Did Federer underachieve in his career?

TennisLurker

Semi-Pro
But he got lucky with his only french open
He could have lost in straight sets to both delpo and Haas

I assume that if Federer had won the 2 us open semifinals he lost to Djokovic, he would have lost the final to nadal
 

Kralingen

Legend
LOL let me get this straight:

we’re talking about a guy who got to play that MUG frat boy Roddick 4 times in slam finals, choking Marin Cryic in 2 more, CLOWNS like Philly, Gonzy, Baggy, and Hewitt, and then exhausted Safin and Soderling who couldn’t even stand up straight for the pre match photo..

and the question is whether he UNDERachieved? LMAO
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
LOL let me get this straight:

we’re talking about a guy who got to play that MUG frat boy Roddick 4 times in slam finals, choking Marin Cryic in 2 more, CLOWNS like Philly, Gonzy, Baggy, and Hewitt, and then exhausted Safin and Soderling who couldn’t even stand up straight for the pre match photo..

and the question is whether he UNDERachieved? ROFLMAO
fixed
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
The truth is Federer slam on the brake after he won Wimbledon in 2009. By setting the benchmark after winning 15 slams, he lost some motivation and desire to win more because the goal has reached(there's no more target). Had the slam record was 20 instead of 14(set by Sampras) back in his early career, I think he could win well above 20 slams since the motivation/focus remains sky high well in his 30s.

Djokovic has a huge advantage because he's a hunter since day one, a chaser knows what exact number to catch. Being a hunter is way easier than the hunted
 

Mediterranean Might

Professional
LOL let me get this straight:

we’re talking about a guy who got to play that MUG frat boy Roddick 4 times in slam finals, choking Marin Cryic in 2 more, CLOWNS like Philly, Gonzy, Baggy, and Hewitt, and then exhausted Safin and Soderling who couldn’t even stand up straight for the pre match photo..

and the question is whether he UNDERachieved? LMAO
I mostly agree with most of this but I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic. Love TTW lmao

Besides Wimb 2019 was divine retribution for the soul steal he performed 10 years prior on Roddick
 

BGod

Legend
Yes, absolutely.

Absolute Choke Jobs
2009 USO
2011 USO
2019 WMB

Should Have Won
2005 AO
2006 FO
2008 WMB
2013 AO
2014 WMB
2016 WMB (Yes if he hadn't choked to Raonic, absolutely)

Could Have Won (50/50 or slightly better)
2009 AO
2010 USO
2011 FO
2011 WMB
2015 WMB
2015 USO
2018 WMB

And that's just Slams, he should have won a bunch of other big titles. Even if we take away all the could haves listed, get rid of what I think might be more controversial calls like 08 WMB, 13 AO, 14 WMB, 06 FO, 11 USO AND 2005 AO you still have 3 additional Slams he by all account should have had. But that's really letting him off easy when you consider out of the 9 listed in the Choke/Should category he should have more than a third of those. Yes there is the law of averages, but it's not like he barely won a bunch of Slams through the skin of his teeth, most of the titles he won it was a pretty damn smooth ride, while he lost out on a bunch where he pulled out a loss from the jaws of victory.

2004 USO with Agassi and 2006 AO with Haas and a cramping Baghdatis are the only early titles one could argue he could have lost, but he was a major favourite in 06 AO so it's not like it wouldn't have been considered a choke. Then you come to the typical "lucky" reference points of 2009 French, 2009 Wimbledon and 2012 Wimbledon. I can absolutely agree two of those three were ones he was not expected to win and was fortunate due to circumstances that he did. For 2009 Wimbledon as an overwhelming favourite he certainly avoided a choke against a great opponent that mentally imploded in the 2nd set and could not pressure him in the 5th. But when you factor in all the choking, it really does land on the opposite end with Fed winning less than he should have.

Fair Expectation: 23-25 Slams
Optimistic: 26-30

So he ends up with 20 and I don't see how that's nothing but underachieving. Yes I get that he comes back for 2017-2018 and in the absence of the joker he wins 3 Slams, but that's life and you can only offset hypothetical absences so much. It's one thing to point to Soderling running Nadal out of the 2009 French Open draw and another wiping entire draws out because a player is injured or mentally failing. Federer should absolutely have won 1 if not all 3 meetings between Novak for 2014-2015 but he mentally crapped himself. So you see it balances itself out.
 

BGod

Legend
The truth is Federer slam on the brake after he won Wimbledon in 2009. By setting the benchmark after winning 15 slams, he lost some motivation and desire to win more because the goal has reached(there's no more target). Had the slam record was 20 instead of 14(set by Sampras) back in his early career, I think he could win well above 20 slams since the motivation/focus remains sky high well in his 30s.

Djokovic has a huge advantage because he's a hunter since day one, a chaser knows what exact number to catch. Being a hunter is way easier than the hunted
Yes and no. He was already a proven choker against Nadal with the 2006 French, 2008 Wimbledon and yes 2009 AO which especially if you look at the QF-SF matches there is no reason Fed shouldn't have taken advantage of a more taxed Nadal and won in 4. This was the same issue I saw against Novak in the 2015 matches even though I regard it was the GOAT season it is because Novak ultimately won those matches but Federer should have won one of them if not both considering both their forms going in.

I think the turning point however was 2012 Wimbledon. Fed certainly choked in 2011 and I think had a very real chance of winning if he finished Tsonga, then he of course had USO double trouble. So by 2012 Wimbledon he nearly loses to Benneteau, gets Youzhny in QF and is inspired against one of the weakest versions of Novak in that time period. He then gets over-pressurized Andy in the final and wins with little challenge after that 2nd set quite honestly. So he ties Sampras with 7 titles and is now 3 above the previous record with Nadal at that time looking like he's going to be losing to Novak and at 11 Slams. He just did not see Nadal 2013 happening I'm sure. Now the racquet aspect along with his back limited his 2013 of course but then he remerged in 2014 where it's evident he sees Nadal as more of a threat and he gets more focused but still in my opinion chokes against Novak at both Wimbledons. I can forgive the 2015 USO but he was in really great form to win that as well. You also can't ignore 2016 Wimbledon and his playing soft not closing out Raonic sooner and even 2014 USO he shouldn't have played so complacent against Monfils which drained him for Cilic (not that I necessarily think he absolutely wins if fresh but definitely a far better shot).
 

OhYes

Legend
Yes, absolutely.

Absolute Choke Jobs
2009 USO
2011 USO
2019 WMB

Should Have Won
2005 AO
2006 FO
2008 WMB
2013 AO
2014 WMB
2016 WMB (Yes if he hadn't choked to Raonic, absolutely)

Could Have Won (50/50 or slightly better)
2009 AO
2010 USO
2011 FO
2011 WMB
2015 WMB
2015 USO
2018 WMB

And that's just Slams, he should have won a bunch of other big titles. Even if we take away all the could haves listed, get rid of what I think might be more controversial calls like 08 WMB, 13 AO, 14 WMB, 06 FO, 11 USO AND 2005 AO you still have 3 additional Slams he by all account should have had. But that's really letting him off easy when you consider out of the 9 listed in the Choke/Should category he should have more than a third of those. Yes there is the law of averages, but it's not like he barely won a bunch of Slams through the skin of his teeth, most of the titles he won it was a pretty damn smooth ride, while he lost out on a bunch where he pulled out a loss from the jaws of victory.

2004 USO with Agassi and 2006 AO with Haas and a cramping Baghdatis are the only early titles one could argue he could have lost, but he was a major favourite in 06 AO so it's not like it wouldn't have been considered a choke. Then you come to the typical "lucky" reference points of 2009 French, 2009 Wimbledon and 2012 Wimbledon. I can absolutely agree two of those three were ones he was not expected to win and was fortunate due to circumstances that he did. For 2009 Wimbledon as an overwhelming favourite he certainly avoided a choke against a great opponent that mentally imploded in the 2nd set and could not pressure him in the 5th. But when you factor in all the choking, it really does land on the opposite end with Fed winning less than he should have.

Fair Expectation: 23-25 Slams
Optimistic: 26-30

So he ends up with 20 and I don't see how that's nothing but underachieving. Yes I get that he comes back for 2017-2018 and in the absence of the joker he wins 3 Slams, but that's life and you can only offset hypothetical absences so much. It's one thing to point to Soderling running Nadal out of the 2009 French Open draw and another wiping entire draws out because a player is injured or mentally failing. Federer should absolutely have won 1 if not all 3 meetings between Novak for 2014-2015 but he mentally crapped himself. So you see it balances itself out.
Vulture shouldn't have won 10 Slams in reality.
All of them from 2004-2007 plus last three Slams are absolute vulturing by any standards.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
The truth is Federer slam on the brake after he won Wimbledon in 2009. By setting the benchmark after winning 15 slams, he lost some motivation and desire to win more because the goal has reached(there's no more target). Had the slam record was 20 instead of 14(set by Sampras) back in his early career, I think he could win well above 20 slams since the motivation/focus remains sky high well in his 30s.

Djokovic has a huge advantage because he's a hunter since day one, a chaser knows what exact number to catch. Being a hunter is way easier than the hunted
Lol. oh TTW, you never disappoint me!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMF

junior74

Talk Tennis Guru
Vulture shouldn't have won 10 Slams in reality.
All of them from 2004-2007 plus last three Slams are absolute vulturing by any standards.
12 for Novak in reality.

Has been vulturing the mug field since 2018.

Now many of Nadal's are real?
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
Yes he did underachieve,
You know things are bad when Nalbandian and Safin makes RG semi before you.
A good clay courter like Fed was nearly 24 years old when he made first RG semi, he was 23 years old when he made first qf at us open.
He didn't take his opportunity in 2001 to 2003 alongside some choking in close matches.
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
The thing is if Fed has brought his 2003 yec form in 2003 AO Or 2004 Uso, he was going to win both slam
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
LOL let me get this straight:

we’re talking about a guy who got to play that MUG frat boy Roddick 4 times in slam finals, choking Marin Cryic in 2 more, CLOWNS like Philly, Gonzy, Baggy, and Hewitt, and then exhausted Safin and Soderling who couldn’t even stand up straight for the pre match photo..

and the question is whether he UNDERachieved? LMAO
Anyone whose prime competition consists of Stifler can't be taken seriously

 

OhYes

Legend
12 for Novak in reality.

Has been vulturing the mug field since 2018.

Now many of Nadal's are real?
Novak always played against someone from big 3 or against top 10, 5, 3...
He has highest percentages in that department
 
Top