2003 Federer vs 2019 Federer

Which was the better version of Roger Federer


  • Total voters
    52
  • This poll will close: .

zvelf

Professional
Which was the better version of Roger Federer: 21/22-year old 2003 Federer or 37/38-year old 2019 Federer?

They both had the same winning percentage of 82.8% with 2003 Fed winning 77 matches, losing 16 and 2019 Fed winning 53, losing 11.

The numbers below reflect seeding, not ranking.

2003 Fed won his first major, Wimbledon, beating unseeded Mark Philippoussis, but lost in the 4th round of the Australian Open to #10 David Nalbandian, lost in the 1st round of the French to Luis Horna (who?), and lost in the 4th round of the U.S. Open to #13 David Nalbandian. 2003 Fed's other losses were to unseeded Franco Squillari in Sydney, unseeded Max Mirny in Rotterdam, unseeded Gustavo Kuerten at Indian Wells, #9 Albert Costa in Miami, unseeded Felix Mantilla in Rome, #3 Jiri Novak in Gstaad, #6 Andy Roddick in Canadian Masters, #14 Nalbandian in Cincinnati, Lleyton Hewitt in Davis Cup, #1 Juan Carlos Ferrero in Madrid, unseeded Ivan Ljubicic in Basel, and unseeded Tim Henman in Paris Masters.
2003 Fed won the Masters Cup beating #5 Andre Agassi, taking out #1 Roddick, #8 Nalbandian, #2 Ferrero, and #5 Agassi again on the way. Other top seeds whom Federer beat during the year were #5 Roddick at Wimbledon, #5 Younes el Aynaoui at Halle, #4 Gaudio in Gstaad, #3 Novak to win Dubai, #2 Ferrero in Rome, and #2 Moya to win Vienna.

2019 Fed lost in the 4th round in Melbourne to #14 Stefanos Tsitsipas, lost in the semis at Roland Garros to #2 Rafael Nadal, lost in the final at Wimbledon to #1 Novak Djokovic, and lost in the QF of the U.S. Open to unseeded Grigor Dimitrov. 2019 Fed's other losses were to #7 Dominic Thiem at Indian Wells, #5 Thiem at Madrid Masters, #8 Tsitsipas at Rome Masters, #5 Alexander Zverev in Shanghai, and to #5 Thiem and #6 Tsitsipas in the Tour Finals.
Top seeds whom 2019 Fed beat were #5 Tsitsipas to win Dubai, #3 Nadal at Wimbledon, #3 Tsitsipas in Basel, and #2 Novak Djokovic in the Tour Finals.

2003 Fed won more important tournaments, but lost to a lot of journeyman players. 2019 Fed didn't lose to a single journeyman player and arguably beat better top players.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Question:

In 2003 you won your first title in Dubai. How much chances would the Federer of 2003 have against the Federer of today? (March, 2019)

Answer from Federer:

Not many chances I believe. The game has extremely changed. It is more dynamic, faster and has become somewhat ruthless. The players are more athletic and the material makes the game faster. I myself have become better. In fact, I had to become better because I had new opponents and new challenges. Tennis on this level doesn’t allow you stagnancy.
 

Jaitock1991

Hall of Fame
The average height of the ATP top 10 of 2003 was 183 cm, wheras the average height of the ATP top 10 of 2019 was 190 cm. This is why Fed's forehand is no longer dominating his opponents, despite being a much better shot today both technically and mechanically than it was back then.

In addition to this, Fed's ace percentage in 2003 was 10.5 %, compared to only 9.8 % in 2019, which means the courts of 2003 were super fast, which again means that Fed's results in 2003 were inflated(we all know Fed is a fast court specialist).

The total amount of GS victories in the top 10 of 2003 was 12. The total amount GS victories in the top 10 of 2019 was 55, which shows clearly that the depth of the field was a lot greater in 2019 than in 2003. So Fed achieved the same win percentage in 2019 as in 2003, but he did so against much tougher opposition.

Conclusion: Roger Federer of 2019 is a far superior player than Roger Federer of 2003.
 
No honest tennis analyst would care much about sub-masters losses, and not much more about wins. 2003 peaked superbly at Wimbledon & TMC, did averagely elsewhere except a terrible loss at RG. 2019 had no such peak, was decent at RG/WIM & average elsewhere. 2019 started better with a roughly equal AO performance and better at IW-Miami, but then 2003 is clearly superior other than RG: better clay masters, better grass, better summer HC, better fall HC.
 

zvelf

Professional
No honest tennis analyst would care much about sub-masters losses, and not much more about wins. 2003 peaked superbly at Wimbledon & TMC, did averagely elsewhere except a terrible loss at RG. 2019 had no such peak, was decent at RG/WIM & average elsewhere. 2019 started better with a roughly equal AO performance and better at IW-Miami, but then 2003 is clearly superior other than RG: better clay masters, better grass, better summer HC, better fall HC.
As part of the hardcourt season, 2019 Federer got 2 rounds further in the U.S. Open than 2003 Federer. 2003 Federer won 3 regular season hard court tournaments (Marseille, Dubai, Vienna) and 2019 Federer won 3 regular season hard court tournaments (Dubai, Miami, Basel), but one of these was a Masters. Only the Masters Cup allows one to arguably say 2003 Federer exceeds 2019 Federer's hard court achievements. But I agree in overall achievements, 2003 Federer does better than 2019 Federer, but 2019 Federer had stronger competition.
 
As part of the hardcourt season, 2019 Federer got 2 rounds further in the U.S. Open than 2003 Federer. 2003 Federer won 3 regular season hard court tournaments (Marseille, Dubai, Vienna) and 2019 Federer won 3 regular season hard court tournaments (Dubai, Miami, Basel), but one of these was a Masters. Only the Masters Cup allows one to arguably say 2003 Federer exceeds 2019 Federer's hard court achievements. But I agree in overall achievements, 2003 Federer does better than 2019 Federer, but 2019 Federer had stronger competition.
Context/level (also, it's 1 round). Same-ish at the AO, actually better at the USO in 03 (one, Bandy was good and it was an ok 4-set loss, and two, Federer didn't get injured). Played well at 2 HC masters in 2003 and 2019 alike. Much better at the YEC in 03.
 

MeatTornado

Legend
2003 Fed obliterates current Fed 6-4, 6-3, 6-1. And that’s being generous. Anyone who disputes has an agenda or is just plain clueless.
A potentially realistic scoreline, but not "generous" imo. If you are talking strictly about Wimby or YEC Fed from that year, then sure. But average 03 level would not breadstick average 19 level. If we're talking 05 or 06 then it's a different story.

Current Roger if nothing else can still serve like a goddamn boss. I see him holding his serve to only lose single-break sets and might even steal one in a tiebreak.
 

Sport

Legend
2019 may have been slightly more consistent but 2003 Fed’s godly performances in Wimby and the Masters Cup make this answer obvious.
Let us not overreact. The level of competition matters. I love Phillippoussis, but he is not the same than Nadal or Djokovic. 2019 Federer beat Nadal in the SF and was two match points away from defeating Djokovic in the final. We can't conclude that 2003 Federer was better or "godly" for winning the WB final in 3 sets against Phillipoussis. I mean, you can find better arguments if you want to place 2003 Federer over 2019 Federer.
 
Last edited:

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Let us not overreact. The level of the competition matters. I love Phillippoussis, but he is not the same than Nadal or Djokovic. 2019 Federer beat Nadal in the SF and was two match points away from defeating Djokovic in the final. We can't conclude that 2003 Federer was better or "godly" for winning the WB final in 3 sets against Phillipoussis. I mean, you can find other better arguments if you want to place 2003 Federer over 2019 Federer.
I don’t care about the opponent. I care about how well Federer played. It’s the first and foremost criteria for comparing between seasons. Opposition is secondary.
 

Sport

Legend
I don’t care about the opponent. I care about how well Federer played. It’s the first and foremost criteria for comparing between seasons. Opposition is secondary.
Competition can be deceiving. A player can look in better form than what he really is for destroying easier rivals. An average 28 years old adult can look impressive destroying 4 years old children that play tennis, but it doesn't mean he is in great form, only that he faced easier rivals. Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points per game in the 1960s, of course he looked like a force of nature, but it is unclear whether he would have looked so dominant against Shaquille O'neal. Analogously, Federer destroying Phillipoussis in 3 sets in the WImbledon 2003 final is not necessarily a sign of "godly" form, but rather of facing an easier rival. Nadal destroyed Anderson in 3 sets in the USO 2017 final and it doesn't mean he was in ultra-impressive or "godly" form.
 

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
2003 Federer is the better version overall

The scary thing is, in some small areas, the 2019 Federer is the improved version. Shows you how great he has been in constantly adapting and improving his game wherever there is something that can get better.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
The scary thing is, in some small areas, the 2019 Federer is improved, which shows you how great he has been in constantly adapting and improving his game wherever there is something that can get better.
What small areas is he better in? I don't ask this rudely, either, I'm genuinely curious.

2003 Federer compared to 2019 Federer:

Movement: 2003 Fed is 25% faster than old Fed. Never mind the complete absence now of an explosive first step.
FH: 2003 Fed has the greatest FH in tennis history. 2019 Fed's FH is about as good as Denis Shapovalov's FH.
BH: Slice in in shambles now, 2003 Fed had GOAT slice (even Roche admitted it).
Serve: Better in clutch situations in 2003, otherwise equal now in placement. Velocity is off 15% from 2003.
Recovery time: 2003 Fed could play five straight four hour matches and bounce back fresh as a daisy the next day. 2019 Fed is continually injured in slams and can't string together 2 great matches in a row anymore.
Mental strength: No comparison. 2003 Fed had no mental scars from Rafa or Novak, he beat almost everyone he was supposed to beat and didn't usually choke in big matches
Stamina: 2003 Fed played 25 tournaments, week in and week out. 2019 Fed played half the events he did in 2003.

If there are indeed small areas where he's better than 2003, what are they?
 
Last edited:

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
What small areas is he better in? I don't ask this rudely, either, I'm genuinely curious.

2003 Federer compared to 2019 Federer:

Movement: 2003 Fed is 25% faster than old Fed. Never mind the complete absence now of an explosive first step.
FH: 2003 Fed has the greatest FH in tennis history. 2019 Fed's FH is about as good as Denis Shapovalov's FH.
BH: Slice in in shambles now, 2003 Fed had GOAT slice (even Roche admitted it).
Serve: Better in clutch situations in 2003, otherwise equal now in placement. Velocity is off 15% from 2003.
Recovery time: 2003 Fed could play five straight four hour matches and bounce back fresh as a daisy the next day. 2019 Fed is continually injured in slams and can't string together 2 great matches in a row anymore.
Mental strength: No comparison. 2003 Fed had no mental scars from Rafa or Novak, he beat almost everyone he was supposed to beat and didn't choke in big matches
Stamina: 2003 Fed played 25 tournaments, week in and week out. 2019 Fed played half the events he did in 2003.

If there are indeed small areas where he's better than 2003, what are they?
The aggressive backhand on return and his ability to "close the court" (and his court craft in general.)
 

MeatTornado

Legend
Let us not overreact. The level of competition matters. I love Phillippoussis, but he is not the same than Nadal or Djokovic. 2019 Federer beat Nadal in the SF and was two match points away from defeating Djokovic in the final. We can't conclude that 2003 Federer was better or "godly" for winning the WB final in 3 sets against Phillipoussis. I mean, you can find better arguments if you want to place 2003 Federer over 2019 Federer.
2003 Federer is more than just the Wimbledon final. His quality of play was even higher the round before against an even better player in Roddick.

And that's not even discussing the Masters Cup opponents, all better than Mark. You can certainly argue his opponents were worse than Djokovic & Nadal, but let's not reduce his 03 season into just beating Philippoussis.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Competition can be deceiving. A player can look in better form than what he really is for destroying easier rivals. An average 28 years old adult can look impressive destroying 4 years old children that play tennis, but it doesn't mean he is in great form, only that he faced easier rivals. Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points per game in the 1960s, of course he looked like a force of nature, but it is unclear whether he would have looked so dominant against Shaquille O'neal. Analogously, Federer destroying Phillipoussis in 3 sets in the WImbledon 2003 final is not necessarily a sign of "godly" form, but rather of facing an easier rival. Nadal destroyed Anderson in 3 sets in the USO 2017 final and it doesn't mean he was in ultra-impressive or "godly" form.
I agree that a dominant performance can be deceiving due to the opponent’s quality, but the scoreline (as in, destroying an opponent) shouldn’t be taken into consideration when evaluating play. You can still tell by watching Federer play that he was playing incredibly well. The semifinal in particular is probably the greatest grass court match he’s ever played.
 
Competition can be deceiving. A player can look in better form than what he really is for destroying easier rivals. An average 28 years old adult can look impressive destroying 4 years old children that play tennis, but it doesn't mean he is in great form, only that he faced easier rivals. Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points per game in the 1960s, of course he looked like a force of nature, but it is unclear whether he would have looked so dominant against Shaquille O'neal. Analogously, Federer destroying Phillipoussis in 3 sets in the WImbledon 2003 final is not necessarily a sign of "godly" form, but rather of facing an easier rival. Nadal destroyed Anderson in 3 sets in the USO 2017 final and it doesn't mean he was in ultra-impressive or "godly" form.
30-something consecutive holds at the business end of Wimbledon is no joke (although Fred managed 28 through 6.5 sets of SF+F in 2019 too, not bad). I'd rather put forth the semi anyway, 3 breaks to none against prime Roddick is great, note that Roddick broke in each of their other three Wimbledon matches (even in 2005 he broke once). Same as 2017 USO Nadal should be proud of the semi and not the final or any other match, Potro was definitely sluggish but crushing him required a high level still and Rafito delivered.
 

zvelf

Professional
Mental strength: No comparison. 2003 Fed had no mental scars from Rafa or Novak, he beat almost everyone he was supposed to beat and didn't usually choke in big matches
2003 Federer clearly did not "beat almost everyone he was supposed to beat" given that he lost to Luis Horna in the 1st round of the French as well as to Franco Squillari, Max Mirny, Felix Mantilla, Jiri Novak, and Ivan Ljubicic. The worst players Federer lost to in 2019 were Dimitrov and Zverev.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
2003 Federer clearly did not "beat almost everyone he was supposed to beat" given that he lost to Luis Horna in the 1st round of the French as well as to Franco Squillari, Max Mirny, Felix Mantilla, Jiri Novak, and Ivan Ljubicic. The worst players Federer lost to in 2019 were Dimitrov and Zverev.
Don’t forget Rublev!
 

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
2003 Federer clearly did not "beat almost everyone he was supposed to beat" given that he lost to Luis Horna in the 1st round of the French as well as to Franco Squillari, Max Mirny, Felix Mantilla, Jiri Novak, and Ivan Ljubicic. The worst players Federer lost to in 2019 were Dimitrov and Zverev.
Agree
 

beard

Hall of Fame
2003 Fed obliterates current Fed 6-4, 6-3, 6-1. And that’s being generous. Anyone who disputes has an agenda or is just plain clueless.
Classic psychology of old generations... "Those were good times... In out time...... .... ...."
Fed answered this question himself, and explained it....

\thread
 

beard

Hall of Fame
I don’t care about the opponent. I care about how well Federer played. It’s the first and foremost criteria for comparing between seasons. Opposition is secondary.
Competition can be deceiving. A player can look in better form than what he really is for destroying easier rivals. An average 28 years old adult can look impressive destroying 4 years old children that play tennis, but it doesn't mean he is in great form, only that he faced easier rivals. Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points per game in the 1960s, of course he looked like a force of nature, but it is unclear whether he would have looked so dominant against Shaquille O'neal. Analogously, Federer destroying Phillipoussis in 3 sets in the WImbledon 2003 final is not necessarily a sign of "godly" form, but rather of facing an easier rival. Nadal destroyed Anderson in 3 sets in the USO 2017 final and it doesn't mean he was in ultra-impressive or "godly" form.
Exactly...
I will just say W14, W15, USO15.... Fed was destroying everyone, but finished short, we all know why... Now, imagine he was playing 2003 PhiliPussy in those finals...
Wimbledon 19... Give Fed anyone else but Novak in final (including 2003 PhiliPussy) and he wins, off course...
 

beard

Hall of Fame
What small areas is he better in? I don't ask this rudely, either, I'm genuinely curious.

2003 Federer compared to 2019 Federer:

Movement: 2003 Fed is 25% faster than old Fed. Never mind the complete absence now of an explosive first step.
FH: 2003 Fed has the greatest FH in tennis history. 2019 Fed's FH is about as good as Denis Shapovalov's FH.
BH: Slice in in shambles now, 2003 Fed had GOAT slice (even Roche admitted it).
Serve: Better in clutch situations in 2003, otherwise equal now in placement. Velocity is off 15% from 2003.
Recovery time: 2003 Fed could play five straight four hour matches and bounce back fresh as a daisy the next day. 2019 Fed is continually injured in slams and can't string together 2 great matches in a row anymore.
Mental strength: No comparison. 2003 Fed had no mental scars from Rafa or Novak, he beat almost everyone he was supposed to beat and didn't usually choke in big matches
Stamina: 2003 Fed played 25 tournaments, week in and week out. 2019 Fed played half the events he did in 2003.

If there are indeed small areas where he's better than 2003, what are they?
Do you even know what 25% faster means? Stopped reading moment I read that...
 

AceSalvo

Legend
2003 Federer clearly did not "beat almost everyone he was supposed to beat" given that he lost to Luis Horna in the 1st round of the French as well as to Franco Squillari, Max Mirny, Felix Mantilla, Jiri Novak, and Ivan Ljubicic. The worst players Federer lost to in 2019 were Dimitrov and Zverev.
Most of those losses happened after having played a lot of back to back events. Any guess as to why 2019 Fed was playing a trimmed schedule??

Regardless of the losses, 2003 Fed was building up form for the most part of the year whereas 2019 Fed lost all steam after Wimb19 even after a light schedule from AO19 to Wimb19.
 
Last edited:

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Let us not overreact. The level of competition matters. I love Phillippoussis, but he is not the same than Nadal or Djokovic. 2019 Federer beat Nadal in the SF and was two match points away from defeating Djokovic in the final. We can't conclude that 2003 Federer was better or "godly" for winning the WB final in 3 sets against Phillipoussis. I mean, you can find better arguments if you want to place 2003 Federer over 2019 Federer.
Why does we always have to compare other opponents with Nadal and Djokovic ? It's the same vicious cycle, downplaying the competition because they are not named Djokovic and Nadal.How about watching Fed's level of play for a second ? It's not like Mark was a weak player on grass anyway.
 
Last edited:
Pre WB 2003 vs 2019 is a decent question

Post WB 2003 vs 2019 is madness. Pure madness.

Go back and hear McEnroe in commentary talking about Federer's level in WB SF 2003. He was astounded by Federer's level, Federer had 0 slams then and McEnroe was talking about how he might be the most complete player he has ever seen by the third set.


Consistency wise 2019 might edge 2003 as 2003 did have bad losses a lot.

But level of play wise. LOL NO.
 
Let us not overreact. The level of competition matters. I love Phillippoussis, but he is not the same than Nadal or Djokovic. 2019 Federer beat Nadal in the SF and was two match points away from defeating Djokovic in the final. We can't conclude that 2003 Federer was better or "godly" for winning the WB final in 3 sets against Phillipoussis. I mean, you can find better arguments if you want to place 2003 Federer over 2019 Federer.

Who is on the other side of the net has absolutely nothing to do with your movement and shots on nuetral ball. 2003 WB SF after the 1st set is easily the scariest I have seen anyone move on Grass. And Roddick on Grass then was a very good opponent.
Not to mention how well he was hitting every ball.

And Federer's firepower along with that kind of movement probably beats anyone on grass.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Who is on the other side of the net has absolutely nothing to do with your movement and shots on nuetral ball. 2003 WB SF after the 1st set is easily the scariest I have seen anyone move on Grass. And Roddick on Grass then was a very good opponent.
Not to mention how well he was hitting every ball.

And Federer's firepower along with that kind of movement probably beats anyone on grass.
This.Things like these should be said more often on this board.
 

WilPro

Rookie
Question:

In 2003 you won your first title in Dubai. How much chances would the Federer of 2003 have against the Federer of today? (March, 2019)

Answer from Federer:

Not many chances I believe. The game has extremely changed. It is more dynamic, faster and has become somewhat ruthless. The players are more athletic and the material makes the game faster. I myself have become better. In fact, I had to become better because I had new opponents and new challenges. Tennis on this level doesn’t allow you stagnancy.
Poor guy, his age showing everywhere, as well in his judgement. His brain got older than his body. How could he ever say such thing? Unless he joking I pity the old man. With these words he is officially an old fart to me.
Bye Fed! You were my fav, too bad you're gone.
 
Which was the better version of Roger Federer: 21/22-year old 2003 Federer or 37/38-year old 2019 Federer?

They both had the same winning percentage of 82.8% with 2003 Fed winning 77 matches, losing 16 and 2019 Fed winning 53, losing 11.

The numbers below reflect seeding, not ranking.

2003 Fed won his first major, Wimbledon, beating unseeded Mark Philippoussis, but lost in the 4th round of the Australian Open to #10 David Nalbandian, lost in the 1st round of the French to Luis Horna (who?), and lost in the 4th round of the U.S. Open to #13 David Nalbandian. 2003 Fed's other losses were to unseeded Franco Squillari in Sydney, unseeded Max Mirny in Rotterdam, unseeded Gustavo Kuerten at Indian Wells, #9 Albert Costa in Miami, unseeded Felix Mantilla in Rome, #3 Jiri Novak in Gstaad, #6 Andy Roddick in Canadian Masters, #14 Nalbandian in Cincinnati, Lleyton Hewitt in Davis Cup, #1 Juan Carlos Ferrero in Madrid, unseeded Ivan Ljubicic in Basel, and unseeded Tim Henman in Paris Masters.
2003 Fed won the Masters Cup beating #5 Andre Agassi, taking out #1 Roddick, #8 Nalbandian, #2 Ferrero, and #5 Agassi again on the way. Other top seeds whom Federer beat during the year were #5 Roddick at Wimbledon, #5 Younes el Aynaoui at Halle, #4 Gaudio in Gstaad, #3 Novak to win Dubai, #2 Ferrero in Rome, and #2 Moya to win Vienna.

2019 Fed lost in the 4th round in Melbourne to #14 Stefanos Tsitsipas, lost in the semis at Roland Garros to #2 Rafael Nadal, lost in the final at Wimbledon to #1 Novak Djokovic, and lost in the QF of the U.S. Open to unseeded Grigor Dimitrov. 2019 Fed's other losses were to #7 Dominic Thiem at Indian Wells, #5 Thiem at Madrid Masters, #8 Tsitsipas at Rome Masters, #5 Alexander Zverev in Shanghai, and to #5 Thiem and #6 Tsitsipas in the Tour Finals.
Top seeds whom 2019 Fed beat were #5 Tsitsipas to win Dubai, #3 Nadal at Wimbledon, #3 Tsitsipas in Basel, and #2 Novak Djokovic in the Tour Finals.

2003 Fed won more important tournaments, but lost to a lot of journeyman players. 2019 Fed didn't lose to a single journeyman player and arguably beat better top players.
All 12 fed 2019 voters are mole fam trolls
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Fed's quality of play in Wimbledon and TMC in 2003 is several levels above anything 2019erer can possibly reach.

People were talking about him breaking the Pete's slam record after that semi with Roddick even though Fed hasn't even won a single slam yet.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Fed's quality of play in Wimbledon and TMC in 2003 is several levels above anything 2019erer can possibly reach.

People were talking about him breaking the Pete's slam record after that semi with Roddick even though Fed hasn't even won a single slam yet.
Based on on your texts, I consider you to be probably the cleverest Federer fan on TTW. Please, explain to me how you can argue with Federer about Federer? He tells you: "I had best sex this year" and you tell him "No you did not; your best sex was in 2003". Why do you think that you know better than him about him?
 

beard

Hall of Fame
Who is on the other side of the net has absolutely nothing to do with your movement and shots on nuetral ball. 2003 WB SF after the 1st set is easily the scariest I have seen anyone move on Grass. And Roddick on Grass then was a very good opponent.
Not to mention how well he was hitting every ball.

And Federer's firepower along with that kind of movement probably beats anyone on grass.
Off course it does... When you play good oponent, who return everything, who exosts you, where you are constantly under pressure etc, you will more likely miss neutral shot, compared to playing some average guy whom you know you will beat anyway...

Its why tennis is a mental game, and Fed is worst in mental department compared to Novak and Rafa... We saw him cruising thry tournament, looking unbeatable, just to lose in final (w14, w15, uso15)... It was all about oponent....
 

mattennis

Hall of Fame
What many people don't seem to get is that the level of play of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is not that much higher than the level of play that many other players were able to reach at certain concrete occasions. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are able to reach that amazingly high level time and time again, in big tournaments, whereas other players only reach that level in very few occasions.

For example, Thomas Johansson in the Aus Open'02, Safin in the Aus Open'05, Baghdatis in the Aus Open'06 or Fernando Gonzalez in the Aus Open'07, just to name a few examples, they all were able to play at an amazingly high level in those tournaments, so it doesn't make any sense to depreciate their value, saying that because they were not Federer, Nadal or Djokovic, a possible win against them (in those concrete tournaments) is of no value. (In fact, two of them ended up winning the tournament).

Philippoussis won 0 GS, but he was playing great tennis in Wimbledon in 2003. Zverev played at a great level in the WTF'18, Medveded played at a great level in the last USO final, and there are countless more examples....
 
Top