Bursting the Federer Resurgence Bubble

[mrzz]

My issues have tended to be with their fans

I admit I am not surprised.

 

[Federberg]

I admit I am not surprised.

 

[El Dude]

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...

Yes, I agree that he improved and that it goes beyond results. So we agree that there's a gap between 2017 and 2014-15, just not how big it is. I'm ok with that. It might come down to, on a hypothetical and symbolic scale of 1-10, you see the gap as "7" and I see it as "5." I don't see it worth debating that two degree difference.

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.

This follows from point 1 above. We both agree that we don't know for sure, and we both agree that Roger would have fared better in 2017 than he did in 2014-15 against Novak. But the difference is to what degree.

This is totally artificial, but in 2017 he won 5 big titles, in 2014-15 an average of 1.5. If we split the difference then we get to 3.25. I would see that as a good estimate of how Roger might have fared in 2017 if he had to face a healthy Novak: he might have won 3-4 big titles, vs. 5. I have no problem saying that assuming 4-6 matchups, and 3-5 in big tournaments, that Roger would have lost 1 or 2 of those titles to Novak.

But of course we'll never know. That said, I think we can all agree that we want to see how re-vamped Roger fares against a healthy Novak.

 

[Moxie]

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).

I think sometimes it's one and sometimes it's the other. You have to admit, some people treat certain players' styles not so much as one version of tennis as much as an actual moral failing. :lulz2:

 

[El Dude]

I think sometimes it's one and sometimes it's the other. You have to admit, some people treat certain players' styles not so much as one version of tennis as much as an actual moral failing. :lulz2:

I like and agree what @mrzz said about preferences vs. prejudices, but can also see what you are talking about. Fedfans seem particularly prone to this, as if anyone who doesn't play tennis in the style of Roger is somehow morally (or at least aesthetically) deficient. On one hand this is terribly unfair, because no one plays tennis the way Roger does. On the other, it is myopic in that it misses that there are different styles, different types of athletic giftedness and beauty, and with sports it does boil down to the results, which cannot be argued with.

Or to put it another way, Miles Davis made great jazz, but if you are into folk music then Bob Dylan is the greater artist. But jazz fans and musicians would scoff at the idea that Dylan was anywhere near Miles in talent. And so it goes, around and around. What is so often missed is that they created completely different kinds of music, and both were great in their own right.

 

[Moxie]

I like and agree what @mrzz said about preferences vs. prejudices, but can also see what you are talking about. Fedfans seem particularly prone to this, as if anyone who doesn't play tennis in the style of Roger is somehow morally (or at least aesthetically) deficient. On one hand this is terribly unfair, because no one plays tennis the way Roger does. On the other, it is myopic in that it misses that there are different styles, different types of athletic giftedness and beauty, and with sports it does boil down to the results, which cannot be argued with.

Or to put it another way, Miles Davis made great jazz, but if you are into folk music then Bob Dylan is the greater artist. But jazz fans and musicians would scoff at the idea that Dylan was anywhere near Miles in talent. And so it goes, around and around. What is so often missed is that they created completely different kinds of music, and both were great in their own right.

And don't forget how the folk fans' hair went on fire when Dylan went electric. Some people are very committed to their genres/styles, and hold them sacrosanct.

You made interesting use of the difference between "talented" and "effective" in the thread "New Big Title Winners in 2018." A player that has borne the brunt of that kind of derision is Ferrer, imo. Simon and Monfils are two other examples, though they've achieved a bit less. Words like "pusher," "grinder," and "clown" get thrown around. I've even heard worse, like "disgusting." Whereas aggressive players, even if they have no idea how to use their aggression, or string wins out of it, tend to get a pass and a certain approbation. But that's not everyone. Most tennis fans tend to applaud good play where they see it, and admire guts and heart.

 

[mrzz]

There is one more variable to the equation, which is variation. It is not just attack and defense. What I, and a lot of people, don't like about a fully defensive player is the lack of variation:they will only put balls back into play. No variation. But you have an offensive version of it: a big power hitter that only closes his eyes and let it rip. In the end, both are boring because both lack variation.

You can be defense-oriented and still have variation. Actually, there are a few classical clay courters who play tennis almost like a game of chess (and in this regard I disagree with Broken, if I recall correctly in another discussion he stated that this simply does not happen). I believe that are players who are simply very good at point construction, and it might look overly defensive for a few, but they are just being smart. Juan Monaco, for example, was a guy who could play in a very smart way. Cuevas is another smart player, even if different, as he relies more on natural skills.

 

[Moxie]

There is one more variable to the equation, which is variation. It is not just attack and defense. What I, and a lot of people, don't like about a fully defensive player is the lack of variation:they will only put balls back into play. No variation. But you have an offensive version of it: a big power hitter that only closes his eyes and let it rip. In the end, both are boring because both lack variation.

You can be defense-oriented and still have variation. Actually, there are a few classical clay courters who play tennis almost like a game of chess (and in this regard I disagree with Broken, if I recall correctly in another discussion he stated that this simply does not happen). I believe that are players who are simply very good at point construction, and it might look overly defensive for a few, but they are just being smart. Juan Monaco, for example, was a guy who could play in a very smart way. Cuevas is another smart player, even if different, as he relies more on natural skills.

But this is where a lot of players don't get credit, from those who take the one-dimensional appraisal of some players. And I think you're right that, one of the strengths of the clay-courter is the tactical, chess-like approach to the game, and I'd argue that they are more than a "few." A lot of them take those strengths to other surfaces, as you've mentioned, Monaco, Cuevas. (I won't bother mentioning Rafa, because it goes without saying.) Patience is an under-appreciated virtue in tennis.

Anyone who makes it into the top 30 has some variety beyond the cliche of themselves, I'd say. Also, I'd suggest that the ones we all agree on disliking are the ones with a big serve and nothing else. Everyone thinks Dr. Ivo is a nice guy, but his game is as dull as dishwater. Even some of the big servers who've tried to vary their games, and have made top 10, like Raonic and Isner, do not get much love.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The OP is based primarily on winning %. Even forgetting the actual improvements in the play that we clearly saw and
analyzing purely based on results, winning %, while certainly a factor, does not reflect everything properly.

Suppose, player A plays in four 32 player tourneys and exits in the third round of all, his W-L record will be 8-4.
Suppose, player B plays in four 32 player tourneys, reaches the finals of two and exits in the first round of other two,
his W-L record will be 8-4. The W-L record is the same, but clearly B had a better year (in particular B would have
accumulated lot more ranking points by going deep in two tourneys even though he exited early in the other two).
Further if your ceiling is limited you cannot go beyond a certain round (consider Mr. QF Berdych), whereas player
B showed that he could go deep.

It is the same situation here. A is Fed of 2014 and 15 and B is Fed of 2017. By winning more titles Fed proved
he is clearly better than Fed of 2014 and 15 even if the W-L record remained almost the same.

So, the OP's argument is demolished without even talking about the actual tennis and strokes.

p.s. I have not read every post in this thread and so not sure whether this was not already pointed out by someone.

 

[El Dude]

The OP is based primarily on winning %. Even forgetting the actual improvements in the play that we clearly saw and
analyzing purely based on results, winning %, while certainly a factor, does not reflect everything properly.

Suppose, player A plays in four 32 player tourneys and exits in the third round of all, his W-L record will be 8-4.
Suppose, player B plays in four 32 player tourneys, reaches the finals of two and exits in the first round of other two,
his W-L record will be 8-4. The W-L record is the same, but clearly B had a better year (in particular B would have
accumulated lot more ranking points by going deep in two tourneys even though he exited early in the other two).
Further if your ceiling is limited you cannot go beyond a certain round (consider Mr. QF Berdych), whereas player
B showed that he could go deep.

It is the same situation here. A is Fed of 2014 and 15 and B is Fed of 2017. By winning more titles Fed proved
he is clearly better than Fed of 2014 and 15 even if the W-L record remained almost the same.

So, the OP's argument is demolished without even talking about the actual tennis and strokes.

p.s. I have not read every post in this thread and so not sure whether this was not already pointed out by someone.

From the original post:

"And it goes without saying that win percentages only tell part of the story and don't differentiate matches (e.g. there's no difference between the first round of an ATP 250 and the final of a Slam)."

So if the argument was "demolished," it was within the OP itself - which presumably you did not read very closely.

But yeah, I agree with you. That's why I included it within the OP. Win percentage is one lens to look at performance through, but is not all-encompassing or definitive. That said, it does have some meaning. The point of the OP was to look at what win percentage implies, and discuss that. It isn't an either/or thing - as in it is either completely right or completely wrong, as some would have it.

But again, it does tell us something. In my view, it tells us that the gap isn't as large as the title count would suggest, and that Novak's absence helped Federer in 2017. But again, it is all a matter of to what degree.

Was Roger vastly better, moderately better, slightly better, or only a hair better in 2017 than he was in 2014-15? Some say "vastly"; I would say somewhere between moderately and slightly. I don't think anyone is saying a hair better.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

From the original post:

But again, it does tell us something. In my view, it tells us that the gap isn't as large as the title count would suggest, and that Novak's absence helped Federer in 2017. But again, it is all a matter of to what degree.

Yes, you did accept that W-L record does not differentiate between matches in the OP. But, you are not using it in drawing the conclusion. As per your calculations, the W-L (after discounting said items) is almost the same. But, the titles and the big titles won are quite high in 2017 and so the conclusion should be that he was much better in 2017 despite the seemingly same W-L percentage (and not the other way around which is kind of what you are attempting to do).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The notion of (2017) Novak not playing helped Roger (or perhaps even someone else) is bogus. If (2017) Novak had played he would have got beaten soundly. When people say Novak not playing, they are actually thinking of 2015 or early 2016 Novak and not the 2017 Novak. But, one has to realize that only 2017 Novak can play in 2017. 2015 Novak cannot play in 2017.

 

[El Dude]

I agree that Roger would have beaten Novak soundly if they had met this year. You won't find any argument from me! Roger was clearly a much better player in 2017 than Novak was, but that's mostly because Novak was struggling, although partially also due to improvement on Roger's part. I just think it is more the former than the latter. In other words, Roger took a step forward from 2014-15, but Novak took two steps back.

What we don't know, can't know, is how 2015 Novak and 2017 Roger would have matched up, which is the unspoken question of this discussion, in my opinion - and another variant on, "Whose favorite player is best at their best?" There's just no way to know with any degree of certainty, which is why we get to have such endless conversations.

 

[Front242]

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.

Reminds me of an old joke...

2 fat guys walk into a bar. One says to the other "your round". The other guy says "so are you, ya fat bastard!"

 

[Federberg]

Yes, you did accept that W-L record does not differentiate between matches in the OP. But, you are not using it in drawing the conclusion. As per your calculations, the W-L (after discounting said items) is almost the same. But, the titles and the big titles won are quite high in 2017 and so the conclusion should be that he was much better in 2017 despite the seemingly same W-L percentage (and not the other way around which is kind of what you are attempting to do).

This is sounding, disturbingly, like common sense..

 

[mrzz]

Yes, you did accept that W-L record does not differentiate between matches in the OP. But, you are not using it in drawing the conclusion. As per your calculations, the W-L (after discounting said items) is almost the same. But, the titles and the big titles won are quite high in 2017 and so the conclusion should be that he was much better in 2017 despite the seemingly same W-L percentage (and not the other way around which is kind of what you are attempting to do).

In @El Dude 's defense, when you take out the Djokovic matches from the sample, you take out most of the finals, so the argument of the big titles loses it's strenght. But you still have the numbers of the finals against non-Djokovic, and considering this you see the improvement in 2017 -- but not as big as the title count is, which I guess is his point. I fully disagree with it for the first half of 2017, but I reasonably agree with it for the second half of 2017.

 

[mrzz]

Anyone who makes it into the top 30 has some variety beyond the cliche of themselves, I'd say. Also, I'd suggest that the ones we all agree on disliking are the ones with a big serve and nothing else. Everyone thinks Dr. Ivo is a nice guy, but his game is as dull as dishwater. Even some of the big servers who've tried to vary their games, and have made top 10, like Raonic and Isner, do not get much love.

In general I agree with the first phrase, which is very well put by the way. The "clichè of oneself" is generally made by youtube highlights, and we all know that mostly you win matches point in, point out -- and this is not shown in the highlights.

But I won't go as far as saying that everyone inside the top 30 is not predictable and pretty one-dimensional. I guess that some of them are, because if you are mentally strong enough to play at 30 all with the same intensity that you play in the first point of the game, you have a huge asset that actually is much better than a flashy forehand that won't be there when it matters.

Oh, and regarding your post on the Kyrgios' thread, @El Dude -- I saw those highlights, actually a long one around 12 minutes long, not sure if that is the one. Most of the things I posted lately I did after seeing them. The only difference I saw there (from last year) was more willingness to go to the net -- where his quick reflexes are indeed amazing, but his ball control is still poor. But, again, I really like his taste and drive for the unusual, and, as @Moxie once put very well, the "abandon" with which he plays (a huge asset, by the way). This is a long discussion, anyway, my points are on the finer details that are off topic here -- and "off mood" there.

 

[Tennis Miller]

The main problem with the OP is the title, which is overly sensational and gets the thread off to a bad start. Fed was out the second half of 2016 and clearly was resurgent in 2017. So there's no way anyone could post anything that could in good faith claim to "burst a bubble" about Fed having a resurgence in 2017. The clickbait, over-the-top title of the thread weakens the rest of the OP. I take no position as to the conclusions and opinions in the OP. Just that the "headline" is an overstatement of what follows.

 

[El Dude]

Thanks for coming late to the party and giving a certain poster a chance to like something that chastises me ;-).

But yeah, I hear you. And to be clear, I never said he didn't resurge - but the contention was that it wasn't as extreme as the popular opinion, and that the numbers bore that out.

We're still left with a dangling question: while it is incontrovertible that Roger had better results n 2017, how much of that was due to the lack of a peak Novak and him not playing clay season? The answer, I think, is somewhere between "a little" and "a lot." I think the people who were offended by the title and OP were thinking either/or, rather than spectrum, and considered any contention of "a little" (or "to some degree") as "a lot" or "very much so."

 

[Federberg]

^You know what it says about you when you think that everything that's done is somehow because of you right?