Sure, "less frequently" at his best is a pulled punch, but it's still a bit laughable. From 2007? For a guy that won 9 Majors after that? Obviously, Roger dominated in those early years. I just have a hard time believing that he became that much less of himself in 2007, or even a little less. It comes off more as that his fans can't believe he stopped being "all that." But there were other factors at work. And one of them might be that what he was doing was unsustainable. We may never know, but that's a fair guess, as much as anything. So, fine, he slipped one bit down off of the mountaintop. Just because. Certainly, everyone can fall off of the highest peak, but it doesn't make you that much less of a player. I know you tend to keep it calm, but let's not pretend that someone like Darth wasn't willing to say that Roger was "terrible" in the 2008 Wimbledon final, for example. Speaking of Darth, I guess I'm the only one that remembers that he said that if Rafa ever tied Roger in the Slams race, that he, Darth, would stop posting on these forums, and he would give up on tennis. Sad for us, but I guess he was a man of his word. I don't think he's posted since the 2019 USO, and I have been paying attention.
That's too bad about Darth. Jeez, it is just a game - and we're not even the ones playing! Haha.
Again, it isn't black or white, either Roger became crap or was just as good as he'd been in 2004-07. But he
did become somewhat less than he'd been in 2004-07. I mean, the proof is in the pudding. And I'm sorry, Moxie, but it wasn't just--or even mainly--the Spanish Inquisition! More on that in a moment.
Sure, tennis players erode more slowly than baseball pitchers, if you like. I'll buy that. But you put Roger's decline so early, which I find a bit too early.
You misunderstand my position, I think, or at least over-simplify it if you think I'm saying "he declined so early." Players develop, peak, and decline in different ways. We can see that in the varied careers of Roger, Rafa, and Novak - or any player. There are general trends, but everyone follows their own unique path. Some players peak and then collapse, others maintain a high level for awhile, still others go up and down. Some are consistent, others more erratic.
With Roger, I think he spiked relatively early and maintained an absurd level for four years, probably the best four-year span of the Open Era. There might be something to what you said - that he was up so high that the only place to go was down, that no one could sustain that level for so long. I mean, Novak was as good or better in 2015 to early 2016, but then struggled with injury and overall level for almost two years before returning close to form in 2018 (although not quite what he was, I think - but close).
I think what happened starting for Roger in 2007, and then accelerating in 2008, was that he settled in at a lower plateau. It was still
prime Roger, but not
peak Roger. I don't know exactly what happened - whether he lost a half step in his movement, or whether it was more mental. Certainly Rafa's rise and win at the 2008 Wimbledon shook him, but the process had already started before that match.
But if was just, or even mostly, Rafa--and then Novak in 2011--then we wouldn't see his overall declined numbers against the field.
I'm not saying that he didn't have all the same abilities he had in 2004-07, just that he wasn't as effective at employing them. I do think his movement declined, although that was probably gradual, and slowed movement effects all aspects of a player's game. It could have been mostly mental, or a combination of factors, but the end result was that he started slipping a tiny bit in 2007, then a bit more in 2008, and he never quite climbed back up to the heights of 2004-07.
So Roger settled in at a plateau that was still great, still prime, but not quite what he had been for those four years. 2004-07 was Everest, K2 and Kangchenjunga, while 2008-18ish was the Himalayan Plateau. There were periods of time where he peaked, but nothing like 2004-07. And then starting in 2013, a further element of decline, as he would break down every few years: 2013, 2016, late 2019. He was able to bounce back in 2014 and 2017, although it is hard imagining him doing it in 2022, especially considering how long he's been off (he's played only six tournaments over the last two years).
Rafa's and Novak's career patterns are different, and "decline" has shown up for them in different ways.
I know it's because you are a fan, and you prize so much his top game, when he ruled the world. But, by the same token, you won't hear Kieran and me when we say that Rafa, with far more top years under his belt, got flummoxed by Novak, and didn't have the same level as in the past. What you do say is that they all have dropped level and picked it up again. But you should be fair to Nadal in the same way that you claim that Roger dropped his level. It IS a war of attrition, and Nadal has been the one with the most injuries. If 2011 was a year that he didn't expect the Serbian Inquisition, well, that was a year that he ran into a wall that he hadn't expected, and it did hit his confidence. IMO, 2008 was a year that Federer ran into the Spanish Inquisition, and it hit his confidence, too.
Ah, I see. You want to chalk Roger's dip in 2008 to Rafa? Well, here's the problem, Moxie. He was struggling that year before he ran into the "Spanish Inquisition," and losing to more players going back to 2007. Check out his record. And it continued after Wimbledon - he just wasn't as dominant.
If you look at the total picture of the year, he was losing a lot more matches than he had, especially in 2004-06 - and not just to Rafa. So either he wasn't quite as good as he'd been or the entire tour figured him out at the same time. Which is more likely?
It doesn't matter that he was fine against everyone else. You were watching tennis that year. Rafa got a puzzle out of Novak, all of a sudden, that he wasn't prepared for. The same thing happened to Roger with Rafa. Though I would say Rafa did a better job of solving Novak than Roger did of solving Rafa. Rafa did to Roger, in some sense, what Novak did to Rafa. In 2006, Roger only lost 5 matches, and 4 were to Nadal. (The other one was to Murray, btw.) And that was much earlier in the career of each. When Novak decided to gain a new level, Nadal was well into his career, and it was a shock to the system. I'm not 100% in the same camp as Kieran as to what happened to Nadal in 2011. I think that the slow eking out of Nadal's confidence took time. But I don't think it was just Djokovic's game that took him out of the W or USO. It think it was the attrition of confidence.
It isn't the same, as I've shown several times. Roger started losing to the field more in 2007, and it became even worse in 2008. He was still great, but he wasn't dominating everyone else like he had before. Rafa was playing against everyone except for Novak
exactly the same in 2010 and 2011. 69-10 in 2010, 69-9 in 2011. Meaning, the only difference between the two was going 0-6 vs Novak in 2011. This isn't the case in Roger's slippage from 2006 to 2008. It was across the board.
You know, one way in which I'd give the edge to Rafa over Roger is that he's been able to find his peak form more than Roger, after their respective best years. For Roger, he had that super high peak in 2004-07 and was still great afterwards, but he only rarely was able to reach those heights. That's why 2017 was so exciting - it was the best I'd seen Roger play since at least 2012, if not 2009. And as good as he was in 2017, he didn't sustain it for the entire year. He didn't play clay and only played 12 tournaments, winning 7 of them. It was the first time since 2007 that he won at least half the tournaments he played, and goes with 2004-06 as a season in which he won more than half.
Rafa, on the other hand, rose again and again, finding similar heights to his best for years after. But he's had a very different career, and is a very different player than Roger. He never quite had a season as good as Roger's best years, but I think he's risen to peak form more than Roger, at least spread out over a longer period. He's more Serena Williams to Roger's Steffi Graf. It is almost like they were given a similar quantity of greatness, but distributed it differently throughout their careers.
In some sense Novak combines the best of both. He's got that high plateau spread out over a long period of time, from 2011 onward, but also massive Rogerian spikes of utter dominance, and his 2015 season was probably the best in Open Era history, or at least since Laver in 1969. And then, of course, Novak crashed for almost two years, but rose again - but as great as he's been in 2018-21, he hasn't quite been as dominant as he was in 2015-16.
But I ramble and it is late!
