The BIG DEBATE: 2006vs2011

First topic message reminder :

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.

Simple wrote:Time Please, you started well and went horrible wrong at the end

Ok - I'm bored today, so I've got some time:

Firstly you are too gracious to say that I began well - ta muchly! Secondly I think you will find that 'horrible' is an adverb in this sentence and so should actually be 'horribly'. Thank you for your invitation to re compose my piece but I don't think it is particularly difficult to grasp my drift, n'est ce pas?

to legend - thanks. I think it is perfectly acceptable when looking at a match result to maybe insert a caveat (I could use several racing analogies here like I might change my bet if the ground is good to firm and I know the horse with the outstanding record over that distance likes it soft) and that is entirely different from an excuse.
However, I must draw the line at Simple having the same privilege

legendkillar wrote:achievements alone just make quite remarkable and stunning.

Like you said about Hamburg like I did, individual battles won and lost does not paint the full picture of what they achieved. I think Tenez was more than harsh for being highly critical of his results when he was merely 17.

What makes you think I wasd highly critical? I was just saying we can't look at this period to see whether Nadal could be successful taking the ball earlier. He did well for a 17yo but he did not achieve much in 2004. His main achievement was to beat Federer but we have to consider the circumstances too.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Lets get to this point right away before i read the rest of your post. Federer has always had great difficulty beating Nadal on out door hard courts and the last time i checked, the USO was played on that. He should actually count himself lucky Nadal did not start making USO finals from 2006 as well or he would have had a maximum 3 USO trophies.

There's no luck involved. Fed had no say over who his opponent in the final was. Rafa did have a say over who could play Fed in the final, but lost out to other players, who then lost out to Fed. If ever there was an example of why H2H is only a small factor in tennis, the USO of 2006 - 2008 is it.

Even if Rafa was good enough to beat Fed outdoors every time, it counts for nothing if he couldn't progress far enough in the tournament to get to play Fed. That doesn't come down to luck.

Julius again writing a post of little substance. Federer has made 6 USO finals Nadal wasn't involved in. Nadal has made 2 Federer wasn't involved in, what's the point here? Facts are facts. Federer couldn't get the better of Nadal on outdoor hard courts since he was 17 years old so how was he ever going to beat him at the USO? We saw again what happened at the AO 09 even Nadal had barely 19 hours rest after his gruelling semi finals against Verdasco. All this point to one thing. Almost every time they met on out door hard courts, Nadal has his number. So suddenly that would have changed at the USO? My sides. What happened at the AO then? I thought that was a slam so it counts for something? Julius?

Julius - if you are there, come away now........into the light and and out of this dense fog.

time please wrote:

Simple wrote:Time Please, you started well and went horrible wrong at the end

Ok - I'm bored today, so I've got some time:

Firstly you are too gracious to say that I began well - ta muchly! Secondly I think you will find that 'horrible' is an adverb in this sentence and so should actually be 'horribly'. Thank you for your invitation to re compose my piece but I don't think it is particularly difficult to grasp my drift, n'est ce pas?

to legend - thanks. I think it is perfectly acceptable when looking at a match result to maybe insert a caveat (I could use several racing analogies here like I might change my bet if the ground is good to firm and I know the horse with the outstanding record over that distance likes it soft) and that is entirely different from an excuse.
However, I must draw the line at Simple having the same privilege

You see we are all good at something. You clearly are good at correcting grammartical errors. Not too sure you are good at any thing tennis related though.

My point, S_A, is in my post. I could write the whole thing out again if you want, or you could just re-read it.
It's no good being a 'better' player than someone if you're not good enough to get to the stage where you can play him. The record books don't state 'Winner - Player A (but would have lost to Player B if Player B hadn't lost to someone else first, although Player C might have beaten Player B, if Player A hadn't beaten him in the semis and Player D had a cold)'
Rafa contested those USO's and lost. Fed contested them and won.

Simple wrote:You see we are all good at something. You clearly are good at correcting grammartical errors. Not too sure you are good at any thing tennis related though.

TP: 'yes I am!'

Simple 'oh no you're not!'

TP: 'oh yes, I am'

Simple 'oh NO, you're not'

TP ' look out - he's behind you!'

Simple:

Thank you for reading 'A Cautionary Tale' by TP

Julius so what happened when Nadal made the hc slam final Federer was in? So you think Federer would have beaten Nadal at the USO finals of 06 and above? Using USO 06 as a starting point as that was when Nadal made is other finals on grass, they met on out door hard court 3 times prior to that and Nadal won 2 so what's the indication Federer would suddenly start getting the better of him?

Simple - why don't you apply for a job in the archives where all these illustrious wins and major triumphs will be recorded for posterity......then you can add your own 'what ifs' for future generation's enlightenment.....

the point is - is that it is irrelevant and no-one will care in 10 years.


(Laver - is there a paint by numbers facility on here for special people?)

time please, you are sounding like a cross breed between Emancipator and Josiah. The former known for writing non sensible comments and the latter for being consistently ignorant.

S_A either you're clearly missing my obvious point, or you understand it but are desparately trying not to acknowledge it.

When both Fed and Rafa entered the USO 2006 - 2008, which one won the tournament?
Because winning the tournament is the only thing that matters, not 'who would have won it if.....?'.
Saying 'this happened, so this probably would have happened' is speculation. Saying 'this happened, full stop' is stating a fact.

I can only indulge you so far S_A, before even my Dalai Lama-like patience wears thin.

He's right though.

As the great poet Byron once wrote:

'Shoulda woulda coulda are the last words of a tool'

Or was it Beverley Knight? One of the two anyways, both great in their respective fields.

Well i do know what happened when the met in their only out door hc slam meeting, do you?

Last time i checked being lucky is not a bad thing and i only said Federer was lucky.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius so what happened when Nadal made the hc slam final Federer was in? So you think Federer would have beaten Nadal at the USO finals of 06 and above? Using USO 06 as a starting point as that was when Nadal made is other finals on grass, they met on out door hard court 3 times prior to that and Nadal won 2 so what's the indication Federer would suddenly start getting the better of him?

So by definition you stating that 3 matches is a good measuring stick, Does that mean Davydenko owns Nadal on the Hard stuff boasting a 6-1 record?

Lucky that Rafa wasn't good enough to get the the final? I.e. lucky enough to actually be the best player at the US Open i.e. the winner - the only one good enough to win 7 matches?
In other words, not lucky at all. Glad we agree.

You shoudl look at Nadal playing on HC outdoors today v GremelMayer.

What a terrible tennis. Let's see who wins this tournament but if Nadal wins v Federer there, I'll shut up for ever. It's the easiest draw Nadal could dream off, yet he is making such a mess of it. Unfortunately for Fed he has a tough semi v Tsonga and that might affect his form in the final.

You're doing Rafa an injustice by making out his only claim to fame is beating Fed. Yeah sure he could beat Fed whenever but it wasn't until the Blakes, Roddicks and Gonzales started slowing down that he managed to succeed at the US open.

It was not until they slowed down the USO that Nadal finally could go deeper. Nadal never won Cincy a faster tournament (never got the final even I believe) even though he coudl win Canada. Just shows how important pace of court is for Nadal.

Once we understand that everything is clear.

Simple_Analyst wrote:time please, you are sounding like a cross breed between Emancipator and Josiah. The former known for writing non sensible comments and the latter for being consistently ignorant.

Flattery will get you nowhere Simple

Julius you are making a storm out of this. Nadal has been beaten Federer on out door hard court since 17. It has always been a one way traffic since then out doors. I just stated Federer was lucky Nadal was too young and did not develop well enough on hard courts to play Federer which was the Swiss' luck. Not his fault but certainly his luck. Nothing shameful about that.

You must then also believe that Rafa was lucky not to encounter Davydenko on his way to his AO and USO titles.
Unlike yourself, I don't think Rafa was lucky.

But you're assuming that during this time when Federer was dominant on HC and Nadal was clearly not good enough to get through the early rounds, that Nadal would have always beaten him.

You can't just assume this.

Don't you get tired of spinning meaningless statistics in something that somehow proves your point? So Nadal beat Federer on hard in 04. They only played twice more on this surface between then and the 09 AO final. How you can infer that Nadal would have dominated this period against Federer when he was consistently losing before the final in these events is nonsensical.

You don't count indoor hard, because this disproves your hypothesis. It's poor form.

Certainly Julius but Davydenko was too occupied by the bookies so couldn't turn up.

The AO is such a slow surface it's ridiculous. Yet Federer won it 4 times and Nadal only once. But 9 slams to 2 later we are told to believe that Nadal is better than Federer on outdoor HC.

Without slowing down those HC to death Nadal would have had none...same applies to grass. Nadal knows who the lucky one is!

djlovesyou wrote:But you're assuming that during this time when Federer was dominant on HC and Nadal was clearly not good enough to get through the early rounds, that Nadal would have always beaten him.

You can't just assume this.

Don't you get tired of spinning meaningless statistics in something that somehow proves your point? So Nadal beat Federer on hard in 04. They only played twice more on this surface between then and the 09 AO final. How you can infer that Nadal would have dominated this period against Federer when he was consistently losing before the final in these events is nonsensical.

You don't count indoor hard, because this disproves your hypothesis. It's poor form.

I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to understand why i'm not referring to indoor hc here.
Well how Nadal was doing against others is irrelevant here. What he did when he met Federer was beat him. That's the point here.

JuliusHMarx wrote:You must then also believe that Rafa was lucky not to encounter Davydenko on his way to his AO and USO titles.
Unlike yourself, I don't think Rafa was lucky.

Let alone Davydenko on prime, he beat Rafa in dubai last year when he was completely out of match fitness, Davy would have beaten Rafa to submission on both AO and USO if they would have met according to Amrit theory. Should we also consider Rafa to be lucky that Del Potro went on injury in 2010? wasn't he the same guy who was making merry of Rafa with 3 consecutive wins in hardcourt in 2009 , every player deserve their success coz they achived it, discrediting somebody's success is rubbish. Federer deserves his and so do Rafa.

invisiblecoolers wrote:every player deserve their success coz they achived it, discrediting somebody's success is rubbish. Federer deserves his and so do Rafa.

Hopefully those will be the last words on this thread IC

How is saying Federer got lucky discrediting him? Didn't he say Djokovic got lucky at the USO last year? So he was discredting Djokovic too?

It is discrediting him.

You're saying that Federer only won those events because Nadal wasn't good enough to get to the final.

It's a pretty nonsensical argument as the winner of a grand slam event is the guy that wins 7 straight matches. If you fail at any point during these 7 matches, you don't win the event. Simple facts really.

Really? Poor Federer fans who were crying wolf and defending him over the same comment against the sensible tennis fans who say it as 'discrediting'.

There, there Simple - it will all be okay, just put the cooking sherry down and come with me All will look much better in the morning.

Why do i have the feeling time please tries too hard to sound witty?

If we look at teh H2H between Nadal and Federer between 2007-2010 it stands at 8-5 for Nadal. Considering that Fed had mono in 2008, it's not bad. But more importantly all their matches on clay were very close bar the famous FO08 (mono). There is no reason to believe that on fast HC (outdoor or Indoor) Fed would not have had the upper hand.

Fed still managed to win The USO 3 times in that period and the AO twice.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Why do i have the feeling time please tries too hard to sound witty?

Because you're not very good at recognising wit?

(In fairness, if English isn't your first language, that can be forgiven)

Simple_Analyst wrote:Why do i have the feeling time please tries too hard to sound witty?

I don't know - why do you have the feeling time please tries too hard to sound witty?

(note to self - you need a new hobby!)

Lol certainly a good addition to the hard core Federer fan base here. Time please, you have started well.

lol - I just love being pigeonholed in the afternoon!

Anyway - it's been...............fun (in a warped sort of way) but I don't think there is any future for us Simple, so I guess I'll (what's the phrase?) see you around!

Been a bit busy today,
Interesting stuff all round.

Timeplease, youre not angry with me today, yeaah
SA, i'm sure timeplease will be a great addition to the fed fan base
Tenez, interesting thoughts, but we must remember that its low bounce that troubled nadal more than speed, hence he has a good record vs Fed on outdoor hardcourt. The o2 was really really slow, i actually went there (i live quite close).


Anyway in the next couple of days I will release my final verdict on Fed, on this thread; on how good he really is, what my research in this article actually means and what is strengths and weaknesses are. As someone who is not a fan, but not someone who dislikes him but has huge respect for what he has achieved I will deliver a fair and neutral analysis- until then, cheerio

time please wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:every player deserve their success coz they achived it, discrediting somebody's success is rubbish. Federer deserves his and so do Rafa.

Hopefully those will be the last words on this thread IC

amritia3ee wrote:i'm sure timeplease will be a great addition to the fed fan base

I just live to be pigeonholed in the evening as well!!!!!

amritia3ee wrote:Anyway in the next couple of days I will release my final verdict on Fed, on this thread; on how good he really is, what my research in this article actually means and what is strengths and weaknesses are. As someone who is not a fan, but not someone who dislikes him but has huge respect for what he has achieved I will deliver a fair and neutral analysis- until then, cheerio Smile

I believe I may speak for many when I say - please don't trouble on my account!

Timeplease
I have no idea what you're saying.

'pigeonholed'
Anyway, final verdict coming soon.

I assume anyone who disagrees will be pigeon-holed as a <insert adjective> Fed fan and anyone who agrees will get a 'knowledgable' with a
I also assume that 'Nadal's most loyal fan' will be perfectly capable of a fair and neutral verdict that could conclude that Fed is a greater player.

Or is that verdict already in before the article is written? I.e Fed's a great player (otherwise it would make Rafa's achievements look less great) but not as great as Rafa ('cos I'm a big fan and he's the best)
Is that about right - no need for the article now.

That sounds about right JMarx, it's pretty much a good summary of what's he's said in other threads a few weeks ago! I can't really see why his opinion would have shifted much in the last few weeks.

amritia3ee wrote:Timeplease
I have no idea what you're saying.

He seems to be ranting on something the whole day, can't really understand what he has been saying. Time Please, you are not Welsh by any chance are you? I struggle to understand the Welsh when they communicate.

Patience my friends, the verdict will come in the next few days.

All i have done is agree with what Fed has said in press conferences, i am not anti-Fed. Without giving too much away i already know that in the verdict, Fed will be in the top 3 players of all time. Which position exactly i cannot reveal, but I think some of you guys maybe surprised with my report.

amritia3ee wrote:All i have done is agree with what Fed has said in press conferences, i am not anti-Fed. Without giving too much away i already know that in the verdict, Fed will be in the top 3 players of all time. Which position exactly i cannot reveal, but I think some of you guys maybe surprised with my report.

You agree with everyting Fed says in pressers? Or just when he says something that matches your own opinion?

Of course Fed will be very high up - you can't drag Fed down too much or you'd be dragging down his main rival as well, whoever that may be.

No, I could say Federer is terrible and Nadal is a much superior player.
But thats not true, and I would be biased if I said that.

When I do release the final verdict, quite a few people will be shocked with what they read.
I admit that some things I have said have been from a point of view of a nadal fan, but when i write this verdict, i will be completely unbiased.

amritia3ee wrote:No, I could say Federer is terrible and Nadal is a much superior player.
But thats not true, and I would be biased if I said that.

That's not really your style though is it.

You prefer writing long, convoluted, pseudo-intellectual threads with a mixture of statistics and your own biased opinion (which you don't tend to distinguish between) that eventually 'prove' your standpoint. (Which essentially that Nadal is a better player than Federer.)

Do you really need to write another essentially identical thread?