Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

[drm025]

Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Yes, Federer dominated in a relatively “weak era”. This post may not be popular, but I wanted to look at some numbers to decide if once and for all there was some substance to making the claim that 2004-2007 was a weak era. From what I found, I think that making this claim is justified.

First, let’s look at the opponents he was facing compared to the opponents Nadal and Djokovic had to face in their No. 1 years. I’m not including 2009 for Federer as this wasn’t part of the disputed “weak era”. These numbers represent the average ranking of players faced. (To adjust for really low-ranked players (>200), the highest ranking assigned to any one player was 200).

Average Ranking of Opponent:
Federer (2004-2007) QFs and after: 26, SFs and after: 22, All Finals: 18, Won Finals: 19
Nadal (2008,2010,2013*) QFs and after: 21, SFs and after: 15, All Finals: 8, Won Finals: 9
Djokovic (2011, 2012) QFs and after: 15, SFs and after: 9, All Finals: 5, Won Finals: 6

*Disregard opponents from Vina del Mar and Sao Paulo in 2013, as these are tournaments he played only due to the 7-month absence from the game (neither Djokovic nor Federer went through this)

-If we want to choose the 3 most dominant years for Federer since neither Nadal nor Djokovic have more than 3 years:

Federer (2004-2006) QFs and after: 28, SFs and after: 24, All Finals: 21, Won Finals: 23

I think the numbers speak for themselves, but the top players were just not as consistent in Fed’s dominant years. In finals, the average rank he faced was 18 (21 if we just look at 2004-2006), compared to 9 and 6 for Nadal and Djokovic, respectively.

Next, even though Federer wasn’t even playing the top players consistently, let’s look at the caliber of the top players. I think the best way is to look at wins at the top tournaments (Slams, Masters, WTF) during those years.

2004-2007:

Federer: 11 GS + 13 M1000 + 3 WTF = 27 wins
Nadal: 3 GS + 9 M1000 + 0 WTF = 12 wins (9 on clay)
Safin: 1 GS + 2 M1000 + 0 WTF = 3 wins
Nalbandian: 0 GS + 2 M1000 + 1 WTF = 3 wins
Roddick: 0 GS + 2 M1000 + 0 WTF = 2 wins
Djokovic: 0 GS + 2 M1000 + 0 WTF = 2 wins
Davydenko: 0 GS + 1 M1000 + 0 WTF = 1 win
Hewitt: 0 GS + 0 M1000 + 0 WTF = 0 wins

Since 2008:

Nadal: 10 GS + 17 M1000 + 0 WTF = 27 wins
Djokovic: 6 GS + 14 M1000 + 3 WTF = 23 wins
Federer: 5 GS + 7 M1000 + 2 WTF = 14 wins
Murray: 2 GS + 9 M1000 + 0 WTF = 11 wins
Davydenko: 0 GS + 2 M1000 + 1 WTF = 3 wins
Del Potro: 1 GS + 0 M1000 + 0 WTF = 1 win

Again, I think the numbers speak for themselves. I know everyone likes to say that Federer is the reason that other players couldn't win from 2004-2007, but it's just not true. For instance, Hewitt who won 0 big titles during 2004-2007, that's right 0, lost to Federer in big tournaments 11 times in that span. There were 56 big tournaments total, so if Hewitt were such a force to be reckoned with, what happened in the other 45 opportunities to win? Sure, he could have lost to Federer later on in those tournaments, but the fact is he didn't make it that far. Same applies for the other top players from 2004-2007. I rest my case.

To clarify, the quality of the opponent during Fed's dominant years was not his fault. He was extremely consistent, and I completely agree that he is the most consistent tennis player we have ever seen. Does this make him the greatest player ever? I don't know. What I do know is that it will be much harder for either Nadal or Djokovic to equal Federer's numbers due to the competition they have to face. Thoughts?

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

there was no 'weak era' that's just for fed haters who cant believe he was so amazing..

its like saying this is a weak era because the same 2 or 3 players are always in the finals trying to win..i mean where is everyone??, there is just no competition nowadays..(its just more nonsense).

post peak Federer has been no 1 rank for 2 more spells and won 5 majors..PAST HIS PEAK.

 

[Front242]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Again, I think the numbers speak for themselves. I know everyone likes to say that Federer is the reason that other players couldn't win from 2004-2007, but it's just not true. For instance, Hewitt who won 0 big titles during 2004-2007, that's right 0, lost to Federer in big tournaments 11 times in that span. There were 56 big tournaments total, so if Hewitt were such a force to be reckoned with, what happened in the other 45 opportunities to win? Sure, he could have lost to Federer later on in those tournaments, but the fact is he didn't make it that far. Same applies for the other top players from 2004-2007. I rest my case.

To clarify, the quality of the opponent during Fed's dominant years was not his fault. He was extremely consistent, and I completely agree that he is the most consistent tennis player we have ever seen. Does this make him the greatest player ever? I don't know. What I do know is that it will be much harder for either Nadal or Djokovic to equal Federer's numbers due to the competition they have to face. Thoughts?

You realize Hewitt peaked in 2002-2003 and was a mere shadow of his former self tbh since then? Roddick had a winning h2h over Djokovic and scored some good wins over Nadal too, most notably in 2004 R64 at the US Open winning a surprisingly one sided 6-0, 6-3, 6-4. When he was playing his best Roddick beat many players not named Federer and Andy would've won a lot more than 1 slam if not for Roger. He was a class player back in his prime and also in Wimbledon 2009 he would've given Nadal hell too I'd imagine had he played as Andy was ridiculously good that year. So you've completely underestimated Roddick's abilities in his prime. It's just that Roger had an amazing read on Roddick's serve (see below). Roger's ROS back then was ridiculous and you're completely underestimating why he made players look 2nd rate when they weren't. Remember how awesome Gonzalez was at the AO '07 when he destroyed Haas and Nadal? Federer won in straights while Nadal lost in straights. In fact, that was one of Roger's best showings in any slam so yes, that's why he made it look easy, nothing to do with the competition, who as mentioned destroyed Nadal in the match before. Safin was a class player and you should watch the AO '05 semi again to see just how class he was. Again, that was not a weak era. Federer lost that match against Safin btw.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RxzFlrFfUrg[/video]

 

[Front242]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Btw, Gonzalez hit 42 winners to just 3 unforced errors in the AO '07 semi versus Haas. Probably must go down as one of the most dominating stats I've ever seen. But yeah, weak player and weak era no doubt about it. Also don't forget how James Blake used to give Nadal all sorts of hell on hardcourts in his prime. Another poor player in his prime for sure.

 

[DarthFed]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

I'd be curious to see what the stats would look like if you take out the past his prime/washed up Roger of 2008-2013. I think it's fair to say we know what happens if prime Roger plays the Roger of today, but the old man really boosts up the stats for Rafa and Nole in 2008-2013. The other problem is you are comparing 4 years with 6 years, and therefore have a situation where Davy has more big wins in the past 6 years than Nole had in 07. Nole in 2007 was already a contender at slams and way beyond the player Davy ever was. Similarly you have Murray with 11 big wins in 2008-2013 vs. 12 for Rafa in 04-07. Murray was a contender at slams even before he won 1 which just happened last year, but again no one would say Murray of 2008-2011 was at the level Rafa was from 05-07, swallowing up everything on clay and making Wimbledon finals.

 

[the AntiPusher]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Btw, Gonzalez hit 42 winners to just 3 unforced errors in the AO '07 semi versus Haas. Probably must go down as one of the most dominating stats I've ever seen. But yeah, weak player and weak era no doubt about it. Also don't forget how James Blake used to give Nadal all sorts of hell on hardcourts in his prime. Another poor player in his prime for sure.

Blake would have given Big Bill Tilden problems because he went for broke all the time. He was able to catch Rafa when Blake low percent shots were dropping in. Good for James but I would take Rafa's record against all the players he ever faced but Darcus or whatever that little guy name was at SW!9.

 

[Front242]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Btw, Gonzalez hit 42 winners to just 3 unforced errors in the AO '07 semi versus Haas. Probably must go down as one of the most dominating stats I've ever seen. But yeah, weak player and weak era no doubt about it. Also don't forget how James Blake used to give Nadal all sorts of hell on hardcourts in his prime. Another poor player in his prime for sure.

Blake would have given Big Bill Tilden problems because he went for broke all the time. He was able to catch Rafa when Blake low percent shots were dropping in. Good for James but I would take Rafa's record against all the players he ever faced but Darcus or whatever that little guy name was at SW!9.

No one's disputing over all career records. I'm talking about the players Roger faced in his prime. Players he usually beat that actually had decent wins over the rest of the field including Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Roddick had some very good wins over all of them and ended his career with a winning h2h over Djokovic. how many of the players Roger beat would've gone on to win bigger titles and slams if they didn't lose to him? Tons. But they weren't weak players. Anderson Silva has been middleweight champion in UFC for years. Not because the competition is weak but because he's so damn good.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Btw, Gonzalez hit 42 winners to just 3 unforced errors in the AO '07 semi versus Haas. Probably must go down as one of the most dominating stats I've ever seen. But yeah, weak player and weak era no doubt about it. Also don't forget how James Blake used to give Nadal all sorts of hell on hardcourts in his prime. Another poor player in his prime for sure.

James Blake hasn't beaten Rafa since 2006.

And yeah, Gonzalez picking on tough guy Tommy Haas. In a GS semi, of all places. Proof of greatness indeed! Nobody ever did that before... :lolz:

 

[Front242]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Btw, Gonzalez hit 42 winners to just 3 unforced errors in the AO '07 semi versus Haas. Probably must go down as one of the most dominating stats I've ever seen. But yeah, weak player and weak era no doubt about it. Also don't forget how James Blake used to give Nadal all sorts of hell on hardcourts in his prime. Another poor player in his prime for sure.

James Blake hasn't beaten Rafa since 2006.

And yeah, Gonzalez picking on tough guy Tommy Haas. In a GS semi, of all places. Proof of greatness indeed! Nobody ever did that before... :lolz:

Yeah and seeing as the op was talking about 2004-2007 that makes zero difference. In the period in question he had many good wins over Nadal. Gonzalez straight setted Nadal before that drubbing of Haas which is the point here and Roger went on to straight set him. Gonzalez played an amazing tournament and still lost in straights to prime Roger. And yeah, now that you mention it, I doubt anyone did actually beat Haas with stats like that before, ever. Frankly, I can't even recall any match I've watched over the years with stats like that.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Haas is hardly the barometre of anything great in tennis. I know he's the poster boy for pensioners but still, we all saw him in his prime too, right?

Gonzo was no big champ either, but I liked Gonzo, just like everybody else did. But would you agree with me that when Rafa beat Nole in the Olympic semis in Beijing, the final was hardly worth our while watching, other than to predict the score that Rafa'd win by?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Belittling Roger's achievements makes today's top guys look weak.

 

[Front242]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Haas is hardly the barometre of anything great in tennis. I know he's the poster boy for pensioners but still, we all saw him in his prime too, right?

Gonzo was no big champ either, but I liked Gonzo, just like everybody else did. But would you agree with me that when Rafa beat Nole in the Olympic semis in Beijing, the final was hardly worth our while watching, other than to predict the score that Rafa'd win by?

Clearly, Gonzo's best tennis was played in 2007 which, again, is the period of Fed's dominance being discussed in this thread and not 2008. Like Nalbandian in 2007, Gonzo's best tennis was behind him at that stage (2008).

 

[Kieran]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Gonzo's a bit player. He was never going to win a slam. There's guys like him, they make great snipers in the rounds, but not in the finals.

Anyway, this is an old scrap. We're gonna run out of topics to exhume if the men don't hurry back to work and start battering each other again. I must say, though, I like the attention to detail given in the OP. It makes for an interesting read...

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Btw, Gonzalez hit 42 winners to just 3 unforced errors in the AO '07 semi versus Haas. Probably must go down as one of the most dominating stats I've ever seen. But yeah, weak player and weak era no doubt about it. Also don't forget how James Blake used to give Nadal all sorts of hell on hardcourts in his prime. Another poor player in his prime for sure.

James Blake hasn't beaten Rafa since 2006.

And yeah, Gonzalez picking on tough guy Tommy Haas. In a GS semi, of all places. Proof of greatness indeed! Nobody ever did that before... :lolz:

Didn't he spank Nadal just as bad the previous round?

Anyway, the problem with that logic is that people will look at Gonzalez's resume throughout his career, and yeah, it's nothing super special. Of course, this is almost irrelevant, because during that particular tournament, Gonzalez was playing as good as anyone. He was catching fire and playing irresistible tennis, as evidenced by the Nadal and Haas beatdowns. So yeah, Roger beating him in the final WAS impressive.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Gonzo was a sniper. He was never gonna win a big final, no matter how well he played in the rounds.

That's not to take credit from Federer, who has no control over who he faces in the final, but guys like Gonzo are more difficult in the earlier rounds before the full glare of spotlight hits them in a final. We've seen this happen to players so many times before...

 

[Front242]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Gonzo was a sniper. He was never gonna win a big final, no matter how well he played in the rounds.

Depends who he played in the final and that's the point. He ended up facing the guy who at that time was beating just about everyone. That doesn't men Gonzo wouldn't have won a slam if he faced someone other than Roger.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Gonzo was a sniper. He was never gonna win a big final, no matter how well he played in the rounds.

Depends who he played in the final and that's the point. He ended up facing the guy who at that time was beating just about everyone. That doesn't men Gonzo wouldn't have won a slam if he faced someone other than Roger.

Brother, since 2003 there's nobody other than 3 players basically winning all the slams. The last 10 years has been thin on the ground for makeweights making the weight...

EDIT: Apologies to Muzza for his two - and then the pub quiz names who popped up singly in that time...

 

[the AntiPusher]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Btw, Gonzalez hit 42 winners to just 3 unforced errors in the AO '07 semi versus Haas. Probably must go down as one of the most dominating stats I've ever seen. But yeah, weak player and weak era no doubt about it. Also don't forget how James Blake used to give Nadal all sorts of hell on hardcourts in his prime. Another poor player in his prime for sure.

James Blake hasn't beaten Rafa since 2006.

And yeah, Gonzalez picking on tough guy Tommy Haas. In a GS semi, of all places. Proof of greatness indeed! Nobody ever did that before... :lolz:

Didn't he spank Nadal just as bad the previous round?

Anyway, the problem with that logic is that people will look at Gonzalez's resume throughout his career, and yeah, it's nothing super special. Of course, this is almost irrelevant, because during that particular tournament, Gonzalez was playing as good as anyone. He was catching fire and playing irresistible tennis, as evidenced by the Nadal and Haas beatdowns. So yeah, Roger beating him in the final WAS impressive.

Impressive yeah but Gonzo and Blake are both 1st strike high risk ball strikers..nice careers but all due respect, Neither player will make the HOF.. too bad Safin couldnt have held it together during that time because if he could have faced Roger in a few GS finals that would have made Federer's career even more legendary.

 

[Front242]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Gonzo was a sniper. He was never gonna win a big final, no matter how well he played in the rounds.

Depends who he played in the final and that's the point. He ended up facing the guy who at that time was beating just about everyone. That doesn't men Gonzo wouldn't have won a slam if he faced someone other than Roger.

Brother, since 2003 there's nobody other than 3 players basically winning all the slams. The last 10 years has been thin on the ground for makeweights making the weight...

EDIT: Apologies to Muzza for his two - and then the pub quiz names who popped up singly in that time...

Yeah but you acknowledge how well Gonzo played to beat Nadal and then Haas but then lost to Federer. Surely that shows how well Fed was playing to beat an absolutely sizzlingly on fire Gonzo. Let's say Fed missed that slam and it was Nadal against Gonzo or Haas in that final. So clearly it wasn't a weak era. Roger just ended up beating all the players who were beating everyone else and that includes Roddick who had wins over Nadal during Roger's prime as I mentioned earlier (US Open R64 - a drubbing).

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Btw, Gonzalez hit 42 winners to just 3 unforced errors in the AO '07 semi versus Haas. Probably must go down as one of the most dominating stats I've ever seen. But yeah, weak player and weak era no doubt about it. Also don't forget how James Blake used to give Nadal all sorts of hell on hardcourts in his prime. Another poor player in his prime for sure.

James Blake hasn't beaten Rafa since 2006.

And yeah, Gonzalez picking on tough guy Tommy Haas. In a GS semi, of all places. Proof of greatness indeed! Nobody ever did that before... :lolz:

Didn't he spank Nadal just as bad the previous round?

Anyway, the problem with that logic is that people will look at Gonzalez's resume throughout his career, and yeah, it's nothing super special. Of course, this is almost irrelevant, because during that particular tournament, Gonzalez was playing as good as anyone. He was catching fire and playing irresistible tennis, as evidenced by the Nadal and Haas beatdowns. So yeah, Roger beating him in the final WAS impressive.

Impressive yeah but Gonzo and Blake are both 1st strike high risk ball strikers..nice careers but all due respect, Neither player will make the HOF..

Nobody ever claimed they would. I was talking about Gonzo's level in that particular tournament, which doesn't have much to do with his career in general and where he stands in tennis history. His level in that one tournament was very high.