A page and forum to discuss all things Roger Federer.
108 Comments on Roger Federer
Tennis GOAT maybe if you buy into the whole GOAT debate, but the rest is OTT hero worshipping, i suppose if Federer is your favorite player, and tennis is your favorite sport, i suppose you would say so anyway, all sports are different its apples and oranges, and all a little too self serving, as all sports are different, Sir Steve Redgrave won 5 consecutive OG medals for rowing, Mo Farrah many for running, Usain Bolt for sprinting, Phelps in swimming, cant we just leave it as greatest tennis player, isnt that enough ?
Fair enough, Alison. But people are talking about it, and this is the Federer page. As you can see from what I write above, I doubt Fed deserves the title even if the whole debate does make sense.
Joe Smith thats fair enough, but its not only Federer fans that comment on his page, other fans do too, its not as if i said anything derotatory about the guy, everything i said was merely objective ….
Yes, you’re right. For some reason I interpreted you as suggesting that it wasn’t appropriate for me to post the link, but I see you didn’t do that at all.
Absolutely, everyone should be able to post on any page as long as it’s relevant.
Couldn’t agree more, Hawks. This is why I have my 5-person “Mount Rushmore” of MEN’S tennis. If it were Mount Rushmore of just tennis, Serena Williams would uquestionably have to be on it, as would arguably (imo) Graf and Martina N.
Kevin, I wonder if you are as ecumenical about particular surfaces. Is it your view that Nadal is not the greatest player on clay? Do you, instead, advocate a 5-person clay Mt. Rushmore of, say, Borg, Vilas, Lendl, Kuerten and Nadal?
Serena and Graf would HAVE to be there looking at tennis as a whole.
Once you step beyond the scope of men’s tennis, how could Serena not even be mentioned in that context. Sexism would be the only reason for such inconsideration.
Perry highlights one commentator on the Economist blog, who makes a point very similar to the one I’ve made here, that Nadal’s higher ELO rating in slam competition is heavily skewed by his dominance on clay. He is, of course, the clay GOAT by a wide margin, and Sackman’s analysis reflects this fact more than anything else.
Here’s the commentators full comment, which also touches on the H2H between Fed and Nadal:
“One of the big drawbacks of this method is that it uses the Elo rating attained on all surfaces to assign probabilities on clay. This probably grossly underestimated Nadal’s chance of winning Roland Garros, given that the Elo rating is heavily skewed by matches on hard court, as it is the most common surface. As a result, his wins were assigned more weight by this methodology.
A similar issue arises when looking at the head to head count between Federer and Nadal (14-23). Counterintuitively, this domination by Nadal is largely due to the fact that Federer was so good on Clay: had Federer not been as good on clay, he would not have reached the final against Nadal with such consistency. Less confrontations on clay would thus have happened, and the overall matchup would be influenced more heavily by confrontations on grass/hard, on which Federer has a slight edge (though not as big as Nadal has on clay. Nobody disputes the fact that Nadal is the GOAT on clay).
Its only until lately that Fed had a slight edge on the HCs, so regardless of clay or non clay, Fed really wasnt any better than Rafa in their H2H all along.
Rafa made the finals at USO four times but Fed failed to make it there to meet him, so its not like Rafa was always the one failing to reach the finals to meet Fed (in 2006-2009, 2015).
At the AO, Rafa was 3-1 vs Fed, nothing much to say there.
BTW, Fedal met 23 times on non clay surfaces, 8 more than meeting on clay, so there’s no reason to discount their meetings on clay just to make Fed look better against Rafa.
They met 7 times on non clay surfaces from 2004-2007, Fed’s peak vs Rafa’s pre prime – Fed 5-2. They met 7 times from 2008-2012 (on non clay surfaces), both in their prime – Fed 3-4. They met 5 times from 2013-2015(didnt meet in 2016), Rafa in his prime, Fed past his – Fed 1-4. They met 4 times in 2017 when both off their prime – Fed 4-0. Overall 13-10 adv Fed.
So, Rafa much > Fed on clay than Fed > Rafa on non clay surfaces hence their H2H despite them meeting more on non clay surfaces than on clay, not forgetting Fed wasnt able to make it to the finals of the FO to meet Rafa numerous times, from 2010, 2012-2014 whilst Rafa couldnt make it to meet Fed only once, in the 2009 final.
No one denies, based on the record, that Rafa has been much better than Fed on clay; nor does anyone claim, at least until the last few years, that Fed has been much better off clay.
The main claim made by Fed fans (myself included) regarding the Fedal H2H is that Rafa never had a huge advantage *off* clay; it was pretty even until the last few years and especially last year. It was also pretty even at slams, though Rafa still has an advantage there off clay (4-3).
The idea that one player was or wasn’t there to meet the other (when the latter made the final) is a silly one and pretty much irrelevant. The only thing that matters, in the present context, is *how many times* each player made the final over their career. By that measure, there is not much of a comparison between Federer and Nadal, either on or off clay: Nadal is obviously better on clay, and Federer is much better off clay.
Sticking just to slams for the moment, on clay Nadal has 10 finals, winning them all. Fed has 5 clay finals, winning just 1. All finals losses, of course, were to Rafa, who also prevented Fed from getting to the final in 2005.
Off clay, Fed has 25 finals, winning 19 (19-6). Nadal has 13 finals, winning 6 (6-7). 3 finals losses were to Fed, 3 to Novak, 1 to Stan. Federer has never stopped Nadal from making it to a GS final.
Bottom line is that Federer’s advantage over Nadal at *making* non-clay slam finals (25-13) is huge, and almost as good percentage-wise as Nadal’s advantage over Fed at making clay slam finals (10-5).
The main difference is Rafa’s perfect record at winning clay slams once he gets there.
Nah, Fed made 14 HC slam finals vs Rafa’s 8 but Fed made 7 of those prior to the big four era.
You forget that Fed had played more years in the tour than Rafa did; give Rafa three more years and see how many HC slam finals and titles he will win.
Grass is Fed’s fave surface just like clay is Rafa’s. Fed made five FO finals but Rafa also made five Wimbledon finals but Rafa did better at Wimbledon than Fed did at the FO.
You conveniently grouped HC and grass as non clay and so made Fed looked much better vs Rafa on non clay. And, you conventienly ignored the fact that Fed had played in many slams, 72 vs Rafa’s 51, ie 21 more!
Lets see if Rafa manages to play for another five years, how many more slam finals he may play in and how many more he may win!
Rafa first beat Fed in 2004 and won a slam in 2005. There’s no reason to start any later than 2005 if you want to be minimally objective. So let’s do that and stick to HC, since you object that Fed’s grass record skews the “off-clay” comparison. By all means let’s see how things stand in 5 years, but as of now here are the relevant facts:
Starting in 2005, Fed has made 12 HC slam finals, winning 9 (9-3). Rafa has made 8 such finals, winning 4 (4-4).
Subtracting the finals they have played against each other (AO 2009 and 2017), we can say that Fed has failed to make a HC slam final “when Rafa was waiting there for him” 6 times. By comparison, Rafa has failed to make it to a HC slam final “when Fed was waiting there for him” 10 times.
If we’re really being fair, then since we’re excluding 2004, before Rafa’s prime, then we should also exclude everything from 2012, when Fed was 30 and past his prime. That subtracts 3 HC slam finals for Fed but 5 for Rafa, making the tally of HC slams 9-3 in Fed’s favour.
Any way you cut it, Fed’s record of making it to the final in HC slams is much better than Nadal’s. Fed is also much better at winning the final once he gets there.
Er…Rafa’s prime? You call Rafa in 2005 being in his prime? You made me laugh Joe; Rafa must be having a very long prime when hes in his prime from 19 to 31, whilst Fed’s was from 22 to 30 or 31! Some Fed fans even said that Fed was past his prime in 2009 or 2010!!
Come on, its not difficult to see that Rafa had it tougher than Fed during his (Rafa’s) prime when he had to contend with his ATG peer Djoko from 2008-2015; whilst Fed had the likes of Roddick to contend with during his peak from late 2003 to 2007.
From 2008-2012, Fed had to deal with Rafa and Djoko in their prime/peak hence he won 5 slams, compared to 11 from 2004-2007. Rafa won 8 during 2008-2012,
made 11 finals losing all 3 other finals to Djoko (Djoko won 5 slams).
You got to give Rafa a few more years and see how he fares at the HC slams. Rafa played in 26 HC slams vs Fed’s 36 so far. Fed played through periods when hes just an upstart (from 2000 to 2002) to hitting his peak (2003 to 2007), and then still in his prime from 2008-2012, before going off his prime from 2013 onwards. He had played against relatively easier opponents before the big four era arrived, played against the tough big four opponents before arriving at the relatively easier post big four era now.
Rafa was just an upstart during Fed’s peak of 2003-2007, hence he wasnt able to do well during the pre big four era except when on clay. He spent most of his peak and then the rest of his prime playing against the big four, and now he’s having it easier in the post big four era when he, like Fed, is coming off from his prime.
We’ll see whether Rafa can capitalize on the relatively weaker opposition (unless there’s a big four revival or some new formidable opponents emerging) from now on.
Just more weak-era nonsense rehashed, Lucky. I’ve already dealt with that above. I’m still waiting for you or anyone else to make a cogent response.
To recap: Nadal hasn’t been good enough against weaker players at slams, throughout his career, to think that he would have any better a slam record had he been Federer’s age and an even better clay court player existed (who would have prevented Nadal from winning RG more than once).
The fairest, most objective way to compare Nadal and Federer -in any respect- is to look at Nadal’s current age and exclude all of Fed’s accomplishments after that age. Some comparisons using this method:
All slam titles: Fed 17, Rafa 16
Grass slams titles: Fed 7, Rafa 2
HC slams titles: Fed 9, Rafa 3
HC slam finals: Fed 23, Rafa 13
WTF titles: Fed 6, Rafa 0
To recap:
“Nadal hasn’t been good enough against weaker players at slams,” – Wrong. Lucky already provided cogent response but you are closed.
” to think that he would have any better a slam record had he been Federer’s age ” Jef Sackmann’s excellent and quantitative analysis was plenty cogent.
“The fairest, most objective way to compare Nadal and Federer -in any respect- is to look at Nadal’s current age and exclude all of Fed’s accomplishments after that age.” According to you. But not according to Jeff Scakmann and his fairest and most objectively cogent quantitative ELO analysis. (You conveniently left out Clay Slam titles -just going to show YOUR complete lack of “fairness” and “objectivity” you so often claim.)
You’ve failed again Joe Smith.
Just like you failed to conceal your bias when you failed to consider Serena as the GOAT of all sport.
There. That’s a much better recap.
#THASP
Lucky, you say:
“You got to give Rafa a few more years and see how he fares at the HC slams. Rafa played in 26 HC slams vs Fed’s 36 so far.”
After 26 HC slams (USO 2011 for Fed), here’s the tally:
Federer: 9 titles, 2 finals, 5 SF
Nadal: 4 titles, 4 finals, 3 SF
What about the Djokovic factor? Nadal lost 2 finals to Novak, but never lost to him in the SF.
Sorry, continuing: Federer, meanwhile, defeated Djokovic in one HC final (2007 USO), but lost to him in 4 HC SF (AO 2008 and 2011; USO 2010 and 2011).
In other words, through 2011 Federer had a *tougher* time at HC slams, in terms of having to face Djokovic, than Nadal did! Even in Djokovic’s prime (2010-11 for present comparison), Fed had to face Djokovic just as often as Nadal did at HC slams, 3-3. It’s just that Fed faced him in the SF, Nadal in the final. (Of course, that’s not taking into account how often Fed has had to face Djokovic at slams after 2011).
Again, the whole “weak-era” meme that blames Nadal’s relative slam deficit against Federer on Djokovic is just false. The main reason Nadal trails Fed on HC, even excluding Fed’s achievements after 2011, is that Nadal is simply not as good at reliably beating weaker players as Federer is.
Your tally includes mostly years when Federer didn’t have prime Rafa or prime Djoko.
He never lost to Djoko in SF because Djoko was ALWAYS in Federer’s half in 14 consecutive non-clay slams from 2008 to 2012 (until Fed realized he could no longer beat Nole in non-clay slams after 2010 and figured he’d be better off facing Murray.
“Again, the whole “weak-era” meme that blames Nadal’s relative slam deficit against Federer on Djokovic is just false. ”
Strawman argument. (See Jeff Sackmann’s excellent and objective ELO quantitative analysis).
Not just prime Djoko, but prime Federer. Federer had many years not having to face prime Rafa and prime Djoko – both who kicked Fed to the curb on HC slam- Rafa going 4-0 vs Fed at HC slams and Nole going 5-0 at HC slams.
0-9 against Rafole at their peaks at HC slams. Not much of a GOAT (as Jeff Sackmann’s excellent ELO analysis objectively concludes).
Seriously though, Joe Smith, that Serena Williams omission was quite damning.
Nah, the fairest way is to look at their careers after they are done, by then theyve riden through both weak(er) and strong(er) eras.
You cant deny that having Djoko around made a lot of difference – Fed won 7 HC slams during 2004-2007 but only 2 during 2008-2012. He was stopped by Djoko four times – SFs of AO2008/2011, USO2010/2011 (and Rafa twice AO2009 F and AO2012 SF) during 2008-2012.
As mentioned in earlier posts, Rafa lost early on grass (from 2012 onwards). On the HCs, he hardly lost before the QFs from 2008 to 2014, in fact making the SFs at least when he wasnt injured during his matches (he was injured during QF of AO2010/2011). He missed some HC slams due to injuries -AO2013, USO2012/2014. He was bad from 2015 to 2016, his worst two years since 2005 onwards.
Lucky gets it.
Joe Smith is sleeping. He does not want to believe. Joe Smith is sleeping.
Lucky, you say:
“You cant deny that having Djoko around made a lot of difference – Fed won 7 HC slams during 2004-2007 but only 2 during 2008-2012.”
I don’t deny that having Djokovic around made a lot of difference, in particular, it made it harder to win HC slams. But you’re not addressing my main point:
Having Novak around hurt Federer *more* than it hurt Nadal: Federer had to face Novak on HC slams *more often* than Nadal did, through AO 2012. Even in Novak’s prime (2010-AO 2012), Fed had just as hard a time as Rafa, facing Novak 3 times each.
Do you see how these facts prevent one from saying that the presence of Djokovic *explains* why Nadal has fewer HC slam titles, even correcting for total number of slams played (26)?
You have to find some other explanation for Nadal’s HC slam deficit.
Nah. Joe Smith broken record.
Jeff Sackmann’s excellent quantitative analysis answers quite clearly .
Federer has many years without peak Rafa and peak Nole as clearly explained by Jeff Sackmann’s excellent ELO quantitative analysis.
Yet Joe Smith has not one answer to how he never even thought of Serena. Curious.
Joe, Fed was stopped by Djoko plus Rafa 6 times, and that’s why he won 2 HC slams in 2008-2012 vs he winning 7 in 2004-2007. Not forgetting he also lost to a 20 yo Delpo in the USO2009 final, and lost to Berdych too so there’re more players who could beat him compared to during 2004-2007. I thought that’s the good explanation as to why Fed had 7 vs Fed had only 2 HC slams?!! Fed was still making SFs to be beaten by either Rafa or Djoko during 2008-2012 so it’s not like he’s in the decline.
As for Djoko stopping Rafa at the HC slams, Rafa was beaten twice by Djoko in the finals. Assuming he won both, Rafa would have six HC slam titles. Rafa was unfortunate to have tough battles vs Djoko, resulting in him getting injured during the season (in 2009 and 2012); the impact of having prime Djoko around couldn’t be ignored. (Rafa had good chances to win the USO in 2012 and 2014 had he not missed them; judging from how players like Djoko, Murray and Fed played, perhaps a red hot Cilic was still the biggest obstacle in 2014).
Rafa was unfortunate that he was injured during his AO2014 final vs Stan, and he lost to Delpo in 2009 USO, who also beat Fed in the final. Rafa lost to Murray at USO2008 SF when he was exhausted after his exploits that year from MC to Olympics, played 50 matches in that stretch, winning 8 out of 10 tournaments played, ie lost only 2 matches!
Rafa’s problems were first, his own injuries and second, the prime Djoko, for he was injured and had to miss 4 slams during 2009-2014; and he had battles vs Djoko 8 times at the slams in same period (7 finals and 1 SF) winning 5 losing 3.
Lucky, here’s the HC slam tally again, limiting Fed to his first 26 HC slams, through USO 2011:
Federer: 9 titles, 2 finals, 5 SF
Nadal: 4 titles, 4 finals, 3 SF
Now, there are two distinct questions regarding Federer’s large lead:
1) Why does Fed hold the lead? Equivalently, why is Rafa behind?
2) Why do most of Fed’s HC slam titles fall within the 2004-07 period?
I have been addressing question (1), in particular, one possible answer to it. That answer, in a nutshell, is that most of Federer’s titles occurred during 2004-07, which was a “weak-era” compared to 2008-13 which followed it. Implicit in this answer, in context, is that *if* Nadal were the same age as Federer, he would have just as many (or more) HC slams today.
Simplifying, but capturing the essence of the “weak-era” answer to (1), is that Nadal had to face prime-age Djokovic, which the Federer of 2004-07 never did.
I have shown that this answer cannot be correct. It cannot explain (1), why Nadal is behind Fed in HC slams. Whatever effect Djokovic had, it was at least as great in preventing Fed from winning HC slams as it was preventing Nadal from winning them.
Joe, I thought I’d explained it in the first paragraph of my post at 3.31am?
Again, you had not taken into consideration that Rafa was just an upstart during 2003-2006/2007, not unlike Fed was during 1999-2002/2003, hence weak era or not during 2004-2007, Rafa wasn’t good enough to capitalize whilst Fed was hitting his prime/peak from 2004 hence he’s able to capitalize; so its not surprising that he’s winning more HC slams during 2004-2007 than in 2008-2012.
I’ve already explained the Djoko factor impacting Rafa, esp in 2009 and 2012 injury issues. Rafa was in peak form during 2009 and was primed for winning more slams (than just one at the AO that year) but his silly schedule (playing Rotterdam and getting injured) and his long SF vs Djoko at Madrid, had caused him further injury that affected the rest of his season. His long AO2012 final too had given him his knee issues (he withdrew from Miami SF that year with knee issue) culminating to his long six months injury break. I felt that he missed his chances at the USO that year when Fed, Djoko and Murray weren’t playing all that well.
You talked about had Rafa being of Fed’s age and played during 2004-2007 in his prime (the way he played during 2008-2012 in his prime), I said without Djoko he might not suffer those mentioned injuries, and he would have fared better during 2003-2007 ( than 2008-2012).
Lucky, you say: “Joe, Fed was stopped by Djoko plus Rafa 6 times, and that’s why he won 2 HC slams in 2008-2012 vs he winning 7 in 2004-2007.”
We’re not talking about how many times Federer was stopped by Nadal from 2008-12; we’re talking about the effect of Djokovic on both players. And I’ve shown that the effect of Novak on Federer was greater than his effect on Nadal. That shows that you can’t blame Nadal’s HC slam deficit on Novak.
You also say: “I said without Djoko he might not suffer those mentioned injuries, and he would have fared better during 2003-2007 ( than 2008-2012).”
Sorry, but this is a terrible argument. First, it’s just a “might”: no one knows exactly what effect those long matches had on Nadal. But more significantly, as I already pointed out in our long back and forth a few months ago, Nadal was *already* injured frequently from 2004-07 even *without* Djokovic! He missed 3 slams due to injury during 2004-07 (a four year period), one more than the 2 slams he missed due to injury during his prime 2008-12 (a five year period).
Even if Rafa’s tough losses to Djokovic during his prime had an injury effect (far from obvious), there are no grounds for thinking that he would have fared better, injury-wise, had he been the same age as Federer and not had to face Novak in his prime. We simply have no idea, and Rafa tendency to get injured throughout his career strongly suggests otherwise.
Nah Joe, before the appearance of peak form Djoko from 2011 onwards, did Rafa go on a six months injury break?? Who had extended Rafa, even on clay, the way Djoko had?
The effect of Djoko on Rafa was that Rafa had to fight tooth and nail with Djoko before deciding who won or lost. Fed had never extended Rafa on clay at the FO the way Djoko did; neither had Fed done that on the HCs the way Djoko did at AO2012. Those were obvious for all to see and yet you simply ignored that.
I mean who during 2004-2007 would be able to do what Djoko did to Rafa during 2011-2014? None!
Lucky, none of your excellent observations can make it through Joe Smith’s confirmatory bias.
Er.. Fed had never stopped Rafa from reaching the slam finals, well thats because he was beaten by Rafa in the SFs – AO2012/2014; FO2005.
Injuries had cost Rafa his chances of winning more slams; like I said earlier, he was making finals at the HC slams in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 (all of which he was affected by injuries during the year that he either had to miss a slam or got injured during a match and lost or retired) and chances of him winning them would go up had he not missed some and had it not for the presence of Djoko.
And Joe, Rafa was just a pup in 2004, still developing physically and he suffered a stress fracture of his ankle in 2004. You want to count that to support your weak argument?
Rafa missed only one slam during 2007-2011 (Wimbledon 2009) but thereafter, he had to miss one slam a year in 2012, 2013 and 2014, and that’s when he’s in his physical prime, unlike in 2004! You think his long matches with Djoko didn’t affect him? Why did he suffer from knee injury that he had to take a six month break and missed two HC slams?
More points to add:
1) I mentioned Rafa, in addition to Djoko, to prove a point, that the period 2008-2012 was much tougher for Fed to win slams compared to the period 2004-2007, because there were two other ATGs around.
2) as someone mentioned above, Fed met Djoko more times than Djoko meeting Rafa on the HCs because Fed/Djoko were on the same half of the draw most of the times on the HCs, and, Fed and Djoko both made the SFs to face each other and they rarely missed a HC slam, unlike Rafa. Its incredible that when Djoko was no.3/Fed no.1, they were always in the same half on the HCs, from 2008-2011, but after 2011 when Fed was no.3, he was drawn into Rafa’s half more often – AO2012, USO2013, AO2014 – those times when Rafa played at the HC slams.
Fed was stopped by Rafa when he faced him in the SF; even if we assumed that Fed wasnt stopped by Djoko at the USO (in 2010/2011), Fed would very likely be beaten by Rafa in the final. So, imo, Djoko’s impact on Fed was < the impact Djoko had on Rafa, because Fed still had to deal with a Rafa at his prime, whilst Rafa was beating Fed more often than not.
The point, Lucky, is that being extended by Novak was never *necessary* for Nadal to get injured -not in 2004, not in 2012, and not today.
Rafa has shown himself to be injury prone, throughout his career. Surely you can see that.
‘I asked you first ‘ oh right .
Since you clearly aren’t a sportsman,judging by your sour grapes comments, ask your self the same question about being a Lance fan.
Already answered.
Not only am I confident that I’m a better tennis player than you, but it’s obvious based on your post that I have better reading comprehension skills also, Big ALancefan.
Has Federer ever beaten Nole the hard court GOAT at his best at USO or AO? Naaah.
Has Federer ever beaten Rafa the clay court GOAT (and overall Men’s Tennis GOAT) at the French Open? Naaah.
Has Federer ever beaten Sampras the grass GOAT at his best? Naaaah.
Federer the GOAT of all sports? One needn’t go to cricket when Serena is considered. (Then again, one needn’t even look past men’s tennis for that matter.)
Not silly, just lacking any independent supporting evidence. If Federer winning slams at 36 is evidence of juicing, then so are Nadal’s muscles and history of long break periods of rest followed by strong comebacks.
in case it’s not clear: my own view is in neither case is there any independent evidence of PEDs.
Nadal’s financial resources might not quite be at Federer’s level, but they easily suffice to evade a positive drug test result if Federer’s (or Armstrong’s) do.
He’d just recently accepted a wild card. Option for what exactly.
#StrikeTwo
The option to play the tournament or attend the awards, what else?
You were probably making the same excuses for Lance.
#StrikeThree
‘I don’t have an actual argument, therefore I will resort to saying ‘you must be a Lance Armstrong fan”.
Well, no. Not only have I never been a Lance fan, I’ve never wasted any time following the uninteresting farce that is professional cycling.
‘I don’t have an actual argument, therefore I will resort to saying ‘[some stupid bullshit].’
Yup, sounds like this site’s resident dickhead.
Personal insults are the last resort for lack of argument Joe Smith which has garnered you warning of moderation before. Why can’t you stick to tennis and leave out the personal and strawman arguments?
Oh right, your stated goal in your first post here was to “stir things up”.
And what about no mention of Serena and your being a Lance fan?
Avoiding the questions with insult.
If they put a roof on the courts Federer will return to clay.
I think he will play Monte Carlo and FO with no roof 🙂 Adding in some ‘free’ points in order to have a more relaxing ending of 2018. I just think he wants to play at least one more time on clay before retiring.
But yeah…roof would be nice and maybe some painted grass too :))
What makes you think he won’t play until he’s over 40. He’s broken Agassi’s record for the oldest #1 now he needs to break Connor’s record for the oldest player on the tour.
Connors played his last ATP match in 1996, at the age of 43 and 1/2. No chance Federer is playing at that age (and I’m not even sure if that’s even the ATP record).
He will not. He will retire by 2020, maybe even earlier and that would be wise.
Federer is four years older than any other player in the Top 25 and almost TEN years older than the average age of 27. (By comparison, Lance Armstrong was the oldest player since 1922 to win the Tour de France and he hadn’t failed a drug test either according to “authorities”. Coincidence?)
36: X
35:
34:
33:
32: X X X
31: X X
30: X X X X X
29: X X X X
28:
27: X
26: X X X
25: X X
24: X X
23: X
22: X
21:
20: X
Works the other way around too, its like Federers the greatest, but no other player is allowed to be given credit for their achievements, its like im happy, but to be 100% happy the rest of the world has to be miserable, its a Federer page, and im sorry to bring this up, but posters attack Nadals career achievements, but it doesnt end there either, as they attack his private life, his sexuality, his hair style, i mean you name it they have something to say about it ….
I think Fed is seriously thinking about playing on clay this year, particularly RG. He’ll make the decision after IW. If he feels good, I’m guessing he’ll skip Miami, and play one tune up and RG.
Maybe so. I feel he will play in Miami to defend his championship points, but if he does that, it may cause him to just play RG, if he plays on clay at all. What I would like to see him do is play a warmup like Madrid then RG.
Roger Federer was the big winner at the 2018 Laureus World Sports Awards on Tuesday night, picking up the Sportsman of the Year and Comeback of the Year awards at the ceremony in Monaco.
The Swiss tennis icon, who reclaimed the world No 1 ranking after overcoming a serious knee injury and winning his 20th Grand Slam title at the Australian Open last month, fought off competition from Cristiano Ronaldo and Rafael Nadal to land the Sportsman of the Year award.
Federer’s awards were his fifth and sixth since the Laureus Awards began in 2000, making him the most decorated winner in its history.
TENNIS legend Roger Federer believes it will be hard for the younger generation to emulate him and fellow veterans Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic in winning multiple Grand Slams.
The 36-year-old Swiss, who holds the men’s all-time record of Grand Slam titles with 20, was speaking to a small group of journalists prior to winning two Laureus awards — ‘Comeback of the Year’ and ‘Sportsman of the Year’ — on Tuesday.
Laureus is a global movement that uses the power of sport to tackle the most devastating social challenges in the world.
Federer, who missed the ATP tournament in Dubai this week to attend the awards, said the younger generation such as Bulgarian Grigor Dimitrov and Dominic Thiem of Austria have the ability to win a Grand Slam but 10 might be beyond them.
“It is definitely hard to see one player right now getting 10 slams,” said Federer.
“It is much easier to say that probably a lot of guys are going to win a slam or two but winning 10 slams is not something you can predict, people didn’t predict that with me to be honest.
“Maybe with Rafa (Nadal) with the French Open you say yes he is going to grab a few there. Maybe he is going to win five (he has 10 to his name) as he was an amazing junior as well like Bjorn Borg, they were the best teenagers we ever had in the game.” Federer, who came to Monaco on the back of winning the Rotterdam title where he beat Dimitrov in the final, admitted fortunes can change with the slightest of tweaks.
“Once you get rolling like Novak and I did all of a sudden you don’t look back, then a few years later you do look back and you have eight or 10 Grand Slam titles, it’s crazy,” said Federer, the oldest world number one in ATP history.
“Confidence and momentum are a big thing.
“When you unlock your game through success or a coach explains the one ingredient that is missing then that can change things.”
– ‘A shadow over the game’ –
Federer, however, believes the sport will not suffer once the likes of him, 16-time major winner Nadal, 12-time Grand Slam Djokovic, and Andy Murray finally hang up their rackets.
“The game of tennis always has a way of producing champions and the future has never worried me,” he said.
“Someone will follow in our footsteps and be a champion.
“We are a shadow over the game, the top guys, and clearly we don’t allow them (the younger ones) to completely flourish but once we are gone I think it will still be very, very exciting.” Federer, who says his lighter tournament schedule these days keeps him hungry and motivated, has had his fair share of injury problems in recent years, and he urged two-time Wimbledon champion Murray not to rush back to competition following hip surgery in January.
“What I learned is just be patient when you are hurt, only come back when you are 100% not 92%,” said Federer, who will make up his mind about whether he plays the French Open after the Indian Wells tournament in March.
“I’ve come to realise it is better to wait. If you are hurt or struggling in a tournament no one knows so that is ok, but if people know you have had a problem it is better to wait it out and train really hard to get back at 100%.” Federer believes whilst part of his enormous popularity is down to the success he has enjoyed, it is also perversely to do with how he handled tougher times.
“Maybe going through tougher moments since 2010 and 2011 came around when I didn’t win so much,” he said.
“People saw me struggling a little bit more and they thought of me as being more human and since then my popularity has really gone up even more so since the comeback (undergoing knee surgery in 2016 and returning to win a record eighth Wimbledon crown in 2017).”
Whos to say Murray wont win more GS yet ?, hes the best British player we have had since Fred Perry, 3 GS, 2 OG medals, 1 WTF title, world number 1 ranking, okay maybe not in the status of the other 3 players, but still a damn good career, and one that most other players on tour would kill to have had ….
Actually, it would be difficult to pick against Ped at any slam this year what with everyone else injured and the fountain of juice.
Also, what with Nole outdoing him with the Grand Slam of Tennis on three different surfaces for the first time in history, Rogerball powers will want him to surpass that feat.
Not so keen or bothered about such awards. The best award imo is still the ATP no.1 player of the year award at year end; that is hard earned and results based, not based on opinions. The ATP player of the year, ie the YE no.1 player award is more meaningful than any other award, esp in these day and age where you rarely or couldn’t even find a YE no.1 player not having won a major title during the year.
Very well written article for the discerning tennis fan that can look beyond slam totals. As a tennis fan for the last 40+ years (and not blinded by Federer), I agree 100%.
Nadal has won two Wimbledons, three US Opens and one Australian Open. He has also beaten Federer to win two of those Slams; at Wimbledon in 2008 and then at the Australian Open six months later. Federer has won just one Slam on Nadal’s turf and has never managed to defeat the Spaniard at Roland Garros. It is of course hypothetical, but if more Slams were played on clay and fewer on hard courts is it not entirely possible, indeed likely, that it would be Nadal who would be ahead in the count.
And that’s hardly the only comparison. Do any of Federer’s achievements match up to Djokovic’s winning all four Slams in a row, or Rod Laver doing it twice in a calendar year in 1962 and then seven years later in 1969. Perhaps, perhaps not.
Much has also been made of Federer’s astonishing improvements late in his career. The switch to a larger racquet that has turned his backhand into a major weapon being chief amongst them. But there is arguably a more significant factor in aiding Federer’s return to the top of the sport. And that is the injuries that all of his major rivals are suffering from. Nadal has withdrawn from or retired during his last six tournaments. Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka have all been forced to resort to surgery for long-term injury problems.
Without those challengers, it is in many ways unsurprising that Federer is now the dominant force in the game. Before his injury hit 2016 he was playing at a high level, making three Grand Slam finals across the 2014 and 2015 seasons. Only Novak Djokovic was a more regular presence in Major title matches in that period reaching six, and it took the Serb to deny Federer on those three occasions. In essence then what we can see is that Federer’s level in 2017 and 2018 is arguably at a similar level as it was before his injury. The difference is in his opponents.
Federer does deserve credit for his longevity. That the Swiss is still playing tennis of the quality to win Majors in his late 30’s is a hugely impressive achievement. But it is not one that necessarily elevates him above the likes of Nadal and Djokovic, both of whom are suffering with injuries. Why should Djokovic’s wearied elbow or Nadal’s damaged knees see them relegated to a lesser status than Federer? Why should Rod Laver’s ineligibility as a professional before the Open Era deny him the status of Federer?
There is no shortage of great players. Federer numbers amongst them. But can he truly be said to rank before them? I think not.
Tennis GOAT maybe if you buy into the whole GOAT debate, but the rest is OTT hero worshipping, i suppose if Federer is your favorite player, and tennis is your favorite sport, i suppose you would say so anyway, all sports are different its apples and oranges, and all a little too self serving, as all sports are different, Sir Steve Redgrave won 5 consecutive OG medals for rowing, Mo Farrah many for running, Usain Bolt for sprinting, Phelps in swimming, cant we just leave it as greatest tennis player, isnt that enough ?
Fair enough, Alison. But people are talking about it, and this is the Federer page. As you can see from what I write above, I doubt Fed deserves the title even if the whole debate does make sense.
Joe Smith thats fair enough, but its not only Federer fans that comment on his page, other fans do too, its not as if i said anything derotatory about the guy, everything i said was merely objective ….
Yes, you’re right. For some reason I interpreted you as suggesting that it wasn’t appropriate for me to post the link, but I see you didn’t do that at all.
Absolutely, everyone should be able to post on any page as long as it’s relevant.
Agree with Alison that the rest is over the top hero worshipping.
Regardless of who one believes is GOAT in (men’s) tennis, how does one readily dismiss Serena Williams from consideration?
It’s pure silliness.
Serena is better than either Federer or Rafa in terms of domination of their respective peers and accomplishments.
They are all incredible and outstanding athletes.
Couldn’t agree more, Hawks. This is why I have my 5-person “Mount Rushmore” of MEN’S tennis. If it were Mount Rushmore of just tennis, Serena Williams would uquestionably have to be on it, as would arguably (imo) Graf and Martina N.
Kevin, I wonder if you are as ecumenical about particular surfaces. Is it your view that Nadal is not the greatest player on clay? Do you, instead, advocate a 5-person clay Mt. Rushmore of, say, Borg, Vilas, Lendl, Kuerten and Nadal?
I know right Kevin?
Serena and Graf would HAVE to be there looking at tennis as a whole.
Once you step beyond the scope of men’s tennis, how could Serena not even be mentioned in that context. Sexism would be the only reason for such inconsideration.
A recent take on the Sackman analysis that has been much discussed on these pages:
http://www.oregonlive.com/the-spin-of-the-ball/index.ssf/2018/02/rafael_nadals_grand_slam_caree.html
Perry highlights one commentator on the Economist blog, who makes a point very similar to the one I’ve made here, that Nadal’s higher ELO rating in slam competition is heavily skewed by his dominance on clay. He is, of course, the clay GOAT by a wide margin, and Sackman’s analysis reflects this fact more than anything else.
Here’s the commentators full comment, which also touches on the H2H between Fed and Nadal:
“One of the big drawbacks of this method is that it uses the Elo rating attained on all surfaces to assign probabilities on clay. This probably grossly underestimated Nadal’s chance of winning Roland Garros, given that the Elo rating is heavily skewed by matches on hard court, as it is the most common surface. As a result, his wins were assigned more weight by this methodology.
A similar issue arises when looking at the head to head count between Federer and Nadal (14-23). Counterintuitively, this domination by Nadal is largely due to the fact that Federer was so good on Clay: had Federer not been as good on clay, he would not have reached the final against Nadal with such consistency. Less confrontations on clay would thus have happened, and the overall matchup would be influenced more heavily by confrontations on grass/hard, on which Federer has a slight edge (though not as big as Nadal has on clay. Nobody disputes the fact that Nadal is the GOAT on clay).
No need to look at oregonlive.
That writer has always been one of many federazzi fanboys.
Probably the type who wouldn’t even think of considering Serena as the GOAT across all sports because of her sex.
Joe Smith still has a sore bottom.
Don’t let Jeff Sackmann’s excellent ELO analysis of why Federer is not GOAT bring you down.
#Groos!
Federer has failed to reach later rounds where Rafa was waiting for him so many more times than the other was around in slams.
That’s simply one of the biggest fake news lies propagated by the federazzi.
That source is the Breitbart of tennis. The type that would overlook Serena as the GOAT of all sports.
No, Jeff Sackmann’s ELO analysis just quantitatively draws the right conclusion that gets the fanboys so bent out of shape.
Its only until lately that Fed had a slight edge on the HCs, so regardless of clay or non clay, Fed really wasnt any better than Rafa in their H2H all along.
Rafa made the finals at USO four times but Fed failed to make it there to meet him, so its not like Rafa was always the one failing to reach the finals to meet Fed (in 2006-2009, 2015).
At the AO, Rafa was 3-1 vs Fed, nothing much to say there.
BTW, Fedal met 23 times on non clay surfaces, 8 more than meeting on clay, so there’s no reason to discount their meetings on clay just to make Fed look better against Rafa.
They met 7 times on non clay surfaces from 2004-2007, Fed’s peak vs Rafa’s pre prime – Fed 5-2. They met 7 times from 2008-2012 (on non clay surfaces), both in their prime – Fed 3-4. They met 5 times from 2013-2015(didnt meet in 2016), Rafa in his prime, Fed past his – Fed 1-4. They met 4 times in 2017 when both off their prime – Fed 4-0. Overall 13-10 adv Fed.
So, Rafa much > Fed on clay than Fed > Rafa on non clay surfaces hence their H2H despite them meeting more on non clay surfaces than on clay, not forgetting Fed wasnt able to make it to the finals of the FO to meet Rafa numerous times, from 2010, 2012-2014 whilst Rafa couldnt make it to meet Fed only once, in the 2009 final.
No one denies, based on the record, that Rafa has been much better than Fed on clay; nor does anyone claim, at least until the last few years, that Fed has been much better off clay.
The main claim made by Fed fans (myself included) regarding the Fedal H2H is that Rafa never had a huge advantage *off* clay; it was pretty even until the last few years and especially last year. It was also pretty even at slams, though Rafa still has an advantage there off clay (4-3).
The idea that one player was or wasn’t there to meet the other (when the latter made the final) is a silly one and pretty much irrelevant. The only thing that matters, in the present context, is *how many times* each player made the final over their career. By that measure, there is not much of a comparison between Federer and Nadal, either on or off clay: Nadal is obviously better on clay, and Federer is much better off clay.
Sticking just to slams for the moment, on clay Nadal has 10 finals, winning them all. Fed has 5 clay finals, winning just 1. All finals losses, of course, were to Rafa, who also prevented Fed from getting to the final in 2005.
Off clay, Fed has 25 finals, winning 19 (19-6). Nadal has 13 finals, winning 6 (6-7). 3 finals losses were to Fed, 3 to Novak, 1 to Stan. Federer has never stopped Nadal from making it to a GS final.
Bottom line is that Federer’s advantage over Nadal at *making* non-clay slam finals (25-13) is huge, and almost as good percentage-wise as Nadal’s advantage over Fed at making clay slam finals (10-5).
The main difference is Rafa’s perfect record at winning clay slams once he gets there.
Of course it’s “silly” by your definition that it contradicts your confirmatory bias.
Conpletely different reasoning for why you didnt even think of Serena as the GOAT of all sport.
Likely a former Lance Armstrong fan to boot no doubt
ELO from Sackmann said it all.
But what about Lance? Were you a fan?
And why no mention of Serena while wandering all the way to cricket?
#SlienceIsDeafening
Nah, Fed made 14 HC slam finals vs Rafa’s 8 but Fed made 7 of those prior to the big four era.
You forget that Fed had played more years in the tour than Rafa did; give Rafa three more years and see how many HC slam finals and titles he will win.
Grass is Fed’s fave surface just like clay is Rafa’s. Fed made five FO finals but Rafa also made five Wimbledon finals but Rafa did better at Wimbledon than Fed did at the FO.
You conveniently grouped HC and grass as non clay and so made Fed looked much better vs Rafa on non clay. And, you conventienly ignored the fact that Fed had played in many slams, 72 vs Rafa’s 51, ie 21 more!
Lets see if Rafa manages to play for another five years, how many more slam finals he may play in and how many more he may win!
Rafa first beat Fed in 2004 and won a slam in 2005. There’s no reason to start any later than 2005 if you want to be minimally objective. So let’s do that and stick to HC, since you object that Fed’s grass record skews the “off-clay” comparison. By all means let’s see how things stand in 5 years, but as of now here are the relevant facts:
Starting in 2005, Fed has made 12 HC slam finals, winning 9 (9-3). Rafa has made 8 such finals, winning 4 (4-4).
Subtracting the finals they have played against each other (AO 2009 and 2017), we can say that Fed has failed to make a HC slam final “when Rafa was waiting there for him” 6 times. By comparison, Rafa has failed to make it to a HC slam final “when Fed was waiting there for him” 10 times.
If we’re really being fair, then since we’re excluding 2004, before Rafa’s prime, then we should also exclude everything from 2012, when Fed was 30 and past his prime. That subtracts 3 HC slam finals for Fed but 5 for Rafa, making the tally of HC slams 9-3 in Fed’s favour.
Any way you cut it, Fed’s record of making it to the final in HC slams is much better than Nadal’s. Fed is also much better at winning the final once he gets there.
Er…Rafa’s prime? You call Rafa in 2005 being in his prime? You made me laugh Joe; Rafa must be having a very long prime when hes in his prime from 19 to 31, whilst Fed’s was from 22 to 30 or 31! Some Fed fans even said that Fed was past his prime in 2009 or 2010!!
Come on, its not difficult to see that Rafa had it tougher than Fed during his (Rafa’s) prime when he had to contend with his ATG peer Djoko from 2008-2015; whilst Fed had the likes of Roddick to contend with during his peak from late 2003 to 2007.
From 2008-2012, Fed had to deal with Rafa and Djoko in their prime/peak hence he won 5 slams, compared to 11 from 2004-2007. Rafa won 8 during 2008-2012,
made 11 finals losing all 3 other finals to Djoko (Djoko won 5 slams).
You got to give Rafa a few more years and see how he fares at the HC slams. Rafa played in 26 HC slams vs Fed’s 36 so far. Fed played through periods when hes just an upstart (from 2000 to 2002) to hitting his peak (2003 to 2007), and then still in his prime from 2008-2012, before going off his prime from 2013 onwards. He had played against relatively easier opponents before the big four era arrived, played against the tough big four opponents before arriving at the relatively easier post big four era now.
Rafa was just an upstart during Fed’s peak of 2003-2007, hence he wasnt able to do well during the pre big four era except when on clay. He spent most of his peak and then the rest of his prime playing against the big four, and now he’s having it easier in the post big four era when he, like Fed, is coming off from his prime.
We’ll see whether Rafa can capitalize on the relatively weaker opposition (unless there’s a big four revival or some new formidable opponents emerging) from now on.
Just more weak-era nonsense rehashed, Lucky. I’ve already dealt with that above. I’m still waiting for you or anyone else to make a cogent response.
To recap: Nadal hasn’t been good enough against weaker players at slams, throughout his career, to think that he would have any better a slam record had he been Federer’s age and an even better clay court player existed (who would have prevented Nadal from winning RG more than once).
The fairest, most objective way to compare Nadal and Federer -in any respect- is to look at Nadal’s current age and exclude all of Fed’s accomplishments after that age. Some comparisons using this method:
All slam titles: Fed 17, Rafa 16
Grass slams titles: Fed 7, Rafa 2
HC slams titles: Fed 9, Rafa 3
HC slam finals: Fed 23, Rafa 13
WTF titles: Fed 6, Rafa 0
To recap:
“Nadal hasn’t been good enough against weaker players at slams,” – Wrong. Lucky already provided cogent response but you are closed.
” to think that he would have any better a slam record had he been Federer’s age ” Jef Sackmann’s excellent and quantitative analysis was plenty cogent.
“The fairest, most objective way to compare Nadal and Federer -in any respect- is to look at Nadal’s current age and exclude all of Fed’s accomplishments after that age.” According to you. But not according to Jeff Scakmann and his fairest and most objectively cogent quantitative ELO analysis. (You conveniently left out Clay Slam titles -just going to show YOUR complete lack of “fairness” and “objectivity” you so often claim.)
You’ve failed again Joe Smith.
Just like you failed to conceal your bias when you failed to consider Serena as the GOAT of all sport.
There. That’s a much better recap.
#THASP
Lucky, you say:
“You got to give Rafa a few more years and see how he fares at the HC slams. Rafa played in 26 HC slams vs Fed’s 36 so far.”
After 26 HC slams (USO 2011 for Fed), here’s the tally:
Federer: 9 titles, 2 finals, 5 SF
Nadal: 4 titles, 4 finals, 3 SF
What about the Djokovic factor? Nadal lost 2 finals to Novak, but never lost to him in the SF.
Sorry, continuing: Federer, meanwhile, defeated Djokovic in one HC final (2007 USO), but lost to him in 4 HC SF (AO 2008 and 2011; USO 2010 and 2011).
In other words, through 2011 Federer had a *tougher* time at HC slams, in terms of having to face Djokovic, than Nadal did! Even in Djokovic’s prime (2010-11 for present comparison), Fed had to face Djokovic just as often as Nadal did at HC slams, 3-3. It’s just that Fed faced him in the SF, Nadal in the final. (Of course, that’s not taking into account how often Fed has had to face Djokovic at slams after 2011).
Again, the whole “weak-era” meme that blames Nadal’s relative slam deficit against Federer on Djokovic is just false. The main reason Nadal trails Fed on HC, even excluding Fed’s achievements after 2011, is that Nadal is simply not as good at reliably beating weaker players as Federer is.
Your tally includes mostly years when Federer didn’t have prime Rafa or prime Djoko.
He never lost to Djoko in SF because Djoko was ALWAYS in Federer’s half in 14 consecutive non-clay slams from 2008 to 2012 (until Fed realized he could no longer beat Nole in non-clay slams after 2010 and figured he’d be better off facing Murray.
But what about Serena Joe Smith.
As Johnny Mac says so ELO-quently…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKg61sa6Gkw
#THASP
“Again, the whole “weak-era” meme that blames Nadal’s relative slam deficit against Federer on Djokovic is just false. ”
Strawman argument. (See Jeff Sackmann’s excellent and objective ELO quantitative analysis).
Not just prime Djoko, but prime Federer. Federer had many years not having to face prime Rafa and prime Djoko – both who kicked Fed to the curb on HC slam- Rafa going 4-0 vs Fed at HC slams and Nole going 5-0 at HC slams.
0-9 against Rafole at their peaks at HC slams. Not much of a GOAT (as Jeff Sackmann’s excellent ELO analysis objectively concludes).
Seriously though, Joe Smith, that Serena Williams omission was quite damning.
Nah, the fairest way is to look at their careers after they are done, by then theyve riden through both weak(er) and strong(er) eras.
You cant deny that having Djoko around made a lot of difference – Fed won 7 HC slams during 2004-2007 but only 2 during 2008-2012. He was stopped by Djoko four times – SFs of AO2008/2011, USO2010/2011 (and Rafa twice AO2009 F and AO2012 SF) during 2008-2012.
As mentioned in earlier posts, Rafa lost early on grass (from 2012 onwards). On the HCs, he hardly lost before the QFs from 2008 to 2014, in fact making the SFs at least when he wasnt injured during his matches (he was injured during QF of AO2010/2011). He missed some HC slams due to injuries -AO2013, USO2012/2014. He was bad from 2015 to 2016, his worst two years since 2005 onwards.
Lucky gets it.
Joe Smith is sleeping. He does not want to believe. Joe Smith is sleeping.
Lucky, you say:
“You cant deny that having Djoko around made a lot of difference – Fed won 7 HC slams during 2004-2007 but only 2 during 2008-2012.”
I don’t deny that having Djokovic around made a lot of difference, in particular, it made it harder to win HC slams. But you’re not addressing my main point:
Having Novak around hurt Federer *more* than it hurt Nadal: Federer had to face Novak on HC slams *more often* than Nadal did, through AO 2012. Even in Novak’s prime (2010-AO 2012), Fed had just as hard a time as Rafa, facing Novak 3 times each.
Do you see how these facts prevent one from saying that the presence of Djokovic *explains* why Nadal has fewer HC slam titles, even correcting for total number of slams played (26)?
You have to find some other explanation for Nadal’s HC slam deficit.
Nah. Joe Smith broken record.
Jeff Sackmann’s excellent quantitative analysis answers quite clearly .
Federer has many years without peak Rafa and peak Nole as clearly explained by Jeff Sackmann’s excellent ELO quantitative analysis.
Yet Joe Smith has not one answer to how he never even thought of Serena. Curious.
Joe, Fed was stopped by Djoko plus Rafa 6 times, and that’s why he won 2 HC slams in 2008-2012 vs he winning 7 in 2004-2007. Not forgetting he also lost to a 20 yo Delpo in the USO2009 final, and lost to Berdych too so there’re more players who could beat him compared to during 2004-2007. I thought that’s the good explanation as to why Fed had 7 vs Fed had only 2 HC slams?!! Fed was still making SFs to be beaten by either Rafa or Djoko during 2008-2012 so it’s not like he’s in the decline.
As for Djoko stopping Rafa at the HC slams, Rafa was beaten twice by Djoko in the finals. Assuming he won both, Rafa would have six HC slam titles. Rafa was unfortunate to have tough battles vs Djoko, resulting in him getting injured during the season (in 2009 and 2012); the impact of having prime Djoko around couldn’t be ignored. (Rafa had good chances to win the USO in 2012 and 2014 had he not missed them; judging from how players like Djoko, Murray and Fed played, perhaps a red hot Cilic was still the biggest obstacle in 2014).
Rafa was unfortunate that he was injured during his AO2014 final vs Stan, and he lost to Delpo in 2009 USO, who also beat Fed in the final. Rafa lost to Murray at USO2008 SF when he was exhausted after his exploits that year from MC to Olympics, played 50 matches in that stretch, winning 8 out of 10 tournaments played, ie lost only 2 matches!
Rafa’s problems were first, his own injuries and second, the prime Djoko, for he was injured and had to miss 4 slams during 2009-2014; and he had battles vs Djoko 8 times at the slams in same period (7 finals and 1 SF) winning 5 losing 3.
Lucky, here’s the HC slam tally again, limiting Fed to his first 26 HC slams, through USO 2011:
Federer: 9 titles, 2 finals, 5 SF
Nadal: 4 titles, 4 finals, 3 SF
Now, there are two distinct questions regarding Federer’s large lead:
1) Why does Fed hold the lead? Equivalently, why is Rafa behind?
2) Why do most of Fed’s HC slam titles fall within the 2004-07 period?
I have been addressing question (1), in particular, one possible answer to it. That answer, in a nutshell, is that most of Federer’s titles occurred during 2004-07, which was a “weak-era” compared to 2008-13 which followed it. Implicit in this answer, in context, is that *if* Nadal were the same age as Federer, he would have just as many (or more) HC slams today.
Simplifying, but capturing the essence of the “weak-era” answer to (1), is that Nadal had to face prime-age Djokovic, which the Federer of 2004-07 never did.
I have shown that this answer cannot be correct. It cannot explain (1), why Nadal is behind Fed in HC slams. Whatever effect Djokovic had, it was at least as great in preventing Fed from winning HC slams as it was preventing Nadal from winning them.
Joe, I thought I’d explained it in the first paragraph of my post at 3.31am?
Again, you had not taken into consideration that Rafa was just an upstart during 2003-2006/2007, not unlike Fed was during 1999-2002/2003, hence weak era or not during 2004-2007, Rafa wasn’t good enough to capitalize whilst Fed was hitting his prime/peak from 2004 hence he’s able to capitalize; so its not surprising that he’s winning more HC slams during 2004-2007 than in 2008-2012.
I’ve already explained the Djoko factor impacting Rafa, esp in 2009 and 2012 injury issues. Rafa was in peak form during 2009 and was primed for winning more slams (than just one at the AO that year) but his silly schedule (playing Rotterdam and getting injured) and his long SF vs Djoko at Madrid, had caused him further injury that affected the rest of his season. His long AO2012 final too had given him his knee issues (he withdrew from Miami SF that year with knee issue) culminating to his long six months injury break. I felt that he missed his chances at the USO that year when Fed, Djoko and Murray weren’t playing all that well.
You talked about had Rafa being of Fed’s age and played during 2004-2007 in his prime (the way he played during 2008-2012 in his prime), I said without Djoko he might not suffer those mentioned injuries, and he would have fared better during 2003-2007 ( than 2008-2012).
Lucky, you say: “Joe, Fed was stopped by Djoko plus Rafa 6 times, and that’s why he won 2 HC slams in 2008-2012 vs he winning 7 in 2004-2007.”
We’re not talking about how many times Federer was stopped by Nadal from 2008-12; we’re talking about the effect of Djokovic on both players. And I’ve shown that the effect of Novak on Federer was greater than his effect on Nadal. That shows that you can’t blame Nadal’s HC slam deficit on Novak.
You also say: “I said without Djoko he might not suffer those mentioned injuries, and he would have fared better during 2003-2007 ( than 2008-2012).”
Sorry, but this is a terrible argument. First, it’s just a “might”: no one knows exactly what effect those long matches had on Nadal. But more significantly, as I already pointed out in our long back and forth a few months ago, Nadal was *already* injured frequently from 2004-07 even *without* Djokovic! He missed 3 slams due to injury during 2004-07 (a four year period), one more than the 2 slams he missed due to injury during his prime 2008-12 (a five year period).
Even if Rafa’s tough losses to Djokovic during his prime had an injury effect (far from obvious), there are no grounds for thinking that he would have fared better, injury-wise, had he been the same age as Federer and not had to face Novak in his prime. We simply have no idea, and Rafa tendency to get injured throughout his career strongly suggests otherwise.
Nah Joe, before the appearance of peak form Djoko from 2011 onwards, did Rafa go on a six months injury break?? Who had extended Rafa, even on clay, the way Djoko had?
The effect of Djoko on Rafa was that Rafa had to fight tooth and nail with Djoko before deciding who won or lost. Fed had never extended Rafa on clay at the FO the way Djoko did; neither had Fed done that on the HCs the way Djoko did at AO2012. Those were obvious for all to see and yet you simply ignored that.
I mean who during 2004-2007 would be able to do what Djoko did to Rafa during 2011-2014? None!
Lucky, none of your excellent observations can make it through Joe Smith’s confirmatory bias.
Er.. Fed had never stopped Rafa from reaching the slam finals, well thats because he was beaten by Rafa in the SFs – AO2012/2014; FO2005.
Luckystar. The voice of reason.
The federazzi will need a translator.
Injuries had cost Rafa his chances of winning more slams; like I said earlier, he was making finals at the HC slams in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 (all of which he was affected by injuries during the year that he either had to miss a slam or got injured during a match and lost or retired) and chances of him winning them would go up had he not missed some and had it not for the presence of Djoko.
And Joe, Rafa was just a pup in 2004, still developing physically and he suffered a stress fracture of his ankle in 2004. You want to count that to support your weak argument?
Rafa missed only one slam during 2007-2011 (Wimbledon 2009) but thereafter, he had to miss one slam a year in 2012, 2013 and 2014, and that’s when he’s in his physical prime, unlike in 2004! You think his long matches with Djoko didn’t affect him? Why did he suffer from knee injury that he had to take a six month break and missed two HC slams?
More points to add:
1) I mentioned Rafa, in addition to Djoko, to prove a point, that the period 2008-2012 was much tougher for Fed to win slams compared to the period 2004-2007, because there were two other ATGs around.
2) as someone mentioned above, Fed met Djoko more times than Djoko meeting Rafa on the HCs because Fed/Djoko were on the same half of the draw most of the times on the HCs, and, Fed and Djoko both made the SFs to face each other and they rarely missed a HC slam, unlike Rafa. Its incredible that when Djoko was no.3/Fed no.1, they were always in the same half on the HCs, from 2008-2011, but after 2011 when Fed was no.3, he was drawn into Rafa’s half more often – AO2012, USO2013, AO2014 – those times when Rafa played at the HC slams.
Fed was stopped by Rafa when he faced him in the SF; even if we assumed that Fed wasnt stopped by Djoko at the USO (in 2010/2011), Fed would very likely be beaten by Rafa in the final. So, imo, Djoko’s impact on Fed was < the impact Djoko had on Rafa, because Fed still had to deal with a Rafa at his prime, whilst Rafa was beating Fed more often than not.
The point, Lucky, is that being extended by Novak was never *necessary* for Nadal to get injured -not in 2004, not in 2012, and not today.
Rafa has shown himself to be injury prone, throughout his career. Surely you can see that.
Another writer who thinks Fed should give the French Open a priority this year:
https://www.foxsports.com.au/tennis/why-roger-federer-should-make-winning-another-french-open-his-priority-in-2018/news-story/e10ab8eb6f5289eda3525a931eaaa6b3
That writer must be a closet Rafan.
Many OTT fedfans are Ramara LOL.
Maybe, but you don’t have to be Rafan to want Fed to play the French Open this year. I wanted him to play it last year.
?
Fed was drug-tested over 14 times last year. imo, he should be tested more than anyone else; what he’s doing is naturally regarded with suspicion.
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/922543/Roger-Federer-Anti-Doping-Drugs-Tests-2017-Tennis-News
We’re you a Lance fan Joe Smith?
#HowManyTimes???
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/lance-armstrongs-guide-to-passing-a-drug-test
#TrustNo1
Were you?
Ah. I asked you first.
But no. No I wasn’t a fan of his ever. But I’m not a fedfan either. C’mon, 37? Really?
Your answer spoke volumes however.
With the right resources, drug testing means nothing. And no one in Rogerball really wants them to.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/sports/cycling/how-lance-armstrong-beat-cyclings-drug-tests.html
‘I asked you first ‘ oh right .
Since you clearly aren’t a sportsman,judging by your sour grapes comments, ask your self the same question about being a Lance fan.
Already answered.
Not only am I confident that I’m a better tennis player than you, but it’s obvious based on your post that I have better reading comprehension skills also, Big ALancefan.
Has Federer ever beaten Nole the hard court GOAT at his best at USO or AO? Naaah.
Has Federer ever beaten Rafa the clay court GOAT (and overall Men’s Tennis GOAT) at the French Open? Naaah.
Has Federer ever beaten Sampras the grass GOAT at his best? Naaaah.
Federer the GOAT of all sports? One needn’t go to cricket when Serena is considered. (Then again, one needn’t even look past men’s tennis for that matter.)
#DontBelieveTheHype
#AnagramsAreEverywhere
Tango lad @ 12.27 pm:
At least I’m good at anagrams.
And ,Nadal will probably have his last Tango in Paris,maybe even this year…
🙂
Jackie Robinson? Jim Thorpe? An Olympic decathlete? But Roger Federer?!? That’s just silly.
In the future, instead of ‘juicing’, it will be called “using the bigger racquet”.
Not silly, just lacking any independent supporting evidence. If Federer winning slams at 36 is evidence of juicing, then so are Nadal’s muscles and history of long break periods of rest followed by strong comebacks.
in case it’s not clear: my own view is in neither case is there any independent evidence of PEDs.
Nadal’s financial resources might not quite be at Federer’s level, but they easily suffice to evade a positive drug test result if Federer’s (or Armstrong’s) do.
Your second sentence is a strawman argument and I’m beginning to think you don’t even know what that means despite using them to no end.
Your last sentence is ridiculous.
But what about your silence on Lance and Serena?
#DeafeningSilenceIsEverywhere
Federer mysteriously pulls out of Dubai at the last minute.
Perhaps traces still showing.
http://flip.it/3HILjK
Hawks!! Look who got the wildcard since Fed withdrew!! Haha #HerbertWillWin(TheWildcard)
It’s too easy Benny but yeah…
#HerbertWillWin
#HowManyTimes???
He pulled out to attend the awards, it wasn’t even unexpected.
Then why enter to begin with.
#PleasePlayAgain
To give yourself the option, obviously.
He’d just recently accepted a wild card. Option for what exactly.
#StrikeTwo
The option to play the tournament or attend the awards, what else?
You were probably making the same excuses for Lance.
#StrikeThree
‘I don’t have an actual argument, therefore I will resort to saying ‘you must be a Lance Armstrong fan”.
Well, no. Not only have I never been a Lance fan, I’ve never wasted any time following the uninteresting farce that is professional cycling.
‘I don’t have an actual argument, therefore I will resort to saying ‘[some stupid bullshit].’
Yup, sounds like this site’s resident dickhead.
Personal insults are the last resort for lack of argument Joe Smith which has garnered you warning of moderation before. Why can’t you stick to tennis and leave out the personal and strawman arguments?
Oh right, your stated goal in your first post here was to “stir things up”.
And what about no mention of Serena and your being a Lance fan?
Avoiding the questions with insult.
If they put a roof on the courts Federer will return to clay.
I think he will play Monte Carlo and FO with no roof 🙂 Adding in some ‘free’ points in order to have a more relaxing ending of 2018. I just think he wants to play at least one more time on clay before retiring.
But yeah…roof would be nice and maybe some painted grass too :))
If only Roger could persuade RG to dye the clay blue…
I liked that blue clay in Madrid,it was different
RG is planning a roof – I think. But probably won’t be installed before Roger hit’s the big four-oh.
What makes you think he won’t play until he’s over 40. He’s broken Agassi’s record for the oldest #1 now he needs to break Connor’s record for the oldest player on the tour.
Connors played his last ATP match in 1996, at the age of 43 and 1/2. No chance Federer is playing at that age (and I’m not even sure if that’s even the ATP record).
He will not. He will retire by 2020, maybe even earlier and that would be wise.
Federer is four years older than any other player in the Top 25 and almost TEN years older than the average age of 27. (By comparison, Lance Armstrong was the oldest player since 1922 to win the Tour de France and he hadn’t failed a drug test either according to “authorities”. Coincidence?)
36: X
35:
34:
33:
32: X X X
31: X X
30: X X X X X
29: X X X X
28:
27: X
26: X X X
25: X X
24: X X
23: X
22: X
21:
20: X
R. Nadal is a good player and has achieved a lot in tennis but R. Federer is a better tennis player than Rafa in so many ways.
Why are some rafans too obsessed in denigrating R. Federer’s success and achievements?
Show some respect to this great player instead of coming up with false accusations that are just foolish.
It’s just sad, some of you lack reason and integrity.
Works the other way around too, its like Federers the greatest, but no other player is allowed to be given credit for their achievements, its like im happy, but to be 100% happy the rest of the world has to be miserable, its a Federer page, and im sorry to bring this up, but posters attack Nadals career achievements, but it doesnt end there either, as they attack his private life, his sexuality, his hair style, i mean you name it they have something to say about it ….
I think Fed is seriously thinking about playing on clay this year, particularly RG. He’ll make the decision after IW. If he feels good, I’m guessing he’ll skip Miami, and play one tune up and RG.
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/924215/Roger-Federer-Tennis-French-Open-plans-Indian-Wells
He shouldn’t skip Miami, he can win the title and still play RG.
I know, it might not be good for his fitness/health since he is older.
I really want him to play RG, R. Federer is full of surprises, you never know what will happen in RG.
🏆💪🤣👍.
Maybe so. I feel he will play in Miami to defend his championship points, but if he does that, it may cause him to just play RG, if he plays on clay at all. What I would like to see him do is play a warmup like Madrid then RG.
Roger Federer was the big winner at the 2018 Laureus World Sports Awards on Tuesday night, picking up the Sportsman of the Year and Comeback of the Year awards at the ceremony in Monaco.
The Swiss tennis icon, who reclaimed the world No 1 ranking after overcoming a serious knee injury and winning his 20th Grand Slam title at the Australian Open last month, fought off competition from Cristiano Ronaldo and Rafael Nadal to land the Sportsman of the Year award.
Federer’s awards were his fifth and sixth since the Laureus Awards began in 2000, making him the most decorated winner in its history.
http://www.skysports.com/tennis/news/12110/11270150/roger-federer-wins-sportsman-and-comeback-of-the-year-at-laureus-awards
congratulations papy
All of His worshippers goose stepped in line…
#FacismIsEverywhere
#RememberLanc
#THASP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbrCGtlTBww
Pederer is betterer.
Martina Navratilova: “The Greatest Of All Time – Roger Federer” 2018 Laureus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpLCz89YLc8
TENNIS legend Roger Federer believes it will be hard for the younger generation to emulate him and fellow veterans Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic in winning multiple Grand Slams.
The 36-year-old Swiss, who holds the men’s all-time record of Grand Slam titles with 20, was speaking to a small group of journalists prior to winning two Laureus awards — ‘Comeback of the Year’ and ‘Sportsman of the Year’ — on Tuesday.
Laureus is a global movement that uses the power of sport to tackle the most devastating social challenges in the world.
Federer, who missed the ATP tournament in Dubai this week to attend the awards, said the younger generation such as Bulgarian Grigor Dimitrov and Dominic Thiem of Austria have the ability to win a Grand Slam but 10 might be beyond them.
“It is definitely hard to see one player right now getting 10 slams,” said Federer.
“It is much easier to say that probably a lot of guys are going to win a slam or two but winning 10 slams is not something you can predict, people didn’t predict that with me to be honest.
“Maybe with Rafa (Nadal) with the French Open you say yes he is going to grab a few there. Maybe he is going to win five (he has 10 to his name) as he was an amazing junior as well like Bjorn Borg, they were the best teenagers we ever had in the game.” Federer, who came to Monaco on the back of winning the Rotterdam title where he beat Dimitrov in the final, admitted fortunes can change with the slightest of tweaks.
“Once you get rolling like Novak and I did all of a sudden you don’t look back, then a few years later you do look back and you have eight or 10 Grand Slam titles, it’s crazy,” said Federer, the oldest world number one in ATP history.
“Confidence and momentum are a big thing.
“When you unlock your game through success or a coach explains the one ingredient that is missing then that can change things.”
– ‘A shadow over the game’ –
Federer, however, believes the sport will not suffer once the likes of him, 16-time major winner Nadal, 12-time Grand Slam Djokovic, and Andy Murray finally hang up their rackets.
“The game of tennis always has a way of producing champions and the future has never worried me,” he said.
“Someone will follow in our footsteps and be a champion.
“We are a shadow over the game, the top guys, and clearly we don’t allow them (the younger ones) to completely flourish but once we are gone I think it will still be very, very exciting.” Federer, who says his lighter tournament schedule these days keeps him hungry and motivated, has had his fair share of injury problems in recent years, and he urged two-time Wimbledon champion Murray not to rush back to competition following hip surgery in January.
“What I learned is just be patient when you are hurt, only come back when you are 100% not 92%,” said Federer, who will make up his mind about whether he plays the French Open after the Indian Wells tournament in March.
“I’ve come to realise it is better to wait. If you are hurt or struggling in a tournament no one knows so that is ok, but if people know you have had a problem it is better to wait it out and train really hard to get back at 100%.” Federer believes whilst part of his enormous popularity is down to the success he has enjoyed, it is also perversely to do with how he handled tougher times.
“Maybe going through tougher moments since 2010 and 2011 came around when I didn’t win so much,” he said.
“People saw me struggling a little bit more and they thought of me as being more human and since then my popularity has really gone up even more so since the comeback (undergoing knee surgery in 2016 and returning to win a record eighth Wimbledon crown in 2017).”
http://www.news.com.au/sport/more-sports/roger-federer-has-admitted-that-he-cant-see-new-generation-recreating-dominance-of-big-four/news-story/32bdbc87ba6c9aea2d9e92efa8511b4c
Roger Federer has admitted that he can’t see new generation recreating dominance of Big Four
:
:
it is the Big 3, not the Big 4. Murray at GS only won 3. I think the new generation can also do this.
Absolutely, Fed20, there are several player who can win as many slams or more than Murray. It has always been the big 3, not 4.
Btw, something tells me you’re going to need to change the number in your name in the next few months.
Agreed re name change.
#PED20
Whos to say Murray wont win more GS yet ?, hes the best British player we have had since Fred Perry, 3 GS, 2 OG medals, 1 WTF title, world number 1 ranking, okay maybe not in the status of the other 3 players, but still a damn good career, and one that most other players on tour would kill to have had ….
I didn’t mean to slight Murray, Alison. He’s obviously competed in the toughest of eras, and winning 3 slams is an incredible accomplishment.
Yes,to win Wimbledon twice in such an era is a huge feat on itself.
“I don’t follow the sport, but just on statistics it’s hard to look past Don Bradman in cricket…”
Yet, for some reason, Joe Smith found it easy to readily look past Serena. Why?
On another note, just dropped $200 on Fed to win the French Open at 13:1.
Safe bet. If Rafa pulls out before FO start, Federer will win if he plays.
If Rafa decides to play, Federer will skip the French and it will be a no contest.
#THASP
#SilverPocketLinings
Actually, it would be difficult to pick against Ped at any slam this year what with everyone else injured and the fountain of juice.
Also, what with Nole outdoing him with the Grand Slam of Tennis on three different surfaces for the first time in history, Rogerball powers will want him to surpass that feat.
#THASP
Not so keen or bothered about such awards. The best award imo is still the ATP no.1 player of the year award at year end; that is hard earned and results based, not based on opinions. The ATP player of the year, ie the YE no.1 player award is more meaningful than any other award, esp in these day and age where you rarely or couldn’t even find a YE no.1 player not having won a major title during the year.
Results based, yeah.So is the Slam count.
Very well written article for the discerning tennis fan that can look beyond slam totals. As a tennis fan for the last 40+ years (and not blinded by Federer), I agree 100%.
https://realsport101.com/news/sports/tennis/roger-federer-dont-believe-the-hype/
A few choice excerpts…
Nadal has won two Wimbledons, three US Opens and one Australian Open. He has also beaten Federer to win two of those Slams; at Wimbledon in 2008 and then at the Australian Open six months later. Federer has won just one Slam on Nadal’s turf and has never managed to defeat the Spaniard at Roland Garros. It is of course hypothetical, but if more Slams were played on clay and fewer on hard courts is it not entirely possible, indeed likely, that it would be Nadal who would be ahead in the count.
And that’s hardly the only comparison. Do any of Federer’s achievements match up to Djokovic’s winning all four Slams in a row, or Rod Laver doing it twice in a calendar year in 1962 and then seven years later in 1969. Perhaps, perhaps not.
Much has also been made of Federer’s astonishing improvements late in his career. The switch to a larger racquet that has turned his backhand into a major weapon being chief amongst them. But there is arguably a more significant factor in aiding Federer’s return to the top of the sport. And that is the injuries that all of his major rivals are suffering from. Nadal has withdrawn from or retired during his last six tournaments. Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka have all been forced to resort to surgery for long-term injury problems.
Without those challengers, it is in many ways unsurprising that Federer is now the dominant force in the game. Before his injury hit 2016 he was playing at a high level, making three Grand Slam finals across the 2014 and 2015 seasons. Only Novak Djokovic was a more regular presence in Major title matches in that period reaching six, and it took the Serb to deny Federer on those three occasions. In essence then what we can see is that Federer’s level in 2017 and 2018 is arguably at a similar level as it was before his injury. The difference is in his opponents.
Federer does deserve credit for his longevity. That the Swiss is still playing tennis of the quality to win Majors in his late 30’s is a hugely impressive achievement. But it is not one that necessarily elevates him above the likes of Nadal and Djokovic, both of whom are suffering with injuries. Why should Djokovic’s wearied elbow or Nadal’s damaged knees see them relegated to a lesser status than Federer? Why should Rod Laver’s ineligibility as a professional before the Open Era deny him the status of Federer?
There is no shortage of great players. Federer numbers amongst them. But can he truly be said to rank before them? I think not.
#TheTruthIsOutThere
#THASP
The truth has been out there, and I’ve been screaming it for years. There is no single, definitive “greatest” of all-time.
#AndWhyDoesThereNeedToBeOne?
#RecognizeAllGreatness
Serena included.
And Graf. And Navratilova. Imo.