DarthFed said:
El Dude said:
I don't think the age difference really came into play until 2007-08, when Roger started to slip a bit. In 2004-06, Roger was at the peak of his powers and showing no sign of decline.
GSM, that's what Rafa says - what he actually feels may (or may not) be a different matter. I'm definitely thinking he's excited to start clay season, and more hopeful, but I'm guessing there's a bit of doubt there, and worry.
I'd say Roger had the "age advantage" from 2004-2008 and maybe we'd say 2009 was the closest thing to equal as Roger turned 28 and Rafa was 23. Historically it's better to be 23 as a tennis player as many of the past greats were already showing signs of decline by 26-27. But in the current era it seems that players are ageing better than before. I think from 2010 until whenever one of them retires it is fair to say Rafa has had the age advantage. Roger has beaten him the last 4 times but obviously it's better to be 30 than 35 in tennis.
It is not so clear because, first of all, Rafa is (or was) a physical freak, harkening back to the 70s-80s. He was quite mature at 19, although didn't really come into his full powers until 2008 or possibly 2010. The most common age for a player's absolute peak is 24, which would be 2005 for Roger or 2010 for Rafa. Roger's best year was 2006, when he was 24 for more than half the year, and Rafa's was 2010, when he also turned 24 (or possibly 2013).
But as I've said before, Roger actually started showing signs of decline in 2007, when he was 25-26. One way I determined this is by taking out the matches against Rafa, Novak, and Andy, so that you can look at his performance against the field. He started losing more matches against the field in 2007. In 2006, against non-Big Four opponents, Roger was 88-0 (!). In 2007, he was 62-6. In fact, if you look at his record from 2007-12, he was relatively consistent against the non-Big Four, with winning percentages in the 88-92% range, whereas in 2004-06 he was in the 94-100% against non-Big Four. So yeah, he started slipping in 2007, but still managed to win when it most mattered, thus the three Slam titles and WTF. One could argue that in 2008-12 he was still at a similar level, but two things happened: One, he stopped being able to win when it mattered most, and two, the three younger greats started peaking.
Then 2013 happened, and Roger looked like he was winding down his career, in a quicker way than previously imagined. But it became clear that this was partially due to a lingering injury, and he also adjusted his racquet and tactics, so we had a resurgence in 2014-15, to a level similar to 2008-12: in those two years he beat non-Big Four opponents at an 89% rate - well within the 2007-12 range. 2016 was another injury-marred year, and then he came back this year--once again--resurgent, although seemingly on a higher level than in 2014-15.
So in summary, we have:
1998-03: Roger's development phase and rise to greatness
2004-06: Roger's absolute peak, when he beat non-Big Four field 97% of the time, but was 6-7 vs. Other Three (46%).
2007: Transition year - still winning when it most matters (and 6-3 vs Other Three, or 67%), but slipping against non-Big Four field: 91%.
2008-12: A reduced level overall, but similar to 2007 against field: 90%. Struggled against Other Three: 23-30, or 43%.
2013: Injury/adjustment season. 0-7 vs. Other Three, 82% against everyone else.
2014-15: Seemingly a return to 2008-12 level, 89% against field, 12-8 (60%) vs Other Three.
2016: Injury. Only one match against Other Three, a loss to Novak, 78% against everyone else.
2017: Resurgence. He's 19-1 so far, including 3-0 vs Rafa, but it is just too soon to tell whether or not he'll play this way all year or, more likely, equalize. Either way, he seems to be playing better than 2014-15, and maybe better than 2008-12.
Had to rewatch highlights of Soderling v Nadal last weekend. I got over the lost €€€ pretty quickly.
