I know you don't insist that these are predictions of the future, and perhaps this is just me and my pea-brain wrapping my head around. You comment of "exceptions don't negate trends" helps. I still think Stan is a bit of an anomaly, though. We always called him so. Cilic was called out early as a coming talent, but Stan not really. They both hit a stride in what you call a reasonable range, but then it was short-lived. I guess, like most of us, and as you suggest, I have to get my head out of the Fedalovic mentality. (I swear I try to remember that!) That there is such a thing as people that peak for a few years and just win a few big tournaments. I'm getting it.
One of the things that Fedalovic have done, that most others haven't, is resurge after the normal drop that many players experience sometime in the 29-32 range. Almost every player drops sometime in that "window of decline." Fedalovic all did, but all bounced back. I think some of that is the Loren thing, but some of it is their drive and desire.
We saw this difference in Pete and Andre. According to GOAT points, Pete's absolute peak was 1993-97, and then there's a slight drop in 1998 (at age 26-27), then another drop in 1999 (age 27-28), then a bigger drop in 2001 (29-30). Meaning, there's a clear trajectory of decline from his absolute peak in 1997 (26) to 2001 (30), when he was hobbling around and a shadow of what he was. As we all remember, he had that one final US Open win in 2002 and then hung up the racket, just after turning 31. Age-wise, that would be like Novak retiring after 2018, Rafa after 2017, and Roger after 2012. Or more to their actual patterns of decline, it would be Novak after 2017, Rafa after 2016, and Roger after 2013. I mean, it is rather crazy that Roger
didn't retire after 2016, when he was finishing up a four-year Slam-less span, including two years that were rather bad (13, 16) and two that were just OK by his standards (14-15). Similarly with Rafa after 2016, when he had two a half years without a Slam, and his worst period in his career.
Andre had a more up-and-down career (due to lifestyle, mostly), but after missing most of 1997 (age 27), he came back strong in 1998 and had one of his two best years in 1999 (age 29), and then maintained a high level for another four years in 2000-03 (age 30-33) and was still very good for another two in 2004-05 (age 33-35) before finally calling it quits in 2006.
Maybe Pete was worn out and Andre protected by missing so much time. Maybe Pete felt like he had nothing more to prove, and the daily grind just wasn't worth it anymore, while Andre still had that drive. We can imagine a What If scenario where Pete takes some time off in 2001, then comes back stronger and plays a few more years. Who knows.
Yes, you do get the analogy. I think the "10" thing works. If we accept that Roger, Rafa and Novak were all 10s in the 20s, that even when they slip to 9 or 8, they're still better than the rest. But what I'm saying is that the rest were never 10s. As you say, Murray, at best, was only ever a 9. And no, not even a guy on a hot streak. In my analogy, they were never any of them 10s, in the guy-rating-a-chick scale. Marin Cilic was Phoebe Cates. Hot for a nano-second, which doesn't really make you a 10. To me, a 10 on this scale is Catherine Deneuve beautiful. Born beautiful, and enduringly beautiful. I fear I'm stretching this too far, but what I'm trying to say is Roger, Rafa and Novak's 9 is everyone else's 5 or 6. You like a graph, and I like the prose version.
I hear what you are saying and mostly agree, but I do think we tend to forget that every professional player is really, really good, and all are capable of a very high level at times. Not all are capable of 10, of course, but some guys that we don't normally think of as very good can have a match or a tournament where they play way above their typical level.
I think this is where the beauty analogy doesn't work. Or if we want to stretch it, we can say that if a "6" takes care of him or herself and dresses well, they can be a "7" and on a good day, an "8."
I think, also, some players have more range than others. Someone like Nick Kyrgios oscillates all over the place, match to match (and sometimes point to point). And then there's the infamous David Nalbandian.
You don't get my reaction? Because I've heard this 1000 times, and it's a bit the same old song. I'm telling you that Roger has been a fantastically gorgeous player for all of his now 20+ year career, and you need to tell me how poorly he did in his mid-late 20s. I think, given the trajectory of his career, it rings a bit hollow. You're making excuses for years when he wasn't that bad. He just wasn't that stellar. I know that Fed fans long for the halcyon days when no one beat him, but it really doesn't mean that he turned to crap at 25 or 26.
Your reaction didn't fit what I said, as if what I said had the weight of 1000s of Fed apologists, rather than a pretty innocuous statement that was actually focused on 2007, not 2008.
Let's look at 2008. Yes, I understand that he had mono at the beginning of the year. It's controversial how much that compromised him, because he didn't really skip any tournaments, that I recall. Gilles Simon: He lost to him the first 2 times they played. Simon was young, and he's a tricky player. Not totally surprising he hadn't sorted him out. Roddick: Top 10. Roddick was bound to beat him some time. Blake: Top 10 at that time. Karlovic. He lost to him in 2 TBs. Everyone lost to Karlovic sometimes in 2 TBs. And he lost to Fish at Indian Wells. Ok, that was probably the mono.
Otherwise look at your list. And you deftly left out the Big 4 (which we also conveniently returned to.) There really aren't any lame players on there. (Maybe Volandri, but I'm guessing clay.)
And you asked me this question: "Meaning, he lost to more players in 2008 alone than all of 2004-06. How do you explain that?" I could use your own words: "Exceptions don't negate trends." Roger has always trended towards winning, but sometimes he lost. Sometimes you're going to lose. It really is an arrogance of Fed fans that you are astonished that he ever lost in his 20s. I look at that list, and read your comments, and you take all of those as a slap in the face. No appreciation for those players. You tell me I don't give Cilic enough credit. (Which may be true.) Where is the credit to del Potro from the Federer fans when you lot endlessly complain that the 2009 US Open final was a blown chance?
To me, Roger didn't become a lesser player in 2007 or 2008. Correct me, but I think he won 10 Majors after 2008. He turned 27 that year. And according to you, those are still prime years for tennis players, nowadays.
You really are strawmanning me a bit, Moxie. I didn't say he "turned to crap," and I don't know what this "slap in the face" nonsense is. Again, please respond to what I'm actually saying, rather than as a surrogate for all Fed apologists, ever.
What I said is simply that he wasn't as good in 2008 and on as he was in 2004-07, and that we start seeing signs of this in 2007. In fact, this is so clearly born out by the numbers, I don't know how you can suggest that he was the same player in 2008 as he was in 2004-07.
Using the number scale, I think what happens when players age is that they're less frequently able to draw upon their very best, whether due to nagging injuries, eroding skills (especially speed), or diminishing confidence - or, more likely, a combination of factors. So while I agree that we've seen vintage Roger atimes even after 2004-07, he hasn't been able to reach it as frequently as he did during that span. I mean, 2007 is kind of interesting, because while he was upset more frequently than in 2004-06, he still brought it when it counted, and won 3 Slams and the WTF - just like he did in 2006, his best year. I think the same is true of all players.
I mean, Novak's 2021 is interesting, because he still won 3 Slams, reached a final in the 4th, and also won a Masters. But the rest of his season was more erratic, with only one other title, an ATP 250 (although the year isn't quite done). Meaning, on the surface of things, 2021 was just like 2015 in terms of Slam results. But everything else, not so much. Clearly we can't say that 2021 Novak was as good as 2015 Novak.
Mentality plays a part as well. As players age and start declining in small ways, be it due to nagging injuries or reduced speed etc, they lose confidence, which can create a snowball effect. We saw this in 2013 with "Shankerer." Or the 2019 WImbledon final, when Roger played every bit as well as Novak, but lost the most crucial points. Meaning, that was entirely about his mind-set - he had the match on his serve and blew it. I'm not sure that the 2004-07 version of Roger would have lost that match, or even the 2017 version. We can never know, of course.
Out of curiosity, how do you explain Rafa's decline in 2015-16 and then his resurgence in 2017? What was different about 2014 (and before) vs. 2015-16 vs. 2017-20?
I know he was injured in 2014, but he was healthy in 2015 and for most of 2016, except for that wrist injury in mid-season that saw him withdraw from RG and miss Wimbledon. But 2015 was the worst healthy Rafa we've seen, and by 2016 he looked like he was on his way out, but then--like Roger--he roared back in 2017. Actually, at the risk of sounding like Fiero, it is almost like that 2017 Australian Open revived both of them, so that might support the heavily psychological nature of sports.
