of creating a gap to Nadal which at this stage would be truly awesome to catch. But with age sometimes some nerve goes and he explains how his tennis was up and down in light of that. By the same token he's won all his 5-setters at the AO in the last two years and won 3 of the last 5 Slams so it can't be that bad. I do think it has gotten to him at times (2015 USO final is a rather strange match).

 

[FHtennisman]

Even if we take in account that Federer has won slams for years that Nadal hasn't been alive, and measure it up to where Nadal is now, it is still 6 slams each. Nadal, just like Federer slowed down winning slams after 26. Now, Federer was being stopped by Nadal and Djokovic, and even a peak Murray in his late 20s early 30s. Who exactly has been stopping Nadal? Djokovic only beat him once at RG, what about all the other losses? Nadal's shocking performance in W after the Rosol incident is baffling for someone who is meant to be the best of this era...how do you lose four straight times to players ranked outside the top 100 while still in your 20s?

Just realised I had turned Roger a decade younger... 2007 not 2017.

That is a valid point, but if you think about HC slams then Rafa has been losing to players that Djokovic and Roger would beat comfortably most of the time even when Rafa was in his prime.

Reasons for his grass struggles:

- Post-Wimbledon 2012, he had that 6 month layoff and since then his play style has simply not workedon the surface. Maybe he's not willing to test his knee as much as he possibly can on grass in order to avoid further issues?

- He was also getting in big trouble in his grass peak, in the first week, playing numerous 5 setters in several of his runs. His speed was there to get him out of those holes, the past 5 years, it clearly hasn't been there.

- The older he gets, the more the clay season takes out of him? His physical recovery is slower and the niggles catch up to him and level the playing field with players who are ranked far lower than him.

I'm sure there are tons of other reasons too but these are the ones I can think of rn.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Just realised I had turned Roger a decade younger... 2007 not 2017.

That is a valid point, but if you think about HC slams then Rafa has been losing to players that Djokovic and Roger would beat comfortably most of the time even when Rafa was in his prime.

Reasons for his grass struggles:

- Post-Wimbledon 2012, he had that 6 month layoff and since then his play style has simply not workedon the surface. Maybe he's not willing to test his knee as much as he possibly can on grass in order to avoid further issues?

- He was also getting in big trouble in his grass peak, in the first week, playing numerous 5 setters in several of his runs. His speed was there to get him out of those holes, the past 5 years, it clearly hasn't been there.

- The older he gets, the more the clay season takes out of him? His physical recovery is slower and the niggles catch up to him and level the playing field with players who are ranked far lower than him.

I'm sure there are tons of other reasons too but these are the ones I can think of rn.

Of course there are tons of reasons and I am not trying to tear him apart, what I am pointing out is that why is Federer getting put down for losing more past his peak, but at the same time, a poster like that is effectively ignoring that Nadal has actually done even worse in that same period. I think they are all incredible players, but no one can sustain winning they have done forever, eventually it will slow down. It did for Federer, it did for Nadal, it did for Djokovic, it did for Sampras...

 

[-NN-]

Nadal had a three year period of peak when neither Federer and Djokovic were in theirs. 2008-2010 aren't considered peak years for either Federer or Djokovic. Yes, you can say prime, but certainly not peak. Nadal's three year peak period of 2008-2010 did not overlap with the other two imo. Federer had come out of his peak by end of 2007. Djokovic was yet to enter his peak in 2011.

So did none of Djokovic's #1 years and Slam winning years coincide with prime or peak Federer years?

 

[FHtennisman]

Of course there are tons of reasons and I am not trying to tear him apart, what I am pointing out is that why is Federer getting put down for losing more past his peak, but at the same time, a poster like that is effectively ignoring that Nadal has actually done even worse in that same period. I think they are all incredible players, but no one can sustain winning they have done forever, eventually it will slow down. It did for Federer, it did for Nadal, it did for Djokovic, it did for Sampras...

Agreed there, it's also totally pointess to say Nadal is better than Federer or vice versa because when he got to a certain age he started winning several slams a season etc. - because most ATGs peak on different surfaces at different ages. The three most recent ATGs bear testimony to that.

 

[FHtennisman]

So did none of Djokovic's #1 years and Slam winning years coincide with prime or peak Federer years?

2008 with prime Federer.

 

[-NN-]

2008 with prime Federer.

And why would 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2015 not be prime periods for Fedr? What is prime?

 

[FedExpress117]

Rafa has won 16 grand slams because of the intense physical style of tennis he exhibits. It's that exact same style that is the reason he frequently gets injured and has missed so many slams. To state that he should be considered better than Federer b/c he would have won those slams if he weren't injured, is simply a biased argument that doesn't take into account the tradeoff:

Play an intense physical style and win tons of slams, but put yourself at risk of injury and miss more Slams and opportunities. If he were to suddenly stop that intensely physical style of tennis, he doesn't win 16 Grand Slams. Part of being great is balance, which Federer does very well and why he has only missed 1 or two Slams b/c of injury.

 

[qindarka]

Yeah, unlike most here, I go by the evidence. Yeah, it seems unlikely that Fed is as good as ever, but I know what I'm seeing.

He is compensating for slight age decline with new skills, so he is as good as before.

Why are chess players better at age 35 if the brain starts to decline at age 25?

Chess players aren't past their prime at 35 but they aren't better at ever at that age either. Most elite players enter the elite by their early twenties. Even chess has increasingly been skewed towards the young.

 

[JackGates]

All that experience and building up fuller theory and figuring out what works over years of trial and error and testing systems. Takes a long time to become a true master in all those systems and openings and end-game nuance often develops kinda late. Like (I think it was you) said before, there are different arcs of peaks and they never align at their apex at the same time, so we never see the true theoretical peak of any sportsperson.

For example, Fed said some mildly alarming things in the aftermath of winning the 2018 AO. He wasn't thinking about the match all the time as his mind was wandering about, pondering what it would mean to win #20. I dunno if it was some fetish over the pretty number "20" or a feeling of time running out in the back of his mind, or a feeling of creating a gap to Nadal which at this stage would be truly awesome to catch. But with age sometimes some nerve goes and he explains how his tennis was up and down in light of that. By the same token he's won all his 5-setters at the AO in the last two years and won 3 of the last 5 Slams so it can't be that bad. I do think it has gotten to him at times (2015 USO final is a rather strange match).

Lol, isn't it crazy how spoiled we are? Fed won 2 out of 3 last majors and made both finals without dropping a set and we are panicking because he was pushed to five once. LOL.

Can we even talk about decline when a guy who hasn't won a slam 4.5 years wins 3 majors in 1 year???

 

[FedExpress117]

I think it says a lot when Federer has played so many more Slams than Rafa but has only missed 1 b/c of injury. That's not entirely luck of the draw either. That's a direct reflection of how smart they are with their physio, prepration, style of play, scheduling.

 

[FHtennisman]

And why would 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2015 not be prime periods for Fedr? What is prime?

A prime is an accumulation of several years where a player earns the majority of his career succss, with success defined as winning the biggest tournaments there are to win as much as possible and achieving his highest ranking and maintining it as such.

I suppose you can include 2012 as a prime year but it's more out of prime IMO since 2003 WTF - 2010 AO is his definitive period.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

So did none of Djokovic's #1 years and Slam winning years coincide with prime or peak Federer years?

I think Federer's overall prime came to an end in 2010. What I mean by this is, the day in, day out level of excellence. I think we all know that players can turn back the clock for matches and for small periods, but during peak, prime, things were different. Djokovic did beat prime Federer at AO 2008 in my eyes.

Here is my personal, so completely subjective view of their peaks and primes. Just my personal view.

Federer - Prime - W 2003 to AO 2010 - Peak 2004 to 2007
Nadal - Prime RG 2005 - AO 2014 - Peak 2008 to 2011
Djokovic - Prime US 2007 - RG 2016 - Peak 2011 - 2015

 

[qindarka]

Lol, isn't it crazy how spoiled we are? Fed won 2 out of 3 last majors and made both finals without dropping a set and we are panicking because he was pushed to five once. LOL.

Can we even talk about decline when a guy who hasn't won a slam 4.5 years wins 3 majors in 1 year???

He's obviously greatly declined from his prime. Him winning slams now is a reflection of a weak field.

 

[JackGates]

Chess players aren't past their prime at 35 but they aren't better at ever at that age either. Most elite players enter the elite by their early twenties. Even chess has increasingly been skewed towards the young.

I disagree. If peak is measured by rating, average chess players are the best at ages 35-45.

 

[-NN-]

Lol, isn't it crazy how spoiled we are? Fed won 2 out of 3 last majors and made both finals without dropping a set and we are panicking because he was pushed to five once. LOL.

Can we even talk about decline when a guy who hasn't won a slam 4.5 years wins 3 majors in 1 year???

We can talk about form and peaks... Like how a career is like a set of mountain ridges and sometimes one is at the summit and other times traversing the ridges. What I'm saying is that the way peak and prime is typically used is a misnomer or at the very least specious and equivocal.

 

[JackGates]

He's obviously greatly declined from his prime. Him winning slams now is a reflection of a weak field.

Well, why can't others take advantage of this weak field?

I mean if you have to be the goat in order to take advantage, what difference does it make anyway, since others can't take advantage of it?

 

[-NN-]

I think Federer's overall prime came to an end in 2010. What I mean by this is, the day in, day out level of excellence. I think we all know that players can turn back the clock for matches and for small periods, but during peak, prime, things were different. Djokovic did beat prime Federer at AO 2008 in my eyes.

Here is my personal, so completely subjective view of their peaks and primes. Just my personal view.

Federer - Prime - W 2003 to AO 2010 - Peak 2004 to 2007
Nadal - Prime RG 2005 - AO 2014 - Peak 2008 to 2011
Djokovic - Prime US 2007 - RG 2016 - Peak 2011 - 2015

Fed has sure had a good period of sustained excellence albeit with mini disaster in 2016. A whole bunch of Slam finals there only stopped by another ATG maybe in their best ever moments and a bunch more which he won (3 of the last 5 now). Seems like a second "prime" to me. Of course this can be disagreed with, but the whole notion of prime is frankly painful, and has different meanings on these forums than it does with the lesser fanatics. I see no real reason other than being literally lazy for the sake of order and neatness that prime and peak must be contiguous either. There is nothing unusual about "losing prime" for a while and "gaining it back" later under a perfectly valid alternative interpretation. The whole myopic view of prime leads to a sort of understanding which propagates all sorts of misconceptions and bizarre arguments. Viewing prime through the traditional prism gives us a lousy framework for discussing these very unique times in tennis with Nadal's bumpy contours and Fed's extraordinary longevity.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

We can talk about form and peaks... Like how a career is like a set of mountain ridges and sometimes one is at the summit and other times traversing the ridges. What I'm saying is that the way peak and prime is typically used is a misnomer or at the very least specious and equivocal.

There will always be subjective bias opinion in judging these things. This is why I personally state peaks and primes according to what I personally feel. It does not mean I have it absolutely right, or it is universally agreed up, like a mathematical or physics equation. Just my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Fed has sure had a good period of sustained excellence albeit with mini disaster in 2016. A whole bunch of Slam finals there only stopped by another ATG maybe in their best ever moments and a bunch more which he won (3 of the last 5 now). Seems like a second "prime" to me. Of course this can be disagreed with, but the whole notion of prime is frankly painful, and has different meanings on these forums than it does with the lesser fanatics. I see no real reason other than being literally lazy for the sake of order and neatness that prime and peak must be contiguous either.

I think Federer's overall baseline level is so good, he reminds me of Goku from DrgaonBall Z, doesn't even need to go Super Saiyan to get results. I guess that is why the man has achieved what he has.

 

[-NN-]

There will always be subjective bias opinion in judging these things. This is why I personally state peaks and primes according to what I personally feel. It does not mean I have it absolutely right, or it is universally agreed up, like a mathematical or physics equation. Just my opinion.

What I'm saying goes beyond that though.. more about the architectonics of arriving to the judgements themselves and the type of discussion it tends to yield. It gives fan bases a mask to excuse results because "prime" and "not prime" rather than looking at the only thing that actually truly truly matters which is form on the day. In other words, if Fed plays a great match, regardless of his age or if it's in his traditionally viewed prime (which most tend to assume to be contiguous), it's a "prime" level match. Now of course there are other complicated factors that get in the way of these thinking frameworks for tennis careers such as timing, and every player has their own arcs, and when two players are beast-moding fans (of course) are at loggerheads regarding the "prime" or "peak" status of their player. But the effects are often the causes of being challenged by someone with an equally strong or stronger tennis in the moment. It's hard to be honest amid such noise, though we try.

(Obvious example here is Nadal-Djokovic 2011.)

 

[-NN-]

I think Federer's overall baseline level is so good, he reminds me of Goku from DrgaonBall Z, doesn't even need to go Super Saiyan to get results. I guess that is why the man has achieved what he has.

Yeah I can see that, though then who is Nadal and Djokovic?

 

[JackGates]

We can talk about form and peaks... Like how a career is like a set of mountain ridges and sometimes one is at the summit and other times traversing the ridges. What I'm saying is that the way peak and prime is typically used is a misnomer or at the very least specious and equivocal.

Yeah, people don't get that you can compensate with skills for you slight physical decline, so it's even possible not only to play as well as at your peak, but even better.

I mean, tennis isn't running. It's still 80% tactics, technique, mentality.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

What I'm saying goes beyond that though.. more about the architectonics of arriving to the judgements themselves and the type of discussion it tends to yield. It gives fan bases a mask to excuse results because "prime" and "not prime" rather than looking at the only thing that actually truly truly matters which is form on the day. In other words, if Fed plays a great match, regardless of his age or if it's in his traditionally viewed prime (which most tend to assume to be contiguous), it's a "prime" level match. Now of course there are other complicated factors that get in the way of these thinking frameworks for tennis careers such as timing, and every player has their own arcs, and when two players are beast-moding fans (of course) are at loggerheads regarding the "prime" or "peak" status of their player. But the effects are often the causes of being challenged by someone with an equally strong or stronger tennis in the moment. It's hard to be honest amid such noise, though we try.

(Obvious example here is Nadal-Djokovic 2011.)

I don't disagree with that at all. As I said, we have often heard the phrase - He is turning the clocks back with this performance. Clear example of someone playing like they would have in their supposed peak or prime years.

Federer W 2017 and Nadal RG 2017 are perfect examples of this.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Yeah I can see that, though then who is Nadal and Djokovic?

Nadal is Gohan
Djokovic is Broly

 

[JackGates]

I think Federer's overall baseline level is so good, he reminds me of Goku from DrgaonBall Z, doesn't even need to go Super Saiyan to get results. I guess that is why the man has achieved what he has.

Well, close yes, but even at his peak, Federer was only using 70% of his base level. That's why at age 36 he can dominate.

I think if Fed had bigger racket and better mindset, he could easily win 10 slams between ages 30 and 35.

 

[-NN-]

A prime is an accumulation of several years where a player earns the majority of his career succss, with success defined as winning the biggest tournaments there are to win as much as possible and achieving his highest ranking and maintining it as such.

I suppose you can include 2012 as a prime year but it's more out of prime IMO since 2003 WTF - 2010 AO is his definitive period.

Sorry pal - I missed this.

Well you can see from some of my recent responses some of my thoughts. It is the general outlook which people use, but has its pitfalls especially because the terms peak and prime get extrapolated as to stratify big picture form and reasoning for results in three bands: peak, prime, not prime. In reality the gradations are far more... err... complex. It doesn't always happen but it's a slippery slope which we often succumb to on the forum.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Well, close yes, but even at his peak, Federer was only using 70% of his base level. That's why at age 36 he can dominate.

I think if Fed had bigger racket and better mindset, he could easily win 10 slams between ages 30 and 35.

That is what makes Federer so good, base level is still very high.

 

[JackGates]

That is what makes Federer so good, base level is still very high.

Yes, and my assertion was that for some reason we never saw truly peak Federer.

Peak Federer would be 2006 version with today's backhand, mentality and the racket.

That's why Fed at age 36 can play at the same level as at age 26, because even at age 26 he wasn't close to his base level. Now he declined, but he is closer to his base level than in 2006, so he can compensate.

But I think 17 Fed would pose a threat to 06 Fed without neo backhand and smaller racket and more defensive play.

Of course true peak Fed 2006 with new racket would be unbeatable, probably even on clay. That's why he is the goat and how high his base level is.

 

[abmk]

Happy to disagree with you here, take away Federer's advancements in racket technology and put him in a field with those guys, where he would be facing very good clay players from the fourth round onward, I can see him win one, at best two. No chance in my eyes, he does better than that. As I said, I saw peak Federer beaten by past their primes former RG champions during his peak years. Now you may say 04 wasn't peak on clay, I will say it looks that way because of the two players he ran into, he quite easily handled Coria that year, who was the hottest player heading into RG. I do think Federer is second or at least tied second for best on clay in the past 15 years, but IMO, the field was nothing special compared to what I was watching in the 90s. Happy to disagree.

What if I told you that Hamburg conditions suited him enough that he had already won it in 02 (beating Kuerten and Safin) that him beating Coria, Moya and Gaudio (yes, not just Coria) in 04 was not that big a surprise. That he didn't do that well on the other masters/RG until 2005 because he hadn't yet gotten completely comfortable on clay in general ?
(He talked about not being fully used to the big dimensions of Phillippe Chartier after the loss to Kuerten in 04)

Every one of those 90s/early 2000s CCers - Kuerten, Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Ferrero was upset by other good CCers (&even lesser players) at their primes in CC events . So why is Fed alone being singled out here ?

 

[Deleted member 77403]

What if I told you that Hamburg conditions suited him enough that he had already won it in 02 (beating Kuerten and Safin) that him beating Coria, Moya and Gaudio (yes, not just Coria) in 04 was not that big a surprise. That he didn't do that well on the other masters/RG until 2005 because he hadn't yet gotten completely comfortable on clay in general ?
(He talked about not being fully used to the big dimensions of Phillippe Chartier after the loss to Kuerten in 04)

Every one of those 90s/early 2000s CCers - Kuerten, Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Ferrero was upset by other good CCers (&even lesser players) at their primes in CC events . So why is Fed alone being singled out here ?

He had made Rome 2003 final. He knew how to play on clay that played like RG. I just think his overall clay form is overrated, and despite being a great clay player, which I don't deny, he filled an empty void which he would not have IMO if he played in fields of the 90s.

 

[73west]

Nadal had a three year period of peak when neither Federer and Djokovic were in theirs. 2008-2010 aren't considered peak years for either Federer or Djokovic. Yes, you can say prime, but certainly not peak. Nadal's three year peak period of 2008-2010 did not overlap with the other two imo. Federer had come out of his peak by end of 2007. Djokovic was yet to enter his peak in 2011.

Looking at the data I posted earlier, there are only two years when Federer, Nadal and Djokovic each won 90% of their matches against the rest of the field. That, in my opinion, is a good measure of how well they were playing, without the complication of arguing over the levels of FND. Those two years were 2011 and 2012.

 

[abmk]

Yes he did beat Novak in 2011, by banging down 20 aces in faster conditions. Mind you, what I said for Fed goes for Novak too (maybe to a lesser degree depending on whom you ask), there's a number of reasons of why he lost 2015 FO final to Stan but one of those not often mentioned is that the latter just hits a much heavier ball which is rewarded on clay. Because Novak is like Fed, they play HC tennis on clay and get away with it because of their overall ability and lacking depth of the field on clay. Compare Novak's match with Stan the year before in WTF indoors when Novak bagelled him, it's a world of difference.

As @Hitman already noted, Fed was one of the main favourites for FO in 2004 (especially after beating Coria in Hamburg final, a BO5 match) and was absolutely decimating the tour, it's one of his career most dominating years. That he went down to (way past his best) Guga at FO in straights is telling.

ok, so what kind of tennis was Agassi playing in the late 80s/90s when he made 3 RG finals (l to Gomez, l to Courier and w vs Medvedev), 2 RG SFs (l to Wilander and Courier) ?

This is with not playing in 93, 97, being below par in 96 in general

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Looking at the data I posted earlier, there are only two years when Federer, Nadal and Djokovic each won 90% of their matches against the rest of the field. That, in my opinion, is a good measure of how well they were playing, without the complication of arguing over the levels of FND. Those two years were 2011 and 2012.

I wouldn't be surprised if Murray also had such numbers.

2011-2012 is the golden age of the big four.

 

[Chanwan]

I understand your point, just have a different view point, I'm afraid. Remember, we are just stating opinions here. its all cool.

I'm well aware of that. I just think part of the fun is the debate and - when it goes well - changing one's own view to some extent or the other way around.
But it's fair enough you don't want to go into the full argument. I would like it, if you would answer me this though:

Inconsistent 'I hate tennis'-Agassi made 3 FO finals from 1990-1999, won one and should have won 2. He was absent 2 years and lost in the first or 2nd round another 3 of those 10 years.
Fed, all things being equal, wouldn't have had worse draws (as good or higher ranking). And I presume we can agree he would still have some consistency even in the 90's.
Do you really think he wouldn't have done at least as good or better than Agassi who should be a 2 time FO-champion?
@zagor- you're very welcome to answer this as well.

ok, so what kind of tennis was Agassi playing in the late 80s/90s when he made 3 RG finals (l to Gomez, l to Courier and w vs Medvedev), 2 RG SFs (l to Wilander and Courier) ?

This is with not playing in 93, 97, being below par in 96 in general

exactly my point

 

[abmk]

He had made Rome 2003 final. He knew how to play on clay that played like RG. I just think his overall clay form is overrated, and despite being a great clay player, which I don't deny, he filled an empty void which he would not have IMO if he played in fields of the 90s.

and played terrible in the Rome final vs Mantilla , losing in straights.
I'm saying he adapted clearly better to clay in 2005. Not that he didn't know how to play on clay that played like RG, but he wasn't completely comfortable (as he would be from 05 onwards)

I know the clay court depth was clearly greater in the 90s than in the 2000s, but its getting exaggerated by you and Zagor.
Plus there is the fact that the primes of those CCers just didn't last long .

He has what - 5 finals, 1 semi (l to Nadal) (not counting 12 when he wasn't that good). IMO, He doesn't make as many of those in other eras, but he converts more of his chances, probably ending up with 2 RGs in most of them (minus the Borg one - if his prime coincided with Borg's)

 

[FHtennisman]

Sorry pal - I missed this.

Well you can see from some of my recent responses some of my thoughts. It is the general outlook which people use, but has its pitfalls especially because the terms peak and prime get extrapolated as to stratify big picture form and reasoning for results in three bands: peak, prime, not prime. In reality the gradations are far more... err... complex. It doesn't always happen but it's a slippery slope which we often succumb to on the forum.

I agree that to try to compartmentalize each individual year of a player's career into 3 categories is quite rigid and probably not accurate. However, as a simplistic tool to see when players were most successful and had their most consistent stretch of the highest level of play as per their best physical form I think peak and prime are suitable enough to convey this information at least on a top level view.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I'm well aware of that. I just think part of the fun is the debate and - when it goes well - changing one's own view to some extent or the other way around.
But it's fair enough you don't want to go into the full argument. I would like it, if you would answer me this though:

Inconsistent 'I hate tennis'-Agassi made 3 FO finals from 1990-1999, won one and should have won 2. He was absent 2 years and lost in the first or 2nd round another 3 of those 10 years.
Fed, all things being equal, wouldn't have had worse draws (as good or higher ranking). And I presume we can agree he would still have some consistency even in the 90's.
Do you really think he wouldn't have done at least as good or better than Agassi who should be a 2 time FO-champion?
@zagor- you're very welcome to answer this as well.

exactly my point

My answer, the game was highly polarized in those days. Federer would have been more like Sampras, Becker, Edberg, the players he built his own game on. Agassi is an effective baseline player by nature, Federer adapted more and more to baseline as changes in the overall game forced him to. Back in those days, while he can have a great clay game, his style IMO would be like those mighty grass court players. I think his mentality, how he trains, would be completely different, just like how Sampras, Becker, Edberg were, Federer is a much more natural fast court low bounce player. Agassi, is built for baseline player.

Now, don't get me wrong here. Federer can most certainly win RG back then, but IMO, he wouldn't be walking around with multiple titles. He would be playing a lot more grueling longer points, that his game at the time will not be designed for, as I expect he would be more of a fast court player. He would be getting some great wins, and RG can be won, but I doubt he wins multiple titles. He does not like players who get multiple balls back, never did, look at how Canas caused him problems on hard court, and Federer with superior rackets and playing on hard courts still struggled.

You are a product of your era. Federer can adapt sure, but the dramatic changes seen to go from one surface to another in this age is not the same as it was then.

 

[Chanwan]

With all due respect to Fed, that he would have 4-5 FOs in this era is as much of a reflection of the CC field as it is of his ability on clay and his famous (and remarkable) conistency. Not to mention that I don't subcribe to that reasoning in general, following the same logic we could also put Murray above Lendl and Agassi and shoulder to shoulder with Borg, it falls in the same basket as Nadal's 30 moral slams as far as I'm concerned. If Fed had pushed Nadal to several 5 setters I could maybe see it but that he didn't is not simply a consequnce of his mental failures against Nadal but also due to him not being a natural CC player (yes, I know he grew up on the surface).

Yes he did beat Novak in 2011, by banging down 20 aces in faster conditions. Mind you, what I said for Fed goes for Novak too (maybe to a lesser degree depending on whom you ask), there's a number of reasons of why he lost 2015 FO final to Stan but one of those not often mentioned is that the latter just hits a much heavier ball which is rewarded on clay. Because Novak is like Fed, they play HC tennis on clay and get away with it because of their overall ability and lacking depth of the field on clay. Compare Novak's match with Stan the year before in WTF indoors when Novak bagelled him, it's a world of difference.

As @Hitman already noted, Fed was one of the main favourites for FO in 2004 (especially after beating Coria in Hamburg final, a BO5 match) and was absolutely decimating the tour, it's one of his career most dominating years. That he went down to (way past his best) Guga at FO in straights is telling.

Not sure I get the Murray and Rafa's moral slam reference? At least I don't see how it's the same argument.
Yes, Fed does not play classical clay court tennis. Borg didn't play a completely classical grass court game when he won 5 Wimbledon's either though he did adapt quite a bit.
Point being is that Fed's clay court tennis isn't good enough to massacre any given field, but it is good enough to make him one of the likeliest winners in pretty much any given field safe of the very best clay courters. I'd be interested in your view of the Agassi-comparison in the 90's (I've tagged you)

 

[Deleted member 77403]

and played terrible in the Rome final vs Mantilla , losing in straights.
I'm saying he adapted clearly better to clay in 2005. Not that he didn't know how to play on clay that played like RG, but he wasn't completely comfortable (as he would be from 05 onwards)

I know the clay court depth was clearly greater in the 90s than in the 2000s, but its getting exaggerated by you and Zagor.
Plus there is the fact that the primes of those CCers just didn't last long .

He has what - 5 finals, 1 semi (l to Nadal) (not counting 12 when he wasn't that good). IMO, He doesn't make as many of those in other eras, but he converts more of his chances, probably ending up with 2 RGs in most of them (minus the Borg one - if his prime coincided with Borg's)

Did Federer improve after 2003, of course. But I think, some Fed fans over exaggerate his clay court prowess. Just my opinion.

 

[Chanwan]

Explain why from the age of 26 Federer is less than half of Nadals slam count? To m wit looks like Federer didn’t have the game to handle the best of Nadal or Djokovic. What’s your explanation?

13 to 8 since AO 2008. You really need to learn to count new user.

Federer was 26 in 2008! Federer ha sonny won majors since 2009 at two majors whereas Nadal has won at all four.

Nadal had two all time greats at their peak when he won all his majors as did Djokovic. Federer only won 7 in that period. Sorry Federer is third of this era. It is fact.

Yes, but he was also 26 in 2007. The wonder! And Fed has won all 4 majors since turning 26.
AO 10, 17-18
FO 09
W 09, 12 and 17
US 07-08

 

[abmk]

Did Federer improve after 2003, of course. But I think, some Fed fans over exaggerate his clay court prowess. Just my opinion.

yeah, I already said that myself. Saying he'd win 5-6 RGs without Nadal and being near to Borg is ridiculous stuff.

I put Kuerten over Federer (overall and peak). Lendl and Wilander as well (overall)

But I don't think he'd be lucky to win 2 RGs in other eras at all. He's good enough for that. Up there with Courier/Bruguera, who did each win 2.

In the open era, I put these guys in one tier on clay - Federer, Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Vilas, Ferrero, Djokovic.

Federer/Djokovic/Vilas had to battle prime Nadal/Borg. No wonder they have only 1 RG.
Ferrero of course had his prime cut short after chicken pox in early 2004. (still should have won RG 2002 or at the very least put up a better performance)
Muster of course was a clear under-performer at RG compared to other CC events.

 

[-NN-]

@Chanwan

Well this sort of debate is always weird because we go into all sorts of assumptions but basically good enough on clay to have bagged 1-4 RG titles in the 90s, I'd guess 2 or 3. The whole specialist thing is also a somewhat frustrating viewpoint because it's used with the same sort of generality that homogeneity is for the current era. Both are overstated, albeit with a kernel of truth. In this wild fantasy of ours I see Fed reaching plenty of finals, but let's get wilder. What if he values Wimbledon just as much as he does today, and in having Sampras as a rival realises that he might be putting his eggs in the wrong basket, not being truly dominant on clay and not giving his fullest force to Wimbledon to try and topple Sampras—what decisions would he make? But if we swap the two most dominant players of the respective eras (so Sampras and Fed) then I don't instinctively imagine that Fed will struggle to convert at RG. Anyway, he easily had the fitness for the rigours of the Channel Slam. Ultimately, all we can do is offer wild speculation. As a sheer athlete and talent Federer is mega, and in my opinion very clearly above Agassi and Sampras. Having said that it's reasonable enough to think that they were best suited to their time and Federer his time... that the eras made them as much as they made their eras.

@FHtennisman

Yes, I think peak and prime are suitable but how they are typically derived isn't the only way to do it, and it leads some into this myopic view from many that if a match occurs out of prime then it's an excuse because X player wasn't prime, or that even a great performance is still ultimately not really a prime performance (or that no performance out of peak is a "true peak performance". So its simplicity is useful but also obstructive. I enjoy this discussion though as it gives me a chance to remind once again that we use it with care and that we are also precise in our definitions (we meaning the forum, not that anyone will listen to me lol). As long as folks don't hide behind the three simple blocks when it suits them in certain types of debate.

Similar problems happen with assumptions made based on name without looking at how the player played on the day leading to "strong" and "weak" Slams and competition, and so on. One man alone cannot stop the onslaught of sour grapes, however.

 

[-NN-]

I don't disagree with that at all. As I said, we have often heard the phrase - He is turning the clocks back with this performance. Clear example of someone playing like they would have in their supposed peak or prime years.

Federer W 2017 and Nadal RG 2017 are perfect examples of this.

I missed this.

Yes, though at the same time only in some vague general aggregate level, because the nature of the players have changed with the times. Federer's 2017 IW stands out as a superbly played tournament and his best Cinci tournament performances came after his typically proposed contiguous prime period. Nadal 2017 RG certainly stacked up statistically and the eye-test was satisfying enough to me.

 

[abmk]

Now, don't get me wrong here. Federer can most certainly win RG back then, but IMO, he wouldn't be walking around with multiple titles. He would be playing a lot more grueling longer points, that his game at the time will not be designed for, as I expect he would be more of a fast court player. He would be getting some great wins, and RG can be won, but I doubt he wins multiple titles. He does not like players who get multiple balls back, never did, look at how Canas caused him problems on hard court, and Federer with superior rackets and playing on hard courts still struggled.

This is exaggerated IMO.
He went on 15 match winning streak vs Hewitt, including 9-0 in 2 of their mutual prime years (2004-05)
He's undefeated vs Ferrer. (17-0)
undefeated vs Coria (3-0), with 2 matches being on clay in Coria's prime.

Yes, he'd had his struggles vs elite defenders, no doubt, but he's also dominated on many occasions. (elite defending was the best way to unsettle peak fed, no doubt, but you needed something on top of that, tbh)

Sure he lost to Canas in IW 07/Miami 07, but he took full out revenge in their Madrid match later on in the year , 6-0,6-3.

and before you say that was a fast court, he had already dominated Canas at IW in 05 (6-3,6-1).

 

[Deleted member 77403]

This is exaggerated IMO.
He went on 15 match winning streak vs Hewitt, including 9-0 in 2 of their mutual prime years (2004-05)
He's undefeated vs Ferrer. (17-0)
undefeated vs Coria (3-0), with 2 matches being on clay in Coria's prime.

Yes, he'd had his struggles vs elite defenders, no doubt, but he's also dominated on many occasions.

Sure he lost to Canas in IW 07/Miami 07, but he took full out revenge in their Madrid match later on in the year , 6-0,6-3.

and before you say that was a fast court, he had already dominated Canas at IW in 05 (6-3,6-1).

Hewitt is a counter puncher IMO, not a grinder IMO.

Yes, Federer took revenge, on a faster indoor court.

And try not to take my words for something they are not. I said he has historically struggled with such play, never said he didn't beat them or have great wins. I just think that if he had more players like that, he would struggle that much more.

Sorry, we just disagree, I don't seem him a multi time slam RG champion in the 90s type of era.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Federer/Djokovic/Vilas had to battle prime Nadal/Borg. No wonder they have only 1 RG.
Ferrero of course had his prime cut short after chicken pox in early 2004. (still should have won RG 2002 or at the very least put up a better performance)
Muster of course was a clear under-performer at RG compared to other CC events.

Vilas underperformed at RG massively as well - he only got to Borg twice and failed to put up any fight both times (1978 was peak Borg, but 1975 wasn't, so Vilas could do better; and 1978 looks like 2008 in that the loser knew he had no chance to win and played with no conviction from the start of the match). Besides that, he's 0-3 against Solomon and has a poor 7-11 TB record (1-9 in losses). Finally, the way Vilas let what ended up being his last real chance slip in 1982 was an underrated choke. Wilander would go on to be a great claycourter, but he was only 17 and had tough battles on his way to the final, while Vilas didn't lose a single set, and then he lost 1-6 7-6(6) 6-0 6-4 which is a really bad scoreline, especially given the tiebreak choke (as I read).

Vilas and Muster appear to be of the same mold on clay (I know Vilas had more success otherwise), only Vilas had a longer prime and posted more prolific seasons.