Roger Federer (1 Viewer)

[Dentist]

Sounds like a concession to me that he isn't the greatest of all time. When did people say that about Sampras? I think fans of others were thanking other players for knocking him out, not Sampras fans happy someone took someone else out. In his final US Open win, he beat Agassi. Sounds like unlike Sampras, people even his own fans don't think Federer could win one if Nadal is in his way. Even in the twilight of his career and Agassi playing at a higher level, that was never the feeling with Sampras.

look, nadal has his number. I don't know what it is about Nadal, but his game severely troubles Roger's.Granted it's a lot less so off clay... but he troubles him.

But Nadal has a lot more shortcomings in his resume... like Luke Rosol.

Federer hasn't donked off a match to a non-top 10 opponent in over 33 straight grand slams. He's insanely consistent.

I can't ignore the dark spot on Roger's resume that is the H2H vs. Rafa.

But here's the thing:

If my life depends on it - I have to take Roger or Rafa in best of 21 on various surfaces... i'll take rafa reluctantly.. although i'll need to know exactly how many of those are going to be on clay vs. indoor

but If it's a best of 199 match tournament against the entire field, I'll take prime Roger... he's going to post a better record vs. the field.

And Sampras has no Nadal like guy that had his number. Sampras needed no one to take out his chief rival for him, he was up to the task which the greatest of all time should be up to. Even you don't seem to have faith Federer can accomplish that. How can you feel Federer is the best ever if he's not even better than a contemporary? Shouldn't the best of all time actually be favored especially against the guys he played against?

In what other sport is the arguably best ever not even able to best his contemporaries?

gotta be someone that would be favored in your best of 21 event and I'd say Sampras fits that bill. Others too but by own admission, Federer is out.

I'm not sure how to properly explain this.

Was Buster Douglas a better Boxer than Mike Tyson?

NO

did buster win? Yes.

So, Nadal beats Federer (although their head to head would be near even if the % of clay matches were proportionate to the % of the clay season) but against the field Federer is quite a bit better as of right now.

To use an extreme example... let's say someone completely ungood like Sam Querry just OWNED Nadal.. but never won a major.. but their head to head was like 6-1 Querry... albeit most of the matches were in hard court majors.

Is Sam Querry better than Nadal? Can Nadal not be the GOAT because for whatever reason Querry could own him?

Is Luke Rosol better than Nadal?

 

[DiStefano]

Sounds like a concession to me that he isn't the greatest of all time. When did people say that about Sampras? I think fans of others were thanking other players for knocking him out, not Sampras fans happy someone took someone else out. In his final US Open win, he beat Agassi. Sounds like unlike Sampras, people even his own fans don't think Federer could win one if Nadal is in his way. Even in the twilight of his career and Agassi playing at a higher level, that was never the feeling with Sampras.

look, nadal has his number. I don't know what it is about Nadal, but his game severely troubles Roger's.Granted it's a lot less so off clay... but he troubles him.

But Nadal has a lot more shortcomings in his resume... like Luke Rosol.

Federer hasn't donked off a match to a non-top 10 opponent in over 33 straight grand slams. He's insanely consistent.

I can't ignore the dark spot on Roger's resume that is the H2H vs. Rafa.

But here's the thing:

If my life depends on it - I have to take Roger or Rafa in best of 21 on various surfaces... i'll take rafa reluctantly.. although i'll need to know exactly how many of those are going to be on clay vs. indoor

but If it's a best of 199 match tournament against the entire field, I'll take prime Roger... he's going to post a better record vs. the field.

And Sampras has no Nadal like guy that had his number. Sampras needed no one to take out his chief rival for him, he was up to the task which the greatest of all time should be up to. Even you don't seem to have faith Federer can accomplish that. How can you feel Federer is the best ever if he's not even better than a contemporary? Shouldn't the best of all time actually be favored especially against the guys he played against?

In what other sport is the arguably best ever not even able to best his contemporaries?

gotta be someone that would be favored in your best of 21 event and I'd say Sampras fits that bill. Others too but by own admission, Federer is out.

I'm not sure how to properly explain this.

Was Buster Douglas a better Boxer than Mike Tyson?

NO

did buster win? Yes.

So, Nadal beats Federer (although their head to head would be near even if the % of clay matches were proportionate to the % of the clay season) but against the field Federer is quite a bit better as of right now.

To use an extreme example... let's say someone completely ungood like Sam Querry just OWNED Nadal.. but never won a major.. but their head to head was like 6-1 Querry... albeit most of the matches were in hard court majors.

Is Sam Querry better than Nadal? Can Nadal not be the GOAT because for whatever reason Querry could own him?

Is Luke Rosol better than Nadal?

How many French Open's did Sampras win?

Answer: NONE

Game, Set, Match.

 

[Hack Attack]

When that dude has a +8 win record over Nadal, let me know. Or if you find someone who did that to Sampras, let me know.

As for the French, Federer has tournaments he hasn't won either. So equal footing there, Sampras still didn't owned time and time and time and time and time and time again.

 

[DiStefano]

When that dude has a +8 win record over Nadal, let me know. Or if you find someone who did that to Sampras, let me know.As for the French, Federer has tournaments he hasn't won either. So equal footing there, Sampras still didn't owned time and time and time and time and time and time again.

So does Jack Nicklaus. But he won all the majors, and won more than anyone else ever did. Federer has won all the majors, and Sampras never did.

 

[Dentist]

When that dude has a +8 win record over Nadal, let me know. Or if you find someone who did that to Sampras, let me know.As for the French, Federer has tournaments he hasn't won either. So equal footing there, Sampras still didn't owned time and time and time and time and time and time again.

there aren't too many tournaments that are serious tournaments that federer hasn't won.. maybe olympics.. although with it being every 4 years that makes it tough. maybe some random clay ones.. but nothing with real significance.if sampras had played in the nadal era he might not have had a negative head to head because he wouldn't have been good enough on clay to get far enough to meet nadal and subsequently get owned.if federer had simply sucked on clay like pete and donked out early a whole bunch of times then the head to head with nadal would be damn near even.so somehow fed gets punished by being the 2nd best clay courter of his generation, but nadal doesn't get punished for never making a hard court slam final in the ultra-peak fed years

 

[Time Kibitzer]

When that dude has a +8 win record over Nadal, let me know. Or if you find someone who did that to Sampras, let me know.As for the French, Federer has tournaments he hasn't won either. So equal footing there, Sampras still didn't owned time and time and time and time and time and time again.

Federer has a winning record against Nadal on non-clay courts.

 

[DiStefano]

When that dude has a +8 win record over Nadal, let me know. Or if you find someone who did that to Sampras, let me know.As for the French, Federer has tournaments he hasn't won either. So equal footing there, Sampras still didn't owned time and time and time and time and time and time again.

there aren't too many tournaments that are serious tournaments that federer hasn't won.. maybe olympics.. although with it being every 4 years that makes it tough. maybe some random clay ones.. but nothing with real significance.if sampras had played in the nadal era he might not have had a negative head to head because he wouldn't have been good enough on clay to get far enough to meet nadal and subsequently get owned.if federer had simply sucked on clay like pete and donked out early a whole bunch of times then the head to head with nadal would be damn near even.so somehow fed gets punished by being the 2nd best clay courter of his generation, but nadal doesn't get punished for never making a hard court slam final in the ultra-peak fed years

Federer leads Nadal 2-1 on grass, and 5-4 on hard courts. Nadal leads 12-2 on clay, which is his best surface. But then, Sampras was everyone's b#### on clay.

 

[Hack Attack]

Nice to see people try and defend Federr's record to Nadal, I see no one can find anyone that Sampras was owned so badly by anyone from his time.

But hey, Federer best ever *if no facing that Nadal guy

Too bad Agassi wasn't better, if Sampras was his ##### maybe Sampras would be best of all time.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Nice to see people try and defend Federr's record to Nadal, I see no one can find anyone that Sampras was owned so badly by anyone from his time.But hey, Federer best ever *if no facing that Nadal guyToo bad Agassi wasn't better, if Sampras was his ##### maybe Sampras would be best of all time.

Federer's winning % against Nadal: 35.7%Sampras' winning % against Richard Krajicek: 40.0% Not much difference there.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Federer is 8-6 vs Nadal on hardcourts or grass. Nadal is 12-2 on clay.

Most of the matches between them have also occurred after Federer was 26 years old, as Rafa was entering his prime years. Tennis players peak around 25 or 26 so this is pretty relevant IMO.

At the end of the day both of them are all-time greats and to see them and Djokavic play so often is a real golden era.

 

[Hack Attack]

Nice to see people try and defend Federr's record to Nadal, I see no one can find anyone that Sampras was owned so badly by anyone from his time.But hey, Federer best ever *if no facing that Nadal guyToo bad Agassi wasn't better, if Sampras was his ##### maybe Sampras would be best of all time.

Federer's winning % against Nadal: 35.7%Sampras' winning % against Richard Krajicek: 40.0% Not much difference there.

Forgot to mention just a +2 margin, a wee few matches than the 28 total by the other two eh? Still waiting for the +8 or better domination we're seeing these days.

 

[Master of Past and Present]

Couple unfamiliar names in here it seems? How come you boys don't come in to the major threads to talk some tennis? Never too crowded in there.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Nice to see people try and defend Federr's record to Nadal, I see no one can find anyone that Sampras was owned so badly by anyone from his time.But hey, Federer best ever *if no facing that Nadal guyToo bad Agassi wasn't better, if Sampras was his ##### maybe Sampras would be best of all time.

Federer's winning % against Nadal: 35.7%Sampras' winning % against Richard Krajicek: 40.0% Not much difference there.

Forgot to mention just a +2 margin, a wee few matches than the 28 total by the other two eh? Still waiting for the +8 or better domination we're seeing these days.

Nadal is one of the best ever, Krajicek only ever made 1 major final and he was never even ranked in the top 3 in the world at any point in time in his career. Sampras' losing record against Krajicek is more embarrassing than Federer's losing record to Nadal, regardless of the smaller sample size.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Sampras himself says Roger is the greatest ever, and Rafa is among the top three or four ever. And if you know anything about Pete's admiration for Rod Laver, that probably means his top three is Fed, Laver, Nadal.

 

[Hack Attack]

Of course Sampras isn't arrogant enough to say himself, would Federer say himself?

If want resume missing pieces, what about Davis Cup. Always a huge pride thing for nations that he has never led a squad to a win. And its not like it doesn't mean anything anymore because Djokovic and Nadal both have taken their nations to the top. Why can't Federer take his nation to the top?

 

[DiStefano]

Of course Sampras isn't arrogant enough to say himself, would Federer say himself?If want resume missing pieces, what about Davis Cup. Always a huge pride thing for nations that he has never led a squad to a win. And its not like it doesn't mean anything anymore because Djokovic and Nadal both have taken their nations to the top. Why can't Federer take his nation to the top?

Because he can't play all the games.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Word association:

Switzerland

Response:

Worldwide Domination

Ammrright?

 

[drummer]

RN strikes again.

 

[tdoss]

Fed peaked when there was no one to play.

It's like the Mike Tyson argument...he was one of the baddest ever and at his peak, I'd put him against any heavy at any time in history...but it's unproven. Whereas the true greatest fighters proved it against like competition and a strong field of competitors.

Now that someone is stepping up (Nadal)...we get how Fed is just getting old. But then here come Joker also. Joker put down one of the most impressive stretches in tennis history recently. Why? Is he one of the greatest too?

Or is the competition that watered down?

Top to bottom or just looking at the top tier alone...I'll take Jimmy Connors era over Sampras' era...and I'd take Sampras' era way over Fed's era.

 

[DiStefano]

Fed peaked when there was no one to play.It's like the Mike Tyson argument...he was one of the baddest ever and at his peak, I'd put him against any heavy at any time in history...but it's unproven. Whereas the true greatest fighters proved it against like competition and a strong field of competitors.Now that someone is stepping up (Nadal)...we get how Fed is just getting old. But then here come Joker also. Joker put down one of the most impressive stretches in tennis history recently. Why? Is he one of the greatest too?Or is the competition that watered down? Top to bottom or just looking at the top tier alone...I'll take Jimmy Connors era over Sampras' era...and I'd take Sampras' era way over Fed's era.

Except that Federer owned Sampras. He beat him at Wimbledon when Fed was 19 years old. Sampras was 30, but then Federer is almost 32 now, and he just won Wimbledon.

 

[tdoss]

Fed peaked when there was no one to play.It's like the Mike Tyson argument...he was one of the baddest ever and at his peak, I'd put him against any heavy at any time in history...but it's unproven. Whereas the true greatest fighters proved it against like competition and a strong field of competitors.Now that someone is stepping up (Nadal)...we get how Fed is just getting old. But then here come Joker also. Joker put down one of the most impressive stretches in tennis history recently. Why? Is he one of the greatest too?Or is the competition that watered down? Top to bottom or just looking at the top tier alone...I'll take Jimmy Connors era over Sampras' era...and I'd take Sampras' era way over Fed's era.

Except that Federer owned Sampras. He beat him at Wimbledon when Fed was 19 years old. Sampras was 30, but then Federer is almost 32 now, and he just won Wimbledon.

I guess that solves it. Fed is our savior.He's the greatest ever. Hell, they weren't even playing tennis until he stepped on the scene. They were playing glorified badminton until he showed us the light and the way.

 

[DiStefano]

Fed peaked when there was no one to play.It's like the Mike Tyson argument...he was one of the baddest ever and at his peak, I'd put him against any heavy at any time in history...but it's unproven. Whereas the true greatest fighters proved it against like competition and a strong field of competitors.Now that someone is stepping up (Nadal)...we get how Fed is just getting old. But then here come Joker also. Joker put down one of the most impressive stretches in tennis history recently. Why? Is he one of the greatest too?Or is the competition that watered down? Top to bottom or just looking at the top tier alone...I'll take Jimmy Connors era over Sampras' era...and I'd take Sampras' era way over Fed's era.

Except that Federer owned Sampras. He beat him at Wimbledon when Fed was 19 years old. Sampras was 30, but then Federer is almost 32 now, and he just won Wimbledon.

I guess that solves it. Fed is our savior.He's the greatest ever. Hell, they weren't even playing tennis until he stepped on the scene. They were playing glorified badminton until he showed us the light and the way.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Of course Sampras isn't arrogant enough to say himself, would Federer say himself?If want resume missing pieces, what about Davis Cup. Always a huge pride thing for nations that he has never led a squad to a win. And its not like it doesn't mean anything anymore because Djokovic and Nadal both have taken their nations to the top. Why can't Federer take his nation to the top?

Do you even watch or play tennis?

 

[BobbyLayne]

Fed peaked when there was no one to play.It's like the Mike Tyson argument...he was one of the baddest ever and at his peak, I'd put him against any heavy at any time in history...but it's unproven. Whereas the true greatest fighters proved it against like competition and a strong field of competitors.Now that someone is stepping up (Nadal)...we get how Fed is just getting old. But then here come Joker also. Joker put down one of the most impressive stretches in tennis history recently. Why? Is he one of the greatest too?Or is the competition that watered down? Top to bottom or just looking at the top tier alone...I'll take Jimmy Connors era over Sampras' era...and I'd take Sampras' era way over Fed's era.

Since the Open era began, six men have won three or more Grand Slams in a season. Rod Laver, Jimmy Connors, and Matts Wilander were the first three. The other three gentlemen are currently ranked #1, #2, and #3.Watered down? More like Golden Era. This is the best period for men's tennis in history, or at least in the 40+ years I've been a fan. Maybe Poncho Gonzales was the best ever, maybe Laver-Roswell was a better rivalry. But IMO Fed-Rafa-Joker compares favorably with any trio from any period. I'm not really invested in Fed as GOAT, or Pete, or Laver. I've been a big fan of all of them because love the game. I just feel lucky to have seen them play.

 

[JuniorNB]

Nice to see people try and defend Federr's record to Nadal, I see no one can find anyone that Sampras was owned so badly by anyone from his time.But hey, Federer best ever *if no facing that Nadal guyToo bad Agassi wasn't better, if Sampras was his ##### maybe Sampras would be best of all time.

Federer's winning % against Nadal: 35.7%Sampras' winning % against Richard Krajicek: 40.0% Not much difference there.

Forgot to mention just a +2 margin, a wee few matches than the 28 total by the other two eh? Still waiting for the +8 or better domination we're seeing these days.

Federer is the best tennis player ever. Nadal is the best clay court player ever. Overall, Nadal is barely top ten ever. I'd put him around #8.

 

[JuniorNB]

Of course Sampras isn't arrogant enough to say himself, would Federer say himself?If want resume missing pieces, what about Davis Cup. Always a huge pride thing for nations that he has never led a squad to a win. And its not like it doesn't mean anything anymore because Djokovic and Nadal both have taken their nations to the top. Why can't Federer take his nation to the top?

Do you even watch or play tennis?

I doubt he's as dumb about tennis as he comes off. My guess is that he's just a troll.

 

[Dark Matter]

Is this the thread we go to to talk about how athletes get worse the older they get?

I guess, but the guy played out of his mind against Murray. So, maybe not.

Gotcha....guess I'll head back over to this thread then.

 

[Dentist]

Federer is the best tennis player ever. Nadal is the best clay court player ever. Overall, Nadal is barely top ten ever. I'd put him around #8.

i agree with your first statementi agree with your second statement.i hate nadal and i disagree with your third statement.the guy has a few years of peak or near peak career left, after he wins 2 more french opens, and a major on another surface like the AO or even a Wimbledon he's going to have like 14-15 majorsthat's going to put him in the top 3-4 ever.Tennis hasn't seen a more fierce competitor than Rafa. Rafa is like Lendl in a way in that if anything he's outperformed his god given skill set with a ton of work.Roger Federer is a more talented tennis player than Rafa.. he's more complete in almost every way. If anything he's probably underperformed his skill set. The guy should have 19 majors... there was no reason for him to have lost US Open '09 and the Aussie '09... and you could probably throw wimbledon '08 in there too.I hope to see Roger draw Rafa in more contests on surfaces that favor him (indoor or FAST outdoor hardcourts) and tighten up the H2H a little before retirement. I know it will never be evened.. but i hope the gap gets smaller rather than wider. Avoiding the guy on clay would be a great career move.

 

[Master of Past and Present]

In an era that is going to be defined by either the Big 3 or Big 4, Roger Federer is close to having a losing record vs each other man in those groups.

10-21 vs Nadal

16-15 vs Djokovic

9-11 vs Murray

Looks very likely Federer will retire with a losing record against all three main adversaries during his time unless he can avoid Djokovic in draws.

 

[DiStefano]

In an era that is going to be defined by either the Big 3 or Big 4, Roger Federer is close to having a losing record vs each other man in those groups.

10-21 vs Nadal

16-15 vs Djokovic

9-11 vs Murray

Looks very likely Federer will retire with a losing record against all three main adversaries during his time unless he can avoid Djokovic in draws.

He will probably laugh all the way to the bank. He made $68 million in endorsements this year, more than Tiger Woods.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

In an era that is going to be defined by either the Big 3 or Big 4, Roger Federer is close to having a losing record vs each other man in those groups.

10-21 vs Nadal

16-15 vs Djokovic

9-11 vs Murray

Looks very likely Federer will retire with a losing record against all three main adversaries during his time unless he can avoid Djokovic in draws.

Of course those guys are 5, 6 and 6 years younger than he is as well. So a fair number of those matches came after Federer's physical peak.

 

[zoonation]

Federer is the best tennis player ever. Nadal is the best clay court player ever. Overall, Nadal is barely top ten ever. I'd put him around #8.

i agree with your first statementi agree with your second statement.

i hate nadal and i disagree with your third statement.

the guy has a few years of peak or near peak career left, after he wins 2 more french opens, and a major on another surface like the AO or even a Wimbledon he's going to have like 14-15 majors

that's going to put him in the top 3-4 ever.

Tennis hasn't seen a more fierce competitor than Rafa. Rafa is like Lendl in a way in that if anything he's outperformed his god given skill set with a ton of work.

Roger Federer is a more talented tennis player than Rafa.. he's more complete in almost every way. If anything he's probably underperformed his skill set. The guy should have 19 majors... there was no reason for him to have lost US Open '09 and the Aussie '09... and you could probably throw wimbledon '08 in there too.

I hope to see Roger draw Rafa in more contests on surfaces that favor him (indoor or FAST outdoor hardcourts) and tighten up the H2H a little before retirement. I know it will never be evened.. but i hope the gap gets smaller rather than wider. Avoiding the guy on clay would be a great career move.

If Rafa stays healthy he is going to win the most slams ever. If he had stayed healthy he would almost be there now. When he is at his best he is the best there is. Crushes the competition.

I feel bad for Fed. He dominated for so long and didn't get a chance to play Joker and Rafa in his prime (for an extended period).

Also, this is easily the golden age of tennis. Don't forget about Murray too.

 

[Master of Past and Present]

In an era that is going to be defined by either the Big 3 or Big 4, Roger Federer is close to having a losing record vs each other man in those groups.

10-21 vs Nadal

16-15 vs Djokovic

9-11 vs Murray

Looks very likely Federer will retire with a losing record against all three main adversaries during his time unless he can avoid Djokovic in draws.

Of course those guys are 5, 6 and 6 years younger than he is as well. So a fair number of those matches came after Federer's physical peak.

Nadal beat him in his peak though people will always point to the clay. He's actually I believe 3-3 vs Murray the last 3 years or so, so Murray had a better record when Federer was younger also. Only Djokovic is catching up in his old age.

 

[Man of Zen]

In an era that is going to be defined by either the Big 3 or Big 4, Roger Federer is close to having a losing record vs each other man in those groups.

10-21 vs Nadal

16-15 vs Djokovic

9-11 vs Murray

Looks very likely Federer will retire with a losing record against all three main adversaries during his time unless he can avoid Djokovic in draws.

Of course those guys are 5, 6 and 6 years younger than he is as well. So a fair number of those matches came after Federer's physical peak.

Nadal beat him in his peak though people will always point to the clay.

People are right to. When Federer was at his peak, Nadal wasn't nearly strong enough on other surfaces to get to where he might face Federer. Artificially inflated his h2h record, even though it didn't snow people who understood tennis is played against the field. Same reason Sampras looks better historically if all you do is check out h2h's, just in reverse. Sampras never had to get drubbed by Guga & friends at Roland Garros every year to build up losing records against clay court specialists: he wasn't good enough on clay to get to them. He got killed by Andrea Gaudenzi instead.

Likewise, Fed's career numbers are starting to reflect a little Jimmy Connors syndrome. A guy who miraculously stayed relevant years longer than everybody else, so that he could become a perennial "very good but not quite great any more" player while the other contenders from his age bracket were practicing their golf swings in Boca full time. Gives him the chance to rack up losses to the top tier of young guys while he still slaughters the rank and file. Connors would be regarded a lot more highly by history if McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander et al were considered the next generation (as they rightly should have been) instead of contemporaries.

Once you comprehend that tennis can only be evaluated vs the field and not h2h, you realize that in Fed's prime, he didn't have a "losing record" against Nadal. He won twelve slams to Nadal's three. Every slam Nadal didn't win, that Federer did, was a loss to Federer.

 

[DiStefano]

In an era that is going to be defined by either the Big 3 or Big 4, Roger Federer is close to having a losing record vs each other man in those groups.

10-21 vs Nadal

16-15 vs Djokovic

9-11 vs Murray

Looks very likely Federer will retire with a losing record against all three main adversaries during his time unless he can avoid Djokovic in draws.

Of course those guys are 5, 6 and 6 years younger than he is as well. So a fair number of those matches came after Federer's physical peak.

Nadal beat him in his peak though people will always point to the clay.

People are right to. When Federer was at his peak, Nadal wasn't nearly strong enough on other surfaces to get to where he might face Federer. Artificially inflated his h2h record, even though it didn't snow people who understood tennis is played against the field. Same reason Sampras looks better historically if all you do is check out h2h's, just in reverse. Sampras never had to get drubbed by Guga & friends at Roland Garros every year to build up losing records against clay court specialists: he wasn't good enough on clay to get to them. He got killed by Andrea Gaudenzi instead.

Likewise, Fed's career numbers are starting to reflect a little Jimmy Connors syndrome. A guy who miraculously stayed relevant years longer than everybody else, so that he could become a perennial "very good but not quite great any more" player while the other contenders from his age bracket were practicing their golf swings in Boca full time. Gives him the chance to rack up losses to the top tier of young guys while he still slaughters the rank and file. Connors would be regarded a lot more highly by history if McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander et al were considered the next generation (as they rightly should have been) instead of contemporaries.

Once you comprehend that tennis can only be evaluated vs the field and not h2h, you realize that in Fed's prime, he didn't have a "losing record" against Nadal. He won twelve slams to Nadal's three. Every slam Nadal didn't win, that Federer did, was a loss to Federer.

That is a fantastic analysis. Well done.

 

[BobbyLayne]

In an era that is going to be defined by either the Big 3 or Big 4, Roger Federer is close to having a losing record vs each other man in those groups.

10-21 vs Nadal

16-15 vs Djokovic

9-11 vs Murray

Looks very likely Federer will retire with a losing record against all three main adversaries during his time unless he can avoid Djokovic in draws.

Of course those guys are 5, 6 and 6 years younger than he is as well. So a fair number of those matches came after Federer's physical peak.

Nadal beat him in his peak though people will always point to the clay.

People are right to. When Federer was at his peak, Nadal wasn't nearly strong enough on other surfaces to get to where he might face Federer. Artificially inflated his h2h record, even though it didn't snow people who understood tennis is played against the field. Same reason Sampras looks better historically if all you do is check out h2h's, just in reverse. Sampras never had to get drubbed by Guga & friends at Roland Garros every year to build up losing records against clay court specialists: he wasn't good enough on clay to get to them. He got killed by Andrea Gaudenzi instead.Likewise, Fed's career numbers are starting to reflect a little Jimmy Connors syndrome. A guy who miraculously stayed relevant years longer than everybody else, so that he could become a perennial "very good but not quite great any more" player while the other contenders from his age bracket were practicing their golf swings in Boca full time. Gives him the chance to rack up losses to the top tier of young guys while he still slaughters the rank and file. Connors would be regarded a lot more highly by history if McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander et al were considered the next generation (as they rightly should have been) instead of contemporaries.

Once you comprehend that tennis can only be evaluated vs the field and not h2h, you realize that in Fed's prime, he didn't have a "losing record" against Nadal. He won twelve slams to Nadal's three. Every slam Nadal didn't win, that Federer did, was a loss to Federer.

That is a fantastic analysis. Well done.

Good stuff MoZ, thanks.

 

[Dentist]

In an era that is going to be defined by either the Big 3 or Big 4, Roger Federer is close to having a losing record vs each other man in those groups.

10-21 vs Nadal

16-15 vs Djokovic

9-11 vs Murray

Looks very likely Federer will retire with a losing record against all three main adversaries during his time unless he can avoid Djokovic in draws.

Of course those guys are 5, 6 and 6 years younger than he is as well. So a fair number of those matches came after Federer's physical peak.

Nadal beat him in his peak though people will always point to the clay.

People are right to. When Federer was at his peak, Nadal wasn't nearly strong enough on other surfaces to get to where he might face Federer. Artificially inflated his h2h record, even though it didn't snow people who understood tennis is played against the field. Same reason Sampras looks better historically if all you do is check out h2h's, just in reverse. Sampras never had to get drubbed by Guga & friends at Roland Garros every year to build up losing records against clay court specialists: he wasn't good enough on clay to get to them. He got killed by Andrea Gaudenzi instead.

Likewise, Fed's career numbers are starting to reflect a little Jimmy Connors syndrome. A guy who miraculously stayed relevant years longer than everybody else, so that he could become a perennial "very good but not quite great any more" player while the other contenders from his age bracket were practicing their golf swings in Boca full time. Gives him the chance to rack up losses to the top tier of young guys while he still slaughters the rank and file. Connors would be regarded a lot more highly by history if McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander et al were considered the next generation (as they rightly should have been) instead of contemporaries.

Once you comprehend that tennis can only be evaluated vs the field and not h2h, you realize that in Fed's prime, he didn't have a "losing record" against Nadal. He won twelve slams to Nadal's three. Every slam Nadal didn't win, that Federer did, was a loss to Federer.

awesome

 

[tdoss]

In an era that is going to be defined by either the Big 3 or Big 4, Roger Federer is close to having a losing record vs each other man in those groups.

10-21 vs Nadal

16-15 vs Djokovic

9-11 vs Murray

Looks very likely Federer will retire with a losing record against all three main adversaries during his time unless he can avoid Djokovic in draws.

Of course those guys are 5, 6 and 6 years younger than he is as well. So a fair number of those matches came after Federer's physical peak.

Makes you wonder...did the other "Greats" in the sport not play guys younger than them during their playing careers? Or is this excuse reserved only for Federer?

 

[DiStefano]

In an era that is going to be defined by either the Big 3 or Big 4, Roger Federer is close to having a losing record vs each other man in those groups.

10-21 vs Nadal

16-15 vs Djokovic

9-11 vs Murray

Looks very likely Federer will retire with a losing record against all three main adversaries during his time unless he can avoid Djokovic in draws.

Of course those guys are 5, 6 and 6 years younger than he is as well. So a fair number of those matches came after Federer's physical peak.

Makes you wonder...did the other "Greats" in the sport not play guys younger than them during their playing careers? Or is this excuse reserved only for Federer?

Well, two of the greatest rivalries in tennis, Ivan Lendl vs John McEnroe, and Andre Agassi vs Pete Sampras, featured players who were about a year apart in age. Federer and Nadal are 5 years apart, which is a significant amount when you realize players begin to decline after age 25.

 

[tdoss]

In an era that is going to be defined by either the Big 3 or Big 4, Roger Federer is close to having a losing record vs each other man in those groups.

10-21 vs Nadal

16-15 vs Djokovic

9-11 vs Murray

Looks very likely Federer will retire with a losing record against all three main adversaries during his time unless he can avoid Djokovic in draws.

Of course those guys are 5, 6 and 6 years younger than he is as well. So a fair number of those matches came after Federer's physical peak.

Makes you wonder...did the other "Greats" in the sport not play guys younger than them during their playing careers? Or is this excuse reserved only for Federer?

Well, two of the greatest rivalries in tennis, Ivan Lendl vs John McEnroe, and Andre Agassi vs Pete Sampras, featured players who were about a year apart in age. Federer and Nadal are 5 years apart, which is a significant amount when you realize players begin to decline after age 25.

Wasn't just referring to Sampras vs Agassi...pray tell...WHO has a winning record against Sampras? I'm talking out of ALL of his opponents.

That list is going to be short lived...even with how long Sampras continued to play.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Roger def has the coolest clothing line of any tennis player.

 

[AAABatteries]

Roger just totally embarrassed Murray - would have been double bagel but I think he felt sorry for Andy. He also has a decent chance to end the year #1 in the world. I don't care that Nadal has owned him, especially lately, Fed is the greatest tennis player I've ever seen. Really hoping he can win another Slam next year.

 

[Dentist]

Roger just totally embarrassed Murray - would have been double bagel but I think he felt sorry for Andy. He also has a decent chance to end the year #1 in the world. I don't care that Nadal has owned him, especially lately, Fed is the greatest tennis player I've ever seen. Really hoping he can win another Slam next year.

guy should have won Wimbledon this year, and it's inexcusable that he allowed Cilic to blow him off the court in the USO

Those were amazing chances for him to win a major... any tournament where he can avoid Nadal is one he can win (other than the French open.. I don't think there is any way he wins that again)

With Murray's massive decline post surgery and Del Potro's collapse due to injures, there are really only 2 guys that can consistently beat Roger out there.. Nole and Nadal... but there are an increasing number of guys that CAN beat him if things go well.... like a Cilic, Wawrinka, Raonic, Nishikori, etc... thus making the majors a tougher ask.....

I really thought after Nole got beat that Roger would win the USO... when he didn't and he truly got blown off the court, I'm beginning to think he'll do just fine moving forward in 3 set tournaments, but may have a tougher time with the 5 set tournaments...

 

[Master of Past and Present]

Roger just totally embarrassed Murray - would have been double bagel but I think he felt sorry for Andy. He also has a decent chance to end the year #1 in the world. I don't care that Nadal has owned him, especially lately, Fed is the greatest tennis player I've ever seen. Really hoping he can win another Slam next year.

Wouldn't say decent chance since all Djokovic has to do is win tomorrow. And if Djokovic doesn't win tomorrow, he can still win a SF match to clinch it. There is a slim chance Djokovic is eliminated with a loss tomorrow but since he steam rolled the first two guys he's in great shape for tiebreakers.

So basically Djokovic just has to win 1 out of 2 matches to seal the deal. At least according to this: http://static.sportskeeda.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/b1gzekmcyaanuoa-1415092075.jpg

 

[Master of Past and Present]

Pretty sucky end to the Tour Finals, Federer withdraws because of back.

 

[AAABatteries]

Pretty sucky end to the Tour Finals, Federer withdraws because of back.

That does suck.

 

[Dentist]

Pretty sucky end to the Tour Finals, Federer withdraws because of back.

yeah, that's pretty nutty... kind of crappy scheduling to have to finish your match late at night then play the next afternoon.

I hope he pulled out because he's really wanting to be healthy for that davis cup final this weekend... that would really suck if he tweaked it so hard playing his compatriot that he's not at full strength for his best chance to win that final which is one of the few pieces of hardware missing from his trophy case.