Is Federer still young enough to compete for Slams?

[calitennis127]

The hilarious thing is I forgot this craziness about Nalbandian having more talent than Federer. It's so absurd I can't believe I forgot. Remind me what talent is again?

Excelling at the most difficult aspects of the game (like Nalbandian did), as opposed to simply being sharp and not making petty mistakes (which is what Nadal has so often done to eek out victories).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Excelling at the most difficult aspects of the game (like Nalbandian did), as opposed to simply being sharp and not making petty mistakes (which is what Nadal has so often done to eek out victories).

The question was about comparison between Fed and Nalby. The answer was about comparison between Nalby and Nadal.

 

[calitennis127]

The question was about comparison between Fed and Nalby. The answer was about comparison between Nalby and Nadal.

What I said about not making petty mistakes also applies to Federer. Federer has not had many matches where he served at 47% and hit 8 double faults. Nalbandian regularly did that and worked uphill as a result.

 

[calitennis127]

This view is not supported by the actual results. Roger started losing to lesser players more frequently in 2007. Look at who he lost to, by year:

2004: Henman, Nadal, Costa, Kuerten, Hrbaty, Berdych
2005: Safin, Gasquet, Nadal, Nalbandian
2006: Nadal x4, Murray
2007: Canas x2, Nadal x2, Volandri, Djokovic, Nalbandian x2, Gonzalez

Losing to Canas twice isn't as bad as it looks. Canas could really do some damage with his backhand and was a tough match-up for Federer. Yes, Federer lost to Volandri in Rome I believe but Nadal lost to Ferrero there a year later. So why make such a big deal of it?

Losing to a small number of additional players from one year to the next doesn't mean you are dramatically or even significantly worse. Using 2006 is a ridiculous standard. And let's not forget that Federer won some very close matches in 2006, like the one over Nalbandian in Rome and the one over Roddick in Shanghai. It's not like he beat everyone 6-2, 6-1 in 2006. He had some luck a few times.

 

[Federberg]

Losing to Canas twice isn't as bad as it looks. Canas could really do some damage with his backhand and was a tough match-up for Federer. Yes, Federer lost to Volandri in Rome I believe but Nadal lost to Ferrero there a year later. So why make such a big deal of it?

Losing to a small number of additional players from one year to the next doesn't mean you are dramatically or even significantly worse. Using 2006 is a ridiculous standard. And let's not forget that Federer won some very close matches in 2006, like the one over Nalbandian in Rome and the one over Roddick in Shanghai. It's not like he beat everyone 6-2, 6-1 in 2006. He had some luck a few times.

Just look at the data mate. It's staring right at you..

 

[El Dude]

Losing to Canas twice isn't as bad as it looks. Canas could really do some damage with his backhand and was a tough match-up for Federer. Yes, Federer lost to Volandri in Rome I believe but Nadal lost to Ferrero there a year later. So why make such a big deal of it?

Losing to a small number of additional players from one year to the next doesn't mean you are dramatically or even significantly worse. Using 2006 is a ridiculous standard. And let's not forget that Federer won some very close matches in 2006, like the one over Nalbandian in Rome and the one over Roddick in Shanghai. It's not like he beat everyone 6-2, 6-1 in 2006. He had some luck a few times.

I didn't say "dramatically" or "significantly" worse. I said "he lost a hair" from 2006 to 2007, which I stand by. But we can all agree that there was a much larger drop from 2007 to 2008.

 

[Ricardo]

Excelling at the most difficult aspects of the game (like Nalbandian did), as opposed to simply being sharp and not making petty mistakes (which is what Nadal has so often done to eek out victories).

What looks simple is often the most difficult. If eek out victories was so easy, there should be more multi slam winners.

 

[calitennis127]

I didn't say "dramatically" or "significantly" worse. I said "he lost a hair" from 2006 to 2007, which I stand by. But we can all agree that there was a much larger drop from 2007 to 2008.

Only in terms of results, not in terms of level.

The main difference between 2007 and 2008 was that Nadal and Djokovic got better. Fed had a mental breakdown against Nadal at the French in 2008 and his repeated failure to adjust to Nadal caught up with him at Wimbledon. Then mentally he started to unravel a bit.

You have to look at level and other players' improvements instead of just the stats.

 

[calitennis127]

What looks simple is often the most difficult. If eek out victories was so easy, there should be more multi slam winners.

I am comparing to Nadal to other players with the most talent. Nadal has won a lot more than Nalbandian because his first-serve percentage has been much better. That is not something you account for as being the result of a talent difference.

 

[calitennis127]

Just look at the data mate. It's staring right at you..

The data doesn't tell the whole story with psychology and momentum. It's a lot harder to keep your confidence and stability after crushing defeats in majors. Nadal screwed with Federer's head in 2008, as did Djokovic to some degree.

 

[mrzz]

You have to look at level and other players' improvements instead of just the stats.

So you're saying that he lost to a bunch of other guys because all of them got better? That argument would be reasonable if it was just to Nadal and Djokovic he started to lose to, but it is not, as @El Dude shown. Anyway, I agree that the eye test is the ultimate barometer (even if completely subjective), and that is precisely why for me it is completely obvious that Federer of 2003 to 2005 is way ahead of the 2008 one.

 

[Federberg]

The data doesn't tell the whole story with psychology and momentum. It's a lot harder to keep your confidence and stability after crushing defeats in majors. Nadal screwed with Federer's head in 2008, as did Djokovic to some degree.

This doesn't really make much sense to me. When you look at the body of Roger's work, to put his losses down to psychology and momentum flies in the face of the evidence. Even you have to acknowledge that.

 

[calitennis127]

This doesn't really make much sense to me. When you look at the body of Roger's work, to put his losses down to psychology and momentum flies in the face of the evidence. Even you have to acknowledge that.

So you don't think it's easier to do well in Masters events after winning majors instead of experiencing crushing losses?

I think the loss to Simon in Canada in 2008 was a direct product of losing to Nadal in the Wimbledon final. He got stuck in the third set hitting a bunch of unforced errors and clearly was dealing with those "here we go again" thoughts seeing a defensive player forcing him into long rallies.

The score line was 2-6, 7-5, 6-4. All El Dude sees is a loss to mark down on the stat sheet. What I see was someone whose head and whose pride were shaken by getting spanked at Roland Garros and then losing his Wimbledon crown to the same player.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...-1-position-after-Toronto-Masters-defeat.html

 

[Federberg]

So you don't think it's easier to do well in Masters events after winning majors instead of experiencing crushing losses?

I think the loss to Simon in Canada in 2008 was a direct product of losing to Nadal in the Wimbledon final. He got stuck in the third set hitting a bunch of unforced errors and clearly was dealing with those "here we go again" thoughts seeing a defensive player forcing him into long rallies.

The score line was 2-6, 7-5, 6-4. All El Dude sees is a loss to mark down on the stat sheet. What I see was someone whose head and whose pride were shaken by getting spanked at Roland Garros and then losing his Wimbledon crown to the same player.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...-1-position-after-Toronto-Masters-defeat.html

Oh I absolutely agree that confidence is a factor. That's not where I disagree with you. If confidence was an issue for Roger, generally, how did he get to the Wimbledon final after getting possibly the worst loss of his career at RG? We can't put his abnormal losses down to his finals loss to Rafa. Those losses were specific to his match up with Rafa, and that's been pretty much the case through out his entire career, and it was compounded by the after effects of mono (not health-wise, but lack of training Moxie so don't get your knickers in a twist ). What is far more credible - as an explanation for his losses to lower ranked players - was the fact that his inability to train in the critical spring period was of huge impact. I well remember conversations with another poster (DF?) about how his footwork seemed to have gone a bit awry. Even the talented ones need the reps to keep their game optimal. And please don't get me started on El Dude's non- tennis way of looking at tennis

 

[calitennis127]

What is far more credible - as an explanation for his losses to lower ranked players - was the fact that his inability to train in the critical spring period was of huge impact. I well remember conversations with another poster (DF?) about how his footwork seemed to have gone a bit awry.

So please tell me what about Federer's technique/footwork/game was horribly off in the 2008 Simon match. What about Federer in that match was so much worse than Federer in 2007 or 2006?

 

[Federberg]

One more thing... if I remember correctly, we only (Fed fans) thought that the old Roger was on his way back was a 4 or 5 setter at the USO against a Russian guy, I think it was Igor Andreev. Not so much in that match but his footwork after that was slicker. DF do I have that right mate?

 

[Federberg]

So please tell me what about Federer's technique/footwork/game was horribly off in the 2008 Simon match. What about Federer in that match was so much worse than Federer in 2007 or 2006?

sadly I don't recall it being just one thing. That's what happens with footwork problems. Probably down to a lack of conditioning, if you're a milli-second off your timing can go all to hell as I'm sure you know

 

[calitennis127]

sadly I don't recall it being just one thing. That's what happens with footwork problems. Probably down to a lack of conditioning, if you're a milli-second off your timing can go all to hell as I'm sure you know

Right, lol. So neither you nor El Dude have any explanation for why Federer lost to Simon at Toronto in 2008. You give Simon no credit and do not look at how the two matched up at the time. And you also don't take into account how shaken Federer clearly was by the Wimbledon loss.

Federer won the first set 6-2.....I don't think he was having footwork problems that day.

 

[El Dude]

Federberg, some people only see stat sheets (which is no one I know of), some (like you) only the eyeball test and only look to stats to confirm their beliefs. Smart people take both into account.

 

[Federberg]

Right, lol. So neither you nor El Dude have any explanation for why Federer lost to Simon at Toronto in 2008. You give Simon no credit and do not look at how the two matched up at the time. And you also don't take into account how shaken Federer clearly was by the Wimbledon loss.

Federer won the first set 6-2.....I don't think he was having footwork problems that day.

No I actually gave you an explanation. Dodgy footwork. You asked for something more specific than that and I couldn't give it to you. It's very easy to see why players like Canas and Simon, retrievers, would cause Roger a real problem. They keep him out long enough for his game to implode. It's not rocket science. When you ask me to delve into the specifics of the footwork issue, that's where I can't give you further detail