When Fanfic meets Reality: If Federer has gotten worse, why are his stats better?

SaintPetros

Professional
Very very very simple.

RF fans (just the fanatical ones) force themselves to denigrate RF's 30s career to prove that this is the weak era. That's all it is.

They are so hung up on everyone declaring 2002-2006 Weak Era that they desperately try to fight fire with fire. Trying hard to boomerang these facts right back. Or at the two players who have de-GOATed the GOAT in the last decade.

Instead of ENJOYING RF's great improvements and applauding them, they keep putting him down.

Yes, it's ironic and plain silly. They put down their own hero - for his own benefit!

Comedy gold.
I wonder if this has ever happened in another sports fanbase before, or if the RF Fans have finally done something original for once.
 

er4claw

Rookie
It was the end of his peak but still peak fed. His peak is usually regarded as from 2004-2007 with his prime ending 2009 or I guess beginning of 2010.
It was his prime not peak. 2007 fed was the same level as 09, 10. Peak fed doesnt lose to randos at sunshine double, gonz at wtf. He was looping his forehand in 07, he bludgeoned the ball during his peak.
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
It was his prime not peak. 2007 fed was the same level as 09, 10. Peak fed doesnt lose to randos at sunshine double, gonz at wtf. He was looping his forehand in 07, he bludgeoned the ball during his peak.
hmmm i guess we'll have to agree to disagree, i still think it was part of his peak just the tail end of it
 

USO19

Rookie
Statistically and visually, Federer's best tennis was 2015-to-present. The only argument anyone ever has for Federer's decline is, "but his age." Age isn't a tennis statistic, folks. I'm younger than Federer, but I think it's obvious I'm not a better tennis player than him. Right?

So why would a younger Federer be a better player than an older Federer?

Or maybe you think a younger me would beat an older me in tennis, despite the fact that younger me had never picked up a racket?

Federer has improved with tons of practice and he has maintained all of his physical ability that he ever had. He's better. The end. The numbers don't show decline. Nobody in tennis thinks he declined, whether it's Federer himself, McEnroe, Cahill, etc.


The argument that the level of tennis as a whole hasn't vastly improved in the 10-15 years since Federer was supposedly in his prime is just laughable. He HAD to improve in order to be as successful as he has been, or he would have been left in the dust.
 

SaintPetros

Professional
Statistically and visually, Federer's best tennis was 2015-to-present. The only argument anyone ever has for Federer's decline is, "but his age." Age isn't a tennis statistic, folks. I'm younger than Federer, but I think it's obvious I'm not a better tennis player than him. Right?

So why would a younger Federer be a better player than an older Federer?

Or maybe you think a younger me would beat an older me in tennis, despite the fact that younger me had never picked up a racket?

Federer has improved with tons of practice and he has maintained all of his physical ability that he ever had. He's better. The end. The numbers don't show decline. Nobody in tennis thinks he declined, whether it's Federer himself, McEnroe, Cahill, etc.


The argument that the level of tennis as a whole hasn't vastly improved in the 10-15 years since Federer was supposedly in his prime is just laughable. He HAD to improve in order to be as successful as he has been, or he would have been left in the dust.
Not to mention Federer himself believes he's better than ever. But after all, what does Roger know.
 

Eren

Professional
Huh, break point conversion is dependent on the opponent. I'm sure Fed is relieved to hear that. Must make all those Finals losses to Nadal easier to bear.
And easier for Sampras to handle his loss to a mental weak era midget like Federer. Anyone with a losing record against Fed should hand over all his trophies.

Federer is weak, so his losses against anyone mean nothing and he would have zero Slams in any era before the weak 90s.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I wonder if this has ever happened in another sports fanbase before, or if the RF Fans have finally done something original for once.
It's never been done before, but I suppose Brad Gilbert would know that better than anyone. Someone could tweet him about it.

RF's extremist wing faction (which isn't even the majority of RF fans) have pioneered many things, none of them constructive or useful. Because they commit over and over the biggest logic no-no: they decided on the end-result BEFORE analyzing or conducting an experiment. That is of course anti-science.
 

Eren

Professional
It's never been done before, but I suppose Brad Gilbert would know that better than anyone. Someone could tweet him about it.

RF's extremist wing faction (which isn't even the majority of RF fans) have pioneered many things, none of them constructive or useful. Because they commit over and over the biggest logic no-no: they decided on the end-result BEFORE analyzing or conducting an experiment. That is of course anti-science.
Naah, the entire "he's better than ever" is bs.

Agree though that Federer even in his mid to late 30s has displayed amazing tennis on occasions second to Djokovic only.

How they would fare peak for peak is unknown. The closest peak for peak was probably 11-12 and Djokovic leads 3-2 with the USO being extremely close match and their 3-2 H2H in Slams is close as well.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Naah, the entire "he's better than ever" is bs.

Agree though that Federer even in his mid to late 30s has displayed amazing tennis on occasions second to Djokovic only.

How they would fare peak for peak is unknown. The closest peak for peak was probably 11-12 and Djokovic leads 3-2 with the USO being extremely close match and their 3-2 H2H in Slams is close as well.
The whole peak/prime thing is laughable beyond belief. Perhaps we should just start allocating EXTRA BONUS POINTS for all players who are older than a certain age.

For example, when a 34 year-old beats a 28 year-old, we give the 34 year-old 50 more points, because it's so awesoooooome that he is able to beat a younger player when he is waaaaay past his prime/peak/shmeek.

Or maybe when RF loses to a player 6 years younger, the defeat DOESN'T COUNT in the official H2H. Would that make a lot of RF fans happy, right?

In boxing nobody asks you are you in or out or before or after your prime. You step onto the ring like a man and take defeat like a man, and nobody has lost but you, and you have no excuses (unless you were injured and couldn't punch because your wrist was hurt or whatever). But barring injuries, which are a valid excuse, I am not interested in age at all. Because EVERY player benefits from playing players "past their prime", even RF did that a lot when he was young. What goes around comes around. But some RF fans (very few of them though) try to make it appear as if RF was only VICTIMIZED by his "advancing age", never actually benefited from other players - such as Sampras or Agassi.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Fed has been peak 4 years (2004-07), old 12 years (2008-19).
Djokovic peak 9 years (2011-19), old 0 years.
Nadal peak 12 years (2008-19), old 0 years.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Fed has been peak 4 years (2004-07), old 12 years (2008-19).
Djokovic peak 9 years (2011-19), old 0 years.
Nadal peak 12 years (2008-19), old 0 years.
Could you tell me where from on the internet you downloaded this amazing app that calculates peaks, primes, shmeeps and beeps?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Fed has been peak 4 years (2004-07), old 12 years (2008-19).
Djokovic peak 9 years (2011-19), old 0 years.
Nadal peak 12 years (2008-19), old 0 years.
Most Nadal fans even don't consider him peak in 2019...
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Naah, the entire "he's better than ever" is bs.
“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practiced 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.” (August, 2015)


Question:

In 2003 you won your first title in Dubai. How much chances would the Federer of 2003 have against the Federer of today?

Answer from Federer:

Not many chances I believe. The game has extremely changed. It is more dynamic, faster and has become somewhat ruthless. The players are more athletic and the material makes the game faster. I myself have become better. In fact, I had to become better because I had new opponents and new challenges. Tennis on this level doesn’t allow you stagnancy. (March, 2019)
 

Eren

Professional
The whole peak/prime thing is laughable beyond belief. Perhaps we should just start allocating EXTRA BONUS POINTS for all players who are older than a certain age.

For example, when a 34 year-old beats a 28 year-old, we give the 34 year-old 50 more points, because it's so awesoooooome that he is able to beat a younger player when he is waaaaay past his prime/peak/shmeek.

Or maybe when RF loses to a player 6 years younger, the defeat DOESN'T COUNT in the official H2H. Would that make a lot of RF fans happy, right?

In boxing nobody asks you are you in or out or before or after your prime. You step onto the ring like a man and take defeat like a man, and nobody has lost but you, and you have no excuses (unless you were injured and couldn't punch because your wrist was hurt or whatever). But barring injuries, which are a valid excuse, I am not interested in age at all. Because EVERY player benefits from playing players "past their prime", even RF did that a lot when he was young. What goes around comes around. But some RF fans (very few of them though) try to make it appear as if RF was only VICTIMIZED by his "advancing age", never actually benefited from other players - such as Sampras or Agassi.

I agree, that's why I find it so ridiculous how anyone would think Sampras is even close to Federer in general and on grass in particular.

Less Wimbledon titles, less grass titles, even lost to babyFed when the dude waa a 4 time defending champ and 7 time winner lol etc.

The right order is Djokovic Federer anyone and then Sampras ;)
 

Eren

Professional
“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practiced 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.” (August, 2015)


Question:

In 2003 you won your first title in Dubai. How much chances would the Federer of 2003 have against the Federer of today?

Answer from Federer:

Not many chances I believe. The game has extremely changed. It is more dynamic, faster and has become somewhat ruthless. The players are more athletic and the material makes the game faster. I myself have become better. In fact, I had to become better because I had new opponents and new challenges. Tennis on this level doesn’t allow you stagnancy. (March, 2019)
Yes, we should believe anyone, on his word.
 

The Fedfather

Hall of Fame
Nadal absolutely played better than Djokovic in those respective finals, lolz.
OP didn't bother to look at the Djokovic and Nadal columns in the stats he posted. And of course, listing every single stat that improved for Federer, even by the smallest of margins, but no mention of the stats that became significantly worse.

This is just overall a poor attempt at proving Federer is at his best now. One thing the stats in the thread do show is how unluckily the 2019 final played out for Federer. :X3:
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I agree, that's why I find it so ridiculous how anyone would think Sampras is even close to Federer in general and on grass in particular.

Less Wimbledon titles, less grass titles etc.

The right order is Djokovic Federer anyone and then Sampras ;)
I hate to defend Sampras, but the guy played in an era when you retire at 29-30, let alone 31...

He didn't have the kind of new science juices that exist today. None of them did.

You notice how so MANY 30s guys are doing well, and annihilating the 20somethings in this era? Sampras didn't have that in his era. It is unfair hence to compare eras, one of many reasons the GOAT debate is utter nonsense.

Besides, Sampras's 7-0 finale score in Wimby is more impressive to me than 8-4. It shows dominance when he's at his best, just like Novak at AO 7-0 and Rafa at FO 12-0. It's kind of like a statement: when I'm on here, nobody can beat me.
 

Eren

Professional
I hate to defend Sampras, but the guy played in an era when you retire at 29-30, let alone 31...

He didn't have the kind of new science juices that exist today. None of them did.

You notice how so MANY 30s guys are doing well, and annihilating the 20somethings in this era? Sampras didn't have that in his era. It is unfair hence to compare eras, one of many reasons the GOAT debate is utter nonsense.

Besides, Sampras's 7-0 finale score in Wimby is more impressive to me than 8-4. It shows dominance when he's at his best, just like Novak at AO 7-0 and Rafa at FO 12-0. It's kind of like a statement: when I'm on here, nobody can beat me.
I don't agree with you.

However, despite my little trolling, you're responses are fair.

I do agree that a GOAT does not exist. Even as a huge Fedr fan I don't consider him to be the GOAT.

Fedr >>>>>> Sampras in my book because reaching 12 finals is better than 7. Federer has reached more finals than Sampras and has won more finals than Sampras at Wimbledon, AO, RG and WTF.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I don't agree with you.

However, despite my little trolling, you're responses are fair.

I do agree that a GOAT does not exist. Even as a huge Fedr fan I don't consider him to be the GOAT.

Fedr >>>>>> Sampras in my book because reaching 12 finals is better than 7. Federer has reached more finals than Sampras and has won more finals than Sampras at Wimbledon, AO, RG and WTF.
That's an entirely different matter. I agree that RF is better than Sampras overall, simply coz I never could fully respect Sampras for being a semi-dud on clay because clay is where true grit and consistency come into play. Can't respect him as much as other champs for winning entire slams blasting service winners and aces. Federer's game is better, no question there. He can keep the ball in play which Sampras could rarely do, and Roger's FH is better, his volleys are better, (slightly), he has an edge in nearly every aspect.

But in terms of slams won, players in this era have a big advantage over the 90s generations who had shorter careers.
 

FRV2

Semi-Pro
It's like Tom Brady. His physical abilities are diminished while his knowledge and tactics have improved. That is my guess. I don't think he would do well at all against 2007 Wimbledon Federer.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practiced 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.” (August, 2015)


Question:

In 2003 you won your first title in Dubai. How much chances would the Federer of 2003 have against the Federer of today?

Answer from Federer:

Not many chances I believe. The game has extremely changed. It is more dynamic, faster and has become somewhat ruthless. The players are more athletic and the material makes the game faster. I myself have become better. In fact, I had to become better because I had new opponents and new challenges. Tennis on this level doesn’t allow you stagnancy. (March, 2019)
He said the same thing in 2013 when he was losing left and right.
 

AceSalvo

Legend
Statistically and visually, Federer's best tennis was 2015-to-present.
Just opening the statement with an opinion and following up with no stats is how your opinion becomes quickly trivial.

Here are the stats that show 2015 was nothing in front of 2007 Peak Fed.

Wimbledon Final stats:

 

ibbi

Hall of Fame
The answer to your question is literally in your original post. Look at the stats of the 2019 match and tell me what having better stats means removed from context? Federer has literally got better stats than Djokovic in every stat bar one. It's borderline meaningless.
 

SaintPetros

Professional
It's like Tom Brady. His physical abilities are diminished while his knowledge and tactics have improved. That is my guess. I don't think he would do well at all against 2007 Wimbledon Federer.
Even if we accept your theory, a hypothetical match where 2007 Fed plays 2019 Fed has to account for Fed's knowledge of himself. He would know everything he'd do before he did it: Ergo, Fed would win.
 
Top