A Fed for GOAT 2020 hypothetical

[Nadalgaenger]

When Roger won Wimbledon 2012, I created a thread asking a simple question: “Should Fed Retire?”
Although the highs of 2017-18 were awesome and he’s shown himself amazingly adaptable and resourceful despite the constraints of age, I think there is still an argument to be made that Fed’s GOAT claim could be stronger had he simply retired after Wimbledon 2012.

Here is the gist of the argument:
If Fed had retired, he would have lost 3 slams from his likely final slam count of 20, of course, but we would not have witnessed the following:
3 straight losses—in Finals—to arguably his greatest GOAT rival at Fed’s best slam
0-6 vs Djokovic in slams since the 2012 Wimbledon SF that Fed won (Fed would always have been able to claim supremacy on grass against Nole, who now has a 3-1 record against him at Wimbledon).
The beat downs at AO (Fed’s next best slam)—These were brutal, arguably as one-sided as Fed’s efforts against Nadal on clay.

Yes, Fed would have lost the slam record by now, but he could always have had the benefit of the doubt argument—the same argument that Borg, Sampras, and Laver proponents advance.
All three of those guys retired as GOATs basically. Fed runs the risk of retiring as a runner-up.

 

[Fedr and three others]

By continuing to play and win slams as a grandpa he showed it's a career inflation era and undermined his rivals subsequent achievements. Fedr goat

 

[ADuck]

he could always have had the benefit of the doubt

Summed up in one sentence, this. I said something similar to this in an earlier thread and made the same comparison with Borg.

 

[Towny]

I'm not sure how many people seriously consider Sampras or Borg ahead of Federer so I don't think 'benefit of the doubt' would really be worth all that much for his legacy. In any case, Federer has added a great deal to his legacy since 2012 and I will take real achievements over hypothetical achievements any day.

Since 2012, Federer has:
- boosted his longevity significantly by becoming oldest number 1 and one of the oldest slam winners
- become outright Wimbledon GOAT
- distanced himself from Agassi at the AO and made himself clear second greatest
- added 33% more to his masters total, which would otherwise be laughably dwarfed by both Nadal and Djokovic by now
- improved his H2H with Nadal and shown that he could overcome his great nemesis
- extended his weeks at number 1
Etc.

It's not like Federer was dominating in 2012 anyway. He'd just won his first slam in over 2 years. Many thought it would be his last. He'd not beaten Nadal at a slam in 5 years and Djokovic had taken the upper hand in their rivalry so it didn't look like he was going to be piling on more slams. If he'd retired as a dominant force, that would be a different issue. Overall, Federer's legacy has been significantly improved by his continuing to play and Nadal, who would be on 20 slams now without Federer, would likely be considered outright GOAT, with Djokovic not far behind.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

I don't think it would've been worth the 500+ million he would've lost. Never mind the fact that the media and whatnot would've abandoned him and instead promoted Nadal/Novak.

 

[PeoplesChamp]

The extra years have added so much to his legacy. His fan support has been unbelievable because of it. I believe he did it the right way even if it meant losing to his younger rival and sometimes in the most heartbreaking of ways. It was all worth it without a doubt. He still stuck it to Djokovic and Nadal sometimes even as an old codger That's something no one will ever forget.

 

[MeatTornado]

The highs have been more than worth the lows.

 

[PeoplesChamp]

The highs have been more than worth the lows.

I'm excited to see him play in Dubai. There's still a couple of things he's got to do. He's yet to become the winningest player ever. That's just around the corner now. Maybe sometime this summer or fall he can achieve that. He's still so fun to watch. Slams aren't as fun as they used to be admittingly.

 

[MeatTornado]

I'm excited to see him play in Dubai. There's still a couple of things he's got to do. He's yet to become the winningest player ever. That's just around the corner now. Maybe sometime this summer or fall he can achieve that. He's still so fun to watch. Slams aren't as fun as they used to be admittingly.

Oh yeah, putting aside legacy for a moment, the last 7 years have 1000% been worth it as a fan. Even if he wasn't still seriously contending for slams, just getting to watch him play is a treat enough at his age. At least once a tournament (or even match) he'll still pull off a shot that no one else on tour is capable of making. Gotta appreciate every second of it before it's gone forever.

 

[Bender]

But if he had retired in 2012, Djokovic fans would have never witnessed Fed's peak starting in 2015

 

[Nadalgaenger]

The ONLY time Fed has stopped one of the Big 3 rivals from lifting a slam trophy since 2012 was 2017 AO.

 

[Third Serve]

But if he had retired in 2012, Djokovic fans would have never witnessed Fed's peak starting in 2015

Relax, they'd just shift it to 2012.

 

[CYGS]

All three of those guys retired as GOATs basically. Fed runs the risk of retiring as a runner-up.

2nd runner up.

 

[PeoplesChamp]

The ONLY time Fed has stopped one of the Big 3 rivals from lifting a slam trophy since 2012 was 2017 AO.

Incorrect. He lost to Stanimal at 2015 FO, thus stopping the Djokovic CYGS. More than one way to skin a cat OP

 

[MeatTornado]

The ONLY time Fed has stopped one of the Big 3 rivals from lifting a slam trophy since 2012 was 2017 AO.

And? There's more to tennis and legacy than just his rivalries with Djokovic & Nadal.

 

[Bender]

Relax, they'd just shift it to 2012.

Ah, yes. It'd be called leaving on a high note, like Borg

 

[BGod]

I would have agreed at the end of 2016. But his 2017-18 despite being greatly helped by Novak's injury boosted his career. But right now his 2019 has if anything brought him down a peg with an another all-time choke and Novak's comeback against him on the tour.

As for him retiring GOAT and now retiring runner-up, I don't think that changes much. If he retired in 2012 that likely means by 2019 or now Nadal would have passed him. Really depends on how you think 2017 AO goes with Wawrinka. Nadal also may get a bunch more weeks at #1 without Roger on tour in that time period.

 

[Djokovic2011]

The ONLY time Fed has stopped one of the Big 3 rivals from lifting a slam trophy since 2012 was 2017 AO.

Also 2019 Wimbledon if you believe Nadal would've beaten Djokovic in the final.

 

[MeatTornado]

Also 2019 Wimbledon if you believe Nadal would've beaten Djokovic in the final.

Of course he would have. I was told the only reason Novak stole a win in 2018 was because of the roof. Take that away and it's straight sets for the Bull.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Also 2019 Wimbledon if you believe Nadal would've beaten Djokovic in the final.

But either way a Big 3 rival wins I mean

 

[dr. godmode]

The wins he's had against Nadal have been huge for his legacy. It's harder for Rafa fans to argue for H2H, given that Federer has dominated their encounters since 2014. These wins will prove crucial if both guys retire at now, or both at 20, ahead of Djokovic.

 

[Sport]

The beat downs at AO (Fed’s next best slam)—These were brutal, arguably as one-sided as Fed’s efforts against Nadal on clay.

This point is especially true and many Federer fans find it so painful that simply cannot be objective.

Djokovic has both 2 more AO titles than Federer and completely dominates Federer at the AO in direct meetings (4-1 for the Serbian). Since the AO 2008, Djokovic dominates Federer 4-0 and Federer has only won 1 set in their matches. That is, Federer has only won 1 set in the last 4 matches against Djokovic at the AO. With those numbers, and considering that Djokovic already has 2 more AO titles than Federer, it is a logical conclusion that Djokovic has the highest peak level in the history of the AO. Yet, many Federer fans are so upset that Djokovic stole the AO crown for Federer, that they start to make a lot of excuses and do not admite that Djokovic has the highest peak level in the history of the AO.

They say that Federer had a higher peak level than Djokovic at the AO (?), which is an emotional rather than objective argument, or say the incredibly ridiculous thing that Safin with only 1 AO title had a higher peak AO level than Djokovic just because he defeated Federer once at the AO and because he defeated 17 years old Djokovic in his first AO appearance.

 

[RaulRamirez]

The main thing is that Roger loves the tour, the competition, and the process of continuing trying to stay at the top. Why deny him (or his fans) that? And it's not as if he's struggled the last 8 years. And who knows how pundits will crunch and evaluate all the numbers.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Ironic, Fed will be called the GOAT virtually his whole career and won't even retire the GOAT. He is the epitome of a premature celebration.

 

[Sport]

The wins he's had against Nadal have been huge for his legacy. It's harder for Rafa fans to argue for H2H, given that Federer has dominated their encounters since 2014. These wins will prove crucial if both guys retire at now, or both at 20, ahead of Djokovic.

That's verry true, Federer has improved a lot his H2H with Rafa in recent times. However, I would like to point out that he has not "dominated their encounters since 2014" as you said but rather he has "dominated their encounters in 2017 specifically". Let me explain why Federer has only truly dominated Nadal specifically in 2017, rather than all these years.

First of all, in 2014 Nadal defeated Federer in 3 sets at the AO, so if anything your argument would be "since 2015". Secondly, in 2015 Federer won their only encounter in Basel (indoor hard) which is one of Federer's best conditions against Nadal's worst condition. Federer has always comfortably led the H2H over Nadal on indoor hard, even pre-2015. Federer winning one single match on indoor hard against Nadal is hardly a sign of domination. And in 2019 their H2H was 1-1. Which means that only in 2017 did Federer dominate the H2H over Nadal with an impressive 4-0 H2H advantage.

 

[CYGS]

The wins he's had against Nadal have been huge for his legacy. It's harder for Rafa fans to argue for H2H, given that Federer has dominated their encounters since 2014. These wins will prove crucial if both guys retire at now, or both at 20, ahead of Djokovic.

Similarly would be irrelevant if Djokovic ended up being ahead.

 

[Breakpointerer]

Lol no. Completely disagree.

 

[BeatlesFan]

The ONLY time Fed has stopped one of the Big 3 rivals from lifting a slam trophy since 2012 was 2017 AO.

He got back to the number 1 ranking at the age of 37. Let’s see what your guy does at that age.

 

[mike danny]

Djokovic fans should be grateful that Fed didn't retire after 2012. It's thanks to Fed that they have been able to prop up Novak's wins by saying he beat Federer because he is superior to every one of the other players Djokovic would have faced.

Imagine the opponents Novak would have beaten in those slams without Fed. Would have been much harder to argue weak era.

 

[mike danny]

That's verry true, Federer has improved a lot his H2H with Rafa in recent times. However, I would like to point out that he has not "dominated their encounters since 2014" as you said but rather he has "dominated their encounters in 2017 specifically". Let me explain why Federer has only truly dominated Nadal specifically in 2017, rather than all these years.

First of all, in 2014 Nadal defeated Federer in 3 sets at the AO, so if anything your argument would be "since 2015". Secondly, in 2015 Federer won their only encounter in Basel (indoor hard) which is one of Federer's best conditions against Nadal's worst condition. Federer has always comfortably led the H2H over Nadal on indoor hard, even pre-2015. Federer winning one single match on indoor hard against Nadal is hardly a sign of domination. And in 2019 their H2H was 1-1. Which means that only in 2017 did Federer dominate the H2H over Nadal with an impressive 4-0 H2H advantage.

The Fedovic AO H2H is terribly inflated. Novak dodged Fed in 2009, 2010 and 2017, matches in which Fed would have been favorite. Certainly so in 2009 and 2010.

Meanwhile 38 year old Fed on one leg still made it to Novak to take a beating from him.

 

[CYGS]

He got back to the number 1 ranking at the age of 37. Let’s see what your guy does at that age.

Cowtrolls have been saying this for almost a decade now and that has not done you guys any good. Djokodal have been doing much better than Cow at the same age in their early 30s and don't act shocked that this continues to be the case when they reach 35+ (if they decide to keep playing like they have no life outside tennis).

 

[ewiewp]

He got back to the number 1 ranking at the age of 37. Let’s see what your guy does at that age.

I think I've been hearing this since Federer hit 30.

Cowtrolls have been saying this for almost a decade now and that has not done you guys any good. Djokodal have been doing much better than Cow at the same age in their early 30s and don't act shocked that this continues to be the case when they reach 35+ (if they decide to keep playing like they have no life outside tennis).

Exactly.
And and in a similar vein, I've been also hearing "Rafa won't last long" for a decade,
even now after 12 French Open.

I do agree Federer has longer lasting style but
Tennis has changed about 15-20 years ago.

Top players career extended and both Novak and Rafa will last long similarly
(if they want to continue like Federer, no?)

 

[Xavier G]

At one stage, I thought 2016 would have been a good time for Fed to retire, with him coming up to 35, seemingly with his Slam-winning days behind him and with the long spell away from the tour. I was wrong. I'm glad Fed came back. Every true fan of tennis should be.

Since 2017, everything he's won has enhanced his standing and legacy in the game. He's given us more memories. He beat Wawrinka and Nadal in five-setters to win the AO2017, won Wimbledon 2017 (I think that Fed Wimbledon run is underrated if anything) and won another AO in '18. He's even helped to win the Davis Cup for Switzerland in the last few years, so that gets forgotten.

Sure, Novak's the AO goat now and gets the better of Fed in the Slams, but tennis is much more than h2h results when a great like Fed is giving away 6 years to a younger great like Djokovic.

Fed beat peak/prime Novak in 2011 at the French and in 2012 at Wimbledon. Fed can still give Djokovic a torrid time in Bo3 matches and should have beaten him at Wimbledon 2019. Even if he didn't pick up the trophy at the end, it was a memorable occasion for the sport. The fact that Fed essentially got to the finishing line says a lot. It really should be 2-2 at Wimbledon in h2h between Fed-Novak there, so it's such fine margins.

It was important imo that Federer turned the h2h with Nadal around though. It bothered me that Rafa usually got the better of him in the big matches. He's had a good run for the last few years against Rafa, beaten him at the AO and at Wimbledon so two more Slam wins in the h2h, and at those big hard court Masters events such as Indian Wells, Miami etc.

This year, there is also the Olympics to aim for as well as the Slams and I'm sure Fed would love to pick up that gold medal in singles. That's on his mind for 2020, almost certainly.

To me, what Federer has done since 2017 just adds to the story.

 

[Phoenix1983]

I'm glad he didn't retire.

Firstly because there shall never be another like him.

Secondly because every additional day he added to his GOAT status by winning those 3 slams in 2017-18 is to be cherished. Even if the reprehensible Novak Djokovic eventually overtakes him.

 

[Yugram]

Ironic, Fed will be called the GOAT virtually his whole career and won't even retire the GOAT. He is the epitome of a premature celebration.

Won’t even retire as 2nd best of his Era.

 

[Yugram]

I'm glad he didn't retire.

Firstly because there shall never be another like him.

Secondly because every additional day he added to his GOAT status by winning those 3 slams in 2017-18 is to be cherished. Even if the reprehensible Novak Djokovic eventually overtakes him.

Reprehensible lmao

 

[Yugram]

It's harder for Rafa fans to argue for H2H.

Lol. 24-16, man. That’s bigger gap than between Nadal and Raonic.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Federer has done great. Three extra Slams and a few weeks at number 1 is more than anyone could have asked for. Apart from Djokovic, Thiem and Zverev, I can't recall anyone else beating him more often than not in the last few years.

Unfortunately for him, his two rivals have been exceptional in their 30s as well, despite some confident claims that their styles would send them into earlier retirements, so this marathon race between them is still alive.

 

[Xavier G]

Lol. 24-16, man. That’s bigger gap than between Nadal and Raonic.

60-40 Nadal then in percentage terms.
Rafa got 14 of his wins on clay. Well, he is the greatest clay court player ever.

 

[Hitman]

No, disagree. Federer has only extended his legacy. If he had retired back in 2012, he would have been passed by Nadal long ago and most likely Djokovic also by now. Of course the longer you play you are going to have more losses to go with the wins, that happens to everyone and eventually you do retire because the losses start to build up the older you get. However those losses should never ever diminish the accomplishments you have made, it doesn't work that way. The same thing for Nadal and Djokovic when they start losing more and more, it doesn't take away from all the incredible things they have done.

 

[Yugram]

60-40 Nadal then in percentage terms.
Rafa got 14 of his wins on clay. Well, he is the greatest clay court player ever.

Still 24-16. There is no such thing in official ATP terminology as H2H with some specific surface excluded.

 

[zagor]

Nah, it was worth it for 2017 AO alone, it was almost Fed's 2001 Ivanisevic moment in a way. Not to mention streak of wins over Nadal on HC and kicking his teeth in at Wimbledon last year for good measure when the latter was far closer to his prime and in better form than Fed (no baby Rafa CC excuses this time).

Djokovic fans should be grateful that Fed didn't retire after 2012. It's thanks to Fed that they have been able to prop up Novak's wins by saying he beat Federer because he is superior to every one of the other players Djokovic would have faced.

Imagine the opponents Novak would have beaten in those slams without Fed. Would have been much harder to argue weak era.

TBH at the same time a number of them seem to be making daily posts/threads (they post more about Fed than their favourites) about how Fed is a mental midget who owes all of his success due to weak era, how he's not even a real rival to Djokodal, how he peaks at 38 etc.

It's a weird case of wanting to have a cake and eat it too. If Fed is indeed such a crappy player as Djokodal fans claim then it reflects really badly on their competition and era too.

 

[Noleberic123]

The Fedovic AO H2H is terribly inflated. Novak dodged Fed in 2009, 2010 and 2017, matches in which Fed would have been favorite. Certainly so in 2009 and 2010.

Meanwhile 38 year old Fed on one leg still made it to Novak to take a beating from him.

Their AO encounters have been too one sided for someone to argue that Fed has a higher peak there than Djokovic.

 

[mike danny]

Their AO encounters have been too one sided for someone to argue that Fed has a higher peak there than Djokovic.

Never said that. But their H2H doesn't tell the whole story.

Plus, they never played a peak to peak match there.

 

[Xavier G]

Still 24-16. There is no such thing in official ATP terminology as H2H with some specific surface excluded.