The myth of age disadvantage in Federer's h2h

Lew II

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
vs Big4

2004-09 ''peak'': 21-26 (44.7%)
2010-12 ''prime'': 15-16 (48.4%)
2014-18 ''geriatric years'': 15-10 (60%)

If age is a factor, a player should win the first matches and lose the last. Not what happened here.

Aside from his terrible 2013, Federer costantly improved his h2h, peaking in 2014-17 with a 15-8 score (65.2%).
 
Interesting observation. His improvement with age is most pronounced in his rivalry with Murray. In his prime he had much more difficulty with Murray, but after their Australian Open classic match in 2013, Federer flipped the script.
Of course it's also true that Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray are getting old too, but Roger's tennis still ages like fine wine.
 
Lew II said:
vs Big4

2004-09 ''peak'': 21-26 (44.7%)
2010-12 ''prime'': 15-16 (48.4%)
2014-18 ''geriatric years'': 15-10 (60%)

If age is a factor, a player should win the first matches and lose the last. Not what happened here.

Aside from his terrible 2013, Federer costantly improved his h2h, peaking in 2014-17 with a 15-8 score (65.2%).
Click to expand...
1. No offense, I think Murray should not be considered here.
2. Federer post 2013 is geriatric, period: that 60% is irrelevant and probably receives the Murray benefit. He could have some big wins here and there, but he could never be YE#1 again (though in 2017 he was close, but he had bad luck because his ultimate denier took it). He even had to start cutting down schedules since 2017... 2017 was his best year in the period 2014-18. During that timespan, pre 2017, he was dominated by Djokovic and Nadal... 2017 was the swan song, and 2018 was the slump to normal geriatricity.
 
Lew II said:
vs Big4

2004-09 ''peak'': 21-26 (44.7%)
2010-12 ''prime'': 15-16 (48.4%)
2014-18 ''geriatric years'': 15-10 (60%)

If age is a factor, a player should win the first matches and lose the last. Not what happened here.

Aside from his terrible 2013, Federer costantly improved his h2h, peaking in 2014-17 with a 15-8 score (65.2%).
Click to expand...

So the conclusion here is that 10-15 year from his peak Roger was wiping the floor with Nole, and losing to Rafa and Andy (all of them basically the same age), prime Roger was losing to everyone, and peak Roger was kicking everyone’s ass but Nole’s?

I think you might get a Pulitzer for this one.
 
Lew II said:
Aside from his terrible 2013, Federer costantly improved his h2h, peaking in 2014-17 with a 15-8 score (65.2%).
Click to expand...

Please direct us to where there is an official tennis stat which lists H2H? Never mind that H2H isn't a stat to begin with. Did Fed "constantly improve" in the area that matters most in a player's career, namely slam results?

From 2003-2010, he won 16 of them, all under the age of 30. Since turning 30, he's won 4. But "age isn't a factor." :rolleyes:
 
Lew II said:
vs Big4

2004-09 ''peak'': 21-26 (44.7%)
2010-12 ''prime'': 15-16 (48.4%)
2014-18 ''geriatric years'': 15-10 (60%)

If age is a factor, a player should win the first matches and lose the last. Not what happened here.

Aside from his terrible 2013, Federer costantly improved his h2h, peaking in 2014-17 with a 15-8 score (65.2%).
Click to expand...
So this means we can expect 70%-80% win vs Big4 2019-2020?? I can't wait, finally peak-Fed!
 
Lew II said:
vs Big4

2004-09 ''peak'': 21-26 (44.7%)
2010-12 ''prime'': 15-16 (48.4%)
2014-18 ''geriatric years'': 15-10 (60%)

If age is a factor, a player should win the first matches and lose the last. Not what happened here.

Aside from his terrible 2013, Federer costantly improved his h2h, peaking in 2014-17 with a 15-8 score (65.2%).
Click to expand...

Fed's improved his H2H against Nadal and Murray, but his H2H against Novak has gone down the toilet as his career goes on.

With the Nadal H2H, I think a big factor is their number of matches on clay. They played 11 times in your first period (Fed lost 9 of those), 3 in your second (Fed lost all 3), and none in your last. If Fed kept meeting Nadal with the same regularity on clay, these numbers would look a lot different.

With Murray, he's struggled mightily to beat the big three since he had back surgery in 2013. From 2014 on, he's gone 3 of 17 against Djokovic, 2 of 6 against Nadal, and 0 of 5 against Federer.

So I don't think these numbers are really indicative of Fed playing better in 2014-2018 than he did in 2004-2009. It's just that he sucks so much on clay now he can't even meet Nadal, and Murray has just been less lethal against all the top dogs in recent years.

(Though he has gotten better at beating Nadal on hard. They were 3-3 in your first period. Then Fed led 3-2 in your second and 5-1 in your last.)
 
Lew II said:
vs Big4

2004-09 ''peak'': 21-26 (44.7%)
2010-12 ''prime'': 15-16 (48.4%)
2014-18 ''geriatric years'': 15-10 (60%)

If age is a factor, a player should win the first matches and lose the last. Not what happened here.

Aside from his terrible 2013, Federer costantly improved his h2h, peaking in 2014-17 with a 15-8 score (65.2%).
Click to expand...

Why cherry pick ? Why leave out 2013 ?

There is no big 4 . Against big 3, what are the stats ?
 
I am curious, why were the years chosen in such configuration?

It is a well known fact that age is related to peak level and prime level, so these years don't make sense, especially in comparison between players with peaks occurring at different ages.

8-)
 
Lew II said:
vs Big4

2004-09 ''peak'': 21-26 (44.7%)
2010-12 ''prime'': 15-16 (48.4%)
2014-18 ''geriatric years'': 15-10 (60%)

If age is a factor, a player should win the first matches and lose the last. Not what happened here.

Aside from his terrible 2013, Federer costantly improved his h2h, peaking in 2014-17 with a 15-8 score (65.2%).
Click to expand...
Ok, then why aren't the rest of big 3 improving their h2h with age? Doesn't this then prove that Federer is better?
 
Lew II said:
vs Big4

2004-09 ''peak'': 21-26 (44.7%)
2010-12 ''prime'': 15-16 (48.4%)
2014-18 ''geriatric years'': 15-10 (60%)

If age is a factor, a player should win the first matches and lose the last. Not what happened here.

Aside from his terrible 2013, Federer costantly improved his h2h, peaking in 2014-17 with a 15-8 score (65.2%).
Click to expand...
Just for fun, post the details of each match for all the periods. Here's how I'd like to see it:

1) Who played (Federer vs. who)
2) What was the age of his opponent at the time
3) What surface
4) Where was it played
5) When was it played (give the date)

I have a feeling this additional information will be "interesting"
 
KINGROGER said:
This stat is mostly boosted by Murray and Nadal in 2017 who didn’t have his old defence.
Click to expand...
2017 Federer would defeat 2009 Federer. He would win all backhand to backhand rallies and 09 Fed's mind would break faster. Then Fed's new serve would pose problems for 09 Federer. 17 Fed would also take the ball a lot early with greater consistency. 2009 Federer never saw anything like it, he would be confused. Plus 17 Fed is rested because of smarter scheduling, so 09 Fed is tired.
 
Wow, context-much???

Roger routinely lost to lesser players in his untouchable years.....at secondary tournaments, like he did with Gasquet and Murray and Berdych.

A lot of his losses to the Big 4 in that time period were basically Nadal on clay. Oh my yes, that proves everything. Also with Murray, he had the misfortune of the 2014 injury season stalling what would have been a more competitive career, otherwise I can't take Fed's wins in that time period seriously.

How about Davydenko beating prime Nadal eh?
 
JackGates said:
2017 Federer would defeat 2009 Federer. He would win all backhand to backhand rallies and 09 Fed's mind would break faster. Then Fed's new serve would pose problems for 09 Federer. 17 Fed would also take the ball a lot early with greater consistency. 2009 Federer never saw anything like it, he would be confused. Plus 17 Fed is rested because of smarter scheduling, so 09 Fed is tired.
Click to expand...
Did 2009 Federer lose all backhand to backhand rallies against the likes of Djokovic, Murray, del Potro, Soderling, etc?

What new serve?

And apparently by 2009 Roger had forgotten what it's like to play against Agassi on-the-rise style? But yeah, "never seen anything like it."
 
MeatTornado said:
Did 2009 Federer lose all backhand to backhand rallies against the likes of Djokovic, Murray, del Potro, Soderling, etc?

What new serve?

And apparently by 2009 Roger had forgotten what it's like to play against Agassi on-the-rise style? But yeah, "never seen anything like it."
Click to expand...
Non of those guys have Fed's neo backhands. He serves a lot smarter, he admitted that. Yes, check the stats, Fed at AO 17 played a lot closer to the baseline than at AO 09.
 
Zhilady said:
Thank you, Lew, for proving once again that Nadal/Djokovic/Murray were better players from 2004-2009 than from 2010-2018.
Click to expand...
Ok, but how do you explain Fed improving his h2h at an older age if they were also better from 2010-2018?

Fed had a losing h2h versus Nadal and Murray in his peak, but he now improved his h2h and those guys are surely better today than in 2007.

So, how do you explain that?
 
JackGates said:
Ok, but how do you explain Fed improving his h2h at an older age if they were also better from 2010-2018?
Click to expand...
Could be any number of factors.

1. Many clay matches from 2004-2009 with Nadal. No clay matches at all since 2013.

2. Federer wasn’t doing very well in best-of-3 when he was losing regularly to Murray. I don’t know why that was. But he has always been consistently good against Murray in best-of-5.

3. Day-to-day form. Maybe he was just unlucky in 2004-2009 to be in bad form when he met them, and he was lucky in 2014-2018 to be in good form when he met them.

It could be all of those reasons. Or none of them. I don’t know, and I don’t care to know. Cherry-picking certain matchups and tournaments is a stupid thing to do. Look at his results as a whole. He had way better results from 2004-2009 than from 2010-2016, so he was better in 2004-2009. It’s really simple.
 
Zhilady said:
Could be any number of factors.

1. Many clay matches from 2004-2009 with Nadal. No clay matches at all since 2013.

2. Federer wasn’t doing very well in best-of-3 when he was losing regularly to Murray. I don’t know why that was. But he has always been consistently good against Murray in best-of-5.

3. Day-to-day form. Maybe he was just unlucky in 2004-2009 to be in bad form when he met them, and he was lucky in 2014-2018 to be in good form when he met them.

It could be all of those reasons. Or none of them. I don’t know, and I don’t care to know. Cherry-picking certain matchups and tournaments is a stupid thing to do. Look at his results as a whole. He had way better results from 2004-2009 than from 2010-2016, so he was better in 2004-2009. It’s really simple.
Click to expand...
But I think his win% in 12-17 on HC is better than in 08-11.
 
Zhilady said:
Factor 3 might account for that.
Click to expand...
His win% versus entire field is better that's the the mistery. I have no problems, he just improved. It's a myth that you decline at age 28. He declined becuase surfaces changed and his game was obsolete. And Djoker and Rafa also improved. Past greats were done at age 30 because of motivation issues and people started a family before that and didn't have technology to fix injuries, but they didn't retire form age. 35 is not 65.
 
JackGates said:
His win% versus entire field is better that's the the mistery. I have no problems, he just improved.
Click to expand...
Win % is a bad metric, because it can be artificially manufactured to be better. Look at Nadal’s win % in 2018. The real metric is results, and Federer had way better results in 2004-2009 than in 2010-2018. You can’t artificially manufacture results.
 
JackGates said:
Non of those guys have Fed's neo backhands. He serves a lot smarter, he admitted that. Yes, check the stats, Fed at AO 17 played a lot closer to the baseline than at AO 09.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think you are right. Federer in 2009 really wasn’t that great. The year was famous for his RG title and the 15th Slam, but IMO RG 2009 was far away from even being his best showing there. He had to play two 5-setter and only won 3 times in 3 sets. The decisive factor was just Nadal not being there.

Also (as we all know) he could have lost the Wimbledon final. And apart from that he only won 2 other tournaments (Madrid and Cincinnati).

2017 was way more impressive overall.
 
JackGates said:
Ok, but how do you explain Fed improving his h2h at an older age if they were also better from 2010-2018?

Fed had a losing h2h versus Nadal and Murray in his peak, but he now improved his h2h and those guys are surely better today than in 2007.

So, how do you explain that?
Click to expand...

No, those guys declined with age as well. Federer is just that much better than everybody else that his decline is less pronounced relative to the field.
 
Zhilady said:
Win % is a bad metric, because it can be artificially manufactured to be better. Look at Nadal’s win % in 2018. The real metric is results, and Federer had way better results in 2004-2009 than in 2010-2018. You can’t artificially manufacture results.
Click to expand...
But his results in 2014-2018 are better than 2010-2013.
 
JackGates said:
2017 Federer would defeat 2009 Federer. He would win all backhand to backhand rallies and 09 Fed's mind would break faster. Then Fed's new serve would pose problems for 09 Federer. 17 Fed would also take the ball a lot early with greater consistency. 2009 Federer never saw anything like it, he would be confused. Plus 17 Fed is rested because of smarter scheduling, so 09 Fed is tired.
Click to expand...
Strongly disagree. 2009 Fed’s serve was as good as it’s ever been and his defence/FH would be too much for older Fed.
 
JackGates said:
2017 Federer would defeat 2009 Federer. He would win all backhand to backhand rallies and 09 Fed's mind would break faster. Then Fed's new serve would pose problems for 09 Federer. 17 Fed would also take the ball a lot early with greater consistency. 2009 Federer never saw anything like it, he would be confused. Plus 17 Fed is rested because of smarter scheduling, so 09 Fed is tired.
Click to expand...
But wouldn’t Federer 2009 be a 160 IQ because of his 2 Slams and 2 Slam runners-up while Federer 2017 would just be a 140 IQ?
 
Zhilady said:
But wouldn’t Federer 2009 be a 160 IQ because of his 2 Slams and 2 Slam runners-up while Federer 2017 would just be a 140 IQ?
Click to expand...
We are talking level of play here and not results. Entire field also improved till 2009. What makes you think Fed's 2007 level would be enough to win in 2017 for example? Aren't all sports constantly improving?
 
JackGates said:
We are talking level of play here and not results. Entire field also improved till 2009. What makes you think Fed's 2007 level would be enough to win in 2017 for example? Aren't all sports constantly improving?
Click to expand...
So how come you think Johansson is the best when the likes of Murray, Nalbandian, and Ferrer came later, and sports are constantly improving?
 
Lew II said:
vs Big4

2004-09 ''peak'': 21-26 (44.7%)
2010-12 ''prime'': 15-16 (48.4%)
2014-18 ''geriatric years'': 15-10 (60%)

If age is a factor, a player should win the first matches and lose the last. Not what happened here.

Aside from his terrible 2013, Federer costantly improved his h2h, peaking in 2014-17 with a 15-8 score (65.2%).
Click to expand...

Well, it is much easier to defeat players past their peak then in their peak. Even if you yourself are long past your own prime. As evidenced by history and stats.
Post prime ATGs won just 24 % matches agaist peak age ATGs, late prime ATGs just 33 %. On the other hand, post prime ATGs won 45 % matches against late prime ATGs.
 
Zhilady said:
So you think Murray has a higher level of play on grass than Nadal? I mean, he did win Wimbledon later and sports are constantly improving, right?
Click to expand...
But then Nadal made a semi final after that, so Nadal again raised his level. But yeah, this is exactly how things work. One player for a while improves then others and the he improves again and so on.

But yeah, I think Rafa's 18 level is better than Murray 16 level of play. But still hard to tell, because evolution is non linear usually sometimes you take two steps back then three steps forward the next month.
 
JackGates said:
But then Nadal made a semi final after that, so Nadal again raised his level.
Click to expand...
So a semifinal from 2018 shows a higher level than a win from 2017, just because it came later. All right, I’ve humored you for long enough. I’ll let you chase your own tail now.
 
Zhilady said:
So a semifinal from 2018 shows a higher level than a win from 2017, just because it came later. All right, I’ve humored you for long enough. I’ll let you chase your own tail now.
Click to expand...
That's why I said maybe, because it's not a final and it's still just a few years, but it's not that crazy. Also that was basically de facto final as someone said before. But level of play has nothing to do with greatness though, it's just natural evolution.
 
Let's have a look at the stats in context

2004-9
Vs Nadal - 7-13 (2-6 at slams)
Vs Djokovic 9-5 (only 2 matches played from 2004-6) (4-1 at slams)

2010-12
Vs Nadal 3-5 (0-2 at slams)
Vs Djokovic 7-8 (2-4 at slams)

2013-18
Vs Nadal 5-5 (1-1 at slams)
Vs Djokovic 6-12 (0-4 at slams)

Nadal has always had a good match-up vs Fed. He beat him 5 times in a row at Fed's peak. On clay, Nadal had the significant edge, but he also managed a couple of hard court victories as well. Recently, Federer has 'figured Nadal out' and has managed to have great success. I suspect this is due to a decline in Nadal's baseline game.

Djokovic has matched up to Federer pretty much as you'd expect. Federer dominating the grand slam matches in his prime, then more even with Djokovic having the edge and finally, Djokovic dominates. You can see the same pattern with the overall H2H

Anyone who actually watched the matches can see the age advantage/disadvantage.
 
tennisaddict said:
Why cherry pick ?
Click to expand...
cherry-pickers gonna cherry-pick :)

tenor.gif
 
I don't understand Lew's obsession with making Federer look weak using cherry picked stats. How does it help Djokovics cause? It would only mean Djokovic had to beat not only weak but also old federer for multiple slams. It makes Djokovic weak as well. Isn't this simple logic?
 
tennisfanboy said:
I don't understand Lew's obsession with making Federer look weak using cherry picked stats. How does it help Djokovics cause? It would only mean Djokovic had to beat not only weak but also old federer for multiple slams. It makes Djokovic weak as well. Isn't this simple logic?
Click to expand...
But does this even make Fed look weak? It means he is so great that even at an older age he can defeat his younger rivals. So, maybe the guy was a bit hasty because that actually helps Federer. But yeah, somehow in his mind everything makes Federer look bad. Even when Fed wins, he loses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tennis_pro
What if you switched the age of Federer and Djokovic in their h2h matches?
2
Replies
58
Views
2K
tennis_pro
tennis_pro
Druss
The Big 3 - who was better age for age?
3 4 5
Replies
227
Views
6K
xFedal
xFedal
Neptune
Big 4 at each of the big 3's peak 6-year span:
Replies
27
Views
1K
Neptune
Neptune
SABRvolley
Ranking big 3 results by age
Replies
27
Views
1K
rixiang
R
S
Longer careers started with the Djokovic/Nadal Generation.
Replies
15
Views
710
Sputnik Bulgorov
S
Back
Top