As fedfan - Losing against Djoker holding CH. points is much accepting rather than losing Nadal in SF

lud

Hall of Fame
Fed should look at WIM loss on this angle.

**** it, I lost but hey atleast I defeat Nadal.
 
Fed should take the positives from how well he played at that age against both his younger rivals, nearly beating both of them. He is not out of contention yet and that's something to be happy about.
 

TearTheRoofOff

Hall of Fame
In the analogue spectrum of performance, Fed did awesome and deserves every credit. With regards to the binary nature of the end result it is ruthlessly under-representative of the effort.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Fed should take the positives from how well he played at that age against both his younger rivals, nearly beating both of them. He is not out of contention yet and that's something to be happy about.
True, but interestingly it seems to me most of Roger's most hurtful losses were against Novak, three Wimbledon finals especially 19 and those two USO semis that Roger seemed to be in position to win but didn't.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Well it's right.

His slam h2h against Djokodal would be 9-20 instead of 10-20.

But the 11-19 was close.
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
Unfortunately Federer doesn't get Berrettini in his Slam semis for cupcake Slams to cheer himself with

Players left to beat after Berrettini:
Fed at Wimbledon - Nishikori, Nadal, Djokovic
Nadal at the USO - Medvedev

I rest my case.
Medvedev is the best player in the world, no?
 
That's the Federer-Djokovic h2h if you switched their ages, yeah.
Which is up there with "Led the race after Miami", "Got to the Wimbledon finish line first" and "Had most match wins after seven months" as his finest 2019 achievements.

This actually ranks the highest as it goes in the moral and imaginary categories.

Congratulations to Federer again. (y)
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Which is up there with "Led the race after Miami", "Got to the Wimbledon finish line first" and "Had most match wins after seven months" as his finest 2019 achievements.

This actually ranks the highest as it goes in the moral and imaginary categories.

Congratulations to Federer again. (y)
20 Slams, tho.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Most of his draws between 05-07 were pathetic.
Who was ever challenging him? LOL
Most = more than 50%. 12 Slams in 2005-2007. Please show me the 7+ pathetic draws for Federer in 2005-2007. Those that beat Berrettini or Youzhny in a Slam SF.
 

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
He said in an interview somewhere that that semi-final victory was very important to him. I suspect people underrate the boost to his ego of turning the tables on the Rafa rivalry in the last few years. We often seem incapable of understanding the players might have a different perspective to a fan.

And who knows, if Rafa doesn't win another slam and Djoko stops at 19 or less that victory could look very important indeed.
 

TennisHockey

New User
Unfortunately Federer doesn't get Berrettini in his Slam semis for cupcake Slams to cheer himself with

Players left to beat after Berrettini:
Fed at Wimbledon - Nishikori, Nadal, Djokovic
Nadal at the USO - Medvedev

I rest my case.
Who did Fed have to beat to win his last slam?
 

BGod

Legend
No. Quite possibly the greatest chokejob in male tennis in the Open Era is not what I as a Fed fan want ever.
 

ledwix

Hall of Fame
A true GOAT seizes a golden opportunity, trusting that he is the superior player and taking it home with clutch execution. It is not always true that it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.

Federer is, or was, widely considered the greatest player in history, with one of the most accurate and effective serves with the greatest disguise in history. He had just served two consecutive perfect aces. Was he going to execute in the clutch, or not execute in the clutch?

We're just making excuses for our disillusionment at this point.

Djokovic really drove the sentiment home with that nonchalant celebration. I was like, "Wait, didn't he just win Wimbledon? Why is he acting like they are just switching sides for a changeover?" He truly believed he was the alpha in the relationship at that point and probably even before it. Federer would not have acted the same had he won. He probably would have acted the way he won Wimbledon 2006 at least.
 

ledwix

Hall of Fame
It was never about defeating Nadal, it was about winning slam titles. Isn't that the idea of the last 15 years of being a Federer fan who ignores H2H?
 
Multi slam winner on clay, must be a threat on grass or HC , using your logic.

Even though he hadn't been past a QF in a HC slam till 2008.

But yeah, he was a threat to Federer in 07
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Look, I get what you are saying, but I don't think it's fair to say "well he was not good enough on this or that surface yet." He either was a top player (number 2 in 2005), or not. Same with Fed now, he is old, but he is either good enough or not.

I hear Rafa fans always say "age is not an excuse" so it goes both ways.
 

Eren

Professional
No, the choke job was pathetic. Even more pathetic than Sampras losing to Bastle at an age where Federer was still contending for majors.

How in the world is beating Nadal meaningful if you have a choke job THAT big.
 

Eren

Professional
Was Rafa a challenge to Federer in any slam outwith clay till 2007? I think not.
What's your point anyway? Who on grass would have posed a challenge to Freddy in his prime years? Obviously Nadal did mostly because of his FH being able to break Fred's BH, but who else would? At 19 the guy beat Sampras at an age where people on this forum considered Federer to be better than ever.

So if the King of Swing couldn't beat him who would? Federer on grass in his prime is good enough to beat anyone, demonstrated by the fact that he has beaten multiple Wimbledon champions like Nadal, Murray, Djokovic and Sampras (the latter two were defending champions when Federer beat them).

Who challenged Nadal on clay for that matter? Definitely not Federer or Djokovic since they barely have one title.
 
Last edited:

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
What's your point anyway? Who on grass would have posed a challenge to Freddy in his prime years? Obviously Nadal did mostly because of his FH being able to break Fred's BH, but who else would? At 19 the guy beat Sampras at an age where people on this forum considered Federer to be better than ever.

So if the King of Swing couldn't beat him who would? Federer on grass in his prime is good enough to beat anyone, demonstrated by the fact that he has beaten multiple Wimbledon champions like Nadal, Murray, Djokovic and Sampras (the latter two were defending champions when Federer beat them).

Who challenged Nadal on clay for that matter? Definitely not Federer or Djokovic since they barely have one title.
It shows more on them that Nadal actually has more grass slam titles than they 2 have on clay.

Yet Nadal was supposed to be the one trick pony.
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
Look, I get what you are saying, but I don't think it's fair to say "well he was not good enough on this or that surface yet." He either was a top player (number 2 in 2005), or not. Same with Fed now, he is old, but he is either good enough or not.

I hear Rafa fans always say "age is not an excuse" so it goes both ways.
No, but Nadals career path isn't like most players. He was a teenage phenom, particularly on the dirt. He was pretty much a clay specialist, like loads before him.
Yes, he went on to do great things on grass and then HCs, but he certainly wasn't even in the discussion regards to being a HC threat to Federer until the 2009 AO.

Those 2 early HC wins in their rivalry ( Miami and Dubai ) for Nadal mean nothing in this regards. Fed didn't exactly go all out in every tournament, outwith slams, which is generally known.
 

Eren

Professional
It shows more on them that Nadal actually has more grass slam titles than they 2 have on clay.

Yet Nadal was supposed to be the one trick pony.
But what was your point with Fred's competition on grass. If Fred would have had a 0-12 record on grass instead of a 7-5 record, I could understand (most losses from 32.9 years of age - present). For comparison, Djokovic has a 5-5 record if I am not mistaken against Nadal, Murray, Federer (never met Sampras obviously).

I don't see any inability of 20s-31 year old Federer being able to beat good grass courters.
 
Last edited:
Top