The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[El Dude]

I actually think Roger's peak goes from 2004 to 2009, into the beginning of 2010. I know he had a blip in 2008, but in terms of the range of years that he was at or close to his peak powers, it really should extend to include his SF streak. I think Roland Garros in 2010 marks the end of Roger's peak.

The simple fact of the matter is that from Wimbledon in 2008 on, he simply wasn't the only top dog - Rafa was at least his equal. We'll never know how 2008 would have looked if Roger had been healthy, or how 2009 would have looked if Rafa had been healthy, so I think we're left with saying that 2008-09 was shared dominance, with Rafa fully taking the reins in 2010.

My point being, 2008-09 looks like it wasn't peak Roger because of two things: His illness in 2008, and Rafa's step up. I know my fellow fans like to say it was only the illness, or that Roger wasn't the same player in 2008-09 as he was in 2004-07, and while I agree with both accounts to some extent, I think they are over-stated. The other factor is Rafa's rise, and to a lesser degree Novak's and Andy's, although I think they didn't reach their peaks until Roger had already dropped a notch.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Federer had the mono/virus thing until sometime in feb. he had a fever in febuary and finally got everything checked out, which was when the docs told him he has the virus, but it was clear by late feb as his system was creating antibodies again.

he was lucky it didn't wipe him out like soderling and also lucky he didn't have a massive hangover (although a bit) with his play afterwards, he said he was happy to have made the AO SF after he found out, and if the docs had found out before he wouldn't even have played AO as the risk to his longterm health was great.

in late feb he was given the all clear to start training again, and got only a few days in before deciding to play Dubai where he got wasted by murray (I think),

federers level was clearly down as he lost early in indian wells/Miami and had other defeats, I think by may his physical level had improved and reached clay masters finals and whatnot. mentally he was not as calm.

lets have this on new page.

 

[Federberg]

I actually think Roger's peak goes from 2004 to 2009, into the beginning of 2010. I know he had a blip in 2008, but in terms of the range of years that he was at or close to his peak powers, it really should extend to include his SF streak. I think Roland Garros in 2010 marks the end of Roger's peak.

The simple fact of the matter is that from Wimbledon in 2008 on, he simply wasn't the only top dog - Rafa was at least his equal. We'll never know how 2008 would have looked if Roger had been healthy, or how 2009 would have looked if Rafa had been healthy, so I think we're left with saying that 2008-09 was shared dominance, with Rafa fully taking the reins in 2010.

My point being, 2008-09 looks like it wasn't peak Roger because of two things: His illness in 2008, and Rafa's step up. I know my fellow fans like to say it was only the illness, or that Roger wasn't the same player in 2008-09 as he was in 2004-07, and while I agree with both accounts to some extent, I think they are over-stated. The other factor is Rafa's rise, and to a lesser degree Novak's and Andy's, although I think they didn't reach their peaks until Roger had already dropped a notch.

I think that's an entirely reasonable assessment. It can never be as simple as blaming everything on the illness.

 

[Kieran]

Rafa's surgery was a minor one and nothing that was going to affect his knees or other "more important" areas of the body in regards to tennis. You can see how that's different from a major car crash I hope :cover

And I'm sure that you can now see how not only "tennis related" injuries or operations can have a detrimental effect on a player, eh?

The 2nd tier players were too weak to bother Roger in his prime. You've never seen me argue otherwise, and guess what, they'd still be too weak today if Roger was playing like he used to. That's what being dominant is all about.

Even when he's suffering from mono and played almost five hours in the heat two days before... :dodgy:

 

[the AntiPusher]

I actually think Roger's peak goes from 2004 to 2009, into the beginning of 2010. I know he had a blip in 2008, but in terms of the range of years that he was at or close to his peak powers, it really should extend to include his SF streak. I think Roland Garros in 2010 marks the end of Roger's peak.

The simple fact of the matter is that from Wimbledon in 2008 on, he simply wasn't the only top dog - Rafa was at least his equal. We'll never know how 2008 would have looked if Roger had been healthy, or how 2009 would have looked if Rafa had been healthy, so I think we're left with saying that 2008-09 was shared dominance, with Rafa fully taking the reins in 2010.

My point being, 2008-09 looks like it wasn't peak Roger because of two things: His illness in 2008, and Rafa's step up. I know my fellow fans like to say it was only the illness, or that Roger wasn't the same player in 2008-09 as he was in 2004-07, and while I agree with both accounts to some extent, I think they are over-stated. The other factor is Rafa's rise, and to a lesser degree Novak's and Andy's, although I think they didn't reach their peaks until Roger had already dropped a notch.

peak and prime is similar but not the same, Roger still peaked in 2012 although he was again able to play well at Wimbledon. 2014 &2015 only

 

[DarthFed]

AP, how did he peak in 2012? The reason 2012 was such a great achievement was due to Roger's age and the fact he was already years past his best. If we are comparing his play that year to his best days...well there is no comparison.

 

[the AntiPusher]

AP, how did he peak in 2012? The reason 2012 was such a great achievement was due to Roger's age and the fact he was already years past his best. If we are comparing his play that year to his best days...well there is no comparison.

Remember the operatives words, (prime and peaked). Darthfed it's my opinion if a 31 year old Federer can win Wimbledon against the likes of Murray, Djokovic and Rafa who all was supposed to play, that's a peak. Yeah, he had an easy draw but it's wasn't his doing that the cards fell in line for him .If you don't feel that he had to "peak " then that's your prerogative.

 

[Federberg]

AP, how did he peak in 2012? The reason 2012 was such a great achievement was due to Roger's age and the fact he was already years past his best. If we are comparing his play that year to his best days...well there is no comparison.

Remember the operatives words, (prime and peaked). Darthfed it's my opinion if a 31 year old Federer can win Wimbledon against the likes of Murray, Djokovic and Rafa who all was supposed to play, that's a peak. Yeah, he had an easy draw but it's wasn't his doing that the cards fell in line for him .If you don't feel that he had to "peak " then that's your prerogative.

I get what you're saying re: peak vs prime. But come on man... he took out Novak and Murray to win that title. How on earth can that possibly be called an easy draw?

 

[the AntiPusher]

AP, how did he peak in 2012? The reason 2012 was such a great achievement was due to Roger's age and the fact he was already years past his best. If we are comparing his play that year to his best days...well there is no comparison.

Remember the operatives words, (prime and peaked). Darthfed it's my opinion if a 31 year old Federer can win Wimbledon against the likes of Murray, Djokovic and Rafa who all was supposed to play, that's a peak. Yeah, he had an easy draw but it's wasn't his doing that the cards fell in line for him .If you don't feel that he had to "peak " then that's your prerogative.

I get what you're saying re: peak vs prime. But come on man... he took out Novak and Murray to win that title. How on earth can that possibly be called an easy draw?

Well , it wasn't a real struggle before he made it to the semis but I am not gonna go down that path. However, if someone feels that defeating 2 of the other big 3 is not peaking well I think that the standards that some of the Fed fans are a bit astronomical, IMO.

 

[Federberg]

Remember the operatives words, (prime and peaked). Darthfed it's my opinion if a 31 year old Federer can win Wimbledon against the likes of Murray, Djokovic and Rafa who all was supposed to play, that's a peak. Yeah, he had an easy draw but it's wasn't his doing that the cards fell in line for him .If you don't feel that he had to "peak " then that's your prerogative.

I get what you're saying re: peak vs prime. But come on man... he took out Novak and Murray to win that title. How on earth can that possibly be called an easy draw?

Well , it wasn't a real struggle before he made it to the semis but I am not gonna go down that path. However, if someone feels that defeating 2 of the other big 3 is not peaking well I think that the standards that some of the Fed fans are a bit astronomical, IMO.

I agree with you about peaking versus prime I was just querying the easy draw bit :snicker

 

[the AntiPusher]

I get what you're saying re: peak vs prime. But come on man... he took out Novak and Murray to win that title. How on earth can that possibly be called an easy draw?

Well , it wasn't a real struggle before he made it to the semis but I am not gonna go down that path. However, if someone feels that defeating 2 of the other big 3 is not peaking well I think that the standards that some of the Fed fans are a bit astronomical, IMO.

I agree with you about peaking versus prime I was just querying the easy draw bit :snicker

No worries...

 

[DarthFed]

AP, how did he peak in 2012? The reason 2012 was such a great achievement was due to Roger's age and the fact he was already years past his best. If we are comparing his play that year to his best days...well there is no comparison.

Remember the operatives words, (prime and peaked). Darthfed it's my opinion if a 31 year old Federer can win Wimbledon against the likes of Murray, Djokovic and Rafa who all was supposed to play, that's a peak. Yeah, he had an easy draw but it's wasn't his doing that the cards fell in line for him .If you don't feel that he had to "peak " then that's your prerogative.

I think we just have different definitions of the terms is all. Roger winning Wimbledon going on age 31 is mostly an old guy who was still very good who stepped it up at the right time for what might be one last ride of glory. Did Roger play as well at Wimbledon 2012 as he did in his younger years? I'd say no. Roger is greater on grass than everyone else in this era by a country mile. So if he plays a little less than he did in his prime it still is no surprise that he has a decent chance to win. That's what Wimbledon 2012 and 2014 were IMO. An old timer who is still very good that played above his (new) average level throughout (aside from a couple early rounds in 2012). This year was one really great performance in the semi followed by a poor final that made Roger look his age and then some.

 

[Federberg]

AP, how did he peak in 2012? The reason 2012 was such a great achievement was due to Roger's age and the fact he was already years past his best. If we are comparing his play that year to his best days...well there is no comparison.

Remember the operatives words, (prime and peaked). Darthfed it's my opinion if a 31 year old Federer can win Wimbledon against the likes of Murray, Djokovic and Rafa who all was supposed to play, that's a peak. Yeah, he had an easy draw but it's wasn't his doing that the cards fell in line for him .If you don't feel that he had to "peak " then that's your prerogative.

I think we just have different definitions of the terms is all. Roger winning Wimbledon going on age 31 is mostly an old guy who was still very good who stepped it up at the right time for what might be one last ride of glory. Did Roger play as well at Wimbledon 2012 as he did in his younger years? I'd say no. Roger is greater on grass than everyone else in this era by a country mile. So if he plays a little less than he did in his prime it still is no surprise that he has a decent chance to win. That's what Wimbledon 2012 and 2014 were IMO. An old timer who is still very good that played above his (new) average level throughout (aside from a couple early rounds in 2012). This year was one really great performance in the semi followed by a poor final that made Roger look his age and then some.

I think we're all on the same page then DF. Because what you've described here is Roger peaking at a tournament. This has nothing to do with Federer's abilities when he was in his prime per se. Just an elite sportsman at his current maximum doing well enough to win in 12, and get the runners up in 14

 

[Front242]

You're the one who gave the Nadal-Djokovic at RG 2015 analogy.

The reason for that was because I very much doubt anyone else but Djokovic could have beaten him at RG even this year. Despite the poor season he's had, he played well still at RG eventhough he lost in straight sets to Djokovic. Apart from set 3 where he had pretty much accepted his fate, he tried very hard and played well the first 2 sets so in that respect he's still very good, but no longer in his prime and hence why Djokovic (who is in his prime) was finally able to win.

How does that make the comparison to 2008 Federer any sillier? Roger was not losing to a player he was 1828282-3 against (Berdych) or some no name (Brown) in majors, nor was he ranked 10th in the world. It's still a terrible analogy.

Just 'cos you've beaten a player umpteen times in the past does not mean you will always continue to do so (Berdych/Wawrinka) I think Stan Wawrinka has shown that. Players get better. Even when ranked number 1, Nadal was having awful trouble against Haase and Petzschner the year he won Wimbledon in 2010. Him struggling at Wimbledon has nothing to do with being past his prime or ageing. He almost always struggled, even when he won it. So no, it's not a terrible analogy at all. Roger on the other hand did start losing to a lot of guys he had always beaten in 2008 which was kinda sudden considering his prime years were 2004-2007.

 

[Carol]

The reason for that was because I very much doubt anyone else but Djokovic could have beaten him at RG even this year. Despite the poor season he's had, he played well still at RG eventhough he lost in straight sets to Djokovic. Apart from set 3 where he had pretty much accepted his fate, he tried very hard and played well the first 2 sets so in that respect he's still very good, but no longer in his prime and hence why Djokovic (who is in his prime) was finally able to win.

How does that make the comparison to 2008 Federer any sillier? Roger was not losing to a player he was 1828282-3 against (Berdych) or some no name (Brown) in majors, nor was he ranked 10th in the world. It's still a terrible analogy.

Just 'cos you've beaten a player umpteen times in the past does not mean you will always continue to
do so (Berdych/Wawrinka) I think Stan Wawrinka has shown that. Players get better. Even when ranked number 1, Nadal was having awful trouble against Haase and Petzschner the year he won Wimbledon in 2010. Him struggling at Wimbledon has nothing to do with being past his prime or ageing. He almost always struggled, even when he won it. So no, it's not a terrible analogy at all. Roger on the other hand did start losing to a lot of guys he had always beaten in 2008 which was kinda sudden considering his prime years were 2004-2007.

Then also we can say just because you have beaten a player once or twice in your whole career doesn't mean you will always continue to do so. Those players can play better now (?) or the opponent worse (Nadal) but at the end the best one wins again unless to be under some injuries or psychology problems which usually are temporary

 

[Front242]

Rafa's surgery was a minor one and nothing that was going to affect his knees or other "more important" areas of the body in regards to tennis. You can see how that's different from a major car crash I hope :cover

And I'm sure that you can now see how not only "tennis related" injuries or operations can have a detrimental effect on a player, eh?

The 2nd tier players were too weak to bother Roger in his prime. You've never seen me argue otherwise, and guess what, they'd still be too weak today if Roger was playing like he used to. That's what being dominant is all about.

Even when he's suffering from mono and played almost five hours in the heat two days before... :dodgy:

Mono is intermittent. Soderling couldn't play at all at Wimbledon 2011 against Tomic and was dizzy and sweating like Michael Jackson in the school playground. Then in November 2011 at his last tournament in Bastad he was 100% fine and destroyed Berdych 6-0 6-1 in the semi and Ferrer 6-2 6-2 in the final. And neither are those guys are exactly bad on clay. Then a few days later his mono relapsed and got so bad he hasn't played since. See: intermittent

Now on the other if you actually do want to cite an example of otherworldly recovery, then look no further than a certain Rafael Nadal who played or 5 hrs 14 minutes against Verdasco in the AO '09 semi and was then fresh as a daisy against Federer in the final. I'd say give up on slagging Federer beating the mighty Berdych and Blake at the AO '08 after a whole 2 days off as Blake had never beaten him before at that stage and Roger was a terrible match up for him (always targeted Blake's weak backhand) and Berdych only started really troubling Roger from 2010 onwards. The big hitters started troubling him from 2010 onwards. Soderling at RG 2010, Berdych at Wimbledon 2010 and Tsonga the year after. Before that, in his prime, he handled them easily. That was no mighty feat beating them though in 2008. It was expected, mono or not.

He hadn't declined as much as he did from early 2010 onwards. And even then, I give Soderling and Berdych credit there, they played great. Tsonga the year after at Wimbledon 2011 played great too but that was a clear indication that Roger's game had gone south that he couldn't get any proper read on Tsonga's serve for the last 3 sets as his ROS had declined a lot. He lost each of the last 3 sets straight from the start going down an early break and never recovered.

 

[Front242]

How does that make the comparison to 2008 Federer any sillier? Roger was not losing to a player he was 1828282-3 against (Berdych) or some no name (Brown) in majors, nor was he ranked 10th in the world. It's still a terrible analogy.

Just 'cos you've beaten a player umpteen times in the past does not mean you will always continue to
do so (Berdych/Wawrinka) I think Stan Wawrinka has shown that. Players get better. Even when ranked number 1, Nadal was having awful trouble against Haase and Petzschner the year he won Wimbledon in 2010. Him struggling at Wimbledon has nothing to do with being past his prime or ageing. He almost always struggled, even when he won it. So no, it's not a terrible analogy at all. Roger on the other hand did start losing to a lot of guys he had always beaten in 2008 which was kinda sudden considering his prime years were 2004-2007.

Then also we can say just because you have beaten a player once or twice in your whole career doesn't mean you will always continue to do so. Those players can play better now (?) or the opponent worse (Nadal) but at the end the best one wins again unless to be under some injuries or psychology problems which usually are temporary

That's what I said just said. Head to heads mean very little. On paper who had Wawrinka as the favourite to beat Djokovic at RG given his head to head record? Very few I'd imagine.

 

[Carol]

Just 'cos you've beaten a player umpteen times in the past does not mean you will always continue to
do so (Berdych/Wawrinka) I think Stan Wawrinka has shown that. Players get better. Even when ranked number 1, Nadal was having awful trouble against Haase and Petzschner the year he won Wimbledon in 2010. Him struggling at Wimbledon has nothing to do with being past his prime or ageing. He almost always struggled, even when he won it. So no, it's not a terrible analogy at all. Roger on the other hand did start losing to a lot of guys he had always beaten in 2008 which was kinda sudden considering his prime years were 2004-2007.

Then also we can say just because you have beaten a player once or twice in your whole career doesn't mean you will always continue to do so. Those players can play better now (?) or the opponent worse (Nadal) but at the end the best one wins again unless to be under some injuries or psychology problems which usually are temporary

That's what I said just said. Head to heads mean very little. On paper who had Wawrinka as the favourite to beat Djokovic at RG given his head to head record? Very few I'd imagine.

H2H means a lot when both players have played against a bunch of matches (and not just 3 or 4) and one of them has more wins

 

[Kieran]

Rafa's surgery was a minor one and nothing that was going to affect his knees or other "more important" areas of the body in regards to tennis. You can see how that's different from a major car crash I hope :cover

And I'm sure that you can now see how not only "tennis related" injuries or operations can have a detrimental effect on a player, eh?

The 2nd tier players were too weak to bother Roger in his prime. You've never seen me argue otherwise, and guess what, they'd still be too weak today if Roger was playing like he used to. That's what being dominant is all about.

Even when he's suffering from mono and played almost five hours in the heat two days before... :dodgy:

Mono is intermittent. Soderling couldn't play at all at Wimbledon 2011 against Tomic and was dizzy and sweating like Michael Jackson in the school playground. Then in November 2011 at his last tournament in Bastad he was 100% fine and destroyed Berdych 6-0 6-1 in the semi and Ferrer 6-2 6-2 in the final. And neither are those guys are exactly bad on clay. Then a few days later his mono relapsed and got so bad he hasn't played since. See: intermittent

Now on the other if you actually do want to cite an example of otherworldly recovery, then look no further than a certain Rafael Nadal who played or 5 hrs 14 minutes against Verdasco in the AO '09 semi and was then fresh as a daisy against Federer in the final. I'd say give up on slagging Federer beating the mighty Berdych and Blake at the AO '08 after a whole 2 days off as Blake had never beaten him before at that stage and Roger was a terrible match up for him (always targeted Blake's weak backhand) and Berdych only started really troubling Roger from 2010 onwards. The big hitters started troubling him from 2010 onwards. Soderling at RG 2010, Berdych at Wimbledon 2010 and Tsonga the year after. Before that, in his prime, he handled them easily. That was no mighty feat beating them though in 2008. It was expected, mono or not.

He hadn't declined as much as he did from early 2010 onwards. And even then, I give Soderling and Berdych credit there, they played great. Tsonga the year after at Wimbledon 2011 played great too but that was a clear indication that Roger's game had gone south that he couldn't get any proper read on Tsonga's serve for the last 3 sets as his ROS had declined a lot. He lost each of the last 3 sets straight from the start going down an early break and never recovered.

Yeah, mono is intermittent. When he played well, it didn't affect him because it's intermittent. And when he was beaten, well it's because of mono, it stuck then because it's intermittent.

His recovery was remarkable, buddy. Insane and incredible. If he was Spanish, you'd be all over it, quoting the Pope and all. Regardless, it was a strong comeback to defeat Berdy in straights. Which utterly negates federbergs foolish assertion that the Tipsy match drained him before he was hammered by Nole...

 

[Carol]

Many people called it "the miracolous mono" :snicker