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_Analyst wrote:

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

Well roddick was a better server than nadal and Novak, but as you point out not the best baseliner.

Excellent post and analysis by Amiritia, but I am sure those who want to disagree with facts and logic will. They will tell us how super talented all those players Roger beat in his early grandslam career are, how they too suffered through the misery of slowed conditions and physical players. As well thought out and researched as this thread is I don't think it will sway any of those who already have their minds made up and as usual the personal attacks will start as soon as they run out of facts and logic.

If tennis were like running and something akin to a stopwatch reading could tell you all you need to know about the respective merits of competitors from different eras Amiritia's post would be irrefutable, but tennis is not like that.

In fact, even in running you can distort times by making tracks 'faster', but with tennis it goes further. There are no objective statistics in tennis that can give you a measure of absolute quality to enable you to analyse the merits of different players over 5 years other than subjectively.

Amritia's post is a worthy effort in a debate, but it's not comparable to scientific logic or facts. If more players had won slams and other tournaments from 2002-2008 many would say that was evidence of Federer playing in a stronger era - but that could only have happened had he had been less good.

Setting out your stall in a chicken and egg debate does not create an insurmountable hurdle of facts and logic.

Except, that Barry it wasn't Roger consistently knocking out Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, Ljubi, and Nalby at the slams alone. Other players were knocking these guys out usually before they even played Roger. Even in the period of time in question, the early 2000s these guys were not that accomplished and had difficulty back up any one result consistently.

We are aided here by having watched these players and I don't think that these players. And when the new generation came in Murray, Novak, Nadal, Tsonga, Del Po, Berdy, and yes even monfils and gasquet they quickly supplanted players who still in their early 20s had been the top stars of their generation after Federer.

And as SA has correctly pointed out, back in 05 and 06 these guys weren't playing S and V tennis. Roddick is a terrible volleyer and had a poor backhand. And he is a very poor returner, is this superior variety to Novak and Andy? I don't think so. At his peak Roddick is better than the modern stars in exactly one area of the game and that is his serve. Is this what gets pedalled as variety?

Socal - How do you explain that a 30yo Federer disposed of Murray yesterday with more ease than he did of Ljubicic in 2006 Miami?

Or that Federer has he the best of their most recent meetings?

Tenez wrote:Socal - How do you explain that a 30yo Federer disposed of Murray yesterday with more ease than he did of Ljubicic in 2006 Miami?

Simple Tenez, Roger Federer is the greater player by leaps and bounds. Federer is not even up for debate in regards to his credentials. Similarly, my explanation would revolve around some of the same factors as Sampras and Agassi having success into their thirties. These level players are so far superior that even a degraded version of them can win big trophies. I think you are making this too specific and anectodal without looking at the larger picture and the totality of evidence that I have provided. There are always players who will find their games and lose them at different times and truely greats like fed in most circumstances will find away to rise to the top. He is just a lot better than murray always has been and always will be probably. No shame in that for Murray.

But again look to the totality of circumstances does Murray not have a vastly superior record against Fed compared to the players from the previous era? And he attained this feat in 2009 so fed was not far off his prime when murray overtook him in the h2h.

Those who never tire of trotting out the mythical Wee Keira argument point to the arrival of a so-called golden generation which - we are told - began in 2008 (promptly on 1st January of course ) with Djoker's first AO win, Delpo's USO in '09 and along the way Andy began collecting Masters Titles. All creditable achievements, without doubt.

And yet, surprise, surprise ...... faced with a brave new world of much more fierce competition which was allegedly changing the sport so dramatically, the old guy who had picked up his very first Slam way back in 2003 went on a run that saw him put together a career Slam as he won all four titles during this same golden period from 2008 onwards ......

Plus ca change ........

What is that supposed to mean Lags? I mean do you believe it is more logical or grounded in the facts to believe that there is no difference in skill levels at the very top that somehow it is uniform or unkowable, or is it more logical to conclude that like everything else in the world there are up an down periods. Overtime there is a progression but not always linear. It is like the stock market it doesn't always go up every day or month or year or even every decade. But over the course of the long run it is always growing and moving forward. I think it is illogical to believe that there are no ascertainable differences between the top levels of competition over the course of the last few years or before in terms of quality.

Socal - I sense from your (somewhat blunt ) opening question that you might either have taken my post personally (and it wasn't intended as such) or perhaps have simply read too much into it. It was supposed to mean only what it said, but I'm happy to have another go at it.

The advocates of the silly and irrational Wee Keira theories - especially on the old 606 - would repeatedly claim that the 'golden generation' are all so good that Federer was by comparison out of his depth, could not compete with them and was somehow lucky to win all his Slams within a previous, allegedly talent-lacking generation. Various players, notably Roddick (a USO Champion no less), would routinely be labelled 'clowns' and Fed's multiple Slams would be qualified with an asterisk. All very childish of course, as we know. And yet even after the brave new era had begun, the young generation stood and watched as Federer worked his way to a Career Slam.

For what it's worth, I believe that time will inevitably begin to catch up with Federer and that despite his fine run over the past six months. his AO win of 2010 is likely to prove his last Slam. But in my view that's all about his own age rather than about the new generation

I have absolutely no issue at all with your well-made, perfectly valid point that "over the course of the long run it is always growing and moving forward." It absolutely has to, both for the good of the game itself and for our own interest as observers. Otherwise we would still have a couple of guys in long trousers (flannels I believe they were called ) politely tapping the ball across the net to each other and presumably then joining each other for afternoon tea after the trophy was presented.

Lags I didn't take it personal, but I disagree with one important point. To believe that it is impossible to tell or irrational to compare and contrast players who played each other in a span five years and to be able to pick out differences in that short of time frame is in my mind more irrational. In my mind it is irrational to assume that between one group of players and the immediate generation before or after that we are going to get a uniform level quality in the same sample size. Logic dictates that there will be subtle and sometimes important difference in terms of quality lets say between 2012 or 2006 and 2001. To me it is illogical to assume that there are not crucial up and down periods over the short haul while the overrall standard of the game moves forward.

I have never made the argument that fed is diminished by the weak era or that Roddick is a clown. Fed lifted the game out of those doldrums in my mind. While not my favorite no one can doubt his contribution to the game. And the fact that he does well against this new generation, which is very strong in my mind enhances him does not really diminish from him. But that doesn't stop me from laughing at the draw he had that resulted in winning the AO 2006 and knowing that he will never see a draw that easy again. He beat the guys put before him and beat them soundly.

My one point which I have made before is this. Roger Federer won the majority of his titles in the early to mid-2000's and now is on a drought of slam titles stretching back over two years? WHY? We know his form has not plummeted in any way otherwise he'd have long since begun dropping down the rankings and we know he is still a winning machine as can be seen by his recent glut of titles.. the only difference is now that the final opposition standing in his way now in slams are better in quality than those when he won slams for fun. He is still the GOAT but it is a measure of the competition he now faces that he is struggling to win island unlike circa 2006.

CaledonianCraig wrote:My one point which I have made before is this. Roger Federer won the majority of his titles in the early to mid-2000's and now is on a drought of slam titles stretching back over two years? WHY? We know his form has not plummeted in any way otherwise he'd have long since begun dropping down the rankings and we know he is still a winning machine as can be seen by his recent glut of titles.. the only difference is now that the final opposition standing in his way now in slams are better in quality than those when he won slams for fun. He is still the GOAT but it is a measure of the competition he now faces that he is struggling to win island unlike circa 2006.

I suspect that there is not one definitive answer to your question CC?

You might as well ask why the obviously better player, Andy Murray (or certainly the one who seemed to have the better form over that period and the superior tally in their h2h) could not beat Andy Roddick in that W final in 2009 - hey everything on paper said he should - right? Sometimes sport throws up surprises. Of course Fed's decline is not a 'surprise' but what I am trying to say is that you can't just look at a piece of paper that tells you the players, their respective achievements and the h2hs and see the whole story.

Fed has done brilliantly recently - but it has been on indoor hard and a fast court - as Murray says, it suits his game period, but it especially helps him out circa 2012.

Regarding slams - we saw at RG that he still can play to win a slam - the difference is that after a tough match he probably is not going to recover as quickly as the other three - that is just life. Of course their brilliance is stopping him, just as they are stopping each other, but Fed's body is beginning to stop him now too and that will happen to the rest of them in due course.

Finally - dropping down the rankings? Please - how many 30 year olds have been No 3 after the career Fed has had? And it is by some margin that the top 4 lead the pack.

I don't even have a problem if you all conclude that the other three are better than TMF - it's all subjective anyway - it is the chinese water type way some of you go about trying to 'prove' the unproveable.

CaledonianCraig wrote:My one point which I have made before is this. Roger Federer won the majority of his titles in the early to mid-2000's and now is on a drought of slam titles stretching back over two years? WHY? We know his form has not plummeted in any way otherwise he'd have long since begun dropping down the rankings and we know he is still a winning machine as can be seen by his recent glut of titles.. the only difference is now that the final opposition standing in his way now in slams are better in quality than those when he won slams for fun. He is still the GOAT but it is a measure of the competition he now faces that he is struggling to win island unlike circa 2006.

Simply because in a slam the physocal aspect of teh game is exacerbated, especially on slower surfaces. Even Murray agrees there. He says it himself they took the conditions where Federer grew up and changed them to allow more of a spectacle so fans could see their rivalry on every surface.

Why do you keep ignoring this simple fact? Nadal never beat a seed in teh 4 or 5 year he played at the USO until they slowed it down.

But you know what you want to believe that these new 3 players are the cream of all time but we will have to check how they do against time to really judge that. YOu think they are safe from teh next generation but you will see, things can quickly change in tennis.

CaledonianCraig wrote: the only difference is now that the final opposition standing in his way now in slams are better in quality than those when he won slams for fun. He is still the GOAT but it is a measure of the competition he now faces that he is struggling to win island unlike circa 2006.

Let us assume that Federer was at his peak in 2003-2007. He won slams for fun because he did not have any opposition compared to now (2010-2012).

Here is a match that I want you to take a look at and let me know what you think about the quality of the opposition?

http://bit.ly/sgQQI3

... or this one... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5uoFMcbCr4
... or this one... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XOBP3N1ejc

When you are winning so often in 2004-2007 playing around 250 matches in 3 years it is obviously going to impede you a few years down the line. So by the time he is 29/30 his age and endeavours will take away some of his aggresion and finesse.

Nothing to see here guys move along.

L'fan. Just watching bits of that Fed-Nalby year-end match you posted. I know Fed was coming back from injury, but I'd forgotten just how good Nalby was at one time. The tennis looked fast, too. Some wonderful points.

Cheers for explaining the videos Sir Fred. I am travelling at the moment so viewing them aren't possible. Of course there were cracking matches back in the mid-2000's and players as well and just like there are today. However, sadly there are those that paint the players of today as being all about fitness,stamina and relying on court speeds and far less about skill. Pathetic really. Not talking about you laverfan by the way. Oh to hear somebody praise Nadal and Djokovic for being fantastic players without the need to add excuses for their slam wins.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course there were cracking matches back in the mid-2000's and players as well and just like there are today.

Yes, there were.

CaledonianCraig wrote:However, sadly there are those that paint the players of today as being all about fitness,stamina and relying on court speeds and far less about skill. Pathetic really. Not talking about you laverfan by the way. Oh to hear somebody praise Nadal and Djokovic for being fantastic players without the need to add excuses for their slam wins.

Fitness has always been part of tennis. Borg and Lendl before today's players and many more before that. We should distinguish between the physical requirements and the current attritional type of tennis.

My view is that the attritional style requires much higher levels of capacity, then say, the faster style of play. I pointed to SoCal somewhere else, the Murray-Djokovic match vs the Murray-Federer match and on the same fast court, there were two distinct match styles. I would prefer variety without compromising on excitement, and without the pendulum swinging towards either extremes of 140+ mph serves, vs 40+ shot rallies. BarryStar has mentioned an excellent variety with his 5-surface-variant game.

sirfredperry wrote:L'fan. Just watching bits of that Fed-Nalby year-end match you posted. I know Fed was coming back from injury, but I'd forgotten just how good Nalby was at one time. The tennis looked fast, too. Some wonderful points.

If you get a chance, watch Nalby's Paris-Madrid double in 2007 or 2008.

CV'Craig. One of the other videos featured - all four hours of it - was the famous Safin-Fed semi at the AO in 05. Safin could have brought so much more to "noughties" tennis but at his best he was formidably good. Before the arrival of the big four I reckon Safin was the one player that Fed knew might beat him if he played really well.
Lest we forget, that Safin win at the A0 , where he effectively gave Hewitt a set start in the final and still beat him comfortably, was the last for any other than the current top three, save for del Potty's tremendous effort at the 09 USO.

I really would not have a problem with more fast courts and like I said elsewhere who knows who it would benefit.

Fed 5/2 up with 2 serves in hand for the match in that 4th set TB.

Must be furious.

Tenez wrote:Fed 5/2 up with 2 serves in hand for the match in that 4th set TB.

Must be furious.

And that awful tweener at MP, IIRC. Perhaps not as bad as the Monfils Paris loss.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Cheers for explaining the videos Sir Fred. I am travelling at the moment so viewing them aren't possible. Of course there were cracking matches back in the mid-2000's and players as well and just like there are today. However, sadly there are those that paint the players of today as being all about fitness,stamina and relying on court speeds and far less about skill. Pathetic really. Not talking about you laverfan by the way. Oh to hear somebody praise Nadal and Djokovic for being fantastic players without the need to add excuses for their slam wins.

Exactly, it seems that craig and I are among the minority on this site who just feel that to give credit where credit is due. I don't hear Nadal fans failing to acknowledge Fed or Djoko. Or Djoko fans diminishing fed or Murray. But comments like Nadal is just a top 100 guy with lungs and muscles or that now skill doesn't determine the winner is pure crap. Skill in hitting a tennis ball is still by far the dominant characteristic and determining quality of the modern champion.

Social see my comment on the 'Strange Goings on in Dubai' posted at 18:49. I anticipate an apology from your side after your read my logical post and realise you were wrong all along