Brad Gilbert : Federer's reached his highest level in 2017

RF 2.0 is his nickname for Fed. If I am not mistaken he came up with that nickname in 2017 when Fed started employing the neo BH more .

He is referring to their whole career and not just since the racket switch
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:

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Just at face value, Fed's determination to win AO 17 - and then doubling and tripling down to sweep the Sunshine Double - was a remarkable run. Period. Perhaps, his level at AO 17 wasn't great the whole way through, but from 1-3 down in the 5th in the final - through the final in Miami - his play was sensational.
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

G.O.A.T.
Gilbert specifically said Fed 2.0.

Fake news, fake thread.
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.
 

pj80

Hall of Fame
Fed fans just don't want to give Fed credit for improving his game starting in 2014 with the new equipment and raising his game to another level
 

Pablo1989

Professional
Fed fan here, but Djokovic's level at AO 2019 and his destruction of a very good Nadal in the final is possibly the highest level I've seen anyone play in 40+ years of watching tennis. So I agree with BG on that.

Fed's level in the 1st 3 months of 2017 was extremely high, with a more attacking mindset and improved backhand. A renaissance, of sorts. But for me, what he was doing at Wimbledon between 2003 and 2007 was just magical, especially on the forehand side.
LOL. Nadal played so bad that final.
 

Pablo1989

Professional
IMO,
Djokovic's absolute peak: W18 - AO19 (more after USO18, potentially yet to reach his absolute peak)
Federer's absolute peak: W15 - AO16 (more before and including WTF15, 17 special as well but had lesser competition)
Are you trolling? Djokovic's peak was 2011 and 2014 October - 2016 June. Federer's peak was 2003-2007.
 

18x20 ftw

Semi-Pro
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.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
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.
Brad Gilbert and even Roger Federer himself were in diapers in 2004-07, right?
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
RF 2.0 is his nickname for Fed. If I am not mistaken he came up with that nickname in 2017 when Fed started employing the neo BH more .

He is referring to their whole career and not just since the racket switch
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.
 
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.
It's not complicated
 

aman92

Hall of Fame
It's not out of the realms... People just assume that because Fed was 35 he couldn't produce his best ever tennis.. Granted it didn't last as long as his peak level but that tennis was really insane from Fed until Wimbledon
 

BGod

Legend
RF 2.0 likely means since Roger starting using the 97in frame in 2014 after a disastrous 2013 (for him)
 

bnjkn

Semi-Pro
2017 IW was one of Fed’s best performances ever, I can agree with that. But no, no way 2017 is Fed’s highest level. He peaked in 2004 until the 2007 AO.
 

ND-13

Hall of Fame
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.
 

flanker2000fr

Hall of Fame
Bolded: no.
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...
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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...
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
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.
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
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.
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?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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 :D
That works for everyone really.

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

G.O.A.T.
That works for everyone really.

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.
He was better at Indian Wells 2005. Good point on Cincinnati though.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
That works for everyone really.

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.
Absolutely and Fed anyway declined in BO5 more visibly once he ceased to be a force at the French and on clay in general.
 

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
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.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Absolutely and Fed anyway declined in BO5 more visibly once he ceased to be a force at the French and on clay in general.
That's why I rarely trust the experts :D

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. :D

I mean this statement from Gilbert proves that experts are not always better than fellow armchair experts.
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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.
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

G.O.A.T.
2005 Federer is not returning and beating Nadal in Indian Wells like 2017 Fed did.We have to give it to old Fed, he was a freak that day.
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...
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
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.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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.
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 :-D
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Nadal didn't play well lol. He didn't go all 2015dal but was still peak Slowdal.
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
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.
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 :D

Federer arriving to the 2019 Wimb final with 0 wins over Djokovic probably played a big part in the result.
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
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 :D

Federer arriving to the 2019 Wimb final with 0 wins over Djokovic probably played a big part in the result.
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...
 

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
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 :-D
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?
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

Hall of Fame
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...
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
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?
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.
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. :-D
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
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.
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.
 
Top