Fed's Slam Window Shut

[DarthFed]

Not as long as Rafa has his current team "whom I blame for his strenuous training daily regimen and match schedule".. All Fed has to do is just hang around for another Rafa injury or a Djoker meltdown and he will secure number #18.. Trust me.. his Windows is Never closed.

Back on topic. I like it.

Even Bodo, in delighting with the draw Roger had this year, used the default term: the stars have aligned for Roger. And then Nole fell, and the stars went superNovak for him, but he lost.

By the way, one of the satisfying elements of his defeat is that sooooo many Fedfans were gloating before a ball was even hit. The smugness was shining like a snail trail. For this reason alone, I got a fit of the giggles when I saw the score against Cilic...

Didn't see a single fan here gloating. I knew following the Monfils match that Roger likely wasn't winning the tournament regardless of who he played.

 

[brokenshoelace]

BS, is 22 enough of a sample size for you? I hope it is. So, is Murray , in the grand scheme of things, Federer's equal? They have played a bunch of meaningful matches. Both won slams...They are 11-11.

Murat, no. Murray is not Fed's equal because they are separated by 15 slams and a plethora of other accolades that Federer has which Murray hasn't come close to.

The argument, I think, is that IF Nadal ends up with 17 (the same number as Roger), would the H2H sway things in his favor? In that case, you can't compare the situation to Fed-Murray or Nadal-Davydenko, because we'd be talking about people with exactly the same amount of slam wins (meaning they are more or less equal, or close to being equal).

Therefore, I still think most of what has been offered is faulty logic or false analogies. For now, Roger is the greater player based on resume, but Rafa has been the better player for the most part when they play one another. It's really not as complicated as people are making it out to be.

Nevertheless, even now, the H2H is deemed more relevant when talking legacies because they have comparable resumes, unlike Fed/Murray or Nadal/Davydenko.

But that's is exactly what I don't get: If H2H , by itself, is a weak measure of success , how can it become meaningful as a tie breaker?

If you are using the H2H as a tie breaker, you are telling Roger " You know what bro, all those YECs that you won..? Means nothing. That guy that has never won it over there, he owns you...He was never good enough to navigate his way through the top 8 players of any given year but hey, tough titties...Oh , by the way, those weeks at number one? Nobody cares...You have consistently been better than everyone else on the field to be number 1, but that guy over there, even though he has not been number one that long, he owns you..."

How many people here can tell the H2Hs Laver had against his rivals without googling it, how many can tell his biggest achievement as a tennis player without thinking more than 1 second?



Doesn't make any sense to me but hey, to each his own.

No, of course all the things you mentioned WOULD be taken into consideration. I never said the h2h would be the "tie-breaker." I said it would be taken into consideration. Because in reality, they each have other accolades that come into play. Roger has the weeks at number 1 and the YEC's. Nadal has the record for Masters 1000 events and the Olympic gold medal in singles. The H2H would be brought up among the things in Rafa's favor, the same way Roger's weeks at number one or anything else would be brought up as an argument in his favor.

However, again, fairly or unfairly, many WILL put an emphasis on the head to head because it's extremely tangible and something that can be visualized. As in, two guys walked in on court, one guy won (it's literally how a tennis match is decided). They'll remember their meetings and in a way, put a picture (or a highlight video if you will) next to the statistic. You see where I'm coming from? Again, I'm not saying it's fair, but it's hard not to see why people discuss it so much. Especially given the magnitude of their meetings and how resounding the H2H is in Rafa's favor (compare it to Davydenko-Rafa...if they'd played 2 more times, the H2H could have easily been in Nadal's favor and nobody would actually contest that point. But with Roger-Rafa, they could have played 10 more times and it wouldn't have really swayed things in Roger's favor).

 

[DarthFed]

Not as long as Rafa has his current team "whom I blame for his strenuous training daily regimen and match schedule".. All Fed has to do is just hang around for another Rafa injury or a Djoker meltdown and he will secure number #18.. Trust me.. his Windows is Never closed.

I think it's likely closed after next year. When all is said and done 2014 has been another bad year for Roger. I think 2015 is the last stand and Wimbledon is a good chance regardless of who he plays. If not there then maybe he finally has a decent USO again, it's been long overdue.

 

[El Dude]

LOL - here we go again. You can always tell a Fedal discussion is brewing when an otherwise innocuous thread title has many, many pages. I love the typical "I don't want to get into another Fedal debate, buuuut..."

So, here's my buuuut....

The argument, I think, is that IF Nadal ends up with 17 (the same number as Roger), would the H2H sway things in his favor?

The H2H will (and does) factor in, but so do WTFs, weeks at #1, year-end #1s, Masters, total titles, etc. I don't think you can say that the H2H alone would be the tie-breaker; what about WTFs? After the Grand Slam, its the most important tournament around - and every bit as difficult to win, if not more so. If we include the WTF (2009-13), Tennis Masters Cup (2000-08), ATP Tour World Championships (1990-99), and the Masters Grand Prix (1970-89), Roger Federer is the only player to win 6 - and then Sampras and Lendl have 5, Nastase 4, Becker, Djokovic, and McEnroe 3, Borg and Hewitt 2, and a bunch of players 1 each. Rafa? Zero. Doesn't that count for something?

Right now Roger has the edge on:
Slams (17 to 14)
WTFs (6-0)
weeks at #1 (302 to 141)
Year-end #1 (5 to 3)
Titles (80 to 64)

Rafa has the edge on:
Masters (27 to 22)
H2H (23-10)
Win % (83.67 to 81.28)

Right now Roger clearly has the edge in career accomplishments. But the question, as you say, is what if Rafa equals or passes Roger's Slam count? Even then, Rafa would need a bit more to make up for the WTFs, weeks at #1 and year-end #1.

If Rafa gets to 18 Slams (assuming Roger is stuck at 17), AND wins even just a single WTF, AND gets to 200 weeks, AND is year-end #1 at least once more, AND passes Roger's title count, then it is, indeed, a no-brainer: Rafa would have the clear edge over Roger. But between that and where we are now (with Roger's record a clear edge over Rafa's) and we're going to have endless debates.

Which I don't mind!

 

[Billie]

I don't know about past champions head to head scores, but I am sure everybody knows about Federer and Nadal H2H.

I thought Federer would find a way to the title here after Nole lost and no Rafa, but everything I'd thought before turned out to be wrong.:lolz:

We can safely now conclude that winning one of these majors is not as easy as it was some 5 years ago. I don't know about Federer's window, but it sure won't get easier for him in the next years. I know he hates it when I say it but my friend Darth might settle for "only" 17.:snigger

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

BS, I am hearing you and I agree with much of what you say above.


To me, I would never understand a Rafa fan who would bring up the H2H with Roger BEFORE mentioning Rafa has more Masters 1000s than Roger. It is downright disrespectful to the game and honestly, if someone thinks beating Roger is more important than winning a Masters 1000 tournament, he is arguing my point.

 

[Kieran]

I don't know about past champions head to head scores, but I am sure everybody knows about Federer and Nadal H2H.

I thought Federer would find a way to the title here after Nole lost and no Rafa, but everything I'd thought before turned out to be wrong.:lolz:

We can safely now conclude that winning one of these majors is not as easy as it was some 5 years ago. I don't know about Federer's window, but it sure won't get easier for him in the next years. I know he hates it when I say it but my friend Darth might settle for "only" 17.:snigger

Yeah, "only" 17 is like a kick in the teeth. I think we should have a whip around... :snigger

 

[Kieran]

BS, I am hearing you and I agree with much of what you say above.


To me, I would never understand a Rafa fan who would bring up the H2H with Roger BEFORE mentioning Rafa has more Masters 1000s than Roger. It is downright disrespectful to the game and honestly, if someone thinks beating Roger is more important than winning a Masters 1000 tournament, he is arguing my point.

Group hug! :hug :hug :hug

 

[DarthFed]

I don't know about past champions head to head scores, but I am sure everybody knows about Federer and Nadal H2H.

I thought Federer would find a way to the title here after Nole lost and no Rafa, but everything I'd thought before turned out to be wrong.:lolz:

We can safely now conclude that winning one of these majors is not as easy as it was some 5 years ago. I don't know about Federer's window, but it sure won't get easier for him in the next years. I know he hates it when I say it but my friend Darth might settle for "only" 17.:snigger

It's not about me settling for it, it is about Roger not settling for it and I was happy with how he has fought this year. The fight/motivation is what was missing in 2013 and that's why I knew he would be much better this year. The question to me was whether or not he would have a good year (only 4 opportunities for that) and that was answered rudely on Saturday...Now hopefully he has a good Fall to secure #2 and onto 2015. He should be more and more desperate and that can keep him from falling off the rail 2013 style.

 

[brokenshoelace]

BS, I am hearing you and I agree with much of what you say above.


To me, I would never understand a Rafa fan who would bring up the H2H with Roger BEFORE mentioning Rafa has more Masters 1000s than Roger. It is downright disrespectful to the game and honestly, if someone thinks beating Roger is more important than winning a Masters 1000 tournament, he is arguing my point.

Given a choice between winning a tournament (any tournament) and beating a player, anyone with a brain (player, coach, fan) should opt for the former, no questions ask. Therefore, yes, the record for Masters events should way in more than the H2H, absolutely.

 

[Billie]

I don't know about past champions head to head scores, but I am sure everybody knows about Federer and Nadal H2H.

I thought Federer would find a way to the title here after Nole lost and no Rafa, but everything I'd thought before turned out to be wrong.:lolz:

We can safely now conclude that winning one of these majors is not as easy as it was some 5 years ago. I don't know about Federer's window, but it sure won't get easier for him in the next years. I know he hates it when I say it but my friend Darth might settle for "only" 17.:snigger

It's not about me settling for it, it is about Roger not settling for it and I was happy with how he has fought this year. The fight/motivation is what was missing in 2013 and that's why I knew he would be much better this year. The question to me was whether or not he would have a good year (only 4 opportunities for that) and that was answered rudely on Saturday...Now hopefully he has a good Fall to secure #2 and onto 2015. He should be more and more desperate and that can keep him from falling off the rail 2013 style.

I don't know Darth, but I would never use "missing fight/motivation" when talking about Federer. I would use that for other players though, but never for Federer. He represents the highest form of fight/motivation term for me and then Rafa. But I guess people see things differently as always.

 

[El Dude]

One more thing. We can't weight those eight criteria evenly. Let's say Slam total is worth 3 points and everything else 1 - that is WTF, weeks at #1, year-end #1, H2H, Titles, Masters, and win percentage (at first I was going to split some into 2 points and some into 1, but then realized that would lead to endless quibbling...at least I think everyone can agree that Slams are worth quite a bit more, and the rest ROUGHLY similar).

Anyhow, using those 8 categories with Slams worth 3 and the rest 1, with a tie giving points to each, we have:

Right now: Roger 7-3 Roger
If Rafa ties Slam count but nothing else changes: 7-6 Roger
If Rafa passes Slam count and nothing else changes: 6-4 Rafa

A tie would make it endlessly debatable. Rafa winning more Slams than Roger gives some room for debate, but edges towards Rafa - he'd really need to equal or pass the title total to have a clear edge.

Of course none of this tell us how dominant a player was in a given category, but we can say that some (WTFs vs. H2H) even out.

 

[DarthFed]

Nah, I think a lot of his problems in 2010 and 2013 were down to the motivation issues. It's not an excuse as you step on the court you are there to play and win. But given what Roger has accomplished and the fact he has a (growing) family it is understandable. AO 2010 was the end of a 7 month span where he got married, had twins, won RG, set the slam mark at Wimbledon and won #16 at AO. After AO he had his worst span since 2002 until the Fall that season.

In 2012 he won #17 and got back to #1 rank. When there was much talk of injury last year and natural decline I thought all along it was mostly about a natural letdown after what he had accomplished in 2012. And in 2014 he wanted to show he could still play and with Rafa closing in on 17 he has a lot of motivation to add slams to his collection. He failed this year but barely.

 

[Kieran]

He had a good year, Darth. He was a factor at every major, bar one. And given what happened to Rafa in Oz, had this occurred in the semi instead, who knows?

His only real letdown was Paris, but that gave him time to get ready for Wimbledon. At what stage are we gonna start measuring his current game realistically and say, for a 33 year old, he's maybe the best in history? We look at Grigor and say he's off the pace for his age, why not contextualise what Roger is doing, too?

 

[DarthFed]

He had a good year, Darth. He was a factor at every major, bar one. And given what happened to Rafa in Oz, had this occurred in the semi instead, who knows?

His only real letdown was Paris, but that gave him time to get ready for Wimbledon. At what stage are we gonna start measuring his current game realistically and say, for a 33 year old, he's maybe the best in history? We look at Grigor and say he's off the pace for his age, why not contextualise what Roger is doing, too?

There is only one way for Roger to have a good year regardless of his age...it's all about the slams. The other events are nice practice, ranking points, etc. but it is about whether he can add another big one or 2 to his total. Wins like Cincy and even YEC if he were to win another are small resume buffers at this point.

I'm not sure he is the best 33 year old in history but regardless what did you expect him to be? Total chopped liver? Still a complete shell of what he was and that's expected.

 

[Kieran]

He had a good year, Darth. He was a factor at every major, bar one. And given what happened to Rafa in Oz, had this occurred in the semi instead, who knows?

His only real letdown was Paris, but that gave him time to get ready for Wimbledon. At what stage are we gonna start measuring his current game realistically and say, for a 33 year old, he's maybe the best in history? We look at Grigor and say he's off the pace for his age, why not contextualise what Roger is doing, too?

There is only one way for Roger to have a good year regardless of his age...it's all about the slams. The other events are nice practice, ranking points, etc. but it is about whether he can add another big one or 2 to his total. I'm not sure he is the best 33 year old in history but regardless what did you expect him to be?

Who can expect anybody to be anything at 33, in tennis? It's a brutal sport. He's the de facto #2 in the world now, in Rafa's absence, and at a much younger age, blokes like Pete were physically and mentally struggling. Borg? Gone. Mac? Connors? He lasted well, but he skipped both Paris AND Oz for five straight years. Agassi, as I say, he took a hiatus and that's why he lasted so well.

Roger has not only played every slam for 15 years, but he's set records in going deep in them. He never wearied or struggled at any stage of the season, unlike Pete, or Rafa. That's an inexhaustible chap. Give him some credit for what he's doing now...

 

[El Dude]

Darth, he's not a "complete shell" of what he was. To me that's hyperbole and a bit defensive, because by saying that we can always refer to the peak Federer who wouldn't lose any of the matches he's losing now.

Yes, he's not as good as he was from 2004-09. But his level in 2014, at age 32-33, isn't far from what its been from 2010 onward, which is rather remarkable. 2013 looked like he was falling fast, but now he's back to where he was in 2010-12 - which is as the third best player in the sport. No shame in that, especially when the two ahead of him are in-prime Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[tented]

He had a good year, Darth. He was a factor at every major, bar one. And given what happened to Rafa in Oz, had this occurred in the semi instead, who knows?

His only real letdown was Paris, but that gave him time to get ready for Wimbledon. At what stage are we gonna start measuring his current game realistically and say, for a 33 year old, he's maybe the best in history? We look at Grigor and say he's off the pace for his age, why not contextualise what Roger is doing, too?

There is only one way for Roger to have a good year regardless of his age...it's all about the slams. The other events are nice practice, ranking points, etc. but it is about whether he can add another big one or 2 to his total. Wins like Cincy and even YEC if he were to win another are small resume buffers at this point.

I'm not sure he is the best 33 year old in history but regardless what did you expect him to be? Total chopped liver? Still a complete shell of what he was and that's expected.

But to make life easier at the slams, he needs to do well at non-slams in order to keep his ranking high enough to avoid the tops seeds as long as possible. At 33 and up, he won't be able to survive what Nishikori just went through, for example: beating three of the top five seeds back to back.

 

[DarthFed]

He had a good year, Darth. He was a factor at every major, bar one. And given what happened to Rafa in Oz, had this occurred in the semi instead, who knows?

His only real letdown was Paris, but that gave him time to get ready for Wimbledon. At what stage are we gonna start measuring his current game realistically and say, for a 33 year old, he's maybe the best in history? We look at Grigor and say he's off the pace for his age, why not contextualise what Roger is doing, too?

There is only one way for Roger to have a good year regardless of his age...it's all about the slams. The other events are nice practice, ranking points, etc. but it is about whether he can add another big one or 2 to his total. I'm not sure he is the best 33 year old in history but regardless what did you expect him to be?

Who can expect anybody to be anything at 33, in tennis? It's a brutal sport. He's the de facto #2 in the world now, in Rafa's absence, and at a much younger age, blokes like Pete were physically and mentally struggling. Borg? Gone. Mac? Connors? He lasted well, but he skipped both Paris AND Oz for five straight years. Agassi, as I say, he took a hiatus and that's why he lasted so well.

Roger has not only played every slam for 15 years, but he's set records in going deep in them. He never wearied or struggled at any stage of the season, unlike Pete, or Rafa. That's an inexhaustible chap. Give him some credit for what he's doing now...

I understand what you're saying. Of course Roger is exceptional for a 33 year old. But he was exceptional for a 23-31 year old too (not so much for 32 but that was a one off year :snigger) Thus I ask again, are you really that surprised at how he is playing at 33? I'm not, he is definitely not any better than expected IMO.

And it's tough to say he hasn't had a good year but to play devil's advocate what has he done this year to improve his stellar resume? The only answer is Cincy but that's pretty small in the grand scheme of things for Roger...

 

[DarthFed]

He had a good year, Darth. He was a factor at every major, bar one. And given what happened to Rafa in Oz, had this occurred in the semi instead, who knows?

His only real letdown was Paris, but that gave him time to get ready for Wimbledon. At what stage are we gonna start measuring his current game realistically and say, for a 33 year old, he's maybe the best in history? We look at Grigor and say he's off the pace for his age, why not contextualise what Roger is doing, too?

There is only one way for Roger to have a good year regardless of his age...it's all about the slams. The other events are nice practice, ranking points, etc. but it is about whether he can add another big one or 2 to his total. Wins like Cincy and even YEC if he were to win another are small resume buffers at this point.

I'm not sure he is the best 33 year old in history but regardless what did you expect him to be? Total chopped liver? Still a complete shell of what he was and that's expected.

But to make life easier at the slams, he needs to do well at non-slams in order to keep his ranking high enough to avoid the tops seeds as long as possible. At 33 and up, he won't be able to survive what Nishikori just went through, for example: beating three of the top five seeds back to back.

Absolutely. It is important to keep a top 4 ranking, and if he can sneak in top 2 (which he has a good chance of doing by year end) then that's even better.