Bursting the Federer Resurgence Bubble

[Federberg]

Federberg, I'm not a victim. You're just an asshole. Own it. How am I being a victim by pointing out that you try to win arguments through insulting people? I'm hardly the first and I'm sure I won't be the last, unless you start working on your psychological issues with a qualified therapist.

There you go! Thought you had nothing more to say? Drama queen. Of course I’m an argumentative ass hole. I’ve said so many times, and I own it. I’m up front. You however become snide in your defensiveness. Frankly I got tired of your pathetic sniping. I may have disagreed with some of your posts, but I gave up on being polite with you when you constantly tried to control the narrative in your twisty unmanly way

 

[mrzz]

Of course we cannot know how Roger would have fared against peak Novak this year. Maybe that is the main point of disagreement, and what got Federberg's panties in a wad: my (supposed) assumption that Roger would have done just as poorly in 2017 as he did in 2014-15, based upon the stats showing he did about the same against everyone else. I am not really making that assumption, and I have at some point on this board said that I think he would have done much better than he had in recent years.

What I am saying is that Novak's absence probably makes Roger's 2017 look at least a bit better than it actually was, at least relative to 2014-15.

Again: taking Novak and clay out of the picture, Roger's results were very similar, even worse in 2017 - at least in terms of win% (which isn't everything, but is something - and thus should either be ignored or taken as everything). This implies that at least part of his problem in 2014-15 was Novak, and part of his greater title success in 2017 was because he didn't have to face Novak.

Beyond that I'm not really willing to take a hard stance. More than anything I'm just questioning. I personally think he would have done better than in 2014-15, but also feel that the gap between 2014-15 and 2017 may be a bit narrower than I at least previously thought.

Perhaps why this topic is so (surprisingly) controversial is because it feeds into the whole conversation of comparing peak levels of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. It is hard to approach this question without getting subsumed into this or that fan narrative, and each fanbase has a kind of party line that if you're a fan of that player, you must believe in. My issue is that everyone seems to support narratives that subtly (or not-so-subtly) support the view that their favorite is, indeed, the GOAT, or at least the GEATP (Greatest Ever At Their Peak).

While I like the idea that Roger is the greatest, I'm not as much interested in finding ways to further support that, like I'm a lawyer making a legal case, but in trying to better understand what is actually true. I think a good approach to this is trying to disprove what you want to believe is true. Actually, that would be an interesting thread idea: Everyone listing reasons why their favorite is not the GOAT...in other words, Fedfans making arguments against Roger, Nadalites against Rafa, etc.

I agree with most of this. In fact, given that peak Djokovic is one of the greatest players of all time, obviously is better not to face him. But no one stays on their peak all the time. Well, you know this well and there is no point dwelling on things we both agree.

Maybe what made this thread so polemical is the tone on the OP... it really seemed that the conclusion was that the level was the same. I strongly agree with your point about the narratives, but this time... I really don't think it is bias.

But, again, we are left with the problem of explaining the numbers. Adding to my previous points, I think there are two factors: one is the fact that Federer slowly faded during the year, and other that, if you look loss by loss, the 2017 losses were quite different from the 2014/15 ones. We could go match by match here but I guess you know what I mean.

 

[El Dude]

I agree with most of this. In fact, given that peak Djokovic is one of the greatest players of all time, obviously is better not to face him. But no one stays on their peak all the time. Well, you know this well and there is no point dwelling on things we both agree.

Maybe what made this thread so polemical is the tone on the OP... it really seemed that the conclusion was that the level was the same. I strongly agree with your point about the narratives, but this time... I really don't think it is bias.

But, again, we are left with the problem of explaining the numbers. Adding to my previous points, I think there are two factors: one is the fact that Federer slowly faded during the year, and other that, if you look loss by loss, the 2017 losses were quite different from the 2014/15 ones. We could go match by match here but I guess you know what I mean.

Perhaps as an antidote to the thread's tone, I will say that while I pride myself on trying to be as unbiased as I can, I consider you to be less biased than I am, and one of the forum's role models in this regard, @mrzz.

Re-reading the OP, maybe you are right. There are one or two lines that make it seem like I am saying 2014-15 and 2017 are the same, but that isn't the gist of the entire post, which is mostly that they are closer than the common narrative.

And I agree on Roger's fade. He looked unbeatable early on, and nearly was (except for the Donskoy moment). Later on he looked more like the 2014-15 version, from grass season on. I would even go so far as to say that if 2014-2015 Novak was his opponent in the Wimbledon final, he would have lost similarly to how he did in 2014-15. But early on in 2017? I think that Roger could have beaten Novak at his best. But we're talking 2-3 months.

In 2014-15, if I remember correctly, there was a sense that no matter what Roger did, he just couldn't beat Novak's A game. Or, at the least, he couldn't muster his A game to match Novak's A game - except in the occasional Masters match.

 

[El Dude]

There you go! Thought you had nothing more to say? Drama queen. Of course I’m an argumentative ass hole. I’ve said so many times, and I own it. I’m up front. You however become snide in your defensiveness. Frankly I got tired of your pathetic sniping. I may have disagreed with some of your posts, but I gave up on being polite with you when you constantly tried to control the narrative in your twisty unmanly way

One thing I like about you, Federberg, is whereas with most I try to avoid attacking, both out of courtesy but also, as you prove, because resorting to insults just makes one look bad--you make it justifiable. In that way you are like a lighter version of Ricardo. Perhaps I'll call you Ricardo Lite from now on.

"Twisty unmanly way" = "Me not understand subtleties, so me resort to insult!"

What's your fixation on manliness, anyhow? Are you feeling emasculated? Over-compensating? Come, sit on the couch, and telling me about your problems...you could use it, methinks.

 

[Federberg]

One thing I like about you, Federberg, is whereas with most I try to avoid attacking, both out of courtesy but also, as you prove, because resorting to insults just makes one look bad--you make it justifiable. In that way you are like a lighter version of Ricardo. Perhaps I'll call you Ricardo Lite from now on.

"Twisty unmanly way" = "Me not understand subtleties, so me resort to insult!"

What's your fixation on manliness, anyhow? Are you feeling emasculated? Over-compensating? Come, sit on the couch, and telling me about your problems...you could use it, methinks.

Lol! Is that really the best you can do? Really? And this, after conceding my point in your response to @mrzz

If you’re confused about “twisty unmanly way” you just did it

Anyway I’m done with this, off to bed

 

[El Dude]

Again, what point am I conceding? What are you talking about? Another strawman? It is almost like you want me to have said things I didn't actually say or mean so you can disagree with me. You took one or two lines from the OP and ignored the rest, including actual factual data. You're the definition of confirmation bias: you don't care about truth, you just want to be right and for your hero to be the best.

It is kind of cute how you couldn't grok what I said about "twisty unmanly way" - further exemplifying your inability to grasp subtleties.

Sweet dreams, Ricardo Lite.

 

[mrzz]

Thanks a lot for your nice comments, @El Dude . I'll tell you what worked for me regarding bias. First was to admit that I am extremely biased by nature. My gut reaction is always to use hyperbolic language either with guys I like or dislike (believe me, I police myself a lot here on the boards), and that language in general ends up affecting my own opinion. So I learned the hard way that bias leads to poor judgment. But -- here comes the nice little digression -- a long time ago I dated a girl who was in theater criticism business. I ended up reading a lot of books about the subject -- and she ended up hating me because I started to argue with her in her own field. Those guys care a lot about bias -- for obvious reasons. One thing I read called immediately my attention: One author sustained the point that, since it is completely impossible to avoid your bias, one should use it as "way in" to understand a play. The bottom line is, you know your bias is there, you construct your judgement around it. It is not simple "compensation"... it is hard to explain, maybe with an example:

And the tennis example is: I like aggressive players (it is more complicated than that, but ok for now). So my initial judgment is that all attacking players are "better" than the defensive ones. But... once I know that, I can start to look how the hell that damned defensive guy is surviving that massive onslaught that I find so fantastic? The son of a gun must be doing something bloody good in that regard. Or maybe the attacking player is not that good as my eyes told me in the first place. I don't need to compensate nothing -- just acknowledge it properly, and things flow quite nicely from there.

 

[El Dude]

Yes, well said @mrzz - I follow a similar process with working with my own bias. As the saying goes, the first step of getting better is realizing you have a problem...and so it is with bias.

I also feel similarly about attacking players and play styles in general, and have thought about this with regard to the obvious pair: Fedal. Fedfans, in general, seem to think that Roger’s style of play is inherently superior to Rafa’s (or Novak’s). I personally think it is more elegant and beautiful, but in the end it is a stylistic preference and I recognize that there are many ways to Rome, and while I prefer Roger’s way of getting there I don’t think he was—at their respective bests—better at getting there than the other two were. In truth, while Roger still holds the best career record, I can’t say which of the three was greater at their peaks. It is like asking, who was greater, the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin is Pink Floyd? They’re probably generally considered to be the four greatest rock bands of all time, but in the end it comes down to stylistic preference (and in the end, I’m more of a King Crimson guy).

Sports involves more objectivity than music in that there are actual wins and losses, but the point is that stylistic preference and personal bias come into play, especially when there’s any degree of hero worship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Moxie]

Yes, well said @mrzz - I follow a similar process with working with my own bias. As the saying goes, the first step of getting better is realizing you have a problem...and so it is with bias.

I also feel similarly about attacking players and play styles in general, and have thought about this with regard to the obvious pair: Fedal. Fedfans, in general, seem to think that Roger’s style of play is inherently superior to Rafa’s (or Novak’s). I personally think it is more elegant and beautiful, but in the end it is a stylistic preference and I recognize that there are many ways to Rome, and while I prefer Roger’s way of getting there I don’t think he was—at their respective bests—better at getting there than the other two were. In truth, while Roger still holds the best career record, I can’t say which of the three was greater at their peaks. It is like asking, who was greater, the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin is Pink Floyd? They’re probably generally considered to be the four greatest rock bands of all time, but in the end it comes down to stylistic preference (and in the end, I’m more of a King Crimson guy).

Sports involves more objectivity than music in that there are actual wins and losses, but the point is that stylistic preference and personal bias come into play, especially when there’s any degree of hero worship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it's useful that you guys are exposing your prejudices, as to styles, but recognizing that it isn't all there is.

For the record: Roger is The Beatles, Rafa is The Rolling Stones, Novak is Led Zepplin, and Murray is Pink Floyd.

 

[Moxie]

At the risk of taking it too far: I think del Potro is Queen, and Wawrinka is Metallica.

 

[Front242]

At the risk of taking it too far: I think del Potro is Queen, and Wawrinka is Metallica.

ROFL! Poor Stan. He's definitely the heaviest of the top guys alright. Someone on some forum comment posted not long ago that Stan is the fattest c**t in the top 50. A bit harsh but probably true lol and likely had a fair degree of baring on his knee issues.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

@Shivashish Sarkar, I can sneak in a few minutes here so will address more.

I don't disagree with anything you say in your longer post. I would only add that we'd have to apply the same criteria to 2014-15, which is harder to do a few years later (e.g. injury) and without a more detailed analysis (e.g. how close losses were).

I also never said that Roger was no better in 2017 than he was in 2014-15. What I did say--and still think is basically true--is:

1. The gap between Roger's level in 2017 and 2014-15 isn't as big as the title count implies.
2. A major factor in Roger's improved results in 2017 is because of a lack of a peak Novak.

Do you agree or disagree with those two points? Where I think there is some misunderstanding is that in the OP, I was talking about what the numbers that I presented tell us, which is different than what we (or I) might believe, based upon eye-balling and other factors.

In other words, we both agree that Roger was better in 2017, but where we might disagree is by what degree and how much Novak's absence influences this. The numbers surprised me, tempering my own view of Roger's resurgence.

I see.

1. Disagree.

The gap between Roger's level in 2017 and 2014-15 is as big as the title count would suggest. However, I don't correlate improvement (gap, here) on results alone, I correlate it with what kind of tennis I, you and millions of other fans saw him produce. It's the backhands, forehands, aggression etc...

2. Partially agree (for the sake of being sensible, but consider it a compromise while dealing with a typical What-if analysis)

How do we know?

Just how do we know how things would have panned out? In terms of level ( as per an eye-ball sense of it ), many claimed Roger to be playing tennis ~04-07 level. Can you deny that? Considering Roger didn't play clay and even got a faster Rod Laver court, how can we say what would have happened if Roger returned, served, flattened his game against Novak like he did against Nadal? Also, Novak would not have the topspin or 'troublesome' venom of Nadal. You know where I'm coming from, right? Roger historically did much better against Novak. You like historical info. If the 2011 Roger could almost defeat the 2011 Novak twice at slams (FO&USO), then nothing is impossible.

 

[Federberg]

ROFL! Poor Stan. He's definitely the heaviest of the top guys alright. Someone on some forum comment posted not long ago that Stan is the fattest c**t in the top 50. A bit harsh but probably true lol and likely had a fair degree of baring on his knee issues.

he used to stay just down the street from me when I lived in Wimbledon. Walked past him several times, trust me...it's muscle. The guy is a brick outhouse

 

[atttomole]

I see.

1. Disagree.

The gap between Roger's level in 2017 and 2014-15 is as big as the title count would suggest. However, I don't correlate improvement (gap, here) on results alone, I correlate it with what kind of tennis I, you and millions of other fans saw him produce. It's the backhands, forehands, aggression etc...

2. Partially agree (for the sake of being sensible, but consider it a compromise while dealing with a typical What-if analysis)

How do we know?

Just how do we know how things would have panned out? In terms of level ( as per an eye-ball sense of it ), many claimed Roger to be playing tennis ~04-07 level. Can you deny that? Considering Roger didn't play clay and even got a faster Rod Laver court, how can we say what would have happened if Roger returned, served, flattened his game against Novak like he did against Nadal? Also, Novak would not have the topspin or 'troublesome' venom of Nadal. You know where I'm coming from, right? Roger historically did much better against Novak. You like historical info. If the 2011 Roger could almost defeat the 2011 Novak twice at slams (FO&USO), then nothing is impossible.

He actually beat Djokovic at the French Open in 2011, denying him a potential calendar year slam, and he almost beat him at the US Open the same year.

 

[britbox]

he used to stay just down the street from me when I lived in Wimbledon. Walked past him several times, trust me...it's muscle. The guy is a brick outhouse

I think he's put on a bit since he was out injured. Looked a bit rotund in the a pic I saw of him this week.

 

[Federberg]

I think he's put on a bit since he was out injured. Looked a bit rotund in the a pic I saw of him this week.

Ah ok. Haven't seen him this year. Heard he's looking ready in practice

 

[DarthFed]

Perhaps as an antidote to the thread's tone, I will say that while I pride myself on trying to be as unbiased as I can, I consider you to be less biased than I am, and one of the forum's role models in this regard, @mrzz.

Re-reading the OP, maybe you are right. There are one or two lines that make it seem like I am saying 2014-15 and 2017 are the same, but that isn't the gist of the entire post, which is mostly that they are closer than the common narrative.

And I agree on Roger's fade. He looked unbeatable early on, and nearly was (except for the Donskoy moment). Later on he looked more like the 2014-15 version, from grass season on. I would even go so far as to say that if 2014-2015 Novak was his opponent in the Wimbledon final, he would have lost similarly to how he did in 2014-15. But early on in 2017? I think that Roger could have beaten Novak at his best. But we're talking 2-3 months.

In 2014-15, if I remember correctly, there was a sense that no matter what Roger did, he just couldn't beat Novak's A game. Or, at the least, he couldn't muster his A game to match Novak's A game - except in the occasional Masters match.

I know I'm in the minority regarding Fed's level at this past Wimbledon but I think Roger would've won that hypothetical match vs. Novak due to how much better his return was. I agree that Roger's baseline play wasn't that sharp at this Wimbledon but he was getting tons of breaks which is something he hasn't done at Wimbledon much at all the past decade. The awful ROS has long been one of his main issues vs. Novak and in general. I think that'd have been a bigger deal in this particular matchup than Fed's improved backhand. AO sped up and a much tougher version of Roger at Wimbledon...let's just say I wouldn't hand Nole the title in those matches. Particularly Wimbledon, if they had squared off last year I think Roger wins.

 

[mrzz]

I think it's useful that you guys are exposing your prejudices, as to styles, but recognizing that it isn't all there is.

I was thinking... Why does it have to be "prejudices" instead of "preferences"? I surely admit that I have prejudices, but if you put like that it gives too much of a negative tone to it. I mean, I may like some given player style and like even more some other. One style can beat the other something like 10 to 8, not necessarily 10 to 0 (or -10).

 

[Federberg]

I know I'm in the minority regarding Fed's level at this past Wimbledon but I think Roger would've won that hypothetical match vs. Novak due to how much better his return was. I agree that Roger's baseline play wasn't that sharp at this Wimbledon but he was getting tons of breaks which is something he hasn't done at Wimbledon much at all the past decade. The awful ROS has long been one of his main issues vs. Novak and in general. I think that'd have been a bigger deal in this particular matchup than Fed's improved backhand. AO sped up and a much tougher version of Roger at Wimbledon...let's just say I wouldn't hand Nole the title in those matches. Particularly Wimbledon, if they had squared off last year I think Roger wins.

Interesting point about his ROS. My instinct would have been to slightly favour Novak to be honest, but that gives me pause. That has always been my bug bear when Novak and Roger play. For the life of me I can't understand his struggles. He seems to have terrible trouble reading Novak's serves, particularly his 2nd serve. But the way he turned around Rafa's serve has given me encouragement. If he could get into Novak's head when he's serving it'll make Novak less free spirited in his return games

 

[Federberg]

I was thinking... Why does it have to be "prejudices" instead of "preferences"? I surely admit that I have prejudices, but if you put like that it gives too much of a negative tone to it. I mean, I may like some given player style and like even more some other. One style can beat the other something like 10 to 8, not necessarily 10 to 0 (or -10).

Lol! I'm not sure what prejudices we're supposed to have other than a reasonable distaste for hastily formed conclusions. Never really had a problem acknowledging Rafa or Novak's abilities, it just seems silly to me to try to deny it. My issues have tended to be with their fans, and some of their actions on court. And where Novak was concerned anyway he grew out of those things a long time ago, and is top class on court