The Fed party's Central Committee Approved List for explaining fed defeats

First topic message reminder :

1. The courts were slower than mud if on clay and green clay if the loss derives on grass, or blue clay if on hardcourt.

2. His opponents are juicing

3. His opponents are just moonballing lung merchants who play a game aided by slow conditions to tire out the aged Federer

4. Federer is too old and would trounce said victor of the match in his prime.

5. The technology aided in his defeat after all the tour should play with whatever strings and rackets suit Federer.

6. Federer has a bad back

Note: Any deviation from the Central Committees approved reasons for Federer losses will result in a blitzkrieg of online acrimony from the shock troops. And in terms of punishment involves being sent to the gulags where you will be allowed 5 days of turnip soup for your labor in the salt mines. It could by no means ever be because the opponent was just better that day or that the opponent is a supremely talented player in his own right.

Ok, emanci, BB etc. my bad on this thread, there definitely was some wumming and needle involved in this article. But I did not want to offend you guys. I mean it is not like Fed needs any excuses for anything when he is #2 in the world, still capable of beating number 1 and is 33 years old. I have some old grievances that I will just put to bed many of which involve people that aren't on the site anymore to begin with, many of these points aren't directed at any fed fans now on the site. We haven't heard the lung merchant moonballer posts in a long time. The thing that does get my goat frankly is that right after 08 we went straight from Mono to explain the losses to fed's age eventhough that line started right around the time Fed was the same age as Murray and Djoko are now.

Federer was made to look his age when he was being chased by Novak and Rafa and a bit Andy. Future all time great at 21/22 years old, Novak doesn't have that, if he did maybe he would be made to look his age..its fine margins

CAS wrote:Federer was made to look his age when he was being chased by Novak and Rafa and a bit Andy. Future all time great at 21/22 years old, Novak doesn't have that, if he did maybe he would be made to look his age..its fine margins

And I would make the argument that fed did not have that till 2007, except for Nadal on clay either. So the first four years of his reign he didn't have a contemporary that was any where near him.

I mean I think if there was a chasing pack of Nadal/Djokovic level at 21/22 we might see the age of almost 28 show on Djokovic but thats why that hasn't been shown up yet

I actually agree that there is no quality in the chasing pack CAS, we may be in the start of a weak era right now. However when talking a comparison in this regards vis a vis the competition levels faced by Fed v. Djoko, clearly Fed didn't have that quality pack from 04-07. But now it seems that with Fed getting older, Murray in tatters, and Nadal always injured then this year could be a big down in competition level. It remains to be seen. But if Novak gets three or four years of at or near peak fitness against a weakened field then I think we will see him do some crazy things. Similar to what Fed did against the lost generation.

I was just addressing your issue that you feel Federer's age was used as an excuse from 27 onwards, so you are saying how comes Djokovic at 27/28 is just doing just fine? I take it thats your point?

So I'm saying that Federer's age was shown up when he had young hungry future all time greats chasing him down, I think the Federer of 10/11/12 would be winning everything Novak is at this moment and maybe his age wouldn't have been questioned either.

Also, regards to the mono you must admit he did have some pretty bizarre defeats he never used to have during that period. Losing to Mardy Fish 6-3 6-2, losing to Andy Roddick for the first time in 5 years, lost to Radek Stepanek in straights sets on clay?!. Now there is no question Novak, Andy and Rafa all go better but there was also a sign Federer had dipped as well.

However to be fair, Federer decided to play those matches despite still recovering from glandular fever. In doing so he forfeit using it as an excuse as to why he lost, a fact he understood as I never heard him mention it even once. Its because people view him as invincible that you always get on every fb page and youtube video some excuse as to why he lost, as though the bubble will burst if they accept that maybe hes fallable

CAS wrote:I was just addressing your issue that you feel Federer's age was used as an excuse from 27 onwards, so you are saying how comes Djokovic at 27/28 is just doing just fine? I take it thats your point?

So I'm saying that Federer's age was shown up when he had young hungry future all time greats chasing him down, I think the Federer of 10/11/12 would be winning everything Novak is at this moment and maybe his age wouldn't have been questioned either.

Also, regards to the mono you must admit he did have some pretty bizarre defeats he never used to have during that period. Losing to Mardy Fish 6-3 6-2, losing to Andy Roddick for the first time in 5 years, lost to Radek Stepanek in straights sets on clay?!. Now there is no question Novak, Andy and Rafa all go better but there was also a sign Federer had dipped as well.

Look at 09, 10, and 11 in succession. If you remember early in 09 Fed was beaten for the first time on hardcourt in a slam by Nadal at the AO 09. The previous year losing wimby and the FO to Nadal, it was clear that by early 09 Nadal was the top dog on the tour having beaten Federer in three straight of the 4 previous majors one on clay, one on grass, one on hardcourt. Later, Nadal gets injured, Fed goes on to have a multislam season and be year end #1. So in 09 only Nadal was better, but Fed had a great year dominated everyone else. So no drop off there, just one guy working out how to play on hardcourt and beating you at the AO with some startling tennis.

Then 2010, Fed is better than everyone else again Nadal is just a monster, in fact early in that season Fed beats Murray at the AO final with one of the best performances I have ever seen from him. Again Nadal is the only guy better, Fed was still above Djokovic in the rankings

Now comes 2011, djokovic overthrows Nadal and dominates both his elder rivals. Nadal is still getting to almost every final and just losing to Djokovic. Federer has a bad year doesn't win a slam but between Nadal and Novak's level there just aren't any slams to be shared. This is not a clear Fed drop off as he still had one more wimbeldon crown and regaining the number some while away.

So I didn't see the big drop off in fed's game via 2009--2012, as Henman Bill made the same exact point, which I agree with on another thread.

Those three years are not the stories of Fed's decline but the two best seasons in a row put on by his rivals. He was #1 after all at the end of 09 it was hardly a terrible year. But it was clear when Nadal was around on any surface Fed was not safe. So this has nothing to do with the Mono in 08 lets write it off and take a look at what actually was happening around Fed in 09--12 before saying he had fallen off. And as for Novak's current chasing pack they aren't strong, I don't think I have ever said they were. Maybe if there were a couple of world beaters a few years younger Novak would look older, but there isn't.

temporary21 wrote:However to be fair, Federer decided to play those matches despite still recovering from glandular fever. In doing so he forfeit using it as an excuse as to why he lost, a fact he understood as I never heard him mention it even once. Its because people view him as invincible that you always get on every fb page and youtube video some excuse as to why he lost, as though the bubble will burst if they accept that maybe hes fallable

Not logical. Just because something is done under conditions does not preclude the citation of those conditions, nor does not mentioning something imply acceptance.

You say there wasn't much a drop off, no there wasn't but there still was one, considering how small the margins were thats enough to make an impact.

lets look in isolation like you say...

Even in 2009 he took advantage of Nadal's slip through injury but he was still not quite as dominant that year, he kind of limped to that FO 09 win struggling past players he would have destroyed a few years earlier (dropped sets to Acasuso, Matheiu and was lucky Haas kind of choked 2 sets up against him). He made such a meal out of that win over Roddick in the Wimbledon final, I still can't believe how close he was to losing that even though Andy played amazingly.

However, as the season went on strange losses continued to Tsonga at Toronto from 5-1 up in the final set, throwing away against Del Potro, losing to Benneteu and Davydenko at the end of the year too.

in 2010 he played a great Aussie Open but again he was struggling again even before Rafa took off, losing to Baghdatis and Berdych then losing to Gulbis in a terrible performance, then even losing in Estoril to Montanes!

There was also that painful match against Falla in the first round of Wimbledon! Nadal and Djokovic are irrelevant here.

He was still an incredible player but he had lost that 2 percent against lesser players so surely that would be the same against Novak etc?

In 2011 he ended 2010 very well after being the best indoor player. 2011 was the year where he was clearly behind Rafa and Novak as he took beatings off both of them by which time he was 30. Strange losses also included losing to Gasquet from a set up, Tsonga from 2 sets up, and then being crushed by Jo in Cincinatti again.

I could go on, the point he was still a fantastic player, capable of showing stuff of his mid twenties but he had still dropped off a little and thats all it takes.


No one has got better to take down Novak, I guess you could say he deserves it after a tough period he had to go through.

The point is the serial winner of 03-07 was gone, irrelevant to Djokovic and Nadal. They certainly stopped him winning more but other players were stopping him too who never used to.

For me Federer stands where he does because of his high level of consistency. His ability to play at a crazily high standard for so long saw him amass the titles he has. Does he possess so much more (weapons wise as a player) compared to Nadal and Djokovic? No I'd say not. He is better is some areas and they have areas that they are better than Federer. In recent times his consistency level has dipped hence the drought of slam wins whereas Djokovic has taken over the mantle of having the highest consistency levels at present.

Fans will always offer excuses/reasons/explanations for their favourite players defeats and only a few will accept he/she was beaten by the better player on the day. Some excuses/reasons/explanations are more plausible than others offered but at the end of the day injuries,illness, a drop in form or confidence I don't accept as all players have this in their career so that favourite player has benefited from his opponents having those issues so what goes around comes around.

CAS wrote:You say there wasn't much a drop off, no there wasn't but there still was one, considering how small the margins were thats enough to make an impact.

lets look in isolation like you say...

Even in 2009 he took advantage of Nadal's slip through injury but he was still not quite as dominant that year, he kind of limped to that FO 09 win struggling past players he would have destroyed a few years earlier (dropped sets to Acasuso, Matheiu and was lucky Haas kind of choked 2 sets up against him). He made such a meal out of that win over Roddick in the Wimbledon final, I still can't believe how close he was to losing that even though Andy played amazingly.

However, as the season went on strange losses continued to Tsonga at Toronto from 5-1 up in the final set, throwing away against Del Potro, losing to Benneteu and Davydenko at the end of the year too.

in 2010 he played a great Aussie Open but again he was struggling again even before Rafa took off, losing to Baghdatis and Berdych then losing to Gulbis in a terrible performance, then even losing in Estoril to Montanes!

There was also that painful match against Falla in the first round of Wimbledon! Nadal and Djokovic are irrelevant here.

He was still an incredible player but he had lost that 2 percent against lesser players so surely that would be the same against Novak etc?

In 2011 he ended 2010 very well after being the best indoor player. 2011 was the year where he was clearly behind Rafa and Novak as he took beatings off both of them by which time he was 30. Strange losses also included losing to Gasquet from a set up, Tsonga from 2 sets up, and then being crushed by Jo in Cincinatti again.

I could go on, the point he was still a fantastic player, capable of showing stuff of his mid twenties but he had still dropped off a little and thats all it takes.


No one has got better to take down Novak, I guess you could say he deserves it after a tough period he had to go through.

The point is the serial winner of 03-07 was gone, irrelevant to Djokovic and Nadal. They certainly stopped him winning more but other players were stopping him too who never used to.

Federer had odd losses here and there particularly on clay before them. Maybe Fed dropped a little or not much, my point is and has been throughout this conversation is that too much was made of his drop off especially in 09 where Nadal fair and square surpassed him. He still won 2 slams and his lone French and reached the final of the USO as well. We saw that despite some fits and starts at the 09 FO once Nadal wasn't around he took it from the rest of the field. The loss to del po was by thin margins and to a player who was playing lights out tennis do you remember how Del Po manhandled Nadal in straight sets the match before? As for the Roddick win, frankly that was the best Andy ever playing on a surface that suited him and serving lights out. Fed got lucky or Roddick still wasn't good enough to bury that backhand volley. That Roddick was better Roddick than the one who in 03 beat Fed in the US hardcourt swing and won the USO. He goes from winning the FO, winning Wimby, being in the finals of the USO losing a tight match and then destroying murray in the 2010 final. This to me is a much smaller drop off from peak Fed to 09 and 2010 Fed than his fans had us believing all throughout that period.

socal1976 wrote:

CAS wrote:You say there wasn't much a drop off, no there wasn't but there still was one, considering how small the margins were thats enough to make an impact.

lets look in isolation like you say...

Even in 2009 he took advantage of Nadal's slip through injury but he was still not quite as dominant that year, he kind of limped to that FO 09 win struggling past players he would have destroyed a few years earlier (dropped sets to Acasuso, Matheiu and was lucky Haas kind of choked 2 sets up against him). He made such a meal out of that win over Roddick in the Wimbledon final, I still can't believe how close he was to losing that even though Andy played amazingly.

However, as the season went on strange losses continued to Tsonga at Toronto from 5-1 up in the final set, throwing away against Del Potro, losing to Benneteu and Davydenko at the end of the year too.

in 2010 he played a great Aussie Open but again he was struggling again even before Rafa took off, losing to Baghdatis and Berdych then losing to Gulbis in a terrible performance, then even losing in Estoril to Montanes!

There was also that painful match against Falla in the first round of Wimbledon! Nadal and Djokovic are irrelevant here.

He was still an incredible player but he had lost that 2 percent against lesser players so surely that would be the same against Novak etc?

In 2011 he ended 2010 very well after being the best indoor player. 2011 was the year where he was clearly behind Rafa and Novak as he took beatings off both of them by which time he was 30. Strange losses also included losing to Gasquet from a set up, Tsonga from 2 sets up, and then being crushed by Jo in Cincinatti again.

I could go on, the point he was still a fantastic player, capable of showing stuff of his mid twenties but he had still dropped off a little and thats all it takes.


No one has got better to take down Novak, I guess you could say he deserves it after a tough period he had to go through.

The point is the serial winner of 03-07 was gone, irrelevant to Djokovic and Nadal. They certainly stopped him winning more but other players were stopping him too who never used to.

Federer had odd losses here and there particularly on clay before them. Maybe Fed dropped a little or not much, my point is and has been throughout this conversation is that too much was made of his drop off especially in 09 where Nadal fair and square surpassed him. He still won 2 slams and his lone French and reached the final of the USO as well. We saw that despite some fits and starts at the 09 FO once Nadal wasn't around he took it from the rest of the field. The loss to del po was by thin margins and to a player who was playing lights out tennis do you remember how Del Po manhandled Nadal in straight sets the match before? As for the Roddick win, frankly that was the best Andy ever playing on a surface that suited him and serving lights out. Fed got lucky or Roddick still wasn't good enough to bury that backhand volley. That Roddick was better Roddick than the one who in 03 beat Fed in the US hardcourt swing and won the USO. He goes from winning the FO, winning Wimby, being in the finals of the USO losing a tight match and then destroying murray in the 2010 final. This to me is a much smaller drop off from peak Fed to 09 and 2010 Fed than his fans had us believing all throughout that period.

Consistency is the key I think. He has lost that ruling position of supreme consistency to Novak Djokovic. Evidently, he is still playing at a high level hence his tournament wins (apart from slams) haven't dried up. However, to win slams requires higher levels of consistency over a longer space of time and Federer just cannot compete with Djokovic in that area. Akin to when Federer ruled the roost and the younger Djoko couldn't match that high consistency level.

I think its a small percentage of Federer fans you are talking about, I mean I know a few Djokovic fans who have said that Federer plays 'cheap' tennis to beat Novak as he can't rally with him, I know all Djokovic fans dont feel that way.

To me he dropped off a little but from a guy who was winning 3 slams a year and another final, the 2009/10 was still incredibly high but he had dropped off a tad. Not including Rafa and Novak but you can see through his losses and struggles to other players.

Its also not just through results, when you watch a player for a long time you notice things about the games that maybe others may miss. I bet you can tell right away when Novak is off form or something has changed. Federer dipped in his play a bit but was still better than everyone else bar Rafa in 09 and beyond Novak

CAS wrote:

To me he dropped off a little but from a guy who was winning 3 slams a year and another final, the 2009/10 was still incredibly high but he had dropped off a tad. Not including Rafa and Novak but you can see through his losses and struggles to other players.

That is consistency though. He cannot perform at that high sustained level of consistency that he once had. Conversely, when he ruled and Novak was still learning his trade Novak never had that high level of consistency so it is all swings and roundabouts. Roger is king of consistency of that there is no doubt. His skills remained at such a high level for so long hence his record haul of slam titles. I'd argue skill-wise Novak and Rafa are at a same level but have never had the ridiculous consistency over such long spells that Roger had. Who knows Novak may be entering that phase just now and may go on a march that sees him reel in Rafa's slams haul.

I think Federer's serve was always helped in that regard, got him out of a lot trouble over the years, whereas if Novak and Rafa can't find their baseline game its harder for them

CaledonianCraig wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

CAS wrote:You say there wasn't much a drop off, no there wasn't but there still was one, considering how small the margins were thats enough to make an impact.

lets look in isolation like you say...

Even in 2009 he took advantage of Nadal's slip through injury but he was still not quite as dominant that year, he kind of limped to that FO 09 win struggling past players he would have destroyed a few years earlier (dropped sets to Acasuso, Matheiu and was lucky Haas kind of choked 2 sets up against him). He made such a meal out of that win over Roddick in the Wimbledon final, I still can't believe how close he was to losing that even though Andy played amazingly.

However, as the season went on strange losses continued to Tsonga at Toronto from 5-1 up in the final set, throwing away against Del Potro, losing to Benneteu and Davydenko at the end of the year too.

in 2010 he played a great Aussie Open but again he was struggling again even before Rafa took off, losing to Baghdatis and Berdych then losing to Gulbis in a terrible performance, then even losing in Estoril to Montanes!

There was also that painful match against Falla in the first round of Wimbledon! Nadal and Djokovic are irrelevant here.

He was still an incredible player but he had lost that 2 percent against lesser players so surely that would be the same against Novak etc?

In 2011 he ended 2010 very well after being the best indoor player. 2011 was the year where he was clearly behind Rafa and Novak as he took beatings off both of them by which time he was 30. Strange losses also included losing to Gasquet from a set up, Tsonga from 2 sets up, and then being crushed by Jo in Cincinatti again.

I could go on, the point he was still a fantastic player, capable of showing stuff of his mid twenties but he had still dropped off a little and thats all it takes.


No one has got better to take down Novak, I guess you could say he deserves it after a tough period he had to go through.

The point is the serial winner of 03-07 was gone, irrelevant to Djokovic and Nadal. They certainly stopped him winning more but other players were stopping him too who never used to.

Federer had odd losses here and there particularly on clay before them. Maybe Fed dropped a little or not much, my point is and has been throughout this conversation is that too much was made of his drop off especially in 09 where Nadal fair and square surpassed him. He still won 2 slams and his lone French and reached the final of the USO as well. We saw that despite some fits and starts at the 09 FO once Nadal wasn't around he took it from the rest of the field. The loss to del po was by thin margins and to a player who was playing lights out tennis do you remember how Del Po manhandled Nadal in straight sets the match before? As for the Roddick win, frankly that was the best Andy ever playing on a surface that suited him and serving lights out. Fed got lucky or Roddick still wasn't good enough to bury that backhand volley. That Roddick was better Roddick than the one who in 03 beat Fed in the US hardcourt swing and won the USO. He goes from winning the FO, winning Wimby, being in the finals of the USO losing a tight match and then destroying murray in the 2010 final. This to me is a much smaller drop off from peak Fed to 09 and 2010 Fed than his fans had us believing all throughout that period.

Consistency is the key I think. He has lost that ruling position of supreme consistency to Novak Djokovic. Evidently, he is still playing at a high level hence his tournament wins (apart from slams) haven't dried up. However, to win slams requires higher levels of consistency over a longer space of time and Federer just cannot compete with Djokovic in that area. Akin to when Federer ruled the roost and the younger Djoko couldn't match that high consistency level.

CC, I agree, I actually think Fed dropped off from his peak of 04-07. During the period after mono I don't think it was much of a drop off at all. Lets remember in 09 he go to the final of every slam and won two of them. And then played a spectacular final against Murray in 2010. I remember even after that final people saying how Murray should be disgraced losing to an obviously over the hill Federer who at the time is about the same age as Djoko and Murray are now. So do Novak and Murray fans get to claim that every loss to a younger rival is down to age now? It is my belief Fed's decline timeline if you listened to his fans was way earlier and way greater to an extent than what was real.

Searching for excuses including having one pre ready is an overly negative attitude that players like roger would never accept. It's a way of pushing aside and ignoring ones shortcomings. There's no need for them, simply move on to the next match

CAS wrote:I think its a small percentage of Federer fans you are talking about, I mean I know a few Djokovic fans who have said that Federer plays 'cheap' tennis to beat Novak as he can't rally with him, I know all Djokovic fans dont feel that way.

To me he dropped off a little but from a guy who was winning 3 slams a year and another final, the 2009/10 was still incredibly high but he had dropped off a tad. Not including Rafa and Novak but you can see through his losses and struggles to other players.

Its also not just through results, when you watch a player for a long time you notice things about the games that maybe others may miss. I bet you can tell right away when Novak is off form or something has changed. Federer dipped in his play a bit but was still better than everyone else bar Rafa in 09 and beyond Novak

Ok so why is Novak considered at his peak for the same period of time that we heard the fed fans talking about how Fed is passed it? I mean could it just be that Novak is number 1 and the best player on tour? I mean having one player come around like Nadal who had your beating from day one doesn't all of a sudden make your drop off as pronounced as what we were hearing all throughout 09 and 10. And it wasn't just a few, the mainstream all throughout this period went straight from the mono excuse for every loss to the Fed is passed it and would beat these guys in their prime excuse. Interestingly, from wimby 08 to the AO 2010 went to the final ever grandslam, I believe 7 in a row. An incredible record. But during that time frame any loss to Djokovic, Murray, Nadal was simply of an old Fed losing to clearly inferior players who happened to be younger.

For me it has to be consistency. For a long time Roger Federer had such a high level of consistency but that has slipped. Novak now has that great consistency whereas he never had that consistency in the first few years of his career. Roger's skill-set remains much as it always was but he no longer rules in the consistency stakes. It also explains how he can still win best-of-three tournaments regularly but just cannot nail the best-of-five slams. And it isn't fitness as he has still reached slam finals ie Wimbledon last year.

socal1976 wrote:

CAS wrote:I think its a small percentage of Federer fans you are talking about, I mean I know a few Djokovic fans who have said that Federer plays 'cheap' tennis to beat Novak as he can't rally with him, I know all Djokovic fans dont feel that way.

To me he dropped off a little but from a guy who was winning 3 slams a year and another final, the 2009/10 was still incredibly high but he had dropped off a tad. Not including Rafa and Novak but you can see through his losses and struggles to other players.

Its also not just through results, when you watch a player for a long time you notice things about the games that maybe others may miss. I bet you can tell right away when Novak is off form or something has changed. Federer dipped in his play a bit but was still better than everyone else bar Rafa in 09 and beyond Novak

Ok so why is Novak considered at his peak for the same period of time that we heard the fed fans talking about how Fed is passed it? I mean could it just be that Novak is number 1 and the best player on tour? I mean having one player come around like Nadal who had your beating from day one doesn't all of a sudden make your drop off as pronounced as what we were hearing all throughout 09 and 10. And it wasn't just a few, the mainstream all throughout this period went straight from the mono excuse for every loss to the Fed is passed it and would beat these guys in their prime excuse. Interestingly, from wimby 08 to the AO 2010 went to the final ever grandslam, I believe 7 in a row. An incredible record. But during that time frame any loss to Djokovic, Murray, Nadal was simply of an old Fed losing to clearly inferior players who happened to be younger.

We are just going in circles, I address your issues then you just repeat the same question, don't how many times I've said why Djokovic might be considered to be in his peak and Federer wasn't. I might have to copy and paste the same reply as you havent read it obviously. He was losing to other players NOT Nadal and Djokovic, irrelevant to their rise. Did Falla, Mardy Fish, Radek Stepanek, Albert Montanes raise the bar too? Nadal and DJok did get get better but Federer dropped off A BIT.

But it works both ways CAS. When Roger was dominant and high consistency then Novak was not at that high consistency level yet. Now roles are reversed - Novak is the consistency king and Roger less so.

CaledonianCraig wrote:But it works both ways CAS. When Roger was dominant and high consistency then Novak was not at that high consistency level yet. Now roles are reversed - Novak is the consistency king and Roger less so.

Yeah, I'm not sure what your point is though. I'm just saying why Novak isn't having the same age questions marks Federer did as he doesn't have young guns chasing after him who have 5/6 years on him when a 28 year old may be challenged physically.

There is no doubt Djokovic is more consistent than Federer because he is better than him now, when Novak hit 23 when he was consistent Federer was 29, when Federer was 25 Djokovic was 19. Thats why their head2head is so hard to read, Federer dominated a young Novak and Novak is outdoing an ageing Federer, there was never an overlap they were both at their peak.

I guarantee you if the 2011 Djokovic was playing now and playing the current Novak people will be saying 2015 Novak is struggling to keep up because he is the older man

Growing old gets all players as it will with Novak. Just as it did with the generation before this when Roger dispatched the old brigade as age took effect on them. As for when they are/were at their peak is open to debate but what is peak? More like when they were at their most consistent and just now I'd say that is where Novak is just about at.

Yeah thats another point, players peak at different times. I'm keeping an eye on Andy myself as at almost 28 and with the surgery I worry he may be on a permanent decline. I just hope he clicks soon, I think theres a really opportunity at Miami to get a win over Rafa and gain some confidence

CAS wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:But it works both ways CAS. When Roger was dominant and high consistency then Novak was not at that high consistency level yet. Now roles are reversed - Novak is the consistency king and Roger less so.

Yeah, I'm not sure what your point is though. I'm just saying why Novak isn't having the same age questions marks Federer did as he doesn't have young guns chasing after him who have 5/6 years on him when a 28 year old may be challenged physically.

There is no doubt Djokovic is more consistent than Federer because he is better than him now, when Novak hit 23 when he was consistent Federer was 29, when Federer was 25 Djokovic was 19. Thats why their head2head is so hard to read, Federer dominated a young Novak and Novak is outdoing an ageing Federer, there was never an overlap they were both at their peak.

I guarantee you if the 2011 Djokovic was playing now and playing the current Novak people will be saying 2015 Novak is struggling to keep up because he is the older man

Young guns chasing him or the converse that Djokovic had other great players of his age group that could compete with him for as long as he is at his best something Federer has never had. Federer being by far the only great player of his age group is a big advantage. The advantage Novak has in not having any young guns chasing is outweighed by the fact that from day one 1 to the day he leaves he will have Murray and Nadal of equivalent ages. Much harder than Fed who when he was in his peak dominated Nadal off the clay, and Novak on every surface years before they reached their peak. And then once again once those guys reach their peak people all of sudden give you the built in cop out of oh the other guy won because Federer is old now. Therefore, if you want to ask me who had it tougher competition wise I think I would be hard pressed to select Federer. So even in your own argument you do concede if I am not mistaken that Fed was made to look older faster because of how bad ass Novak/Nadal/and Murray were? That basically is another way of agreeing with me and not knowing it.

If a player has to encounter all time greats at some point in their career then I think Fed has it harder having to encounter them from a younger generation (for all the already said reasons: technology, familiarity of older players game etc.). Look at the next generation after Djokovic for example, it's expected of them to beat him as the natural order of things (even though it's not even close to happening). What is beyond the expectation of a player is to dominate their peers the way Federer did and that's what makes him exceptional.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:If a player has to encounter all time greats at some point in their career then I think Fed has it harder having to encounter them from a younger generation (for all the already said reasons: technology, familiarity of older players game etc.). Look at the next generation after Djokovic for example, it's expected of them to beat him as the natural order of things (even though it's not even close to happening). What is beyond the expectation of a player is to dominate their peers the way Federer did and that's what makes him exceptional.

Sorry, don't buy it, having other great players in your generation stand in your way is much more difficult than not having another a great player come along except who is 5-6 years younger. Especially, if you get to run roughshod over the tour 4 years like Federer did without any serious competition on hardcourt and grass.

No player is expected to dominate their generation let alone the next one. They are, however, expected to beat the older players. At least that used to be the case. No point in trying to convince you much about Fed's competition but they were a lot better than anyone coming through now even if you don't think they compare to the other 3.

Playing another all time great from your generation is a chance for you to prove you are greater under familiar conditions for both players. Playing one from the next generation who has all the advantages is another proposition. Nadal is younger but he didn't come along 5-6 years later, he won his first slam 2 years after Federer did.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:No player is expected to dominate their generation let alone the next one. They are, however, expected to beat the older players. At least that used to be the case. No point in trying to convince you much about Fed's competition but they were a lot better than anyone coming through now even if you don't think they compare to the other 3.

Playing another all time great from your generation is a chance for you to prove you are greater under familiar conditions for both players. Playing one from the next generation who has all the advantages is another proposition. Nadal is younger but he didn't come along 5-6 years later, he won his first slam 2 years after Federer did.

Federer win his first slam at 17 ?? I think NOT

Haddie-nuff wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:No player is expected to dominate their generation let alone the next one. They are, however, expected to beat the older players. At least that used to be the case. No point in trying to convince you much about Fed's competition but they were a lot better than anyone coming through now even if you don't think they compare to the other 3.

Playing another all time great from your generation is a chance for you to prove you are greater under familiar conditions for both players. Playing one from the next generation who has all the advantages is another proposition. Nadal is younger but he didn't come along 5-6 years later, he won his first slam 2 years after Federer did.

Federer win his first slam at 17 ?? I think NOT

He means Nadal won his first French in 2005- 2 years after Federer has won his 1st Major

Don't know what you're saying haddie. Nadal was already a slam winner and therefore a good/great player 2 years after Fed's first slam win.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Don't know what you're saying haddie. Nadal was already a slam winner and therefore a good/great player 2 years after Fed's first slam win.

Well of course you have said it quite differently.. thats not how it read to me so

Ok nm.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:If a player has to encounter all time greats at some point in their career then I think Fed has it harder having to encounter them from a younger generation (for all the already said reasons: technology, familiarity of older players game etc.).

There is a very strong argument actually that if you have to encounter all time greats, the best time to have it is when you're either older than prime, or younger than prime.
If it's right during your prime, then that means they (i.e. the other all time greats) can do most damage in the years where you'd expect to pick up the most Grand Slams (most players pick up majority of grand slams in their prime).
It is logical that it would be best you don't have any ATGs in your path during your best years. It's specially underlined because generally during people's prime not only is their best level higher, but they are also more consistent and less prone to off days. So you can take advantage of lack of all time greats to a greater extent.

The argument about Nadal being there to stop Federer during his prime is a very weak one, Nadal when he was younger was not reaching the latter stages of Grand Slams away from clay, Federer has only beaten him twice in Grand Slams. Obviously that is Nadal's 'fault' for not being good enough on all surfaces when he was younger, but you can't argue that Nadal was operating at All-Time Great level on hard courts as a youngster.

This might be better suited to the Fed comparison thread, or indeed the Goat thread. Its tough to keep up with the conversation spread over two or three areas.

temporary21 wrote:This might be better suited to the Fed comparison thread, or indeed the Goat thread. Its tough to keep up with the conversation spread over two or three areas.

Yes, agreed.

socal1976 wrote:

CAS wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:But it works both ways CAS. When Roger was dominant and high consistency then Novak was not at that high consistency level yet. Now roles are reversed - Novak is the consistency king and Roger less so.

Yeah, I'm not sure what your point is though. I'm just saying why Novak isn't having the same age questions marks Federer did as he doesn't have young guns chasing after him who have 5/6 years on him when a 28 year old may be challenged physically.

There is no doubt Djokovic is more consistent than Federer because he is better than him now, when Novak hit 23 when he was consistent Federer was 29, when Federer was 25 Djokovic was 19. Thats why their head2head is so hard to read, Federer dominated a young Novak and Novak is outdoing an ageing Federer, there was never an overlap they were both at their peak.

I guarantee you if the 2011 Djokovic was playing now and playing the current Novak people will be saying 2015 Novak is struggling to keep up because he is the older man

Young guns chasing him or the converse that Djokovic had other great players of his age group that could compete with him for as long as he is at his best something Federer has never had. Federer being by far the only great player of his age group is a big advantage. The advantage Novak has in not having any young guns chasing is outweighed by the fact that from day one 1 to the day he leaves he will have Murray and Nadal of equivalent ages. Much harder than Fed who when he was in his peak dominated Nadal off the clay, and Novak on every surface years before they reached their peak. And then once again once those guys reach their peak people all of sudden give you the built in cop out of oh the other guy won because Federer is old now. Therefore, if you want to ask me who had it tougher competition wise I think I would be hard pressed to select Federer. So even in your own argument you do concede if I am not mistaken that Fed was made to look older faster because of how bad ass Novak/Nadal/and Murray were? That basically is another way of agreeing with me and not knowing it.

They were badass, where is Novaks badass youngsters chasing him? So you agree with me without knowing it. So Djokovic could have aged and we just can't see it as the competition is poor at the moment.

Point is you could argue Djokovic has struggled to dominate, he better get a move on. He only won one slam in a season Federer was 33, Murray was well off after surgery, Del Potro was out of the year and Rafa missed the last 6 months.

It Must Be Love wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:If a player has to encounter all time greats at some point in their career then I think Fed has it harder having to encounter them from a younger generation (for all the already said reasons: technology, familiarity of older players game etc.).

There is a very strong argument actually that if you have to encounter all time greats, the best time to have it is when you're either older than prime, or younger than prime.
If it's right during your prime, then that means they (i.e. the other all time greats) can do most damage in the years where you'd expect to pick up the most Grand Slams (most players pick up majority of grand slams in their prime).
It is logical that it would be best you don't have any ATGs in your path during your best years. It's specially underlined because generally during people's prime not only is their best level higher, but they are also more consistent and less prone to off days. So you can take advantage of lack of all time greats to a greater extent.

The argument about Nadal being there to stop Federer during his prime is a very weak one, Nadal when he was younger was not reaching the latter stages of Grand Slams away from clay, Federer has only beaten him twice in Grand Slams. Obviously that is Nadal's 'fault' for not being good enough on all surfaces when he was younger, but you can't argue that Nadal was operating at All-Time Great level on hard courts as a youngster.

Precisely, I mean I don't know if CAS is honestly trying to argue that Fed had tougher competition. I doubt that he has the powers of reasoning to make me see that. The fact is having similar aged players who can hit all time great level is much better than being chased by a pack of players 5 or 6 years younger who still can't beat you at slams(ie fed 04-07) I mean Djokovic and Murray were 18/19 and Nadal a little older. And none were capable right off the bat of challenging fed on a faster court. Djokovic will always have a Nadal/Murray around at the same age while also having a near peak GOAT in Federer. The fact that the age is similar between the ATGs and Fed being apart either before or after this groups rise is an advantage to Federer's records and not a disadvantage.

CAS wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

CAS wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:But it works both ways CAS. When Roger was dominant and high consistency then Novak was not at that high consistency level yet. Now roles are reversed - Novak is the consistency king and Roger less so.

Yeah, I'm not sure what your point is though. I'm just saying why Novak isn't having the same age questions marks Federer did as he doesn't have young guns chasing after him who have 5/6 years on him when a 28 year old may be challenged physically.

There is no doubt Djokovic is more consistent than Federer because he is better than him now, when Novak hit 23 when he was consistent Federer was 29, when Federer was 25 Djokovic was 19. Thats why their head2head is so hard to read, Federer dominated a young Novak and Novak is outdoing an ageing Federer, there was never an overlap they were both at their peak.

I guarantee you if the 2011 Djokovic was playing now and playing the current Novak people will be saying 2015 Novak is struggling to keep up because he is the older man

Young guns chasing him or the converse that Djokovic had other great players of his age group that could compete with him for as long as he is at his best something Federer has never had. Federer being by far the only great player of his age group is a big advantage. The advantage Novak has in not having any young guns chasing is outweighed by the fact that from day one 1 to the day he leaves he will have Murray and Nadal of equivalent ages. Much harder than Fed who when he was in his peak dominated Nadal off the clay, and Novak on every surface years before they reached their peak. And then once again once those guys reach their peak people all of sudden give you the built in cop out of oh the other guy won because Federer is old now. Therefore, if you want to ask me who had it tougher competition wise I think I would be hard pressed to select Federer. So even in your own argument you do concede if I am not mistaken that Fed was made to look older faster because of how bad ass Novak/Nadal/and Murray were? That basically is another way of agreeing with me and not knowing it.

They were badass, where is Novaks badass youngsters chasing him? So you agree with me without knowing it. So Djokovic could have aged and we just can't see it as the competition is poor at the moment.

Point is you could argue Djokovic has struggled to dominate, he better get a move on. He only won one slam in a season Federer was 33, Murray was well off after surgery, Del Potro was out of the year and Rafa missed the last 6 months.

Novak has struggled to run up routine 3 slam seasons because of a guy his age called Rafael Nadal. Plus the argument really is not about Novak being better than Federer or vice versa. Fed is better and more accomplished. Again my point being that in 09,10 etc. too much was made of Fed's decline and too little credit given to the other guy.

I'm saying I'm not sure what degree you are saying too much was made but he did dip, it was clear in his results to players NOT Rafa and Novak

socal1976 wrote:Precisely, I mean I don't know if CAS is honestly trying to argue that Fed had tougher competition. I doubt that he has the powers of reasoning to make me see that. The fact is having similar aged players who can hit all time great level is much better than being chased by a pack of players 5 or 6 years younger who still can't beat you at slams(ie fed 04-07) I mean Djokovic and Murray were 18/19 and Nadal a little older. And none were capable right off the bat of challenging fed on a faster court. Djokovic will always have a Nadal/Murray around at the same age while also having a near peak GOAT in Federer. The fact that the age is similar between the ATGs and Fed being apart either before or after this groups rise is an advantage to Federer's records and not a disadvantage.

Age is irrelevant regarding competition. Nadal, Becker, Borg, Chang, Djokovic, Murray, all are proof that such a metric holds no water.

IMBL (and many other fans) will claim beating Federer at Miami and Dubai were crowning moments for someone named Nadal. When was Nadal's first HC final (AO 2009, USO 2010)? He was playing and getting to Grass (comparable in court speeds to HC) finals in W 2006-2007, correct? The argument that Nadal could not reach HC finals but could play on Grass, and was not a challenge to Federer, is pretty weak. The same argument can be also reversed regarding Nadal, he had very little competition on Clay, with Federer being the only (incompetent) competition, till Djokovic 2011.

The argument that Federer did not have competition is based on a circular argument. If Federer was beating all his opposition consistently and ruthlessly in 2004-07, either the competition was the 'lost generation' or Federer was better by several orders of magnitude. Take your pick (and I know what you will pick ).

Djokovic beat him in Montreal in 2007 (as he beat Roddick, Nadal on the way), and yet he is not considered competition, because he was 20yo at the time and not at his peak? He reached USO final at 2007, and he won AO in 2008 (at 21yo). You can always say 2011 was peak Djokovic.

Maybe I should have phrased it better. If you're the very best and you have to meet other ATGs then I think it is better to do it in your own prime.

I think Fed is a better ATG than them, he would have lost a bit more in his prime to them but still beat them more overall if hadn't had to adapt to them the way he did and then would have years to win more later with no one new to challenge him. That situation is possibly better than what he actually had. It's what Djokovic has had and really if he was able to distinguish himself from his peers more then would have had even better results.

Nadal only stopped Djokovic from one routine 3 slam season while he stopped Federer from 2 routine 4 slam seasons.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Maybe I should have phrased it better. If you're the very best and you have to meet other ATGs then I think it is better to do it in your own prime.

No way, that is the definition of warped logic. For me it's pretty clear, when you are at your prime years your level is highest and you are at your most consistent; this is the worst time to have All Time Greats snapping at your heels, and the best time to take advantage at the lack of other All Time Greats.
If you're really young or much older than your prime, then those are unlikely to be your slam winning years anyway (I can bring out the stats for this.. vast majority of slams have been won with people aged 22-28 or so).

I think Fed is a better ATG than them, he would have lost a bit more in his prime to them but still beat them more overall if hadn't had to adapt to them the way he did

He's had a lot of time to 'adapt' to Nadal.

No matter how good you are, there's only a limited number of tournaments available to play and win. It's possible to win a bit less during your prime and then more than make up for it later.

He's not from the same generation as Nadal and Djokovic though and didn't learn the game for the same conditions or even with the same racquet. If he were then he wouldn't have had to adapt to anywhere near what he has. I'll admit he should have done a better job but that is what it is.

This sounds like goat talk to me? Which is fine but we made the goat sticky so that it wouldn't clutter up current affairs.

Rafa and Novak are only five to six years younger than Fed, so they also grow up to play on quick surfaces. When they're playing their juniors, they weren't playing on slowed down surfaces, as they've not slowed down the surfaces during late 1990s right? They too had to adapt to slower surfaces as they grew up to play in the main tour. Watch both Rafa and Novak, when they started out in the adult tour, they weren't defending all the time, rather, they stayed close to the baseline and played a more aggressive game on the HCs. Rafa even tried approaching the net often when playing at Wimbiedon in 2003 as a 17 yo. If Fed had to adapt his game for the slower surfaces, so did Rafa and Novak. Fed had a few more years playing at the main tour than both Rafa and Novak, and so he reached his peak during 2004-2007 when Rafa and Novak were still not at their peak or prime yet. Among Fed's peers, I would say he's the one who adapted the best to the slower surfaces of the 2000s, and so he dominated over his peers on the slowed down surfaces.

Hewitt and Nalby had good H2H vs Fed initially, but since 2003 Fed surged ahead of them both. Did the slowing down of surfaces disadvantaged them? I don't know, but what I know is that Fed is/was the one who won the most on the courts of 2000s, not Rafa or Novak, or Hewitt or Nalby. If Fed didn't learn the game for the 2000 conditions, I would say niether did Rafa or Novak. They too have to adapt to the slowed down conditions. Maybe those born in the 1990s are the ones who grow up pkaying on already slowed down conditions. I believe they played their juniors in the 2000s when conditions were already being slowed down. My opinions of course.

CAS wrote:I'm saying I'm not sure what degree you are saying too much was made but he did dip, it was clear in his results to players NOT Rafa and Novak

Nadal didn't get better on grass and hardcourt between 07-09? Djokovic didn't get better at the start 2011? Put it this way Nadal beating Fed at the AO 09 and supplanting Fed was 90 percent Rafa's credit and at most 10 percent down to Fed's decline. If Fed declined so dramatically at 27 or 28 how exactly is he still ranked #2 at 33? How exactly did he play in every single grandslam final from the FO of 2008 till AO 2010, that is 8 consecutive grandslam finals while winning 3 of 8 slams. Where is this odd loss of consistency from 09 and 10 with losses to people other than Nadal? If Nadal is the only guy that beats you at slams maybe what I am saying is that he deserves the lion's share of the credit instead of putting the onus on Fed's decline. I also don't buy the excuse that Nadal went into the tank after 2010 and that Novak beat a Nadal in 2011 that was far off his peak. That also in mind is a cop out. Nadal going into AO 2011 with the chance of a Rafa slam and Nadal reaching final after final to lose every final to one guy is not evidence primarily of Nadal's decline but the rise of Djokovic. Same applies for Fed in 09 and 10.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Rafa and Novak are only five to six years younger than Fed, so they also grow up to play on quick surfaces.  When they're playing their juniors, they weren't playing on slowed down surfaces, as they've not slowed down the surfaces during late 1990s right?  They too had to adapt to slower surfaces as they grew up to play in the main tour.  Watch both Rafa and Novak, when they started out in the adult tour, they weren't defending all the time, rather, they stayed close to the baseline and played a more aggressive game on the HCs.  Rafa even tried approaching the net often when playing at Wimbiedon in 2003 as a 17 yo.  If Fed had to adapt his game for the slower surfaces, so did Rafa and Novak.  Fed had a few more years playing at the main tour than both Rafa and Novak, and so he reached his peak during 2004-2007 when Rafa and Novak were still not at their peak or prime yet.  Among Fed's peers, I would say he's the one who adapted the best to the slower surfaces of the 2000s, and so he dominated over his peers on the slowed down surfaces.

Hewitt and Nalby had good H2H vs Fed initially, but since 2003 Fed surged ahead of them both.  Did the slowing down of surfaces disadvantaged them?  I don't know, but what I know is that Fed is/was the one who won the most on the courts of 2000s, not Rafa or Novak, or Hewitt or Nalby.  If Fed didn't learn the game for the 2000 conditions, I would say niether did Rafa or Novak. They too have to adapt to the slowed down conditions.  Maybe those born in the 1990s are the ones who grow up pkaying on already slowed down conditions.  I believe they played their juniors in the 2000s when conditions were already being slowed down. My opinions of course.

Excellent post, the slowed surface argument is also way over done. As in his heyday Fed was excellent defensively and benefitted as much as anyone with his tremendous footwork and speed. Also he won all 17 slams of his on the slowdowned surfaces. If there were a plethora of serve and volleyers out there in the game and fast conditions, how would they treat Fed's tendency of chipping 90 percent of his backhand returns and then relying on his legs to get back on top of the point?

temporary21 wrote:This sounds like goat talk to me? Which is fine but we made the goat sticky so that it wouldn't clutter up current affairs.

No it isn't. I am not saying Novak or Nadal is better than Federer. I am taking issue with this idea that Fed's decline was the primary reason for the rise of these two players and the fact that instead of giving Nadal mainly and Djokovic as well credit for supplanting him in 09-11 all we heard in that period is how old Roger was when he was basically the same age Nadal and Djoko are now.