Breakpointerer
Legend
Well if that's the case then got to disagree about it being his highest level ever. Probably his highest since 2012 though.
Last edited:
Brad Gilbert : Federer's reached his highest level in 2017
- Thread starter ND-13
- Start date
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Yeah Fed played great in some tournaments in 2017 - that was probably his highest level since 2012ish. That 2017 IW match against Nadal was as close to peak Fed as you could get after 2009.
weakera
Talk Tennis Guru
That's what he always calls Federer. It's his dumb Twitter nickname for him like he has for all players. He doesn't mean it literally, as if he's just referring to one stage of Fed's career - that's what he *always* calls Federer.
weakera
Talk Tennis Guru
Correct. He called him RF19 before he won his 20th,
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
People think more about Gilbert's player nicknames than Gilbert himself
Pablo1989
Hall of Fame
LOL. Nadal played so bad that final.
Pablo1989
Hall of Fame
Are you trolling? Djokovic's peak was 2011 and 2014 October - 2016 June. Federer's peak was 2003-2007.
I know most on TTW were probably in elementary school (diapers?) when Fed was in his pomp. When you’re unmarried, have no children, eat, sleep, and breath tennis and have the body as a 24\25 year old (you can do a backflip out of bed after practicing 10 hours the day before), you will be at your best. Seriously do the eye test - watch his serve and movement around 2004\5\6. So much recently bias on here.
I Am Finnish
Bionic Poster
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Brad Gilbert and even Roger Federer himself were in diapers in 2004-07, right?
ForehandCross
G.O.A.T.
Were Tony and Rafael in diapers?
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
He is *not* referring to Fed's entire career. Brad Gilbert coined "Fed 2.0" in Miami in March, 2017, and it specifically referred to "new" Federer since the 2017 AO. Everything prior to January, 2017 is thus *not* Fed 2.0. What do you think Fed 1.0 was? That was anything pre-2017.
The racket switch is 2013-2014, also extraneous from Gilbert's 2.0 reference.
Please see the post below yours. Brad has been referrring Roger as RF 2.0 for a long time now.
He refers the big 3 as 'RF2.0, Vamos Rafa and the Djoker'.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
TTW logic: “Level” an immutable transcendent entity.
Reality: 2006 Fed lost to Nadal and Murray on HC. Overall level that year better than 2017 overall but it isn’t as cut and dry as people claim.
Reality: 2006 Fed lost to Nadal and Murray on HC. Overall level that year better than 2017 overall but it isn’t as cut and dry as people claim.
flanker2000fr
Hall of Fame
Nadal had not lost a set on the way to the final and basically murdered De Minaur, Berdych, Tiafoe and Tsitsipas. Everybody was expecting a classic to be played in the final, so good was the form of both players. Maybe he was a bit off in the final, but even then this could be down to the level that Djokovic was playing.
Daniel Andrade
Hall of Fame
TBH I consider Fed's 2017 performance in AO one of his best ever...
At least in the match up against Nadal, his level was so unreal...
At least in the match up against Nadal, his level was so unreal...
Bamoos
Semi-Pro
... with 2018-2020 being your only reference for comparison.
abmk
Bionic Poster
There. Fixed.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
In the match-up against Nadal yes, but he dropped many sets that he wouldn't have dropped in years like 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009 and even 2010.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
It was more like Nadal faced easy competition before the final and none of his opponents could expose him.
I mean come on, De Minaur, Tiafoe, one-foot-in-retirement Berdych? And the less said about Tsitsipas's performance, the better.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Oh wow, he lost the the world no.2 that year, what a loser.
2017 Fed lost to 39 year old Haas and Donskoy. What's your point?
ForehandRF
Legend
At Indian Wells maybe and that in the match vs Nadal but other than that, Gilbert was suffering from recency bias and forgot about how good Fed was back in the day 
mike danny
Bionic Poster
That works for everyone really.At Indian Wells maybe and that in the match vs Nadal but other than that, Gilbert was suffering from recency bias and forgot about how good Fed was back in the day
Fed was extraordinary in tournaments like Cincy 2015 and IW 2017. Those were his best performances at those tournaments. But he was definitely better in BO5 when he was younger. Never quite had a performance like AO 2007 in his 30's.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
He was better at Indian Wells 2005. Good point on Cincinnati though.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Fair enough, although I was more impressed by who he beat in 2017. Hewitt underperformed in that final.
ForehandRF
Legend
Absolutely and Fed anyway declined in BO5 more visibly once he ceased to be a force at the French and on clay in general.
ForehandRF
Legend
2005 Federer is not returning and beating a well playing Nadal in Indian Wells like 2017 Fed did.We have to give it to old Fed, he was a freak that day.
D
Deleted member 770948
Guest
Nadal had played a 5hr epic with Dimitrov in the SF, so its pretty pathetic that Federer almost lost to Nadal in the Final.
On top of that, Federer got a 2-day holiday between the SF and Final.
On top of that, Federer got a 2-day holiday between the SF and Final.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
That's why I rarely trust the experts
Tennis is not an exact science so I don't see why their opinions are more legitimate than an opinion from an actual knowledgeable armchair expert. That's why when I read stuff like "it's true because expert A said so" I cringe.
I mean this statement from Gilbert proves that experts are not always better than fellow armchair experts.
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Maybe not like that, but 2005 Fed beats older Nadal everywhere apart from clay anyway. IW is actually an event that suits Fed in the Nadal match-up.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Who's to say he wouldn't? Nadal was a little flat in the 2017 match and he'd lost a lot of what made him so difficult for young Fed to play against. For example, his movement was what allowed him to get back those forehand bullets from Federer on slower surfaces, and his heavy topspin made things uncomfortable for the Federer backhand. Both of these changed at around 2014-2017. Nadal got older so he couldn't move as quickly or run down as many balls, and under Moya he started hitting a flatter (not flat) ball to overwhelm the opponent with aggression instead of defense.
Fed deserves credit for shoring up the BH and especially the forehand (2017 FH was the best since 2012 and miles ahead of 2018-now), but Nadal lost some things too...
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal didn't play well lol. He didn't go all 2015dal but was still peak Slowdal.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Wish Djokovic could have made it a bit further at Indian Wells 2017, though. We were robbed of some very delicious opportunities for Fed to strike back.
Plus it does away with the Kyrgios 2-0 propaganda.
Plus it does away with the Kyrgios 2-0 propaganda.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yeah, not like Federer didn't have his own 5 setters and was coming off a long injury layoff.
What's pathetic is blaming tiredness when he was playing a 35 year old
ForehandRF
Legend
I had to make that distinction, otherwise we'd be dragged in a 2005 Fed vs 2017 Nadal hypothetical at Indian Wells and that wasn't what I meant.No other version of Fed hit that backhand as well on a slow hardcourt, on the return especially, and that is what has counted so much in their rivalry.It was exactly what I always wanted from Fed against the Nadal, not the backhand slice.
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yeah, Djokovic dodged Fed while not playing well, while Fed met Djokovic when the latter recovered and the former was in a slump.
Gives me Avoiddal feels here
Federer arriving to the 2019 Wimb final with 0 wins over Djokovic probably played a big part in the result.
junior74
Talk Tennis Guru
2016 was particularly memorable.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
I think that's even more egregious than Djokovic not facing Fed in his 2004-2005 prime. Of course Fed's renaissance aligned perfectly with the year Djokovic was struggling to reach quarterfinals. Should have been like 2-3 meetings that year...Yeah, Djokovic dodged Fed while not playing well, while Fed met Djokovic when the latter recovered and the former was in a slump.
Gives me Avoiddal feels here
Federer arriving to the 2019 Wimb final with 0 wins over Djokovic probably played a big part in the result.
D
Deleted member 770948
Guest
Wait, so Federer fans have spent the last 2 decades bragging about how graceful and effortless Federer's brand of tennis is, and predicting Nadal's early retirement because he's a "grinder", but we are supposed to forget all that?Yeah, not like Federer didn't have his own 5 setters and was coming off a long injury layoff.
What's pathetic is blaming tiredness when he was playing a 35 year old
Also, Nadal-Dimitrov is the most physical match I've ever seen, more physical than the 6hr Djokovic-Nadal match.
And again, Federer got the 2-day holiday, not Nadal.
ForehandRF
Legend
Things were evened out because both lost some of their athleticism.Still, I am struggling to find another match when Federer returned that well on the backhand and hit it that well on the rise against the Nadal on a slower court with higher bounce, not even in Rome 2006, but that was a different surface anyway.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Nadal nearly won, dude, but because he didn't suddenly he was tired while up a break in the 5th at exactly that moment.
Nadal nearly beat Djokovic at Wimb 2018 after playing a 5 hour match with Delpo, but apparently no excuses there. An d he also only had 1 day of rest.
Dude, the moment you start blaming tiredness for losing to a 35.5 year old is the moment you really lose every argument and it's the moment you start being pathetic.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
nadal wasn't bad, but wasn't playing that well in IW 17 either.
05 fed could absolutely beat similar level nadal similarly.
don't forget 12 fed beat a better nadal in straights at IW in windy conditions.
