Federer Nadal - age comparison

First topic message reminder :

This not intended to be a re-visit of the tired old GOAT debate, nor a discussion of the merits of H2H, but to compare and contrast the two men's careers at the same age - i.e Rafa at 25 is 4yrs and 10 months younger than Federer at 30 so you can compare his record and position now with Fed's in 2007 (January 2007 if you are being precise) - and speculate on where they may end.

There's a good summary here http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Nadal.html, and also here on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer%E2%80%93Nadal_rivalry

Comparing February 2007 Fed with February 2012 Nadal I'd suggest the following:

a. Rafa started everything younger than Fed - he raced ahead with slam wins but now its very tight with Fed and Rafa on 10 each (stopping the watch at AO 2007/2012) - unless Rafa wins 2 more this year he'll fall behind Fed's rate and I think he really needs to get ahead of Fed's rate at this age to stand a chance of over-taking him.

b. Rafa is more than a whole year's worth of weeks at No. 1 behind Fed

c. Rafa is miles ahead on Masters Series Wins and DC wins but well behind on TMC/WTF wins

d. They are neck-and-neck on overall tournament wins at 46 each including Fed's AO 2007

e. Rafa's w/l is superior to Fed's at the same age (although Fed's has improved by almost 2% since 2007).

f. Hindsight tells us that about 5 years ago Fed was at his absolute peak as a tennis player and the first cracks in his mastery were just about to appear with those two losses to Canas at IW and Miami. 2007 marked the end of years with 10+ tournament wins or 90% w/l ratios: having said that, in the five years since February 2007 Fed has been none too shabby managing another 6 slam wins.

g. In 2007 Fed had the beating of pretty much all his opponents with the exception of his main rival Nadal who was in command on clay but beatable elsewhere and did not dominate the H2H for another year. In 2012 Nadal has the beating of pretty much all his opponents (in slams at least) with the exception of his main rival who is currently more dominant over him than he ever has been over Federer.

h. They have a comparable 'mileage' in terms of matches played - Rafa has only played about 50 more matches than Fed at the same age, a difference of less than 10%.

Nadal has made fools of those predicting his career path often enough, but it's almost impossible to believe that he will be able to sustain similar sustained quality between now and 2017 as Fed has done in the 5 years since 2007. I'd go further, I suspect that 25 will prove to have been the 'turning point' age at which Federer's career trajectory will be shown to have caught up with the effect of Rafa's early gains. I am well aware that without Djoko on form Rafa could start cleaning up in the big tournaments pretty smartly - but my assessment of the Aus Open 2012 is that it was just as encouraging for Murray and Djoko, and probably more so, than it was for Nadal.

Therefore, on what I consider to be the three main indicators:

* Fed's overall slam total of 16 is looking safer from Nadal as each slam passes us by.

* Nadal has no prospect of beating Fed's tally of weeks or y/e at No. 1.

* I'd be very surprised if Nadal ends up with more overall tournament wins than Federer - he's got to win at least another 25 and his past rate of accumulating wins suggests that will be beyond him in the future, particularly if he is going to reduce his schedule. He has not won away from clay since October 2010.

socal1976 wrote:Exactly, Laverfan, I don't see the weaker era argument I make as being something to use to beat Fed's accomplishments down.

If we agree on no 'weak'/'strong' era and consider it a progression, perhaps there will be players in the future, who can beat the current records.

socal1976 wrote:It is never easy to dominate the men's tour. And the tour gets more physically demanding and tougher over the long run.

It does not have to be. As I mentioned, 1984 Borg played shorter points on grass and long rallies on clay. It was a good balance, and still is. If there is 6-10 server, then there is a 6-10 returner as well.

socal1976 wrote:However, that progression isn't always lineal.

This is where I see 'subjectivity' come in, in terms of 'styles', which becomes individual preference. (Broccoli - like or dislike)

socal1976 wrote:I think there was a bit of a lull in terms of consistent top level talent from the late 90s till the mid 2000s. As you see the numbers of fed, nadal, and Djoko are pretty impressive with 3 slams in a year. All of them having meaningful runs at the #1 spot. Something that you did not find in the early 2000s and late 90s, maybe outside of Pete.

I still see Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero and Moya as good players. As you point out dominating a tour is not easy. These players dominated, but for shorter periods. For example, Safin in 2000-2001 vs the AO final in 2005. He had dominance, but not 'lineal', to use your phrase.

To say player 'x' is better than player 'y' (by measuring titles and tenure of domination) is just one aspect. For example, Fred Perry, Jack Crawford or Jaroslav Drobny vs Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer the difference is in tenure and hence the titles. For example, Djokovic may attain the Grand Slam, but it would seriously curtail his longevity. Perhaps longevity should also be a measure of 'greatness'. Rosewall comes to mind, being in Top 10 for 12 years.

Laverfan, actually the physicality level of the game going up is analogous with what is happening in every sport. Athletes are cross training, genetics in general is raising the size and speed level of the average human and world class athlete as whole. It is like the 100 meter dash, the world record time is always coming down. But here is the difference when comparing a generation of players you can compare their level accomplishment to players coming immediately before or after them. And the progression in those terms isn't always linear. Progress doesn't stop but sometimes it takes a step back before going two steps forward. That is what I see the early 2000s and late 1990s.

And it is a misnomer to state that Hewitt and Safin where just as dominant but just not for a long period of time. Even at their best they never dominated the tour anything approaching like Pete before them or Roger, Rafa, and Novak after them. Hewitt's best year was very similar to Novak's 2008 campaign. They had one slam each, both won the year end masters cup, 2 masters titles and I think hewitt got 6 tournament wins to Novak's 5. While Novak was more consistent getting deep in all the slams. Novak finished #3 in 2008 with virtually the same season and almost the same number of points Hewitt finished #1.

socal1976 wrote:Raider, I mocked Tenez because his actions were laughable.

Your actions have been just as laughable since AO2012. Your post on the Fognini conspiracy was no less laughable. Your weak-era and current era argument are just as laughable. Your paradoxical posts on PEDs in the veejay's thread was just as laughable.

If you are going to continue your behavior like this, you are forcing me to start it too which I don't want to. Again, don't take my apology as my weakness. It was an attempt to put things back to peace.

socal1976 wrote: He basically took every federer grandslam loss since 2005 and chalked it up to exhaustion (due to conditions that are too slow according to him).

No he didn't. Don't put words in people's mouth to suite your argument. You don't read any better than I do. I never saw Tenez say anywhere what you trying here. Bring a quote if you have.

socal1976 wrote: If you want to portray Fed's 2006 FO loss of 1-6, 6-1, 6-4, and 7-6 back in 2006 as due to sheer exhaustion then I will mock your logic. Tenez's post did more to expose the agenda of an extremist group of online fed fans than anything I could have ever posted. According to him every fed grandslam loss since 05 is basically due to exhaustion as a result of unfairly slow conditions. Pretty laughable if you ask me.

If you want to mock and laugh at other's logic, get prepared taste some of your own medicine. I promise, it will be bitter. I'm trying not to do that because that leads to bickering and anarchy in the forum. Off late things are getting worse than ever.

Don't be like SA.

socal1976 wrote: The OP did a comparison of Fed and Nadal. And when you make that comparison it is a fair digression to talk about competition and conditions, which happens in every fedal debate. It isn't like we are talk about cricket results here how sexy we think Pat Cash's hair was in the 80s.

There are 1000s of things to talk about Fedal, all can't be into one discussion. As barry clarified, his thread wasn't intended into a surfaces thread. Laverfan tried as well. The debate was not surfaces and how fed won slams, it was only age comparisons and their comparative achievements. I said you can wait for a thread on surfaces or start your own if you want to discuss those.

socal1976 wrote: Tenez's post did more to expose the agenda of an extremist group of online fed fans than anything I could have ever posted.

You are a much more extremist 'current golden era' band wagoner than anyone here (maybe amri is at par). Almost every post of yours is an extremist's view of how great the current players are and how poor the players previously were some years back. You write threads on weak-era. You write thread on how great Djo is in GOAT dabate when he hasn't been #1 even for a year with only 5 slams. How boring and un-watchable tennis was previously and how great the current game is. You like to mock and laugh at people's reasoning and then label anyone who disagrees with you with names like 'fad fans' "fed extremists" or "fed apologists". You need to look yourself in the mirror. You are everything yourself what you accuse people of. You have exposed your own agenda socal.

I don't see how comparing Hewitt's best year with Novak's 2008 and their resulting rankings is anything more than a fanciful rewording of the argument that a dominant no 1 means a strong era. On pure speculation you could just say the reason for this phenomenon may have been that the competition at Hewitt's time was that tight that their chances of beating each other was sufficiently high that no one could do better than Hewitt did that year.

Tenez wrote:Fed also got tired in AO 2005, FO final 2006, 2007 but also USO 2009 v Delpo, AO09, USO10, USO11.

Oh that is right he didn't blame all of Fed's grandslam losses of the last few years on tiredness just most of the losses to Novak and Nadal. I guess I stand corrected Raider. Why didn't Roger Federer lose of exhaustion at 2007 wimbeldon an even longer and tougher match than some of those listed on this comedic list. By the way check your facts, I didn't start a thread on Novak as GOAT, that was Jersey. I posted on it with my view like a bunch of other people. Is it a crime now to respond to other people's threads on your favorite player?

You are getting entirely too worked up, relax. By the way, if someone accused you or friend of yours of being a cheater and breaking the law and all the ethical requirements of your profession by doping without any more evidence than his visual diagnosis on the TV, would you think it is fair? If someone came into your business and accused of stealing basically and his evidence was that you look like a thief on TV would that be good conduct? By the way, I supported Veejay and Tenez to have the right to say what they like, and just like they have a right to say what they like other people have a right to dislike the manner in which they say something or what they say. And I wasn't the one who took their comments down and locked their threads, I have consistently opposed that level of moderation even when people have directed their attacks on me. But I can see with liable laws where they would take that action.

Maybe the animosity isn't coming from me, maybe it is coming from a certain segment of Fed's fans who have to continually talk down the players that beat Roger as either being boring, cheats, or dopers. Or creditting his opponents' success to unfairly slowed conditions.

The Fogninni thing by the way is another of my positions that has been completely mischaracterized, but this post is losing interest for me, its like reasoning with a wall talking to you people.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I don't see how comparing Hewitt's best year with Novak's 2008 and their resulting rankings is anything more than a fanciful rewording of the argument that a dominant no 1 means a strong era. On pure speculation you could just say the reason for this phenomenon may have been that the competition at Hewitt's time was that tight that their chances of beating each other was sufficiently high that no one could do better than Hewitt did that year.

Or it could have been because Hewitt was not that dominant or strong a #1. Safin, Hewitt, Nalby, Roddick all pretty much underachieved from what was expected of them for various reasons. And it wasn't just Roger beating them that kept them down. By the mid 2000s when Novak and Murray came up they supplanted all of these guys. Safin had trouble staying in the top 20 or 30, Hewitt plummetted in the rankings. Roddick by his mid 20s was no longer a serious threat at slams. And Nalbandian as well did not perform nearly as well as he could of finding it difficult to consistently stay at the top.

I have no problem with Novak being the GOAT at some stage nor do I have a problem with people believing that my favourite player isn't as good as was originally thought though I'll argue against the latter more. To be honest I don't mind Novak beating Fed or even ending up with the superior H2H.

I think a win at the French open this year would put him close to the top. I don't think the calendar slam is really meaningfully different to 4 in a row. The slam count isn't the be all and end all, I'd agree. On another note, it seems that we all have a need for fans of other players to acknowledge our favourite player as the best...

wrong thread... Sorry.

Tenez wrote:Fed also got tired in AO 2005, FO final 2006, 2007 but also USO 2009 v Delpo, AO09, USO10, USO11.

I can easily defend that but again, you don;t understand tennis. I have explained it to you many times with the Biathlon analogy. you think the legs and the arms are tiring at the same pace. YOu are completely wrong once again. federer can run for ever, that's not the problem. However like most player with a sharp game, unlike Nadal's much larger margins, fatigue will play a much bigger role in his losses.

This is why Federer said "It doesn't matter how many UEs I make, I have no coice but to go for it" (to make the rallies shorter". And this fatigue is quite revealed in teh score of those matches I hilighted. creaming the first set or 2...at least being a break up in the first set of all those matches...if not being completely in control of that first set. Look at FO06. Nadal did not play badly in teh first set. He simply did not play cause he did not have the ball. THat's what a sharp Federer can do. There as soon as he loses this edge, longer rallies start and the Federer gets dragged into even longer rallies with Nadal. A match that was one sided at the beginning becomes one sided the other way around.

Finally Federer is known to be the best player ever with the best record ever...so when he loses, there is no shame in finding reasons. it's very often because his game level is dropping. Fatigue is a good possibility.
.
BUt you know what Socal you want to see a "fognini" where no-one sees it and the obvious you refuse to achnoledge it. It was laughable....not anymore.

It is late here tenez, I will get back to you in the morning approaching 1 am damn timezones. Trust me I will have something to say on your post.

socal1976 wrote:It is late here tenez, I will get back to you in the morning approaching 1 am damn timezones. Trust me I will have something to say on your post.

Try to find inspiration in your dreams.

socal1976 wrote:... but this post is losing interest for me, its like reasoning with a wall talking to you people.

Should I equate all Novak fans to each other or all Nadal fans to each other as a class and tell them I have no interest in debating with them?

You also need to relax a bit and not throw the baby with the bath water.

Tenez wrote:However like most player with a sharp game, unlike Nadal's much larger margins, fatigue will play a much bigger role in his losses.

I prefer Lydian's 'vive le difference'.

One way to look at it is, if Federer had the same 'style' as Nadal, you would be watching 6+ hour marathons at slams.

socal1976 wrote:And the tour gets more physically demanding and tougher over the long run.

From Nadal's biography...

Playing sports is a good thing for ordinary people; sport played at the professional level is not good for your health. It pushes your body to limits that human beings are not naturally equipped to handle. That’s why just about every top professional athlete has been laid low by injury, sometimes a career-ending injury. There was a moment in my career when I seriously wondered whether I’d be able to continue competing at the top level. I play through pain much of the time, but I think all elite sports people do.

All except Federer, at any rate. I’ve had to push and mold my body to adapt it to cope with the repetitive muscular stress that tennis forces on you, but he just seems to have been born to play the game."

Socal (and all the Wee Keira theorists)... Are they watching Murray (ATP #4) play ATP #116 Berrer?

Is this a 'strong' era? Is Ljuibicic/Blake/Youzhny/Davydenko better than what I see on my stream.

(... and I like Murray - as HE will confirm and vouch for , :getmecoat: - we need a smiley for this one).

Ultimately Murray won. However, conversely you could argue that a world no. 116 pushing Murray so hard shows strength in depth just now. You can judge and look at so many things differently that paints whatever picture whatever one wants with it does it not?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Ultimately Murray won. However, conversely you could argue that a world no. 116 pushing Murray so hard shows strength in depth just now.

If the match had not (apparently) been such a comedy of errors and losses of concentration you could.

Instead it seems that it was an example of the better player overcoming his lapses of concentration and making his underlying quality count despite playing very badly by his standards.

I hope he stops chucking in matches like that.

Yes I can imagine how the match went as I only saw almost all of the first set. Murray still has these lapses but at least now he is winning the matches whereas in the past he could and did lose those kind of games.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes I can imagine how the match went as I only saw almost all of the first set. Murray still has these lapses but at least now he is winning the matches whereas in the past he could and did lose those kind of games.

Obviously the real judge of Lendl's effect will be at slams, but I don't think it's a complete coincidence that of the top 4 Murray is both the most prone to losing matches because of apparent mental lapses and the one as yet without a slam.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes I can imagine how the match went as I only saw almost all of the first set. Murray still has these lapses but at least now he is winning the matches whereas in the past he could and did lose those kind of games.

I was just peed that he played the way he played. It is irrelevant whether the player across the net is #116 or #1.

I need to read his post-match interview to understand what he was thinking.

Regarding Wee Keira, I was being a little facetious. I do not subscribe to Wee Keira at all.

That is the frustrations of being a Murray fan though. It is like one long roller-coaster ride. The main thing is he hasn't repeated his post-Australian Open slump in form that he had last year.

CaledonianCraig wrote:That is the frustrations of being a Murray fan though. It is like one long roller-coaster ride. The main thing is he hasn't repeated his post-Australian Open slump in form that he had last year.

So far so good - but I don't think that a poor match against the World No. 116 means that the post AO blues ghost has been fully exorcised.

barrystar wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:That is the frustrations of being a Murray fan though. It is like one long roller-coaster ride. The main thing is he hasn't repeated his post-Australian Open slump in form that he had last year.

So far so good - but I don't think that a poor match against the World No. 116 means that the post AO blues ghost has been fully exorcised.

That is what perturbs me a bit.

BTW, we should let this thread go back to it's OP, Barry.

laverfan wrote:

barrystar wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:That is the frustrations of being a Murray fan though. It is like one long roller-coaster ride. The main thing is he hasn't repeated his post-Australian Open slump in form that he had last year.

So far so good - but I don't think that a poor match against the World No. 116 means that the post AO blues ghost has been fully exorcised.

That is what perturbs me a bit.

BTW, we should let this thread go back to it's OP, Barry.

In a perfect world I agree, but conversations move on in real life and I suspect that is when people have had their say on the initial point.

Why don't you put in a post on that theme?

Tenez, this is my problem with your argument. Most top pros have lost matches due to exhaustion. Novak for example in my mind has lost way more matches due to fatigue than Roger federer. One he has history of respiratory problems and he actually plays more long points and doesn't have the luxury of all the free points Roger gets on serve. Roger based on his very strong fitness and his short point style and big serve probably loses less matches to fatigue than what you portray. Much less.

When physical fatigue gets bad you can literally see it and it is obvious. IE pete throwing up at the US open. Baghdatitis crampin and collapsing again at the USO. Novak with his now famous MTOs according Bogbrush. Have you ever seen Roger physically cramp in a tennis match? Roger Federer is supremely fit and he was in his heyday.

Yes Roger is forced to play longer rallies especially on clay against Nadal. But there are many matches in their rivalry that fed has lost in 2 short sets out of 3. For example, Miami in 2011. Then there are matches Fed has played against Nadal that were 5 set wars that he won. Wimbeldon 2007 or again Miami 2005 or was it 06 when he came back from 2 sets down against Nadal. None of Fed's losses at the FO were due to exhaustion. He lost those matches in the first 2 sets and he is fit enough even in extend rallies to last a couple of sets.

And the part of your argument that I do not agree with is not only do you posit most of Fed's losses to fitness. You then go further and state that the current champions wouldn't be beating him at all if it wasn't for the fact that the courts acording to you have been slowed down unfairly. You want to completely abrogate the accomplishments of all of Fed's contemporaries.

The match losses for Federer due to "fatigue" are predominantly finals methinks. I am writing in the context of Socal1976's reply above. Whereas losses of Novak, prior to this historic run, have been earlier. Again I am sure, you folks have stats at the fingertips, so I might get blitzed about this observation. As a Fed fan, I very much respect achievements by others, but there is no denying the fact, as it seems to me at least, that many a time, RF could well have won a few finals more, but for something minute, which I think Tenez refers to as fatigue. I like the point by Tenez in the post at 9.05 about RF in the last but one para. But again, I would, being RF fan.

socal1976 - you are not reading what Tenez is saying. Tenez is not saying that Federer runs out of puff or his legs give up.

Tenez is saying that Nadal's brand of tennis forces Fed to be at his sharpest if Fed is to win points - sharpness requires peak mental fitness and physical fitness of the upper body as well as the lungs and legs (Tenez says that Fed can run all day so he's not talking about the lattter).

Tenez says (and you can agree with him or not) that after a few sets of having to hit winners all over the place to get the ball past Nadal and having to deal with high spinny balls to the SHBH - technically difficult and requiring great upper-body strength if the return ball is going to put Nadal under any pressure - Fed loses his crispness of mind and his freshness in the racquet arm (not his ability to run about all day) and is cream crackered and can no longer keep up the effort needed to win points.

You can agree with Tenez or not, but for goodness, sake if you are going to disagree with Tenez please please please take note of what it is that you are disagreeing with and stop bashing a case he is not making.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Your actions have been just as laughable since AO2012. Your post on the Fognini conspiracy was no less laughable. Your weak-era and current era argument are just as laughable. Your paradoxical posts on PEDs in the veejay's thread was just as laughable.

On the other hand, Socal's remarks about "nazi fed fans" and "men crying in public" were very insightful

He also said he was never worried when Federer had 2 match points in USO semi's.

Barrystar, I don't accept that I have unrealistically or inaccurately portrayed Tenez's argument. I find it a big cop out to go back and blame losses that I watched that had nothing to do with fatigue because fed was getting the worst of it from the start and chalking it up to a loss of sharpness due to his fatigue. Yes, Nadal plays with more margin, but it also takes a lot more energy to generate that kind of torque with his big swings. Fed's game is more efficient and based on taking the ball earlier. He should be commended for it and many have, that his style both in attack and the smoothness of his motion allows him to make such efficient use of energy. This is one of the main reasons you rarely see Roger fatigue in matches as compared to many other pros, and that is why Roger has been so healthy. If anything Roger's style of attack first tennis lends itself to conservation of energy in relation to his opposition. Even if Roger is off he conserves energy because he usually ends the points with quick errors.

.... and the changes in conditions reduces the reward for attacking shots.

For Socal...

From RICOH Match Facts (ATP website)...

The improvement in Djokovic is obvious. His retirements, prior to 2011, were due to medical issues, unlike fatigue due to long matches or long rallies.


Djokovic (2009 vs 2011)

1st serve - 63% 65%
1st serve pts won - 73% 74%
2nd serve pts won - 54% 56%
BPs saved - 66% 65%
Service Games won - 85% 86%
Service Pts won - 66% 68%

1st serve Return pts won - 33% 36%
2nd serve return pts won - 54% 58%
BPs converted - 42% 48%
Return Games won - 31% 39%
Return Pts won - 42% 45%
Total pts won - 53% 56%


Federer (2009 vs 2011)

1st serve - 62% 64%
1st serve pts won - 79% 79%
2nd serve pts won - 57% 57%
BPs saved - 69% 65%
Service Games won - 90% 90%
Service Pts won - 71% 71%

1st serve Return pts won - 31% 33%
2nd serve return pts won - 51% 51%
BPs converted - 41% 41%
Return Games won - 24% 28%
Return Pts won - 38% 40%
Total pts won - 54% 55%


Regarding conservation of energy backfired on Federer in USO 2011, he was up two sets to love and lost the next two. If he was a better retriever, he could have won in three or four.

Laverfan, good research as usual. Roger's style usually works wonder for him. LF's research clearly proves my point on the superior return numbers. Novak has gotten a lot more physical mature and fit that is for sure. But he is one player that for sure you see getting tired in matches and I would say he has lost more matches to tiredness or fatigue as Fed. I mean I would believe this fed fatigue mumbo jumbo more if it was honestly anyone else on tour. Roger is so efficient and smooth he hardly puts a foot out of place. Either way I have never seen him have a physical breakdown on court by hitting the conditioning wall like i have seen in many other top pros.

Tenez wrote:

Tenez wrote:Fed also got tired in AO 2005, FO final 2006, 2007 but also USO 2009 v Delpo, AO09, USO10, USO11.

Finally Federer is known to be the best player ever with the best record ever...so when he loses, there is no shame in finding reasons. it's very often because his game level is dropping. Fatigue is a good possibility.

Logic:
Federer is the best player ever because he hasn't lost any matches in the past 7 years apart from the ones which he was tired in (the ones he lost) which don't count.
We know this because as we have already asserted he is the best ever and he cant possibly lose any matches unless they don't count.
Flawed logic.

Example: T-mobile is officially the number 1 mobile network in the world. This us due to the fact that the service us always 100% reliable and if there is any unreliability it doesn't count as it is due to a sabotage operation by o2 and orange.
We know this is true as T-mobile is always the beat network (as proved in the above sentence) and anytime the reliability is down must be due to sabotage.

Amri stop distorting what people write by deliberately making erroneous claims. You've done this since you joined the board; if u can't argue the points sensibly then don't participate, you only serve to spam and antagonise with this approach.

No my point was correct. We can't assume he was the best and based in that assumption say there is an excuse everyone he loses. Simple as that. The nokia metaphor was an example why tenez's logic was flawed.

I shall now provide you again the quote of tenez I was talking about.

Tenez wrote:

Tenez wrote:Fed also got tired in AO 2005, FO final 2006, 2007 but also USO 2009 v Delpo, AO09, USO10, USO11.

Finally Federer is known to be the best player ever with the best record ever...so when he loses, there is no shame in finding reasons. it's very often because his game level is dropping. Fatigue is a good possibility.

Ok, I see your point now, my bad. (on this occasion)

To continue my stats chart...


Nadal (2010 vs 2011 - 2009 is not a good one for him).

1st serve - 67% 68%
1st serve pts won - 75% 71%
2nd serve pts won - 60% 57%
BPs saved - 69% 64%
Service Games won - 90% 83%
Service Pts won - 70% 67%

1st serve Return pts won - 31% 34%
2nd serve return pts won - 55% 57%
BPs converted - 44% 46%
Return Games won - 29% 34%
Return Pts won - 40% 43%
Total pts won - 55% 54%

Based on the above statistics numbers (bold is positive, underline is negative)



1st serve - Djokovic +2% , Federer +2%, Nadal +1%,
1st serve pts won - Djokovic +1%, Federer 0%, Nadal -4%
2nd serve pts won - Djokovic +2%, Federer 0%, Nadal -3%
BPs saved - Djokovic -1%, Federer -4%, Nadal -5%
Service Games won - Djokovic +1%, Federer 0%, Nadal -7%
Service Pts won - Djokovic +2%, Federer 0%, Nadal -3%

1st serve Return pts won - Djokovic +3%, Federer +2%, Nadal +3%,
2nd serve return pts won - Djokovic +4%, Federer 0%, Nadal +2%
BPs converted - Djokovic +6%, Federer 0%, Nadal +2%
Return Games won - Djokovic +8%, Federer +4%, Nadal +5%
Return Pts won - Djokovic +3%, Federer +2%, Nadal +3%
Total pts won - Djokovic +3%, Federer +1%, Nadal -1%

Laverfan, the one thing I think people overlook because of all the talk of fitness is Djokovic's improvement of serve between the start of 2010 and the start of 2011. His serve getting back to reliability from the nightmares he had for most of 09 and 10 was a huge factor in his bounce back. And the kid has worked he is literally a little bit better in each and every category on the court.

Another thing that some people don't mention is that when Federer was at his most dominant he had raised the fitness bar and was the fittest player on the planet and used this to his advantage and best of luck to him as that is what sport is all about. Now other players have come along in the form of Djokovic and Nadal and done the same but yet they get criticism for it. Why is this the case?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Another thing that some people don't mention is that when Federer was at his most dominant he had raised the fitness bar and was the fittest player on the planet and used this to his advantage and best of luck to him as that is what sport is all about. Now other players have come along in the form of Djokovic and Nadal and done the same but yet they get criticism for it. Why is this the case?

Yep. That is what even tennis (being a sport) is all about now. Perfect CC.


Only, earlier it used to be about a lot more things.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Another thing that some people don't mention is that when Federer was at his most dominant he had raised the fitness bar and was the fittest player on the planet and used this to his advantage and best of luck to him as that is what sport is all about. Now other players have come along in the form of Djokovic and Nadal and done the same but yet they get criticism for it. Why is this the case?

CC, not saying you're right or wrong, but what evidence do you have of this? Results of tests, comments from other players, coaches etc? Agassi, for example, would state that towards the end of his career, fitness tests showed him to be the fittest he'd ever been (excluding his chronic back problem presumably).
Is there anything to show Federer was fitter than the rest?

How earlier raiders? Certainly circa Federer's reign. He raised the bar which others have now cleared.

Julius hunt down old items, match reports and tennis articles on the net and pundit views and I think you'll find it was a widely regarded view that Federer was super fit and top of the fitness department at that time.

CC, I can't find anything that says he was fitter than everyone else, just that he was, as you would expect, very fit. But then, so are most tennis players.
Can you find a link or two for me?

Not at the mo as I am at work.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Another thing that some people don't mention is that when Federer was at his most dominant he had raised the fitness bar and was the fittest player on the planet and used this to his advantage and best of luck to him as that is what sport is all about. Now other players have come along in the form of Djokovic and Nadal and done the same but yet they get criticism for it. Why is this the case?

Wrong again. You had players who were fitter than Federer, like Hewitt, Coria, Canas and a few more but Federer had the best talent/fitness mix.

You cannot be more wrong if you think that Federer won all those years because of his superior stamina. It's a shame you did not see anything else in Federer's game. You certainly seem completely blind to talent.

Up to 2006, Federer could play and win without using his stamina. He was pulling enough easy points at will to win matches without sweat. But already then when facing Nadal we coudl see what was his relative weakness.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Another thing that some people don't mention is that when Federer was at his most dominant he had raised the fitness bar and was the fittest player on the planet and used this to his advantage and best of luck to him as that is what sport is all about. Now other players have come along in the form of Djokovic and Nadal and done the same but yet they get criticism for it. Why is this the case?

Do you really understand Tennis? coz the above comment makes no sense . Federer's style is effortless and that makes him play longer without much strain on his body, watch his shots on slow motion and you will understand how almost every shot is played with perfect technique, the coaches use those video footage to teach young kids, they don't show Djokovic or Nadal's game to teach kids, do you see why they do that ?

Its hard to believe how a human could play most of those shots to perfection and thats Roger Federer, but saying all that he is a human too, and his backhand has the weakness against topspin bouncing balls, his stamina levels have considerably detoriated now, and he no longer at 30 could fight the young guns more than say 2 hours, so if young guns could survive that assault they are most likely to win and thats one of the prime reason for Tsonga's win in Wimbledon.

Tsonga's win was a combination of his improved game in 3,4,5th set plus confidence of surviving the assault plus Federer's game falling way below notches.

Yes and likewise in the past Federer has capitalised in similar matches I'd hazard a guess when he was in his early twenties and took on a player past his prime andcwore him down. It happens.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Another thing that some people don't mention is that when Federer was at his most dominant he had raised the fitness bar and was the fittest player on the planet and used this to his advantage and best of luck to him as that is what sport is all about. Now other players have come along in the form of Djokovic and Nadal and done the same but yet they get criticism for it. Why is this the case?

Precisely, actually Federer was quite legendary for his fitness Sports illustrated in the states did a big article on how Fed when he trained in Dubai would have a handful of challengers level guys flown out there to hit with him. In the heat of dubai he we would go through hitting partners wearing them down physically 3 and 4 at a time. On this very website Lydian posted and exceptional lengthy article on how extremely fit Roger was. Not to mention his speed, he is maybe just a shade behind Nadal and Djoko in all out speed. Roger Federer won a great deal of tournaments on fitness and speed something that some would like to ignore. Because they have an agenda to posit that Fed only loses matches when tired, and only gets tired because of unfairly slowed conditions. Which by the way have been in existence since he won his first grandslam.

Federer did raise the bar despite the misnomer that gets pedalled on this site that whenever Roger loses to Nadal or Djokovic it is because he is tired.

As Tennis, fitness is also a progression. Lendl, Borg, Wilander (yes the 6+ hour marathon man) were fit. LK has posted a link of a Neal Fraser-Rod Laver match sometime back. Back in the 1960s, the players were very fit as well.

For example, till Jimmy Van Allen came up with TBs, there were traditional matches (like Mahut-Isner) which were played, which did require very fit players. McEnroe may have been an exception.

Fitness is an ingredient, but perhaps not the only one. At the elite level where the Top players (of any era play), even slight differences can change the course of matches.

Federer had mono/GF but still managed to play a five-set match against Tipsarevic at AO 2008. The recovery from such a match can be a different story.

AO 2012, Hewitt (the much maligned one from circa 2000+) still managed to beat a young Raonic, or a 30+ Federer still beat Tomic and Del Potro.

Being very fit does not preclude differences in fitness levels.

Some of SUMO wrestlers are very fit too, but can they play Tennis?

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan, the one thing I think people overlook because of all the talk of fitness is Djokovic's improvement of serve between the start of 2010 and the start of 2011. His serve getting back to reliability from the nightmares he had for most of 09 and 10 was a huge factor in his bounce back. And the kid has worked he is literally a little bit better in each and every category on the court.

That is the goal of my statistical chart, to show such differences, outside the context of 'fitness' levels, which can be very abstract.