Lets take a look at career rankings against the top 10, what does it tell us?

First topic message reminder :

Winning percentage this year and career against players ranked in the top 10.
1. Bjorn Borg .000 - 0-0 .705 - 67-28
2. Roger Federer .615 - 3-7 .660 - 138-71
3. Rafael Nadal .692 - 12-6 .656 - 84-44
4. Boris Becker .000 - 0-0 .651 - 121-65
5. Ivan Lendl .000 - 0-0 .643 - 119-66
6. Pete Sampras .000 - 0-0 .636 - 124-71
7. John McEnroe .000 - 0-0 .570 - 85-64
8. Andy Murray .500 - 2-5 .550 - 44-36
9. Andre Agassi .000 - 0-0 .548 - 109-90
10. Arthur Ashe .000 - 0-0 .540 - 27-23
11. Gustavo Kuerten .000 - 0-0 .514 - 38-36
12. Novak Djokovic .720 - 14-1 .510 - 53-51
13. Jimmy Connors .000 - 0-0 .503 - 84-83
14. Mats Wilander .000 - 0-0 .500 - 54-54
15. Marat Safin .000 - 0-0 .495 - 49-50
16. Lleyton Hewitt .000 - 0-2 .492 - 60-62
17. Michael Stich .000 - 0-0 .470 - 39-44
18. Roscoe Tanner .000 - 0-0 .463 - 31-36
19. Stefan Edberg .000 - 0-0 .460 - 97-114
20. Ilie Nastase .000 - 0-0 .453 - 34-41
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Versus-Top-10-Career-List.aspx


Interesting when measuring the current big 4's record against top 10 players against the record's of past champions and we see that the big 4 stacks up remarkably well. I think what this list shows is that clearly winning against top 10 competition is not easy when players like Edberg are at a 46 percent winning percentage. Good to see the clearly superior Boris, at #4 on the list. Bjorg the ethereal one is at the top of the list. The big 4 of today; Fed, Nadal, murray, and Djoko come in respectively at #2, 3, 8, and 13. Andy Murray very impressive with a career win percentage that puts him ahead of agassi. ALTHOUGH CURRENT PLAYERS IN THEIR PRIME YEARS LIKE RAFA, DJOKO, AND ANDY ARE GOING TO HAVE MORE INFLATED NUMBERS, afterall like Fed they will start losing more of these matches against top 10 guys in years to come. Djokovic however is the fastest mover on the charts. He has WON AN INCREDIBLE 14 OF 15 matches against top 10 guys this year to date. He is streaking up the charts and may be able to get into the top 5 or 10 on this list with the way he is playing. Andy's strong numbers indicate what many of us have been saying. Andy has seperated himself from the rest of the tour, but there is still some distance between him and the big 3.

I HATE Statistics

Don't understand them, never will, and stats can be
bent to anyones' favour !

socal1976 wrote:Emancipator, try to formulate a post that isn't mainly insults then maybe someone will actually comment on a thread or article or topic of yours. If you really don't enjoy my posts please feel free not to read them and respond. Your contributions are filled with hostility and little logic or facts. Maybe that is succinct enough for someone of your mental aptitude.

Hello



Mr Pot.. Kettle

Ok I cut off conversations with people when they start firing off 4 word responses and 2 smiley graphics.

Eureeeeeeeeeeeeeeka,

fellow 606v2ers,

I have discovered the secret to stopping Socal's endless, repetitive, sleep-inducing commentaries.

All hail...

emancipator - discoverer of rarefied secrets.

We understand your basic instincts Emacipator .

It was called wumming on 606 - grow up

I am glad you are enjoying yourself with this childishness, please continue its most enlightening.

socal1976 wrote:Your contributions are filled with hostility and little logic or facts.

I can't comment on emancipator, but your shouting 'YOUR LIST IS WRONG' struck me as a little bit hostile and mistaking Jiri Novak for Novak Djokovic doesn't exactly fit into the 'facts' category. Something you have yet to acknowledge.

And if you can't equate JCF and Safin to Rafa and Nole, then surely you can't equate Chang and Kafelnikov to them.

General opinion is that Fed is one of the greatest players of all time? Correct?

Often debated on forums is who is GOAT and we get names such as Federer, Borg, Nadal and Sampras thrown around? Correct?

Well in the current age we have two of those players in competition in Federer and Nadal whilst Djokovic is now surpassing their levels of excellence (for now) and we have Andy Murray regularly banging on the door at slams. Del Potro may soon be back as one of the favourites for the US Open. So I am still mystified that with all this excellence on show (some of the greatest players of all-time) and yet people are questioning whether it is a stronger era than that of the early part of this century. In that period Sampras was close to retirement, Agassi was/is a legend but does he make it into GOAT debates? Ferrero who has a career spanning the same years as Federer's virtually but without the success and has fallen down the rankings in recent years unlike Federer and Marat Safin a slam winner who had potential but other issues prevented him from writing his name down amongst the greats. Is it really such a heinous crime to say that this current crop of top players are of better quality?

For CC...

List of Masters Winners who did not win any singles slams....

1990 Canada Masters, 1991 Canada Masters - Andrei Chesnokov (ATP #9 - 8 Apr 1991)
1990 Hamburg Masters - Juan Aguilera (ATP #7 - 17 Sep 1984) 6 year difference
1991 Hamburg Masters - Karel Novacek (ATP #8 - 18 Nov 1991)
1991 Rome Masters - Emilio Sanchez (ATP #7 - 30 Apr 1990) - Good doubles player
1993 Canada Masters - Mikael Pernfors (ATP #10 - 22 Sep 1986) - Late bloomer?
1996 ATP Super 9 - Roberto Carretero (ATP #58 - 13 May 1996) - No other titles
1997 ATP Super 9 - Chris Woodruff (ATP #29 - 25 Aug 1997)
2001 Hamburg Masters - Albert Portas (ATP #19 - 1 Oct 2001)
2002 Toronto Masters - Guillermo Canas (ATP #8 - 6 Jun 2005)
2003 Rome Masters - Felix Mantilla (ATP #10 - 8 Jun 1998) 5 year difference

From 2003 (advent of Federer) onwards Masters Winners have been slam contenders as well. Davydenko, Henman are the exceptions.

Winning masters is not guaranteed towards other successes.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Your contributions are filled with hostility and little logic or facts.

I can't comment on emancipator, but your shouting 'YOUR LIST IS WRONG' struck me as a little bit hostile and mistaking Jiri Novak for Novak Djokovic doesn't exactly fit into the 'facts' category. Something you have yet to acknowledge.

And if you can't equate JCF and Safin to Rafa and Nole, then surely you can't equate Chang and Kafelnikov to them.

Fair enough I made a mistake reading your list. You keep bringing up 1996 Julius I don't believe that is an effective route. You keep mentioning Chang and kafelnikov and forget about the Agassi, Becker, Sampras grouping of players at the very top of that list. And Chang and Kafelnikov are much more competent and accomplished players than Roddick and JCF. A generation of players is always judged by the top their top 5 or 8 top guys, I would take the top 5 or 8 of 1996 against 1999, 2002, or 2006 for that matter anyday of the week.

CaledonianCraig wrote:General opinion is that Fed is one of the greatest players of all time? Correct?

Often debated on forums is who is GOAT and we get names such as Federer, Borg, Nadal and Sampras thrown around? Correct?

Good argument Craig. You are forgetting the GOAT debates include greats from other eras as well. Lendl, Laver, Gonzales, McEnroe, Rosewall...

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Well in the current age we have two of those players in competition in Federer and Nadal whilst Djokovic is now surpassing their levels of excellence (for now) and we have Andy Murray regularly banging on the door at slams. Del Potro may soon be back as one of the favourites for the US Open. So I am still mystified that with all this excellence on show (some of the greatest players of all-time) and yet people are questioning whether it is a stronger era than that of the early part of this century. In that period Sampras was close to retirement, Agassi was/is a legend but does he make it into GOAT debates? Ferrero who has a career spanning the same years as Federer's virtually but without the success and has fallen down the rankings in recent years unlike Federer and Marat Safin a slam winner who had potential but other issues prevented him from writing his name down amongst the greats. Is it really such a heinous crime to say that this current crop of top players are of better quality?

Nadal (3 June 1986), Djokovic (22 May 1987) and Murray (15 May 1987), Del Potro (23 Sep 1988) are contemporaries from an age perspective. Federer (8 Aug 1981) is roughly five years older. He has carved his own 'era' and has competed with the 'younger' generation quite well, a testament to his playing style and longevity.

Not a 'heinous' crime, but the artificial division based on calendar years is where the issue is perceived. Does one have to wait till 2005 to say it is a 'strong' era? See Julius's question on the arbitrariness of such a 'division'.

Also 'better quality' is a matter of perception. Safin or Ferrero or Hewitt are somehow 'inferior' (just because of Fedal longevity) is not an easily drawn objective conclusion.

Yes and that was a fair point by Julius.

I'd say 2005 as that was when Rafael Nadal broke onto the scene and won his first slam. True its not all about calendar time ie precise dates. It was then strengthened by the emergence of others such as Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro all of which remain top contenders in the slams and masters to this day.

socal1976 wrote: And Chang and Kafelnikov are much more competent and accomplished players than Roddick and JCF. A generation of players is always judged by the top their top 5 or 8 top guys, I would take the top 5 or 8 of 1996 against 1999, 2002, or 2006 for that matter anyday of the week.

I disagree about Chang/Kafelnikov vs. Roddick/JCF - and don't forget Keurten. I'd take 2002 against 1996, but there's not a great deal of difference. Although in 1996 the gap in quality between the No 1 player and the No 2 was huge!

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Your contributions are filled with hostility and little logic or facts.

I can't comment on emancipator, but your shouting 'YOUR LIST IS WRONG' struck me as a little bit hostile and mistaking Jiri Novak for Novak Djokovic doesn't exactly fit into the 'facts' category. Something you have yet to acknowledge.

And if you can't equate JCF and Safin to Rafa and Nole, then surely you can't equate Chang and Kafelnikov to them.

Fair enough I made a mistake reading your list. You keep bringing up 1996 Julius I don't believe that is an effective route. You keep mentioning Chang and kafelnikov and forget about the Agassi, Becker, Sampras grouping of players at the very top of that list. And Chang and Kafelnikov are much more competent and accomplished players than Roddick and JCF. A generation of players is always judged by the top their top 5 or 8 top guys, I would take the top 5 or 8 of 1996 against 1999, 2002, or 2006 for that matter anyday of the week.

Personal preference, perhaps.

No laverfan, in terms of the accomplishments and talent of the players making up the very top of the game in those years. You had a young Pete, young Andre, Becker was still effective, and after that you had krajicek, ivanisivic, rios, kafelnikov, chang and somehow that is considered no stronger than 2006. Just compare the two lists and their accomplishment level. Also taking into consideration that AGassi was near his best this year and in later years his skills were not close to the skills he possessed in the late to mid 90s.

Craig is still hanging onto the idea that Murray lost in Sept 2008 and Jan 2010 to Federer at his peak.

Frankly, until he withdraws that senseless statement I'm viewing many of his statements with the view that they are just structured to promote Murray.

And for clarity, Murray is my 2nd fav player right now.

socal1976 wrote: Also taking into consideration that AGassi was near his best this year and in later years his skills were not close to the skills he possessed in the late to mid 90s.

Well, again, I would disagree with that - he was fitter and smarter and a better all-round and more consistent player in his later years (1999 onwards) IMHO.

Pardon me for believing Federer then bogbrush.

The only idea I am hanging on to is the current crop of players are more consistent and of better quality than those in the early 2000's.

As for promoting Murray there's no need - he does that well enough with his play thanks.

And for clarity, Murray is my 2nd fav player right now.[/quote]

I thought it was Hewitt

CaledonianCraig wrote:

The only idea I am hanging on to is the current crop of players are more consistent and of better quality than those in the early 2000's.

Can you please define more consistent and better quality in terms of quantifiable achievements in the sport of Tennis?

Is it 1 title, 2 titles, 5 titles, slam finals, slam wins, masters wins/finals, memorable matches, number of tournaments won?

Should Sampras's 12 ATP 500s be the yardstick for consistency, or Nadal's 7 MCs in a row, or Pancho's 7-in-a-row US Pros (1953-1959)?

Please also let me know what factors influenced your choice of such criteria?

Does it mean everyone has to reach 237 consecutive weeks at #1 for greatness? Or is it a calendar slam, or a grand slam, or 2 consecutive slams, or more?

Otherwise, it is purely subjective and a personal preference.

I personally (and subjectively) prefer Pancho, Hoad, Trabert, Rosewall, Laver, Gottfried von Cramm, Max Decugis.

Did you know Max Decugis won French 8 times in 11 years?

Did you know that a player in 1940s has a 'perfect' season (zero losses in a season - I can provide evidence for this 1940s player. )? Should that player be better than all players who have at least one loss per season, which would eliminate almost every single Open Era mens singles player from being 'more consistent' and 'better quality'? Should the current medical and sports technologies be factored into 'quality' and 'consistency'? .

Can you find a pair of players after 1980, who played each other in 145 matches? If I use this as a criterion, not a single player from 1990-2011 fits that profile, hence 'better quality' and 'more consistent' is again a very 'subjective' criterion.

Julius, people forget how great Agassi was in some of the earlier parts of his career, even when not winning slams for a long time he had the tag of being the best guy to never win a slam until he went on a run of 8 slam wins. I think Agassi's best years were spread out, as he had a two year long tailspin after his divorce and had to rebuild from that.

I think it is quite objectively apparent that 1996 is way better and 1995 and 1994 and 1993 where also way better than the doldrums years after the demise of Pete and later on Andre. You see a trend developing? Tennis boomed from the late 70s till mid 90s really it was one of the lengthiest golden ages for any sport. We had a few down years in terms of the absolute best talent and then Fed, Rafa, and Nole came along each one raising the bar to differing degrees and here we are now.

laverfan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

The only idea I am hanging on to is the current crop of players are more consistent and of better quality than those in the early 2000's.

Can you please define more consistent and better quality in terms of quantifiable achievements in the sport of Tennis?

Is it 1 title, 2 titles, 5 titles, slam finals, slam wins, masters wins/finals, memorable matches, number of masters wins?

Please also let me know what factors influenced your choice of such criteria?

Does it mean everyone has to reach 237 consecutive weeks at #1 for greatness? Or is it a calendar slam, or a grand slam, or 2 consecutive slams, or more?

Otherwise, it is purely subjective and a personal preference.

I personally (and subjectively) prefer Pancho, Hoad, Trabert, Rosewall, Laver, Gottfried von Cramm, Max Decugis.

Did you know Max Decugis won French 8 times in 11 years?

More consistent I'd define as those that have been at THE top of the sport for a number of years consistently reaching slam semis/finals on ALL surfaces not just clay/grass etc etc. Being a winner is a quality of a true champion is it not? Multiple slam winners I'd say generally qualify as greats of the game and multiple Masters Cup winners show they are potential greats all in my opinion of course. As for the quality side that is preferential of course but I'd define that personally when you have that instant when a player pulls off a shot that has you thinking:'How did he play that?' The very best players have these moments regularly for me, others nowhere near as regular as I say it is whatever rocks your boat on that front.

As for those that you prefer that is your preference but personally as they were a tad before my time I can't judge them without seeing them. Have you seen them all play?

socal1976 wrote:Julius, people forget how great Agassi was in some of the earlier parts of his career, even when not winning slams for a long time he had the tag of being the best guy to never win a slam until he went on a run of 8 slam wins. I think Agassi's best years were spread out, as he had a two year long tailspin after his divorce and had to rebuild from that.

I think it is quite objectively apparent that 1996 is way better and 1995 and 1994 and 1993 where also way better than the doldrums years after the demise of Pete and later on Andre. You see a trend developing? Tennis boomed from the late 70s till mid 90s really it was one of the lengthiest golden ages for any sport. We had a few down years in terms of the absolute best talent and then Fed, Rafa, and Nole came along each one raising the bar to differing degrees and here we are now.

More self-serving nonsense. Nole hasn't raised the bar, he's capitalised on a fading Federer and a great match up to Nadal, and no other depth. He's done it very well and he's a worthy #1, but let's not fantasise about raising the bar beyo d where his predecessors set it.

Only Federer in the last 20 years can claim to have raised the bar.

Hmm not Safin then or Agassi or Ferrero? And just who exactly have been able to compete best with Federer bogbrush in your humble opinion of course?

No, the last time the bar was set was by McEnroe. Sampras, admittedly, set specialist levels just as Nadal may have done on clay.

Then Federer raised it again. I regret that it will probably be a long time before it is raised again. I'd love someone to come along and exceed what he reached in the mid noughties. The current crop are nowhere near doing that.

But the current crop are the ones to end his domination.

Murray excepting in the slams of course but Nadal and Djokovic have taken over as the slam winners from hin in the past year or so so they can't be so readily sdismissed otherwise you are belittling Federer as well.

Well said Bogbrush,

Federer definitely raised the bar to a level that has not been since.

Novak is playing great but I would definitely take Fed 05-06 over Novak on any surface. Slow HC's would be close but I expect Fed would win decisively on faster HC's, grass and clay.

Even this year's AUS open, were I believe Novak played his best tennis of the year to date, Roger played him very close. It was a very high quality match decided by a few points here and there. If AUS 07 Fed played against 2011 Novak, I would go with Fed 8 times out of 10.

In terms of pure shot making and all court versatility, Roger's peak level exceeds Nadal and Djokovic.

CC,

of course SOMEONE would have ended Roger's domination.

Or did you expect it to last forever?

The question is whether or not they ended Roger's reign at the top by surpassing his peak level or whether it was as a result of a decline in Roger's game.

Anyone who has watched Roger over the years should be able to spot the clear decline in his game.

Yes I would agree that there has been a slight decline in the last year or so but Nadal has been beating Federer in slams since 2005 and Djokovic was beating Federer in 2008 in slams when the decline hadn't set in.

Era discussions are difficult we all know that. Its impossible to compare times when surfaces and technologies were different. Clearly it stands to reason that eras will be different and theoretically they cant all be the same - therefore some will be weaker than others but I dont think we can prove which are which. The fundamental problem you have is this:

1. An era where 1 guy dominated - is the guy so much better, or does he look so much better because the rest are so much weaker?
2. An era where the slams were shared more evenly - were the players all greats that fought over the spoils, or were they all just average players - either way in each scenario slams can be equally shared.

We need to move on, era comparisons are pointless discussions. Everyone will end up contradicting themselves eventually because if you argue for dominating strength, you're also have to prove that the same era didnt have weak players and you cant prove or disprove that because its only relative to that era, not to others. So when we try to compare Blake, Luber, etc to Soderling, Ferrer...its a waste of time, times and players change. I dont even think we can compare Federer's 16 slams to anyone else given so much changes every decade. 16 is just a mathmatical number for this era. The media and pundits love to talk about numbers across eras but we all know the inherent issues with comparison as I started out - surfaces and technology, plus the players themselves didnt always play all the slams as they religiously do now (nearly all the yesteryear greats left out attending many slams over the years, lets not even get onto Laver with the ProAm thing) with all the money in the game and sanctions for not completing the requisite number of events.

CaledonianCraig wrote:
More consistent I'd define as those that have been at THE top of the sport for a number of years consistently reaching slam semis/finals on ALL surfaces not just clay/grass etc etc. Being a winner is a quality of a true champion is it not? Multiple slam winners I'd say generally qualify as greats of the game and multiple Masters Cup winners show they are potential greats all in my opinion of course. As for the quality side that is preferential of course but I'd define that personally when you have that instant when a player pulls off a shot that has you thinking:'How did he play that?' The very best players have these moments regularly for me, others nowhere near as regular as I say it is whatever rocks your boat on that front.

As for those that you prefer that is your preference but personally as they were a tad before my time I can't judge them without seeing them. Have you seen them all play?

My apologies for the not sending my edited post, Craig.

"a number of years" = 1, 2, 3, 5 7, 9.... how many?
"consistently reaching SF's/Fs" = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, ... 23... how many?
Safin won more than 1 slam = multi-slam winner, correct?

If you care to, please go back to my post where I have listed 2000-2005 SF/F players and multiple appearances by one player.

I have seen Pancho play. I did quote an example of the 1969 W (Gonzalez-Pasarell) vs. 2008 w (Federer-Nadal).

Did you know that Tennis rules were changed in the heyday of S&V to negate Pancho's speed? Let me know if I should post the rule change here.

I consider Murray a great player (even if he never wins a slam), despite his not fitting into your criteria very well.

lydian wrote:Era discussions are difficult we all know that. Its impossible to compare times when surfaces and technologies were different. Clearly it stands to reason that eras will be different and theoretically they cant all be the same - therefore some will be weaker than others but I dont think we can prove which are which. The fundamental problem you have is this:

1. An era where 1 guy dominated - is the guy so much better, or does he look so much better because the rest are so much weaker?
2. An era where the slams were shared more evenly - were the players all greats that fought over the spoils, or were they all just average players - either way in each scenario slams can be equally shared.

We need to move on, era comparisons are pointless discussions. Everyone will end up contradicting themselves eventually because if you argue for dominating strength, you're also have to prove that the same era didnt have weak players and you cant prove or disprove that because its only relative to that era, not to others. So when we try to compare Blake, Luber, etc to Soderling, Ferrer...its a waste of time, times and players change. I dont even think we can compare Federer's 16 slams to anyone else given so much changes every decade. 16 is just a mathmatical number for this era. The media and pundits love to talk about numbers across eras but we all know the inherent issues with comparison as I started out - surfaces and technology, plus the players themselves didnt always play all the slams as they religiously do now (nearly all the yesteryear greats left out attending many slams over the years, lets not even get onto Laver with the ProAm thing) with all the money in the game and sanctions for not completing the requisite number of events.

Well said

lydian wrote:16 is just a mathmatical number for this era.

When is 16 not a mathematical number??? Gotcha!
The rest I pretty much agree with.

If you wish to say Federer's decline set in in mid-2010 then up until that point Federer's head-to-head record against the following players is as follows:-

V Djokovic 10-5

V Nadal 7-13

V Murray 5-6

Against the top three ranked players in 2005 Federer's record is:-

v Roddick 19-2

V Safin 12-2

V Hewitt 17-7

A marked difference in results there and all before Federer's decline set in.

lol Julius, quite.

laverfan,

Yes it is impossible to judge those players in the 1940's say as the sport was structured far differently then with players stuck between amateur and professional era. There was no real tennis circuit then and so it is like matching chalk and cheese. The Open Era began in 1968 and things became a little more like they are today though not as many tournaments but obviously not as many pros that have been on the circuit since the mid-70's onwards I'd say. My judgement is merely on the strength of eras here and early 2000's compared to today the circuit has been much the same with ATP 500 and Masters Cup tournaments along with slams to be competed for.

CC, what if you wish to say Fed's decline started in early 2008?

The OP contains players across 'eras' (arbitrarily defined) and a 'reliability' index which does not account for the factors that Lydian has stated. It is a GOAT debate by another name.

If 606v2 can survive 15 years, then a permanent 'GOAT' thread, with rigourous scientific and mathematical sampling and tracking may provide an answer to GOAT debates (or Tennis, as currently played, ceases to be played).

JuliusHMarx wrote:CC, what if you wish to say Fed's decline started in early 2008?

What? In a year when he reached all four slam finals winning Wimbledon and the French Open. Nope I think not.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:CC, what if you wish to say Fed's decline started in early 2008?

What? In a year when he reached all four slam finals winning Wimbledon and the French Open. Nope I think not.

Confusing 2008 with 2009.

AO 2008 (lost to Djokovic - SF), W 2008 (lost to Nadal - F), FO (lost to Nadal - F), USO (won against Murray - F)
AO 2009 (lost to Nadal - F), W 2009 (beat Roddick - F), FO (beat Soderling - F), USO (lost to Del Potro - F).

Wasn't that 2009? In 2008 his standard of play was noticably lower than in 2007. In 2009 he recovered somewhat, but critics say he only took advantage of Rafa's injuries. With Rafa out of the way, they say, there was only pretty weak opposition left. Wait-a-minute - turns out 2009 was a weak era!

JuliusHMarx wrote:Wasn't that 2009? In 2008 his standard of play was noticably lower than in 2007. In 2009 he recovered somewhat, but critics say he only took advantage of Rafa's injuries. With Rafa out of the way, they say, there was only pretty weak opposition left. Wait-a-minute - turns out 2009 was a weak era!

Weak era - Playing a five setter against Haas (similar to Falla W match), Del Potro. Playing four-setters against Acasuso, Mathieu.

And Haas is not considered in any 'greatness' lists because he was not consistent?

But that is the point. How could the decline set in in 2008 and yet had one of his best years in 2009? Questions first began being asked of him when he bombed out at Wimbledon at the Quarters in 2010, following on from a French Open quarter-final exit which was a surprise but not on the scale of Wimbledon and since then has not reached a slam final.

CaledonianCraig wrote:But that is the point. How could the decline set in in 2008 and yet had one of his best years in 2009? Questions first began being asked of him when he bombed out at Wimbledon at the Quarters in 2010, following on from a French Open quarter-final exit which was a surprise but not on the scale of Wimbledon and since then has not reached a slam final.

2011 FO... Craig you are slipping.

Federer's record against the top ten players in 2010 (only counting up until Fed's decline by the way):-

PLD 106 W 75 L 31 Success Rate = 70.75%

His record against players in the top ten in 2005:-

PLD 126 W 99 L 27 Success Rate = 78.57%

Proof that he fared better with players at the top echelons in 2005 than that of today.

Yes laverfan forgot that but I'd certainly say that his decline became apparent after (what for him was a flop) at Wimbledon 2010.

2009 was his comeback year. Questions were asked through most of 2008, with critics saying he would never win another slam.
My personal view is only based on watching him play. He's been slower around the court since 2008 and has relied more on his serve. He can still reach the heights, but less frequently.
Notice who didn't get to any finals in 2009 - Murray and Djokovic. Notice who did - Roddick, Soderling and Del Potro. Is that a stronger year than e.g. 2000
U.S. Open Marat Safin Pete Sampras
Wimbledon Pete Sampras Patrick Rafter
French Open Gustavo Kuerten Magnus Norman
Australian Open Andre Agassi Yevgeny Kafelnikov

or 1994
U.S. Open Andre Agassi Michael Stich
Wimbledon Pete Sampras Goran Ivanisevic
French Open Sergi Bruguera Alberto Berasategui
Australian Open Pete Sampras Todd Martin

You see the problem with 'eras'?

CC,

What on earth are you talking about?

The only reason why you're suggesting Federer's decline began in mid 2010 is because he whooped Murray's behind earlier that year. Thus losing to a 'peak' Fed becomes a reasonable show for Murray. Talk about clutching at straws.

If you've actually watched Fed play over the years (and i'm not just referring to his results although they also corroborate my view) you'd have noticed that by 2008 Fed was already more inconsistent.

That doesn't mean he would never again perform at his elite level; just that he could nolonger do it as consistently. This is generally what decline refers to.

Sampras won his last slam in 2002, two years after a drought. For two weeks he managed to reproduce some of the old magic but he was clearly, in terms of consistency, past his prime.

The same holds for Federer. His decline has been evident for a few years and not since mid-2010.

Well the fact that Murray and Djokovic never made slam finals can be explained in various ways as Murray did have a virus that affected him in the Australian Open in 2009 and he went out in the 4th Round and was not allow to travel because of it and the US Open saw him hampered with a wrist injury. Djokovic retired injured from his QF at the Australian Open against Roddick so wasn't their best years for varying reasons. Del Potro though, who you mention, could still be a big player in the future.

Oh right emancipator so Federer in decline reached four slam finals in 2009? Do me a favour.