some stats

[bob]

YR W L % GS Finals

Fed:
2003 78 17 0.821052632 1
2004 74 6 0.925 3
2005 81 4 0.952941176 2
2006 92 5 0.948453608 4
2007 68 9 0.883116883 4
2008 66 15 0.814814815 3
2009 61 12 0.835616438 4
2010 65 13 0.833333333 1
2011 64 12 0.842105263 1
2012 71 12 0.855421687 1
2013 45 17 0.725806452 0
2014 73 12 0.858823529 1
2015 63 11 0.851351351 2
2016 21 7 0.75 0
2017 31 2 0.939393939 2

Djok:
2010 61 18 0.772151899 1
2011 70 6 0.921052632 3
2012 75 12 0.862068966 3
2013 74 9 0.891566265 3
2014 61 8 0.884057971 2
2015 82 6 0.931818182 4
2016 65 9 0.878378378 2
2017 32 8 0.8 0

Nads:
2010 71 10 0.87654321 3
2011 68 15 0.819277108 3
2012 42 6 0.875 2
2013 75 7 0.914634146 2
2014 48 11 0.813559322 1
2015 61 20 0.75308642 0
2016 39 14 0.735849057 0
2017 46 7 0.867924528 2

[Jason White]

For achieving highest level of dominance, maybe lack of longevity is the price Novak pays.

[me]

On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:51:29 AM UTC+1, bob wrote:
> YR W L % GS Finals
>
> Fed:
> 2003 78 17 0.821052632 1

Sorry, but 9 decimal places insufficient accuracy, please repeat..

[kaennorsing]

Op vrijdag 21 juli 2017 05:36:56 UTC+2 schreef Jason White:

> For achieving highest level of dominance, maybe lack of longevity is the price Novak pays.

Except that Federer was also more dominant than Novak in his peak years.

[*skriptis]

kaennorsing <ljub...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:

> Op vrijdag 21 juli 2017 05:36:56 UTC+2 schreef Jason White:
>> For achieving highest level of dominance, maybe lack of longevity is the price Novak pays.
>
> Except that Federer was also more dominant than Novak in his peak years.
>

Attention!
Fedfucker alert!
Attention!
Fedfucker alert!
Attention!



4 consecutive slams > 3 consecutive slams.

Record high ATP points (2016)
Record high elo rating (2016)
Longer match winning streak (2011) than Federer ever had.







--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Gracchus]

On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 5:02:56 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
> kaennorsing <ljub...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > Op vrijdag 21 juli 2017 05:36:56 UTC+2 schreef Jason White:
> >> For achieving highest level of dominance, maybe lack of longevity is the price Novak pays.
> >
> > Except that Federer was also more dominant than Novak in his peak years.
> >
>
>
> Attention!
> Fedfucker alert!
> Attention!
> Fedfucker alert!
> Attention!

Grow up. You're modeling very poor examples in this group.

> 4 consecutive slams > 3 consecutive slams.
>
> Record high ATP points (2016)
> Record high elo rating (2016)
> Longer match winning streak (2011) than Federer ever had.
>

Nobody outside your part of the world cares about these rinky-dink stats. Djoke is a fine champion, but he's eating Federer's dust and his chances of turning that around at this stage of his career are close to nil.

[*skriptis]

Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

I didn't realize Jason White is from my part of the world?
Didn't
catch him by the name, sorry about that Jason.

Anyway, he said:

"For achieving highest level of dominance, maybe lack of longevity
is the price Novak pays."

Something most people would probably agree, but not the
fedfuckers. They have to invent, fabricate and lie about
Federer's dominance being higher, better etc in spite of the
overwhelming proofs such as Djokovic's NCYGS, record ATP pts,
record elo ratings, longer winning streaks etc.


Just tell us, is Margaret Court most dominant female champion or
that honour belongs to someone else?

[Carey]

The "Fedf**kers bit from the few dead-enders is only sounding churlish.

I think even they will get that, eventually.

[RaspingDrive]

The Nadal data should be at least from 2008 or even 2007.

[Whisper]

On 23/07/2017 11:24 AM, Carey wrote:
> The "Fedf**kers bit from the few dead-enders is only sounding churlish.
>
> I think even they will get that, eventually.
>
>
>

'Fedfuckers' is not directed at normal Fed/tennis fans, rather the
extreme types who not only idolize the guy, but disparage all his
opponents & exaggerate Fed's achievements - eg Fed 'crushed' Rafa at AO
& Sampras at Wimbledon. What's wrong with simply stating what happened
- ie Fed won by the skin of his teeth? It doesn't diminish the narrow
victories.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[bob]

i know, i was going to cut out the decimals, but had already
cut/pasted it and deleted the spreadsheet. sorry.

bob

[bob]

i originally had that, but wanted just to compare from the years
everyone said fed was "old."

bob

[RaspingDrive]

People lose the edge after achieving goals.

[kaennorsing]

Op zondag 23 juli 2017 02:02:56 UTC+2 schreef *skriptis:

> kaennorsing <ljub...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > Op vrijdag 21 juli 2017 05:36:56 UTC+2 schreef Jason White:
> >> For achieving highest level of dominance, maybe lack of longevity is the price Novak pays.
> >
> > Except that Federer was also more dominant than Novak in his peak years.
> >
>
>
> Attention!
> Fedfucker alert!
> Attention!
> Fedfucker alert!
> Attention!
>
>
>
> 4 consecutive slams > 3 consecutive slams.
>
> Record high ATP points (2016)
> Record high elo rating (2016)
> Longer match winning streak (2011) than Federer ever had.

Ok, Djoksucker. ATP points have been altered over the years so they are not completely comparable. If you actually look at the stats above you would see Djoker only had a winning percentage of 90% or more in just 2 seasons (5 years apart). Federer managed it three seasons in a row and is on his way to a 4th. And Federer had 2 seasons with higher win percentages than Djoker ever had.

Also, Djoker only made all 4 finals in a season 1 time. Federer did it 3 times. Let's not get into slam title defenses and streaks, because Fed is way ahead there as well. No contest. Fed was more dominant... Sorry!

[*skriptis]

He could have been, but you didn't present it.

Reaching all four finals in a season is a nice thing, but it's not
an ultimate achievement, is it?

It's "irrelevant", just as Federer's 23 consecutive slam SF are
irrelevant, or Connors' consecutive (or total) weeks in top 10.


Those are all consistency achievements. Great. But we talk peak
stuff hear.



Yes, ranking systems evolved but not much between Djokovic and
Federer era. Almost no difference in 2006 vs 2015 because the
structure of the tour suffered no change. It was just about
doubling the pts and a bit of tweaking, more or less pts for
different rounds.

But don't worry, Federer's points from 2016 were rescaled and
compared by the experts.

By winning USO 15 Djokovic had already surpassed Federer's career
best, which Federer reached at the end of 2006 by winning YEC
that year.
Djokovic improved his result again by winning Shanghai.
Then again by winning Doha.
Then again by winning FO.

Breaking "world record" four times.


Winning match steaks, 2011 Djokovic tops Federer's winning streak,
just as he tops highest ever elo ratings.


I agree winning percentages per season is the only star that
Djokovic isn't at the top, but neither is Federer
there.
It's McEnroe 1984.

Bortom line, Federer 2006 and Djokovic 2015 seasons are identical
in slams/yec but Djokovic won an extra MS event. It's not much
but it makes him more dominant.

And of course, if we're not comparing seasons, but simply 52-week
periods, Federer's best 52 weeks ever, basically entire 2006 is
not a match for Djokovic's 2015-16.

[RaspingDrive]

I must again say you articulate excellent points in your post(s) and many of them are a treat to read. Keep going :)
Now, let me also add: I have nothing against Djok, his record is simply mind-blowing. However, somehow, I can't reconcile to this seeming 'frailty' which Federer did not have. Namely that Federer during his juggernaut years was stopped in slam (FO) by Nadal, that clay Genius, whose clay record will prove to be indelible. Compare this to Djok who during his irresistible year lost to the then one-slam wonder Stan.

[*skriptis]

RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Tnx. :)

Well, first of all, we are not trying to determine who is nicer of
those two, or whose wife is prettier. Nothing subjective for me
here. I'm interested in numbers/achievements and players and
their names don't matter.
If e.g. someone wins cygs you have to say it tops ncygs. Just
comparison.


Your point about Federer seemingly being closer to the absolute
dominance due to only Nadal stopping him on clay for many years,
is a gut feeling. :)

Last year people mocked Nadal for winning a wooden spoon at the
AO, and it prompted me to think about all FOs in the past decade
in terms of losing to the eventual winner.

I calculated and Djokovic wasn't much behind Federer, even before
him winning it last year.

Federer lost many finals to Nadal there and yes in many cases
advanced further than Djokovic in that period. But what would
have been his record had he been somehow, scheduled to play Nadal
in round 1, every year?

If we assume Nadal is/was an impenetrable wall, then it was
basically only Federer's #1 ranking which enabled him to play
Nadal in the last round and outdo Djokovic in those tournament.



In the end Djokovic won FO title without beating Nadal and played
Nadal 7 times, there, losing 6 times.
Federer won FO title without beating Nadal and played Nadal 5
times, losing all 5.

True, Nadal was non-peak in 2015, but neither was baby Djokovic,
certainly not the one in 2006, so you could say Djokovic's record
is kinda 5/5 loses, no different than Federer's 5/5.


In the end Djokovic won against Nadal at every major clay venue,
Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid, FO and has won all those titles.


His clay grip is quite solid in that regard.

[RaspingDrive]

As I said, very impressive, the Djoker. However, bear in mind his invincible period was hemmed-in between loss to one-slam wonder Stan and slam-less wonder Querrey. Federer did not have such losses from Fall 2005 until early 2008. The only losses were to clay giant Nadal. Even after that Federer has been competitive. Djoker?

[*skriptis]

Federer's period whatever you're going to call it, 05-08 was
longer, true. But what's the point if it wasn't as
dominant?

[RaspingDrive]

What is the point of dominance (over any arbitrary *short* period) when outside that the player is ordinary? The idea of dominance should be to amass slams at will --- like Rafa does on clay. Here, it is not the case. Again, this is not to deprecate Djok's awesome record.

[*skriptis]

I don't think one year is arbitrary?
It's a season, and human life cycle consists of many years.


Fine then, Federer is the most dominant ever because over the
course of his career he won the most.

[RaspingDrive]

Djok eked it out :)

> Fine then, Federer is the most dominant ever because over the
> course of his career he won the most.

Not Federer either. Make it Rafa on clay. Proof of his dominance is that you cannot bet against him on clay.

[*skriptis]

Do you really feel betting against Djokovic anywhere in 2015-16
period was that much much safer than betting against Rafa at FO?
Maybe it was, I don't know.

It's apples and oranges, one tournament in many years, vs whole
tour in one year. Maybe it's not comparable, totally different.


But I don't think bookies had Djokovic as the underdog in any
match in that period, on any surface. Nobody was favorite against
him. And he delivered winning all 4 slams.

Nadal otoh had 2 matches in his career at FO he wasn't the fave.

[AZ]

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 2:55:31 AM UTC+6, *skriptis wrote:
> l.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 3:26:20 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:

> >> RaspingDrive il.com> Wrote in message:

> >> > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 2:42:22 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:

> >> >> RaspingDrive <raspimail.com> Wrote in message:

> >> >> > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 2:35:10 AM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:

> >> >> >> RaspingDrive <raspiail.com> Wrote in message:

> >> >> >> > On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 7:46:48 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:

> >> >> >> >> kaennorsing <ljubitsail.com> Wrote in message:

> >> >> >> >> > Op zondag 23 juli 2017 02:02:56 UTC+2 schreef *skriptis:

> >> >> >> >> >> kaennorsing <ljubiail.com> Wrote in message:

Djokovic literally ground his bones out by going for the impossible. Now he is paying for it. Just like Nads busted his knees out.

Neither can reach Fed in terms of slam win longevity.

[*skriptis]

AZ <arnab....@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

If he did it, and he did, obviously it was possible, no?
So you may ask whether it was worth it, or you could even claim it
wasn't worth it.

But don't post logical fallacies, please.

> Neither can reach Fed in terms of slam win longevity.

Slam win longevity? Hm I feel you're saying if Nadal wins 5 slams,
but those happen to be next 5, it won't be as impressive?
;)

[bob]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:14:58 -0700 (PDT), AZ <arnab....@gmail.com>
wrote:

i totally agree.

>Neither can reach Fed in terms of slam win longevity.

i agree there too. but to be fair, if you switch djok's and fed's
ages, IMO djok has more slams thanhe does, and fed less than he does.
some luck involved too.

bob

[kaennorsing]

Op maandag 24 juli 2017 01:46:48 UTC+2 schreef *skriptis:

Yes, Djoker won an extra MS even in 2015 (which was easier for top guys given the best of 3 finals format) but he won 10 less matches and lost one more than Federer in 2006. Federer had a 95% vs Djoker's 93%. Which is more dominant?

So Djoker hit a more purple patch for 52 weeks or so but he was never as dominant any longer than that. Certainly not comparable to Federer between 2004-2007. Fed never went below 92% three years in a row. Both times Djoker hit above 90% he fell off a cliff the next year (a drop of around 5%).

Look, I agree with most of what you say. However I stand by my statement, which was Federer's *peak years* were more dominant than Djoker's. All the stats back it up. So the top 52 weeks, Djoker may have the edge in dominance. Lengthen that out into a longer period, any number of years really, and it's clearly Federer.

[AZ]

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 3:34:12 AM UTC+6, *skriptis wrote:
> AZ ail.com> Wrote in message:

I should have been clear that I meant "impossible" in the sense that you do it without doing yourself some kind of long term damage that comes back and bite you in the ass. Even historically speaking, holding four slams at once was considered an "impossible" feat for a long time. Even the greatest of all time Federer came tantalizingly close to it not once but twice, only to be denied by the clay GOAT/BOAT Nadal during the Spaniard's perky youthful peak. Djokovic had to face a far less formidable clay opponent Murray in the final of FO for his last hurdle. If Fed had somebody like Murray for those two FO finals, he would have done it handily not once but twice way before Djokovic. From another angle, if Djokovic had a fit and motivated Nadal in that final instead of Murray, he probably would have lost.

> So you may ask whether it was worth it, or you could even claim it
> wasn't worth it.

Was it worth it? If playing a very high level of tennis and reap rewards for a long time was one of Djok's objectives, then it definitely wasn't worth it. But if getting into double digit slam numbers and become a bona fide ATG by maxing out during one's peak years was the main goal, then it was worth it. Career strategy-wise, it seems a bit sub-optimal than Fed's. But then again, comparing with Fed is not charitable because everybody, even somebody as stellar as Djokovic will look bad next to Fed's records. After all, Fed is the GOAT.

>
> > Neither can reach Fed in terms of slam win longevity.
>
>
> Slam win longevity? Hm I feel you're saying if Nadal wins 5 slams,
> but those happen to be next 5, it won't be as impressive?
> ;)

If Nadal or Djokovic wins multiple slams at age 35+, only then can they be as impressive as Fed in this particular "slam longevity" metric. The term sounds a bit confusing I admit. To me, it means that the older you win a slam (let alone two), the more impressive it gets. I have a hunch that neither Nadal nor Djokovic will reach the bar that Fed has set this year. So Fed will stay the unique and very distant front-runner in this category for a while. We might have wait a decade to see whether some of the 25 year old's of today can do it in 2027.

[*skriptis]

McEnroe '84?
But he won only two slams that year.
You'd put that year over Federer's 3 slam 2006 because Mac's
percentage was better? I don't.

So I dismiss Federer's higher percentages vs Djokovic, 2006 vs
2015 when they're due to more tune up wins, while he's had less
success in tier 1 tournaments (ATP1000). And Djokovic lost a
"meaningless" yec match as well, not a real tournament match that
he went out because of it.

Besides, Djokovic's peak is truly 2015-16 12 month period period,
not the 2015 season itself.

> So Djoker hit a more purple patch for 52 weeks or so but he was never as dominant any longer than that. Certainly not comparable to Federer between 2004-2007. Fed never went below 92% three years in a row. Both times Djoker hit above 90% he fell off a cliff the next year (a drop of around 5%).
>
> Look, I agree with most of what you say. However I stand by my statement, which was Federer's *peak years* were more dominant than Djoker's. All the stats back it up. So the top 52 weeks, Djoker may have the edge in dominance. Lengthen that out into a longer period, any number of years really, and it's clearly Federer.
>

But then you're not talking about "peak" rather about "prime". 52
weeks is what I'm talking about. Rankings measure 52 weeks,
that's a season, if you win everything, you can't go up next
year, you can only repeat, defend.

I agree Fed lasted longer in his excellence, had longer SF streaks
and stuff like that. However is that what's truly
peak?

Also, even if you have to deal with #2 Nadal, it's kinda easier to
have Federer's consistency when #3 guy is someone like Ljubicic,
guys Blake, Davydenko, etc.?

[AZ]

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 5:04:43 AM UTC+6, *skriptis wrote:
> kaennorsing otmail.com> Wrote in message:

> > Op maandag 24 juli 2017 01:46:48 UTC+2 schreef *skriptis:

> >> kaennorsing <mail.com> Wrote in message:

> >> > Op zondag 23 juli 2017 02:02:56 UTC+2 schreef *skriptis:

> >> >> kaennorsing <mail.com> Wrote in message:

I agree with you that Djokovic's peakity peak over 52 week period is better (NCYGS duh!), but only marginally so, than Federer's peakity peak. Fed was about to have NCYGS twice, but for one match each time against the clay goat/boat Nadal (in hindsight). Djokovic did it only once, with Murray as the last hurdle. So Djokovic did it. Bravo to him. But as a Fed fan, it feels like Federer deserved it more in a way, but God disposed. It would have been way more fitting to have Fed win the NCYGS, given his consistency, peak, talent, longevity, overall records, etc. Oh well. Can't have it all.

[*skriptis]

AZ <arnab....@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Tnx, that's enough for me. ;)

>Fed was about to have NCYGS twice, but for one match each time against the clay goat/boat Nadal (in hindsight). Djokovic did it only once, with Murray as the last hurdle. So Djokovic did it. Bravo to him. But as a Fed fan, it feels like Federer deserved it more in a way, but God disposed. It would have been way more fitting to have Fed win the NCYGS, given his consistency, peak, talent, longevity, overall records, etc. Oh well. Can't have it all.

Otoh Nadal had 4 and 5 consecutive FO, Federer 5 consecutive Wim
and USO, while Djokovic has "only" 3 at his best slam, and maybe
you could look at 4 consecutive yec as a consolation. Even failed
there to win that potential 5th last year. So prior to last year,
he had little to show off.

To me his 4 consecutive slams seem like a very special
achievement, that put him in the same tier there, and he is
deserving of having it. He didn't join Federer and Nadal in those
consecutive titles stats, rather Budge and Laver. So be it.


And even Murray's 2 Olympic holds are unique.

[changj...@gmail.com]

If I understand you correctly: you mean that had Djok lived in Fed's time, he'd have had more slams by this age. I think it is not that simple. Conceiving a case: Djok may be the best returner in history but Fed is best to handle all big servers. With Djok, Roddick would have had multiple slams in Wimbledon and USO; even if he wouldn't split slams with or as good as Djok, he would have done at least better than Murray who has costed Djok twice. In fact, Djok wasn't comfortable with Roddick; yes, it happened before Djok became the dominant one, but we here assumed a hypothetical Roddick of same age with Djok to have a chance toe to toe evolve with Djok. Once Roddick got some slams in his belts, it'd motivate him work harder (to his maximum potential) so would give Djok more trouble.

[MBDunc]

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 2:04:43 AM UTC+3, *skriptis wrote:
> Also, even if you have to deal with #2 Nadal, it's kinda easier to
> have Federer's consistency when #3 guy is someone like Ljubicic,
> guys Blake, Davydenko, etc.?

To be fair - that 3rd guy was usually Roddick, Hewitt, Safin or Djokovic (2004-2007) who actually were a lot more serious contenders. Safin even won a slam beating peak Fed.

Retrospectively 2006 was a minor transition year ... but then 2007 we already had Djokovic and rising Murray.

.mikko

[kaennorsing]

Op dinsdag 25 juli 2017 01:04:43 UTC+2 schreef *skriptis:

You can't dismiss Fed's percentages because of more tune-up wins if you don't dismiss Djoker's extra MS title because of a easier draw and finals format. Can't have it both ways. Masters today are like tune-ups of yesterday. Only win 5 matches and only best of 3 finals - instead of 6 matches and bo5 during Fed's peak. So I ask you again: how can you be more dominant if you lose 1 more match and win 10 less matches?

And at slam level Djoker had not one, not two, not three but four (4) guys that stopped him in his peak years; Fed, Rafa, Stan and Andy. All beat Djoker multiple times at slam level during his peak years. Only one guy beat peak Fed multiple times on slam level during his peak. From 2004-2008 those losses were also confined to a single surface. In contrast, peak Novak was practically beaten everywhere, by every great/semi-great when they zoned in.

[*skriptis]

MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:

> On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 2:04:43 AM UTC+3, *skriptis wrote:
>> Also, even if you have to deal with #2 Nadal, it's kinda easier to
>> have Federer's consistency when #3 guy is someone like Ljubicic,
>> guys Blake, Davydenko, etc.?
>
> To be fair - that 3rd guy was usually Roddick, Hewitt, Safin or Djokovic (2004-2007) who actually were a lot more serious contenders. Safin even won a slam beating peak Fed.
>
> Retrospectively 2006 was a minor transition year ... but then 2007 we already had Djokovic and rising Murray.

I'm not about talking about early Federer's career, or anything
like that now.

You have a point about mini transition and it wasn't all cakewalk
for Federer before 2007, but it was the year 2006 that was
Federer's absolute peak, ranking wise. So it's a yardstick.


So aside Nadal, who is touted as remarkable challenge on clay, who
was else there at the time in those slams? Baghdatis, Bjorkman,
Blake, Roddick.

Imo, to me, comparing their failed attempts at NCYGS, Djokovic's
in 2012. seems more impressive. He won the other slams against
Murray, Federer, Nadal and came short at the FO vs Nadal. It was
big 4 era.


And of course. when Nadal was out, he won NCYGS later at 29.
Federer had Nadal out and won FO but didn't do NCYGS even though
he was younger than Djokovic.

And we see how he's able to defy age anyway. No age excuses.

[*skriptis]

Fine, I agree with best of 3 set finals making it easier, first to
play, and then to win more ms events. In the end, Federer and
Djokovic had same success in slams 2006 vs 2015, with Djokovic
winning 6 vs 4 ATP1000s. That's two more, but fine, I agree it
was somewhat easier.


But I already said that comparing peaks by comparing seasons, 2006
vs 2015 is unfair. Federer's 2006 coincides with his best 52 week
period, whereas for Djokovic it's not 2015 season (which is kinda
similar to Federer's 2006) but instead it's 12 month period in
2015-16.

If someone wins 4 slams, yec and 5 ms events in 12 months, I can't
have someone with 3 slams, yec and 4 ms events ahead of him,
regardless of the percentages.

I don't think McEnroe in 1984 is the best season either.

> And at slam level Djoker had not one, not two, not three but four (4) guys that stopped him in his peak years; Fed, Rafa, Stan and Andy.

Well, this is something we disagree. I don't believe there are
peak years. I believe in peak year, peak tournament, peak match,
etc.

Do we have Guinness record naming oldest humans or the oldest person?

>All beat Djoker multiple times at slam level during his peak years. Only one guy beat peak Fed multiple times on slam level during his peak. From 2004-2008 those losses were also confined to a single surface. In contrast, peak Novak was practically beaten everywhere, by every great/semi-great when they zoned in.

Federer's prime is better than Djokovic's.
No doubt. His game is less taxing which enabled him to last
longer, but he had it easier too, aside having peak Nadal, which
waited him in the finals only. But the rest?

Look at their failed NCYGS campaigns.

Federer's 2006 FO.
QF Ancic
SF Davydenko
F Nadal

Djokovic's 2015
QF Nadal
SF Murray
F Wawrinka

[TT]

MBDunc kirjoitti 25.7.2017 klo 8:51:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 2:04:43 AM UTC+3, *skriptis wrote:
>> Also, even if you have to deal with #2 Nadal, it's kinda easier to
>> have Federer's consistency when #3 guy is someone like Ljubicic,
>> guys Blake, Davydenko, etc.?
>
> To be fair - that 3rd guy was usually Roddick, Hewitt, Safin or Djokovic (2004-2007) who actually were a lot more serious contenders. Safin even won a slam beating peak Fed.
>

Safin's career win% is 61%. A second or third rate player.

[*skriptis]

*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:

Sorry Nalbandian in 2006 on clay.
Davydenko was in 2007 SF.

[bob]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 21:58:27 -0700 (PDT), changj...@gmail.com
wrote:

i believe federer won a lot of slams (about 10-12) before djok and
even nadal peaked. djok and nadal, OTOH, peaked when fed was peak, so
had to fight him, plus each other. fed won those early slams (03-06 or
even 07) VS a weak field IMO. put djok in that time and i think he'd
win 3/4 of those slams too. but fed won what he won, he deserves those
wins, and his #s are huge. can't argue with #s.

> Conceiving a case: Djok may be the best returner in history but Fed is best to handle all big servers. With Djok, Roddick would have had multiple slams in Wimbledon and USO; even if he wouldn't split slams with or as good as Djok, he would have done at least better than Murray who has costed Djok twice. In fact, Djok wasn't comfortable with Roddick;

2005-2008 djok maybe. how bout post 2010 djok? just pretend djok is 8
yrs younger. he peaks 03-09, not 10-16. IMO he wins 15 slams at least.

> yes, it happened before Djok became the dominant one, but we here assumed a hypothetical Roddick of same age with Djok to have a chance toe to toe evolve with Djok. Once Roddick got some slams in his belts, it'd motivate him work harder (to his maximum potential) so would give Djok more trouble.

you're looking at peak roddick VS young djok. not a fair comparison.

bob

[changj...@gmail.com]

I looked at a hypothetical Roddick of the same age with Djok so they'd battle out and grow together. Obviously without battling Fed over years, Djok wouldn't have been the player who we have seen. Remember that Murray stole two slams from Djok during after 2010. Plenty evidence such as wimbledon 2009 show that Roddick would do better at least than Murray had he been in current mix. I actually believe that Roddick didn't work as hard as any of current big four, part of reason was due to frustration in Wimbledon and USO due to Fed. A couple of more wimbledon/US open in his belt would very likely have him work much harder.

[bob]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 19:55:02 -0700 (PDT), changj...@gmail.com

roddick didn't work as hard as the big 3 (not sure about murray)
because he didn't care as much about tennis as he was more interested
in being famous and going hollywood. so he won 1 slam instead of maybe
5+ IMO. not that he was lazy, but he sure wasn't connors or lendl or
the big 3.

bob

[changj...@gmail.com]

That's why I said part of reasons and like being famous supports that had he had some more slams in his belt, he would have worked more, kind of like Djok, after testing big victories, he wanted more. Rafa and Fed are the only two that are willing to work consistently with Rafa is absolutely a working horse (Moya said they need to find a way to stop him training).

[Whisper]

The big turning point was that 2004 Wimbledon final. Lots of rain
delays worked in Fed's favor that day as Roddick was playing better
before the rains came. It was a very narrow 46 75 76 64 win for Roger.
Had Roddick won that match yes I think he would have won 4 or 5 more
slams. The 2009 Wimbledon final shows what Roddick coulda done if he
worked harder & had just a bit more luck.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Whisper]

Like most things in life the guys who want it more tend to do the best.
Half arsing can only take you so far against fully arsed.

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 8:13:04 PM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:

> The big turning point was that 2004 Wimbledon final. Lots of rain
> delays worked in Fed's favor that day as Roddick was playing better
> before the rains came. It was a very narrow 46 75 76 64 win for Roger.
> Had Roddick won that match yes I think he would have won 4 or 5 more
> slams. The 2009 Wimbledon final shows what Roddick coulda done if he
> worked harder & had just a bit more luck.

Roddick ALWAYS worked hard... he prided himself on his work ethic... it's just that he had a LOT of injuries over his career... that hurt him in many ways...

P

[Whisper]

> -


He worked hard to a point. He certainly didn't want it as much as Fed/Rafa.

[changj...@gmail.com]

In his standard, but pretty sure far from the standard of current big four, especially Rafa.

[John Liang]

I don't know why I need to teach a self claimed engineer primary school maths or even the basics on how to count. I will do it here for you, little bob. Federer won 1 slam in 2003, 3 in 2004, 2 in 2005, 3 in 2006 and 3 in 2007 that is 12 by the time he was 26. By 2007 Nadal already won 3 FO and Djokovic 0 slams. But at 26 Nadal also won 12 of his 15 slams. So my question to you is why are players winning most of their slams before they are 27 but not after they are 27 ? Is Federer winning larger share of his slam abnormal compare to other players of this era or earlier era ?

[MBDunc]

On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:13:04 AM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> The big turning point was that 2004 Wimbledon final. Lots of rain
> delays worked in Fed's favor that day as Roddick was playing better
> before the rains came. It was a very narrow 46 75 76 64 win for Roger.
> Had Roddick won that match yes I think he would have won 4 or 5 more
> slams.

...and "clown era" talks were never there. Alone 2004 Wimb would have been enough.

>The 2009 Wimbledon final shows what Roddick coulda done if he
> worked harder & had just a bit more luck.

All sources say - including Roddick and even Connors in his book say that Roddick was very hard working and always motivated. It is only bob and you who constantly say he was tomic of his day.

"....“Andy’s always been a grinder, a hard worker; you have to put reins on him all the time because he’s always going to work too hard, too long and too much.”" (roddick's physio)

-> maybe that's the key. "-> work smarter not harder?" Connors in his book said that Andy played in practices like enigma but had difficulties to give same quality showings in actual matches.

.mikko

[bob]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 21:51:01 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
<mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:13:04 AM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
>> The big turning point was that 2004 Wimbledon final. Lots of rain
>> delays worked in Fed's favor that day as Roddick was playing better
>> before the rains came. It was a very narrow 46 75 76 64 win for Roger.
>> Had Roddick won that match yes I think he would have won 4 or 5 more
>> slams.
>
>...and "clown era" talks were never there.

you can only realize a clown era in hindsight.

bob

[John Liang]

Like 1993-2002 .

[Tim]

Nadal has played in a clown era for clay .

--
Please support mental health research and world community grid
http://www.mentalhealthresearchuk.org.uk/
http://mcpin.org/
https://www.mqmentalhealth.org/
https://join.worldcommunitygrid.org?recruiterId=123388

[stephenJ]

I always thought Roddick was very dedicated and worked hard. But, he was
also a straight-talker, and it was apparent to me that by 2005 or so he
realized he wasn't going to beat Federer. He just wasn't as good, and
since he was only interested in slam-winning, that naturally dampened
his motivation.

But Roddick wasn't a Stich. He didn't have Stich's talent, and he always
worked a lot harder than Stich did.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Carey]

On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 6:18:38 AM UTC-7, StephenJ wrote:

>
> I always thought Roddick was very dedicated and worked hard. But, he was
> also a straight-talker, and it was apparent to me that by 2005 or so he
> realized he wasn't going to beat Federer. He just wasn't as good, and
> since he was only interested in slam-winning, that naturally dampened
> his motivation.
>
> But Roddick wasn't a Stich. He didn't have Stich's talent, and he always
> worked a lot harder than Stich did.
>

Good post.

[kaennorsing]

Op donderdag 27 juli 2017 15:18:38 UTC+2 schreef StephenJ:

That was my impression as well. No doubt he was a hard worker. But after countless defeats in those years it became clear (if it wasn't already) the gap in talent was just far too big between the two. It just so happened to be that Roddick's best surfaces were Fed's favorites as well and with a confident and highly motivated Federer around Andy was never going to be the force he hoped to have been. So much that even if Roddick was playing his absolute best and Fed wasn't close to his, there was still little chance for a Roddick victory... Now that will dampen the spirits.

I think something similar happened to Safin, Hewitt and most other top contenders those days... until Rafa came along.

[stephenJ]

I agree with you about everyone here except Safin. Safin was a weird
one, his mind was always one third on tennis and two thirds on whatever
else was bouncing around in his brain, so I don't think he was invested
enough in tennis to really lose motivation. Plus, Safin had the kind of
game where if he was 'on fire', he could compete with anyone, even
Federer, so he didn't really need to feel intimidated either.

[kaennorsing]

Op donderdag 27 juli 2017 16:34:08 UTC+2 schreef StephenJ:

True, Safin's best was as good as anyone (or at least close to it), but I remember him virtually admitting that Federer 'is making us all look bad'. I agree he also had other motivational problems, so to speak.

[Guypers]

True trumper, liked the pussy too much!?

[John Liang]

Apart from his mind set I think Safin has a build similar to Krajicek. Both guys are tremendously powerful in their era, at their best both could threaten even the very best in the game. They are both tall and heavy and movement did put server strain on their legs, knees, ankles and joints.

[bob]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:12:57 +0100, Tim <firem...@gatty.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 27/07/2017 02:18, John Liang wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 10:53:53 AM UTC+10, bob wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 21:51:01 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
>>> <mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:13:04 AM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
>>>>> The big turning point was that 2004 Wimbledon final. Lots of rain
>>>>> delays worked in Fed's favor that day as Roddick was playing better
>>>>> before the rains came. It was a very narrow 46 75 76 64 win for Roger.
>>>>> Had Roddick won that match yes I think he would have won 4 or 5 more
>>>>> slams.
>>>>
>>>> ...and "clown era" talks were never there.
>>>
>>> you can only realize a clown era in hindsight.
>>>
>>> bob
>>
>> Like 1993-2002 .
>>
>
>Nadal has played in a clown era for clay .

agree. but even if he didn't, he's still easily the clay goat.

bob