Review of Fed's season so far with 2011

A lot has been said about how good Fed's run after the USO has been. I remember vividly how this was dismissed by non Fed fans last year:

a) Djokovic and Nadal are knackered and after winning the important titles in 2011, they didn't really care much about tournaments towards the end of the season
b) Indoor hardcourt is Fed's best surface, so we'd expect to see him shine there (it will be different in slams)

In this thread I'd like to contrast Fed's season this year, compared to last year (and look @ his two main competitors). We're just about a one third in now and just like with elections, trends do start to emerge after we're through a third.

So far Fed has lost 3 times: Aussie Open: Nadal, Davis Cup: Isner & Miami: Roddick while playing the same number of tournaments. In this period he's won 4 titles (Dubai, Rotterdam, IW & Madrid).

In 2011, he'd already lost 6 times, half of his losses for the year: Aussie Open: Djokovic, Dubai: Djokovic, IW: Djokovic, Miami: Nadal, Monte Carlo: Melzer & Madrid: Nadal. In this period he'd won 1 title (Doha).

What's evident is that Fed's performance is better already compared to last year. It's also noteworthy that 5/6 of Fed's losses last year were to Djokovic and Nadal. So far this year, Fed has won 4 titles, Djokovic 2 and Nadal 2.

We all remember that at the same point last year Djokovic had won every match he'd played, so zero losses. Whereas Nadal had been beaten 4 times, 3 times by Djokovic, once by Ferrer. Djokovic had won 6 titles, Nadal 2 and Federer 1.

Easier to look at it like this:

2011 losses (prior to Rome): Federer: 6, Nadal: 4, Djokovic: 0

2012 losses (prior to Rome): Federer: 3, Nadal: 4, Djokovic: 4

The clear trend is that Djokovic is losing more (which is not hard when he lost no matches @ this point last year). What's also clear is that Fed's cut down his losses. Nadal has stayed the same. However, half of Fed's losses last year were to Djokovic and 3/4 of Nadal's losses at that point had been to Djokovic. This does underline how dominant Djokovic was. What's intriguing is that only 1/4 of Djokovic losses this year has been to Federer or Nadal. This show that Djokovic is struggling to even get to the finals where he might face Nadal or Federer more. Where he has faced them (only been Nadal so far), the H2H is 1-1, Djokovic won a close match @ the Aussie Open and Nadal won an easy victory @ Monte Carlo. Fed's H2H with Nadal and Djokovic (only played Nadal so far) has been 1-1.

What this all suggests is that the gap between the top 3 in performance is not huge and Fed's one loss less has still ensured he has the same number of titles as Djokovic and Nadal combined. What this also might suggest is that as Djokovic's performance has inevitably dipped, he would likely lose to Federer @ RG and even Wimbledon. With Nadal, Djokovic might run things close and it would probably be another epic 5 sets @ RG (perhaps 4). At Wimbledon Djokovic would probably still retain the slight edge over Nadal. In the USO, Fed might have a slight edge but as it's so far away, we will see how the season develops. It goes without saying that Nadal would beat Fed @ RG and probably Wimbledon (but clearly closer than @ RG) and USO 50/50.

I have seen quite a few posts on 606v2 about Nadal and Djokovic and their scheduling has come under scrutiny.

Federer, on the other hand, has managed his breaks well (Miami-to-Madrid, for example) and should pace himself well for slams.

Good article, LM.

Agreed, good article.

All to play for in my view. No one has truly staked a claim as dominant player of the year.

Djokovic began perfectly with the AO but has tailed off somewhat since, partly due to mitigating circumstances (bereavement, blue clay?). His fans will maintain that he is saving himself for an assault on history at RG and beyond, naysayers will say last year was his peak.

Nadal suffered heartbreak at AO, had a break and then began well on his beloved clay. Madrid put a stop to that momentum, which he may regain in Rome. Still the man to beat at RG, but his prospects beyond that depend on the confidence he can glean from the next two tournaments.

Federer has been impressive, he also suffered disappointment at AO but has bounced back spectacularly. Can he maintain this form and land a big title? There is no reason why not, but nagging doubts remain.

The top three have not met each other much so far this year, but are surely on collision course from hereon in. Exciting times.

Nice article - it concisely quantifies the differences for the top3. If City can win the premiership, anything's possible this year!

Guys, don't you see that top players are not playing the games just on the courts? Do you know about the concept of the chess game or GO game? Making tactics and sacrifice of your moves and stones for a final score. Well let's meet on this same topic at the end of year to see how your analysis translates to the conclusion.
(wiki about GO game: "Strategy deals with global influence, interaction between distant stones, keeping the whole board in mind during local fights, and other issues that involve the overall game. It is therefore possible to allow a tactical loss when it confers a strategic advantage.")

Thanks for the compliments on the article guys [or ladies] (Laverfan, Positively 4th Street & Reckoner)!

Maybe you got a point touch(A)parabola. Maybe Djokovic tactically lost in IW & Madrid so he wouldnt have to play Federer next and potentially lose and pressed ahead to the final in Miami knowing Fed wasn't there (early on).

I really can't see what 'strategic advantage' Djokovic would have got in losing to Nadal @ Monte Carlo because he will only have fueled Nadal's confidence in their next match and if it's a close 5 setter like @ the Aussie Open this year, that extra confidence will be enough to see off Djokovic in 5 sets next time.

Yes... well that's what Fed and Nadal have been doing in their losses to Djokovic, looking at the big picture and waiting to pounce when the time is right.

tAp... my assumption is that such games are played during interviews. The courts only see Tennis.

For example, Nadal made a media announcement taking February off. Federer took Miami-Madrid (1 Apr-7 May) off without a single word to the press, just his schedule said what was necessary.

Equal conditions now at Rome for both Nole and Federer.
Federer skipped Monte Carlo, Nole skipped Belgarade and now they should be on the same energy level. Court is neutral, not especially supporting Federer which is the usual case. Now lets see who will be trying to escape who. Nole finished the first match, easy - next... Your turn.

Oh so what was the message at Madrid? I got whipped by Tipsarevic, easy - next - your turn?

Energy levels? Federer is 5 years older than Djokovic. Federer has played 6 tournaments and Djokovic 6 too. I have no reason to believe the energy levels are equal when you consider Federer is 5 years older and because he's been more successful than Djokovic played far more matches. If anything, Djokovic has the advantage on energy levels.

Monte Carlo is optional, and not compulsory that's why Fed wasn't there.

How did the blue clay favour Federer over Djokovic? Regardless of colour, a clay court is a clay court. Clay has never been Federer's favoured surface. It's usually been grass and then hardcourt. So favouritism is absurd!

Apparently because the court in Madrid was pressed too much it was slippery. However, the slipperiness favours no one but I may agree that it affects players differently. The court didn't support Federer any more than the court in Monte Carlo supported Nadal. In both courts, red or blue, Djokovic lost. No amount of patriotism will erase that.

You appear fairly confident that Djokovic will win if he players Federer? The H2H on clay 3-1 to Federer. However, Djokovic's sole win on clay was indeed @ Rome. However, in that sole win, the match went the whole distance (3 sets) and there was just one break in each set. Now you're clearly a big Djokovic fan so you may say that Nole mark 1 is nothing compared to Nole mark 2. Well perhaps so, but Nole mark 2 also lost to Federer on clay last year. Federer playing with more confidence than last year can more than match Djokovic (if he enters Rome).

touch(A)parabola wrote:Equal conditions now at Rome for both Nole and Federer.
Federer skipped Monte Carlo, Nole skipped Belgarade and now they should be on the same energy level. Court is neutral, not especially supporting Federer which is the usual case. Now lets see who will be trying to escape who. Nole finished the first match, easy - next... Your turn.

most of the tour's courts being very slow means 'supporting federer which is the usual case'???
seriouslyyy?

luciusmann wrote:Energy levels? Federer is 5 years older than Djokovic. Federer has played 6 tournaments and Djokovic 6 too. I have no reason to believe the energy levels are equal when you consider Federer is 5 years older and because he's been more successful than Djokovic played far more matches. If anything, Djokovic has the advantage on energy levels.

6 years infact bud 1981 to 1987

Let's see what happens when Djokovic and Federer play each other which I don't think they have this season. Last season Djokovic took the head to head 4-1.

LuvSports! wrote:

luciusmann wrote:Energy levels? Federer is 5 years older than Djokovic. Federer has played 6 tournaments and Djokovic 6 too. I have no reason to believe the energy levels are equal when you consider Federer is 5 years older and because he's been more successful than Djokovic played far more matches. If anything, Djokovic has the advantage on energy levels.

6 years infact bud 1981 to 1987

I stand corrected, the age gap is even bigger!

I agree Henman Hill, the H2H between the two when they play is usually most revealing.

As you say, in 2011: 4-1. The year before (2010) it was reversed: 1-4. In 2009: 3-2, in 2008: 1-2 & 2007: 1-3. Just looking @ it like this shows that it's only recently that it's become lopsided for either one. They key difference from now and earlier years is that Fed won the big grand slam matches (Aussie Open in 2008 being the notable exception) but lost in other ones. It will be fascinating to see what happens when they play, I really hope Fed enters Rome, if they meet in the semi final....it could be a real cracker!

Just to clarify I actually think the Djoker is alright it's just his fans are such cretins it rather puts you off.

Yes, make everything to go your way. If this, and if that... We all know that Fed is older, but he is also more mature. How convenient for you, when Fed is losing than he is not in his peak, but when winning then look how frisky he is like at young age. Come on, if he is deciding to compete then no excuses please.

Sure, Nole also likes hard court better, but in Rome (and Wimbledon) people are not as primitive to be nasty to him.
But, one slap and Nole manages 20 thousand people to shut up. This is why Rome is a fair enough place for both to face each other. Let better one to win.

Fed, these are your fans? Narcissistic and well mannered. Nice group.

reckoner wrote:Just to clarify I actually think the Djoker is alright it's just his fans are such cretins it rather puts you off.

tAp... you are having an argument with Federer fans, rather than a Tennis discussion. Federer will lose matches, so will Djokovic, so will Nadal, and many others before and after them.

In long career of a top echelon player, there is always a certain period of ascent, domination, descent. No one is immune to it, perhaps the human condition afflicts all Tennis players.

Please do not have a go at fellow posters, you and others here can enjoy tennis, each may have a different taste.

Reckoner... please it goes for any poster-oriented comments.

Many posters, like Tennis players, leave imprints on forums, with each being unique.

I wouldnt read too much into energy levels and age....if anything stamina and endurance increases with age....many of the worlds best ultra-marathoners are well into their 30s. The world indoor rowing record (on Concept2 rowers) is held by someone in their 30s - and trust me that is one physically demanding and exhausting event. Federer's energy levels vs Djokovic are not a factor in my book.

lydian, while the examples you quote are very interesting, in tennis terms 30 is pretty ancient - and speaking from experience there is a big difference between playing sport at 25 and at 30!

lydian - I'm 100% with reckoner on this one. I hear what you say about ultra-marathoners and rowers but I don't know of many rowers who are elite tennis players or vice-versa ; very different set of abilities required of course, and hence why they respectively peak and decline at different ages.

30 is bordering on OAP status when it comes to cutting it on the very biggest stages at the top of the tennis tree. There are exceptional happenings but ..... they are famously rare. I recall a recent debate here about age when I pointed out that on only 5 occasions out of the last 106 Slams played had the winner been aged over 30 (can't find the thread so I hope my memory hasn't let me down on the precise figures !). And those incidents invariably had an unusual influencing factor involved : eg Agassi's last AO victory, when the highest ranked player he met was Grosjean (16), and none of his other opponents were anywhere near the Top 20. Just can't see that sort of scenario these days, but who knows.......

I hear what you're saying guys but I'm talking about pure energy levels and cardiovascular capability...at 30 these should be no worse than a 25 year old.

At the end of the day Federer is showing us he can still compete at the very highest fitness levels. He's effectively #1 at the moment so in a way my point is proved by what Federer is actually doing out there. And its not just down to talent as tennis is so physical these days, and has been for a few years now. Yes he may have more wear and tear on his joints than a 25 yo and recover abit more slower (this is very marginal though, he doesnt seem to have an issue there from one day to the next from what I;ve seen and of course he uses the BEMER 3000 machine to aid recovery) but fitness wise his level is as good as any of the others...because sport science backs this up, CV output/capability is just as strong at 30 as 25.

Clearly, there are other factors at play as to why 30 year olds arent winning as many slams as 25 year old...and I suspect physical and mental wear and tear (and motivation) are the primary reasons, maybe a slacking of in terms practice intensity, and recovery from injury. In terms of reflexes, again science shows that reflexes dont slow down until a person is in their 30s...infact reflexes dont fully mature until late 20s.

hmmm the BEMER is a complete load of pseudoscientific drivel - ask your doctor what effect it actually has on the human body and see how long it takes him to stop laughing before answering your question...

I wouldn't lay Fed's longevity at its door for sure. What Fed could do with is a nice egg chamber.

As for these studies well all the empirical evidence in tennis points the other way, do you happen to have any links for info? I'd like to prove to the other half she'd better behave herself as I have the body of a 25 yr old and will trade her in for a younger model if she doesn't!

here's a nice article evaluating the BEMER: http://skepticdetective.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/bemer-me-up-scotty/

Well Federer is the oldest (just) of all the Top 20 guys, so perhaps the fact that he's actually at Number 2 tells us more about him as an individual than providing any benchmark as to the 'normal' physical levels to be expected of players aged 30 +

Like you say lydian, other factors come into the equation (motivation, recovery time etc) and that's why so many of us have said in the past that it will be interesting to see how the current high-performing 24/25/26 year olds will fare in the heat of the main tour once they hit 30. It's quite possible that not all of them will even make it that far - either by choice, or because of other factors outside their control.

I dont need to speak to a doctor...

I dont have links reckoner but I have read these things before (I dont have the time to dig them out but I'm not making it up either). I'm not here to advocate electromagnetic healing, but the fact is that Federer carries a BEMER 3000 machine around with him and been using one for some time, clearly he feels it works. Its supposed to improve microvascularisation over time...this could help joint repair where blood flow is limited. The egg chamber I agree is a more aggressive healing tool.

Exactly lags...at the end of the day, guys like Wilander, Mac and Borg didnt start to underperform due to injury and declining fitness, they just loss the will to push themselves to the extremes needed to win at top pro levels. Federer has remarkably been able to keep himself motivated and mentally fresh. Shrewd scheduling, fitness regimes, diet, etc have clearly played their part but he's had to want to do those things. In many respects I think Nadal was the best thing that happened to Federer as he challenge kept him going...and still does, and now he chases some elements to complete his CV...weeks at #1, another French (by beating Nadal there if he could) plus Olympic Gold. In some respects its his mental strength to keep going at the highest level thats almost more impressive than his actual results (although clearly both are linked).

lydian wrote:I dont need to speak to a doctor...

I dont have links reckoner but I have read these things before (I dont have the time to dig them out but I'm not making it up either). I'm not here to advocate electromagnetic healing, but the fact is that Federer carries a BEMER 3000 machine around with him and been using one for some time, clearly he feels it works. Its supposed to improve microvascularisation over time...this could help joint repair where blood flow is limited. The egg chamber I agree is a more aggressive healing tool.

Unfortunately I take an interest in quackery and can assure you that whatever it is SUPPOSED to do the BEMER is a load of rubbish. As for Fed carrying one around, he was associated with BEMER aaaages ago at the start of his career, but I'm pretty sure that is not the case anymore, perhaps you could prove me wrong?

The egg chamber actually works so yes it is a healing tool and by definition (as it actually does something) is more aggressive.

lydian wrote:Exactly lags...at the end of the day, guys like Wilander, Mac and Borg didnt start to underperform due to injury and declining fitness, they just loss the will to push themselves to the extremes needed to win at top pro levels. Federer has remarkably been able to keep himself motivated and mentally fresh. Shrewd scheduling, fitness regimes, diet, etc have clearly played their part but he's had to want to do those things. In many respects I think Nadal was the best thing that happened to Federer as he challenge kept him going...and still does, and now he chases some elements to complete his CV...weeks at #1, another French (by beating Nadal there if he could) plus Olympic Gold. In some respects its his mental strength to keep going at the highest level thats almost more impressive than his actual results (although clearly both are linked).

I agree, TMF just looooves his tennis, I think he's actually serious about playing into his mid thirties

I dont know if he's still actively using it reckoner...articles in 2010 I saw suggested he was but they may relate backwards. As with all holistic/alternative treatments you get believers and non-believers...even those who believe that diluting treatment solutions increases their potency (homeopathy). However, many patients feel they get benefit from electromagnetic treatment for say conditions like IBS and other inflammatory based cases...but then heating tissue as a side-effect is always beneficial. I suspect thats the benefit the BEMER gives for those who feel it works.

Now the egg chamber is a different kettle of fish altogether...

Oh God do not get me started on homeopathy.... lol

As with all these quack remedies the key phrase is "those who feel it works" once you control for the placebo effect there is no net effect remaining from the "cure".

It's obvious anyway - given how lucrative these markets are, if they had the slightest bit of scientific proof they'd be trumpeting it from the rooftops to get the punters in...

I know reckoner...medicine is a field close to my heart
But then placebo effect is arguably one of the best drugs out there.
For example, in depression (MDD) RCTs placebo often outperforms active agent...

yeah research points to exercise + placebo > SSRI

I'm with BadScience on things like Homeopathy. I'm quite happy to see the placebo effect work, but I hate the (expensive) pseudo scientific mumbo-jumbo bs that goes with it.

Goldacre's word "sciencey" to describe the sort of claptrap of non-peer reviewed 'studies' and other nonsense that's wheeled out by the quacks is apt.

Response to OP - Fed's season has been fantastic so far, but the Aus Open suggests that the tournaments that really count will be a bridge too far for him. I expect Djoko and Nadal to share out the slams. The major caveat is if Fed manages to be #2 seed for RG or USO and if Nadal and Djoko are on the same side of the draw Fed will have a real chance of winning a final against a shattered winner of the SF. Otherwise, whilst I can see him taking down one of them in the SF, I can't see him getting past both of them in consecutive rounds of a slam, which is likely what's needed with him in the same half as one of them.

Sadly I agree regarding Federer, barrystar...

and Ben Goldacre is awesome.. I particularly loved the articles taking on Gillian McKeith (the awful poo lady).

I agree barrystar, seeding is more important to Fed than it is Djokovic or Nadal. A big unknown is how a Fed vs Djokovic match will go, they haven't met yet this year so far and in recent years, usually the winner of their first match of the year goes onto to win most of the encounters for the year.

Regarding Fed's loss @ the Aussie Open this year, it was deeply unfortunate for us Fed fans however, given Nadal beat Fed in 2009 there too, we couldnt really expect Fed to beat him 3 years on. The Aussie Open isn't even one of the slams with Fed's best record, it's Wimbledon & the USO. Thus if Nadal & Fed meet @ Wimbledon or the USO, naturally I give Nadal the edge @ Wimbledon (55/45) and the USO 50/50. Clearly the draw @ the USO could help Fed in a bigger way than Nadal.

My astrologer told me homeopathy was unscientific nonsense.

JuliusHMarx wrote:My astrologer told me homeopathy was unscientific nonsense.

Did you slap her and say "I was just hoping to strike a happy medium?"

reckoner wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:My astrologer told me homeopathy was unscientific nonsense.

Did you slap her and say "I was just hoping to strike a happy medium?"

I'm actually having torrid affairs with 2 women who are in contact with the spirit world - I'm always in the media.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

reckoner wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:My astrologer told me homeopathy was unscientific nonsense.

Did you slap her and say "I was just hoping to strike a happy medium?"

I'm actually having torrid affairs with 2 women who are in contact with the spirit world - I'm always in the media.

If they're really clairvoyant I bet they saw you coming.

reckoner wrote:yeah research points to exercise + placebo > SSRI

Indeed reckoner, or even > SNRI/NASSA/TRI, etc. They're all very blunt tools. Probably better using NLP, etc.

reckoner wrote: Ben Goldacre is awesome

Have been to a few of his talks.

lydian wrote:

reckoner wrote: Ben Goldacre is awesome

Have been to a few of his talks.

awesome and yeah blunt tools certainly an apt description... as you probably know it's all trial and error on a per patient basis.