Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

[drm025]

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

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.

It was actually 4 losses to Djokovic in 08-09. I don't see a ton of bad losses in those years, though. In 2008, maybe the losses to Fish and Stepanek. And in 2009, maybe the losses to Wawrinka and Benneteau. But, I don't see many other bad losses. Remember in 2007 he lost twice to Canas (2 tournaments in a row) and once to Volandri.

 

[Moxie]

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

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.

I still say you're grading on a very high curve. That's only 6 more losses in 08 than in 07, and only 3 more in 09 than 07. And Nadal (especially) and Djokovic (a bit) were coming more into their own peak, so that's not surprising. As I mentioned above, to have had years with only 4-6 losses is outrageous, so to come down from that height is not surprising. 3-6 additional losses is nothing like a "plummet." And, am I wrong, or did he also not play the same number of tournaments in 08-09?

 

[drm025]

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

I still say you're grading on a very high curve. That's only 6 more losses in 08 than in 07, and only 3 more in 09 than 07. And Nadal (especially) and Djokovic (a bit) were coming more into their own peak, so that's not surprising. As I mentioned above, to have had years with only 4-6 losses is outrageous, so to come down from that height is not surprising. 3-6 additional losses is nothing like a "plummet." And, am I wrong, or did he also not play the same number of tournaments in 08-09?

Number of Tournaments:
2004 - 17
2005 - 15
2006 - 17
2007 - 16
2008 - 19
2009 - 15

 

[DarthFed]

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

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.

It was actually 4 losses to Djokovic in 08-09. I don't see a ton of bad losses in those years, though. In 2008, maybe the losses to Fish and Stepanek. And in 2009, maybe the losses to Wawrinka and Benneteau. But, I don't see many other bad losses. Remember in 2007 he lost twice to Canas (2 tournaments in a row) and once to Volandri.

In 08 he lost to Karlovic, Fish, Stepanek, Simon twice, Roddick and Blake (in a huge match). And in the big tournaments he struggled throughout AO before getting decked in the semis, struggled throughout RG before the most lopsided GS final in history, played a mediocre Wimbledon final, and struggled throughout USO before turning it on the last 2 matches.

In 09 there was Benneteau, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Davydenko and that's if you don't count the USO final.

 

[DarthFed]

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

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.


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.

I still say you're grading on a very high curve. That's only 6 more losses in 08 than in 07, and only 3 more in 09 than 07. And Nadal (especially) and Djokovic (a bit) were coming more into their own peak, so that's not surprising. As I mentioned above, to have had years with only 4-6 losses is outrageous, so to come down from that height is not surprising. 3-6 additional losses is nothing like a "plummet." And, am I wrong, or did he also not play the same number of tournaments in 08-09?

6 more losses is an enormous difference Moxie, he played 19 tournaments and withdrew from one, so the maximum number of losses he could have was 19 (2 in YEC). In 2007 the max would have been 17.

 

[Kieran]

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

Come on, Darth, you want it going both ways! If Federer is beating guys who only won Zero to Two slams, you consider it a tough era. But when he loses to one of them, you're appalled and wonder how he could lose to del Potro, who has only one slam.

What the heck do you think he was beating, between 03-07? Apart from an aged Agassi or a youthful Rafa (who Roger hasn't beaten at slam level since 2007), this was what he faced back then...

 

[drm025]

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

In 08 he lost to Karlovic, Fish, Stepanek, Simon twice, Roddick and Blake (in a huge match). And in the big tournaments he struggled throughout AO before getting decked in the semis, struggled throughout RG before the most lopsided GS final in history, played a mediocre Wimbledon final, and struggled throughout USO before turning it on the last 2 matches.

In 09 there was Benneteau, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Davydenko and that's if you don't count the USO final.

Man, I agree with others when they say it sounds like you really think that every match is on Federer's racket.

For 2008, we all know that Karlovic can have an unbelievable serving day and there isn't really much you can do. Simon was top 10 that year and playing some great tennis. We all know Roddick and Blake have the goods too. They certainly aren't consistent. But any one match, they can play great, they've both been top 5 in the world. I don't think anyone believes Roger has much say in a match against Rafa at the FO, and the Wimby final, being the greatest match ever played, certainly didn't show poor play from Federer. Why would everyone call it the greatest match ever?

For 2009, how are Tsonga and Davydenko bad losses?? Tsonga was top ten and has shown he has the goods, and Davydenko won the world tour finals that year...

You didn't mention those 2007 losses I pointed out. How are they not way worse? Especially losing to Canas 2 times in a row.

 

[DarthFed]

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

In 08 he lost to Karlovic, Fish, Stepanek, Simon twice, Roddick and Blake (in a huge match). And in the big tournaments he struggled throughout AO before getting decked in the semis, struggled throughout RG before the most lopsided GS final in history, played a mediocre Wimbledon final, and struggled throughout USO before turning it on the last 2 matches.

In 09 there was Benneteau, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Davydenko and that's if you don't count the USO final.

Man, I agree with others when they say it sounds like you really think that every match is on Federer's racket.

For 2008, we all know that Karlovic can have an unbelievable serving day and there isn't really much you can do. Simon was top 10 that year and playing some great tennis. We all know Roddick and Blake have the goods too. They certainly aren't consistent. But any one match, they can play great, they've both been top 5 in the world. I don't think anyone believes Roger has much say in a match against Rafa at the FO, and the Wimby final, being the greatest match ever played, certainly didn't show poor play from Federer. Why would everyone call it the greatest match ever?

For 2009, how are Tsonga and Davydenko bad losses?? Tsonga was top ten and has shown he has the goods, and Davydenko won the world tour finals that year...

You didn't mention those 2007 losses I pointed out. How are they not way worse? Especially losing to Canas 2 times in a row.

Those losses in 2007 were bad, I just pointed out that there were a ton more in both 2008 and 2009. How many straight had he won vs. Roddick, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Stepanek, Fish, etc before those years? The question isn't whether those guys were good, but whether that would constitute a "bad" loss for someone who probably had beaten them 30+ times in a row. Tsonga was and is a mindless ball basher, those were the types that used to never have a prayer, and that match featured a blown 5-1 3rd set lead to boot.

Wimbledon 08 final was the greatest match I've seen, but it featured plenty of erratic play from Roger. The greatness of the match was partly in due to what was at stake, the players involved, even the rain delays leading to it finishing so late, all around drama, etc. People tend to forget that the first 2 sets of that match counted, just as they tend to vastly overrate Rafa's game on grass. Roger had a 65 match win streak, unless you bring back 25 year old Pete to play him that day I don't think any loss is a decent one.

 

[DarthFed]

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

Come on, Darth, you want it going both ways! If Federer is beating guys who only won Zero to Two slams, you consider it a tough era. But when he loses to one of them, you're appalled and wonder how he could lose to del Potro, who has only one slam.

What the heck do you think he was beating, between 03-07? Apart from an aged Agassi or a youthful Rafa (who Roger hasn't beaten at slam level since 2007), this was what he faced back then...

I've never said it was a tough era, just that people who say it is weak are being hypocritical and tend to ignore Rafa from 05-07, while using old man Federer (degraded from 04-07) as great competition. And I think he beat the "DP's" of the world from 03-07 in slams, so why would it be considered some kind of a decent loss. He is 15-1 vs. everyone but Rafa in slam finals...what happened that day? Think we've already been over it...

 

[drm025]

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

Those losses in 2007 were bad, I just pointed out that there were a ton more in both 2008 and 2009. How many straight had he won vs. Roddick, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Stepanek, Fish, etc before those years? The question isn't whether those guys were good, but whether that would constitute a "bad" loss for someone who probably had beaten them 30+ times in a row. Tsonga was and is a mindless ball basher, those were the types that used to never have a prayer, and that match featured a blown 5-1 3rd set lead to boot.

Wimbledon 08 final was the greatest match I've seen, but it featured plenty of erratic play from Roger. The greatness of the match was partly in due to what was at stake, the players involved, even the rain delays leading to it finishing so late, all around drama, etc. People tend to forget that the first 2 sets of that match counted, just as they tend to vastly overrate Rafa's game on grass. Roger had a 65 match win streak, unless you bring back 25 year old Pete to play him that day I don't think any loss is a decent one.

So because you build up a winning streak that means you can never lose again? That's ridiculous and unrealistic. Nadal can't be overrated on grass after winning 2 and making 3 other finals at Wimbledon. That makes him number 2 on grass for this generation, just like Federer is number 2 on clay. Unless you think Fed is overrated on clay too?

 

[DarthFed]

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

Those losses in 2007 were bad, I just pointed out that there were a ton more in both 2008 and 2009. How many straight had he won vs. Roddick, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Stepanek, Fish, etc before those years? The question isn't whether those guys were good, but whether that would constitute a "bad" loss for someone who probably had beaten them 30+ times in a row. Tsonga was and is a mindless ball basher, those were the types that used to never have a prayer, and that match featured a blown 5-1 3rd set lead to boot.

Wimbledon 08 final was the greatest match I've seen, but it featured plenty of erratic play from Roger. The greatness of the match was partly in due to what was at stake, the players involved, even the rain delays leading to it finishing so late, all around drama, etc. People tend to forget that the first 2 sets of that match counted, just as they tend to vastly overrate Rafa's game on grass. Roger had a 65 match win streak, unless you bring back 25 year old Pete to play him that day I don't think any loss is a decent one.

So because you build up a winning streak that means you can never lose again? That's ridiculous and unrealistic. Nadal can't be overrated on grass after winning 2 and making 3 other finals at Wimbledon. That makes him number 2 on grass for this generation, just like Federer is number 2 on clay. Unless you think Fed is overrated on clay too?

Of course it doesn't mean he will never lose, just that it is a surprise when he does and being the best grass court player in the world he is "not supposed to lose." Being the favorite to win the match and then losing is especially a bad thing. Remember, for an athlete aside from dying on the court there is nothing worse they can do than lose. Roger won 2 out of 5 sets that day vs. someone who hadn't won anything on grass before and someone who lost to Rosol and Darcis at Wimbledon.

Roger is overrated on clay by some...those who give him "points" due to falling short so often vs. the greatest clay court player ever. Greatness is defined by victories not losing to the best.

 

[drm025]

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

Of course it doesn't mean he will never lose, just that it is a surprise when he does and being the best grass court player in the world he is "not supposed to lose." Being the favorite to win the match and then losing is especially a bad thing. Remember, for an athlete aside from dying on the court there is nothing worse they can do than lose. Roger won 2 out of 5 sets that day vs. someone who hadn't won anything on grass before and someone who lost to Rosol and Darcis at Wimbledon.

Roger is overrated on clay by some...those who give him "points" due to falling short so often vs. the greatest clay court player ever. Greatness is defined by victories not losing to the best.

I'm pretty sure Rafa won Queens that year, so yes he had won something on grass. The loses to Rosol and Darcis are irrelevant when talking about the 2008 final. And, yes, Federer was "not supposed to lose" being the best grass court player, but that doesnt mean that he is "supposed to never lose". That would make him a robot.

 

[DarthFed]

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

I'm aware of Queens 08 and there is only one big grass tourney...

 

[brokenshoelace]

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

. People tend to forget that the first 2 sets of that match counted, just as they tend to vastly overrate Rafa's game on grass.

This argument is irrelevant in this context.

You only say Nadal's game on grass is overrated in hindsight, but that match took place during a 5 year stretch that saw Nadal reach the final in as many times. Yeah, Nadal's game struggles in the first week at Wimbledon. But what does that have anything to do with the 2008 final? Back then, he WAS playing fantastic tennis on grass (unless you've forgotten about winning Queens, and reaching the Wimbledon final with straightforward ease). So Nadal's overall level on grass (which is high anyway) is irrelevant, since he was playing great then.

You insist on making it out like Roger's loss in that match was some sort of huge blemish. It wasn't. Yeah, it wasn't the admirable heroic stand that some Nadal fans called it back then (since they can only praise Roger in defeat), but it wasn't the embarrassment you make it out to be. Remember what happened in their meeting the previous year.

 

[Haelfix]

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

That Federer's peak was in 2004 - 2007 is really not up for debate. He was not the same player in 2008 and 2009 in the same way that Novak Djokovic is not the same player he was in 2011 (Roger's prime was actually extended an entire year later).

It's totally obvious if you watch the drop off in his play, but if that doesn't convince you, its easy to simply note that his statistics over the entire year are worse.

In 2009 (a better year for him than 2008)
Roger Federer had a 90% hold game (an elite number) and a 24% return of serve game (a pretty terrible number, which is not much better than a poor returner like Andy Roddick)

In 2006, RF had a 90% hold game and a 32% return of serve (a percerntage which compares favorably to the elite returners in the game) as well as about 3% higher win percentage on total points scored (thats the difference between Nadal's worst year as a pro and his best year incidentally).

It's not that he suddenly turned into crap, it's just that he wasn't anywhere near the dominant force that he once was. It's pretty glaring when he starts losing to players that he normally dominated (the Blake, Karlovics, Davydenkos of the world)

 

[tented]

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

Nadal can't be overrated on grass after winning 2 and making 3 other finals at Wimbledon. That makes him number 2 on grass for this generation, just like Federer is number 2 on clay. Unless you think Fed is overrated on clay too?

Roger is overrated on clay by some...those who give him "points" due to falling short so often vs. the greatest clay court player ever. Greatness is defined by victories not losing to the best.

Federer isn't "given points" -- he earned them by frequently only losing to Rafa on clay. It's unfortunate for him that his career has coincided with the clay GOAT's, but it's indisputable that he would have achieved numerous other clay-court titles, including several RG's, had Nadal not been around. Rafa's presence doesn't reveal Roger to be horrible on clay; it merely puts it in perspective.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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

^^ Well yeah, I'd go further and say first signs of decline in consistency began in 2007. His absolute peak was in late 2006 till the 2007 AO.

However, I'll say that the closest Federer looked to his old self in 2008 was Wimbledon (the entire tournament, more or less), and the final two matches of the US Open in 2008. People tend to look at the fact that his results (and level) declined in 2008 and use it as an excuse for every loss. This is shortsighted logic. He wasn't at his peak in 2008, but he sure as hell was playing pretty close to it in Wimbledon that year (not in the final actually, at least not until the third set, but then again that tends to happen to him against Nadal). You can argue that his loss in that tournament was affected by his previous losses, confidence wise (and thus is a result of him not being at his peak), and that's fair. But it becomes lazy to just rationalize everything with "he was no longer at his peak."

As far as 2008 as a whole, all you gotta do is watch the drop off in his forehand and footwork, and yeah, it's clear his game wasn't quite where it was before that.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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

Greatness is defined by victories not losing to the best.

This is true to a large extent, but I think you and I both know that you can't make general statements like that, and things differ on a case by case basis.

Otherwise, we can just say that since all of Roger's rivals in 04-07 lost to him (and he was the best), none of them were great, and thus, it was a weak era (I don't think any of them are greats as in all-time greats, but it was far from a weak ear). As far as Roger on clay, he WAS great, just not compared to Nadal (though those are lofty standards).

 

[DarthFed]

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

Greatness is defined by victories not losing to the best.

This is true to a large extent, but I think you and I both know that you can't make general statements like that, and things differ on a case by case basis.

Otherwise, we can just say that since all of Roger's rivals in 04-07 lost to him (and he was the best), none of them were great, and thus, it was a weak era (I don't think any of them are greats as in all-time greats, but it was far from a weak ear). As far as Roger on clay, he WAS great, just not compared to Nadal (though those are lofty standards).

Roger was great on clay based on what he DID accomplish (1 RG and 6 MS wins), not based on tons and tons of losses to Nadal. You can do the same for his competition from 04-07, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt are not all time greats but they were great players based on their career achievements. They do not get extra points for getting beat like a drum by Roger in most matches.

 

[DarthFed]

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

Nadal can't be overrated on grass after winning 2 and making 3 other finals at Wimbledon. That makes him number 2 on grass for this generation, just like Federer is number 2 on clay. Unless you think Fed is overrated on clay too?

Roger is overrated on clay by some...those who give him "points" due to falling short so often vs. the greatest clay court player ever. Greatness is defined by victories not losing to the best.

Federer isn't "given points" -- he earned them by frequently only losing to Rafa on clay. It's unfortunate for him that his career has coincided with the clay GOAT's, but it's indisputable that he would have achieved numerous other clay-court titles, including several RG's, had Nadal not been around. Rafa's presence doesn't reveal Roger to be horrible on clay; it merely puts it in perspective.

He might have won if Rafa wasn't there, but we could play the "what if" game with everything in tennis. Of course Roger wasn't horrible on clay despite Rafa being around he has won 1 RG and 6 MS events. That's a solid resume on clay. But when you start treating 4 RG finals and 8 or 9 MS final losses as "extra points" given who he lost to we will agree to disagree.