Why The Grass Is Always Greener For Roger Federer

[junior74]

Participating in threads like these is depression cubed during Covid.

Some things that bother me:

• People insist on mixing all eras together than then making lists based on stats from very different times. I don't even like comparing Sampras with the Big 3 because tennis was so different. Sampras was pretty much the only guy who was sucking up slam titles then. Agassi's carrer was so much longer, and a lot of his accomplishments finally came when Sampras declined and then retired. Other than those two there were all those clay players, and the 90s were really unpredictable. Even on grass, when Sampras did not win, you never knew who else would win.
• If we mostly look at tennis since 2000, you just see these three monster players, the Big 3, and everything else seems so secondary. Only Murray and Wawrinka sort of broke up the dynasty. I don't know why people automatically assume the Big 3 are THAT much better than everyone else, and that there is not more to the equation than three gigantic talents. But that's too much to go into here.
• Fed was king, not only of winning matches and slams, but also in terms of being pretty much "king", while he was on top. Nadal was the only guy breaking through, but mostly on clay, and Fed had every reason in the world to think that his game strategy, training and talent would go on dominating - until it didn't.
• It's not Fed's fault that the two guys who would eventually dethrone him were 5 and 6 years younger, but it definitely impacted his further evolution, making him confident and also complacent. If Novak and Nadal had been the older guys, it's quite possible they would have evolved less, and Fed growing up younger would have been more proactive in changing his game. But it is what it is. He was the older champion, and he did not change his game until almost too late.
• Because of his earlier success, not having anyone to really challenge him routinely off clay, his strategy/game plan was not as well developed, and you can see that in stats. Both Nadal and Djokovic have handled break points better over their careers, and break points tell a huge part of the story. Today, when you watch the Big 3 play each other, you know that Fed is going to give away more big points. I say that as a Fed fan. It's an inconvenient truth. Nadal and Djokovic are more disciplined about handling key points. They know exactly what they need to do and do it. Fed improvises, resulting in brilliant moments, but also in losses like Wimbledon 2019.
• Most of all, almost no one acknowledges the huge advantage of an age difference to the older player, when the older player is under 25, and how much that changes when the older player approaches 30 and passes 30. What happened to Fed is what's supposed to happen. The younger stars reach parity and then dominate. That's always happened in the past unless there were issues like burnout or injuries. The same thing should have happened to Nadal and Joker. They should have dominated aging Fed (although Nadal not so much on fast surfaces because of his clay bias and knees). What Djokovic is doing should be 100% predictable. It's normal. What is not normal is that Nadal and Djokovic have no younger players doing to them what they did to Fed. They have a free ride, and if their fans were fair, they would acknowledge that, just the way fair Fed fans would acknowledge that he was gifted with almost no competition other than Nadal from the end of 2003 through 2007.

Good post!

I think the way Federer improvises is a huge part of his attraction. Had he played the big points with more care, I am pretty sure he would have had more titles to his name. We've waited a long time for new players to step up now. "The longer the waiting, the sweeter the kiss"?

 

[beard]

Amazing.

Do you think same for yourself?

 

[beard]

But surely the most distinguished one?

Yeah, biggest Rafole trophie, for sure...

 

[Gary Duane]

Good post!

I think the way Federer improvises is a huge part of his attraction. Had he played the big points with more care, I am pretty sure he would have had more titles to his name. We've waited a long time for new players to step up now. "The longer the waiting, the sweeter the kiss"?

Improvising is a sign of flexibility and pure talent. In music, in my field, the guys who are incredible improvisers tend to think very fast, and they exploit that talent showing off. But that does not mean the improvisers are better players, or better musicians. It's just personality. If you are in the right mood, it's fun to listen to.

Fed at his best is fun to watch and always has been. But would he win more being less off the cuff and more disciplined, scientific in his approach? That's complicated, because I suspect a lot of what has kept him going so long is just having fun. The man enjoys playing and showing off. That's a large part of his appeal. But I personally think it has cost him some really big wins. If the person closest to Fed in terms of play style and fast court dominance, at least since 1990, is Sampras, then I believe Sampras was more clinical. I'm not sure stats will back that up. Agassis almost definitely.

The thing I hate most about Joker, his machine-like precission and ability to be a backboard, is also one of the things I most admire about him. I don't like watching it, but I fully admire the discipline. Nadal is even more that way on clay, and absolutely machine. The fact that he brings so much energy and intensity is a bonus. The only guy I ever saw play that way on clay was Borg.

I did a lot of stat work on break points, and I've never been able to explain what I found, but here is the deal:

• If you examine both points and breakpoints over years and careers for many players, you find out that break point percentage is eerily in line with point percentage. I have the files to prove that.
• In general players win more points than break points on serve, and by a margin of generally 1-2%. I have NO idea why this is.
• On return it is reversed. Players win 1-2% more break points than points on return. Same thing: I have NO idea why.
• Obviously the difference between break points and point in one match or a few can be huge, so this idea only works on average over a lot of matches.
• In general, when you add up break points and all points by percentage, both serve and return games, it tends to zero out.
• Any time you find a player with a net break point advantage over a career or over several peak years on a surface, it's a sign of huge mental strength and very smart tactics.
• Fed's record on clay is AWFUL re this stat. Career is 67% of serve game points but 65% of break points. Then on return 41% of points but 40% of break points. That's a net of -3, and that is HUGE for an ATG.
• Where is Nadal on clay? +1 on serve and +2 on return. That's a net of +3, so there is a net difference between Nadal and Fed on clay of 6. That's not ability, and it's not athletic level. It's strategy. Fed makes bad choices on clay. It's a combination of impatience and poor strategy.
• Joker is -1 on service games on hard, and likely that reflects some weak years pre 2011. But he makes up for it at +3 on return, a net of +2.
• Fed in hard? Net 0.
• No top player should have a negative net, and even 0 is not the best. Agassi is +1 on hard.

 

[beard]

Participating in threads like these is depression cubed during Covid.

Some things that bother me:

• People insist on mixing all eras together than then making lists based on stats from very different times. I don't even like comparing Sampras with the Big 3 because tennis was so different. Sampras was pretty much the only guy who was sucking up slam titles then. Agassi's carrer was so much longer, and a lot of his accomplishments finally came when Sampras declined and then retired. Other than those two there were all those clay players, and the 90s were really unpredictable. Even on grass, when Sampras did not win, you never knew who else would win.
• If we mostly look at tennis since 2000, you just see these three monster players, the Big 3, and everything else seems so secondary. Only Murray and Wawrinka sort of broke up the dynasty. I don't know why people automatically assume the Big 3 are THAT much better than everyone else, and that there is not more to the equation than three gigantic talents. But that's too much to go into here.
• Fed was was so incredibly dominant, not only of winning matches and slams, but also in terms of being pretty much "king", while he was on top. Nadal was the only guy breaking through, but mostly on clay, and Fed had every reason in the world to think that his game strategy, training and talent would go on dominating - until it didn't.
• It's not Fed's fault that the two guys who would eventually dethrone him were 5 and 6 years younger, but it definitely impacted his further evolution, making him confident and also complacent. If Novak and Nadal had been the older guys, it's quite possible they would have evolved less, and Fed growing up younger would have been more proactive in changing his game. But it is what it is. He was the older champion, and he did not change his game until almost too late.
• Because of his earlier success, not having anyone to really challenge him routinely off clay, his strategy/game plan was not as well developed, and you can see that in stats. Both Nadal and Djokovic have handled break points better over their careers, and break points tell a huge part of the story. Today, when you watch the Big 3 play each other, you know that Fed is going to give away more big points. I say that as a Fed fan. It's an inconvenient truth. Nadal and Djokovic are more disciplined about handling key points. They know exactly what they need to do and do it. Fed improvises, resulting in brilliant moments, but also in losses like Wimbledon 2019.
• Most of all, almost no one acknowledges the huge advantage of an age difference to the older player, when the older player is under 25, and how much that changes when the older player approaches 30 and passes 30. What happened to Fed is what's supposed to happen. The younger stars reach parity and then dominate. That's always happened in the past unless there were issues like burnout or injuries. The same thing should have happened to Nadal and Joker. They should have dominated aging Fed (although Nadal not so much on fast surfaces because of his clay bias and knees). What Djokovic is doing should be 100% predictable. It's normal. What is not normal is that Nadal and Djokovic have no younger players doing to them what they did to Fed. They have a free ride, and if their fans were fair, they would acknowledge that, just the way fair Fed fans would acknowledge that he was gifted with almost no competition other than Nadal from the end of 2003 through 2007.

Good post overally...
Bolded... It may be true, but true can be much simpler, that Rafa and Novak are just a bit better players... Can you give a shot at that opinion? I think that's real truth, and although Fed fans are rightfully delighted with his recent wins over younger Rafa, those wins are goid proof that age is often just a number...

 

[Subway Tennis]

@Gary Duane this is awesome stuff. Thanks for posting.

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

Participating in threads like these is depression cubed during Covid.

Some things that bother me:

• People insist on mixing all eras together than then making lists based on stats from very different times. I don't even like comparing Sampras with the Big 3 because tennis was so different. Sampras was pretty much the only guy who was sucking up slam titles then. Agassi's carrer was so much longer, and a lot of his accomplishments finally came when Sampras declined and then retired. Other than those two there were all those clay players, and the 90s were really unpredictable. Even on grass, when Sampras did not win, you never knew who else would win.
• If we mostly look at tennis since 2000, you just see these three monster players, the Big 3, and everything else seems so secondary. Only Murray and Wawrinka sort of broke up the dynasty. I don't know why people automatically assume the Big 3 are THAT much better than everyone else, and that there is not more to the equation than three gigantic talents. But that's too much to go into here.
• Fed was was so incredibly dominant, not only of winning matches and slams, but also in terms of being pretty much "king", while he was on top. Nadal was the only guy breaking through, but mostly on clay, and Fed had every reason in the world to think that his game strategy, training and talent would go on dominating - until it didn't.
• It's not Fed's fault that the two guys who would eventually dethrone him were 5 and 6 years younger, but it definitely impacted his further evolution, making him confident and also complacent. If Novak and Nadal had been the older guys, it's quite possible they would have evolved less, and Fed growing up younger would have been more proactive in changing his game. But it is what it is. He was the older champion, and he did not change his game until almost too late.
• Because of his earlier success, not having anyone to really challenge him routinely off clay, his strategy/game plan was not as well developed, and you can see that in stats. Both Nadal and Djokovic have handled break points better over their careers, and break points tell a huge part of the story. Today, when you watch the Big 3 play each other, you know that Fed is going to give away more big points. I say that as a Fed fan. It's an inconvenient truth. Nadal and Djokovic are more disciplined about handling key points. They know exactly what they need to do and do it. Fed improvises, resulting in brilliant moments, but also in losses like Wimbledon 2019.
• Most of all, almost no one acknowledges the huge advantage of an age difference to the older player, when the older player is under 25, and how much that changes when the older player approaches 30 and passes 30. What happened to Fed is what's supposed to happen. The younger stars reach parity and then dominate. That's always happened in the past unless there were issues like burnout or injuries. The same thing should have happened to Nadal and Joker. They should have dominated aging Fed (although Nadal not so much on fast surfaces because of his clay bias and knees). What Djokovic is doing should be 100% predictable. It's normal. What is not normal is that Nadal and Djokovic have no younger players doing to them what they did to Fed. They have a free ride, and if their fans were fair, they would acknowledge that, just the way fair Fed fans would acknowledge that he was gifted with almost no competition other than Nadal from the end of 2003 through 2007.

Agreed on all counts.

 

[Gary Duane]

Good post overally...
Bolded... It may be true, but true can be much simpler, that Rafa and Novak are just a bit better players...

No. I absolutely disagree. I also don't believe that Fed is demonstrably a better player.

Can you give a shot at that opinion? I think that's real truth, and although Fed fans are rightfully delighted with his recent wins over younger Rafa, those wins are goid proof that age is often just a number...

No. I don't agree at all. I don't think your view of history is large enough. You can go all the back and find players who were amazing at the age of 30 and older, but I don't think you will find one who played at the same high level as his younger self. The fact is that as players age they find out the hard way how difficult it is to keep winning. You can't tell me that Djokovic, for instance, is a perfect player. Obvious better than anyone else before. He has amazing strengths, but like all players he has weaknesses. We all know about the overhead. He's not one of histories best volleyers, and he's doesn't have the world's most powerful serve. His greatest strength has been absolutely amazing returning, but his numbers keep falling a bit each year. He should be vulnerable now. They all should be. None of them should have been winning so much this later in their careers.

If Nadal and Djokovic go on winning all the slams, it just means that the younger players who should be challenging are the weakest group ever.

 

[Marfrilau]

Good post overally...
Bolded... It may be true, but true can be much simpler, that Rafa and Novak are just a bit better players... Can you give a shot at that opinion? I think that's real truth, and although Fed fans are rightfully delighted with his recent wins over younger Rafa, those wins are goid proof that age is often just a number...

No, that just proofs that Nadal had a steeper decline than Federer. Which makes sense given that his playing style relies more on physical prowess.

If you really believe that age is just a number then answer me this. How many sports where we can objectively measure who's best have record holders in say their 30+ years of age?

Also I assume you believe at some point age starts to matter. When do you believe this happens then? Is it just a sudden thing?

 

[Red Rick]

Improvising is a sign of flexibility and pure talent. In music, in my field, the guys who are incredible improvisers tend to think very fast, and they exploit that talent showing off. But that does not mean the improvisers are better players, or better musicians. It's just personality. If you are in the right mood, it's fun to listen to.

Fed at his best is fun to watch and always has been. But would he win more being less off the cuff and more disciplined, scientific in his approach? That's complicated, because I suspect a lot of what has kept him going so long is just having fun. The man enjoys playing and showing off. That's a large part of his appeal. But I personally think it has cost him some really big wins. If the person closest to Fed in terms of play style and fast court dominance, at least since 1990, is Sampras, then I believe Sampras was more clinical. I'm not sure stats will back that up. Agassis almost definitely.

The thing I hate most about Joker, his machine-like precission and ability to be a backboard, is also one of the things I most admire about him. I don't like watching it, but I fully admire the discipline. Nadal is even more that way on clay, and absolutely machine. The fact that he brings so much energy and intensity is a bonus. The only guy I ever saw play that way on clay was Borg.

I did a lot of stat work on break points, and I've never been able to explain what I found, but here is the deal:

• If you examine both points and breakpoints over years and careers for many players, you find out that break point percentage is eerily in line with point percentage. I have the files to prove that.
• In general players win more points than break points on serve, and by a margin of generally 1-2%. I have NO idea why this is.
• On return it is reversed. Players win 1-2% more break points than points on return. Same thing: I have NO idea why.
• Obviously the difference between break points and point in one match or a few can be huge, so this idea only works on average over a lot of matches.
• In general, when you add up break points and all points by percentage, both serve and return games, it tends to zero out.
• Any time you find a player with a net break point advantage over a career or over several peak years on a surface, it's a sign of huge mental strength and very smart tactics.
• Fed's record on clay is AWFUL re this stat. Career is 67% of serve game points but 65% of break points. Then on return 41% of points but 40% of break points. That's a net of -3, and that is HUGE for an ATG.
• Where is Nadal on clay? +1 on serve and +2 on return. That's a net of +3, so there is a net difference between Nadal and Fed on clay of 6. That's not ability, and it's not athletic level. It's strategy. Fed makes bad choices on clay. It's a combination of impatience and poor strategy.
• Joker is -1 on service games on hard, and likely that reflects some weak years pre 2011. But he makes up for it at +3 on return, a net of +2.
• Fed in hard? Net 0.
• No top player should have a negative net, and even 0 is not the best. Agassi is +1 on hard.

It's because you get more breakpoints in matches where your win more return points, and you face more breakpoints in matches where you lose more servepoints generally. An extreme example. You play 2 samples of 100 return points. In the first sample, you'll win 0% of return points. In the 2nd sample, you'll win 100% of return points. In the first one, you won't get any breakpoints, while in the 2nd one you'll convert all of them, so while you win 50% of return points, your %break points won will be 100%.

I think huge outliers in this probably aren't necessarily the strongest guys mentally, but I think they just tank more return points in lost games, though surely there's mental component. Secondly, I think with breakpoints there can easily be a large discrepancy between deuce and ad court points, and I'm quite Federer really shines in the deuce court.

Nadal should really benefit in this stat from his leftiness.

Fed remains quite interesting in that I'd like to look at how his numbers stack up over different matches cause I think his weaker BP conversion is something that's highly concentrated over specific matches more so than just that's a lower average every match.

 

[Red Rick]

No. I absolutely disagree. I also don't believe that Fed is demonstrably a better player.

No. I don't agree at all. I don't think your view of history is large enough. You can go all the back and find players who were amazing at the age of 30 and older, but I don't think you will find one who played at the same high level as his younger self. The fact is that as players age they find out the hard way how difficult it is to keep winning. You can't tell me that Djokovic, for instance, is a perfect player. Obvious better than anyone else before. He has amazing strengths, but like all players he has weaknesses. We all know about the overhead. He's not one of histories best volleyers, and he's doesn't have the world's most powerful serve. His greatest strength has been absolutely amazing returning, but his numbers keep falling a bit each year. He should be vulnerable now. They all should be. None of them should have been winning so much this later in their careers.

If Nadal and Djokovic go on winning all the slams, it just means that the younger players who should be challenging are the weakest group ever.

Nadal, slow as he was, posted career high HC stats last year. I don't doubt for 1 second the current group is the weakest ever. Especially since the 2nd line of players from Djokodal's own generation has largely broken down.

As for Djokovic fallen return stats, return stats were overall way down last year, and his rolling average in hold% over the last 52 weeks is a career high 90% on HC. I think he's getting a little less consistent but the stats aren't going down that much yet. Djoko's movement is the big question for me, cause while I don't really doubt he'll move better than Federer at the same age, he'll also suffer much more from getting slower.

Nadal meanwhile has the brute force to play more and more aggressively in the next few years, but I can see him struggling more with big servers in the future.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Not sure if 8-7 qualifies as peerless.

How about Fed’s 19 total grass titles while Pete has 7 grass titles? Anything peerless about that?

 

[beard]

Good post overally...
Bolded... It may be true, but true can be much simpler, that Rafa and Novak are just a bit better players... Can you give a shot at that opinion? I think that's real truth, and although Fed fans are rightfully delighted with his recent wins over younger Rafa, those wins are goid proof that age is often just a number...

No, that just proofs that Nadal had a steeper decline than Federer. Which makes sense given that his playing style relies more on physical prowess.

If you really believe that age is just a number then answer me this. How many sports where we can objectively measure who's best have record holders in say their 30+ years of age?

Also I assume you believe at some point age starts to matter. When do you believe this happens then? Is it just a sudden thing?

I read your first sentence and it's essentially what I'm saying... If one player has steeper decline than other, than age as a number means nothing. Federer have slower physical decline, comprehended with expirience and some adjustments, so he is great player even in later stage of his career... And he should get all credits for that, but his own fans degrades him, because they can easier handle the fact there are better players... Age as a number is nothing but lame excuse...

 

[Red Rick]

How about Fed’s 19 total grass titles while Pete has 7 grass titles? Anything peerless about that?

Just insert any other stat than just Wimbledon wins and Sampras isn't close.

Sampras has his merit on grass, but it's too much of a stretch to put him up there with Federer.

 

[mike danny]

Participating in threads like these is depression cubed during Covid.

Some things that bother me:

• People insist on mixing all eras together than then making lists based on stats from very different times. I don't even like comparing Sampras with the Big 3 because tennis was so different. Sampras was pretty much the only guy who was sucking up slam titles then. Agassi's carrer was so much longer, and a lot of his accomplishments finally came when Sampras declined and then retired. Other than those two there were all those clay players, and the 90s were really unpredictable. Even on grass, when Sampras did not win, you never knew who else would win.
• If we mostly look at tennis since 2000, you just see these three monster players, the Big 3, and everything else seems so secondary. Only Murray and Wawrinka sort of broke up the dynasty. I don't know why people automatically assume the Big 3 are THAT much better than everyone else, and that there is not more to the equation than three gigantic talents. But that's too much to go into here.
• Fed was was so incredibly dominant, not only of winning matches and slams, but also in terms of being pretty much "king", while he was on top. Nadal was the only guy breaking through, but mostly on clay, and Fed had every reason in the world to think that his game strategy, training and talent would go on dominating - until it didn't.
• It's not Fed's fault that the two guys who would eventually dethrone him were 5 and 6 years younger, but it definitely impacted his further evolution, making him confident and also complacent. If Novak and Nadal had been the older guys, it's quite possible they would have evolved less, and Fed growing up younger would have been more proactive in changing his game. But it is what it is. He was the older champion, and he did not change his game until almost too late.
• Because of his earlier success, not having anyone to really challenge him routinely off clay, his strategy/game plan was not as well developed, and you can see that in stats. Both Nadal and Djokovic have handled break points better over their careers, and break points tell a huge part of the story. Today, when you watch the Big 3 play each other, you know that Fed is going to give away more big points. I say that as a Fed fan. It's an inconvenient truth. Nadal and Djokovic are more disciplined about handling key points. They know exactly what they need to do and do it. Fed improvises, resulting in brilliant moments, but also in losses like Wimbledon 2019.
• Most of all, almost no one acknowledges the huge advantage of an age difference to the older player, when the older player is under 25, and how much that changes when the older player approaches 30 and passes 30. What happened to Fed is what's supposed to happen. The younger stars reach parity and then dominate. That's always happened in the past unless there were issues like burnout or injuries. The same thing should have happened to Nadal and Joker. They should have dominated aging Fed (although Nadal not so much on fast surfaces because of his clay bias and knees). What Djokovic is doing should be 100% predictable. It's normal. What is not normal is that Nadal and Djokovic have no younger players doing to them what they did to Fed. They have a free ride, and if their fans were fair, they would acknowledge that, just the way fair Fed fans would acknowledge that he was gifted with almost no competition other than Nadal from the end of 2003 through 2007.

Perfectly fair post.

Fair Djokovic fans should just admit that Djokovic starting with 2015 has had around the same advantages in terms of competition to Fed from late 2003 through 2007. Except he had no younger player on his heels.

 

[Marfrilau]

I read your first sentence and it's essentially what I'm saying... If one player has steeper decline than other, than age as a number means nothing. Federer have slower physical decline, comprehended with expirience and some adjustments, so he is great player even in later stage of his career... And he should get all credits for that, but his own fans degrades him, because they can easier handle the fact there are better players... Age as a number is nothing but lame excuse...

How can age just be a number when it clearly affects physical performance? Just because some players have built their game more around physical ability than others doesn't mean that age it is just a number. It just proves that age DOES matter.

 

[beard]

How can age just be a number when it clearly affects physical performance? Just because some players have built their game more around physical ability than others doesn't mean that age it is just a number. It just proves that age DOES matter.

Federer-Nadal and Federer-Novak rivalries proves you wrong... Novak and Rafa about same age, totally different paths... Age is just a number...

 

[Marfrilau]

Federer-Nadal and Federer-Novak rivalries proves you wrong... Novak and Rafa about same age, totally different paths... Age is just a number...

I always find it funny when people use the exception to somehow argue in favor of something.

"Look at this single example I've found where the older player started dominating the younger one (based on a very small amount of matches no less). I'll just ignore all the other examples of the younger player dominating the older one."

It's like claiming that winning the lottery isn't unlikely by pointing to the one who won it the last time...

But as I've already said, this doesn't prove what you think it proves. It actually shows the importance the negative effect that age has on physical ability.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

He's talking about Slams. Djokovic has been regularly beating Federer in Slams since 2010. This is true.

Exactly Machan! That's the point I was making as players are largely judged by the majors

Also, I want to ask the Federer fans .... can we now say that Djokovic is majoring in the majors?

 

[Antonio Puente]

Just insert any other stat than just Wimbledon wins and Sampras isn't close

With no grass Masters, a few 250s and 500s, Wimbledon is pretty much grass season, and that was especially true when it was only a two week break between RG and W.. Fed fans probably value Halle a little more than the average person does. People think nothing of a player just showing up for Wimbledon. In recent times, Nadal and Djoker have played a warmup occasionally, but the two best players in the world usually go straight to Wimbledon.

Does Fed have more grass wins, is he statistically superior to Sampras? Yes. At 8-7 in grass slams, is Fed "without peer?" No. That's especially true, considering there's a guy with 5 who has beaten him numerous times at Wimbledon and is currently missing his opportunity for #6.

 

[Red Rick]

With no grass Masters, a few 250s and 500s, Wimbledon is pretty much grass season, and that was especially true when it was only a two week break between RG and W.. Fed fans probably value Halle a little more than the average person does. People think nothing of a player just showing up for Wimbledon. In recent times, Nadal and Djoker have played a warmup occasionally, but the two best players in the world usually go straight to Wimbledon.

Does Fed have more grass wins, is he statistically superior to Sampras? Yes. At 8-7 in grass slams, is Fed "without peer?" No. That's especially true, considering there's a guy with 5 who has beaten him numerous times at Wimbledon and is currently missing his opportunity for #6.

12 finals vs 7. Also check grass accomplishments of Samrpas' opponents compared to Feds.

 

[Antonio Puente]

12 finals vs 7. Also check grass accomplishments of Samrpas' opponents compared to Feds.

I agree, he's statistically superior. At 8-7, however, "without peer" is over-the-top.

 

[Fridge]

How about Fed’s 19 total grass titles while Pete has 7 grass titles? Anything peerless about that?

Well considering Pete has 10 total grass titles (according to wiki) I think it is a little bit of bias that you don't even look up stats just to support your arguments

 

[Sephiroth]

LOL Fed fans thinking Halle titles puts Fed on a different dimension on grass vs Sampras, plz, with 7 Wimbledon titles and arguably the best grass court tennis played, Sampras is 100% Fed's peer on the surface.

Sampras was a ****ing behemoth on grass (and fast hard courts)

 

[bluetrain4]

Never mind that all those finals were contested when Fed was 34, 35 and 38 years old against an opponent 6 years younger.

Think that enters into it?

It shouldn't. He chose to play on into his mid and late 30s. He's good enough to make Wimbledon finals at those ages, yet suddenly his age should excuse him when he loses the final?

TT's obsession with qualifying every win or loss is just frustrating. Basically nothing counts - weak era, player not at his peak, non-peak opponent (if player X wins), wrong surface, too old, too young, off-court issues, and on and on. If players voluntarily choose to participate and step on the court - the result is the result - it doesn't need to be qualified.

 

[mike danny]

It shouldn't. He chose to play on into his mid and late 30s. He's good enough to make Wimbledon finals at those ages, yet suddenly his age should excuse him when he loses the final.

TT's obsession with qualifying every win or loss is just frustrating. Basically nothing counts - weak era, player not at his peak, non-peak opponent (if player X wins), wrong surface, too old, too young, off-court issues, and on and on. If players voluntarily choose to participate and step on the court - the result is the result - it doesn't need to be qualified.

It needs to if the conclusions drawn are Federer is a terrible player and Djoker is better on grass than him.

 

[JaoSousa]

LOL Fed fans thinking Halle titles puts Fed on a different dimension on grass vs Sampras, plz, with 7 Wimbledon titles and arguably the best grass court tennis played, Sampras is 100% Fed's peer on the surface.

Sampras was a ****ing behemoth on grass (and fast hard courts)

Sampras Grass Court Resume from 18-31:

1R

1R

2R

SF

W

W

W

QF

W

W

W

W

4R

2R

Federer's Grass Court Resume from 18-31:

1R

QF

1R

W

W

W

W

W

F

W

QF

QF

W

2R

So even in the same age span, Federer has better results than Sampras.
Add to that an extra title, 3 additional finals, a semifinal, and a quarterfinal, it is safe to say that Federer is a better grasscourt player.

Then adding all his other accomplishments on grass, Federer is clearly a better grasscourt player. Peerless might be the wrong word, though.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

LOL Fed fans thinking Halle titles puts Fed on a different dimension on grass vs Sampras, plz, with 7 Wimbledon titles and arguably the best grass court tennis played, Sampras is 100% Fed's peer on the surface.

Sampras was a ****ing behemoth on grass (and fast hard courts)

Super post Sephiroth & @Antonio Puente

If anyone's peerless at Wimbledon, it's Sampras ... if Sampras got to the final, you knew there could only be one outcome

 

[Nole_King]

Machi ... agreed it was in Federer's later years. But that doesn't negate the wins because Djokovic has been beating Federer regularly since 2010 when Federer was under 30. Considering that, we cannot conclusively say Federer would have gotten the better of Djokovic in earlier years. I don't know if I'm getting the point across clearly but I hope you understand.

But he did get better of Novak in earlier years.

 

[Nole_King]

Yes, but most of these wins by Djokovic were also matched by Federer. Federer beat him in USO 2007,2008,2009, RG 2011, and W 2012, Whereas Djokovic beat him in AO 2008, USO 2009, 2011, AO 2011, and RG 2012. After that, Federer began to decline in level of play, and Djokovic was able to bounce back from his disappointing seasons in 2012 and 2013.

I have always thought that Djokovic and Federer were very evenly matched (evidenced by 3 40-15s), even on the biggest stages. Would have been extremely interesting to see who would come out on top the most if both were the same age...

As a Nole fan I would not look forward to a 38 year old Novak playing against a 38 year old Federer. I would see whatever Federer loses out in earlier years, he makes up with more post 2015.

 

[beard]

I always find it funny when people use the exception to somehow argue in favor of something.

"Look at this single example I've found where the older player started dominating the younger one (based on a very small amount of matches no less). I'll just ignore all the other examples of the younger player dominating the older one."

It's like claiming that winning the lottery isn't unlikely by pointing to the one who won it the last time...

But as I've already said, this doesn't prove what you think it proves. It actually shows the importance the negative effect that age has on physical ability.

How many examples you want? We don't have that many examples to compare. We have big 3 who are so special that you can't compare them to any other players. If you want to look at older generations, you must have in mind that game changed a lot age wise... Players weren't so good at later stages of careers as they are now, it's old topic here on forum...
So I'll stick to example we see happening right now... If Fed can beat Nadal he should be able to beat Novak as well, and he occasionaly do it, it's not age thing...

 

[Marfrilau]

How many examples you want? We don't have that many examples to compare. We have big 3 who are so special that you can't compare them to any other players. If you want to look at older generations, you must have in mind that game changed a lot age wise... Players weren't so good at later stages of careers as they are now, it's old topic here on forum...
So I'll stick to example we see happening right now... If Fed can beat Nadal he should be able to beat Novak as well, and he occasionaly do it, it's not age thing...

The Big 3 are no different than other players other than their level being higher. Or are you suggesting that they don't follow human physiology? That will naturally lead to them being able to continue being a factor late in their careers. Especially if there's no ATGs in the following generations.

Just because Federer can beat Nadal (not high enough sample size to conclude that he would win more often than not though given enough matches) and sometimes Djokovic does not mean that he does not have a disadvantage due to age. It just means that a players level is not constant. However if both players play at their max level possible on the given day he will always have a disadvantage due to age because he has physically declined more.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

But he did get better of Novak in earlier years.

That's why I say we cannot say conclusively one is better than the other. They would both have had chances against each other had their primes been at the same time.

 

[Nole_King]

That's why I say we cannot say conclusively one is better than the other. They would both have had chances against each other had their primes been at the same time.

True. I feel if Federer was of same age as Novak and Rafa, whatever he loses out in his earlier days he more than makes up in the later age (when all are over 35).

 

[Deleted member 744633]

True. I feel if Federer was of same age as Novak and Rafa, whatever he loses out in his earlier days he more than makes up in the later age (when all are over 35).

That's possible but again, we cannot say conclusively because that will never happen. Check with @Sport if you don't believe me

Whatever the reasons may be, the only 'fact' we have at our disposal is that Djokovic dominates Federer at Wimbledon.

 

[Gbengr]

Why do people discuss 'Peak' Federer like he was some mythical creature? What's so special about 'Peak' Federer?

1. 'Peak' Federer (2003-2009) struggled against baby Nadal on all surfaces (and not just clay) and lost to Nadal far from often than he did beat him. Losing head to head record: 7-13

2. 'Peak' Federer' (2003-2009) struggled against young Murray too (outside of slams) and lost to Murray far from often than he did beat him. Losing head to head record: 2-6

So, tell me, would 'Peak' Djokovic (2011-2016) fare worse against 'Peak' Federer than those guys? You mean 'Peak' Djokovic would struggle against the dude who couldn't put baby Nadal and young Murray away?

Absolutely not!!!

'Peak' Djokovic (2011-2016) would've beaten 'Peak' Federer (2003-2009) more often than not. All evidence points to this.

 

[JaoSousa]

As a Nole fan I would not look forward to a 38 year old Novak playing against a 38 year old Federer. I would see whatever Federer loses out in earlier years, he makes up with more post 2015.

I would tend to agree with this. As someone who watched all three come into and out of their primes, I think 38 year old Novak would still be really good, but would have to adjust his game due to his compromised movement. What I actually meant was 2011 Djokovic playing 2006 or 2005 Federer, and how that would go down.

 

[JaoSousa]

Why do people discuss 'Peak' Federer like he was some mythical creature? What's so special about 'Peak' Federer?

1. 'Peak' Federer (2003-2009) struggled against baby Nadal on all surfaces (and not just clay) and lost to Nadal far from often than he did beat him. Losing head to head record: 7-13

2. 'Peak' Federer' (2003-2009) struggled against young Murray too (outside of slams) and lost to Murray far from often than he did beat him. Losing head to head record: 2-6

So, tell me, would 'Peak' Djokovic (2011-2016) fare worse against 'Peak' Federer than those guys? You mean 'Peak' Djokovic would struggle against the dude who couldn't put baby Nadal and young Murray away?

Absolutely not!!!

'Peak' Djokovic (2011-2016) would've beaten 'Peak' Federer (2003-2009) more often than not. All evidence points to this.

Unfortunately, your analysis is not thorough. You include 6 years for Federer and 5 years for Djokovic. I fixed it for you by making Federer 2003-2008, even though I disagree 2008 was a "peak" year. I am including it because you still included 2013 and 2014 which were not spectacular for Djokovic either.

1. First of all, let us examine the losses Federer had to Nadal.

Nadal-Federer on hard courts: 2-3 ( Nadal beats him in Miami 2004, and Dubai 2006)
Nadal- Federer on grass Courts: 1-2
Nadal-Federer on clay courts: 9-1

If you look at the tournaments that Federer and Nadal played on clay, they are exclusively the finals of M1000s or the FO(besides RG SF 2005). These years were Nadal's peak level on clay courts. Feel free to disagree with the previous statement.

The grass court matches are ones that everyone knows about. 2006 Wimbledon wasn't Rafa's peak on grass, and it was definitely close to Federer's. 2007 was Federer's best(or close to) on grass, and close to Nadal's best as well. 2008 was still Federer's prime on grass, and Nadal's absolute peak.

On hard courts, the only loss that really jumps out is Dubai 2006. The fact that Federer could not put away Nadal, who was 3 years away from winning his first HC is pretty pathetic.

So calling Nadal "baby" is a very hasty generalization that does not add any context to your posts. I would go as far as to say you are deliberately being misleading.

Djokovic never had to deal with Nadal at the peak of his powers on clay other than in 2012, in my opinion. If Djokovic had to play 2006-2008 Nadal on clay, I don't think any version besides 2011 would have been able to take him out.

Just to note, Djokovic in his best year, 2015, lost to 6-years-post-prime Federer 3 times. In his entire prime, as you defined it, he went 15-9 against Federer, who was not in his prime on any surface in those years.

I'll respond to the rest later.

 

[Gbengr]

Oh, you want me to take 2003-2008 as Federer's prime years? There is not much difference. 'Peak' Federer still comes off looking very average or ordinary.

Federer still had a losing head-to-head record against Nadal in those years: 6-12.

Federer had a losing head-to-head record against Murray in those years (no clay): 2-4.

My argument is very simple. If those versions of Nadal and Murray did so well against 'Peak' Federer, why would 'Peak' Djokovic fare any worse?

 

[Gbengr]

2004

ATP Masters 1000 Miami FL, U.S.A.

Outdoor Hard

R32

Rafael Nadal

63 63

2005

ATP Masters 1000 Miami FL, U.S.A.

Outdoor Hard

F

Roger Federer

26 674 765 63 61

Dubai U.A.E.

Outdoor Hard

F

Rafael Nadal

26 64 64

Just look at their first 3 matches on hard court. Federer got just one win at Miami 2005 and he barely even managed it because Nadal could have easily won that match.

I mean, this was baby Nadal on hardcourts doing this against 'PEAAAAAAAK' Federer in this absolute prime. Nadal peak on hard courts came much later (2013).

Sorry, that version of Nadal should never have troubled Federer on hard courts. Federer simply had a match up problem with Nadal even on hard courts and that's all on him. Peak Federer

'Peak' Federer struggled against young Murray too. I mean, what's 'Peak' Federer's excuse for losing 4 matches to Murray while winning only 2?

Why does 'Peak' Federer seem to have so much problems against decent players? Why did they beat 'Peak' Federer twice the number of times he beat them?

Perhaps, this 'Peak' Federer guy just isn't that good.

Like I said earlier, there's no way peak Djokovic does worse than Nadal/Murray did against 'Peak' Federer. Just give it up.

 

[Gary Duane]

It's because you get more breakpoints in matches where your win more return points, and you face more breakpoints in matches where you lose more servepoints generally. An extreme example. You play 2 samples of 100 return points. In the first sample, you'll win 0% of return points. In the 2nd sample, you'll win 100% of return points. In the first one, you won't get any breakpoints, while in the 2nd one you'll convert all of them, so while you win 50% of return points, your %break points won will be 100%.

Of course breakpoints are going to be in the same range as all points. This has nothing to do with the fact that you will find a 1-2 negative between points and break points on serve, but the opposite on return. If you check a huge range of players winning very different percentages of points, that same relationship stays very solid.

Now, just exactly why weaker servers often are -3 I don't know. Perhaps the gap widens with lower overall points. But you will find it is very unusual for that same gap not to be in the positive range on return. I still don't have a reason for this. I just know it is so.

Fed remains quite interesting in that I'd like to look at how his numbers stack up over different matches cause I think his weaker BP conversion is something that's highly concentrated over specific matches more so than just that's a lower average every match.

I don't know, but since the Fed style is very similar to Sampras, with Sampras perhaps tanking more in return games, it would be interesting to compare them.

Pete Sampras | Player Stats | ATP Tour | Tennis

Official ATP Tour tennis stats of Pete Sampras including aces, double faults, serves, returns and break points. Filter by year and surface.

www.atptour.com

Net of 0, but can we trust any numbers from the 90s?

Your point about leftiness is interesting. A lefty should have an advantage saving break points on serve. We don't, unfortunately, have accurate numbers for Laver, Mac, Connors and so on. But I think Nadal's +3 on all surfaces in return is significant. And Joker's +2.

Regardless, if you take the time to go through a hundred or so players, I think you will be surprised how often the net is around 0, and how consistently that figure is negative on serving, even for the best servers, and positive, even for the weakest returners.

 

[Nole_King]

That's possible but again, we cannot say conclusively because that will never happen. Check with @Sport if you don't believe me

Whatever the reasons may be, the only 'fact' we have at our disposal is that Djokovic dominates Federer at Wimbledon.

Fact ..?? Err .. thats because he played Federer only once during the years Federer amassed 7 Wimbledons. In the same period he played him 10 times at other slams. What if Federer had retired after 2013 when everyone was suggesting him to do so .. Would you have still said the same?

Lets not be blind fans here.

 

[ewiewp]

"Any way that you want to slice it - titles, matches, sets, games, or points - Roger Federer has no peer on a grass court".

Why The Grass Is Always Greener For Roger Federer | ATP Tour | Tennis

www.atptour.com

yeah, but there is just not enough tournaments on grass nowadays.
It's just harder to practice on grass tournaments compared to past.
It's even harder to have experiences of playing against Federer on grass.
When you face Federer at Wimbledon, you have to somehow find a way to beat him.

Grass court tennis has become very very exclusive brand of tennis.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

Fact ..?? Err .. thats because he played Federer only once during the years Federer amassed 7 Wimbledons. In the same period he played him 10 times at other slams. What if Federer had retired after 2013 when everyone was suggesting him to do so .. Would you have still said the same?

Lets not be blind fans here.

Machan ... I admit I'm a hugely biased Djokovic fan. But is there any such thing as a non-biased fan?

These kind of discussions go nowhere which is why it's better to go with available facts rather than imaginary matches. 'Ifs' have no place in tennis but if you're simply doing it for fun, I'll answer. If Federer had retired in 2013, Djokvoc would not just be going after Federer's 2 most important records, but 3. He'd also be going after Federer's Wimbledon record because he'd be just 2 short!

 

[blablavla]

Amazing.

business as usual in Wonderland.

 

[blablavla]

Yeah, biggest Rafole trophie, for sure...

1. can't see Rafole in the picture
2. going with a gun against an animal isn't exactly a "fair" battle and it doesn't matter how much the hunters will glorify themselves. Try to go bare hand and see who comes back with the "trophy"

 

[blablavla]

Federer-Nadal and Federer-Novak rivalries proves you wrong... Novak and Rafa about same age, totally different paths... Age is just a number...

right, that's why Sampras, Agassi, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick keep competing in the ATP Tour, because age is just a number.
heck, even Berdych agrees.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

How is that ridiculing Rafa?

Hardly surprised they said that. Some in here like us to believe Murray doesn't deserve to be in a separate tier from Roddick.

 

[Steve0904]

Why do people discuss 'Peak' Federer like he was some mythical creature? What's so special about 'Peak' Federer?

1. 'Peak' Federer (2003-2009) struggled against baby Nadal on all surfaces (and not just clay) and lost to Nadal far from often than he did beat him. Losing head to head record: 7-13

2. 'Peak' Federer' (2003-2009) struggled against young Murray too (outside of slams) and lost to Murray far from often than he did beat him. Losing head to head record: 2-6

So, tell me, would 'Peak' Djokovic (2011-2016) fare worse against 'Peak' Federer than those guys? You mean 'Peak' Djokovic would struggle against the dude who couldn't put baby Nadal and young Murray away?

Absolutely not!!!

'Peak' Djokovic (2011-2016) would've beaten 'Peak' Federer (2003-2009) more often than not. All evidence points to this.

Hi new user.

I don't know about "mythical creature" new user, though some fans are certainly over the top in that regard, but clearly you have not watched any of peak Federer, new user, whether live in the mid 00's or otherwise new user. Just throwing out a couple H2H stats to make Federer look bad (and failing I may add) does not do justice new user. Also "all evidence points to this" is questionable at best, but I suppose you're allowed that opinion Mr. new user.

In a 4 year period he won 11/16 slams. Was #1 for 237 consecutive weeks, won 4 YEC's and had a combined record of 315-24. And he made 10 straight GS Finals and 23 straight GS SFs new user sir (or madam I suppose).

Now please try your very best, new user, to come up with a response other than "weak era."

 

[SonnyT]

Never mind that all those finals were contested when Fed was 34, 35 and 38 years old against an opponent 6 years younger.

Think that enters into it?

Didn't preclude him from displaying his best form, did it?

Djokovic's 34 now. If he's off his peak, it's by a tiny bit!