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.

The only time I bet on tennis was Murray for AO 2009, the same year he got that virus. I actually think he'd have been in with a good shout for the title that year.

I think that should've been his Slam year. 2009 the year that the might FH was his undoing

amritia3ee wrote: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.

Titles -

2000 - 0, 2001 - 1, 2002 - 3, 2003 - 7, 2004 - 11, 2005 - 11, 2006 - 12, 2007 - 8, 2008 - 4, 2009 - 4, 2010 - 5, 2011 - 4 = Total 70

Finals -

2000 - 2, 2001 - 2, 2002 - 2, 2003 - 2, 2004 - 0, 2005 - 1, 2006 - 4, 2007 - 4, 2008 - 3, 2009 - 2, 2010 - 4, 2011 - 2 = Total 30

So my view is 70/30. You can derive arbitrary percentages to suit your argument.


http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=tf

I'm not sure thats the best way of looking at it (titles vs finals).
If you add the titles to the finals you get:
2000: 2
2001: 3
2002: 5
2003: 9
2004: 11
2005: 12
2006: 16
2007: 12
2008: 7
2009: 6
2010: 9
2011: 6

A nice (pardon the pun) Rogers Bell Curve. When we generally consider his best years to be 04-07 clearly we see a steeper reduction of finals after 2007. Total for 04-07 is 51, total for 08-11 is 28. That's a 65:35% split. Either he's got worse, or the competition has got stronger. Or both.

Nicely done, Lydian.

Let me try Nadal, Djokovic and Murray and see what I get.

Nadal (T & F) -

2004 - 1+1 = 2
2005 - 11 + 1 = 12
2006 - 5 + 1 = 6
2007 - 6 + 3 = 9
2008 - 8 + 2 = 10
2009 - 5 + 3 = 8
2010 - 7 + 2 = 9
2011 - 3 + 7 = 10

Not a typical bell curve.

Djokovic (T & F) -

2006 - 2 + 1 = 3
2007 - 5 + 2 = 7
2008 - 4 + 3 = 7
2009 - 5 + 5 = 10
2010 - 2 + 2 = 4
2011 - 10 + 1 = 11

Not a typical bell curve either...

Murray (T & F) -

2005 - 1 + 0 = 1
2006 - 1 + 1 = 2
2007 - 2 + 2 = 4
2008 - 5 + 1 = 6
2009 - 6 + 1 = 7
2010 - 2 + 2 = 4
2011 - 5 + 1 = 6

Look a 'longer' bell curve than most....

Here is a visual of those numbers, if anyone is interested ...


https://imgur.com/yz1BW

Nice work LF...the visual is interesting in that Federer's finals do go down as the other 3's go up!

Also, if you add all the top 4 finals together from 04-11 you get:
2004: 13 (pretty much Fed on his own at this point)
2005: 25 (Nadal starts to break through)
2006: 27 (the others start breaking through but still largely Fed/Nad)
2007: 32 (as the others start to break through even more, still over 20 due to Fed/Nad though)
2008: 30 (Nad/Djo/Mur getting more now)
2009: 31 (Nad/Djo/Mur make up 25 of the finals)
2010: 26 (Federer and Nadal make up 18 of the finals)
2011: 33 (Nadal and Djokovc dominating finals - 21 between them!)

So interesting that from 2005 onwards the number of finals reached is fairly consistent between 25-33 between the 4 of them, with even more reached since 2007. Nadal has been remarkably consistent in the number of finals he's reaching since 2005...around 10.
The other 3 in the top 4 besides Fed having been getting to more finals, and Federer is getting to less - although 2010 wasnt a bad year for him. Whats interesting is the dip for Djokovic - 2010 was a poor year given 2009...then 2011 much better...so maybe 2010 was the aberration in a way not 2011. But is Federer's decline at the expense of the other 3...maybe, is it BECAUSE of the other 3...well thats hard to say but some interesting numbers up there to ponder nonetheless.

lydian wrote:...the visual is interesting in that Federer's finals do go down as the other 3's go up!

... from 2005 onwards the number of finals reached is fairly consistent between 25-33 between the 4 of them ...

Indeed - there are only two spots per final so someone has to make way when others start to reach finals.

Interesting to see the "big" oscillation in Nadal's performance between 2005 and 2006 - suggesting Nadal significantly overdid things in 2005 leading to injuries in 2006 ... he had a foot injury leading into 2006 and finished 2006 with a shoulder injury.

The oscillations in Nadal's record could be put down to Nadal overdoing things when fit ... leading to periods of injury / below par performances. The leveling out of the Nadal record (decreasing amplitude of oscillation) suggests he is now being more "careful" with his body during the periods when he is fit. It was said a while back that he needed to be more thoughtful in terms of the way he played and the amount he played in order to improve his longevity and to avoid running himself into the ground. The time series data suggests he has been learning to do this.

Lets see will Djoko get the lesson fron Nadal about overdoing it last year.

Jahu wrote:Lets see will Djoko get the lesson fron Nadal about overdoing it last year.

Both overdid it and the WTF showed it. Hope they manage their respective schedules better.

Updated the visual with the totals.... (weak era theorists beware )

https://imgur.com/AevBL

The drop in 2010 (due to Djokurray) dipping but steadied by Fedal, still shows Top 4 domination.

A similar chart from 1990 gets visually challenging, though.

Yes !

erictheblueuk wrote:Yes !

Did I make a mistake?

Tenez wrote a brilliant and thought provoking article on this subject a few months ago in which he made the case for Federer being an improved all round player who had raised his game.

Personally I think that at his best there is a case to be made for Federer being an even better shot maker on the rare occasion nowadays that his A game clicks into place, but although he remains fast, his footwork is just a tad slower imo which means that he is not as phenomenal as turning defence into attack, whilst on the run, as he was 4 years ago.

laverfan wrote:

erictheblueuk wrote:Yes !

Did I make a mistake?

I don't know? amritia3ee asked a straight forward question and I gave an answer.

erictheblueuk wrote:

laverfan wrote:

erictheblueuk wrote:Yes !

Did I make a mistake?

I don't know? amritia3ee asked a straight forward question and I gave an answer.

It makes sense now. I thought you were responding to my 'charts'.

Which of my questions were you answering to Eric?

Anyway, Laverfan thankyou for the visuals, but I think we know already that Federer has done worse than in 2006 while Nadal, Murray and Djokovic are all doing better. The fact Rafa reached more finals in 2005 means nothing- he played better in 2011.

Anyway Laverfan this is a question that I would ask to you and anyone else who thinks they have an opinion:

Since 2006 Nadal, Murray and Djokovic are now a bigger thread- 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 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.

I have been criticised for making my questions a little unclear- so here they are- clear as ever!

1/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

2/ If Fed played the same level as he did in 2011 how many slams would he have won in 2006? The answer to this question should be key to your answer is question number 1.

I would hazard a guess that eric was giving a succinct answer to your op in a vain, but praiseworthy, attempt to put the much discussed subject to bed - but perhaps that's just me?

time please wrote:I would hazard a guess that eric was giving a succinct answer to your op in a vain, but praiseworthy, attempt to put the much discussed subject to bed - but perhaps that's just me?

Look as I said:
I believe there are two reasons a player can do worse in one year compared to another in ANY sport:
-He himself has got worse
-The opposing players have improved.

Tenez's article concentrated on the FIRST POINT- i.e. Federer's level of play compared to 2006. He said Fed has got better and many disagreed.
My article looks at the other side of the coin.- the others and the competition for Federer. Sorry my old title was misleading but they are not the same topic- Fed's fluctuating level of play is irrelevant in this discussion.

time please wrote:(...) in a vain, but praiseworthy, attempt (...)

spot on!

So prostaff85, do you have any answers to my 2 questions?

Actually Tenez's article and the respondents looked and discussed other players's performances, the increasing physicality of the game, the brilliance of Nadal and Djokovic, the competition from Murray, the slowing down of the courts, the decreasing foot speed of Federer, the mental effect of Nadal, etc, etc etc - in short nearly all the factors that could possibly be discussed. It was a hugely popular and civilly debated thread which ran for pages.

Just a tip amritia - there are many posters on here with different view and allegiances that have got on very well together and are able to debate and hold different points of view to each other while enjoying each other's 'virtual company'. You won't 'win' discussions on here and that is not what most people on here need to do - we actually like and enjoy the stimulation of other's ideas without the need to hammer our own point of view across like Chinese water torture.

Let me shed some light on this in a different perspective:

"Form is temporary, Class is permanent"

Roger won his last Slam at the age of 29 and even now at 30 is reaching Grand Slam Finals.

At 29 will Nadal and Djokovic be winning Slams? Not likely.

At 30 will Nadal and Djokovic still be in the top 4? Again, not likely.

Look at Hewitt, look at Roddick. Shows that age and the pressures of playing a very physically demanding style of play can shorten ones career at the top.

So based on the "player gets worse" and "the competition" is Roger by definition not winning Slams at this late stage in his career poor? Djokovic is 24 and Nadal is 25. So in 4 years will these 2 still be at the pinnacle of the game? Not in my opinion they won't be.

I'm asking you 2 questions not 'hammering my point.' If you answer the 2 questions differently to what I would say, that's fine- everyone has their opinion. One of them is a multiple choice; its not that difficult to answer.

PS to amritia - a sense of humour is not compulsory, but it sure helps

legendkillar wrote:Let me shed some light on this in a different perspective:

"Form is temporary, Class is permanent"

Roger won his last Slam at the age of 29 and even now at 30 is reaching Grand Slam Finals.
Shows that age and the pressures of playing a very physically demanding style of play can shorten ones career at the top.

Thankyou LK , interesting perspective- btw I never called anyone 'poor' in any way.
What did you think of my 2 questions?

A player can get worse, his opposition can get better or... the conditions can change to favour other styles and then it becomes subjective over who is better.

Amritea - if you've already answered the question yourself, then if anyone answers the same, you will agree and if anyone answers differently you will disagree. That hardly invites discussion. Do you have a need for other people to agree with you if you're already happy with your answer?

Of more interest perhaps would be your conclusions based on the answers. My conclusion is along the lines of - it makes no difference who your opponents are, be it Bjorn Borg or Chris Lewis (McEnroe's opponents in his first 2 winning Wimby finals) or Marat Safin or Rafael Nadal or Marcus Baghdatis or Manuel Puerta - all that matters is if you win the tournament or lose it. The more you win, the greater the legacy.

I shall attempt to answer amrit's two questions.

1) The competition at the very top is IMO much harder now than it was in 2006. The current top 4 are very very good because they (mostly) have a pretty complete package. They have less glaring weaknesses than the top players of 2006 (for instance Blake couldn't defend for toffee, Davydenko's volleying was awful and he physically flagged after about two hours, etc.).

2) Harder to call. I believe Federer's absolute best may be a bit better than it was in 2006, but because he's lost a step he's unable to produce it as long or as consistently as he used to. As such he's more vulnerable to unexpected defeats (Tsonga at wimbers). I believe in 06 with his current level he would have won two slams (he doesn't win the French, and is surprisingly beaten at another).

JuliusHMarx wrote: Do you have a need for other people to agree with you if you're already happy with your answer?

Of more interest perhaps would be your conclusions based on the answers. My conclusion is along the lines of - it makes no difference who your opponents are, be it Bjorn Borg or Chris Lewis (McEnroe's opponents in his first 2 winning Wimby finals) or Marat Safin or Rafael Nadal or Marcus Baghdatis or Manuel Puerta - all that matters is if you win the tournament or lose it. The more you win, the greater the legacy.

Firstly: No, I am genuinely interested in what respectable knowledgeable people like you have to say for my 2 questions.
Secondly, the conclusions we draw out of this can be discussed later- thats not the topic now.

I don't get all this hype about beating a name opponent at a slam. How good was Djokovic when he was getting beaten by Roddick at AO 2009? Likewise again at Wimbledon later that year Haas was a much more dangerous semi final opponent at the time though his overall legacy as a player is not so great.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I shall attempt to answer amrit's two questions.

1) The competition at the very top is IMO much harder now than it was in 2006. The current top 4 are very very good because they (mostly) have a pretty complete package. They have less glaring weaknesses than the top players of 2006 (for instance Blake couldn't defend for toffee, Davydenko's volleying was awful and he physically flagged after about two hours, etc.).

2) Harder to call. I believe Federer's absolute best may be a bit better than it was in 2006, but because he's lost a step he's unable to produce it as long or as consistently as he used to. As such he's more vulnerable to unexpected defeats (Tsonga at wimbers). I believe in 06 with his current level he would have won two slams (he doesn't win the French, and is surprisingly beaten at another).

Thankyou for answering the 2 questions!
Very interesting analysis

I think it is an even split. 50% 50%

Tennis is about consistency. We have heard all the arguments about 'physicallity' in the sport, but even for the most majestic talent it will take a toll. Like a car engine. A change in oil may breath new life into an engine which has gone beyond it's peak.

The other side of this argument the competition side of things. The level of quality in the competition has increased dramatically. Federer came through when such greats as Agassi and Sampras were coming to an end and also when Roddick and Hewitt were at their peak. You had Nalbandian, Ljubicic, Haas and Davydenko who were quality players. They may not have won at Slams, but that doesn't take away from how good they were. Now you have Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Tsonga, Berdych players that have had their successes over Federer but also defeats too.

In Federer's current position we could be witnessing a 2nd wind.

Thankyou LK, interesting sentiments!
What do you think of my 2 questions?

amritia3ee

They were genuine questions, they were at some stage were bound to be asked. Federer is the GOAT and longevity has been the key to his greatness. 2011 yes was a lean year in Slam success, but the excitement surrounding him now because of his end of season performances is what makes him captivating to watch and follow. The ability to turn it on just like a switch is brilliant. In a sense Federer has seen the best of 2 era's and is still standing at the top of the game with other players too. I think sometimes in analysis it is difficult to be comparative with lower ranked players because the only measurement would be their achievements, and not so much on how well they could play.

lol I know they are genuine questions I wanted to know your answers

Sorry, my bad, I didn't word the question very well.

I did answer them a couple of posts previously

One important thing to consider regarding Federer, is his lack of injuries, which have prevented the other current Top 4 members from winning tournaments, slams or otherwise.

As LK states, class is permanent, form, not as much. Djokovic, for example, was knackered by his exertions by the end of 2011, Nadal likewise by his 2010 and 2011 efforts.

legendkillar wrote:I did answer them a couple of posts previously

I must have missed that, sorry.
Wait, it must have got lost somewhere, did you say how many slams Fed would win in 2006 if he played the same level as in 2011. 2? 3?

Historically, given the Bell curve we've seen from LF, Federer is going the way of most other champions, with the probable exception of Connors and Agassi. As any player gets older (past 27, 28) it is increasingly difficult to win slams. Partly down to a decline - more obvious in some players than others, partly down to younger, stronger, hungrier players coming along, partly down to changes the way the game is played (older players less able to adapt), partly down to the next generation usually being better than the previous one i.e. the natural evolution of the game.

If we can accept Nadal saying recently that the grind of the tour has affected his level (basically worn him down), then we can surely accept the same of Federer, with far more mileage under his belt.

Interesting Julius, as you always are, but you won't answer my 2 simple questions

legendkillar wrote:Let me shed some light on this in a different perspective:

"Form is temporary, Class is permanent"

Roger won his last Slam at the age of 29 and even now at 30 is reaching Grand Slam Finals.

At 29 will Nadal and Djokovic be winning Slams? Not likely.

At 30 will Nadal and Djokovic still be in the top 4? Again, not likely.

Look at Hewitt, look at Roddick. Shows that age and the pressures of playing a very physically demanding style of play can shorten ones career at the top.

So based on the "player gets worse" and "the competition" is Roger by definition not winning Slams at this
late stage in his career poor? Djokovic is 24 and Nadal is 25. So in 4 years will these 2 still be at the pinnacle of the game? Not in my opinion they won't be.

Federer's longevity is impressive, but Nadal won his first slam at 19 (could have been earlier but for injury) so that's not a like-for-like comparison. If Nadal is still making slam finals at 29 or 30 then that will be extraordinary given how accomplished he was so early in his career.

To illustrate, Federer had 8 consecutive slam winning years (2003-2010 inclusive) and Nadal is on a current run of 7 (2005-2011); the difference in their slam tallies is down to Federer having 3 incredible years of 3
slam wins. Interestingly, the record is 8, which Borg and Sampras also managed so Nadal could match that this year.

Roger now loses routinely to medium ranked players.

Debate finished; he has substantially declined. he can still do it on the day, but those days are farther apart now.

amritia3ee wrote:I'm asking you 2 questions not 'hammering my point.' If you answer the 2 questions differently to what I would say, that's fine- everyone has their opinion. One of them is a multiple choice; its not that difficult to answer.

Posting every other post looks like hammering to me.

Normally one writes an article then throws it over to the forum to discuss, not intervene every other post to tell the poster whether you like their contribition.
Just a friendly tip.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Historically, given the Bell curve we've seen from LF, Federer is going the way of most other champions, with the probable exception of Connors and Agassi. As any player gets older (past 27, 28) it is increasingly difficult to win slams. Partly down to a decline - more obvious in some players than others, partly down to younger, stronger, hungrier players coming along, partly down to changes the way the game is played (older players less able to adapt), partly down to the next generation usually being better than the previous one i.e. the natural evolution of the game.

If we can accept Nadal saying recently that the grind of the tour has affected his level (basically worn him down), then we can surely accept the same of Federer, with far more mileage under his belt.

I agree with JHM, and I think the last paragraph is certainly worth highlighting. All these great champions have amazing mental reserves, but the grind of the tour does take its toll on the concentration as well as the body, and it is impossible for anyone, bar the athlete themselves, to measure the individual hunger of a player and if and when that begins to ebb

In short, there are no easy simplistic answers to either of the OPs questions - many factors need to be considered - just as there are no certainties in sport. I do just want to respond to laver's comment about Fed's lack of injuries - I think it is interesting to note in Nadal's recent interview in Spain that he emphatically stated that he, like Fed, had not suffered serious injuries otherwise he would not possibly have been able to remain in the top 2 for so many years - Rafa blamed niggles being exaggerated by the press (I disagree and think the Toni PR machine has played its part). I will try and find the interview, but the link I saw was on another forum where a poster had translated so it may not be so easy to reproduce here.

I've been, in part, persuaded by Tenez's argument in the past that Fed is a better over all shotmaker now than in 2006, but I personally believe he is not as fast at turning defence into attack and therefore that has reduced his overall fire power, unless it is one of those days when he can seize and hold the initiative with aggressive play. Of course the competition he has faced since 2007 has been very strong, though I am not sure that I would make any great claims for Murray being so much stronger competition circa 2009 than Roddick circa 2004 or Hewitt in the early 2000s - but one should also bear in mind that Fed is a tennis generation older than his two strongest rivals and that the five years between he and Rafa, and the six between he and Novak MAY also have a bearing on their rivalry?

bogbrush wrote:Roger now loses routinely to medium ranked players.

Let's see:
Federer's losses to people outside the current top 10 in 2011:
1/ Gasquet
2/Melzer
Only 2 matches in 2011 that were to people outside the current top 10.

Federer's losses to people outside the top 10 at the time in 2007:
1/Nalbandian
2/Volandri
3/Canas
4/Canas again

So you, my friend, are not talking sense.
I'm not saying he has declined/got better but your point was simply wrong.

amritia3ee wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Roger now loses routinely to medium ranked players.

Let's see:
Federer's losses to people outside the current top 10 in 2011:
1/ Gasquet
2/Melzer
Only 2 matches in 2011 that were to people outside the current top 10.

Federer's losses to people outside the top 10 at the time in 2007:
1/Nalbandian
2/Volandri
3/Canas
4/Canas again

So you, my friend, are not talking sense.
I'm not saying he has declined/got better but your point was simply wrong.

Not at all, there are now many medium players inside the top 10. Check your stats again on that basis.

Oh, and it's wiser not to accuse posters of not talking sense, not while you're trying to cultivate a "life and soul of the forum" thing.

bogbrush wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Roger now loses routinely to medium ranked players.

Let's see:
Federer's losses to people outside the current top 10 in 2011:
1/ Gasquet
2/Melzer
Only 2 matches in 2011 that were to people outside the current top 10.

Federer's losses to people outside the top 10 at the time in 2007:
1/Nalbandian
2/Volandri
3/Canas
4/Canas again

So you, my friend, are not talking sense.
I'm not saying he has declined/got better but your point was simply wrong.

Not at all, there are now many medium players inside the top 10. Check your stats again on that basis.

You said medium ranked- as shown by me large letters. Top 10 is not 'medium ranked.'

David Ferrer?

The guy who enjoyed only a brief period at #4 when in his prime a few years ago and whose game consists of hitting it back. A lot.

Federer now loses to this sort of player a lot. He didn't used to.

bogbrush wrote:

Federer now loses to this sort of player a lot. He didn't used to.

Federer hasn't lost to Ferrer this year. Or anyone even like him. I don't know what you're on about there I'm afraid.