Tennis.

corrections · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:11 pm **Posts:** 27988

MintCondition wrote:

That's all true, though the first time Rafa and Roger played each other was on a hard court and Nadal won. You'd have thought Federer would have been able to gain more of an advantage in the first couple of years they played each other. Since 2008 Federer can only beat Nadal indoors and I mean, in 2008 he was 26...hardly an old man.

Some people also argue that Federer's era was slightly weak. Maybe he just dominated it so thoroughly he made it look weak, but I'm not sure if Safin/Nalbandian/Hewitt/Roddick really gave him a stand out rival in his peak period. He also played a few grand slam finals against lesser players like Baghdatis, Gonzalez etc. These 2nd level players aren't making the finals right now because the top 4 players are stronger. Safin probably could have been that main rival if he wasn't such a head case. Funny though that Roger was probably the last to reach his peak out of those guys and because he was a late bloomer and Rafa such an early one, they've been each other's biggest rival (despite a 5 year age gap). Honestly, I think if they were the same age Rafa's h2h record would be even more dominant.

I kind of doubt it (specifically on grass). And 26 is pretty damn old for tennis. It's past prime anyhow.

MintCondition · **Posted:** Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:19 am

26 isn't really old. Most players seem to reach their peak at about 24 and hold it for a couple of years before starting to decline. Not everyone fits this mould though obviously.

In Roger's best year (2007) he was pushed to 5 sets at Wimbledon by a 21 year old Nadal. That 21 year old Nadal would have hammered 21 year old Federer.

Maybe if they were the same age around 25 Federer would have started winning some matches, but Nadal would have gone out to a head to head advantage of like 15-2 or something ridiculous by then. They probably wouldn't have played as many matches on clay in that earlier period, but I don't think it would have mattered.

Until 2003/4 Federer had a horrible head to head against Hewitt for example, and Nadal is a much better player than Lleyton, with a game that is tailor made for playing Federer and has held his best or near best form longer than Hewitt did.

Georgi · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:37 pm **Posts:** 9165

Roger's best year was surely 2006.

MintCondition · **Posted:** Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:50 am

You might be right, but it's pretty close between 06 and 07. Won 3 of 4 grand slams both years, made the final of the other (losing in 4 sets to Nadal) and won the end of year title.

And 07 was probably a more competitive year as Djokovic and Murray were starting to really make their mark and Nadal was near or at the beginning of his peak period.

Paulie · **Joined:** Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:42 pm **Posts:** 4629

Perhaps young Fed would be no match for young Rafa, but it remains to be seen if Rafa's body will hold up and if he'll be as competetive in his latter years as Fed as been.

Tudwell · **Joined:** Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:06 pm **Posts:** 4283

MintCondition wrote:

He also played a few grand slam finals against lesser players like Baghdatis, Gonzalez etc. These 2nd level players aren't making the finals right now because the top 4 players are stronger.

Nadal won grand slam finals against Berdych and Soderling just last year. They're both easily on the level of Bagdatis and Gonzalez. And anyway, there's more to winning a grand slam than the final. Federer beat four Top 15 players, three Top 10 players to win the 2007 Australian, where he played Gonzalez in the final. That's hardly unimpressive.

And also, I'd easily take 2004, 2005, and 2006 over 2007 as Federer's best years.

MintCondition · **Posted:** Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:56 pm

2004 and especially 2005 were definitely not better years than 2007. In 2005 he "only" made and won 2 grand slam finals and lost in the year end championship (essentially the 5th major) to David Nalbandian.

The year end championship record is one where Federer's record does destroy Nadal's. 5 titles to 0 I think it is.

Nick · **Posted:** Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:01 pm

MintCondition wrote:

2004 and especially 2005 were definitely not better years than 2007. In 2005 he "only" made and won 2 grand slam finals and lost in the year end championship (essentially the 5th major) to David Nalbandian.

The year end championship record is one where Federer's record does destroy Nadal's. 5 titles to 0 I think it is.

The level of interest in the year end championship (i think actually both from players and spectators view point) would make it a very distant 5th in terms of most important tournaments of the year. I'd be loathe to refer to it as a major - unofficial, fifth or otherwise. Personally i'd go with 5th most important tournament of the year.

Georgi · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:37 pm **Posts:** 9165

Some people consider Miami the 5th slam I believe.

2007 was the year when Fed started to lose to people who shouldn't really have been losing two. He lost to Guillermo Canas twice in a week iirc.

MintCondition · **Posted:** Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:39 pm

On the other hand he had the longest winning streak of his career in early 2007 (41 matches).

I think performances in the majors are more important than anything else though, which is why 2007 challenges 2006 as his best year.

Nick, the significance of the end of year championship is that it's contested between only the top ranked players and because of the round robin group format before the semi finals it means you have to win 4 or 5 matches against top ranked players in order to win the tournament. In the grand slams you only need to win against 3 top 8 ranked players maximum and often less than that if lower ranked players cause upsets in the early rounds. It's not as prestigious a tournament as the grand slams but it's arguably just as, if not more difficult to win and because of the huge prize money all the players are wanting to win just as much.

Nick · **Posted:** Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:47 pm

thanks, Mint, I do know the make up of the end of year championships but i enjoyed the refresher course nonetheless.
I believe there used to be a Grand Slam Cup in addition as well.

As far as the tour championships goes, or whatever it's called these days, i do think it's the 5th most important tournament in the calendar, and as far as providing evidence for Nadal v Federer or any player comparison the results from it are certainly applicable. I just think it's way down below the 4 slams in terms of prestige and interest though I take your point about the quality of competition there (i counter that with the best of 3 set format and the fact that you can lose a match and still win the tournament). I do seem to recall players in the past pulling out of it as well - I don't think they would risk going into it half fit as they would do for a slam and it's pretty close to the Australian Open on the calendar actually. I don't know if it's still early December or just late November but that's still only 6 weeks out from a slam.

Tudwell · **Joined:** Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:06 pm **Posts:** 4283

MintCondition wrote:

2004 and especially 2005 were definitely not better years than 2007. In 2005 he "only" made and won 2 grand slam finals and lost in the year end championship (essentially the 5th major) to David Nalbandian.

The year end championship record is one where Federer's record does destroy Nadal's. 5 titles to 0 I think it is.

There's more to tennis than slams, though. In 2004 and 2005, his performance outside of the slams was significantly better than in 2007 (3 and 4 masters respectively compared to 2 for 2007; 11 titles compared to 8 for 2007) and his win-loss ratio was significantly better in those two years (93% and 95% compared to 88%). One more slam in 2007 than in 2005 is a pretty big deal, I admit, but given all the other factors, I'd take 2005.

Georgi · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:37 pm **Posts:** 9165

I think Fed was that Nalbandian loss in the YEC from having a better win-loss ratio than McEnroe in 1984.

Anpass · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:30 pm

Georgi wrote:

Roger's best year was surely 2006.

yes, i thought this too.

Georgi wrote:

Some people consider Miami the 5th slam I believe.

yes, i thought this too.

the winner of Miami is weighted above making a Grand Slam semi final as the winner earns more ATP ranking points and prize money in comparison.

http://www.thesportreview.com/tsr/2010/ ... explained/

anyone one have a clear understanding of the ATP ranking system? EDIT

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Ra ... spx#points handy

In the last 10 years (2001-2010) Fed has been in the "masters cup" how many times (or which year wasn't he in it)? Who has been in it the 2nd greatest number of times?

Masters Cup W/L record in the final: Roger Federer 5/1; Ivan Lendl 5/4; Pete Sampras 5/1; Boris Becker 3/5
Which as you all might surmise means Lendl has been in the final 9 times... that's impressive. And, who did he lose to? That's starts to make it even more impressive. If Lendl had had a few more cheap dates in his finals...he would stand way ahead of Fed still.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 98631.html i have soft spot for the much unloved lendl. a friend of mine used to work on his mercedeses.

I had a pancho gonzalez racquet when i was young.

Tudwell · **Joined:** Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:06 pm **Posts:** 4283

The Canada Masters is pretty nuts this year. Already three out of the top four seeds are gone. Ostensibly, it's Djokovic's tournament to lose now.

Tennis.

Who is online