Federer is now declining and I can prove it.... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer is now declining and I can prove it....

Frufru
08-26-2007, 05:27 AM
I believe Federer is now well and truly behind his peak. I plotted a running average of winning percentage in all his ATP matches (excluding challengers and DC).

preyent.jpg

If you look beyond peaks and troughs, there is a trend showing declining his superiority; slowly but clearly. It looks like he peaked between US Open and AO Open 2007. So, Fed fans dont whine and whinge about his slump. Things will only get worse :devil: :devil: !!!

Merton
08-26-2007, 05:46 AM
What does that prove? You would get a similar graph (and reached the same conclusion) drawing Roger's ranking points over the last 4 years or so. If that methodology worked, everybody would be rich trading stocks.

It might or it might not be true but calling Roger's peak, sure, if you call it every day eventually it will turn out to be correct.

Kuhne
08-26-2007, 06:02 AM
Whoa thanks for that info, now I even feel better about Federers chances in the future, looking at how even in decline, he is still good enough to win at least 2 slams a year.

Poor Djokovic and Rafa! they are sure the opposite of federer, they are on the way up! yet they still managed to get first round owned at cincinati?

I'll take Federers decline over their success any day of the year :)

Whistleway
08-26-2007, 06:13 AM
Running average of how many matches?

I am confused by "winning percentages"?

BD006
08-26-2007, 06:19 AM
Running average of how many matches?

I am confused by "winning percentages"?

Same here. :confused: What is this "winning percentage"?

Frufru
08-26-2007, 06:38 AM
Winning percentage is percentage of points won by Federer in a match. For example Federer won Wimbledon in 2005 winning matches over: Bognanovitch 61% points in a match, Falla 68% , Johansson 56%, Karlovic 55%, Lleyton 54%, Grosjean 56% and Roddick winning 52%. Of course , this would be highly fluctuating if taken match by match, therefore I used running average of 20 matches. There appears to be peaks when Fed was playing really well so it appears to be working and I stuck with it.

ae wowww
08-26-2007, 07:13 AM
:lol: Then winning percentage as you call it would truly depend on an element of luck - the draws. Whom he plays is determined by the draw, and would affect how many points he wins.

Even if your calculations were reliable and valid, it is still not fair to say it is just a patch of not playing his very best, which we are likely to see again soon.

Frufru
08-26-2007, 07:24 AM
ae_wowww, I dont think so. Taking running average of twenty matches should smooth any influences of easy draws out. When you look on the graph you can see peaks when Fed was performing at his best, on the other hand you wont see there any peaks for AO Open 2006, even though the draw was not the hardest. Point I am making is that if you are supremely confident you beat little guys much easier and that will carry on to other matches. Mind you, nothing lasts forever, and during his slump during this spring he had worst percentage since 2002. Of course I dont expect him drop off his perch or roll over tommorrow.

Greenday
08-26-2007, 07:51 AM
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Wow...people are desperate for fed to go down..they behave as if they have some personal grudge against roger....god bless them all.....

Marek.
08-26-2007, 08:22 AM
This Federer is the suck. Retire already!

Perfection
08-26-2007, 08:25 AM
Federer hasn't played well since 2003, no surprise really. :shrug: :(

Rogiman
08-26-2007, 08:32 AM
Unlike others, I think these stats are pretty reliable. Averaging over 20 matches does smooth things out, and % of points won is probably the best indication of a player's level.

alexbayen
08-26-2007, 08:46 AM
That's a good trend to watch out for. However I am not sure if it's conclusive yet. As per your graph, he hit a major slump in mid-2006, but then recovered to new heights later on. Who knows he may repeat the pattern this year. Which is why, I won't read much into the graph. But if we don't see any recovery as per your graph by the end of the year, then we definitely have something to talk about.

Monteque
08-26-2007, 08:58 AM
It's a plausible statistics. Interesting.
Umm...but nobody is able to predict the future 100%.
For example, everybody said that he began to fall when he got "just" 2 Grand Slams in 2005. But you see what...2006 he was flying again.

If Fed win US Open 07, i won't say he is getting worse, but "he is being smarter to play less matches to keep away from injured. He looks like getting worse because he played just a few matches compared with last season.
AO open was his first match in 2007 (passed Doha).
Wimbledon was his first grass match in 2007 (passed Halle).

Kalliopeia
08-26-2007, 10:29 AM
Federer today isn't the Federer of this time last year, for sure. It's not surprising as maintaining the kind of utter dominance he had last year would be close to superhuman. And despite what some would have us believe, he isn't superhuman.

Yet even a slightly diminished Federer has managed to make four Masters finals, winning two of them, and has so far made all three Slam finals and won two of those. So you know, not too shabby. I'm not sure I'd be terribly worried if I were a Federer fan.

Bad Religion
08-26-2007, 10:35 AM
Federer days as number 1 are numbered

Enjoy your last days Roger

marcRD
08-26-2007, 11:19 AM
So according to the curve he peaked in 2005? His worst year since his domination started?

marcRD
08-26-2007, 11:21 AM
This graph shows his true peak between 2006 and 2007 and his fall has not been harder than him getting back to his beginning of 2006 level.

http://www.tennis28.com/charts/Sampras_Federer_rankingpoints.GIF

gjalex
08-26-2007, 11:47 AM
Federer is in a mini slump right now, but hey it happens to tennis players, whats to say he can't return to his supreme form? Hes too old? He just turned 26. Tennis players, even the greats, have their ups and downs. This isn't necessarily the start of an ongoing decline, thats what im saying.

fabio fognini
08-26-2007, 12:12 PM
right heres a graph for you... Federer is number one. The only way he can go is down. And how dumb is it to say his days are numbered. Nothing lasts forever. Master Series aren't important in the grand scheme of things. A great tennis player is remembered for the slams he's won. Plus the Master Series Finals are now 3 set matches not 5, does your graph allow for that? no.

Forehander
08-26-2007, 12:55 PM
This is statistically correct yes but unfortunately it just doesn't work this way...

Ceri
08-26-2007, 01:01 PM
I believe Federer is now well and truly behind his peak. I plotted a running average of winning percentage in all his ATP matches (excluding challengers and DC).

preyent.jpg

If you look beyond peaks and troughs, there is a trend showing declining his superiority; slowly but clearly. It looks like he peaked between US Open and AO Open 2007. So, Fed fans dont whine and whinge about his slump. Things will only get worse :devil: :devil: !!!
:wavey: I hope that ensures you sleep well at night now, and that you achieve as much in your life as Fed so far has in his.

Burrow
08-26-2007, 01:05 PM
That's a good trend to watch out for. However I am not sure if it's conclusive yet. As per your graph, he hit a major slump in mid-2006, but then recovered to new heights later on. Who knows he may repeat the pattern this year. Which is why, I won't read much into the graph. But if we don't see any recovery as per your graph by the end of the year, then we definitely have something to talk about.

NO he never.

adee-gee
08-26-2007, 01:06 PM
Concrete proof that his domination is over :D

bokehlicious
08-26-2007, 01:14 PM
Fed is a disgrace to the sport, time to retire you has-been !

DrJules
08-26-2007, 01:23 PM
So according to the curve he peaked in 2005? His worst year since his domination started?

Lost fewest matches in 2005. Hence, peaked in 2005.

adee-gee
08-26-2007, 01:23 PM
Fed is a disgrace to the sport, time to retire you has-been !

And pass over the Swiss mantle to Stan the man :worship:

densuprun
08-26-2007, 01:24 PM
I believe Federer is now well and truly behind his peak. I plotted a running average of winning percentage in all his ATP matches (excluding challengers and DC).

preyent.jpg

If you look beyond peaks and troughs, there is a trend showing declining his superiority; slowly but clearly. It looks like he peaked between US Open and AO Open 2007. So, Fed fans dont whine and whinge about his slump. Things will only get worse :devil: :devil: !!!


Interesting idea. But tell us more about how you drew the black "trend". Did you make your software draw different curves and then you chose the one you like? If yes, there is nothing scientific about this, you know? I could just as easily choose another one that would have a peak right now or even in the future and say that this would be the real trend. It is all subjective until you make a regression and prove that you curve provides the best fit to the data of all the curves of its type, say, the best parabola. Then, we can seriouly talk about where the maximum of the curve is. Until then, you proved nothing.

Oh, and make sure that your horizontal axis has a linear scale. Cause right now it's a mess. Otherwise, an interesting idea that you should clean up to make it really interesting.

Finally, it would also be interesting to see the similar graph for Sampras 1990-1997, with the trend line based on these years only, and then compare the predictions of the trend with the actual Sampras data from 1998+.

bokehlicious
08-26-2007, 01:29 PM
And pass over the Swiss mantle to Stan the man :worship:

Roger is the shame of the nation, Switzerland deserves better, Stan is our true champ ! :rocker2:

Bilbo
08-26-2007, 02:08 PM
I did already say this after the AO2007. You can clearly see Federer has dropped his level a bit. He lost more sets this year and also won matches closer. His 2nd serve pts % seems to go down. Many players are capable of winning a rally against Federer these days. On the other side his 1st serve seems to be better than ever. He's still good enough to win nearly everything but his career high is behind him. I don't think he will ever top his old career high so you can say he's behind his peak. And those people who talk about a slump must think he can reach his old level again or nearly top it. That's what a slump means.

nobama
08-26-2007, 02:54 PM
And pass over the Swiss mantle to Stan the man :worship::rocker2: Stan's the only one who can win DC for SUI.

WF4EVER
08-26-2007, 03:24 PM
Some people really need to get a life. Feds seen the best of his days, what a discovery!

Does anybody's domination last forever?

Stating the obvious gets you awards on MTF? Surprise, surprise!

The_Nadal_effect
08-26-2007, 04:02 PM
Roger is the shame of the nation, Switzerland deserves better, Stan is our true champ ! :rocker2:

You would do well to revert to your swiss flag when you say that, JMP! ;)

Frufru
08-26-2007, 04:05 PM
Feds seen the best of his days, what a discovery!

Does anybody's domination last forever?

Stating the obvious gets you awards on MTF? Surprise, surprise!

Thanks for agreeing with me than :devil: :devil: !!!

marcRD
08-26-2007, 04:19 PM
Lost fewest matches in 2005. Hence, peaked in 2005.

Please inform me how winning 2 grand slams and not getting to the final in the other 2 grand slams, aswell as losing the master cup is better than winning 3 grand slams, master cup and geting to the final in RG?

Clearly anyne who can think logicaly would see 2006 is by far his best year and even 2007 will probably end up beeing a better year than 2005.

Federers years so far: 2006>2004>2007 (probably)>2005

As you see careers dont go as a -(x sqrt2) equation.

Try doing the same with Agassis career or Wlanders career or Beckers career. Tennis careers are filled with ups and downs not uuuuuuup and doooooown.

marcRD
08-26-2007, 04:26 PM
Lost fewest matches in 2005. Hence, peaked in 2005.

Please inform me how winning 2 grand slams and not getting to the final in the other 2 grand slams, aswell as losing the master cup is better than winning 3 grand slams, master cup and geting to the final in RG?

Clearly anyne who can think logicaly would see 2006 is by far his best year and even 2007 will probably end up beeing a better year than 2005.

Federers years so far: 2006>2004>2007 (probably)>2005

As you see careers dont go as a -(x sqrt2) equation.

Try doing the same with Agassis career or Wlanders career or Beckers career. Tennis careers are filled with ups and downs not uuuuuuup and doooooown.

Frufru
08-26-2007, 04:34 PM
In my opinion he played much better at AO Open 2005 than in 2006. He run into Safin having a best match of his career. Safin was averaging like 204kph and 70% on his serve first serve during first three sets. Anynody else would be blown off the court. His form of AO Open 2006 cant be compared with that. Do you remember struggling through? Furthermore , he got injured at the end of the year and was off for about a month. Then even though being underdone got to the final of Masters Cup.

Forehander
08-26-2007, 04:39 PM
AO 2005 he definitely did play better than AO 2006 I reckon u're right. Federer played like crap that AO of 2006.

marcRD
08-26-2007, 04:47 PM
In my opinion he played much better at AO Open 2005 than in 2006. He run into Safin having a best match of his career. Safin was averaging like 204kph and 70% on his serve first serve during first three sets. Anynody else would be blown off the court. His form of AO Open 2006 cant be compared with that. Do you remember struggling through? Furthermore , he got injured at the end of the year and was off for about a month. Then even though being underdone got to the final of Masters Cup.

Federer anytime in 2005 was far from as good as he was between wimbledon 2006 and AO 2007. Federer was even awesome on clay 2006 and his backhand was no longer a weakness. AO 2007 was probably the best grand slam tournament I Have seen him play (he straight setted everyone including redhot Gonzalez, Djokovic, Roddick and Youzhny).

MisterQ
08-26-2007, 04:59 PM
He finished last among the pros in the Arthur Ashe Kids Day challenge. It's all downhill from here. :lol:

Kalliopeia
08-26-2007, 05:35 PM
Hell the Valspar kid did better than him. Hang up your racquet, Roger. :lol:

CyBorg
08-26-2007, 05:39 PM
The days of Roger winning 12 titles in a year are probably behind him. I think the question isn't whether Roger has regressed from his incredible peak of about 6-12 months ago, but whether he can age as gracefully as most predict.

stebs
08-26-2007, 05:49 PM
He will decline yes but the only question is whether it will be quick or slow and whether or not during his decline he will get worse in a steady fashion or if we will still see the odd performance from another planet.

The truth is we have to wait and see.

OrinUK
08-26-2007, 05:59 PM
I will never understand why people want to see this guy fail.

You can almost smell the desperation on some people, so sad.

neenah
08-26-2007, 06:11 PM
He finished last among the pros in the Arthur Ashe Kids Day challenge. It's all downhill from here. :lol:

Hell the Valspar kid did better than him. Hang up your racquet, Roger. :lol:

I felt so bad when the crowd loudly cheered "One! Two! Three!..." and up to ten sometimes for the others but was pretty quiet for Federer, who reached only five both times. :lol:

FedFan_2007
08-26-2007, 07:25 PM
Bottom line, Federer has lost just a fraction of a second of foot speed to get to certain balls he got to even 1 year ago. Also his change of direction isn't quite as explosive as a year ago. That much is obvious watching the matches. Still good enough to win 2/3 slams and 2 MS titles.

LoveFifteen
08-26-2007, 10:17 PM
Fed hasn't even peaked yet! Didn't you see how amazingly he did at Arthur Ashe Kids Day? :tape:

Forehander
08-27-2007, 09:53 AM
federer will win over 30 grandslams in his career.

Frufru
08-27-2007, 11:17 AM
federer will win over 30 grandslams in his career.

I hope you are not implying him becoming a drag-queen...and playing with sissies. Considering his chest, even WTA wouldnt fall for it. :p

Byrd
08-27-2007, 11:54 AM
He's just become too lazy seeing that playing at 60-70% can beat most players.

groundstroke
08-27-2007, 12:42 PM
Yep, he is declining, and he needs to fix that. Enter more titles IMO.

Jogy
08-27-2007, 01:33 PM
I hope he declines as quick as possible and starts with US Open now :)

Elleee
08-27-2007, 02:00 PM
I hope he declines as quick as possible and starts with US Open now :)

Wouldn't it be interesting to see a slam where lots of new players make the breakthrough? And we are not treated to the same old matches :)

ZakMcCrack
08-27-2007, 02:40 PM
I hope he declines as quick as possible and starts with US Open now :)

Na, that sure won't happen as quick as with your boy Tommy... Can't wait until Fed proves all of you haterz dead wrong ;-)

Magenta
08-27-2007, 02:56 PM
I believe Federer is now well and truly behind his peak. I plotted a running average of winning percentage in all his ATP matches (excluding challengers and DC).

preyent.jpg

If you look beyond peaks and troughs, there is a trend showing declining his superiority; slowly but clearly. It looks like he peaked between US Open and AO Open 2007. So, Fed fans dont whine and whinge about his slump. Things will only get worse :devil: :devil: !!!

:rolls:

you have too much time on your hands...

bokehlicious
08-27-2007, 03:09 PM
:rolls:

you have too much time on your hands...

Haters spend plenty of time dissecting Roger's life... :o Weird but kind of funny nonetheless :)

Jogy
08-27-2007, 03:34 PM
Haters spend plenty of time dissecting Roger's life... :o Weird but kind of funny nonetheless :)
yes, same like you and Nadal haters do it with Nadal or in case of you, you even come into Nadal's forum to troll there

funny to see the pro-Federer moderator bias when they didn't do something against you, but other good posters become banned so quick :)

Aerion
08-27-2007, 03:35 PM
Federer is now declining and I can prove it....

only GODD knows for sure....:p

bokehlicious
08-27-2007, 03:38 PM
funny to see the pro-Federer moderator bias

:haha: I can't think of any pro-federer moderator... :confused: :scratch: Neely clearly hates him and he's the only one I read on a regular basis... :shrug:

Frufru
08-27-2007, 08:37 PM
Haters spend plenty of time dissecting Roger's life...

Saying that Fed is declining does not mean hating, is it that hard to get it? I am afraid all those discussions about tards hasnt made much of a mark on you. In the meantime, you are only giving fedtards a bad name, I am afraid :p .

r2473
08-27-2007, 10:13 PM
Winning percentage is percentage of points won by Federer in a match. For example Federer won Wimbledon in 2005 winning matches over: Bognanovitch 61% points in a match, Falla 68% , Johansson 56%, Karlovic 55%, Lleyton 54%, Grosjean 56% and Roddick winning 52%. Of course , this would be highly fluctuating if taken match by match, therefore I used running average of 20 matches. There appears to be peaks when Fed was playing really well so it appears to be working and I stuck with it.

Do this for other (historical) players to see if "percentage of points won in a match" (using running average of 20 matches) determines a players decline. I have a feeling that your r-squared will be low. I don't think your regression will approximate real data points well.

I'll bet that, even if you "cherry pick" your data (meaning your sample of players has a bias.....that bias being those players that back up your theory, discarding those that don't), you will still not get a very good fit (if your sample is large enough anyway).

calvinhobbes
08-27-2007, 10:14 PM
Percentage of points won is hardly an indicative of a player´s success. It doesn´t even indicate the winning of a given match, as in Fed-Djoko Montreal final. So why to use it? I find all this theory highly arbitrary and highly unreliable.