Federer's route to USO 2015 QF compared with 2004 - 2008

I only compare the games lost on the way to the 1/4F..could update it with Semi and final...if he gets there. What do you think?
BTW, I would not be surprised if we were to get similar results if comparing this years route to Wimbledon 1/4F with previous years.
2004
Alberto Costa 75 62 64 11
Bagdhatis 62 67 63 61 13
F Santoro 60 64 76 10
Pavel w.o. 0
Agassi 63 26 75 36 63 23
Games lost 57 (despite a w.o.)


2005
I Minar 61 61 61 3
Santoro 75 75 76 16
O Rochus 63 76 62 11
N Kiefer 64 67 63 64 18
Nalbandian 62 64 61 7
Games lost 55

2006
JimmyWang 64 61 60 5
Tim Henman 63 64 75 12
Vincent Spaeda 63 63 60 6
Marc Giquel 63 76 63 12
James blake 76 60 67 64 17
Games lost 52

2007
Jenkins 63 62 64 9
Capdeville 61 64 64 9
Isner 67 62 64 62 15
Lopez 36 64 61 64 15
Roddick 76 76 62 14
Games lost 62


2008
Maximo Gonzalez 63 60 63 6
Thiago Alves 63 75 64 12
Stepanek 63 63 62 8
Igor Andrev 67 76 63 36 63 25
Gilles Muller 76 64 76 16
Games lost 67

2015
Mayer 61 62  62 5
Darcis 61 62 61 4
Kholschriber 63 64 64 11
Isner 76 76 75 17
Gasquet 63 63 61 7
Games lost 44

His net game is helping him keep his serve and break against the lesser players.  The problem is that it becomes much more difficult at his age and lack of step to beat people who are great defenders and passers... like djokovic (and Wawrinka is a great passer too).

The number of games won't mean a thing if the number of matches won are not the same. There are also a lot of other variables. One anomaly does not make a rule - as always. Last year, for example, was very different.

FedererKing wrote:His net game is helping him keep his serve and break against the lesser players.  The problem is that it becomes much more difficult at his age and lack of step to beat people who are great defenders and passers... like djokovic (and Wawrinka is a great passer too).

The number of games won't mean a thing if the number of matches won are not the same.  There are also a lot of other variables.  One anomaly does not make a rule - as always.  Last year, for example, was very different.

That's my very point. winning and losing matches depends a lot on the opposition. Whereas the way you cut through the draw gives us more information on his relative domination over his peers.

Nothing will ever prove that federer 2006 woudl have beaten a mature Djokovic or Wawrinka but what we can see however is that he cuts through the field as well as ever. I don't care whether it's through volleying or not. Those stats certainly do not show that fed lost a step...if anything it would prove that everybody else has!

Numbers looking good so far, but I think one of the reasons for it is because he knows he cannot afford to get dragged into long matches.

When he was younger he did not care if he dropped a set here or there - sort of like Nole this year - he knew he would win anyway and backed himself to be in good shape for the later rounds regardless.

Those stats certainly do not show that fed lost a step...if anything it would prove that everybody else has!
-------

Again, one tournament is not a trend.  Federer has not been in a US final since 2009.  I think that's more of an indicator where Federer is than this one tournament.  Before 2010 he reached six straight finals, and won five of them.  It's not the number of games won that matters... it's the match wins.  It's the one who holds the trophy at the end.  Games won is a stat that tells you virtually nothing about the level of play involved.

This has been Federer's best tournament in a long time, though. And, imho, it's the last chance he has of winning a Slam.

Excellent work, T!

These numbers mean something after all...

Amazing to see all the names in the list starting with Alberto Costa!
I know he is a bit older, but imagine him on the court now.

I wonder how time spent on court would compare over the years, too.
Esp since the slowdown of surface in 2009?

Assuming the court in 2004 was as fast -- (or not slower than)in 2015, hasn't Fed upped his game?
That's the most impressive bit, and a proof he is playing better than ever.

One mistake in the chart, in 2007, Fed played Nole in the final, remember 3 close sets?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6985663.stm
One of their best matches!

PS
On a different note, after that match Nole was kept firmly in Fed's half of the draw for years..

Well pointed NITB. In fact the whole 2007 was wrong. Those were AO 07 results. But the funny thing is that Fed loses even more games in USO 2007.

Of course those numbers are quite telling. It's one thing wishing to lose less games and another successfully doing so.

I can understand him back then not caring as much on his opponents serves but he also loses more sets as well and I am pretty sure he was very focused then came TBs or holding is own serve.

This is not a one off. This is a trend I noted a long time ago when I started this whole topic 3 or 4 years ago.

Back to those names in the list...Igor Andrev!
Actually two years younger than Fed...where is he now?

A whole generation died off like dinasours in slow conditions!
I suppose couldn't bother to adapt to new technology either...let alone to new levels of fitness...

FedererKing wrote:Those stats certainly do not show that fed lost a step...if anything it would prove that everybody else has!
-------

Again, one tournament is not a trend.  Federer has not been in a US final since 2009.  I think that's more of an indicator where Federer is than this one tournament.

No it's not! Not being in a final or semi is down to one or 2 players. Getting through 5 rounds it's down to 5 so it gives us more information.

It's the whole purpose and stresses the fact he might be losing to "better" players or only losing cause he is tired at the end of a tournament. he might be more tired at the end of tournament down to age or down to matches being more gruelling nowadays against certain types of players on slower surfaces. Those things are very important to analyse when assessing a player's performance and considering Ws and Ls, cause they won't tell you much about one player if you ignore the other 127 players. Tennis is about competing against other players and not a clock.

Tenez wrote:Well pointed NITB. In fact the whole 2007 was wrong. Those were AO 07 results. But the funny thing is that Fed loses even more games in USO 2007.

Of course those numbers are quite telling. It's one thing wishing to lose less games and another successfully doing so.

I can understand him back then not caring as much on his opponents serves but he also loses more sets as well and I am pretty sure he was very focused then came TBs or holding is own serve.

This is not a one off. This is a trend I noted a long time ago when I started this whole topic 3 or 4 years ago.

Yes, I remember you kept mentioning players he was beating then.

This (and the ones in the past) is a great theme/thread offering historic insights in the change of the game through one exceptional player who was able to adapt to it all...and is still adapting and creating.
Phenomenal!

Here it is...one of the most epic threads ever!

http://www.606v2.com/t14760-was-federer-better-in-2006-poll-added

FedererKing wrote:Those stats certainly do not show that fed lost a step...if anything it would prove that everybody else has!
------
Again, one tournament is not a trend.  Federer has not been in a US final since 2009.  I think that's more of an indicator where Federer is than this one tournament.  Before 2010 he reached six straight finals, and won five of them.  It's not the number of games won that matters... it's the match wins.  It's the one who holds the trophy at the end.  Games won is a stat that tells you virtually nothing about the level of play involved.
This has been Federer's best tournament in a long time, though.  And, imho, it's the last chance he has of winning a Slam.

Yes, but why?

noleisthebest wrote:Back to those names in the list...Igor Andrev!
Actually two years younger than Fed...where is he now?

A whole generation died off like dinasours in slow conditions!
I suppose couldn't bother to adapt to new technology either...let alone to new levels of fitness...

Yes no different than seeing the Borg/McEnroe generation disappearing all so quickly once the bigger frames and mass of new youngsters came up. When Borg tried to make a comeback, he knew he had to adapt to the new racquets. he coudl have but no way he was going to get the most of it compared to those youngsters who used them earlier.

noleisthebest wrote:Here it is...one of the most epic threads ever!

http://www.606v2.com/t14760-was-federer-better-in-2006-poll-added

wow that's 4 years already. But in fact I remember that in 2010 I was also thinking he was playing better than in 2006 despite losing more often. In fact I realised that the day he lost to Soderling at the FO that year. He had lost a very close match v Soderling due to dead slow conds (rain on clay!) but despite that he played really great just that guys like Sod could overpower him like no other could back in 2004-7.

2009-2013 The Dark Age of Tennis.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Back to those names in the list...Igor Andrev!
Actually two years younger than Fed...where is he now?

A whole generation died off like dinasours in slow conditions!
I suppose couldn't bother to adapt to new technology either...let alone to new levels of fitness...

Yes no different than seeing the Borg/McEnroe generation disappearing all so quickly once the bigger frames and mass of new youngsters came up. When Borg tried to make a comeback, he knew he had to adapt to the new racquets. he coudl have but no way he was going to get the most of it compared to those youngsters who used them earlier.

Yes, it's important to understand all these changes, how they affected the game and players.
That's why it's priceless to have Federer as a living barometer...and you to educate us!

noleisthebest wrote:2009-2013 The Dark Age of Tennis.

Feds won 2 slams in 09, so can;t be a dark age.

I would also add that AUs '10 & Wimby '12 weren't  .

noleisthebest wrote:

FedererKing wrote:Those stats certainly do not show that fed lost a step...if anything it would prove that everybody else has!
------
Again, one tournament is not a trend.  Federer has not been in a US final since 2009.  I think that's more of an indicator where Federer is than this one tournament.  Before 2010 he reached six straight finals, and won five of them.  It's not the number of games won that matters... it's the match wins.  It's the one who holds the trophy at the end.  Games won is a stat that tells you virtually nothing about the level of play involved.
This has been Federer's best tournament in a long time, though.  And, imho, it's the last chance he has of winning a Slam.

Yes, but why?

Because he isn't the same player as 2003-7. 2008 was a drop and he has been declining physically since.  He has been in his 30s for 4 years.  That's why :P  Do you think Djokovic, Murray and Nadal will be reaching US finals at 31,32,33?  I don't think so.

I do wonder how Tenez is going to explain Djokovic's massive drop in titles in the coming years.... I suspect it will be that others have "caught up" again.

FedererKing wrote:Because he isn't the same player as 2003-7. 2008 was a drop and he has been declining physically since.  He has been in his 30s for 4 years.  That's why :P  Do you think Djokovic, Murray and Nadal will be reaching US finals at 31,32,33?  I don't think so.

I do wonder how Tenez is going to explain Djokovic's massive drop in titles in the coming years....  I suspect it will be that others have "caught up" again.

First you need to explain how a 28yo is still winning slams. According to you he started to decline 2 years ago.

People winning slams at 28 is not unprecedented.  The stats I sent you before clearly show that.  It's you that has repeatedly told me that winning Slams into the 30s is the norm.  It is not.  

There are anomalies to every rule, but the picture is pretty clear that the Slams dry up dramatically towards the end of the 20s and into the 30s.  For most players, the Slam winning days are already over by 28.

Nadal is a player who has already fit the trend.  Murray is edging that way.  And Djokovic is holding out for now, but wait and see what he's like at 30-33.  His decline will be swift, like Nadal's was. Don't be surprised to see a 30yo Djokovic end the year on 0 Slams.

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/agerecords_winners.html

There is the list (out of date though but the 29+ is good).  It's fairly obvious what happens when you enter the late 20s and 30s... and for nearly ALL players these days, they are done completely at 32 (one excepion so far - agassi).

Federer's last Slam was at 30.

Even Sampras was 31 when he won his last Slam.  Why are you contending this is impossible?  They're the minority, but they happen.  The thing is, defenders like Djok and Nadal usually fall much faster than 31.  Djokovic is very likely going to be done winning Slams soon.

FedererKing wrote:People winning slams at 28 is not unprecedented.  The stats I sent you before clearly show that.  It's you that has repeatedly told me that winning Slams into the 30s is the norm.  It is not.  

I have never said that. I have explained clearly why winning slams and peaking were different matters. You don;t want to know fine but there is a very good reason why winning slams pre-open era was around 30 and why it has been younger thereafter. Like there is a reason why that age has been increasing regularly over the last 5 years....yet YOU don't want to see it. Like you don;t want to acknowledge that no-one is winning slams at 17 nowadays.

There are anomalies to every rule, but the picture is pretty clear that the Slams dry up dramatically towards the end of the 20s and into the 30s.  For most players, the Slam winning days are already over by 28.

Always the same music. Winning slams is very much down to the opposition and you keep ignoring this simple fact.

Djoko will go down when other players will mature. Look at the ladies also .....3 out of 4 semifinalists are over 30. And again, because the technology has been stable over the last 10 years. It's been also harder for young females to pierce through.
In the past you had plenty of teenagers reaching finals and winning slams. No it's also impossible for them.

No it's not. The stats are right there. The average winning age is well below 32. WELL BELOW IT. Only Agassi has managed to win at 32+ in the modern era.

Djokovic will not be winning Slams at 32. He is likely not going to be winning them at 30. That's what all the facts to date point to. Federer won his last Slam at 30 and has won 0 slams since then. That's because of age - as the stats clearly show.

YYYYYAAAWWWNNN.......

FedererKing wrote:No it's not.  The stats are right there.  The average winning age is well below 32.  WELL BELOW IT.  Only Agassi has managed to win at 32+ in the modern era.  

Djokovic will not be winning Slams at 32. He is likely not going to be winning them at 30.  That's what all the facts to date point to.  Federer won his last Slam at 30 and has won 0 slams since then.  That's because of age - as the stats clearly show.

OK, let me put it to you like this:

Would a 28 year old Djokovic (or 34-year old Federer if you prefer) beat 17 year old Becker?
Or 25 year old Laver, Sampras...

noleisthebest wrote:

FedererKing wrote:No it's not.  The stats are right there.  The average winning age is well below 32.  WELL BELOW IT.  Only Agassi has managed to win at 32+ in the modern era.  

Djokovic will not be winning Slams at 32. He is likely not going to be winning them at 30.  That's what all the facts to date point to.  Federer won his last Slam at 30 and has won 0 slams since then.  That's because of age - as the stats clearly show.

OK, let me put it to you like this:

Would a 28 year old Djokovic (or 34-year old Federer if you prefer) beat 17 year old Becker?
Or 25 year old Laver, Sampras...

That's a loaded question because the conditions were completely different.  Stick to this era.  A 2004-07 Federer would have annihilated Djokovic at the last two Wimbledon finals.

Tenez wrote:YYYYYAAAWWWNNN.......

I'm glad to see your argument has finally run out of steam against reason.

FedererKing wrote:
That's a loaded question because the conditions were completely different.  Stick to this era.  A 2004-07 Federer would have annihilated Djokovic at the last two Wimbledon finals.

Is that your main argument? What makes you believe that? Back then Federer lost a set to Kiefer, ferrero , Hewitt on grass...so I can easily imagine federer losing 2 more sets to current Djoko. I have seen peak federer lose to 20yo Djoko, Murray so I can easily see peak Federer lose to current Djoko. "peak" Fed lost to 19yo Nadal as well. So?

Djoko and everybody else says the game has evolved considerably over the last 7 years....who should I listen to? Djoko or our well informed FK? I am at a loss!

Blast from the past!



Can you notice anything unusual?

Tenez wrote:
I have seen peak federer lose to 20yo Djoko,

2004-07 in a Slam?  No. Not even close.

Tenbo!!

I have been following your championing of Federer the player now being better than yesteryear for a few years now. It's actually been an interesting debate. I think what adds weight to your argument is when one of the pundits on Sky said that how Roger has developed his game beyond his 'peak' years to remain competitive and still in the top 3 of the world today and heralded that achievement as just as impressive as his peak years.

I see what you say. I for one thinks he does have far more in his game now than he did back then in his peak years. However, when making the comparison one has to remember that in his peak years, the rivals he faces now were not in their peak at that time. Apart from Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were nowhere near their peak. That coupled Roger's stamina powers on the wane makes the comparison of say a 24/25 year old Federer against a 26/27 year old Djokovic very difficult to compare. When you see a Nadal running a peak Federer all over the court, how would he have coped with a peak Djokovic or peak Murray?

Put the 34 year old Federer in his 24/25 year old body and that would be some player.

Yeah, a 34 year old is better than he was in his mid 20s.  Makes a lot of sense - which is why he's won one Slam since turning 30.

Lots of sense.

I am not sure you are aware of this, but a prime and peak Murray has a poor record against an aging Federer in the Slams.  And Federer post 30 has still managed to beat peak Djok at Wimbledon.  I am sure some of you guys didn't even watch Federer 04-07.  Murray has also just been beaten by a 33/34 year old Federer at Wimbledon.

Federer of 04-07 was UNPLAYABLE off clay (and even there, only an insanely bad match up could stop him).  His serve, movement, forehand and backhand were all better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcr8fMWpo5Y

I keep posting this, but you literally have to be turning your brain off not to see the difference.

And another thing - note he comes to the net a lot here too.  Something people are imagining he only just started doing.

legendkillar wrote:Tenbo!!

I have been following your championing of Federer the player now being better than yesteryear for a few years now. It's actually been an interesting debate. I think what adds weight to your argument is when one of the pundits on Sky said that how Roger has developed his game beyond his 'peak' years to remain competitive and still in the top 3 of the world today and heralded that achievement as just as impressive as his peak years.

I see what you say. I for one thinks he does have far more in his game now than he did back then in his peak years. However, when making the comparison one has to remember that in his peak years, the rivals he faces now were not in their peak at that time. Apart from Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were nowhere near their peak. That coupled Roger's stamina powers on the wane makes the comparison of say a 24/25 year old Federer against a 26/27 year old Djokovic very difficult to compare. When you see a Nadal running a peak Federer all over the court, how would he have coped with a peak Djokovic or peak Murray?

Put the 34 year old Federer in his 24/25 year old body and that would be some player.

Hi LK - I am not sure what is your point? You seem to say what I am saying. What I am saying is that Federer in 2006-7 did not have the know-how to beat the mdoerm players. Or rather he had the talent but he had to have a great day. Nowadays, his game is more complete, more secure, his shots are timed better, helped by the bigger racquet too. Problem however he tires quicker. So i think if he played Djoko at the beginning of the week rather than at the end I am pretty sure he woudl have won on grass .However, Djoko, Nadal and Murray of today would have seriously exposed Federer's SHBh of 2006/7 on the current slow courts.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Tenbo!!

I have been following your championing of Federer the player now being better than yesteryear for a few years now. It's actually been an interesting debate. I think what adds weight to your argument is when one of the pundits on Sky said that how Roger has developed his game beyond his 'peak' years to remain competitive and still in the top 3 of the world today and heralded that achievement as just as impressive as his peak years.

I see what you say. I for one thinks he does have far more in his game now than he did back then in his peak years. However, when making the comparison one has to remember that in his peak years, the rivals he faces now were not in their peak at that time. Apart from Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were nowhere near their peak. That coupled Roger's stamina powers on the wane makes the comparison of say a 24/25 year old Federer against a 26/27 year old Djokovic very difficult to compare. When you see a Nadal running a peak Federer all over the court, how would he have coped with a peak Djokovic or peak Murray?

Put the 34 year old Federer in his 24/25 year old body and that would be some player.

Hi LK - I am not sure what is your point? You seem to say what I am saying. What I am saying is that Federer in 2006-7 did not have the know-how to beat the mdoerm players. Or rather he had the talent but he had to have a great day. Nowadays, his game is more complete, more secure, his shots are timed better, helped by the bigger racquet too. Problem however he tires quicker. So i think if he played Djoko at the beginning of the week rather than at the end I am pretty sure he woudl have won on grass .However, Djoko, Nadal and Murray of today would have seriously exposed Federer's SHBh of 2006/7 on the current slow courts.

I am saying I agree he is better. You have to look at the development of his game.

If we stick to the results side of his career, the argument becomes rigid. What is essentially happening is that one says look he won all his Slams as a young man and granted that is the case. But it doesn't mean results alone are the barometer we measure the talent of a player. 

I do see FKs point which is hey if he is so better, why have the slams dried up which fits into his age PoV. Again it goes back to my point of what metric is used to measure where his game is now.

That's why I say winning slam and peaking are simply different things.

One has to be blind (to put it mildly) to believe that the Fed we saw this week would have struggled more than the 2006 version.

The stats have proven so far that he cuts through the draw more efficiently. His problem really is simply the number one player.

That's why I say winning slam and peaking are simply different things.

One has to be blind (to put it mildly) to believe that the Fed we saw this week would have struggled more than the 2006 version.

The stats have proven so far that he cuts through the draw more efficiently. His problem really is simply the number one player.
He would have won 2 more slams this year without Djko.

Which nicely fits into the crux of your argument for years:

The players in this generation compared say 10 years ago are much fitter 

Which on the face of things isn't much wrong.

It have got to say that most player will not work as hard as fed to keep up with the tour after 30.

I am actually surprised fed is playing that well at 34. I have been saying that his shot making should get better with age but I always thought his fitness woudl struggle to keep up with successive matches. I expected him to decline this year...but he is again surprising me.

But do the tour have the talent to do what Federer has to his game?

Yes I think most players will peak between 28 to 33. Closer to 28 for those relying too much on their fitness and 30+ for the shot makers (Stan, Gasquet, Fed, etc..).

Problem however is new technologies coming and younger generation being trained at the higher level than their more mature opponents.

In the 80s, a 100mph serve was almost always an ace. Nowadays a 100mph serve is ....a second serve. One can only train v what is one the other side of teh net. If Nadal was trained by Lacoste and Rochet he would have never reached the level he has now. the opposition is a huge - and best training - method. This is why if you keep up at the top you can only progress. One cannot stay at the top playing worse than 5 years ago. Never happened, never will.