Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

[the AntiPusher]

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

Darth, IMO you're cutting off Roger's "peak" too early to put it at 2007. He was 25-26 that year, and in 08-09 he won 3 Majors and was in 4 other finals of Slams, I think.

Some such as myself see 2008 and 2009 as a drop off in play from his very best years. 2008 has been beaten to death but all in all you saw tons more bad losses from Roger in 08 and 09 overall, including at slams. 2008 saw a 65 match win streak on grass snapped and that was considered to be one of his better matches. 2009 saw a 41 match win streak snapped at the USO in pathetic fashion. I don't think that stacks up well to his very best years.

Moxie, Darth is just brutally honest but you are correct ,Fed play was the same but this is when the match up issues with Rafa became very balent,Imo.

We will agree to disagree on that. It wasn't just Rafa in 2008 and 2009, he was beaten easy at AO 08 and lost an awful final to DP in 09, straight setted by Blake at Olympics in 08, also the only year he didn't even make the semis of YEC. Quite an obvious dip in play, but he was still great back then of course.

Roger's level of play when he loss to DP at US 09 was still rather high.As you say.. we are going to agree to disagree

 

[DarthFed]

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

If 50% serving with 11 DF's, dropping serve when he had a chance to go up 2 sets, losing a 2 sets to 1 lead, and getting blown out in the 5th set is a high level...

 

[Kieran]

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

Darth, I admire your admiration for Fed: if he loses, he played lousy. If he wins, that's normal. I think you believe all the talk about things always being on his racket...

 

[DarthFed]

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

Darth, I admire your admiration for Fed: if he loses, he played lousy. If he wins, that's normal. I think you believe all the talk about things always being on his racket...

On the racket or whatever you want to call it. In my world there is only one way to prove yourself great in a competition...You lose, you fail, and obviously did something wrong to suffer such a fate.

But at USO 09 we are talking about a 5 time champion, 41 straight matches, should have had a 2 set lead over someone who has won nothing before or since. Put it in proper perspective.

 

[Kieran]

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

I think he was facing a guy who played a higher level than 35 year old Agassi, or Roddick...

 

[DarthFed]

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

I think he was facing a guy who played a higher level than 35 year old Agassi, or Roddick...

Debatable... I'd argue strongly he was playing at a lower level than Roger of 04-08

 

[DarthFed]

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

Shouldn't even be a discussion, everyone saw Roger junk his service game to go up 2 sets, everyone saw how feeble his serve was start to finish, and everyone saw another ugly 6-2 5th set. If this was Roger at a high level you might have thought very little of him to begin with, hmmmm...

 

[Didi]

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

I agree with Moxie here. I am as big a Roger fan as anybody but even I don't believe for a second that Fed's prime ended in 2007. Only if we go strictly and relentlessly by results but if you do that you ignore context and tons of other factors. Going that route, Novak's prime ended in 2011 and Nadal's in 2010. I don't believe this either. Roger was a later bloomer who made his first slam final in the summer of 2003 and had his first dominant year in 2004. Are we really supposed to believe that the prime of a late blooming Goat ended when he turned 26 in 2007?

Obviously every career has a different trajectory and thus must be analyzed in isolated fashion, but that's absurd, I'm sorry. How can a late bloomer start to decline with 26? While Fed's movement, especially to his forehand side naturally started to suffer a bit in 08-09, he made up for it with his serve that became better than ever in 08-09 and the main reason he made seven out of eight slam finals in that period.

 

[the AntiPusher]

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

Shouldn't even be a discussion, everyone saw Roger junk his service game to go up 2 sets, everyone saw how feeble his serve was start to finish, and everyone saw another ugly 6-2 5th set. If this was Roger at a high level you might have thought very little of him to begin with, hmmmm...

Darth, Maybe Fed was tired and JMDP play started to take a toll on him during that match. This was the just one of those times(a non Rafa final) where Fed wasnt able to quickly gather himself and pull it out.

Fed record in GS finals is 17-7(only Rafa and JMDP) have defeated him. That is remarkable

 

[DarthFed]

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

Shouldn't even be a discussion, everyone saw Roger junk his service game to go up 2 sets, everyone saw how feeble his serve was start to finish, and everyone saw another ugly 6-2 5th set. If this was Roger at a high level you might have thought very little of him to begin with, hmmmm...

Darth, Maybe Fed was tired and JMDP play started to take a toll on him during that match. This was the just one of those times(a non Rafa final) where Fed wasnt able to quickly gather himself and pull it out.

I don't think he was tired at all. It was a terrible day serving and he lost the plot at the worst possible moment to put the match back on even terms. Even then he had every opportunity to win in 4. And let's remember DP has won exactly 1 big title in his career to date...

 

[Kieran]

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

Ah yeah, but who knew back then DP would win only one? He was immense and he followed up this win with a victory over Fed in the WTF. Then he spent a year out injured. It could be safely argued that he hasn't been the same man since...

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

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

Ah yeah, but who knew back then DP would win only one? He was immense and he followed up this win with a victory over Fed in the WTF. Then he spent a year out injured. It could be safely argued that he hasn't been the same man since...

no it can't be safely argued..this season del potro has been at a high level, the annoying 'other wrist' injury he had during the American hc season and missing RG messed things up a bit..

but del potro is now within reach of the big trophys again, another major and a masters or two in 2014 is on the cards.

 

[Front242]

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

If 50% serving with 11 DF's, dropping serve when he had a chance to go up 2 sets, losing a 2 sets to 1 lead, and getting blown out in the 5th set is a high level...

In full agreement. When he opted to go for that ill-timed dropshot in the service game to close out set 2 he royally f****d up. A match he shouldn't have lost. Sure Del Potro was hitting monstrous forehands but mostly after he saw Roger had crumbled like a pack of soggy dominos. The serving that day by Roger was atrocious and yet he still could have won in 4 but he didn't. Still, I like Del Potro and had he not won that match he may never have developed into a contender giving us such memorable matches as the Wimbledon one against Djokovic this year and the Olympic matches against Fed and Djokovic.

 

[Moxie]

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

Darth, IMO you're cutting off Roger's "peak" too early to put it at 2007. He was 25-26 that year, and in 08-09 he won 3 Majors and was in 4 other finals of Slams, I think.

Some such as myself see 2008 and 2009 as a drop off in play from his very best years. 2008 has been beaten to death but all in all you saw tons more bad losses from Roger in 08 and 09 overall, including at slams. 2008 saw a 65 match win streak on grass snapped and that was considered to be one of his better matches. 2009 saw a 41 match win streak snapped at the USO in pathetic fashion. I don't think that stacks up well to his very best years.

Darth, I know you hold Roger to a high standard of excellence, but there is a degree of hyperbole, bolded above, in what you claim, that most observers would not agree with. Streaks are eventually broken, and it doesn't immediately indicate a player's drop in level…it means he lost on that day. Particularly when that player comes back to win both of the Majors you're talking about.

I agree with Moxie here. I am as big a Roger fan as anybody but even I don't believe for a second that Fed's prime ended in 2007. Only if we go strictly and relentlessly by results but if you do that you ignore context and tons of other factors. Going that route, Novak's prime ended in 2011 and Nadal's in 2010. I don't believe this either. Roger was a later bloomer who made his first slam final in the summer of 2003 and had his first dominant year in 2004. Are we really supposed to believe that the prime of a late blooming Goat ended when he turned 26 in 2007?

Obviously every career has a different trajectory and thus must be analyzed in isolated fashion, but that's absurd, I'm sorry. How can a late bloomer start to decline with 26? While Fed's movement, especially to his forehand side naturally started to suffer a bit in 08-09, he made up for it with his serve that became better than ever in 08-09 and the main reason he made seven out of eight slam finals in that period.

Thanks, Didi, and you make some of the points I had in mind when I asked the question. I don't completely agree that Fed was a "late-bloomer," except in the context of Nadal, who was a prodigy on clay, and possibly in terms of his own talent. As you say, it's right to look at each career trajectory individually, and Roger displayed a lot of talent early, so no one would have been shocked if he'd won a Slam before age 21, but it still puts him on track for his eventual greatness, according to El Dude's statistics. But I'm parsing terms. In any case, it doesn't really track to say that one with such an astonishing resume started his peak at 21 and ended it at 25/26.

I think it's wrong to confuse "dominance" with "peak tennis playing." They're not the same thing. 2008-9 might be what El Dude calls "plateau years" for Roger, but I would think most would mark the end of his peak/prime as 2010.

 

[Moxie]

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

Ah yeah, but who knew back then DP would win only one? He was immense and he followed up this win with a victory over Fed in the WTF. Then he spent a year out injured. It could be safely argued that he hasn't been the same man since...

no it can't be safely argued..this season del potro has been at a high level, the annoying 'other wrist' injury he had during the American hc season and missing RG messed things up a bit..

but del potro is now within reach of the big trophys again, another major and a masters or two in 2014 is on the cards.

Not sure if Kieran meant to say that there's no future in Del Potro, only that Darth's stance that Roger lost to a guy who hasn't produced the goods since is a bit spurious. There were reasons for that. However, Del Potro had a great year in 2009, and Roger losing to him at the USO is not just down to Fed blowing it. I do agree with you, JLLB, that Juan Martín seems to be getting back to his best. We shall see.

If 50% serving with 11 DF's, dropping serve when he had a chance to go up 2 sets, losing a 2 sets to 1 lead, and getting blown out in the 5th set is a high level...

In full agreement. When he opted to go for that ill-timed dropshot in the service game to close out set 2 he royally f****d up. A match he shouldn't have lost. Sure Del Potro was hitting monstrous forehands but mostly after he saw Roger had crumbled like a pack of soggy dominos. The serving that day by Roger was atrocious and yet he still could have won in 4 but he didn't. Still, I like Del Potro and had he not won that match he may never have developed into a contender giving us such memorable matches as the Wimbledon one against Djokovic this year and the Olympic matches against Fed and Djokovic.

It was a 5-set match, and I think it's unfair on Del Potro to just insist that Federer played crap. Opportunities come and go, on both sides, in a match that long. In the end, the Argentine brought the tennis that had got him there, and learned how to win a slam in the moment. Obviously, a Federer fan can see opportunities lost, but you also have to credit the other guy for opportunities seized, especially in a maiden slam final. In 2009, Del Potro was certainly a player on the rise. His trajectory was stalled after that by injury, but it's not like Roger lost to just some chump.

 

[DarthFed]

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

Darth, IMO you're cutting off Roger's "peak" too early to put it at 2007. He was 25-26 that year, and in 08-09 he won 3 Majors and was in 4 other finals of Slams, I think.

Some such as myself see 2008 and 2009 as a drop off in play from his very best years. 2008 has been beaten to death but all in all you saw tons more bad losses from Roger in 08 and 09 overall, including at slams. 2008 saw a 65 match win streak on grass snapped and that was considered to be one of his better matches. 2009 saw a 41 match win streak snapped at the USO in pathetic fashion. I don't think that stacks up well to his very best years.

Darth, I know you hold Roger to a high standard of excellence, but there is a degree of hyperbole, bolded above, in what you claim, that most observers would not agree with. Streaks are eventually broken, and it doesn't immediately indicate a player's drop in level…it means he lost on that day. Particularly when that player comes back to win both of the Majors you're talking about.

I agree with Moxie here. I am as big a Roger fan as anybody but even I don't believe for a second that Fed's prime ended in 2007. Only if we go strictly and relentlessly by results but if you do that you ignore context and tons of other factors. Going that route, Novak's prime ended in 2011 and Nadal's in 2010. I don't believe this either. Roger was a later bloomer who made his first slam final in the summer of 2003 and had his first dominant year in 2004. Are we really supposed to believe that the prime of a late blooming Goat ended when he turned 26 in 2007?

Obviously every career has a different trajectory and thus must be analyzed in isolated fashion, but that's absurd, I'm sorry. How can a late bloomer start to decline with 26? While Fed's movement, especially to his forehand side naturally started to suffer a bit in 08-09, he made up for it with his serve that became better than ever in 08-09 and the main reason he made seven out of eight slam finals in that period.

Thanks, Didi, and you make some of the points I had in mind when I asked the question. I don't completely agree that Fed was a "late-bloomer," except in the context of Nadal, who was a prodigy on clay, and possibly in terms of his own talent. As you say, it's right to look at each career trajectory individually, and Roger displayed a lot of talent early, so no one would have been shocked if he'd won a Slam before age 21, but it still puts him on track for his eventual greatness, according to El Dude's statistics. But I'm parsing terms. In any case, it doesn't really track to say that one with such an astonishing resume started his peak at 21 and ended it at 25/26.

I think it's wrong to confuse "dominance" with "peak tennis playing." They're not the same thing. 2008-9 might be what El Dude calls "plateau years" for Roger, but I would think most would mark the end of his peak/prime as 2010.

No hyperbole at all, it is a fact that he had a ton more bad losses in 2008 and 2009 than the 4 years before, even combining the 4 years, and it wasn't just Rafa and Djokovic either.

 

[DarthFed]

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

Ah yeah, but who knew back then DP would win only one? He was immense and he followed up this win with a victory over Fed in the WTF. Then he spent a year out injured. It could be safely argued that he hasn't been the same man since...

no it can't be safely argued..this season del potro has been at a high level, the annoying 'other wrist' injury he had during the American hc season and missing RG messed things up a bit..

but del potro is now within reach of the big trophys again, another major and a masters or two in 2014 is on the cards.

Not sure if Kieran meant to say that there's no future in Del Potro, only that Darth's stance that Roger lost to a guy who hasn't produced the goods since is a bit spurious. There were reasons for that. However, Del Potro had a great year in 2009, and Roger losing to him at the USO is not just down to Fed blowing it. I do agree with you, JLLB, that Juan Martín seems to be getting back to his best. We shall see.

If 50% serving with 11 DF's, dropping serve when he had a chance to go up 2 sets, losing a 2 sets to 1 lead, and getting blown out in the 5th set is a high level...

In full agreement. When he opted to go for that ill-timed dropshot in the service game to close out set 2 he royally f****d up. A match he shouldn't have lost. Sure Del Potro was hitting monstrous forehands but mostly after he saw Roger had crumbled like a pack of soggy dominos. The serving that day by Roger was atrocious and yet he still could have won in 4 but he didn't. Still, I like Del Potro and had he not won that match he may never have developed into a contender giving us such memorable matches as the Wimbledon one against Djokovic this year and the Olympic matches against Fed and Djokovic.

It was a 5-set match, and I think it's unfair on Del Potro to just insist that Federer played crap. Opportunities come and go, on both sides, in a match that long. In the end, the Argentine brought the tennis that had got him there, and learned how to win a slam in the moment. Obviously, a Federer fan can see opportunities lost, but you also have to credit the other guy for opportunities seized, especially in a maiden slam final. In 2009, Del Potro was certainly a player on the rise. His trajectory was stalled after that by injury, but it's not like Roger lost to just some chump.

It was a 5 set match due to Roger playing an awful service game to get broken while serving for the 2nd. His serve was pure garbage and he was anti clutch much like AO 2009, then got steamrolled in the 5th. And DP was injured 3 years ago, it sucks and it hurt his development, but not sure you can always use that as a crutch. That was the only big tournament he has won to date though I think there are more in his future.

 

[Moxie]

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

Darth, IMO you're cutting off Roger's "peak" too early to put it at 2007. He was 25-26 that year, and in 08-09 he won 3 Majors and was in 4 other finals of Slams, I think.

Some such as myself see 2008 and 2009 as a drop off in play from his very best years. 2008 has been beaten to death but all in all you saw tons more bad losses from Roger in 08 and 09 overall, including at slams. 2008 saw a 65 match win streak on grass snapped and that was considered to be one of his better matches. 2009 saw a 41 match win streak snapped at the USO in pathetic fashion. I don't think that stacks up well to his very best years.

Darth, I know you hold Roger to a high standard of excellence, but there is a degree of hyperbole, bolded above, in what you claim, that most observers would not agree with. Streaks are eventually broken, and it doesn't immediately indicate a player's drop in level…it means he lost on that day. Particularly when that player comes back to win both of the Majors you're talking about.

I agree with Moxie here. I am as big a Roger fan as anybody but even I don't believe for a second that Fed's prime ended in 2007. Only if we go strictly and relentlessly by results but if you do that you ignore context and tons of other factors. Going that route, Novak's prime ended in 2011 and Nadal's in 2010. I don't believe this either. Roger was a later bloomer who made his first slam final in the summer of 2003 and had his first dominant year in 2004. Are we really supposed to believe that the prime of a late blooming Goat ended when he turned 26 in 2007?

Obviously every career has a different trajectory and thus must be analyzed in isolated fashion, but that's absurd, I'm sorry. How can a late bloomer start to decline with 26? While Fed's movement, especially to his forehand side naturally started to suffer a bit in 08-09, he made up for it with his serve that became better than ever in 08-09 and the main reason he made seven out of eight slam finals in that period.

Thanks, Didi, and you make some of the points I had in mind when I asked the question. I don't completely agree that Fed was a "late-bloomer," except in the context of Nadal, who was a prodigy on clay, and possibly in terms of his own talent. As you say, it's right to look at each career trajectory individually, and Roger displayed a lot of talent early, so no one would have been shocked if he'd won a Slam before age 21, but it still puts him on track for his eventual greatness, according to El Dude's statistics. But I'm parsing terms. In any case, it doesn't really track to say that one with such an astonishing resume started his peak at 21 and ended it at 25/26.

I think it's wrong to confuse "dominance" with "peak tennis playing." They're not the same thing. 2008-9 might be what El Dude calls "plateau years" for Roger, but I would think most would mark the end of his peak/prime as 2010.

No hyperbole at all, it is a fact that he had a ton more bad losses in 2008 and 2009 than the 4 years before, even combining the 4 years, and it wasn't just Rafa and Djokovic either.

You're hilarious. "A ton more" is hyperbole. I realize that Federer hardly lost anything between 2004-07, but I know he didn't lose "a ton more," in 08-09. That's a subjective approximation which probably doesn't actually reflect the reality. I'm too busy to look it up, but I'm sure someone will. In any case, my memory is good enough to know that Roger wasn't getting beaten right-left-and center at that point, which would be my definition of a "ton" of losses. That he didn't win as much has he had is not shocking. Some of his previous numbers were actually too high to be maintained. That the W-L record came rather closer to earth is not about his demise, just that some heights can be scaled only so long.

 

[Moxie]

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

Ah yeah, but who knew back then DP would win only one? He was immense and he followed up this win with a victory over Fed in the WTF. Then he spent a year out injured. It could be safely argued that he hasn't been the same man since...

no it can't be safely argued..this season del potro has been at a high level, the annoying 'other wrist' injury he had during the American hc season and missing RG messed things up a bit..

but del potro is now within reach of the big trophys again, another major and a masters or two in 2014 is on the cards.

Not sure if Kieran meant to say that there's no future in Del Potro, only that Darth's stance that Roger lost to a guy who hasn't produced the goods since is a bit spurious. There were reasons for that. However, Del Potro had a great year in 2009, and Roger losing to him at the USO is not just down to Fed blowing it. I do agree with you, JLLB, that Juan Martín seems to be getting back to his best. We shall see.

If 50% serving with 11 DF's, dropping serve when he had a chance to go up 2 sets, losing a 2 sets to 1 lead, and getting blown out in the 5th set is a high level...

In full agreement. When he opted to go for that ill-timed dropshot in the service game to close out set 2 he royally f****d up. A match he shouldn't have lost. Sure Del Potro was hitting monstrous forehands but mostly after he saw Roger had crumbled like a pack of soggy dominos. The serving that day by Roger was atrocious and yet he still could have won in 4 but he didn't. Still, I like Del Potro and had he not won that match he may never have developed into a contender giving us such memorable matches as the Wimbledon one against Djokovic this year and the Olympic matches against Fed and Djokovic.

It was a 5-set match, and I think it's unfair on Del Potro to just insist that Federer played crap. Opportunities come and go, on both sides, in a match that long. In the end, the Argentine brought the tennis that had got him there, and learned how to win a slam in the moment. Obviously, a Federer fan can see opportunities lost, but you also have to credit the other guy for opportunities seized, especially in a maiden slam final. In 2009, Del Potro was certainly a player on the rise. His trajectory was stalled after that by injury, but it's not like Roger lost to just some chump.

It was a 5 set match due to Roger playing an awful service game to get broken while serving for the 2nd. His serve was pure garbage and he was anti clutch much like AO 2009, then got steamrolled in the 5th. And DP was injured 3 years ago, it sucks and it hurt his development, but not sure you can always use that as a crutch. That was the only big tournament he has won to date though I think there are more in his future.

You can complain that Roger let it go to 5 sets, but he did. I will said again, though, there's no reason to denigrate Del Potro's performance, just because you're angry at Roger that he didn't seal the deal. No one is making a crutch out of Juan Martín's subsequent injury. It's only to say that you can't say that Roger lost to a guy that wasn't world class level, just because he hasn't won another Slam. Folks have just given you the extenuating circumstances for why that might be. I will say that this is where you are buying into the "it's all on Federer's racquet" theory. You're saying that, if he hadn't blown it, Del Potro had nothing to do with it. In a 5-set match, IMO, that is too simplistic of a way to try to sell it. Surely Roger blew some chances, but he had other chances to right the ship. Del Potro also had plenty to say about the outcome of that match.

 

[DarthFed]

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

Darth, IMO you're cutting off Roger's "peak" too early to put it at 2007. He was 25-26 that year, and in 08-09 he won 3 Majors and was in 4 other finals of Slams, I think.

Some such as myself see 2008 and 2009 as a drop off in play from his very best years. 2008 has been beaten to death but all in all you saw tons more bad losses from Roger in 08 and 09 overall, including at slams. 2008 saw a 65 match win streak on grass snapped and that was considered to be one of his better matches. 2009 saw a 41 match win streak snapped at the USO in pathetic fashion. I don't think that stacks up well to his very best years.

Darth, I know you hold Roger to a high standard of excellence, but there is a degree of hyperbole, bolded above, in what you claim, that most observers would not agree with. Streaks are eventually broken, and it doesn't immediately indicate a player's drop in level…it means he lost on that day. Particularly when that player comes back to win both of the Majors you're talking about.

I agree with Moxie here. I am as big a Roger fan as anybody but even I don't believe for a second that Fed's prime ended in 2007. Only if we go strictly and relentlessly by results but if you do that you ignore context and tons of other factors. Going that route, Novak's prime ended in 2011 and Nadal's in 2010. I don't believe this either. Roger was a later bloomer who made his first slam final in the summer of 2003 and had his first dominant year in 2004. Are we really supposed to believe that the prime of a late blooming Goat ended when he turned 26 in 2007?

Obviously every career has a different trajectory and thus must be analyzed in isolated fashion, but that's absurd, I'm sorry. How can a late bloomer start to decline with 26? While Fed's movement, especially to his forehand side naturally started to suffer a bit in 08-09, he made up for it with his serve that became better than ever in 08-09 and the main reason he made seven out of eight slam finals in that period.

Thanks, Didi, and you make some of the points I had in mind when I asked the question. I don't completely agree that Fed was a "late-bloomer," except in the context of Nadal, who was a prodigy on clay, and possibly in terms of his own talent. As you say, it's right to look at each career trajectory individually, and Roger displayed a lot of talent early, so no one would have been shocked if he'd won a Slam before age 21, but it still puts him on track for his eventual greatness, according to El Dude's statistics. But I'm parsing terms. In any case, it doesn't really track to say that one with such an astonishing resume started his peak at 21 and ended it at 25/26.

I think it's wrong to confuse "dominance" with "peak tennis playing." They're not the same thing. 2008-9 might be what El Dude calls "plateau years" for Roger, but I would think most would mark the end of his peak/prime as 2010.

No hyperbole at all, it is a fact that he had a ton more bad losses in 2008 and 2009 than the 4 years before, even combining the 4 years, and it wasn't just Rafa and Djokovic either.

You're hilarious. "A ton more" is hyperbole. I realize that Federer hardly lost anything between 2004-07, but I know he didn't lose "a ton more," in 08-09. That's a subjective approximation which probably doesn't actually reflect the reality. I'm too busy to look it up, but I'm sure someone will. In any case, my memory is good enough to know that Roger wasn't getting beaten right-left-and center at that point, which would be my definition of a "ton" of losses. That he didn't win as much has he had is not shocking. Some of his previous numbers were actually too high to be maintained. That the W-L record came rather closer to earth is not about his demise, just that some heights can be scaled only so long.

66-15 in 2008
69-12 in 2009

74-6 in 2004
81-4 in 2005
92-5 in 2006
68-9 in 2007

135-27
315-24 I'd call that a hell of a difference. in 04-07 there were 8 losses to Nadal and 1 to Djoker, in 08-09 it was 5 and 2 respectively.