The BIG DEBATE: 2006vs2011

The DEBATE:

In which year did Fed face higher competition? As we are not debating about Federer's level in the respective years- but the competition he faced- I will now compare the players he has faced in each round of a slam- from Round 1 to the final. Even if he lost earlier than the final I would see his route if he had won- we are not judging him but WHO he faced/would have faced.

Aus Open: I will always state the 2006 player first then 2011- eg AO final: Baghdatis vs Djokovic
R1- Istomin vs Lacko- Lacko was ranked in the top 100 and ran Rafael Nadal very close in Doha a few weeks
before AO. Istomin meanwhile was not on great form- although he did have potential as we saw in his 2010 Queens display. Very close. DRAW
R2- Mayer vs Simon- the talented frenchman Giles Simon has a good baseline game and will look to try and break into the Top 10 next year. Mayer has improved a lot since 2006 when he was outside the Top 50. 2011
R3- Myrini vs Malisse- both were top 50 players at the time. Malisse came of a great performance in Chennai while Myrini was in indifferent form. 2011
R4- Haas vs Robredo- Haas was top 50 and definitely a tougher prospect. 2006
QF- Davydenko vs Wawrinka- The Swiss number 2 has no real chance of troubling Fed. Davydenko provided slightly more of a challenge. 2006
SF- Keifer vs Djokovic- 2011
F- Baghdatis vs Murray- (if he had reached 2011 final)- 2011
2011 4-2 2006

French Open:
R1- Hartfield vs Lopez- hartfield was outside the top 150 while Lopez ran fed close a few weeks before they played. 2011
R2- Falla vs Texeira- while Falla is potentially a dangerous player- Texeira was outside the top 150. Easy call. 2006
R3- Massu vs Tipsarevic- both were in Top 50 but Tipsarevic has a more dangerous game- he is now in the
Top 10. 2011
R4- Berdych vs Wawrinka- as shown in 2010 Wimby Berdych had the game to cause trouble to Fed, unlike the Swiss number 2. 2006.
QF- Ancic vs Monfils- monfils was top 10 at that time, unlike Ancic, and had a french crowd behind him. Its very tight though. DRAW
SF- Nalbandian vs Djokovic- No question, Djokovic was pre-tournament favourite- 2011
F- Nadal vs Nadal- Nadal has improved since 2006- 2011
2011 4-2 2006

Wimbledon:
R1- Gasquet vs Kukushin- Gasquet easily- 2006
R2-Henman vs mannarino- henman was former semi-finalist- 2006
R3- Mahut vs Nalbandian- Nalbandian has the shots to cause Fed trouble- 2011
R4- Berdych vs Youzhny- Berdych- who beat him in 2010- 2006
QF- Ancic vs Tsonga- Tsonga came in on good form with strong showing at Queens but Ancic was good on grass- tight call- 2011
SF- Bjorkman vs Djokovic- if he had got to the semi (remember what fed did is irrespective- we are judging it purely on his competition)- 2011
F- Nadal vs Nadal- Nadal improved by 2011 on grass- 2011
2011 4-3 2006

US Open:
R1- Wang vs Giraldo- Giraldo was top 60 player- unlike Wang- 2011
R2- Henman vs Sela- former number 4 was potentially dangerous- 2006
R3- Spadea vs Cillic- Cillic is a very dangerous player on his day- a tougher fixture- 2011
R4- Gicquel vs Monaco- Monaco ranked higher and more consistent- 2011
QF- Blake vs Tsonga- both very good attacking players- DRAW
SF- Davydenko vs Djokovic- no doubt- 2011
F- Roddick vs Nadal- Roddick had a lethal serve on a fast surface but Nadal is a better baseline player- DRAW
2011 4-1 2006

ALTOGETHER:
2011 16-8 2006
This means that 2011 was tougher/ more competition for Federer compared to 2006.

Remember! Fed's level of play and how the match turned out is irrelevant- its just his competition we are judging.
Fed might have improved/got worse but that is irrelevant. This is why I have continued his draw even when he exited!


Thankyou for reading
I hope you enjoyed the research

An easy multiple choice question I have for you guys:
Since 2006 Nadal, Murray and Djokovic are now a bigger threat- across all surfaces. Do you think Federer's competition in the latter stages of a Grand Slam (irrelevant of form) has got:
a)harder
b)easier
c)stayed the same

Pretty easy question- don't be a politician by answering vaguely at first and then expanding on some sidetrack- it's an easy multiple choice.
To help you with the question you can use my research above with the comparisons and also consider this: If Fed played the same level as he did this year in 2006; would he still have won 3 slams? I believe so, and therefore my question above is answered.

And remember; don't mention the word era, for now let's just compare 2011vs2006.
Thankyou

Sampras was beaten badly by those weak era guys you mentioned, so according to your theory Sampras era is weaker, and Sampras beat the 80's legends so badly, which means 80's is even more weaker, 80's legends beat 70's legend badly, which means 70's era the weakest.

Tomorrow when Nadal and Djokovic gets old some jack n Jill will come n beat them and hence this era will become weaker to the jack n jill era.

Hope you understand. n stop grinding the same batter again n again.

???
I'm comparing 2006 to 2011; never in the article have I mentioned 'weak era.'
Stay on topic please.

I think Tenez has already said that 2011 is a "stronger era". He argued that Federer is a better tennis player now (ranked 3/4) than he was in 2006 (when he was ranked 1 and undisputably so). Overend of the BBC came out with a blog apparently plagiarising exactly what Tenez said: Overend's Blog.

Tenez explains this stronger era not in terms of an improvement in "skill and variety" but in terms of an increase in "physical play" which acts to depress the "skill and variety level". So Tenez' argument is that although todays era is "stronger" for overall tennis play it is "weaker" for "skill and variety". This is why he says that although Federer is better today than in 2006, he has difficulty overcoming (or is unable to overcome) the "physical play" of Nadal and Djokovic.

While some enjoy this new more physical style of play (with its predominance of baseline rallying) others bemoan the loss of the serve and volley game as well as what they perceive to be a depression in "skill and variety". It is those latter people that look back fondly to what they perceive to have been a more skillful and attack minded era of Tim Henman, Federer and Sampras etc, where "risky" play was better "rewarded".

Anyway that is how I understand Tenez argument. Separate to this, the "4+7" points of the Our Great Era Debunked thread do not show that the US Open conditions have slowed from 2006 to 2011. I showed that using the same assumptions one could get the opposite conclusion to that determined in the OP. Of course, what those 4+7 points actually show (if they show anything) is that there has been no change in overall "speed" conditions of the "court" between 2006 and 2011 as I mentioned in my pre Christmas comment ...

Nore Staat (22nd Dec 2011 5:27 am) wrote: ... However, it is in fact possible to reanalyse those 4+7 points given in the OP on their own, in a less simplistic manner to show an interesting consistency that doesn’t require any difference of condition at all between 2006 and 2011 (in support of Lydians view). I wonder if anyone can spot what I mean, it should take only a cursory glance at the original data ...

However, it does seem that there has been an increase in the time taken to win an individual point (on average) between 2006 and 2011 - mainly because there is more baseline rallying in the "modern" game.

Thanks for the feedback Nore Staat

What did your think of the comparisons?

I'm pretty sure that this information shows that there was a tougher level of competition for federer in 2011. However we shouldn't start talking about 'era' yet- just these 2 years.
If anyone can see a mistake I have made in the comparisons, feel free to point it out.

NS - This is good summary of my view and clearly of the difference between those eras...bar......those stats you have not quite assimilated. I believe even Lydian understands what they mean.

A ball going back and forth between 2 2006 players in less time than between 2 players in 2011 shows that the game was played at a faster rhythm then than now. There is no going around that.

The question is is that due to faster conditions or down to the players. My view is both. Faster conds favoured the faster(quick hands) players...no different than clay always favoured the physical players.

I think it's the players. Djokovic and nadal are baseliners; and if they both reached their peak in 2006 they could have also played matches in the latter stages of Grand Slams- these would have long rallies too.

R3- Myrini vs Malisse- both were top 50 players at the time. Malisse came of a great performance in Chennai while Myrini was in indifferent form. 2011
-------------
In what sense was Myrini in indifferent form - the same sort of form Goran was in at Queen's before he then went and won Wimby?
Maybe Myrini played particularly well in that 2006 AO, Maybe Malisse played a stinker that day in 2011.
I just don't see how you can view 2 performances/players 5 years apart, having, I assume, not recently seen both matches, and arrive at 'THE TRUTH'.

Before the Aus Open mallise got to the final of the Chennai Open and was on good form.
Meanwhile, in contrast, miryni exited the first round of Doha against moodie and played poorly in the first few rounds of aus open, going to 5 sets in R1 to a player outside the top 90.
Remember the match itself has to be ignored, as Feds form couldvhave fluctuated and we have to keep this a fair test.

Are there any more you would like me to explain?
The mallisse vs miryni was quite easy, considering mallisse had just reached the final if chennai a few weeks earlier and miryni was playing poorly lost round 1 Doha.

2006 was a weak year for tennis.
2003-2007 was a weak era for tennis.
There! I said it. I used to have time for weak era debates. Now a short statement of the irrefutable facts above will do.

That's OK S_A but we need evidence. I'm not sure saying something is irrefutable makes it so.
Anyway let's NOT mention the word ERA any more, that's for another day.
For now I have provided evidence that there was tougher competition in 2011 for federer.
If anyone wants to challenge any of my calls, I can always explain.

amritia3ee wrote:Are there any more you would like me to explain?
The mallisse vs miryni was quite easy, considering mallisse had just reached the final if chennai a few weeks earlier and miryni was playing poorly lost round 1 Doha.

I'd like you to explain how you know, for a fact, that Miryni on that day on 2006 played worse than Malisse on the other day in 2011. You've simply made assumptions, taken indications, then from that stated that something is 'true'. I think that method is unsound. You'd need to watch the matches for a proper evaluation.

i have watched the respective matches, no worries. But also I made sure I did not want Fed's fluctuating form to get in the way of my analysis, hence I judged it more on who would have more potential to cause harm to Federer.

Then perhaps the article should be entitled 'The Potential Truth' - it would seem to be a more accurate description.

Well if I analysed the actual results then, of course 2011 would seem much harder than 2006 as Fed did much worse. But then Fed's fans would have argued that his form has changed so I did the player's 'potential' to beat Federer.
Comprende?
Any more questions on the format by PM please
On article you can discuss the actual comparisons and see whether there are any tight ones.

i thought Monfils vs Ancic was a close one. i gave it a tie, but at home and on clay I am now beginning to think Monfils would be a tougher prospect..
And what about Dabydenko Wawrinka- i gave it to 2006; even though they both have poor records.

And then suddenly, out of no where, 2006 is now being hailed as a year of great tennis skills and variety on this board. Hilarious the amount of rubbish that is peddled here on daily basis by people who apparently have "knowledge "about tennis. I say it as i see.

Infact looking at one slam final for easy assessment in 2006 compared to 2011, it's even a joke to suggest such a thing. For example, Federer vs Roddick USO 2006 and Djokovic vs Nadal USO 2011. Where exactly was the skill level and variety higher? The 2006 match could have been a mirror image of the 2011 one except Roddick's inability to construct a point carefully in rallies and his lack of defensive skills not to mention his poor skill level in returning of serves. Infact look at the return games won in 2006 and see where Roddick ranks on hard court for easy comparison: 35th. Any advantage he gets by winning a point cheaply with an ace on his serve is immediately surrended by his inability to return.

What exactly were they doing in that 2006 finals that showed greater skills than 2011? Serve and Volleying? I can' remember any of note. Coming to the net often? Well i remembered both players committing themselves forward on various approach shots and ending in disaster as they got passed with ease. Was the volleying better? Not a chance and Nadal and Djokovic 2011 had a better net conversion rate than Federer and Roddick at the USO 2006. Could Roddick outserve Nadal and Djokovic, yes but if that was the skill and variety, then tennis was really in trouble then. At least now you have to know how to play proper tennis instead of how to only serve. It must be said Federer at least was better at the things i mentioned Roddick wasn't good at.

I find it hard to see what exactly coined the recent 2006 "skills theory".
What we have in this current era are players who are able to do almost everything and better than most of those weak era comedians. They can attack, defend, serve, volley, engage in rallies, return serves etc

Yes great analysis Simple Analyst.
However i do feel that serving was stronger in 2006; apart from that 2011 is better for me.

As for my article the only comparison people have been able to question was malisse vs Miryni. which is ridiculous as maliise did very well in chennai a few weeks before AO 2011and Miryni lost first round Doha to the world number 83- pretty obvious who was on better form.

Infact with such a one-sided 16-8 its clearer than ever that it was harder for Federer to win 4 grand slams in 2011 compared to 2006 (irrelevant of his form).

amritia3ee wrote:As for my article the only comparison people have been able to question was malisse vs Miryni. which is ridiculous as maliise did very well in chennai a few weeks before AO 2011and Miryni lost first round Doha to the world number 83- pretty obvious who was on better form.

Miryni vs Malisse was the only one I chose to question, I don't really care enough about 2006 vs 2011 to watch every match you've listed in order to make accurate comparisons. Fair play to you if you've done that.
Form going into a tournament is not necessarily a good indication of how a player will perform in that tournament - see Goran at Queen's vs Wimby 2001 as one of many examples. Call me ridiculous if you want, but I'd prefer a more mature discussion.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Form going into a tournament is not necessarily a good indication of how a player will perform in that tournament - see Goran at Queen's vs Wimby 2001 as one of many examples.

I have not just considered form, also how dangerous he could be on his day. eg Goran had a big serve so I would see him as a potential threat to Fed- as he could serve brilliantly and cause problems.

JuliusHMarx wrote: Call me ridiculous if you want, but I'd prefer a more mature discussion.

Well you yourself have debated this topic with me for a long time now; of course as soon as I bring real detailed in-depth match by match analysis to the table it's easy for you to quickly say that.
It's a bit like what Tipsarevic did in the Eastbourne 2011 final v Seppi.

amritia3ee wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote: Call me ridiculous if you want, but I'd prefer a more mature discussion.

Well you yourself have debated this topic with me for a long time now; of course as soon as I bring real detailed in-depth match by match analysis to the table it's easy for you to quickly say that.
It's a bit like what Tipsarevic did in the Eastbourne 2011 final v Seppi.

I was simply saying 'Form going into a tournament is not necessarily and indication of, and certainly not proof of, performance during a tournament'. That argument was described as 'ridiculous'. a) I really don't think it is ridiculous and have provided one example, of many, why. b) even if it was ridiculous, there are other ways of wording it. which would lead to and not .
If you're lucky you might even get a - LF apparently thinks I'm some sort of Casanova(!)

I didn't call you ridiculous- you called yourself ridiculous.

Edit: Well you said 'call me ridiculous if you want.'

JuliusHMarx wrote: LF apparently thinks I'm some sort of Casanova(!)

The uprising of Poles in Poznan June of 1956 led me to that conclusion.

I'll be honest, I don't know what you guys mean by that..

Isn't it a coincidence that the same people who were arguing against the theory yesterday are now randomly talking about Poland under Stalin in the face of in-depth analysis.

"The debate rages on the shores of 606v2 with no end in sight"
by which you mean
"I continue writing new articles on the same topic and personally prolonging it"
To be honest it is an interesting article, although there is an element of done to death and could have been added to the original article and made it one really good debate which could have been referenced as a single link instead of splintering it up.

Henman Bill wrote:
To be honest it is an interesting article.

Thankyou HB

Anyway I will continue in this article now:
I believe there are two reasons a player can do better in one year compared to another in ANY sport:
-He himself has got worse
-The opposing players have improved.

It is normally always a bit of both. What is interesting is finding the balance:
I believe it is: 35% he has declined; 65% others have improved.

Many Federer fans try to take the credit away from the likes of Nadal and Djokovic, who have worked really hard to improve since 2006, by saying: 'It is all based on Federer. (aka 100%-0%)'
In this case they are giving no credit to the likes of Nadal. Basically they are saying Nadal and Djokovic are really just as bad as Blake and co, its just that Federer is allowing them to win as his level as dipped.
However based on evidence this allegation is proved to be wrong, firstly this very balanced article does a match by match analysis which has proved that the competition has increased so at-least some credit can be given to the new players. Secondly, and very tellingly, Nadal got his first win over Federer in their first match (but the likes of Blake and Roddick struggled in the same time period), however in Grand Slams he could only harm Fed at RG. Now he is more accustomed to other courts he can harm Fed in other Grand Slams, and Federer's results are not as good. Surely this can't be a complete coincidence? Of course I do believe Federer's level has decreased too, not his shot making but sometimes he has lapses more frequently which are very costly.


So what do you guys think? Do the likes of Nadal and Djokovic deserve any credit for making life harder for Federer. Or is it just that Fed has allowed them to?
I will be interested to hear what the Fed fans have to say. In my past article where I was just using hypothetical theories and ideas they hit back very well; however when I have produced a fact based article they have not really been able to disprove any of my points.

I have added that last comment to the article

Will be interesting to hear what the v2ers have to think, especially Federer fans; does Nadal,Djoko deserve credit for making it harder for Fed. Or no?

Hold on - you have got that backward. Re read what you wrote. A player can do better if he gets worse. Edit your second last comment and original article.

I think we have to ignore semi finals because of Federer's different seeding. I also want to ignore matches he didn't actually play.

Had a look through the matches and it's too close to call for me.
Australian Open I would go with 2011 2-1 victory (Simon, Malisse - Davydenko) and Malisse is debatable.
French Open I can't call any of those. Hard to say. 0-0.
Wimbledon 2006 3-2 victory. (Gasquet, Henman, Berdych - Nalbandian, Tsonga).
US Open 1-1 Henman and Cilic are the only ones.
Overall that's a tie.
Conclusion: The strength in depth of the draws outside the top 4 players was broadly similar.

I haven't added the semis in because Federer was seeded differently and it wouldn't be fair, but I do think Federer's competition in fellow top 4 members is definately harder now.

Henman Bill wrote:but I do think Federer's competition in fellow top 4 members is definately harder now.

Yes but thats the most important few matches! It's where Grand Slams are won and lost.

amritia3ee wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:but I do think Federer's competition in fellow top 4 members is definately harder now.

Yes but thats the most important few matches! It's where Grand Slams are won and lost.

Interestingly Pete Sampras won 6 of his 14 slams without playing anyone in the top 4.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:but I do think Federer's competition in fellow top 4 members is definately harder now.

Yes but thats the most important few matches! It's where Grand Slams are won and lost.

Interestingly Pete Sampras won 6 of his 14 slams without playing anyone in the top 4.

Yes, I rate Federer higher than Sampras. Anyway that's a debate for another day.
What do you think?

amritia3ee wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:but I do think Federer's competition in fellow top 4 members is definately harder now.

Yes but thats the most important few matches! It's where Grand Slams are won and lost.

Interestingly Pete Sampras won 6 of his 14 slams without playing anyone in the top 4.

Yes, I rate Federer higher than Sampras. Anyway that's a debate for another day.
What do you think?

I don't see a need to rate either one higher than the other. It's probably not even wise to try.

No I meant what do you think on my question on the article.

FO/RG (since 1991)

1991 - SF Courier (#9) - Stich (#12); Agassi (#2) - Becker (#2); F - Courier - Agassi (#9 vs #4).

1992 - SF - Courier (#1) - Agassi (#11); Leconte (WC) - Korda (#7); F - Courier - Korda (#1 vs. #7).

1993 - SF - Bruguera (#10) - Medvedev (#11); Krajicek (#12) - Courier (#2); F - Bruguera - Courier (#10 vs. #2)

1994 - SF - Courier (#6) - Bruguera (#6); Berasategui - Larsson; F - Bruguera - Berasategui (#6 vs. Unseeded)

1995 - SF - Kafelnikov (#9) - Muster (#5), Chang (#6) - Bruguera (#7); F Muster - Chang (#5 vs. #6)

1996 - SF - Sampras (#1) - Kafelnikov (#6); Rosset (#14) - Stich (#15); F - Kafelnikov - Stich (#6 vs. #15)

1997 - SF - Kuerten - Dewulf; Rafter - Bruguera (#16); F Kuerten - Bruguera (Unseeded vs. #16)

1998 - SF - Mantilla (#15) - Moya (#12); Corretja (#14) - Pioline; F - Moya - Corretja (#12 vs. #14)

1999 - SF - Hrbaty - Agassi (#13); Meligeni - Medvedev; F - Agassi - Medvedev (#13 vs. Unseeded)

2000 - SF - Squillari - Norman (#3); Kuerten (#5) - Ferrero (#16); F - Norman - Kuerten (#3 vs. #5)

2001 - SF - Kuerten (#1) - Ferrero (#4); Grosjean (#10) - Corretja (#13); F - Kuerten - Corretja (#1 vs. #13)

2002 - SF - Costa (#20) - Corretja (#18); Ferrero (#11) - Safin (#2); F - Costa - Ferrero (#20 vs. #11)

2003 - SF - Costa (#9) - Ferrero (#3); Verkerk - Coria (#7); F - Ferrero - Verkerk (#3 vs. Unseeded)

2004 - SF - Nalbandian (#8) - Gaudio; Coria (#3) - Henman (#9); F - Gaudio - Coria (Unseeded vs. #3)

2005-2011 - To be added.

That's all well and good Laverfan, but what do you think is the main reason for Feds decline.
I have 65-35 to the improvement of other players- whats your view.?

This was discussed to death just a few weks ago. Just about everyone on the board at the time contributed. I don't think anyone has the energy to go through it all again.


https://www.606v2.com/t14760-was-federer-better-in-2006-poll-added

Enjoy the read.

Amritia, I've pasted a couple of my responses from that debate below to save you the effort of trauling through it.

---------------------------------------------------

Are you and Wilander the same person by any chance? You two must be the only two people in the world who think Fed is a better player than he used to be in his heyday; and we all know Wilander has never been the biggest fan of Roger. How many players have been better at age 30 than at age 25? Not many, especially a player like Fed who has so much mileage.

Your choice of match was a poor one, considering the wind on that day. Also Nadal has always made Fed look bad because of the match up.

Fed was a better player then because of one main reason which effects his entire game: movement.

He was faster and had better footwork.

Thus his defense was better

His FH was more explosive, and he was better able to get into position to hit the inside out and dtl FH. He could also protect his BH better for the same reason. Overall he was more offensive with his FH.

He made fewer unforced errors, less shanks, again because he was in position earlier to execute. Just have a look at some of the UE stats for his matches in that period. Sometimes he'd go whole matches with just 10 UE; nowadays if he makes 10 UE's in a set it's considered to be a 'clean' set.

His volleys and net game was more deft.

His transition game was better.

He had better stamina.

He was more clutch on the big points, ie mentally stronger.

Of course, his consistency week in, week out was also better.

His serve has improved (but declined from 2009 when it was at it's peak) and he's added a FH drop shot; they're about the only improvements that I can see from 2006.

Of course at times he can play on a level similar to 2006, but overall he has clearly declined.


Just a few matches from that period (and there are many to choose from). You can see how much sharper he was back then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XOBP3N1ejc&feature=related v Nalby Masters Cup 2005

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqG-PpP7H0s v Gasquet W 2006 (note his BH)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ikx0Du735Y V Roddick AUS 07 (note the FH and movement)

------------------------------------

It is a truism that a 30yr old, by the law of averages, is not going to be as fast, as fit, or as athletically gifted as a 25yr old. There are some exceptions to this general rule and all of the examples that you stated are merely that. The history of tennis bears this out. There have been very few slam winners or world number ones after the age of 30. The VAST majority of players peak around their early to mid twenties.

With regards to Fed 'dismissing his contemporaries with more ease than he used to', then you need to provide some objective evidence of this. From my own subjective memory, I recall Federer beating Davy, Hewitt, and Soderling for more than 10 consecutive matches each, spanning over 2003-2009 (I'm sure someone can pull out the exact stats) before finally losing to all three of them in 2010. Does that sound like a guy who's dealing better now with players that he used to own? In any case, even if it is true that he is dismissing his contemporaries with more ease than previously, surely that is just an indication of their further decline relative to his? Furthermore, it used to be a huge shock to see Roger lose to anyone other than Rafa on clay, yet the current Federer is losing to every man and his dog, as well as Fish (the tennis player).

Did Fed used to lose to the likes of Berdych, Soderling and Tsonga in slams from 04-09? No.

I agree with Chazfazzer that Federer does not handle Nadal any better than he used to in 2006. Up until the start of 2008 the H2H was 8-6 to Rafa. It is now 17-8, ie Roger has managed just 2 wins in 11 encounters and even one of those was after Rafa had played almost 4 hours the previous day against Novak. During 06 and 07 Roger was actually starting to even up the H2H, after a pretty abysmal start (I think Rafa won 5 of their first 6 encounters, leading up to W 2006). Does this sound like Roger is handling Rafa better than he used to? To me it sounds like Rafa jumped off to an early lead with his clay wins, Roger clawed some ground back because he was still better on the other surfaces, but now Rafa has drawn further away and overtaken Roger on all surfaces.

If your ultimate arguement is that Roger is a more complete player than he used to be in terms of his ability to execute when he is in position and has time, in terms of his technique, his nous on a tennis court, then I think there may be some merit in that, although I still believe that to be highly debatable. However, real pro tennis is not some fantasy world where 'craft' alone is the determinant in deciding whether a player has improved or declined. In reality, the physical aspects of the sport are actually more important than a subjective (none of us are presumably tennis coaches) interpretation of whether a given player (in this case Federer) hits his BH or FH with more technical proficiency than he used to, with the ball on his racket. In those physical aspects Federer has clearly declined and a physical decline in modern tennis, imo, will affect performance level more than any minute technical improvements. To put it simply, what is the point of having a slightly more beautiful or technically better BH if you are not in position to hit it correctly? Hence overall, Federer today, as a top level performer is most definitely inferior to the Federer of 2006.



emancipator.

-------------------------------------------

I don't see the point in the early round comparisons. Fed walked through those matches back then just as he does now. Besides one significantly difficult match in say a semi has much more effect than a few slightly easier matches at the beginning.

You haven't taken into account the extent to which matches are more difficult. If we're looking at AUS 2006 for the first 4 rounds, the first 3 rounds may have been marginally more difficult in 2011 than their 2006 counterparts but then playing Haas in round 4 might have been way more difficult relative to playing Robredo than say the previous rounds were with the same comparison. Nevertheless 1 point to 2006 for round 4 and 2 points to 2011 for rounds 2 and 3 so 2011 is winning after 4 rounds even though in reality the Haas match may have been tougher than all the other previous ones combined.

amritia3ee wrote:That's all well and good Laverfan, but what do you think is the main reason for Feds decline.
I have 65-35 to the improvement of other players- whats your view.?

Natural progression is the order of the day. Decline is a very subjective state, and, as Emancipator points out, regurgitating the same debate will not change it significantly.

I have yet to find a player who can maintain consistency across many years.

Rosewall grew up in the so-called 'gentle' era and managed to play Top class tennis for 20+ years. IIRC, he was in Top 10 for 12 years.

Federer has been in Top 10 for 9+ years (Oct, 2002). Nadal has been in Top 10 for 6+ years (Apr, 2005).

Let us see what Djokovic can do.

This is all good but none of you have answered this question, the main one:
What is you percentage; as i said mine is 65-35 opposing players; what is your view on that.

Not really sure... 70-30 Fed. The Fed of 2006 would have won this years US open and perhaps more. Conditions don't really favour his game anymore anyhow so it's hard to tell how much better old Fed would fair today but with his better movement he might still have been able to pull it off.

What I will say, Federer is showing glimpses of the form of 2004/07. If he can up the consistency which he has showed at the back end of 2011, why can't he win 2-3 Slams in 2012.

I like your thinking LK and I don't mind getting my hopes up year after year.

Well the BH is looking solid. Since 2009 it has become progressively worse, but has looked more solid since Wimbledon. The net play is looking tight and his serve more importantly looking it's best since 2009. I just hope he doesn't centre his focus on the Olympics.

I shall visit me bookies to look at some very tasty offers they have. I think a Federer slam double will look a tasty bet.