Young ATG v Older ATG as it relates to current tennis

#51
Age difference is always a factor.

Your attempts at ignoring it are laughable and a sign of ignorance.

:cool:
I am not ignoring it, I am being very specific. Comparing matching age differences rather than what you are doing: trying to draw conclusions from players with 19 year age gaps just because it suits your argument.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#54
I am not ignoring it, I am being very specific. Comparing matching age differences rather than what you are doing: trying to draw conclusions from players with 19 year age gaps just because it suits your argument.
Yes, you are.

Your work with "matching age differences" is appalling.

The only thing that I ever did is to illustrate my point. You don't know the difference between "compare" and "group together under common denominator".

:cool:
 
#55
So this accounts for relative age. What about absolute age in conjunction? How old were the older players when they played the majority of their matches in each case? Did they have to play them loads of times during their mid 30s? Were any of them of the calibre of Djoker and The Nadal, who were pretty much concurrent combatants? Imagine you're Djokovic at 30 and your best years are likely behind you. Your two main rivals are basically a 24 year old Federer and a 25 year old Nadal. How well do you think he would do if he played them loads of times from that point onwards, through to his mid to late 30s? Let's really push the hypothetical and imagine that a bunch of hard courts got sped up as well. The big 3 themselves present a lot of variables.
 
#56
So this accounts for relative age. What about absolute age in conjunction? How old were the older players when they played the majority of their matches in each case? Did they have to play them loads of times during their mid 30s? Were any of them of the calibre of Djoker and The Nadal, who were pretty much concurrent combatants? Imagine you're Djokovic at 30 and your best years are likely behind you. Your two main rivals are basically a 24 year old Federer and a 25 year old Nadal. How well do you think he would do if he played them loads of times from that point onwards, through to his mid to late 30s? Let's really push the hypothetical and imagine that a bunch of hard courts got sped up as well. The big 3 themselves present a lot of variables.
I think the 30 year old Djokovic would wipe the floor with the 24 year old Federer. But that's a subjective opinion based on a hypothetical proposition.

This thread is about cold, hard stats.
 
#58
Federer and Djokovic played on average 3 times more than the others on that list. Had Fed retired say at 31 (end of 2012) which is the average retiring age of those ATGs, what would the H2H between them be?
Had he retired in 2012, he would have remained at 17 Slams. Nadal would have at least already matched him, if not taken the lead (who else would have won AO 2017?), with Djokovic not that far behind with his current 15.
 

robthai

Professional
#61
Based on having watched both players live throughout their careers. I think the current Djokovic is a substantially better tennis player than mid-20s Federer was.
stats would disagree with you but ok. In what way is current Djokovic better than mid 20s Federer? I take it that you also think current Federer is as good as mid 20s Federer too?
 
#62
I think the 30 year old Djokovic would wipe the floor with the 24 year old Federer. But that's a subjective opinion based on a hypothetical proposition.

This thread is about cold, hard stats.
Which have little explanatory power due to the very fact that the subjective nuance of the analysis of these stats is being ignored or evaluated behind a smoke screen with an unwavering agenda which itself facilitates your, in my opinion, hilarious conclusion to my hypothetical proposition. Roddick has a positive head to head record over Djokovic. That's a cold hard fact... But what does it mean? How are you going to interpret that fact? It was mostly pre-2011 and Djoker was a baby, right? The conclusions you come to regarding that fact should tell you everything you need to know about how 'objective facts' aren't necessarily some 'QED' contribution to discussion. Shoehorning some objective stats into a subjective discussion whilst simultaneously rejecting others' subjectivity is a fool's errand, and one that makes you just look like you're throwing out statistical items that could be interpreted in your guy's favour in isolation, and then putting your fingers in your ears and repeating the phrase '2017-2018 Djoker would consistently straight set 2006 Federer.'
 

aman92

Hall of Fame
#63
Spencer Gore obviously doesn't like facts that go against his nice & neat little theory.

Like the fact that Edberg:Lendl slightly favors Edberg since in 27 matches they never played on Lendl's best surface (clay).

Or likewise the fact that the Fed:Nadal H2H might favor Nadal since they have disproportionately played so much on Nadal's best surface (15 matches).

Or the fact that Fed's longevity has reduced his H2H numbers against younger rivals (as you pointed out), since he has played so many matches past his obvious prime years.
Federer has actually improved his record against Rafa in his so called Grandpa years... Your theory immediately breaks down here
 

aman92

Hall of Fame
#64
I think the 30 year old Djokovic would wipe the floor with the 24 year old Federer. But that's a subjective opinion based on a hypothetical proposition.

This thread is about cold, hard stats.
It'll be a toss up on hard courts.... Federer wins quite easily on grass IMO
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
#65
Federer has actually improved his record against Rafa in his so called Grandpa years... Your theory immediately breaks down here
They haven't played on clay since 2013, and Fed hasn't beat Nadal on clay since 2009.

Get back to me after they (hopefully) play each other on clay this spring and we can talk about how "Grandpa" Fed stacks up against clay-specialist Nadal :)
 
#66
It'll be a toss up on hard courts.... Federer wins quite easily on grass IMO
I don't think so. I saw Federer on grass live throughout his so-called peak period. He was a better player later in his career. It may have looked different on television. But at the ground the improvement in his play was very noticeable. But of course, by then the opponents had also improved.

We're talking both players bringing their A game of course. Either one under par and it's curtains.
 
#67
They haven't played on clay since 2013, and Fed hasn't beat Nadal on clay since 2009.

Get back to me after they (hopefully) play each other on clay this spring and we can talk about how "Grandpa" Fed stacks up against clay-specialist Nadal :)
Non-grandpa Federer certainly stacked up very poorly against Nadal on every surface bar grass, and he only had a 2-1 lead there!
 
#70
What is your theory for Fed winning their last 5 matches on hardcourt?
Injury and age caught up with Nadal because of his style of play. He would still have had enough to beat Federer in AO17 if he had the same extra rest day as Roger (in fact, given the circumstances, it was incredible he was ahead in the 5th till fatigue caught up with him).

I think that defeat then got into his head for a while. Top marks to Federer though for taking full advantage. It has made the H2H a little more respectable looking.
 
#71
I don't think so. I saw Federer on grass live throughout his so-called peak period. He was a better player later in his career. It may have looked different on television. But at the ground the improvement in his play was very noticeable. But of course, by then the opponents had also improved.

We're talking both players bringing their A game of course. Either one under par and it's curtains.
You are of course perfectly entitled to this opinion. One thing though: How would an incline in performance look like a decline on the TV as opposed to in person? Why would the change in performance be so severely obfuscated and misrepresented by a consistent camera angle and position and not by a live attendee? My intuition suggests that the opposite would be true.
 
#72
I don't think so. I saw Federer on grass live throughout his so-called peak period. He was a better player later in his career. It may have looked different on television. But at the ground the improvement in his play was very noticeable. But of course, by then the opponents had also improved.

We're talking both players bringing their A game of course. Either one under par and it's curtains.
I am sorry but do you really believe the crap you write? Honestly, did you convince yourself in this fairy tale of yours?
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#73
Injury and age caught up with Nadal because of his style of play. He would still have had enough to beat Federer in AO17 if he had the same extra rest day as Roger (in fact, given the circumstances, it was incredible he was ahead in the 5th till fatigue caught up with him).

I think that defeat then got into his head for a while. Top marks to Federer though for taking full advantage. It has made the H2H a little more respectable looking.
Lololololololoooooooool

Let me get this straight: you were dismissing age as an insignificant factor of disadvantage for old ATGs vs their younger counterparts from the next generation/s, but you use age to explain the results of a younger ATG vs an older ATG?



:cool:
 
#76
Yes, because the evidence completely points to that conclusion:

AO: Rafa 3 - 1 Rafa
WIM: 2 - 1 Fed
USO: No meeting

H2H other than RG: 4 - 3 Rafa

Considering that, it is probably lucky for Fed that they didn't meet more often.
Are you sure you understood what I wrote? Fed made so many clay finals from 2004-2010. Had he not made those finals his H2H would have been much better against Nadal and those losses would have been distributed amongst many other players thus diluting their effect. Kinda like Nadal's consecutive losses at Wimbledon from 2012 onwards.
 

alexio88

Professional
#77
Fed made so many clay finals from 2004-2010. Had he not made those finals his H2H would have been much better against Nadal
why shoule we take off only h2h on clay?. okay let's do it and so do with grass, then nadal still leads 8-6(not considering indoors hard), especially with a fact that 15 matches they played on clay and only 3 on grass)
 
#78
Lololololololoooooooool

Let me get this straight: you were dismissing age as an insignificant factor of disadvantage for old ATGs vs their younger counterparts from the next generation/s, but you use age to explain the results of a younger ATG vs an older ATG?



:cool:
Spencer Gore is the ultimate troll

Endlessly arguing age is just a number when it comes to Fed but immediately using that as an excuse for Nadal’s defeat

At this time this is great humor content
 
#80
why shoule we take off only h2h on clay?. okay let's do it and so do with grass, then nadal still leads 8-6(not considering indoors hard), especially with a fact that 15 matches they played on clay and only 3 on grass)
Not taking it off, only explaining that H2H's can become skewed. With the Fedal H2H, clay is singled out because so many more meetings were on clay.
 
#83
I don't think so. I saw Federer on grass live throughout his so-called peak period. He was a better player later in his career. It may have looked different on television. But at the ground the improvement in his play was very noticeable. But of course, by then the opponents had also improved.

We're talking both players bringing their A game of course. Either one under par and it's curtains.
Yeah. His FH hitting less corners, lines, depth, power was certainly an improvement. As was his slower movement.
 
#85
I am sorry but do you really believe the crap you write? Honestly, did you convince yourself in this fairy tale of yours?
It’s just a trolling gimmick. “History of the game.” “Watched him live.” Etc. All to support weak era, Federer played better than ever in 2015 theories etc.
Spencer Gore is the ultimate troll

Endlessly arguing age is just a number when it comes to Fed but immediately using that as an excuse for Nadal’s defeat

At this time this is great humor content
The only troll that amused me on here was 90sClay. NadalDjango is quite funny too for his incredibly dumb outlandish posts. The rest are just boring trolls, regurgitating the same theories but in different forms.

I don’t mind Lew so much as he’s not abusive, nor is he obvious and he uses some stats to suit his agenda.
 
#86
It’s just a trolling gimmick. “History of the game.” “Watched him live.” Etc. All to support weak era, Federer played better than ever in 2015 theories etc.

The only troll that amused me on here was 90sClay. NadalDjango is quite funny too for his incredibly dumb outlandish posts. The rest are just boring trolls, regurgitating the same theories but in different forms.

I don’t mind Lew so much as he’s not abusive, nor is he obvious and he uses some stats to suit his agenda.
Lew's stats are really boring. He basically will use Federer's ranking against him , prop up the useless top 10 from 2014 and use the relatively lesser career accomplishments of some of Federer's rivals as proof of weak era... It is the same nonsense thread after thread.

Spencer Bore is hilarious because he will say one thing in the first post and within the same page will post an exact contradictory theory.
 
#87
Lew's stats are really boring. He basically will use Federer's ranking against him , prop up the useless top 10 from 2014 and use the relatively lesser career accomplishments of some of Federer's rivals as proof of weak era... It is the same nonsense thread after thread.

Spencer Bore is hilarious because he will say one thing in the first post and within the same page will post an exact contradictory theory.
Saying 30 year old djokovic would wipe the floor with 24 year old 2004-2005 Federer on HCs certainly is hilarious.
 
#89
Lololololololoooooooool

Let me get this straight: you were dismissing age as an insignificant factor of disadvantage for old ATGs vs their younger counterparts from the next generation/s, but you use age to explain the results of a younger ATG vs an older ATG?



:cool:
I've never dismissed age as a factor in the decline of players. Of course people decline as they age. What I was questioning is why the 4 year 10 month is constantly being used as an excuse for Federer's pitiful H2H against Nadal -especially in majors-when the even BIGGER age gap between rivals like McEnroe and Connors was rarely if ever discussed.

But you see, that's an argument that requires a depth of understanding of the history of tennis that you have repeatedly proved you don't have. So I get why you come stumbling in with your little kiddie gifs.
 

Towny

Professional
#90
I've never dismissed age as a factor in the decline of players. Of course people decline as they age. What I was questioning is why the 4 year 10 month is constantly being used as an excuse for Federer's pitiful H2H against Nadal -especially in majors-when the even BIGGER age gap between rivals like McEnroe and Connors was rarely if ever discussed
I don't know where you get this from. Everyone who watched at the time and those who have looked into it subsequently know Connors wasn't at his peak when he faced McEnroe. McEnroe beating Connors up in 84 doesn't tell us a lot about what would happen peak for peak.

Even more egregious is Connors-Lendl. Connors lead 13-5 up until late 84. Then Lendl wins the next 17 matches in a row, all in a period when Lendl is in his prime and after Connors has won his last slam. It's not really that useful a head to head. Looking at individual matches in the early 80s where they were closer to each other in terms of level is more useful.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#92
I've never dismissed age as a factor in the decline of players. Of course people decline as they age. What I was questioning is why the 4 year 10 month is constantly being used as an excuse for Federer's pitiful H2H against Nadal -especially in majors-when the even BIGGER age gap between rivals like McEnroe and Connors was rarely if ever discussed.

But you see, that's an argument that requires a depth of understanding of the history of tennis that you have repeatedly proved you don't have. So I get why you come stumbling in with your little kiddie gifs.
Your statement makes no sense: what difference does it make whether they did or did not talk about it in the same manner for the fact that it makes a difference?

Here is your original question from the thread "Age Gaps":

Why are people now trying to make a big deal about the age gap between Federer and Nadal (5 years) and Federer and Djokovic (6 years)?
So, why are you trying to make a big deal about their age in favour of Nadal?

As for the rest: drop it, you are not fooling anyone. You comprehensively failed there.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
#93
It depends though on when the meetings occur, since you'd expect the older player to start off dominating the younger player and then the youngster to catch up.

In the case of Fed vs Nadal, Nadal has always had the H2H lead though mostly because of his dominance on clay. With Fed vs Djokovic though, Fed had the lead until just a few years ago into his 30s (In fact even in 2015 at 34 Federer had a H2H lead) The longer he goes on playing Djokovic the more you'd expect him to fall behind. He could have retired at 31/32 or simply dropped so significantly that he was no longer playing Djokovic.

Although Lendl won the last 2 matches vs Wilander at 34, they didn't play for 6 years between 1988 and 1994, Mats barely played for a lot of that time, really his career is hard to compare to Lendl who had far longer longevity. With Mac vs Wilander their last meeting was when Mac was 30 but again I don't think it proves that much other than they were evenly matched for their careers

And those are the only cases where the older guy comes out better. In all the other cases you put the younger player ends up better and most of those weren't playing the younger guy when they were as old as 37 with the other guy 6 years younger

Thing is you're setting this up as the better guy generally always leads the H2H but there's a couple of exceptions but it can equally be presented as the younger guy always does better but there are a few exceptions. The analysis is easily changed depending on viewpoint. You're using "better player" as the common denominator when it's just as valid to use "younger player" as common denominator
 
#94
Your statement makes no sense: what difference does it make whether they did or did not talk about it in the same manner for the fact that it makes a difference?

Here is your original question from the thread "Age Gaps":



So, why are you trying to make a big deal about their age in favour of Nadal?

As for the rest: drop it, you are not fooling anyone. You comprehensively failed there.

:cool:
Gore exposed .
 
#95
Sorry
Your statement makes no sense: what difference does it make whether they did or did not talk about it in the same manner for the fact that it makes a difference?

Here is your original question from the thread "Age Gaps":



So, why are you trying to make a big deal about their age in favour of Nadal?

As for the rest: drop it, you are not fooling anyone. You comprehensively failed there.

:cool:
Sorry? Because I'm questioning why people are using age difference as an excuse, you think I'M using age difference as an excuse?!?

No wonder you keep awarding yourself debating points with childish logic like that.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#96
Sorry

Sorry? Because I'm questioning why people are using age difference as an excuse, you think I'M using age difference as an excuse?!?

No wonder you keep awarding yourself debating points with childish logic like that.
I have always maintained the position that age difference plays a role in the comparisons between ATGs. That is all that I ever stated.

Whether you call it excuse is not my problem, although there is something to be said about what meaning you put behind that word.

You tried to get away with arguing about semantics vs meaning by trying to claim that your objection wasn't against a claim that there is an age significance in comparing ATGs, but that people were directly debating about it in the same manner as sometimes today.

It didn't fly, because your questions and subsequent claims clearly implied that you mean that age is just a number when it comes to ATGs, where the difference is not huge (as evidenced also by your efforts to blur the lines between generations, by using the much more undefined "contemporaries"). Luckily your implications could be referenced in full.

As for the bolded: it is not "because". You clearly used Nadal's age in exactly the same way you refuse to acknowledge for his opponent of older age. You are not getting out of that either.

The list of problems with your position here is growing with every post you make: all that because there is an objective reality that gets in the way of bashing a certain player, and you refused to stick to it.

Sad.

:cool:
 
#97
I have always maintained the position that age difference plays a role in the comparisons between ATGs. That is all that I ever stated.

Whether you call it excuse is not my problem, although there is something to be said about what meaning you put behind that word.

You tried to get away with arguing about semantics vs meaning by trying to claim that your objection wasn't against a claim that there is an age significance in comparing ATGs, but that people were directly debating about it in the same manner as sometimes today.

It didn't fly, because your questions and subsequent claims clearly implied that you mean that age is just a number when it comes to ATGs, where the difference is not huge (as evidenced also by your efforts to blur the lines between generations, by using the much more undefined "contemporaries"). Luckily your implications could be referenced in full.

As for the bolded: it is not "because". You clearly used Nadal's age in exactly the same way you refuse to acknowledge for his opponent of older age. You are not getting out of that either.

The list of problems with your position here is growing with every post you make: all that because there is an objective reality that gets in the way of bashing a certain player, and you refused to stick to it.

Sad.

:cool:
Yes. That's why I reduced your age difference list of every player to a very narrow list featuring only players with the same age difference as Federer-Nadal/Djokovic.

I was clearly trying to prove that age difference has no effect between ATGs -regardless of age.

Maybe think before posting next time?
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#98
Yes. That's why I reduced your age difference list of every player to a very narrow list featuring only players with the same age difference as Federer-Nadal/Djokovic.

I was clearly trying to prove that age difference has no effect between ATGs -regardless of age.

Maybe think before posting next time
Blimey, you imply that you don't contradict yourself (especially if you are caught red-handed and have to change your tactic)!

Well, someone MIGHT have believed you, if you weren't proven to do it in the last couple of hours.

Maybe you should try a 24 hour quarantine period?

Granted, it won't work, but at least you can provide additional entertainment by faking that you don't remember what you have previously said.

:laughing:

BTW, your new thread is equally entertaining, especially the part where you try to pick and choose, and also the effort to equal standing in the order of ATGs with H2Hs outcomes.

It just happens so that you de facto actually don't contradict anything I concluded from the original thread. Trying to use the ATG standing as a metric by which you measure anything at all requires that you prove how it relates to the age differences.

For now you are dodging all debates, and do not address the criticisms in your direction.

I am yet to see that you actually make a serious point there. Basically everyone knowledgeable is tearing you apart.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
#99
Blimey, you imply that you don't contradict yourself (especially if you are caught red-handed and have to change your tactic)!

Well, someone MIGHT have believed you, if you weren't proven to do it in the last couple of hours.

Maybe you should try a 24 hour quarantine period?

Granted, it won't work, but at least you can provide additional entertainment by faking that you don't remember what you have previously said.

:laughing:

BTW, your new thread is equally entertaining, especially the part where you try to pick and choose, and also the effort to equal standing in the order of ATGs with H2Hs outcomes.

It just happens so that you de facto actually don't contradict anything I concluded from the original thread. Trying to use a measuring stick to juxtapose the already accepted even by you conclusions (you should acknowledge that, and who tipped you about it) and a metric which you are yet to prove how it relates to the age differences is something you haven't done yet.

For now you are dodging all debates, and do not address the criticisms in your direction.

I am yet to see that you actually make a serious point there.

Basically everyone knowledgeable is tearing you apart.

:cool:
Hold the front pages lads!

Tennis Hands has an exclusive!

What's that? Laver being 18 years older than Borg had an effect on the result!!!!

Incredible! Quick! Print it guys! I feel the Pulitzer for Sports Journalism coming!!!
 
Top