Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

[drm025]

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

Another glaring issue is that the stats don't take into account losses or provide context.

For instance, Federer would be penalised on those statistics for beating 86 ranked Marat Safin in the final of the AO in 2004. Safin had been out for the best part of a year with injury which saw his ranking plummet. Nobody can seriously suggest he was the 86th best player in the world. He was really Top 5 and finished the Year there.

Also, Nadal's loss to Darcis would not feature at all in the stats.

So in short, Federer winning the AO beating Safin would be regarded as a worst result than losing to Darcis in the first round of Wimbledon as a contribution to the stats.

No system is going in to be perfect, sure. I don't think something like happened too many times, though, so I'm pretty sure the same trend will be in effect. If you want to talk about losses, Federer had bad losses, too. He lost to 79th ranked Berdych in 2004, and 101st ranked Gasquet in 2005. Sure they became top 10 players, but hadnt found their game yet.

 

[Moxie]

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

Roger was always there, against all comers, and plenty of them were formidable in their own ways.

In what ways were they formidable? They were very talented, and won some big matches, sure. But they weren't able to bring in the trophies, again not solely because of Roger Federer, but because of their inconsistencies. Today's top players are talented, have big match wins, and can actually win big tournaments. That is the difference! Why are the all-time greats the ones that win a lot of tournaments? Because its not enough to be talented and put together good matches here and there. Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, and Davydenko, are not regarded as highly as Djokovic, Nadal, and even Murray, and rightly so.

You know why they were all strong talents. Plus, Gonzo, Haas and Blake as others have mentioned. Moyà and Ferrero…they didn't produce one significant rival to Federer, but they added up to always potential road-blocks. That he nearly always skipped over them does speak to his own talent.

Another glaring issue is that the stats don't take into account losses or provide context.

For instance, Federer would be penalised on those statistics for beating 86 ranked Marat Safin in the final of the AO in 2004. Safin had been out for the best part of a year with injury which saw his ranking plummet. Nobody can seriously suggest he was the 86th best player in the world. He was really Top 5 and finished the Year there.

Also, Nadal's loss to Darcis would not feature at all in the stats.

So in short, Federer winning the AO beating Safin would be regarded as a worst result than losing to Darcis in the first round of Wimbledon as a contribution to the stats.

This example of an artificially low ranking from Safin skewing the results is well-cited.

 

[DarthFed]

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

No, we've no complaints. I mean, Rafa was only 20 in 2007. I know people think his peak began when he was 11, but give him his due. What did Roger do in Oz, aged 20? You wouldn't expect much from any 20 year old. Picking out Rafa defeats from his calf years as evidence of Gonzo or Roddick as being tough guy US Navy SEALS is not really going to give us much to go on now, is it?

Only 20 and how many French Opens had he by then? He had beaten Federer already in 2004. Maybe it just shows prime Roddick was actually a formidable player, which he most definitely was.

By what credentials was Roddick a formidable player from 2004 on? Remember we're talking from 2004-2007. Big wins here or there does not bring you greatness. It's being able to finish a tournament and take home the trophy. He could not sustain his level, it's as simple as that. And neither could Safin, Gonzalez, Nalbandian, etc. Sure, they had some brilliant matches, but if they can't sustain that, all it takes to beat them over the long haul is consistency. That's what Federer brought to the table. I still think Roger's one of the greatest players ever, I just think he dominated in a weaker era. And I think the numbers prove that, unless ranking and big tournament wins are irrelevant.

Let's see..Roddick was runner up in Wimbledon 2004, 2005 and the US Open 2006. So he beat everyone else he played there and lost to the one guy we're discussing who was beating everyone. No real shame in that, and as has been pointed out, he was unlucky to have been in his prime facing the guy who was beating everyone. If it wasn't for Federer, Roddick would have 5 slams instead of one. I felt gutted for him in 2009 when he again lost to Roger in the Wimbledon final. Equally deserved the title there imo for how well he played all that tournament. But specific to the years of 2004-2006 as I pointed out above, he lost to the guy everyone was losing to. So in that respect he was very much a formidable player reaching 3 slam finals from 2004-2006.

I'll use the same argument I used for Hewitt in the original post. Roddick lost to Federer in the big tournaments 9 times from 2004-2007. There were 56 big tournaments in that time. He won 2 of them, that leaves 45 big tournaments where he did not lose to Federer, i.e. Federer was not the reason Andy didn't win. I see that your focus is more on the GS's, but I think results in the Masters is just as important. Andy couldn't win those tournaments, and a majority of the time it had nothing to do with Federer.

Nobody would agree with the bolded part. Points, money, fame, glory are 3 glaring reasons that slams are ten times more important. Masters events are just a good pay day and a confidence boost for the top players as they prepare for what defines them...

 

[scoop]

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

No such thing as a weak era in tennis, but outsider's perceptions can see it that way. Federer was so great he made his competition look weak. That's what the great ones in boxing and tennis do. They make all their competition look less than what they are.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

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

You know , 10 years from now, somebody is going to come here and say "Well, Nadal really was not that good on clay...look at it, he won RG 10 times and everything else too...surely he had no competition..." Well, he HAD no competition in the sense that he is so good on clay, it makes everyone else look mediocre at best.

 

[britbox]

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

True, nobody called it a weak era at the time. As 2003 was drawing to a close it was all about all the young players coming through and the race for number #1 - Federer, Roddick, Ferrero and the slightly more established mix of Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian etc... I recall after the USO 2003 everyone talking about how Roddick was going to dominate... Nobody called him weak. Only when Federer moved head and shoulders above the rest with prolonged dominance did the revisions start being applied. If he hadn't then we'd have had various multi-slam winners and a supposed "strong" era.

 

[drm025]

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

No such thing as a weak era in tennis, but outsider's perceptions can see it that way. Federer was so great he made his competition look weak. That's what the great ones in boxing and tennis do. They make all their competition look less than what they are.

Ok, and I will bring up this point again, since no one seems to respond to it. Take away the tournaments where each of the top players lost to Federer and that gives you the number of tournaments where their result was not dependent on Federer. For Roddick that number is 47 and he won 2, for Safin that number is 53 and he won 3, for Nalbandian that number is 49 and he won 3, for Davydenko that number is 49 and he won 2. Is Federer the reason they lost those opportunities? Was Federer the one that made them look weak? No, it was all the other players they played that they could not consistently beat. Not Federer.

Have Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray lost to Federer in GSs and Masters events? Yes, multiple times. Yet they have still managed to win a bunch of titles.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

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

We all know it is just a fantasy to pit Borg against Nadal and see who would perform
better. Obviously, we cannot ask them to play now as Borg is old now and he is trained
using wooden racquets etc. Some may say if both had played each other in their
prime, Borg would have won. Some may say, Nadal would have won. There is no way
to settle the dispute.

This is fantasy tennis even when the two players involved are concrete players
that we can relate to.

Now when you say ERA 1 is weaker than ERA 2, you are really saying that
TP2 (a typical player of era 2) would have beaten TP1 (a typical player of
era 1) hands down, if they faced each other in their prime.

In other words, you are indulging in fantasy tennis between two fictitious
entities. Not only the match-up is fantasy, the entities are also fantasy.
That is why this comparison of era can never be clearly settled. Having said
that this is a rich ground for people who have lot of time and don't know
what do with it.

 

[drm025]

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

You know , 10 years from now, somebody is going to come here and say "Well, Nadal really was not that good on clay...look at it, he won RG 10 times and everything else too...surely he had no competition..." Well, he HAD no competition in the sense that he is so good on clay, it makes everyone else look mediocre at best.

When did I say Federer wasn't good????? Don't put words in my mouth. I said the era he dominated was weaker than today's era. That's all.

 

[drm025]

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

We all know it is just a fantasy to pit Borg against Nadal and see who would perform
better. Obviously, we cannot ask them to play now as Borg is old now and he is trained
using wooden racquets etc. Some may say if both had played each other in their
prime, Borg would have won. Some may say, Nadal would have won. There is no way
to settle the dispute.

This is fantasy tennis even when the two players involved are concrete players
that we can relate to.

Now when you say ERA 1 is weaker than ERA 2, you are really saying that
TP2 (a typical player of era 2) would have beaten TP1 (a typical player of
era 1) hands down, if they faced each other in their prime.

In other words, you are indulging in fantasy tennis between two fictitious
entities. Not only the match-up is fantasy, the entities are also fantasy.
That is why this comparison of era can never be clearly settled. Having said
that this is a rich ground for people who have lot of time and don't know
what do with it.

At least I would never cross the line and insult someone on an online forum. I have a passion for watching tennis and for numbers, and because of that you say I have a lot of time and nothing to do with it, haha real nice. I'm currently in a Ph.D. program for biomedical engineering. So because I have outside passions, I have too much time on my hands?

 

[Moxie]

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

You know , 10 years from now, somebody is going to come here and say "Well, Nadal really was not that good on clay...look at it, he won RG 10 times and everything else too...surely he had no competition..." Well, he HAD no competition in the sense that he is so good on clay, it makes everyone else look mediocre at best.

When did I say Federer wasn't good????? Don't put words in my mouth. I said the era he dominated was weaker than today's era. That's all.

No one said that you said that, but take the point on its face-value. I think it's a valid one: in retrospect, will it be easy to tell that Nadal was just head-and-shoulders better than everyone on clay, or will it just seem that there was no decent competition?

We all know it is just a fantasy to pit Borg against Nadal and see who would perform
better. Obviously, we cannot ask them to play now as Borg is old now and he is trained
using wooden racquets etc. Some may say if both had played each other in their
prime, Borg would have won. Some may say, Nadal would have won. There is no way
to settle the dispute.

This is fantasy tennis even when the two players involved are concrete players
that we can relate to.

Now when you say ERA 1 is weaker than ERA 2, you are really saying that
TP2 (a typical player of era 2) would have beaten TP1 (a typical player of
era 1) hands down, if they faced each other in their prime.

In other words, you are indulging in fantasy tennis between two fictitious
entities. Not only the match-up is fantasy, the entities are also fantasy.
That is why this comparison of era can never be clearly settled. Having said
that this is a rich ground for people who have lot of time and don't know
what do with it.

At least I would never cross the line and insult someone on an online forum. I have a passion for watching tennis and for numbers, and because of that you say I have a lot of time and nothing to do with it, haha real nice. I'm currently in a Ph.D. program for biomedical engineering. So because I have outside passions, I have too much time on my hands?

I don't think anyone is specifically insulting you, but you have spent a certain amount of time on the fairly tired "weak era" theory. So, the question is, really…why? Tennis players can only face the competition in front of them. I believe you may have acknowledged that Roger Federer isn't merely a talented journeyman, even if you think he lucked a bit into a talent-free era. So what does that say about Roger, or what are you trying to say? That he might have had one or two fewer Slams? Please tell us what is the point of this exercise, for you, since you started it.

 

[britbox]

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

No such thing as a weak era in tennis, but outsider's perceptions can see it that way. Federer was so great he made his competition look weak. That's what the great ones in boxing and tennis do. They make all their competition look less than what they are.

Ok, and I will bring up this point again, since no one seems to respond to it. Take away the tournaments where each of the top players lost to Federer and that gives you the number of tournaments where their result was not dependent on Federer. For Roddick that number is 47 and he won 2, for Safin that number is 53 and he won 3, for Nalbandian that number is 49 and he won 3, for Davydenko that number is 49 and he won 2. Is Federer the reason they lost those opportunities? Was Federer the one that made them look weak? No, it was all the other players they played that they could not consistently beat. Not Federer.

Have Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray lost to Federer in GSs and Masters events? Yes, multiple times. Yet they have still managed to win a bunch of titles.

I guess somebody could equally make an case that if the top players were losing to more players other than a single elite then it could suggest the strength of the overall field is deeper. You can really spin it multiple ways - there isn't a right or a wrong as the size of pie up for grabs is finite. If one player takes more pieces it leaves less for the rest - and makes them look lesser. If the pie is distributed more evenly then it makes the field as a whole appear stronger, but the top guy less dominant.

You could also look at it in the context where Federer was top of his own peer group and around the top of the following generation. He spent 4 months at #1 in one of the Djokovic years of dominance you identified (six years after the dominant period of his own you listed). That's fairly telling in itself.

In the current era, which is labelled as strong -there is no following generation coming through to challenge the top dogs. Is that because they are stronger, or because the field and generation is weak? You can argue either way... it's almost a circular argument.

 

[drm025]

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

I don't think anyone is specifically insulting you, but you have spent a certain amount of time on the fairly tired "weak era" theory. So, the question is, really…why? Tennis players can only face the competition in front of them. I believe you may have acknowledged that Roger Federer isn't merely a talented journeyman, even if you think he lucked a bit into a talent-free era. So what does that say about Roger, or what are you trying to say? That he might have had one or two fewer Slams? Please tell us what is the point of this exercise, for you, since you started it.

Thanks for your question. I guess I'm just one of the people that quickly became jaded by all the Federer love. It's clear that the majority opinion is that Federer is the GOAT, and I just don't see it that way. I think I'm just trying to find a way to justify my opinion when the majority of the tennis world does not agree. Maybe, that's why I thought I had to go into so much detail.

But, besides all that it was just fun for me, haha. I love numbers and I enjoyed putting it together. I'm not trying to pass it off as a fact, I'm just trying to show why I feel that way and see what other people have to say. I guess I also like arguing for the sake of arguing.

I knew that I would get a lot of flack for this, but I just enjoy these discussions. I just don't want people suggesting that I have too much time on my hands because I'm passionate about something.

 

[Moxie]

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

I don't think anyone is specifically insulting you, but you have spent a certain amount of time on the fairly tired "weak era" theory. So, the question is, really…why? Tennis players can only face the competition in front of them. I believe you may have acknowledged that Roger Federer isn't merely a talented journeyman, even if you think he lucked a bit into a talent-free era. So what does that say about Roger, or what are you trying to say? That he might have had one or two fewer Slams? Please tell us what is the point of this exercise, for you, since you started it.

Thanks for your question. I guess I'm just one of the people that quickly became jaded by all the Federer love. It's clear that the majority opinion is that Federer is the GOAT, and I just don't see it that way. I think I'm just trying to find a way to justify my opinion when the majority of the tennis world does not agree. Maybe, that's why I thought I had to go into so much detail.

But, besides all that it was just fun for me, haha. I love numbers and I enjoyed putting it together. I'm not trying to pass it off as a fact, I'm just trying to show why I feel that way and see what other people have to say. I guess I also like arguing for the sake of arguing.

I knew that I would get a lot of flack for this, but I just enjoy these discussions. I just don't want people suggesting that I have too much time on my hands because I'm passionate about something.

Um, please note my avatar, so my opinion is not that Federer is the GOAT, nor do I have an especial love for him. However, I think that denigrating his achievements by rummaging around in retrospect over the players he faced is spurious. If you knew you would get flack, it implies that you know this discussion is old, and doesn't really go anywhere. You may not like that some say that you have too much time on your hands, but you have admitted that you like to argue for the sake of arguing. Going over old territory for the sake of argument DOES imply that you have too much time on your hands. With all due respect.

 

[drm025]

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

No such thing as a weak era in tennis, but outsider's perceptions can see it that way. Federer was so great he made his competition look weak. That's what the great ones in boxing and tennis do. They make all their competition look less than what they are.

Ok, and I will bring up this point again, since no one seems to respond to it. Take away the tournaments where each of the top players lost to Federer and that gives you the number of tournaments where their result was not dependent on Federer. For Roddick that number is 47 and he won 2, for Safin that number is 53 and he won 3, for Nalbandian that number is 49 and he won 3, for Davydenko that number is 49 and he won 2. Is Federer the reason they lost those opportunities? Was Federer the one that made them look weak? No, it was all the other players they played that they could not consistently beat. Not Federer.

Have Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray lost to Federer in GSs and Masters events? Yes, multiple times. Yet they have still managed to win a bunch of titles.

I guess somebody could equally make an case that if the top players were losing to more players other than a single elite then it could suggest the strength of the overall field is deeper. You can really spin it multiple ways - there isn't a right or a wrong as the size of pie up for grabs is finite. If one player takes more pieces it leaves less for the rest - and makes them look lesser. If the pie is distributed more evenly then it makes the field as a whole appear stronger, but the top guy less dominant.

You could also look at it in the context where Federer was top of his own peer group and around the top of the following generation. He spent 4 months at #1 in one of the Djokovic years of dominance you identified (six years after the dominant period of his own you listed). That's fairly telling in itself.

In the current era, which is labelled as strong -there is no following generation coming through to challenge the top dogs. Is that because they are stronger, or because the field and generation is weak? You can argue either way... it's almost a circular argument.

I do see what you're saying, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around that too, to be honest. I think the one thing that sways me is that we will have more all-time greats battling it out at the top during this era than the period from 2004-2007. Yes, Nadal was number 2 for the majority of 2004-2007, but he wasn't as good on surfaces outside of clay at that point. Since 2008 or so, we have had Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray all battling it out. I just think that Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray are higher caliber than Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko, and even early Nadal.

 

[drm025]

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

Um, please note my avatar, so my opinion is not that Federer is the GOAT, nor do I have an especial love for him. However, I think that denigrating his achievements by rummaging around in retrospect over the players he faced is spurious. If you knew you would get flack, it implies that you know this discussion is old, and doesn't really go anywhere. You may not like that some say that you have too much time on your hands, but you have admitted that you like to argue for the sake of arguing. Going over old territory for the sake of argument DOES imply that you have too much time on your hands. With all due respect.

Aren't we all here discussing this? Even though this discussion is "old". Yes, I started the thread, but like I said, I did it mostly for fun, but I wanted to see what people would say, since I haven't seen these numbers discussed before.

I'm new to the world of tennis forums, so I guess there arent any discussions that are old for me yet. I've only been able to talk about this with my brother, who doesn't care about it nearly as much as I do, haha.

 

[britbox]

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

Um, please note my avatar, so my opinion is not that Federer is the GOAT, nor do I have an especial love for him. However, I think that denigrating his achievements by rummaging around in retrospect over the players he faced is spurious. If you knew you would get flack, it implies that you know this discussion is old, and doesn't really go anywhere. You may not like that some say that you have too much time on your hands, but you have admitted that you like to argue for the sake of arguing. Going over old territory for the sake of argument DOES imply that you have too much time on your hands. With all due respect.

Aren't we all here discussing this? Even though this discussion is "old". Yes, I started the thread, but like I said, I did it mostly for fun, but I wanted to see what people would say, since I haven't seen these numbers discussed before.

I'm new to the world of tennis forums, so I guess there arent any discussions that are old for me yet. I've only been able to talk about this with my brother, who doesn't care about it nearly as much as I do, haha.

No worries drm. I think a lot of us came from tennis.com originally where the above subject was a daily event and it did become a bit tiresome... but you're not to know that and a lot of other posters came from different boards, so it's possibly new discussion for many.

It's a valid discussion - just not one I think you can prove one way or the other by stats - because you can argue the opposite angle using the same stats. Still interesting though.

There are other herrings that we can also throw in. I often see Davydenko's name bandied around but for the period 2004-2006, Nadal would be more relevant as he won a couple of majors and some masters titles, just like Federer is listed as Djokovic's competition in 2011/2012 (winning one major) rather than guys like Berdych and Tsonga.

 

[Moxie]

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

Um, please note my avatar, so my opinion is not that Federer is the GOAT, nor do I have an especial love for him. However, I think that denigrating his achievements by rummaging around in retrospect over the players he faced is spurious. If you knew you would get flack, it implies that you know this discussion is old, and doesn't really go anywhere. You may not like that some say that you have too much time on your hands, but you have admitted that you like to argue for the sake of arguing. Going over old territory for the sake of argument DOES imply that you have too much time on your hands. With all due respect.

Aren't we all here discussing this? Even though this discussion is "old". Yes, I started the thread, but like I said, I did it mostly for fun, but I wanted to see what people would say, since I haven't seen these numbers discussed before.

I'm new to the world of tennis forums, so I guess there arent any discussions that are old for me yet. I've only been able to talk about this with my brother, who doesn't care about it nearly as much as I do, haha.

For sure, DRM, that's what we're here for, and we surely are not averse to treading over old ground, endlessly. That is our raison d'être. You're very brave to wade into one of the more controversial, as an early effort. Good for you that you seem to have your full suit of armor on. :clap

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

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

You know , 10 years from now, somebody is going to come here and say "Well, Nadal really was not that good on clay...look at it, he won RG 10 times and everything else too...surely he had no competition..." Well, he HAD no competition in the sense that he is so good on clay, it makes everyone else look mediocre at best.

When did I say Federer wasn't good????? Don't put words in my mouth. I said the era he dominated was weaker than today's era. That's all.

DRM, the spirit of your post is pretty clear to me, without you spelling it out.

 

[drm025]

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

Thanks, Moxie and britbox. I feel more welcome now.