Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

[Moxie]

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.

I don't think anyone is awarding bonus points for losing. I'm pretty sure that no one is being, or needs to be that condescending towards Fed. Just making the point that Roger was 2nd only to Nadal on clay for a long time. He was the only guy who beat him where it mattered, or at all for a few years in there.

As to the OP of the thread, there were plenty of very good/near-great players during Roger's earlier years of domination. It's not his fault that the likes of Safin, Nalbandian and Hewitt couldn't be consistent or healthy enough to make a proper rivalry. It is to Roger's credit that he was. Had he not overcome his own earlier volatility, things might have been more rough-and-tumble in say, 03-06, with more different Slam winners, and the #1 changing hands more. But he did overcome it, which is a tribute not just to his talent, but his commitment, and therefore his greatness. Again, I'm not trying to condescend, (a là Cali,) by making some point that dedication and focus are somehow lesser than talent. I think that all those things are part-and-parcel to it. Federer is, of course, enormously talented, which has seen him though a lot of his wins. But the other "intangibles" have gotten him through some others. That some of the other players in the earlier part of his domination couldn't do it often enough is not a knock on Roger's legacy, but, rather proves his superiority.

 

[Kieran]

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

There's a lot of assumptions here, one being that Roger rose from the grave in 2009, independent of Rafa's injury, which is ludicrous...

 

[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).

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.

Who suggested Roger was great for losing to Nadal?

 

[Moxie]

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

There's a lot of assumptions here, one being that Roger rose from the grave in 2009, independent of Rafa's injury, which is ludicrous...

:laydownlaughing I have to say, this is where Darth has boxed himself into a corner. He sees Roger as a shadow of himself after 2007, he's unhappy that he's (only) 2nd on clay, yet the man pulls it together to finally win RG. Can we at least say that this proves that Roger was the 2nd best on clay, and that he wasn't so diminished that he could still beat the field, even on, arguably, his least strong surface?

 

[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.

Who suggested Roger was great for losing to Nadal?

A lot of people, including Tented on the last page is giving Roger extra points for losing to the Clay Goat.

 

[DarthFed]

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

There's a lot of assumptions here, one being that Roger rose from the grave in 2009, independent of Rafa's injury, which is ludicrous...

Nah, it's more ludicrous to say Roger was in the grave to begin with. Even before RG 09 he had made 4 straight GS finals, he wasn't going anywhere except the finals of every GS. What's Rafa's longest streak again? 4 is it? I don't think Roger's level of play in 2009 was any higher than 2008 for the record.

 

[DarthFed]

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

There's a lot of assumptions here, one being that Roger rose from the grave in 2009, independent of Rafa's injury, which is ludicrous...

:laydownlaughing I have to say, this is where Darth has boxed himself into a corner. He sees Roger as a shadow of himself after 2007, he's unhappy that he's (only) 2nd on clay, yet the man pulls it together to finally win RG. Can we at least say that this proves that Roger was the 2nd best on clay, and that he wasn't so diminished that he could still beat the field, even on, arguably, his least strong surface?

When did I say he wasn't 2nd best on clay. Roger was a great clay court player, I'm just saying some people place him too high and that's due to being awarded "extra points" for who he lost to on clay.

As for being a shadow of himself, maybe not, but he was certainly on his way down and aside from a brief resurgence in 2012 it has been steady since 2007. MJ was the best basketball player in the world at age 35 and yet he was greatly diminished...

 

[Moxie]

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

There's a lot of assumptions here, one being that Roger rose from the grave in 2009, independent of Rafa's injury, which is ludicrous...

Nah, it's more ludicrous to say Roger was in the grave to begin with. Even before RG 09 he had made 4 straight GS finals, he wasn't going anywhere except the finals of every GS. What's Rafa's longest streak again? 4 is it? I don't think Roger's level of play in 2009 was any higher than 2008 for the record.

It's you that was putting Roger in the grave. You really do keep moving the goal posts. If he was a shadow of himself in 08 and 09, then how did he win RG in 09? Luck?

 

[DarthFed]

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

There's a lot of assumptions here, one being that Roger rose from the grave in 2009, independent of Rafa's injury, which is ludicrous...

Nah, it's more ludicrous to say Roger was in the grave to begin with. Even before RG 09 he had made 4 straight GS finals, he wasn't going anywhere except the finals of every GS. What's Rafa's longest streak again? 4 is it? I don't think Roger's level of play in 2009 was any higher than 2008 for the record.

It's you that was putting Roger in the grave. You really do keep moving the goal posts. If he was a shadow of himself in 08 and 09, then how did he win RG in 09? Luck?

You're far too smart to be putting words in my mouth, and you aren't shabby on the reading comprehension either which means you are trying to hard here.

Roger wasn't a shadow of himself but his play had clearly dropped. Now of course many will look at just Rafa and partly Nole as the reason but the numbers don't lie and that's if your eyes didn't do the trick. In that 4 year period he had 3 less losses and 180 more wins than 08-09. Same amount of losses to Rafa and Nole in 04-07 than 08-09. He didn't go from playing JV to Varsity either. A loss to DP at USO and blowout loss to Nole in 08 AO would have been much tougher to come by in prior years to say the least.

 

[Moxie]

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

There's a lot of assumptions here, one being that Roger rose from the grave in 2009, independent of Rafa's injury, which is ludicrous...

Nah, it's more ludicrous to say Roger was in the grave to begin with. Even before RG 09 he had made 4 straight GS finals, he wasn't going anywhere except the finals of every GS. What's Rafa's longest streak again? 4 is it? I don't think Roger's level of play in 2009 was any higher than 2008 for the record.

It's you that was putting Roger in the grave. You really do keep moving the goal posts. If he was a shadow of himself in 08 and 09, then how did he win RG in 09? Luck?

You're far too smart to be putting words in my mouth, and you aren't shabby on the reading comprehension either which means you are trying to hard here.

Roger wasn't a shadow of himself but his play had clearly dropped. Now of course many will look at just Rafa and partly Nole as the reason but the numbers don't lie and that's if your eyes didn't do the trick. In that 4 year period he had 3 less losses and 180 more wins than 08-09. Same amount of losses to Rafa and Nole in 04-07 than 08-09. He didn't go from playing JV to Varsity either. A loss to DP at USO and blowout loss to Nole in 08 AO would have been much tougher to come by in prior years to say the least.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. There's really no need. You've said it all yourself. I actually give him more credit for tennis chops post 2007-8 than you do. A minor drop in an astonishing level is not really that bad. Look at Djokovic. He's not 2011-level, but he's still pretty f-ing good. I know you wish that Roger would have stayed at 04-07 level, but that's not realistic. But what he's done since 08 is not completely chopped liver.

 

[tented]

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

When did I say he wasn't 2nd best on clay. Roger was a great clay court player, I'm just saying some people place him too high and that's due to being awarded "extra points" for who he lost to on clay.

If you agree he's the second best on clay, then there's only one person above him, so placing him in second place isn't placing him "too high". He's right where he should be, and didn't require extra points to get there.

 

[Haelfix]

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

A minor drop in an astonishing level is not really that bad. Look at Djokovic. He's not 2011-level, but he's still pretty f-ing good. I know you wish that Roger would have stayed at 04-07 level, but that's not realistic. But what he's done since 08 is not completely chopped liver.

I don't think anyone is saying that it is. You don't systematically beat Novak and Murray at Wimbledon in 2012 and be considered a scrub.

Still its exactly as you say, the dropoff between 2006 and 2009 is roughly like Novak's early 2011 relative to 2012 or 2013 season or Rafa going from 2006 to 2008. It's not just the quality of the opposition, but in how he is playing point in and point out.. It's pretty glaring.

 

[Moxie]

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

A minor drop in an astonishing level is not really that bad. Look at Djokovic. He's not 2011-level, but he's still pretty f-ing good. I know you wish that Roger would have stayed at 04-07 level, but that's not realistic. But what he's done since 08 is not completely chopped liver.

I don't think anyone is saying that it is. You don't systematically beat Novak and Murray at Wimbledon in 2012 and be considered a scrub.

Still its exactly as you say, the dropoff between 2006 and 2009 is roughly like Novak's early 2011 relative to 2012 or 2013 season or Rafa going from 2006 to 2008. It's not just the quality of the opposition, but in how he is playing point in and point out.. It's pretty glaring.

TBH, I think DarthFed is saying that the drop in level from 2007 to 2008 IS that bad, which I think is too much.

I'm with you on your point which I bolded above, until you said "Rafa going from 06 to 08," which was an ascension, not a decline, and where you seem to say that Roger's decline was "pretty glaring." I'm unclear as to which of my points you're agreeing with.

 

[coban]

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

So do we agree? Roger 04-07 = Rafa 08-09 = Djokovic 11?

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

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

in 2008 Federer was way below his best until halle in june..the mono hangover dragged down his level.boo hoo, by Wimbledon was he fully fit ?, yes..at his peak ?, no. but being fit and at peak are not the same thing. Nadal won wimby, he was fit and at his peak, that's that.

2009 Federer was much better all round, esp concentration, I don't see what rafa has to do with anything roger did in 2009..rafa wasn't as good as 2008 then he loses to Federer on clay (Madrid) then to soderling at rg then stops playing completely..

you might as well say 'no one beats a healthy Federer at wimbledon' and claim he was still bothered by post mono hangover in wimb 2008 (I don't think he was then but he was for a lot of first half of 2008).

*rafa lost his 2009 rg title because he was not fit and/or rubbish at that time...big deal,
*roger was defo not well and thus a bit rubbish at aust 2008 and for months after...big deal,
*roger lost his wombledon title in 2008 fully fit, although mega-fed had gone for good...big deal.

its as if folk expect players to be robots who are never injured or ill. but that's never the reality.,rafa has no say whatsoever in the chat about rg 2009..he couldn't even push soderling to a 5th set..whereas Federer wasted him in three.

its like trying to devalue rafa's 2010 Wimbledon JUST because Federer lost In the QF..its beyond silly.

 

[El Dude]

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

I haven't read through much of this thread, but it seems to me that many people forget the age difference with Roger and Rafa, Novak, and Andy, which prohibits us from ever having an equal 1-to-1 comparison.

As I've shared before, my research has shown that a "tennis generation" is roughly 5 years (on average), with players going through phases of about 5 years: 17 to 21 being the "Developmental Phase," 22-26 the "Peak Phase," 27-31 being the "Plateau Phase" and 32 - retirement being the "Decline Phase." Every player is different, but there seem to be clear ages that mark transitions, like so:

21-22 = entry into peak phase
26-27 = a drop from peak into a plateau phase
31-32 = rapid decline

Now if we look at 22-26 as the period a player is at their very peak, then Roger was never in his peak at the same time as any of Rafa, Novak and Andy. Roger turned 26 in 2007, which would be considered his last true peak year, while Rafa didn't turn 22--and thus enter his peak--until a year later, in 2008. 2007-2008 is probably the period of time in which Roger and Rafa were closest to their respective peaks. Interestingly enough, 2007 is the only year that Roger had a winning record against Rafa, 3-2, but Rafa more than made up for it in the next year by beating Roger in all four of their matches.

Now again, every player is different. Rafa reached a high level earlier than most, although didn't really reach his peak until 2008, his age 22 season--and thus followed the norms--and didn't truly mature as a player until 2010, which was arguably his very best year and the year he turned 24, which is the most common year for a player's best season (Roger's was 2006 when he was 24-25, Novak's was 2011 when he was 23-24).

 

[Front242]

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

I haven't read through much of this thread, but it seems to me that many people forget the age difference with Roger and Rafa, Novak, and Andy, which prohibits us from ever having an equal 1-to-1 comparison.

As I've shared before, my research has shown that a "tennis generation" is roughly 5 years (on average), with players going through phases of about 5 years: 17 to 21 being the "Developmental Phase," 22-26 the "Peak Phase," 27-31 being the "Plateau Phase" and 32 - retirement being the "Decline Phase." Every player is different, but there seem to be clear ages that mark transitions, like so:

21-22 = entry into peak phase
26-27 = a drop from peak into a plateau phase
31-32 = rapid decline

Now if we look at 22-26 as the period a player is at their very peak, then Roger was never in his peak at the same time as any of Rafa, Novak and Andy. Roger turned 26 in 2007, which would be considered his last true peak year, while Rafa didn't turn 22--and thus enter his peak--until a year later, in 2008. 2007-2008 is probably the period of time in which Roger and Rafa were closest to their respective peaks. Interestingly enough, 2007 is the only year that Roger had a winning record against Rafa, 3-2, but Rafa more than made up for it in the next year by beating Roger in all four of their matches.

Now again, every player is different. Rafa reached a high level earlier than most, although didn't really reach his peak until 2008, his age 22 season--and thus followed the norms--and didn't truly mature as a player until 2010, which was arguably his very best year and the year he turned 24, which is the most common year for a player's best season (Roger's was 2006 when he was 24-25, Novak's was 2011 when he was 23-24).

Nice stats and very interesting as always, El Dude. Cheers.

 

[Fiero425]

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

I haven't read through much of this thread, but it seems to me that many people forget the age difference with Roger and Rafa, Novak, and Andy, which prohibits us from ever having an equal 1-to-1 comparison.

As I've shared before, my research has shown that a "tennis generation" is roughly 5 years (on average), with players going through phases of about 5 years: 17 to 21 being the "Developmental Phase," 22-26 the "Peak Phase," 27-31 being the "Plateau Phase" and 32 - retirement being the "Decline Phase." Every player is different, but there seem to be clear ages that mark transitions, like so:

21-22 = entry into peak phase
26-27 = a drop from peak into a plateau phase
31-32 = rapid decline

Now if we look at 22-26 as the period a player is at their very peak, then Roger was never in his peak at the same time as any of Rafa, Novak and Andy. Roger turned 26 in 2007, which would be considered his last true peak year, while Rafa didn't turn 22--and thus enter his peak--until a year later, in 2008. 2007-2008 is probably the period of time in which Roger and Rafa were closest to their respective peaks. Interestingly enough, 2007 is the only year that Roger had a winning record against Rafa, 3-2, but Rafa more than made up for it in the next year by beating Roger in all four of their matches.

Now again, every player is different. Rafa reached a high level earlier than most, although didn't really reach his peak until 2008, his age 22 season--and thus followed the norms--and didn't truly mature as a player until 2010, which was arguably his very best year and the year he turned 24, which is the most common year for a player's best season (Roger's was 2006 when he was 24-25, Novak's was 2011 when he was 23-24).

Nice stats and very interesting as always, El Dude. Cheers.

The age disparity always gave me pause when it came to these 2 being considered rivals! Roger was already at his peak, soon to decline, while Rafa was going the opposite way! His real rivals are obviously Nole and Andy!

 

[Ricardo]

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

what really was interesting about the thread, is that we pit the weak era supporters (drm and Kieran) vs the rest..... since the thread itself is simply a dead horse. They actually made a good combo, with drm going front-on, calling Fed's era weak directly with whatever numbers supporting his view, while Kieran does the run-a-around.... never shouts it out but everything he says implies you-know-what.

Anyway beating a dead horse is nothing new, but recently i watched again old Agassi vs Safin AO2004 semi and BOY they could hit the ball. Actually watched Agassi in his young days a little earlier and must say he was visibly playing better tennis at his old age, believe or not. That Safin guy, man he would whack the hell out of a ball and still didn't make many errors at all. All these people think only the big 3 can really play, go and compare for yourself. Safin served and hit the ball bigger than any of them, going bh dtl at least as good as Djoker whose bh some can still chase down, whereas Safin's you couldn't touch. To top that off, he was consistent. Watching those guys play, i just can't buy the weak era talk where those top players back then didn't play at similarly high level to challenge Federer. Must be missing something tho, maybe the video was played in fast-forward mode......

 

[Front242]

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

what really was interesting about the thread, is that we pit the weak era supporters (drm and Kieran) vs the rest..... since the thread itself is simply a dead horse. They actually made a good combo, with drm going front-on, calling Fed's era weak directly with whatever numbers supporting his view, while Kieran does the run-a-around.... never shouts it out but everything he says implies you-know-what.

Anyway beating a dead horse is nothing new, but recently i watched again old Agassi vs Safin AO2004 semi and BOY they could hit the ball. Actually watched Agassi in his young days a little earlier and must say he was visibly playing better tennis at his old age, believe or not. That Safin guy, man he would whack the hell out of a ball and still didn't make many errors at all. All these people think only the big 3 can really play, go and compare for yourself. Safin served and hit the ball bigger than any of them, going bh dtl at least as good as Djoker whose bh some can still chase down, whereas Safin's you couldn't touch. To top that off, he was consistent. Watching those guys play, i just can't buy the weak era talk where those top players back then didn't play at similarly high level to challenge Federer. Must be missing something tho, maybe the video was played in fast-forward mode......

A shame Safin didn't commit himself more to tennis as he surely had it in him to win more than 2 slams. That match and the semi the year after in 2005 against Fed showed the ridiculous level he could play at. In fact that AO '05 was a total quality fest by both guys and still to this day one of the best consistently high quality matches I've ever witnessed. The 2007 Wimbledon beatdown he gave Djokovic was very high level also. He was on fire that year at Wimbledon and even gave Fed a decent match.

Agreed about Agassi. Even in the 2005 US Open final against Federer he was still playing very high level tennis. Weak competition my ass.