The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[Johnsteinbeck]

^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. (...)

i'm sorry, but i have to strongly disagree here. it's not oversimplifying in the least, because the effect is automatically and undeniably there.

i'm not arguing on whether or not the competition was stronger. i'm just explaining that the numbers brought up in the article based on circular reasoning and/or are automatically and invariably skewed. it's not oversimplified, because it really is simple: if you win a lot, you become a more "valuable" opponent. if you win so much that others end up with lower career totals (especially contemporaries with overlapping supposed "primes", and even more so when they have the same hunting fields (ie grass, fast hards)), your opposition will rank lower.

it's best summed up in the following bit:

Average number of career Slam titles held by opponents in major finals:

Federer: 6.7
Nadal: 9.6

Average number of career titles (Slam and otherwise) held by opponents in major finals:

Federer: 40.3
Nadal: 55.0

Nadal's numbers are massively influenced by Federer, as Fed is the only opponent Nadal ever faced who has more than 55 career titles and more than 9(.6) slams.


so you're right: the argument is the same as it always is. as is evidenced by the ensuing debate

 

[Federberg]

^Couldn't have said it better johnsteinbeck. I have a lot of quant friends who I'm sure would shake their heads in disgust at what gets passed off as science in this debate. :nono

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Ummm I was responding to Darth. Hence quoting his post.

 

[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.

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 don't see Djokovic of 2007-2010 or Murray of 2008-2011 as much different competition than the likes of Roger's earlier generation. Obviously they were already good and Djokovic showed he was capable of winning a slam but I wouldn't call them major forces until 2011 for Djokovic and 2012 for Murray.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^^ and I'd call BS on the above. Everyone and their mother was talking about the big 4 way before 2012. Just because Murray and Djokovic went on to become even better doesn't mean they weren't a real force already. Djokovic has been a great player since 2007.

2008 Novak is on par with say, Hewitt? Not buying that, even though I think thr world of Lleyton.

 

[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.

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.

That's the point. I was responding to Moxie saying Rafa never had it as easy as the first couple years of Roger's prime. Well 2010 is very comparable if not easier all things considered.

 

[DarthFed]

^^ and I'd call BS on the above. Everyone and their mother was talking about the big 4 way before 2012. Just because Murray and Djokovic went on to become even better doesn't mean they weren't a real force already. Djokovic has been a great player since 2007.

2008 Novak is on par with say, Hewitt? Not buying that, even though I think thr world of Lleyton.

That's news to me. The narrative before 2011 was that there was Fedal, a huge drop down to Nole and another drop down to Murray. 2008 Novak was great for 6 months, but then Safin at Wimbledon happened and we barely heard from him for 2 years. Murray? We may have talked about his potential being beyond guys like Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, etc. but he didn't totally breakout until 2012. Everyone remembers how easy it was for Roger and Nole in the slam finals vs. Murray early on.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Some major revisionist history here as well as flat out false narratives. Novak wasn't heard from for 2 years after 2008? He remained the number 3 player in the world. Everyone and their mother thought he would be Nadal's main rival at RG after the clay battles they had. He reached the 2010 US Open final. Won masters 1000 events, including a dominant run in late 2009.

 

[Federberg]

I think that we've been talking about the big 4 for a long long time. Certainly pre 2010. Within that context for quite a while we all understood that Fedal was still the pinnacle, but we had already separated out Novak and Andy (with Novak being far superior to Andy). I thought that was established fact on these forums

 

[DarthFed]

Sure, Fedal, Djokovic and Murray were in the top 4 for a long time but as you say there was a world of difference between how Djokovic and Murray were viewed until 2011. That's when it was more, "a big four" instead of Fedal and a huge drop off to Djokovic and Murray. We may have been saying "Murray is easily the 4th best player" in 2008-2010, but I don't think anyone was grouping him with Federer and Nadal in any way whatsoever.

 

[DarthFed]

Some major revisionist history here as well as flat out false narratives. Novak wasn't heard from for 2 years after 2008? He remained the number 3 player in the world. Everyone and their mother thought he would be Nadal's main rival at RG after the clay battles they had. He reached the 2010 US Open final. Won masters 1000 events, including a dominant run in late 2009.

At slam level he stunk from 2008 Wimbledon to 2010 USO. That 2009 run (in the much less meaningful Fall season) was his only truly great stretch in that time.

 

[DarthFed]

It seems peeps have forgotten some of the threads on the old boards in late 2010: Kieran, others, and myself had a big thread on whether or not Djokovic would ever win another slam. It's not just that Nole hadn't improved from mid 2008, he had clearly regressed a bit. Murray was seen as a strong talent but there was doubt that he would make any significant breakthrough as well. Djokovic and Murray were great but I think how you guys are viewing their 2007-2010 is skewed by what they've done since.

 

[Kieran]

It seems peeps have forgotten some of the threads on the boards as late as the 2010 season: Kieran, others, and myself had a big thread on whether or not Djokovic would ever win another slam. Murray was seen as someone unlikely to make any significant breakthrough as well. Djokovic and Murray were great but I think how you guys are viewing their 2007-2010 is skewed by what they've done since.

That's right. I'd given up on Nole. He dumped the match with Melzer in Paris, then choked against Berdy at Wimbo, and he just seemed not up to the task. Then he got his act together and has been patchy at times since, but when he's on, he's really really on!

By the way, we haven't had a Fedal match since Oz 2014. Most likely, the longest gap ever between them. I kinda hope we get a couple more in before the credits roll, you know what I mean?

 

[Federberg]

It seems peeps have forgotten some of the threads on the old boards in late 2010: Kieran, others, and myself had a big thread on whether or not Djokovic would ever win another slam. It's not just that Nole hadn't improved from mid 2008, he had clearly regressed a bit. Murray was seen as a strong talent but there was doubt that he would make any significant breakthrough as well. Djokovic and Murray were great but I think how you guys are viewing their 2007-2010 is skewed by what they've done since.

Maybe. For me though, when we've used the term Big 4, it's always been in a context that there are often dilineations between the members. The present is the perfect example... the Big 4 still exists, but one member is clearly head and shoulders above the others. That doesn't mean the term is invalid. I would have to search through the archives to see when I personally grew comfortable with the term, but I do recall being quite clear that Murray and Djoker were contenders for Masters series along with Fedal quite some time before 2010.

 

[herios]

It seems peeps have forgotten some of the threads on the old boards in late 2010: Kieran, others, and myself had a big thread on whether or not Djokovic would ever win another slam. It's not just that Nole hadn't improved from mid 2008, he had clearly regressed a bit. Murray was seen as a strong talent but there was doubt that he would make any significant breakthrough as well. Djokovic and Murray were great but I think how you guys are viewing their 2007-2010 is skewed by what they've done since.

You got the better memory. The Big 4 narrative started only after 2011. Before was only Fedal.

 

[Fiero425]

It seems peeps have forgotten some of the threads on the old boards in late 2010: Kieran, others, and myself had a big thread on whether or not Djokovic would ever win another slam. It's not just that Nole hadn't improved from mid 2008, he had clearly regressed a bit. Murray was seen as a strong talent but there was doubt that he would make any significant breakthrough as well. Djokovic and Murray were great but I think how you guys are viewing their 2007-2010 is skewed by what they've done since.

You got the better memory. The Big 4 narrative started only after 2011. Before was only Fedal.

Well I know I couldn't be included in that memory; just been a member for almost 2 years! Before Nole took over in 2011, it was all Fedal that's for sure! For sure I've been kvetchin' about that for years as well! I'm so glad Novak broke up the party and is making his mark! There are so many things he's on the precipice of achieving including a career GS, winner of all Masters' events, & Masters leaders in titles all time! :clap :angel: :dodgy:

 

[brokenshoelace]

It seems peeps have forgotten some of the threads on the old boards in late 2010: Kieran, others, and myself had a big thread on whether or not Djokovic would ever win another slam. It's not just that Nole hadn't improved from mid 2008, he had clearly regressed a bit. Murray was seen as a strong talent but there was doubt that he would make any significant breakthrough as well. Djokovic and Murray were great but I think how you guys are viewing their 2007-2010 is skewed by what they've done since.

You got the better memory. The Big 4 narrative started only after 2011. Before was only Fedal.

The worst part about the old forum archive being gone is people making up shit unchallenged. Big 4 narrative started after 2008 US Open. In fact, when Nadal beat Murray to win Indian Wells in 2009, Momochiro made a thread downplaying the notion of big 4 by saying there's only a big 1 (Nadal was dominating back then).

The ridiculousness of your claim is it makes no sense for the big 4 narrative to start in 2011, since that year was only about Novak and his wins over Nadal.

 

[Billie]

It seems peeps have forgotten some of the threads on the old boards in late 2010: Kieran, others, and myself had a big thread on whether or not Djokovic would ever win another slam. It's not just that Nole hadn't improved from mid 2008, he had clearly regressed a bit. Murray was seen as a strong talent but there was doubt that he would make any significant breakthrough as well. Djokovic and Murray were great but I think how you guys are viewing their 2007-2010 is skewed by what they've done since.

You got the better memory. The Big 4 narrative started only after 2011. Before was only Fedal.

Ha ha....so true. I joined tennis.com board in 2010 and had a hard time explaining that I saw signs of Nole becoming a much better player, but my observations were dismissed so easily, some even tried to mock me when I hinted at Nole saving himself for that year's DC final. Additionally only my brother M and I saw some major improvements in Nole (even though we didn't know the real reasons until months later) pretty much the rest thought we were smoking something :lolz:

 

[DarthFed]

Winning a handful of MS events was their heights though aside from Nole who did break through at 2008 AO and won the YEC that year as well. I'd guess by the end of 2010 Nole was sitting around 7 MS events to go with 1 slam win and 2 finals while Murray had 2 slam finals and around 5 MS wins. The above shows that they were already very good but not exactly titans of the game yet.

 

[herios]

It seems peeps have forgotten some of the threads on the old boards in late 2010: Kieran, others, and myself had a big thread on whether or not Djokovic would ever win another slam. It's not just that Nole hadn't improved from mid 2008, he had clearly regressed a bit. Murray was seen as a strong talent but there was doubt that he would make any significant breakthrough as well. Djokovic and Murray were great but I think how you guys are viewing their 2007-2010 is skewed by what they've done since.

You got the better memory. The Big 4 narrative started only after 2011. Before was only Fedal.

The worst part about the old forum archive being gone is people making up crap unchallenged. Big 4 narrative started after 2008 US Open. In fact, when Nadal beat Murray to win Indian Wells in 2009, Momochiro made a thread downplaying the notion of big 4 by saying there's only a big 1 (Nadal was dominating back then).

The ridiculousness of your claim is it makes no sense for the big 4 narrative to start in 2011, since that year was only about Novak and his wins over Nadal.

I am not making up anything. The Big 4 narrative started not when they were ranked top 4, rather when they started sweeping all the big events.