The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[Moxie]

The discussion of competition across eras on the other thread was a bit of a distraction, but we might continue it here, if anyone wants, and to that point: Here's an interesting analysis

Interesting read.

Here's what it said: This webpage is not available

Trying again. Sorry.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

The discussion of competition across eras on the other thread was a bit of a distraction, but we might continue it here, if anyone wants, and to that point: Here's an interesting analysis

Interesting read.

Here's what it said: This webpage is not available

Trying again. Sorry.

interesting indeed. however:

While tennis players certainly can't control the level of competition facing them on the other side of the net

well, the problem is: if by "level", you mean the number of slams they have won, then yes, players certainly can control the level of competition facing them. i know people must think they're hearing a broken record here, but: if you win more slams, you make it less likely to face someone who's also won a lot.

 

[Moxie]

well, the problem is: if by "level", you mean the number of slams they have won, then yes, players certainly can control the level of competition facing them. i know people must think they're hearing a broken record here, but: if you win more slams, you make it less likely to face someone who's also won a lot.

I'm not clear as to your point, if you mean Roger. He won a lot of Slams, but that didn't prevent Nadal, especially, and Novak, (at least once,) from winning them, during a lot of his very good years. When he was winning them early, he was facing people that had already basically won as much as they ever would. The calculation does include all tournament wins.

I put this up because I thought it was rather funny that Bleacher Report seemed to be reading our mail. :laydownlaughing

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

Funny indeed. But again: the article takes in Slam totals to gauge quality. So a Player like Roddick doesn't count for much, dragging down Fed's numbers... but it was Fed who pretty much singlehandedly guaranteed that Roddick was kept so low. On the other hand, it's Federer's early success (against supposably weak opponents) that increases his value as an opponent, driving up Rafa's numbers.

So really, the numbers are just something pseudo-objective. The age old Argument is the same we've always had. So yes, they indeed have gone through our Mail

 

[Federberg]

^Yup. I've been saying this for years. It's opinion dressed up as science. Federer isn't all that because of who he played, but the players after are great because they've had to play against Federer :nono

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

It is simple really. If Roger had weak competition , that means he was not good. If he was not good, then what Nole or Rafa has done is nothing worth mentioning either because it was against Roger, who apparently sucked.

 

[Fiero425]

It is simple really. If Roger had weak competition , that means he was not good. If he was not good, then what Nole or Rafa has done is nothing worth mentioning either because it was against Roger, who apparently sucked.

I wouldn't say he suk'd, but was definitely overmatched! Roger had a chance and didn't capitalize; just like the rest of the tour against the "best player on the planet" at this moment! Nole's just on another level! :clap :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Front242]

I'd say you forgot how Roger capitalized 17 times! Seems Murat's talking about Federer's career though and you're talking about this one match

 

[Fiero425]

I'd say you forgot how Roger capitalized 17 times!

Roger may have capitalized for those 17 majors, but he did blow a couple others! He got a gift or 2 from Roddick at Wimbledon so it all balances out! This generation has taken advantage of their chances; hence the record-books being obliterated by these 3 top players like no others in "Open" tennis history! Murray's been on the next level winning his 3 biggies (2 Slams, OG) and taking a few Masters, but I still feel he gave away a few of those finals, "waiting out" his opposition rather than taking the initiative! :nono :angel: :dodgy: He should know by now Roger, Rafa, and Nole aren't going to just "give it to you!" :blush: :ras:

 

[Front242]

Every player has got a "gift" from someone or other, including Novak. At the end of the day the winner won so not much history will remember really about missed match points and chances.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Whatever happened to the eye test? Honestly, I find it the most reliable indicator (at least my eyes, though I might be biased!).

Forget results for a second (though obviously they are the most important thing). Does it take a genius to realize that Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Haas and co were a talented bunch? They really were. Very talented even. Even someone like Roddick, who is not as complete, might just have been the most consistent of the bunch due to two huge weapons (the serve and the forehand, before the latter went lame).

So Roger keeping them at bay as long and as often as he did just shows that he was a ridiculously good player. You don't win tournaments that consistently for four seasons if you weren't. There was a time when Roger losing a match was breaking news. Seriously. Add in a young but very talented Nadal since 2005/2006, and there's no way you can claim he had weak competition. These things can be deduced simply by watching tennis and looking at results.

Then you have the Novak/Murray generation. Again, back to the eye test. Yes, those guys are clearly special talents. Better than the aforementioned bunch (excluding Nadal, of course). Just watching them play, it's not hard to come up with that conclusion (I think the world of Safin's talent, and even Nalbandian, but they weren't consistent enough). That was clearly a super talented generation who is ridiculously good. I mean, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray? That doesn't come along every day.

So I haven't been keeping up...but what is the argument about, exactly?

PS: Old, past his prime Roger has taken a few of these guys to the woodshed quite a few times in his career, in some pretty big matches too.

 

[Moxie]

^The argument is the same as it always is. That's why it has a thread. I'm not a proponent of "weak era" theories, and that's not what I'm trying to say, but I think johnsteinbeck and federberg oversimplify it by saying that if you win a lot you jack up the other guys numbers. And you, Broken, keep insisting on the talent on offer in Roger's early domination, which is true, but partially only in theory. Yes, Roger specifically kept Roddick from being a 5-slam winner, not a 1-slam winner. But he's not the reason that Hewitt, Safin and Nalbandian didn't do better. They had their own reasons.

Also, see El Dude's post #49 here. There was an anomalous gap between all-time greats (6+ Slams) between Sampras and Federer, which gave Roger a space to slide into, with his amazing tennis. I don't think this denigrates most of what he's accomplished, though I think it explains one reason he had so many weeks at #1. But I think it's worth considering, in the more subtle parts of the argument, that Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have had very stiff competition at that top of the game, which is mostly where they've dealt with each other. And of course, Roger has still risen to the challenge. But it's disingenuous to exclaim about Roger's earlier competition as talented, when he didn't have to face them as regularly, and not nearly as many that were make-or-break finals, even excluding Slams. I know the notion of a "weak-era" is tainted, and, as I said, I'm not a proponent. I'm only saying that I think the argument is more complicated. Roger probably got a leg-up at the beginning of his domination. It's not a terrible thing to say, given that he's kept making the most of his tennis.

 

[Fiero425]

^The argument is the same as it always is. That's why it has a thread. I'm not a proponent of "weak era" theories, and that's not what I'm trying to say, but I think johnsteinbeck and federberg oversimplify it by saying that if you win a lot you jack up the other guys numbers. And you, Broken, keep insisting on the talent on offer in Roger's early domination, which is true, but partially only in theory. Yes, Roger specifically kept Roddick from being a 5-slam winner, not a 1-slam winner. But he's not the reason that Hewitt, Safin and Nalbandian didn't do better. They had their own reasons.

Also, see El Dude's post #49 here. There was an anomalous gap between all-time greats (6+ Slams) between Sampras and Federer, which gave Roger a space to slide into, with his amazing tennis. I don't think this denigrates most of what he's accomplished, though I think it explains one reason he had so many weeks at #1. But I think it's worth considering, in the more subtle parts of the argument, that Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have had very stiff competition at that top of the game, which is mostly where they've dealt with each other. And of course, Roger has still risen to the challenge. But it's disingenuous to exclaim about Roger's earlier competition as talented, when he didn't have to face them as regularly, and not nearly as many that were make-or-break finals, even excluding Slams. I know the notion of a "weak-era" is tainted, and, as I said, I'm not a proponent. I'm only saying that I think the argument is more complicated. Roger probably got a leg-up at the beginning of his domination. It's not a terrible thing to say, given that he's kept making the most of his tennis.

All you have to do is look at the ATP record book where these 3 top players have obliterated icons of the sport with the level of their excellence! They've had to battle each other more times than past eras stars who played many years longer! Those rivalries were short in comparison to Fed/Nadal, Nadal/Nole, & Nole/Murray! The amazing thing is, they're not done so all they can do is add to their legend! :angel:

 

[DarthFed]

^The argument is the same as it always is. That's why it has a thread. I'm not a proponent of "weak era" theories, and that's not what I'm trying to say, but I think johnsteinbeck and federberg oversimplify it by saying that if you win a lot you jack up the other guys numbers. And you, Broken, keep insisting on the talent on offer in Roger's early domination, which is true, but partially only in theory. Yes, Roger specifically kept Roddick from being a 5-slam winner, not a 1-slam winner. But he's not the reason that Hewitt, Safin and Nalbandian didn't do better. They had their own reasons.

Also, see El Dude's post #49 here. There was an anomalous gap between all-time greats (6+ Slams) between Sampras and Federer, which gave Roger a space to slide into, with his amazing tennis. I don't think this denigrates most of what he's accomplished, though I think it explains one reason he had so many weeks at #1. But I think it's worth considering, in the more subtle parts of the argument, that Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have had very stiff competition at that top of the game, which is mostly where they've dealt with each other. And of course, Roger has still risen to the challenge. But it's disingenuous to exclaim about Roger's earlier competition as talented, when he didn't have to face them as regularly, and not nearly as many that were make-or-break finals, even excluding Slams. I know the notion of a "weak-era" is tainted, and, as I said, I'm not a proponent. I'm only saying that I think the argument is more complicated. Roger probably got a leg-up at the beginning of his domination. It's not a terrible thing to say, given that he's kept making the most of his tennis.

When Federer hit his prime there was a 1 year gap before the greatest clay courter ever rose the ranks. And Nadal quickly became relevant on other surfaces too. By the time Rafa hit his prime Roger was already out of his and we had not seen the true rise of Djokovic or even Murray. To objectively look at the argument one has to look into the detail closely. Rafa before 2011 had 9 slams (this was before Djokovic became a huge force and before 2011 we had already seen a decent decline in Roger). So in essence Rafa won most of his slams by age 24 and with just 1 major force to deal with (Roger) which he obviously did great in dealing with. Interestingly enough Roger won just 4 slams before Rafa won his first RG...

And the stats in that article are obviously skewed and basically tell us what we already know: Rafa has owned Roger H2H and that accounts for almost all the difference in the stats in that article except for average slams won by the opponents. Roger drives that stat up for Rafa too.

 

[Moxie]

^The argument is the same as it always is. That's why it has a thread. I'm not a proponent of "weak era" theories, and that's not what I'm trying to say, but I think johnsteinbeck and federberg oversimplify it by saying that if you win a lot you jack up the other guys numbers. And you, Broken, keep insisting on the talent on offer in Roger's early domination, which is true, but partially only in theory. Yes, Roger specifically kept Roddick from being a 5-slam winner, not a 1-slam winner. But he's not the reason that Hewitt, Safin and Nalbandian didn't do better. They had their own reasons.

Also, see El Dude's post #49 here. There was an anomalous gap between all-time greats (6+ Slams) between Sampras and Federer, which gave Roger a space to slide into, with his amazing tennis. I don't think this denigrates most of what he's accomplished, though I think it explains one reason he had so many weeks at #1. But I think it's worth considering, in the more subtle parts of the argument, that Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have had very stiff competition at that top of the game, which is mostly where they've dealt with each other. And of course, Roger has still risen to the challenge. But it's disingenuous to exclaim about Roger's earlier competition as talented, when he didn't have to face them as regularly, and not nearly as many that were make-or-break finals, even excluding Slams. I know the notion of a "weak-era" is tainted, and, as I said, I'm not a proponent. I'm only saying that I think the argument is more complicated. Roger probably got a leg-up at the beginning of his domination. It's not a terrible thing to say, given that he's kept making the most of his tennis.

When Federer hit his prime there was a 1 year gap before the greatest clay courter ever rose the ranks. And Nadal quickly became relevant on other surfaces too. By the time Rafa hit his prime Roger was already out of his and we had not seen the true rise of Djokovic or even Murray. To objectively look at the argument one has to look into the detail closely. Rafa before 2011 had 9 slams (this was before Djokovic became a huge force and before 2011 we had already seen a decent decline in Roger). So in essence Rafa won the vast majority of his slams by age 24 and with just 1 major force to deal with (Roger) which he obviously did great in dealing with. Interestingly enough Roger won just 4 slams before Rafa won his first RG...

And the stats in that article are obviously skewed and basically tell us what we already know: Rafa has owned Roger H2H and that accounts for almost all the difference in the stats in that article except for average slams won by the opponents. Roger drives that stat up for Rafa too.

Darth, this is skewed, to be honest. Rafa was 19 when he won his first RG, and was 3 years away from being prime, and a threat on all surfaces, consistently. You are reading me with a chip on your shoulder as to defending Roger. I'm saying that Roger doesn't need defending. Only that the overlaps of generations and who the more difficult competitors were is more nuanced that people are willing to argue. Precisely because someone thinks I/we're trying to make less of Federer. I'm not, personally. At 33, Roger is still #2 in the world, in the face of all of the competition, either when he was young, or now. That's huge. But I do think he had a couple of coasting years, and Rafa's never had one in his whole career.

 

[DarthFed]

2010 was pretty peachy for Nadal if you ask me. GS finals were Sod, Berd, and a WTA-serving Nole who wasn't playing remotely great tennis at that point.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yes, Roger specifically kept Roddick from being a 5-slam winner, not a 1-slam winner. But he's not the reason that Hewitt, Safin and Nalbandian didn't do better. They had their own reasons.

Between 2003 and 2005, Federer beat Hewitt 5 times in the second week of a major, including a couple of semis and a final. I won't count Fed's wins over Lleyton after that since Hewitt was no longer a serious threat to win majors beyond 2005 so it doesn't really matter. He also beat Safin in the 2004 Australian Open final.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^The argument is the same as it always is. That's why it has a thread. I'm not a proponent of "weak era" theories, and that's not what I'm trying to say, but I think johnsteinbeck and federberg oversimplify it by saying that if you win a lot you jack up the other guys numbers. And you, Broken, keep insisting on the talent on offer in Roger's early domination, which is true, but partially only in theory. Yes, Roger specifically kept Roddick from being a 5-slam winner, not a 1-slam winner. But he's not the reason that Hewitt, Safin and Nalbandian didn't do better. They had their own reasons.

Also, see El Dude's post #49 here. There was an anomalous gap between all-time greats (6+ Slams) between Sampras and Federer, which gave Roger a space to slide into, with his amazing tennis. I don't think this denigrates most of what he's accomplished, though I think it explains one reason he had so many weeks at #1. But I think it's worth considering, in the more subtle parts of the argument, that Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have had very stiff competition at that top of the game, which is mostly where they've dealt with each other. And of course, Roger has still risen to the challenge. But it's disingenuous to exclaim about Roger's earlier competition as talented, when he didn't have to face them as regularly, and not nearly as many that were make-or-break finals, even excluding Slams. I know the notion of a "weak-era" is tainted, and, as I said, I'm not a proponent. I'm only saying that I think the argument is more complicated. Roger probably got a leg-up at the beginning of his domination. It's not a terrible thing to say, given that he's kept making the most of his tennis.

When Federer hit his prime there was a 1 year gap before the greatest clay courter ever rose the ranks. And Nadal quickly became relevant on other surfaces too. By the time Rafa hit his prime Roger was already out of his and we had not seen the true rise of Djokovic or even Murray. To objectively look at the argument one has to look into the detail closely. Rafa before 2011 had 9 slams (this was before Djokovic became a huge force and before 2011 we had already seen a decent decline in Roger). So in essence Rafa won most of his slams by age 24 and with just 1 major force to deal with (Roger) which he obviously did great in dealing with. Interestingly enough Roger won just 4 slams before Rafa won his first RG...

And the stats in that article are obviously skewed and basically tell us what we already know: Rafa has owned Roger H2H and that accounts for almost all the difference in the stats in that article except for average slams won by the opponents. Roger drives that stat up for Rafa too.

You can't not count Murray and Djokovic as major forces since they pretty much became consistent top 4 players since 2008. Nadal had to deal with Djokovic in plenty of Grand Slam meetings before 2011 when Djokovic was already a great player. Not quite at his 2011 level, but then again, I don't see how you can count 2006 Rafa as a serious threat for Roger (which he was) but ignore pre 2011 Djokovic.

 

[brokenshoelace]

2010 was pretty peachy for Nadal if you ask me. GS finals were Sod, Berd, and a WTA-serving Nole who wasn't playing remotely great tennis at that point.

Roland Garros final: Soderling. Peachy? You mean...the only guy who ever beat him there, and had done so the year before, was a "peachy" match for him? That's a bit odd.

Also, Nadal went into the FO having swept through the clay season without a single loss and had dropped 2 sets only. Let's be honest, it's Nadal at his absolute best at Roland Garros. It wouldn't have mattered who he played, wouldn't you think? Also, the alternative for Soderling would have been...Roger or Berdych. I think we know how those would have went.

Wimbledon final: I agree Berdych was sort of a gimme. But we're still talking about a consistent top 10 player playing the best tennis of his career. But more importantly, you can't just look at the final. Nadal had to beat an inspired Soderling in the QF and then an equally inspired Murray in the semis. That's a tough second week and you can't possibly deny it.

US Open: The road until the final was pretty easy for Nadal, draw wise, I won't argue. But you can sway it however you want, playing Novak Djokovic on hards is never "peachy."

But I mean, it's so easy to play that game. Here, I'll do it:

2005 was pretty "peachy" for Roger if you ask me. His confidence was low having lost to Safin and Nadal at the first two majors, but he had to play his favorite whipping boy Roddick at Wimbledon and then 35 year old Agassi at the US Open.

2007 was "peachy" for Roger if you ask me. Gonzalez, inexperienced Nadal on grass who had spent 7 straight days on court, and a young raw Djokovic at the US Open.

I can do it about his 2006 year too. It's pretty easy to sway these arguments.

 

[Moxie]

^The argument is the same as it always is. That's why it has a thread. I'm not a proponent of "weak era" theories, and that's not what I'm trying to say, but I think johnsteinbeck and federberg oversimplify it by saying that if you win a lot you jack up the other guys numbers. And you, Broken, keep insisting on the talent on offer in Roger's early domination, which is true, but partially only in theory. Yes, Roger specifically kept Roddick from being a 5-slam winner, not a 1-slam winner. But he's not the reason that Hewitt, Safin and Nalbandian didn't do better. They had their own reasons.

Also, see El Dude's post #49 here. There was an anomalous gap between all-time greats (6+ Slams) between Sampras and Federer, which gave Roger a space to slide into, with his amazing tennis. I don't think this denigrates most of what he's accomplished, though I think it explains one reason he had so many weeks at #1. But I think it's worth considering, in the more subtle parts of the argument, that Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have had very stiff competition at that top of the game, which is mostly where they've dealt with each other. And of course, Roger has still risen to the challenge. But it's disingenuous to exclaim about Roger's earlier competition as talented, when he didn't have to face them as regularly, and not nearly as many that were make-or-break finals, even excluding Slams. I know the notion of a "weak-era" is tainted, and, as I said, I'm not a proponent. I'm only saying that I think the argument is more complicated. Roger probably got a leg-up at the beginning of his domination. It's not a terrible thing to say, given that he's kept making the most of his tennis.

When Federer hit his prime there was a 1 year gap before the greatest clay courter ever rose the ranks. And Nadal quickly became relevant on other surfaces too. By the time Rafa hit his prime Roger was already out of his and we had not seen the true rise of Djokovic or even Murray. To objectively look at the argument one has to look into the detail closely. Rafa before 2011 had 9 slams (this was before Djokovic became a huge force and before 2011 we had already seen a decent decline in Roger). So in essence Rafa won most of his slams by age 24 and with just 1 major force to deal with (Roger) which he obviously did great in dealing with. Interestingly enough Roger won just 4 slams before Rafa won his first RG...

And the stats in that article are obviously skewed and basically tell us what we already know: Rafa has owned Roger H2H and that accounts for almost all the difference in the stats in that article except for average slams won by the opponents. Roger drives that stat up for Rafa too.

You can't not count Murray and Djokovic as major forces since they pretty much became consistent top 4 players since 2008. Nadal had to deal with Djokovic in plenty of Grand Slam meetings before 2011 when Djokovic was already a great player. Not quite at his 2011 level, but then again, I don't see how you can count 2006 Rafa as a serious threat for Roger (which he was) but ignore pre 2011 Djokovic.

I barely mentioned Murray and Djokovic. You're reading in, and ignoring the larger point.