The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[GameSetAndMath]

I didn't try to stretch his prime to 2012. If you read above, I conceded to your idea of when it ended, as long as you didn't try to make it 2008. And I see that we both agree that his real problem in 2008 was Nadal, including going into the AO '09. We will never agree on how much of W '08- AO '09 was due to weak Roger/strong Rafa, but it is what it is.

Nope, Roger lost to Tom, Dick and Harry in 2008. Come on, even Roger's personal whipping boy, Roddick found a way to beat him.
No way that Mardy Fish, Simon, Stepanek etc beat him and you still don't acknowledge that there is a substantial drop in his level.

 

[Haelfix]

It's actually pretty easy to see 'statistically' how much of a drop off Federer had. In 2006 (his unbeatable year), his return of serve was at 32% (this is Nadal, Murray, David Ferrer territory). On grass it was 30% and on hards 32%. That's completely elite and given how bad his return of serve is and was (particularly off the 2nd serve), it means that he was winning an absurd share of neutral rallies. We're talking historically high levels...

It drops to 29% in 2007 (3% is a pretty large swing in this business) and in 2008 and 2009 it was 27% and 24% respectively. That last is Andy Roddick level of returning.

His serve gets better over time, but it does very much imply by 2008 onwards that he wasn't going to be winning much on slower surfaces anymore, which is where most of the big matches take place.

 

[El Dude]

Players Roger lost to, by year:

2005: Rafael Nadal, Marat Safin, David Nalbandian, Richard Gasquet
2006: Rafael Nadal x4, Andy Murray
2007: Rafael Nadal x3, Guillermo Canas x2, Fernando Gonzalez, David Nalbandian, Novak Djokovic, Filippo Volandri
2008: Rafael Nadal x4, Andy Murray x2, James Blake x2, Gilles Simon x2, Radek Stepanek, Andy Roddick, Mardy Fish, Novak Djokovic

I think that says a lot about Roger's level. You can also look at his winning percentage against players other than Rafa, Novak and Andy to get a sense of his baseline level. In 2006 he was 88-0 (!) against non-Big Four players. In 2007 that dropped to 62-6 and 63-7 in 2008. Actually, interestingly enough he dropped about 1% in each year from 2007 to 2010 against non-Big 4: 91.2% in 2007, 90% in 2008, 88.9% in 2009, 87.9% in 2010, then jumped up to 92.5% in 2011 and 91.5% in 2012. 2011 was the first true "Djodal" year, with Roger a clear #3 behind the two. In 2012 he caught up a bit, and then collapsed in 2013 (81.8% against non-Big Four), and re-turned to his previous 2008-12 level in 2014 (88.2%) and 2015 (90.5%).

Roger pretty much exemplifies the idea of a "post-peak plateau." His true peak was 2004-06, with 2007 still very high but a step down, and then 2008 beginning a new baseline plateau, which fluctuated somewhat but has been pretty consistent.

2017 is interesting in that if you take Rafa out of it, his overall performance isn't that different than his plateau. He's 45-4 vs non-Big Four, or 91.8%..so it is a "good plateau year" like 2011-12, but not quite to the level of 2004-06. He has some strange losses (Haas, Donskoy) that wouldn't have happened in his peak, coupled with a loss to a young stud (Zverev) and a sometime-elite (Del Potro).

 

[Moxie]

I knew we were headed for a re-up on your definitions, Dude, thanks! I'm surprised you put Roger still in his prime, though I may just be thinking in terms of straightforward age. Anyway, you can arm wrestle with Darth over that.

Certainly I don't think the only reason Roger had a lesser 2008 was only down to Rafa, since even I listed who all he lost to that year. However, if you want to know one of the reasons that these Fedal Wars can be contentious, and go on and on, (though by no means the only one) is that some Federer fans tend to ignore or play down that Rafa hit his own first peak in 2008. I.e., no Rafa effect whatsoever, as far as some are concerned. All down to Roger's relatively poor year. Obviously, the biggest bone of contention is Wimbledon '08. It just gets old when some Federer fans think that it's all about Roger, and so little to do with Rafa. Know what I mean?

 

[Fiero425]

Players Roger lost to, by year:

2005: Rafael Nadal, Marat Safin, David Nalbandian, Richard Gasquet
2006: Rafael Nadal x4, Andy Murray
2007: Rafael Nadal x3, Guillermo Canas x2, Fernando Gonzalez, David Nalbandian, Novak Djokovic, Filippo Volandri
2008: Rafael Nadal x4, Andy Murray x2, James Blake x2, Gilles Simon x2, Radek Stepanek, Andy Roddick, Mardy Fish, Novak Djokovic

I think that says a lot about Roger's level. You can also look at his winning percentage against players other than Rafa, Novak and Andy to get a sense of his baseline level. In 2006 he was 88-0 (!) against non-Big Four players. In 2007 that dropped to 62-6 and 63-7 in 2008. Actually, interestingly enough he dropped about 1% in each year from 2007 to 2010 against non-Big 4: 91.2% in 2007, 90% in 2008, 88.9% in 2009, 87.9% in 2010, then jumped up to 92.5% in 2011 and 91.5% in 2012. 2011 was the first true "Djodal" year, with Roger a clear #3 behind the two. In 2012 he caught up a bit, and then collapsed in 2013 (81.8% against non-Big Four), and re-turned to his previous 2008-12 level in 2014 (88.2%) and 2015 (90.5%).

Roger pretty much exemplifies the idea of a "post-peak plateau." His true peak was 2004-06, with 2007 still very high but a step down, and then 2008 beginning a new baseline plateau, which fluctuated somewhat but has been pretty consistent.

2017 is interesting in that if you take Rafa out of it, his overall performance isn't that different than his plateau. He's 45-4 vs non-Big Four, or 91.8%..so it is a "good plateau year" like 2011-12, but not quite to the level of 2004-06. He has some strange losses (Haas, Donskoy) that wouldn't have happened in his peak, coupled with a loss to a young stud (Zverev) and a sometime-elite (Del Potro).

The inexplicable loss was to that Canadian kid, Shapovalov last summer who was allowed to come back "from the dead" against Rafa, including being down 0-3 in a 3rd set TB winning 7 of the last 8 points! No one saw that loss coming, but the same could be said about AO in the final against his legendary pigeon in Jan.!

 

[El Dude]

I knew we were headed for a re-up on your definitions, Dude, thanks! I'm surprised you put Roger still in his prime, though I may just be thinking in terms of straightforward age. Anyway, you can arm wrestle with Darth over that.

Certainly I don't think the only reason Roger had a lesser 2008 was only down to Rafa, since even I listed who all he lost to that year. However, if you want to know one of the reasons that these Fedal Wars can be contentious, and go on and on, (though by no means the only one) is that some Federer fans tend to ignore or play down that Rafa hit his own first peak in 2008. I.e., no Rafa effect whatsoever, as far as some are concerned. All down to Roger's relatively poor year. Obviously, the biggest bone of contention is Wimbledon '08. It just gets old when some Federer fans think that it's all about Roger, and so little to do with Rafa. Know what I mean?

I totally know what you mean and generally agree with you on this, even if I sound like a traitor to other Fedfans.

As for the prime thing, it really depends upon definitions. I see "prime" as being the long plateau of a player's career, from the point they reached elite status to when they started steeply declining. For Roger that would be 2003 to the present. But of course that waters down the word some. If we want "extended peak," which is how I think most understand and use the word, then maybe 2004-09...but even then I'm not comfortable with including 08-09, when those two years are closer to 10-12 than they are to 04-07.

Ultimately all such definitions are inexact at best, obfuscatory at worst. So I remain ambivalent about using them, even as I continue to do so. Every career is unique, with different patterns of peaks and valleys. Although there's an interesting idea: maybe the prime is from the first to last peak?

 

[Moxie]

I totally know what you mean and generally agree with you on this, even if I sound like a traitor to other Fedfans.

As for the prime thing, it really depends upon definitions. I see "prime" as being the long plateau of a player's career, from the point they reached elite status to when they started steeply declining. For Roger that would be 2003 to the present. But of course that waters down the word some. If we want "extended peak," which is how I think most understand and use the word, then maybe 2004-09...but even then I'm not comfortable with including 08-09, when those two years are closer to 10-12 than they are to 04-07.

Ultimately all such definitions are inexact at best, obfuscatory at worst. So I remain ambivalent about using them, even as I continue to do so. Every career is unique, with different patterns of peaks and valleys. Although there's an interesting idea: maybe the prime is from the first to last peak?

You have my undying gratitude for getting my point. :heart:

I really can get the point that Roger is ex-definition. While he's had lesser years, he does seem to be at the very least to be in an extended plateau of very high play. And while Rafa has had more of a roller-coaster, he's also been able to keep to a reasonable plateau, with a certain peak even again this year. He's the only one of the Big 4 not to drop out of the top 10, in the years that they've been important. Roger and Rafa are really remarkable players in terms of consistency and achievement over so many years.

 

[Federberg]

While I don't want to take anything away from Rafa in 2008, it's hard to put forward the notion that Roger had a Rafa problem in 2008 when the data clearly tells us Roger had a problem period. The data is right there telling us it was more than a Rafa problem, you can't dismiss this to build a counter-narrative. On the other hand Roger has admitted that after the shellacking he got in the RG final his confidence was shattered against Rafa, and we can put his future matches against Rafa in that context. I don't see why that would diminish Rafa's achievements, if you win... you win. We have the tapes so why not use it instead of creating fake news? The truth is we will never know if Rafa would have been able to overcome Federer in the way that he did in subsequent years if Roger's level hadn't slipped. I think you can reasonably say that while also accepting that Rafa was coming into his own. What happened happened. But please don't say that Roger's real problem in 2008 was Rafa, you could only support that statement if Roger was still tuning everyone else

 

[Ricardo]

Nope, Roger lost to Tom, Dick and Harry in 2008. Come on, even Roger's personal whipping boy, Roddick found a way to beat him.
No way that Mardy Fish, Simon, Stepanek etc beat him and you still don't acknowledge that there is a substantial drop in his level.

you don't want to convince Moxie, not with facts or stats. She will just believe what she wants to believe (women tend to be that way, more than men). Once she said the real reason was that Nadal peaked in 2008, that's all of it despite the fact that Fed was losing more to the non-elites and even to Roddick who he owned forever.

 

[Moxie]

But please don't say that Roger's real problem in 2008 was Rafa, you could only support that statement if Roger was still tuning everyone else

I already said that that specifically wasn't what I was saying.

 

[Federberg]

I already said that that specifically wasn't what I was saying.

perhaps I was reading an old post then

 

[brokenshoelace]

While I don't want to take anything away from Rafa in 2008, it's hard to put forward the notion that Roger had a Rafa problem in 2008 when the data clearly tells us Roger had a problem period.

Uh, I'm sorry. now this is just, for lack of a better term, a bunch of biased BS.

There was absolutely a drop off in Federer's level in 2008. That much is undeniable. There's a reason why 04-07 is considered his prime (there was even a drop in his level in 2007).

However, clearly, when it came to the majors, he still took care of business against everyone else. He lost to Djokovic at the Australian Open, and won the US Open. In between, he reached the finals of the French Open and Wimbledon rather routinely. Lost to Nadal in both. Early in 2009, he reached the final of the AO. Lost to Nadal again. Then he reached the finals of the FO, Wimbledon, and the US Open, winning 2 and losing a weird match to Del Potro.

So yeah, there's only more or less one guy who was stopping him from winning every major in sight. The weird losses to other players in non-majors had started in 2007 anyway, when he lost to Canas twice, Volandri, Gonzalez, and a bunch of other odd players.The difference between that year and 2008, in terms of results at majors, is mainly down to Nadal. Revisionist history is getting laughable around these boards, and the weird logic is even worse. So Federer's level dropping and him having a Nadal problem is mutually exclusive?

 

[Federberg]

Uh, I'm sorry. now this is just, for lack of a better term, a bunch of biased BS.

There was absolutely a drop off in Federer's level in 2008. That much is undeniable. There's a reason why 04-07 is considered his prime (there was even a drop in his level in 2007).

However, clearly, when it came to the majors, he still took care of business against everyone else. He lost to Djokovic at the Australian Open, and won the US Open. In between, he reached the finals of the French Open and Wimbledon rather routinely. Lost to Nadal in both. Early in 2009, he reached the final of the AO. Lost to Nadal again. Then he reached the finals of the FO, Wimbledon, and the US Open, winning 2 and losing a weird match to Del Potro.

So yeah, there's only more or less one guy who was stopping him from winning every major in sight. The weird losses to other players in non-majors had started in 2007 anyway, when he lost to Canas twice, Volandri, Gonzalez, and a bunch of other odd players.The difference between that year and 2008, in terms of results at majors, is mainly down to Nadal. Revisionist history is getting laughable around these boards, and the weird logic is even worse. So Federer's level dropping and him having a Nadal problem is mutually exclusive?

There is absolutely no revisionism. It seems we have a different interpretation. But please done mis-characterise what I said. I also said this...

On the other hand Roger has admitted that after the shellacking he got in the RG final his confidence was shattered against Rafa, and we can put his future matches against Rafa in that context.

You confused me with this one... "So Federer's level dropping and him having a Nadal problem is mutually exclusive?" I don't recall saying he didn't have a Nadal problem then. I did say that his level dropped... period, he had a problem and included in that was a Nadal problem. You simply can't attribute his losses to his play against Nadal. Any attempt to do that is the very definition of bias

 

[DarthFed]

Uh, I'm sorry. now this is just, for lack of a better term, a bunch of biased BS.

There was absolutely a drop off in Federer's level in 2008. That much is undeniable. There's a reason why 04-07 is considered his prime (there was even a drop in his level in 2007).

However, clearly, when it came to the majors, he still took care of business against everyone else. He lost to Djokovic at the Australian Open, and won the US Open. In between, he reached the finals of the French Open and Wimbledon rather routinely. Lost to Nadal in both. Early in 2009, he reached the final of the AO. Lost to Nadal again. Then he reached the finals of the FO, Wimbledon, and the US Open, winning 2 and losing a weird match to Del Potro.

So yeah, there's only more or less one guy who was stopping him from winning every major in sight. The weird losses to other players in non-majors had started in 2007 anyway, when he lost to Canas twice, Volandri, Gonzalez, and a bunch of other odd players.The difference between that year and 2008, in terms of results at majors, is mainly down to Nadal. Revisionist history is getting laughable around these boards, and the weird logic is even worse. So Federer's level dropping and him having a Nadal problem is mutually exclusive?

The problem with certain Rafa fans is that they think the struggles of 2008 was caused by Nadal. The fact of the matter is Roger had already been beaten badly at AO by Djoker, lost lopsided matches to Murray at Dubai and Fish at IW and then even lost to Roddick at Miami. Clearly he was in rough shape even before the ugly losses during clay.

The other thing is that Nadal beating him at Wimbledon and AO are weak losses. Nadal is not some kind of world beater off clay though he has done quite well. The fact he lost the 08 final with a million errors was more to do with his drop off in play. Given what's happened at Wimbledon since it kind of shows the perfect storm there with Roger being weak in mind and game and a limited grass court player brimming with confidence. Roger was also Rafa's only win at Australia too, different match and surface than Wimbledon but still a bad loss for Fed.

And you go on and say he was still beating everyone else but that's hardly the case as he lost to Nole and Delpo in 2008 and 2009. You didn't have losses like that from 04-07 aside from 04 RG before Roger was good on clay.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The other thing is that Nadal beating him at Wimbledon and AO are weak losses. Nadal is not some kind of world beater off clay though he has done quite well. The fact he lost the 08 final with a million errors was more to do with his drop off in play. Given what's happened at Wimbledon since it kind of shows the perfect storm there with Roger being weak in mind and game and a limited grass court player brimming with confidence. Roger was also Rafa's only win at Australia too, different match and surface than Wimbledon but still a bad loss for Fed.

And you go on and say he was still beating everyone else but that's hardly the case as he lost to Nole and Delpo in 2008 and 2009. You didn't have losses like that from 04-07 aside from 04 RG before Roger was good on clay.

Look, it's understandable. given that he's by far the best of all time, but Jesus, Federer fans are some of the most unintentionally arrogant fans I've ever known, and you guys are oblivious to it too.

"Nadal is not some world beater off clay." He's won SIX non clay majors. Six majors alone is a hall of fame career on par with some of the greatest players to ever play the game. Add to that the amount of major finals he's reached off clay, the Masters 1000 events he's won, etc... give me a break. How many players over the past 15 years have a better non-clay resume than Nadal. Federer and Djokovic. That's it. So I'm sorry man, but this is laughable.

Oh, he lost to Nole and Delpo in 2008 and 2009? You mean like he lost to Kuerten and Safin in 2004 and 2005? Yeah...Looks like he did have losses like that in the past.

PS TO ALL FEDERER FANS: ROGER FEDERER WAS INDEED PAST HIS BEST IN 2008. I AM BY NO MEANS DISPUTING THAT. I AM SIMPLY CALLING OUT FARCICAL ARGUMENTS. Love, Broken.

 

[Federberg]

Look, it's understandable. given that he's by far the best of all time, but Jesus, Federer fans are some of the most unintentionally arrogant fans I've ever known, and you guys are oblivious to it too.

"Nadal is not some world beater off clay." He's won SIX non clay majors. Six majors alone is a hall of fame career on par with some of the greatest players to ever play the game. Add to that the amount of major finals he's reached off clay, the Masters 1000 events he's won, etc... give me a break. How many players over the past 15 years have a better non-clay resume than Nadal. Federer and Djokovic. That's it. So I'm sorry man, but this is laughable.

Oh, he lost to Nole and Delpo in 2008 and 2009? You mean like he lost to Kuerten and Safin in 2004 and 2005? Yeah...Looks like he did have losses like that in the past.

PS TO ALL FEDERER FANS: ROGER FEDERER WAS INDEED PAST HIS BEST IN 2008. I AM BY NO MEANS DISPUTING THAT. I AM SIMPLY CALLING OUT FARCICAL ARGUMENTS. Love, Broken.

Please don't include me in this. I think I'm on record here saying several times that Rafa is an absolute all time beast. And I've never implied his greatness is limited to clay. Good grief my 2nd and 3rd favourite players of all time Edberg and Mac would be hard pressed to match Rafa's non-clay singles majors records. How can I possibly dismiss who Rafa is? It wouldn't make sense!

But I would just say that some Rafa fans who accuse Federer fans of arrogance also have a deep insecurity or chip on their shoulders, call it what you want. They seem to have this need to define Rafa in terms of his relationship to Roger. The guy is unquestionably the 2nd most accomplished player in the Open era. He can easily stand on his own. Why the need to try do diminish Federer to celebrate Rafa's greatness? I don't get it..

 

[DarthFed]

Look, it's understandable. given that he's by far the best of all time, but Jesus, Federer fans are some of the most unintentionally arrogant fans I've ever known, and you guys are oblivious to it too.

"Nadal is not some world beater off clay." He's won SIX non clay majors. Six majors alone is a hall of fame career on par with some of the greatest players to ever play the game. Add to that the amount of major finals he's reached off clay, the Masters 1000 events he's won, etc... give me a break. How many players over the past 15 years have a better non-clay resume than Nadal. Federer and Djokovic. That's it. So I'm sorry man, but this is laughable.

Oh, he lost to Nole and Delpo in 2008 and 2009? You mean like he lost to Kuerten and Safin in 2004 and 2005? Yeah...Looks like he did have losses like that in the past.

PS TO ALL FEDERER FANS: ROGER FEDERER WAS INDEED PAST HIS BEST IN 2008. I AM BY NO MEANS DISPUTING THAT. I AM SIMPLY CALLING OUT FARCICAL ARGUMENTS. Love, Broken.

I already said Roger wasn't good on clay in 2004. I guess one could say Roger of 2008 and subsequent years was better on clay than he was in 2004 and simply worse everywhere else. And Nole was great in 2008 but not like the level we saw from Safin those rare times he was at his best and focused. That was also a 5 set war, not a straight set match.

As for Rafa being a worldbeater off clay it's all relative, compared to Federer and Djokovic he's a very distant 3rd off clay, there's no denying that. Accomplishment and talent-wise there is no reason Fed should have lost to him at Wimbledon. The matchup disadvantage you see on clay and high bouncing hards was pretty much non-existent even if the ball bounces way higher than it should at Wimbledon. That was just a pathetic loss. He shouldn't lose more than 1 out of 10 to any version of Rafa on grass. 2009 AO is a little more understandable but that too stemmed from Rafa taking residence in his head. Even Verdasco put up a better fight two nights before.

 

[brokenshoelace]

But I would just say that some Rafa fans who accuse Federer fans of arrogance also have a deep insecurity or chip on their shoulders, call it what you want. They seem to have this need to define Rafa in terms of his relationship to Roger. The guy is unquestionably the 2nd most accomplished player in the Open era. He can easily stand on his own. Why the need to try do diminish Federer to celebrate Rafa's greatness? I don't get it..

Oh I definitely agree with this.

 

[Moxie]

Please don't include me in this. I think I'm on record here saying several times that Rafa is an absolute all time beast. And I've never implied his greatness is limited to clay. Good grief my 2nd and 3rd favourite players of all time Edberg and Mac would be hard pressed to match Rafa's non-clay singles majors records. How can I possibly dismiss who Rafa is? It wouldn't make sense!

But I would just say that some Rafa fans who accuse Federer fans of arrogance also have a deep insecurity or chip on their shoulders, call it what you want. They seem to have this need to define Rafa in terms of his relationship to Roger. The guy is unquestionably the 2nd most accomplished player in the Open era. He can easily stand on his own. Why the need to try do diminish Federer to celebrate Rafa's greatness? I don't get it..

This is a Fedal thread. I don't know how you expect it not to be about each vis-a-vis the other. I don't think Rafa fans have any "deep insecurity or chip" on our shoulders. But we do have to elbow for Rafa's place in it all, with Roger fans working so hard to brush Nadal off. I realize that Feddies would prefer that Rafa and Roger not be so often spoken of in the same breath, but there's no changing that, especially in the wider tennis conversation with commentators and writers. Realistically, Fed fans are just as guilty, too. The new fashion, as Roger has done so well against Rafa this year, is for reimagining the whole H2H, and you are guilty of that, too. Oh, the what-ifs. (Yours was to wonder if Roger hadn't had such a complicated 2008, how he might have fared differently, regarding Nadal.) I might likewise wonder if Djokovic hadn't hit such a new and high stride in 2011. But it's not useful. I'll be honest, I don't think @brokenshoelace is outlandish to say that the Federer fans are a pretty arrogant bunch. Because Roger is so great...and he is...you tend to think that all of his failings are only down to him. Oh, right..the great concession to clay. Beyond that, it's a load of excuses when it comes to Rafa. It's really not only us Nadal fans.

Oh I definitely agree with this.

I don't. See above.

 

[El Dude]

Doesn't everyone's shit stink?