The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[El Dude]

This has all been talked to death already - not sure there are any nuances of the Fedal debate that haven't been talked about, but if so let me know .

But very briefly: the record says that Roger's decline, really starting in 2007, was across the board: he was losing to more players, not just Rafa. Yes, it was impacted by Rafa, but this isn't an either/or thing. He started losing more frequently to non-Big Four players in 2007. 2008 was problematic for several reasons, and I don't want to get into another Monogate squabble.

Now why Roger dropped a notch between 2006 and 2008 is a question that I don't think has been adequately answered. But clearly he wasn't as good in 2008 as he was 2006, and not just against Rafa (remember that Rafa dominated him in 2006).

As for Novak, in a way he's the Lendl to Borg/McEnroe. He's in a similar class of greatness, but doesn't have the sex appeal - both in terms of the rivalry but also as a player.

 

[Moxie]

^ I appreciate the considered response. So, would you say, (and I'm asking sincerely,) that Roger has never really been back to "peak" level? Other than, say, maybe some matches or tournaments? I could see the argument that Federer's "plateau" is farther above the tree line than that of most players, but I've always found it rather hard to think that he's never been as good since 2007, and that it doesn't have something to do with the competition. I mean, that was 12 years ago, and he's won rather a lot since then, (7 majors, I think which is a HOF career in and of itself,) and spent plenty of time at #1 since, as well. And I wouldn't have said that age has played a role until really 2016. What do you think?

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ I appreciate the considered response. So, would you say, (and I'm asking sincerely,) that Roger has never really been back to "peak" level? Other than, say, maybe some matches or tournaments? I could see the argument that Federer's "plateau" is farther above the tree line than that of most players, but I've always found it rather hard to think that he's never been as good since 2007, and that it doesn't have something to do with the competition. I mean, that was 12 years ago, and he's won rather a lot since then, (7 majors, I think which is a HOF career in and of itself,) and spent plenty of time at #1 since, as well. And I wouldn't have said that age has played a role until really 2016. What do you think?

Federer never came close to his 2006 level for the rest of his career. I really don't think people remember quite how ridiculous he was then and that's understandable because it was 12 years ago AND he was active (and successful) after, so people didn't have much of a reason to examine all the nuances and differences in his game (they would have been much easier to spot if his level dropped dramatically). I also don't buy the better competition argument as far as match-to-match level. Better competition is an argument when it comes to the big picture and why he wasn't winning as many slams (surely dealing with prime Nadal and Novak is complicated), but look at the guys he was losing to week in and week out in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Roddick, Blake, Gonzalez, Simon, Volandri, Berdych, etc... the list goes on and on.

 

[mrzz]

...but, @Moxie, if you look at his absolute win percentage, nothing compares to 2004-2006. If you look to his winning percentage against the "field" (i.e, minus Nadal in 2007-2010, minus Djokovic 2011-present), nothing compares to 2004-2006 (minus whoever you want). Anyway you look at it, he got worst. In 2004-2006 he would get to Wimbledon finals rarely losing sets, and winning easy most of those sets. After that, he still get to the finals, but it is much harder (if you just sum the games lost, for example). Again, anyway you look at it, it gets worst. Ok, you can always assume that simply everyone got better....

 

[Moxie]

Federer never came close to his 2006 level for the rest of his career. I really don't think people remember quite how ridiculous he was then and that's understandable because it was 12 years ago AND he was active (and successful) after, so people didn't have much of a reason to examine all the nuances and differences in his game (they would have been much easier to spot if his level dropped dramatically). I also don't buy the better competition argument as far as match-to-match level. Better competition is an argument when it comes to the big picture and why he wasn't winning as many slams (surely dealing with prime Nadal and Novak is complicated), but look at the guys he was losing to week in and week out in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Roddick, Blake, Gonzalez, Simon, Volandri, Berdych, etc... the list goes on and on.

Not close to his 2006 level? Ever? I'm with those that don't buy the hyperbole that he's playing some of his best tennis in the last 18 months. But he's just been at his lesser level ever since? That's 12 years ago. I'm not disagreeing, but for a guy who's #1, it seems astonishing.

 

[Moxie]

...but, @Moxie, if you look at his absolute win percentage, nothing compares to 2004-2006. If you look to his winning percentage against the "field" (i.e, minus Nadal in 2007-2010, minus Djokovic 2011-present), nothing compares to 2004-2006 (minus whoever you want). Anyway you look at it, he got worst. In 2004-2006 he would get to Wimbledon finals rarely losing sets, and winning easy most of those sets. After that, he still get to the finals, but it is much harder (if you just sum the games lost, for example). Again, anyway you look at it, it gets worst. Ok, you can always assume that simply everyone got better....

To me, it has to be a combination of both things: Roger dipped a bit, and the competition got better. I just find it hard to believe that he's never been at his best since 2007.

 

[El Dude]

^ I appreciate the considered response. So, would you say, (and I'm asking sincerely,) that Roger has never really been back to "peak" level? Other than, say, maybe some matches or tournaments? I could see the argument that Federer's "plateau" is farther above the tree line than that of most players, but I've always found it rather hard to think that he's never been as good since 2007, and that it doesn't have something to do with the competition. I mean, that was 12 years ago, and he's won rather a lot since then, (7 majors, I think which is a HOF career in and of itself,) and spent plenty of time at #1 since, as well. And I wouldn't have said that age has played a role until really 2016. What do you think?

Let's step to the side for a moment and look at Rafa. His best years are, both statistically and in terms of general consensus, 2008, 2010, and 2013, with ups and down inbetween. 2009 saw him injured for part of the year, 2011 was the rise of Novak, 2012 was partial injury, 2014-16 struggles of various kinds, and then 2017-18 resurgence.

Now let me ask you: What is Rafa's peak and what his plateau? It is hard to say, and perhaps every player is different. But when I look at Rafa in 2017, I see an inferior player to what we saw in his very best years (roughly 2008-13). And this shows up mostly off clay. On clay he is still so much better than everyone else that it is hard to compare, but he's had a rougher time off clay.

Rafa at his peak was able to bring a truly elite level on every surface, except for, perhaps, indoor hards. But from 2008-13, he could beat anyone, anywhere. Now he is more vulnerable off clay.

Now let's go back to Roger. When he is healthy and rested, he will beat anyone. But there are some significant caveats: One, he doesn't play on clay anymore. Two, "healthy and rested" is a state that is less common than it used to be. Many Fedfans have bemoaned the fact that he'll look great for a tournament or two, but then by the third tournament or so, his level starts dipping precipitously. He gets tired, presumably.

So this brings me to my point: the difference between Roger or Rafa now vs. at their very best (peak) is that the conditions in which they can find their best form are more limited. I bold face not to sound preachy or authorative, for certainly this is just my opinion, but to emphasize my main point. And I fear, for Roger at least, those conditions are growing more narrow. They seem more narrow in 2018 than in 2017, with him growing more tired after AO and Rotterdam and losing two matches in a row at the IW Final and then his first match in Miami. Last year he won AO and both Sunshine Double masters before tiring; this year he started slipping at IW, even before the final).

Rafa's conditions are also more narrow than in his peak of 2008-13, but he seems overall more consistent--at least aside from grass and indoor hards, which together account for a small portion of tournaments than clay alone.

The river of time only flows in one direction. Roger found new life in 2017 for a few reasons, imo: he was well and truly rested, allowing long-term nagging injuries to heal; he figured out a way to maximize his abilities through limiting the conditions in which he played (fewer tournaments, no clay); and he finally figured out how to beat Rafa. Oh yeah, Novak declined.

Winning three of the last five Slams is a bit deceptive because of those factors - but it is also testament to his (and his teams) intelligence and resources.

 

[Haelfix]

Rafa's best tennis (imo was 2007-2008 on grass and clay, and 2010 on hards). Rogers best tennis is 2004-early 2007 more or less coinciding with his physical prime. The big difference between the two is injury. Rafa has more of an Agassi career and due to injury his best years were further apart and sporadic.

I think if he wouldn't have been injured, we would have seen a steady domination between 2008-2011, more or less coinciding with Rogers physical prime just displaced by 4-5 years (which is roughly there age difference).

As far as the relative competition between the two. I tend to disagree a little with the notion that things were tougher in the big four era.. Certainly the top was more stacked in that era, and also there were a few periods where the big four were all playing there best, but people forget that it was highly variable. Murray only really had two great years in that time frame, and while Novak has had many, he's also disappeared for long stretches of the time as well. DItto with Federer and Nadal who haven't really been continously at their best.

Meanwhile the 2004-2007 era had more depth to it (David Ferrer, who was in his physical prime at the time was only barely cracking the top 20 yet managed to be the number 5 guy for a very long time during the big four era).

It's just a different type of competition as well. The big four era saw unprecedented court homogenization, and you would see the same guys winning with the same style of tennis over and over again. So in a sense I would say the physical demands have never been higher than in recent years due to the large amount of clay and slow hard court events, however in Federers era there was still far more tourneys that required different types of skill sets, so I would say the ATP tour favored more of a complete skillset.

There really isn't a right answer here, it depends what you are looking for and how you weigh things, but I just don't think its an open and shut case like its often made out to be.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

To me, it has to be a combination of both things: Roger dipped a bit, and the competition got better. I just find it hard to believe that he's never been at his best since 2007.

He may have been his best afterwards for a week here and there. But, when you are talking about sustained excellence in play, there is no questions that Roger was never as good as he was in his peak years.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Not close to his 2006 level? Ever? I'm with those that don't buy the hyperbole that he's playing some of his best tennis in the last 18 months. But he's just been at his lesser level ever since? That's 12 years ago. I'm not disagreeing, but for a guy who's #1, it seems astonishing.

2006 was the highest level of tennis I've ever seen. He also lost 5 matches the entire year, 4 of them to Nadal (3 on clay, and one in the final of Dubai). The fifth loss was a weird one at Cinci to Andy Murray (who was still young and hadn't become a top player yet). That's absurd. Only two players beat him the entire year, one of them beat him 4 times alone, 3 of those losses coming on clay, and he happens to be the clay GOAT. So he lost 2 matches outside of clay. But it's not just the results, it's the level of tennis on display. He was flat out unplayable. He legitimately barely had any close matches in all of his wins. Speaking strictly from memory, he reached 4 major finals, won 3 of them, and didn't go a fifth set once. That's beyond ridiculous.

With that in mind, it's actually very easy to tell he's never been at that level since. 2007 was a very obvious drop off: He lost to the likes of Canas (twice), Volandri, Nalbandian (twice) and Gonzalez (a guy he never loses to).

2008 was also way below par by comparison, losing to Mardy Fish (!!!), Roddick (!!!!!!!!!!), Stepanek (on clay!), Simon, Karlovic, Blake, etc...

And I think it's very obvious, without having to go through them year by year, that he was never close to his 2006 level between 2009 and 2016, which leaves us with 2017. I don't think anyone here would seriously argue that a 35 year old Federer was playing as well as his 24 year old self.

So yeah, I understand that at first glance, it's difficult to believe that statement that he hasn't played as well as he did in 2006 since, but once it's laid-out, it becomes pretty easy to acknowledge.

 

[DarthFed]

2006 was the highest level of tennis I've ever seen. He also lost 5 matches the entire year, 4 of them to Nadal (3 on clay, and one in the final of Dubai). The fifth loss was a weird one at Cinci to Andy Murray (who was still young and hadn't become a top player yet). That's absurd. Only two players beat him the entire year, one of them beat him 4 times alone, 3 of those losses coming on clay, and he happens to be the clay GOAT. So he lost 2 matches outside of clay. But it's not just the results, it's the level of tennis on display. He was flat out unplayable. He legitimately barely had any close matches in all of his wins. Speaking strictly from memory, he reached 4 major finals, won 3 of them, and didn't go a fifth set once. That's beyond ridiculous.

With that in mind, it's actually very easy to tell he's never been at that level since. 2007 was a very obvious drop off: He lost to the likes of Canas (twice), Volandri, Nalbandian (twice) and Gonzalez (a guy he never loses to).

2008 was also way below par by comparison, losing to Mardy Fish (!!!), Roddick (!!!!!!!!!!), Stepanek (on clay!), Simon, Karlovic, Blake, etc...

And I think it's very obvious, without having to go through them year by year, that he was never close to his 2006 level between 2009 and 2016, which leaves us with 2017. I don't think anyone here would seriously argue that a 35 year old Federer was playing as well as his 24 year old self.

So yeah, I understand that at first glance, it's difficult to believe that statement that he hasn't played as well as he did in 2006 since, but once it's laid-out, it becomes pretty easy to acknowledge.

He had two pretty bad tournaments in 2006 that he pulled off. In Australia that year he went 5 with Haas in the 4th round after winning the first two sets and then played pretty crappy the rest of the way winning messy 4 set matches. The other was Toronto that year when he played 3 or 4 straight tight three set matches to win the title and then he lost to Murray in the 2nd round the following week. It was probably a good thing.

 

[Moxie]

I'm going to respond to a couple of things from of the discussion from the Gerry Weber thread on this thread. In response to this from @Federberg:

"I can 100% state that my issues with Rafa have been less with him (apart from some of the on court antics) and more with his excuse making fans. I do not find his style particularly engaging unless he's playing against someone interesting (I feel the same way about Murray by the way). I find it hilarious that some Rafa fans try to imply that Fed fans have some sort of inferiority complex where Rafa is concerned. I can honestly state that at no time have I felt anything other than casual superiority on behalf of Roger towards Rafa. I've always felt those types of comments - H2H etc - are the last resort of folks trying to keep Rafa in the conversation"

---It seems like Roger and Rafa get along fine, and the squabbling is all between Fed and Rafie camps. But that's what we're here for! I don't think that Fed fans have an inferiority complex. Just that some spend a lot of time slagging Rafa off and and belittling his accomplishments because they fear that he can win the GOAT battle or muddy the waters. (You need only read a few posts from the last few days to see that.) And surely Feddies have been guilty of some excuse-making as well. (Mono, longer than was seemly, and his back. I'm not saying these things didn't influence his play, but please give some credence to the same for Nadal. It's not like he hasn't been the more injured of the two across his career.) And it may have escaped your notice, but Nadal IS still in the conversation, what with trading #1 all year with Roger, and just getting his #17. He's got Darth scared.

 

[Moxie]

In response to @DarthFed from the same thread...two posts:

"Hah sure, it's all about the fact he has beaten Roger the invincible. Please, I place that at Roger's doorstep, and the fact that Roger has taken him to the woodshed a lot in his mid-30's is proof that he was pathetic in regards to Nadal early on in their careers. Losing to that dude on grass and other fast courts shouldn't even have been a 1 out of 20 proposition and yet Roger managed to donate a few wins.

For those who strongly prefer Roger's style of play it shouldn't offend you that they don't love Rafa's."

---Roger has beaten Rafa the last 5 times they played, and the only ones since Roger turned 30. The first 2 of those were tight. The last 3 were comprehensive, but not really "a lot." It only proves to you that Roger was pathetic earlier in their careers. It also proves that Rafa is older, and those wins on better surface for Roger. Sure, he's gotten more aggressive on the bh. Nadal will adjust. It is just rude of you to say that Roger has "donated wins," but that's you. I don't mind if you prefer Roger's style of play, though I'm surprised at how little appreciation you have for Rafa's. And I really could do without the rudest words you use for him. (Like "twat.") But I'm used to that, too, even though I think it signals your worries about the guy.

"My expectation is that he ends up with more slams than a guy he has much more talent than. Not unrealistic whatsoever especially when it's a couple special ed losses that have made this a race. Anyways let's obey KS "

I don't think that Roger is "much more" talented than Rafa. They are both supernaturally talented. You just like the way that Roger plays better...you feel that if it looks fluid and easy it must be more natural, but Roger didn't just wake up at 16 and play like that. Work is still involved. You can call Nadal Mr. Blue Collar, but Roger puts in the hard yards, too. And both have a champion's mentality. Otherwise Roger'd be Dimitrov.

 

[Federberg]

Mono longer than seemly? You do realise it ended Soderlings career? Don’t make me face cover you again..

 

[brokenshoelace]

Roger fans don't have an inferiority complex. It's actually the other way around. They're mostly way too arrogant (about Roger I mean) to the point where many of them (I don't want to generalize too much) refuse to accept some losses just because Roger "isn't supposed to lose" to X or Y player at X or Y tournament (see anything from the so-called embarrassing loss to Nadal at Wimbledon, to Roger "underachieving" with a mere 20 slams, to recently, coming up with new narratives as to why Federer isn't as dominant on grass as Nadal is on clay, etc...). In fact, their arrogance is so huge that to even accept Roger losing, more than a few have blatantly accused chief Federer rivals of doping.

Rafa fans for their part, are probably the most defensive, overly dramatic fans out there by a long shot (see anything from the excuse-making to always being defensive about Nadal's time-wasting, to losing their shit if he overplays, etc...). There definitely is a curious need among Rafa fans to make cases for GOATness (even when they're pretending they're not), when clearly, as of now, there isn't one, or there's only a very weak one (I must say though, Roger fans gave Rafa fans a run for their money in terms of drama during Wimbledon last year with the whole "the courts are playing like clay" thing, and crying about a conspiracy to let Nadal win). When it comes to drama though, Jesus, Nadal fans are the worst, but I think it's gotten a bit better lately. But between 2009-2014, it was unbearable. Real forum OG's will remember a couple of Rafa fans losing their shit over Nadal allegedly hitting "18 holes of golf" which apparently affected his shoulder. They're really nuts about his schedule and every extra match he plays, and of course my favorite, the #FireUncleToni movement after every bad spell in his career.

Novak fans are the ones with the inferiority complex, who for years, couldn't accept that Novak wasn't as good as the other two, and once he finally dominated, they wanted to rush him to a historical pedestal he hadn't yet earned. Novak fans are also particularly insecure about questions of popularity and marketability.

 

[Moxie]

Mono longer than seemly? You do realise it ended Soderlings career? Don’t make me face cover you again..

Yes, please don't with the face-cover. Surely it's more condescending than I deserve here. It ended Soderling's and Ancic's, too. But clearly Roger's case was so mild it didn't prevent him from playing a single tournament that year. He played a full schedule. Obviously not so worrying even that the doctors didn't keep him from playing for fear of spleen rupture. I know you and other's have pointed at who he lost to, and you have said you think it prevented him from practicing efficiently. All possible things. To a point. But did it really drag out into Wimbledon, where he didn't drop a set until losing the final in 5? There is a poster here who claimed that he knew exactly which round of the USO when Roger's mono was gone. I know that it wasn't you, but, let's be honest...some really did drag it out.

 

[the AntiPusher]

In response to @DarthFed from the same thread...two posts:

"Hah sure, it's all about the fact he has beaten Roger the invincible. Please, I place that at Roger's doorstep, and the fact that Roger has taken him to the woodshed a lot in his mid-30's is proof that he was pathetic in regards to Nadal early on in their careers. Losing to that dude on grass and other fast courts shouldn't even have been a 1 out of 20 proposition and yet Roger managed to donate a few wins.

For those who strongly prefer Roger's style of play it shouldn't offend you that they don't love Rafa's."

---Roger has beaten Rafa the last 5 times they played, and the only once since Roger turned 30. The first 2 of those were tight. The last 3 were comprehensive, but not really "a lot." It only proves to you that Roger was pathetic earlier in their careers. It also proves that Rafa is older, and those wins on better surface for Roger. Sure, he's gotten more aggressive on the bh. Nadal will adjust. It is just rude of you to say that Roger has "donated wins," but that's you. I don't mind if you prefer Roger's style of play, though I'm surprised at how little appreciation you have for Rafa's. And I really could do without the rudest words you use for him. (Like "twat.") But I'm used to that, too, even though I think it signals your worries about the guy.

"My expectation is that he ends up with more slams than a guy he has much more talent than. Not unrealistic whatsoever especially when it's a couple special ed losses that have made this a race. Anyways let's obey KS "

I don't think that Roger is "much more" talented than Rafa. They are both supernaturally talented. You just like the way that Roger plays better...you feel that if it looks fluid and easy it must be more natural, but Roger didn't just wake up at 16 and play like that. Work is still involved. You can call Nadal Mr. Blue Collar, but Roger puts in the hard yards, too. And both have a champion's mentality. Otherwise Roger'd be Dimitrov.

Roger isn’t much more talented Rafa..I would compare it to MJ and Kobe..there’s not a damn thing MJ could do on the basketball court than Kobe..as a matter of fact , Kobe was able to perfect MJ’s turn around fade back jumper to the right..However Kobe took it to another level, Kobe perfected to the left side for his fade away..Getting back to Fedal, Roger has a better serve , that’s a no brained..Rafa is a better mover and can cover more court areas. Roger has a very excellent net game and Rafa has improved to one of the best volleyers in the game. I don’t give any credence to monied because he is limited in his tennis strategic knowledge but Darth you know better,.you don’t get a pass.,Darth, the reason you hate uncle Toni because he was the Architect of the masterplan that defeated Roger where he was deemed untouchable, the grass..That’s pure bullshit saying Rafa isn’t as talented, it takes talent to defeat Roger in his prime at Wimbledon. Rafa did it even before he reached his prime and it’s about damn time you and others acknowledge it.,Ask El Dude, he may not have Nadal as his preferred champion but he is brutally honest and fair, it’s an admirable trait my friend.

 

[Fiero425]

Roger fans don't have an inferiority complex. ……..

Novak fans are the ones with the inferiority complex, who for years, couldn't accept that Novak wasn't as good as the other two, and once he finally dominated, they wanted to rush him to a historical pedestal he hadn't yet earned. Novak fans are also particularly insecure about questions of popularity and marketability.

Not sure anyone has to be insecure about the popularity & marketability of Nole in comparison to Fedal! He's never been in the discussion, even when he was owning it like no other for a couple seasons! Like Navratilova before him as a reigning #1, the advertising dollars and adoration went somewhere else; mostly to Evert! There was no mistaking it and few had any illusions of why it was happening! Fedal was coined making it easier to bring in fans who didn't play the game; putting them up on a pedestal before they actually earned it as well! Their rivalry was supposed to be the talk of legend even though Roger was scratching to even beat Rafa on grass! I got caught up in it too; actually helping to make excuses for Roger not winning a match! Rafa made for an easy target with a hideously ugly game, gaming his opponents since he was a kid, made the world play at his speed, and to this day probably feels no shame in matches he may have actually stolen one way or another!

Funny Djokovic has a winning record over Fedal IIRC and got them in their prime when they owned the tour! Nole, like Lendl before him had to overcome the likes of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, & Wilander, and never got or will get the love! He's more settled and happy more than likely, so that hunger may have left him for the time being! He also has had his physical issues to overcome he finally exploded in 2011, winning just about everything! That wasn't enough, his 2015 season was even better taking 3 majors, 6 Masters (reached 8 of 8 finals), and capped it with a YEC! Owning the Nole-Slam sets him apart even though he'll probably wind up short in MAJORS! I can't imagine why I'd have an inferiority complex as evidenced by Homage to the Serb listed in the signature! I'm quite proud of him and will help to keep him in the discussion if only vicariously close to the inevitable GOATS! End RANT! o_O :sleep:

 

[Moxie]

I'm laughing at Broken's post. It is true that there were hysterics over the golfing, and calls for Toni to be pushed out. And not even just by Rafa fans, but the golfing was particularly controversial and amusing. I do think the days of complaining about injury are sort of behind us, about Nadal. That was a long time ago. The last controversy was AO '14 final v. Wawrinka. Since then, it's rather been Nadal against himself, or Nadal back. And lately, he's back. I don't know what's the opposite of "salad days," but these are those for Roger and Rafa. They are both coming into long on the tooth for tennis. Roger more so. I will be hoping that Rafa makes the most of his extra years.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Roger isn’t much more talented Rafa..I would compare it to MJ and Kobe..there’s not a damn thing MJ could do on the basketball court than Kobe..as a matter of fact , Kobe was able to perfect MJ’s turn around fade back jumper to the right..However Kobe took it to another level, Kobe perfected to the left side for his fade away..

Honestly this might be the worst analogy I've heard, because it fails on every level, including the content of the analogy itself (lol at Kobe taking things to another level).