Review of the Year; a Federer fans perspective

by bogbrush Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:10 pm

First topic message reminder :

So it's all done and what do I think about 2012? How do I mark it?

Well it has to get 9/10 against a "par" score of 5. I fancied he might recapture the #1, maybe, but I didn't dream he'd have it done by Wimbledon. My idea was that maybe by the US Open he could have got it back; instead he went into that tournament already assured of exiting it as the top player. To get past the 300 weeks mark was even better; there's a reason why cricketers raise their bats at the one extra run that clicks over another set of three figures, and it applies here too.

He also secured his 17th Slam, and 7th Wimbledon. There's no question that this was the one he'd have most wanted - it brought him level with Pete Sampras as the most successful Wimbledon champion ever. The manner of victory would be just as satisfying, taking out his two in-prime challengers in the semi and final. Wonderful stuff.

Anyway, how did the year pan out?

He started with a depressingly familiar loss to Nadal at the Australian. While not what he'd wanted, the AO is a far cry from the fast surface it was until 2007 and nobody was too shocked at that. At least no ranking points were lost.

The first sign of things to come came at Rotterdam where he was slipping to defeat against Davydenko until pulling out the first good turnaround of the season; something that became a feature of the year. In Dubai he got the better of Andy Murray in the final and then headed to Indian Wells to make a hat-trick of tournament wins. There we got a real look at his level when he defeated Nadal en route to the win. An early loss to Roddick in Miami (Andy thereby securing bragging rights as the winner of their final professional match!) wasn't so smart, and then he skipped Monte Carlo in favour of an abbreviated clay campaign. This was hugely successful as his superior adaptability allowed him to win on the slippy blue clay of Madrid, followed by semi appearances in Rome and Roland Garros.

Onto grass where he experienced his only defeat against a 30+ year old player in a zillion years, to Tommy Haas in Halle. The sound clay effort, combined with Djokovic losing three times to Nadal on clay in a big turnaround from their 2011 form meant that he could get the #1 position by winning Wimbledon, so long as Djokovic fell before the final. The draw made these two birds hittable by one stone, by putting them in the same half. The omens weren't good as Federer was striken with back problems in barely scraping past Benneteau from two sets down, then literally limped past Malisse in the next round. However he recovered with a beat-down on perrenial punching bag Youzhny before a semi-final appointment with Djokovic, who had looked dominant through the event until then. Their semi-final simmered for two sets but then Federer was able to sprint awat from 4-4 in the 3rd set. The final followed and the records were set to tumble.

The Olympics may, in retrospect, have been a bridge too far; certainly the Del Potro semi-final can't have helped, but Murray gave him a bit of a pasting in the final, and he pulled out of Toronto (which was more or less a walkover for Djokovic sans top 4 rivals) missing out on another chance to extend his lead at the top of the rankings.

Cincinnatti saw a return to resurgence and he set a remarkable new record; the first Masters Trophy won without dropping serve throughout the tournament (and not many break points either), including a bagel set over Djokovic in the final. In hindsight this was the last high point of the season as a disappointing US Open was ended in the quarters by Berdych, followed by poor showings in Shanghai and Basel. He pulled out of Paris to muster resources for a 7th year-end event but came up short by the narrowest of margins.

So he ends the year with not much left to go for in terms of records; an 8th Wimbledon is probably the only realistic mark left. He does end the year looking a bit knackered, but that's understandable after the big push for #1; 2013 should see a less extravagent schedule, including no Olympics to mess things up, and a few key events skipped.

2012 was a great year for the 31 year old, coming back after Djokovic's dominant 2011 to head the rankings for a while and get a share of the Slam pie plus three more masters events. It could have been even better, but not by much. I think 2013 could still be worth turning up for.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:04 pm

When people say 'better', do they mean 'better' or 'greater'?

My view is that 'better' applies to H2H, whereas 'greater' applies to achievement/legacy etc

by User 774433 Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:10 pm

Also I do not believe the ability to stay injury free makes a big difference on how skillful you are tennis as a tennis player, when we are judging this.
Of course one could argue that playing a certain way and using your schedule wisely means you will avoid more injuries, but does it really make you that much of a better player.

Statistic wise, it makes a massive difference. Irrelevant of how skillful you are, if you are injured you cannot simply accumulate more stats.
So yes in my eyes not getting injured is a skill (of some sort), but if I am judging who is the better player it would not be too high up my priority list (I would look at their shots etc.)
If we look at stats it is automatically very high up the priority list, as one cannot accumulate and build stats if he is injured.

Funnily enough people tend to relate defensive players to injury, but if we look at two players who have been hampered by injury in the past few years- Haas and Nalbandian- they are both very aggressive players. Nadal's problems, from having done a lot of research, have stemmed from his congenital foot condition which he discovered in 2004. This meant he had to wear special shoes, which puts a lot more pressure on his knees.

by User 774433 Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:11 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:When people say 'better', do they mean 'better' or 'greater'?

I don't know what people say.
I can speak for myself though, and when I say better, I tend to mean 'better'.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:12 pm

So which do you think is greater?

by User 774433 Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:15 pm

I see a better player as a greater player.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:16 pm

So which do you think is greater?

by User 774433 Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:20 pm

It's a close one.
I stick to what I said earlier though, if I had to give an edge to someone it would be Nadal.

by User 774433 Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:21 pm

http://www.goalpost.tv/2012/09/02/latest-news/football-results-for-bayern-munich-6-1-stuttgart-at-allianz-arena-on-september-2-2012-430-pm.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/mar/09/napoli-cagliari-serie-a
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20278292
chin

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:31 pm

That link reflects a GS H2H, I believe. I'm almost certain that H2H is but a footnote in a tennis historian's book.

Can you tell me e.g. Lendl V McEnroe's H2H, or Borg v Connors, without looking it up. Or Sampras v Stich or Agassi v Courier?

I've yet to see anyone, apart from Rafa fans, say that Player A must have achieved more in tennis and left a greater legacy than Player B because of a positive H2H. It simply hasn't been an important measurement criterion.

by Guest Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:43 pm

Those poor souls.. it's the only thing they have Laugh

by User 774433 Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:46 pm

Julius I'm really not sure what you're talking about.
Edit: I can't remember mentioning H2H as a sole criterion, if anyone did say that it's an absurd comment that's for sure.
Emancipator, are you still angry at me and Lydian from yesterday because we said Nadal knows how to volley?

by Guest Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:51 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmW5yFMEQWo

Irrefutable.

by Guest Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:52 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Julius I'm really not sure what you're talking about.
Edit: I can't remember mentioning H2H as a sole criterion, if anyone did say that it's an absurd comment that's for sure.
Emancipator, are you still angry at me and Lydian from yesterday because we said Nadal knows how to volley?

No, but I think you may be Laugh

by User 774433 Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:53 pm

emancipator wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmW5yFMEQWo

Irrefutable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUQo0K43Ub0&feature=related

by Guest Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:53 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:An interesting debate here, good points raised on both sides

Personally I feel due to injury Nadal will not be able to amass stats like Federer as, irrelevant of how good he is.

In my eyes, and having watched both Federer and Nadal live numerous times, I recognise it is very difficult to compare these two unique game styles. However I would give the edge to Nadal if I was forced to make a judgement on who is the better tennis player.

That's it get the excuses in early. laughing

by User 774433 Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:53 pm

emancipator wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Julius I'm really not sure what you're talking about.
Edit: I can't remember mentioning H2H as a sole criterion, if anyone did say that it's an absurd comment that's for sure.
Emancipator, are you still angry at me and Lydian from yesterday because we said Nadal knows how to volley?

No, but I think you may be

Angry at myself and Lydian for saying that Nadal can volley chin

That would be strange.

by Guest Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:55 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
emancipator wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmW5yFMEQWo

Irrefutable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUQo0K43Ub0&feature=related

Hehe, so my video has all the legends saying Roger is the greatest and yours is a fanboy edited video of a moonballing fisherman.

You win.

by User 774433 Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:55 pm

emancipator wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:An interesting debate here, good points raised on both sides

Personally I feel due to injury Nadal will not be able to amass stats like Federer as, irrelevant of how good he is.

In my eyes, and having watched both Federer and Nadal live numerous times, I recognise it is very difficult to compare these two unique game styles. However I would give the edge to Nadal if I was forced to make a judgement on who is the better tennis player.

That's it get the excuses in early.

No, not really

by User 774433 Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:56 pm

emancipator wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
emancipator wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmW5yFMEQWo

Irrefutable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUQo0K43Ub0&feature=related

Hehe, so my video has all the legends saying Roger is the greatest and yours is a fanboy edited video of a moonballing fisherman.

You win.

by hawkeye Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:54 pm

emancipator wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmW5yFMEQWo

Irrefutable.

Did you actually watch this video? Of course everyone will say Federer is great because he is great. However despite being asked to talk about Federer because he's just topped a list (picked by experts whatever that means) there is still talk of Nadal. Rightly so because it's difficult to say Federer is the greatest when there is someone who could claim this description. Maybe not in terms of number of titles because he is after all 5 years younger than Federer but certainly in terms of quality of play and achievements so far.

bogbrush wrote:
hawkeye wrote:Bogbrush

Effective versus virtuous? Pfft!

Both are effective, virtuous and beautiful to watch.

Pffarrt!

I said they'd be caricatured. Y'know, the thing where a slightly large nose gets drawn 18 inches long?

Ha ha! Then Pfft! and Pffarrt! to the caricature.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:20 pm

hawkeye wrote:
emancipator wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmW5yFMEQWo

Irrefutable.

Did you actually watch this video? Of course everyone will say Federer is great because he is great. However despite being asked to talk about Federer because he's just topped a list (picked by experts whatever that means) there is still talk of Nadal. Rightly so because it's difficult to say Federer is the greatest when there is someone who could claim this description. Maybe not in terms of number of titles because he is after all 5 years younger than Federer but certainly in terms of quality of play and achievements so far.

It's always difficult to say any player is the greatest because they all have gaps in their CV. Sampras never won the FO, Borg never won the USO, Rafa only has 11 slams and is only 7th on the list of weeks at No 1, not WTF etc, etc.

Fed's negative H2H vs Rafa, is always noted because it is the only significant blemish on his record and makes it very hard to separate him from Sampras and Laver.
But those who mention it, don't then say therefore Rafa is greater than Fed (except Rafa fans:) )
Rafa's positive H2H vs Fed doesn't per se push him above Fed (any more than Stich's +ve H2H vs Sampras), because IMO Rafa is not yet up there with Sampras or Laver, whereas Fed is.

by User 774433 Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:32 pm

Lol JHM, Stitch has not even got a positive record vs Pete in Grand Slams.
Stitch has not achieved what Nadal has, not entirely sure what you're on about there.

And I never said that is the reason Nadal is better than Fed, have you read my posts earlier in the article??

by hawkeye Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:35 pm

Nadal isn't great just because he has a positive H2H with Federer! He would be great without Federer just as Federer would be great without Nadal.

That they are both around at the same time is pretty great for us though. And maybe for them? Whats the point of being great if you don't get really tested and get a chance to prove just how great you can be.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:40 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Lol JHM, Stitch has not even got a positive record vs Pete in Grand Slams.
Stitch has not achieved what Nadal has, not entirely sure what you're on about there.

And I never said that is the reason Nadal is better than Fed, have you read my posts earlier in the article??

Surely posters can post their opinions without you assuming that they are directly referencing or replying to yourself? If anything I was replying to HE, and I agree with HE's last post.

by LuvSports! Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:46 pm

is it fair to say that federer enhances nadal's legacy more than nadal enhances federer's?

by User 774433 Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:50 pm

LuvSports! wrote:is it fair to say that federer enhances nadal's legacy more than nadal enhances federer's?

Well considering I feel that Nadals legacy and wins against Federer have detracted from Roger's legacy (rather than enhance it), I wouldn't say that was a far fetched comment at all.

by LuvSports! Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:12 pm

imbl, if federer had a positive head to head vs rafa would you say feds is the goat?

by User 774433 Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:24 pm

Well I already consider Roger one of the greatest.

It's a difficult question to answer though, and of course the circumstances of the wins would play a part.
Would they be in the majors?

by LuvSports! Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:49 pm

i think it would be crazy not to say feds was one of the greatest, that's a given.
Reverse the head to head towards feds, same question?

by Born Slippy Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:28 am

If their injury records were reversed do you think Rafa would already be regarded as the GOAT?

by User 774433 Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:41 am

If Nadal was/will be fully fit for as many slams as Roger was, them you would feel he'd have a great chance of accumulating some superb stats.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:21 am

If Nadal hadn't played tennis, then he wouldn't have accumulated any stats.
If Borg had played the AO, then he might have won 15 slams.
If Connors had played the FO Borg might have only had 3 FOs
If Agassi hadn't lost interest for a while he might have won more slams than Sampras.

I could go on for days about things that didn't happen, but none of them really mean anything.

by lydian Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:47 am

If Roger had clearly significant H2Hs against Murray (losing 9-10), Nadal (losing 10-18) and Djokovic (16-13) then it would be harder to deny he was THE greatest. Nadal has significantly superior H2Hs against all of them, not that it makes him the greatest.

by bogbrush Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:56 am

If Nadal was at that level of greatness he'd have played more than one US Open final and two AO finals, with 1 WTF thrown in. How could a player being spoken of in these terms fail to make the final of these two Slams and one 8-man event so often?

Roger has played 8 Wimbledon finals, 6 US Open finals, 5 Australians and 5 French, and 8 WTF finals too. That's a staggering number AND balance, and only the presence of such a superlative clay specialist as Nadal prevented his wins being just as balanced.

Federer is the true all-court great player. I can't really understand how anyone disputes this.

by Silver Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:21 am

bogbrush wrote:Roger has played 8 Wimbledon finals, 6 US Open finals, 5 Australians and 5 French, and 8 WTF finals too. That's a staggering number AND balance, and only the presence of such a superlative clay specialist as Nadal prevented his wins being just as balanced.

This is a point that frequently gets overlooked - the sheer number of finals is staggering, and the conversion rate's very good too. For what it's worth, I agree with you and Federer's clay court prowess is extremely underrated.

That said, I do think that it's a highly emotionally charged debate, as Federer and Nadal are among the most keenly supported players in history as well as being two of the greatest. For instance, looking purely at statistics, if Federer wins the AO and RG this year, he's out of sight for the time being in the GOAT debate. However, does that deflate IMBL's argument, as an example? Presumably not, because it's not only about statistics. I don't want to knock someone else's opinion because I can see why people consider Nadal to be the better/greater player, even if I don't agree with it; the fact that there even is a debate in the first place given the weight of numbers in Federer's favour is worthy of respect.

I doubt it'll ever be truly settled unless Federer absolutely buries the record. However, it works both ways - for someone to objectively overhaul him in the GOAT debate in future (discounting the current crop), I think that they'll have to win both hearts and minds via style of play and raw statistics. The 'eye test' works rampantly in Federer's favour. What do you guys think?

by CAS Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:26 am

records aside, head to head aside, rankings aside. Its what Federer can do with a racket that makes him the greatest in my opinion. He can be beaten because no one is untouchable, but his highest level cannot be matched and he is the only player that makes your jaw every single match at least once, I remember Wilander saying Federer hits one special shot per match. I admire Nadals incredible shot making but it doesn't make me scratch my head like Federer does.

One of my favourite quotes, "Pete Sampras hit shots better than anyone had before, Roger Federer hits shots that no one had ever seen before"

by banbrotam Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:28 am

Silver wrote:For what it's worth, I agree with you and Federer's clay court prowess is extremely underrated

That much is true. I think we all forgot, that he'd surely have four French titles if he'd been born in 1978

He's actually my favourite for this years French Open. I think that the slowness of the clay will help him to reduce his errors and an error strewn Fed is still unplayable on any surface

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:37 am

Even if Fed had a +ve H2H against Rafa, I'd still be reluctant to judge between Fed, Sampras and Laver.

Even with Rafa's +ve H2H against Fed, his overall achievements in the game fall a clear way short of Fed's at the moment -
Wimby titles, US titles, AO titles, WTF titles, Weeks at No. 1 vs FO titles.

I just can't buy the idea that Rafa is greater than Fed, despite significantly lesser achievements. I can certainly buy that Rafa is all-time great.

It will be a lot easier for everyone if Rafa can win the next 12 slams Smile

by Haddie-nuff Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:09 am

Why does anyone have to "buy who is the best/greatest" Its only the history books that will tell you that and even then the historians will bring it down to statistics. There is far too much biased opinion whilst they are still active players. As has been asked already are you making judgement on their achievements ( because that is still work in progress ) or their style of play ..the tennis purist will have a different opinion about Federer .. than he does of Nadal. Whilst Nadals game is by far the best to those who are not attracted by Federers style.
The arguments made for both sides each in their own way are valid. But who will emerge the best/or the greatest will be in the memories of those who watched their careers unfold. Who was the best the greatest, Laver ?? Connors ?? McEnroe ?? Borg? Sampras ? Those of us who watched them will still have our opinion no matter what the statistics say .

by bogbrush Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:50 am

Haddie-nuff wrote:Why does anyone have to "buy who is the best/greatest" Its only the history books that will tell you that and even then the historians will bring it down to statistics. There is far too much biased opinion whilst they are still active players. As has been asked already are you making judgement on their achievements ( because that is still work in progress ) or their style of play ..the tennis purist will have a different opinion about Federer .. than he does of Nadal. Whilst Nadals game is by far the best to those who are not attracted by Federers style.
The arguments made for both sides each in their own way are valid. But who will emerge the best/or the greatest will be in the memories of those who watched their careers unfold. Who was the best the greatest, Laver ?? Connors ?? McEnroe ?? Borg? Sampras ? Those of us who watched them will still have our opinion no matter what the statistics say .

I agree about statistics. What I tried to do was introduce some which are fairly compelling.

Oh, and I think Craig, bantroban, Murdoch and socal may argue about the highlighted passage.

by bogbrush Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:53 am

banbrotam wrote:
Silver wrote:For what it's worth, I agree with you and Federer's clay court prowess is extremely underrated

That much is true. I think we all forgot, that he'd surely have four French titles if he'd been born in 1978

He's actually my favourite for this years French Open. I think that the slowness of the clay will help him to reduce his errors and an error strewn Fed is still unplayable on any surface

Really?

Imagine what he'd be like if he was error free??? Shocked

by Haddie-nuff Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:58 am

Oh, and I think Craig, bantroban, Murdoch and socal may argue about the highlighted passage..

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

Well of course I would expect that but then that is exactly the point Im attempting to make (may be not as articulate as your goodself Wink

But it boils down to "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

Statistically as we know Sampras is somewhere "up there" but for me he will never be as good as Borg .. an example of the two contrasts of styles once again. And who gave me the most enjoyment to watch.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:10 am

For me no-one will ever be as good as Henman.
C'mon Tim!

If it hadn't been for Sampras, Hewitt, Ivanisevic and possibly a few others, he'd have won 8 Wimbledons!

by Haddie-nuff Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:13 am

Dont mock the afflicted...JM he had a Hill named after him.. so he left his mark on Wimbledon notworthy

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:16 am

Not mocking him - I was a huge fan. Much more so than any of today's players.

by Silver Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:24 am

I was actually going to ask this earlier, to those who are more in the know...

I was too young to really pay attention to any GOAT debates that were flying around at the time when Sampras hung up his racket. But given the frequent statistical comparisons between Laver and Federer these days among tennis journalists and fans, was Sampras also compared to Laver in the same manner? I don't remember it being so then or since, but then I wasn't the most informed.

(If the answer is 'no', then that makes things very interesting indeed!)

by Haddie-nuff Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:53 am

Silver wrote:I was actually going to ask this earlier, to those who are more in the know...

I was too young to really pay attention to any GOAT debates that were flying around at the time when Sampras hung up his racket. But given the frequent statistical comparisons between Laver and Federer these days among tennis journalists and fans, was Sampras also compared to Laver in the same manner? I don't remember it being so then or since, but then I wasn't the most informed.

(If the answer is 'no', then that makes things very interesting indeed!)

No silver to be honest I dont remember Laver being compared to anyone.. he was then and still is a
one off he belonged to a different era .. tennis was a somewhat "different" game then. Which is why I find it impossible to get embroiled in the debates as to whether Laver could have beaten XYZ player. Pardon the pun a whole new ball game.

by Haddie-nuff Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:55 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:Not mocking him - I was a huge fan. Much more so than any of today's players.

No I wasn´t suggesting you were mocking him in the real sense JM.. I actually had a lot of time for Tim
albeit so frustrating to watch... a little less of a gentleman and more of a killer he might have won bigger spoils than he did.

by bogbrush Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:50 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:Not mocking him - I was a huge fan. Much more so than any of today's players.

No I wasn´t suggesting you were mocking him in the real sense JM.. I actually had a lot of time for Tim
albeit so frustrating to watch... a little less of a gentleman and more of a killer he might have won bigger spoils than he did.

Disagree, he only lost out because he had peak Sampras to contend with, and then they slowed the courts.

by Haddie-nuff Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:51 pm

Ok Im wrong again Doh

by Sponsored content