Exactly how good was 2017 Federer on grass?

[Dolgopolov85]

Nadal's 17 is easier to know that it was amazing even besides the obvious visuals where I think it's clear to anyone who watched that his level was out of this world because of the surrounding proof where he only lost 4 sets on clay that year and defended the title in dominant fashion the next 3 years. On the other hand Fed's 17 seems like an outlier where the stars aligned he played his best and no one showed up to make him look human. Prior to 17 you have the Djokovic losses that provide doubt and after you have the Anderson and Djokovic (on his C or D game) losses. Even the small tournaments are questionable with losses to retired Haas and Coric the following year. I think there is the lingering suspicion that had Novak showed up in 2017 we would look at it as declined from 2015 but not as declined as 2019. Had Djokovic not showed up in 2019 and the final was the Fedal semi and Fed has an undefeated grass season what would we have said about 19 Federer then? It's like how Nadal fans were saying AO 19 was the best level Nadal had ever shown on HC til Novak bludgeoned him in the final. If it was Medvedev instead and Rafa cooked him would we be hearing about how AO 19 was peak Renaissance Rafa? I don't think 17 Fed was like that and in fact I actually think he was pretty damn good but it's hard to know for sure given he didn't really play anyone. It's the same doubt people have about 21-22 W Novak. There is doubt about whether his level holds up against good competition. This doubt doesn't exist with 17 Rafa.

If you are talking about Fed 17 in general, he did beat Nadal four times that year so his level was, as Koenig put it, galactic that year. The one year where I felt his level on grass was a tad lower than HC, if anything. He got the job done on serve, not spectacular like 2015. But his baseline and return game suddenly exploded on HC and reached a level comparable to his prime years. For the same reasons, he looked like he was on autopilot on grass because he didn't have the time to set up these shots on grass whereas in 2003-07 he was a better mover and could get around to the ball much better on grass.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I've been thinking this one over for a bit. Despite being a tournament Federer won without dropping a set, no one actually talks about this Slam run with reference to how good Fed was there. Fed fans don't really talk about it that much (because it wasn't in 2003-2009) and Djokovic fans don't endlessly hype this one up like 2015 (naturally, as Federer didn't lose to Djokovic here). Whenever it even enters the conversation, it's just been mutually agreed that Wimbledon 2017 is "hard to rank because Cilic had blisters". I find this interesting because while Federer had a very weak draw here, Nadal had essentially the same situation happen to him at the French Open earlier that year (won it without dropping a set, competition wasn't good) and yet that one is typically agreed to have been one of his better performances at the French Open. But Wimbledon 2017 remains unrankable.

I'd like to invite some discussion about exactly how good Federer was on grass in 2017. From my eye test, he looked quite sturdy off the baseline as opposed to 2014 and 2015 where he was fairly substandard in that regard and had to rush the net more to increase his chances. This was a trend of Fed's 2017 season in general where he beefed up both his FH and his BH. His serve also looked in tip-top shape here, although he never had any serving masterclasses like in the 2015 SF vs. Murray.

Earlier in the grass season, he had strangely lost to a 39-year-old Tommy Haas on the verge of retirement in Stuttgart. Then he blasted his way through Halle playing some solid tennis and demolished Zverev in the final (which is still one of my favorite ABZ moments btw, along with the Raonic match at the 2019 AO and of course the US Open 2020 disasterclass). At Wimbledon, he beat Dimitrov, Raonic, Berdych, and Cilic, although none of those players were very good in their matches with Fed, at least none that I recall.

So how good was Federer here, if we can possibly leave aside the common answer of "it's hard to rank because of the draw"? Compared to his other versions on grass?

Very hard to evaluate because he was just not pushed at all and when he was, he had the answers. I think basically, yes, more consistent than 2012 but lacking the peaks of that run.

 

[abmk]

better than 14/15, worse than 12. (especially if focus on last 3 rounds)

 

[abmk]

Also Wim 17 was better than AO 17 from fed.
a little higher highs in AO 17, but too many dips compared to Wim 17 (definitely tougher competition in AO 17)
Only tournament where he played better in 17 than Wim 17 was IW 17.

 

[abmk]

2012 Fed was by every metric worse than 2011 where he choked to Tsonga. The 2012 version nearly lost to Julien in the 3rd Round then needed 4 against Malisse with a virtual walkover Youzhny in QF. He was also a set down to Murray in the Final but Andy had yet to win a Slam so mentally fragile. Too much is made of the Novak win who was having a down year after AO.

I don't know if you remember, but fed had back injury in 3rd and 4th round- hence the struggles vs benneteau, malisse. It was worse vs Malisse, but Benneteau played better to make it tougher.
Fed was very good in the other 5 rounds - 1st, 2nd and QF-F.
QF-F is what should matter the most.
Murray was at his mental best in 2012 under Lendl (AO, Wim, Oly, USO). nothing fragile about him
Djokovic was playing good as well. In fact, he was the favorite in the semi.
He had won Miami, played well at Rome, RG.

One can just look at the tape. Fed 2012 Wimbledon was more show than substance. The 2015 version was just better but he faced GOAT in the final having a GOAT season.

umm,no. 12 fed was better overall - better off the ground and returning wise. 15 was better serving wise and at the net, that's it.

 

[RS]

2015 Fed is underrated though. It was his 2nd year with the new racquet and he was indeed back whether the frame extended his shelf life or simply better health than 2013.

2017 meanwhile, well 2015 Fed likely doesn't drop a set either right? Does 2012 version? We know not because Benneteau or was it the 90"?

Personally everything considered:
2015>2017>2014>2012

Hell I think 09 version is overrated.

Interesting ranking. It’s possible 2015 peaked highest of those but 2012 Fed was probably fitter for a long match imo. Didn’t look at all out breath despite fairly long matches with Djokovic and Murray and some early round issues.

 

[InsideOut900]

better than 14/15, worse than 12. (especially if focus on last 3 rounds)

Do explain how 2017 was better than 2015.

Similar form for the first 5 rounds, better semi in 2015. Played close to his best in the first 2 sets of the final in 2015 as well.

Not like 2017 Fed actually pushes 2015 Djoko to 5 sets

 

[RS]

Do explain how 2017 was better than 2015.

Similar form for the first 5 rounds, better semi in 2015. Played his best in the first 2 sets of the final.

Sole difference would be the better 3rd set in the F in 2017, but not like 2017 Fed actually pushes 2015 Djoko to 5 sets

Not sure if you remember but you both had this discussion another thread.

 

[InsideOut900]

Not sure if you remember but you both had this discussion another thread.

Do you keep tabs on us?

I do vaguely remember now that you mention it, but I still wanna hear it again. If 2017 was somehow *better* it wasn't in a meaningful way to me.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Do you keep tabs on us?

I do vaguely remember now that you mention it, but I still wanna hear it again. If 2017 was somehow *better* it wasn't in a meaningful way to me.

Fed was striking the groundies a lot, lot better in 2017 and returning a lot more aggressively. Stopped just putting returns in play. If you're asking if that would have altered the match-up against Djokovic, I don't know and I would guess probably not.

 

[abmk]

Do explain how 2017 was better than 2015.

Similar form for the first 5 rounds, better semi in 2015. Played close to his best in the first 2 sets of the final in 2015 as well.

Not like 2017 Fed actually pushes 2015 Djoko to 5 sets

better from the baseline, returning more aggressively. better stamina/ability to keep it up for longer under Ljubicic style than under Edberg style in 14/15 - which matters in Bo5 vs a very good player. a little better serving and more practiced (marginally better) at the net in 15, but I think the factors in 17 trump the ones in 15.
and yes, good chance 17 fed pushes 15 djoko to 5 sets.

 

[StrongRule]

Do explain how 2017 was better than 2015.

Similar form for the first 5 rounds, better semi in 2015. Played close to his best in the first 2 sets of the final in 2015 as well.

Not like 2017 Fed actually pushes 2015 Djoko to 5 sets

He never played close to his best in the 2015 final, come on now. He had pretty much nothing except his serve. And he got tired after 2 sets.

 

[Krish0608]

Federer was amazing in 2017. But it was still his worst Wimbledon winning form. I would say it was only slightly better than W 2019. For comparison, W 2012 was much better than anything we saw in W 2017.

 

[Russeljones]

Federer was amazing in 2017. But it was still his worst Wimbledon winning form. I would say it was only slightly better than W 2019. For comparison, W 2012 was much better than anything we saw in W 2017.

Do you think he is the kind of guy to go back and talk over these moments once the dust settles and he's further removed from the game?

 

[ChrisRF]

Federer was amazing in 2017. But it was still his worst Wimbledon winning form. I would say it was only slightly better than W 2019. For comparison, W 2012 was much better than anything we saw in W 2017.

How can you say this? Yes, he didn't have the very best opponents in 2017, but he totally destroyed them, and in spectacular fashion. You couldn't see any weakness there. Also don't forget how he destroyed Zverev in Halle shortly before, who was usually kind of a nemesis for him. Federer himself said it was his best Wimbledon in an interview. where he explicitly looked back on each of his titles in 2018.

And "only slightly better than 2019" doesn't mean anything, because 2019 was also great. He lost the final, but he was clearly the better player and he quite easily beat Nadal who had his best off-clay stats in 2019. The 40-15 fiasco shouldn't distract us from the massive performance Federer showed that tournament.

2012 on the other hand looked rather difficult for him. 5 sets against Benneteau (he really was almost out in that match), and the Malisse match wasn't impressive either. I remember back then I always feared a loss while in 2017 I knew he would win without much trouble.

 

[StrongRule]

How can you say this? Yes, he didn't have the very best opponents in 2017, but he totally destroyed them, and in spectacular fashion. You couldn't see any weakness there. Also don't forget how he destroyed Zverev in Halle shortly before, who was usually kind of a nemesis for him. Federer himself said it was his best Wimbledon in an interview. where he explicitly looked back on each of his titles in 2018.

And "only slightly better than 2019" doesn't mean anything, because 2019 was also great. He lost the final, but he was clearly the better player and he quite easily beat Nadal who had his best off-clay stats in 2019. The 40-15 fiasco shouldn't distract us from the massive performance Federer showed that tournament.

2012 on the other hand looked rather difficult for him. 5 sets against Benneteau (he really was almost out in that match), and the Malisse match wasn't impressive either. I remember back then I always feared a loss while in 2017 I knew he would win without much trouble.

Lol. I wonder if you also think Nadal in 2019 AO final was better than in 2009/2012 final.

 

[Russeljones]

How can you say this? Yes, he didn't have the very best opponents in 2017, but he totally destroyed them, and in spectacular fashion. You couldn't see any weakness there. Also don't forget how he destroyed Zverev in Halle shortly before, who was usually kind of a nemesis for him. Federer himself said it was his best Wimbledon in an interview. where he explicitly looked back on each of his titles in 2018.

And "only slightly better than 2019" doesn't mean anything, because 2019 was also great. He lost the final, but he was clearly the better player and he quite easily beat Nadal who had his best off-clay stats in 2019. The 40-15 fiasco shouldn't distract us from the massive performance Federer showed that tournament.

2012 on the other hand looked rather difficult for him. 5 sets against Benneteau (he really was almost out in that match), and the Malisse match wasn't impressive either. I remember back then I always feared a loss while in 2017 I knew he would win without much trouble.

2017 Federer looks almost like slow motion compared to his grass performances in his 20s. For me, the opposition played a great part in creating the illusion that the performance was on par with those at the start of the decade.

 

[ChrisRF]

Lol. I wonder if you also think Nadal in 2019 AO final was better than in 2009/2012 final.

Of course not, but that was one match. And he was great in the first that 6 matches in that same tournament. Also credit to Djokovic who was superb in that final.

 

[InsideOut900]

better from the baseline, returning more aggressively. better stamina/ability to keep it up for longer under Ljubicic style than under Edberg style in 14/15 - which matters in Bo5 vs a very good player. a little better serving and more practiced (marginally better) at the net in 15, but I think the factors in 17 trump the ones in 15.
and yes, good chance 17 fed pushes 15 djoko to 5 sets.

Yeah, but you only know about the level sustainability over 5 sets because 2015 Fed had to go long with Djokovic. Aside from the fact the rain break broke his momentum rather than him being physically tired, but we don't agree on that ever, so probably no point in arguing it again I guess.

2017 Federer was never tested like that, so you just assume he would hold up.

Another question I have is how do you think his so called superior aggressiveness translated into actual on court performance?
He didn't beat his opponents harder in 2017 than 2015 and didn't face tougher opponents either. Could argue Murray was a bigger threat than Berdych and he still played better against him.

What you are saying is that 2017 Fed was more confident and had a better ability to hit flat/fast as a result.
This isn't that relevant against 2015 Djokovic, who would outmaveuver him in rallies anyway due to the vastly superior lateral movement.

Not only that, but Djokovic got into that rhythm in the last two sets where he pressured Federer just enough to break and then just be too strong on his own serve. Chances are 2015 Djokovic vs. 2017 Fed goes on a similar script with the 2015 final, except Fed might make the last two sets closer.

 

[ChrisRF]

2017 Federer looks almost like slow motion compared to his grass performances in his 20s. For me, the opposition played a great part in creating the illusion that the performance was on par with those at the start of the decade.

The movement was surely better in the years generally seen as "peak years", but his game as a whole in 2017 wasn't weaker, at least in some tournaments (like Indian Wells, Halle and Wimbledon). The bigger racquet, the "neo backhand" and Ljubicic were the factors that made 2017 his fifth best year after 2004-07 (and Wimbledon as a single tournament even his best one statistically).

 

[Russeljones]

The movement was surely better in the years generally seen as "peak years", but his game as a whole in 2017 wasn't weaker, at least in some tournaments (like Indian Wells, Halle and Wimbledon). The bigger racquet, the "neo backhand" and Ljubicic were the factors that made 2017 his fifth best year after 2004-07 (and Wimbledon as a single tournament even his best one statistically).

Lightning in a bottle and all that.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Something like 9th best Wimby form.

 

[InsideOut900]

So 2003 ~ 2005 ~ 2006 > 2004 > 2007 > 2008 ~ 2009 > 2012 > 2011 > 2014 ~ 2015 ~ 2017 > 2019 > 2010 ~ 2016 > 2018 >2013

Out of 17 runs between 2003 and 2019, anywhere from the 10th to the 12th best. So middle of the road, but reaching toward the lower side.

 

[ForehandRF]

I think 2017 Fed would do better than the SABR net rusher version of 2015, but it won't be enough to win vs Novak

 

[RS]

Who wins these matchups?

1. Tsonga Wim 11 QF vs Federer Wim 17 QF
2. Nadal Wim 06 SF vs Federer Wim 11 QF
3. Murray Wim 10 SF vs Berdych Wim 10 SF
4. Hewitt Wim 02 F vs Federer Wim 17 F
5. Nadal USO 11 SF vs Djokovic USO 18 SF
6. Djokovic Wim 12 SF vs Nadal Wim 18 SF
7. Federer Wim 15 SF vs Federer Wim 17 F

 

[RS]

I think 2017 Fed would do better than the SABR net rusher version of 2015, but it won't be enough to win vs Novak

Beats 2011 Tsonga in 5. 50-50 with 2014 Djokovic and 2018 Djokovic and loses to 2011 and 2015 Novak in 5.

 

[abmk]

Yeah, but you only know about the level sustainability over 5 sets because 2015 Fed had to go long with Djokovic. Aside from the fact the rain break broke his momentum rather than him being physically tired, but we don't agree on that ever, so probably no point in arguing it again I guess.

2017 Federer was never tested like that, so you just assume he would hold up.

Another question I have is how do you think his so called superior aggressiveness translated into actual on court performance?
He didn't beat his opponents harder in 2017 than 2015 and didn't face tougher opponents either. Could argue Murray was a bigger threat than Berdych and he still played better against him.

What you are saying is that 2017 Fed was more confident and had a better ability to hit flat/fast as a result.
This isn't that relevant against 2015 Djokovic, who would outmaveuver him in rallies anyway due to the vastly superior lateral movement.

Not only that, but Djokovic got into that rhythm in the last two sets where he pressured Federer just enough to break and then just be too strong on his own serve. Chances are 2015 Djokovic vs. 2017 Fed goes on a similar script with the 2015 final, except Fed might make the last two sets closer.

fed stamina was not physically tested against djokovic in 2017-early 18, but was tested against others - Nadal, Wawa, Nishi, Tiafoe, Cilic.
totally 6-0 in 5-setters in that timeframe.
as opposed to 1-2 in 5-setters in 14-15 (won vs Monfils saving MPs, lost to Gulbis, Djoko) also not able to keep up in Wim 15, USO 15.

enough to make me think Wim 17 fed would go 5, but Djoko would edge it out in the end. a tight 4-setter ala RG 11 SF/USO 01 QF is also possible of course.

the baseline difference b/w 17 fed, 15 djoko would be the least on grass (save Cincy).
its not that 15 fed did that bad (14 fed was clearly worse) off the baseline. 17 fed was a little better from the baseline.

 

[ForehandRF]

Beats 2011 Tsonga in 5. 50-50 with 2014 Djokovic and 2018 Djokovic and loses to 2011 and 2015 Novak in 5.

Maybe a tighter 4 setter vs 2015 Novak, instead of a 5 setter

 

[abmk]

The movement was surely better in the years generally seen as "peak years", but his game as a whole in 2017 wasn't weaker, at least in some tournaments (like Indian Wells, Halle and Wimbledon). The bigger racquet, the "neo backhand" and Ljubicic were the factors that made 2017 his fifth best year after 2004-07 (and Wimbledon as a single tournament even his best one statistically).

Halle 17? did you watch before the final? fed just cruised on, only playing as well as he needed to. It was only in the final that he turned it on destroyign Zverev.
Wim 17 is obviously lesser than 03-09 and 12. (12 3R and 4R performances dips were due to back injury. QF-F were better than 17)
IW 17 is the one that comes closest. still lesser than peak ones in 04-06, but was phenomenal by any standards.

 

[abmk]

So 2003 ~ 2005 ~ 2006 > 2004 > 2007 > 2008 ~ 2009 > 2012 > 2011 > 2014 ~ 2015 ~ 2017 > 2019 > 2010 ~ 2016 > 2018 >2013

Out of 17 runs between 2003 and 2019, anywhere from the 10th to the 12th best. So middle of the road, but reaching toward the lower side.

For the whole tournaments (more focus on QF-F), I'd go:

2003 ~ 2005 ~ 2006 > 2004 > 2007 > 2008 ~ 2009 > 2012 > 2017 > 2011 > 2015 > 2014 > 2019

of course flip 15 and 14 if we're looking at finals only. 15 clearly had more potential, but 14 final he showed better stamina.
17 > 11 because of better or rather more aggressive returning/ability to convert. But it is close.

 

[BGod]

So 2003 ~ 2005 ~ 2006 > 2004 > 2007 > 2008 ~ 2009 > 2012 > 2011 > 2014 ~ 2015 ~ 2017 > 2019 > 2010 ~ 2016 > 2018 >2013

Out of 17 runs between 2003 and 2019, anywhere from the 10th to the 12th best. So middle of the road, but reaching toward the lower side.

Hmmm.

2005-2006
2004, 2007-2008
2003, 2009, 2011, 2015
2017, 2014, 2012
2019, 2018, 2016, 2010
2013

Who wins these matchups?

1. Tsonga Wim 11 QF vs Federer Wim 17 QF
2. Nadal Wim 06 SF vs Federer Wim 11 QF
3. Murray Wim 10 SF vs Berdych Wim 10 SF
4. Hewitt Wim 02 F vs Federer Wim 17 F
5. Nadal USO 11 SF vs Djokovic USO 18 SF
6. Djokovic Wim 12 SF vs Nadal Wim 18 SF
7. Federer Wim 15 SF vs Federer Wim 17 F

1. Tsonga
2. Nadal
3. Berdych
4. Hewitt
5. Nadal
6. Nadal
7. Federer 15

 

[junior74]

Exactly good enough to win without dropping a set, yet far from his best. Grass field has been weak for a long time.

 

[jl809]

Hmmm.

2005-2006
2004, 2007-2008
2003, 2009, 2011, 2015
2017, 2014, 2012
2019, 2018, 2016, 2010
2013

Exactly right except I’d maybe bump up 2003, that SF was absurdly good. One of the best grass performances ever. Maybe 2019 deserves its own tier between 2017 and 2018/16/10 too. Glad 2011 is getting some love too

 

[Sudacafan]

Subthread: how did the 2017 Fed version compare with the Fed Disaster Trifecta 16/18/19? That is: 40-0 lead blow in crucial game vs Raonic with injury in 16 + MP (can’t remember how many they were, one or more) squandered against Anderson in 18 + infamous 40-15 CPs against Djokovic in 19.
Then came the 21 Hurkacz Sad Last Set Bagel Goodbye, which it’s unfair to put together with the Trifecta.

 

[Sudacafan]

Hmmm.

2005-2006
2004, 2007-2008
2003, 2009, 2011, 2015
2017, 2014, 2012
2019, 2018, 2016, 2010
2013



1. Tsonga
2. Nadal
3. Berdych
4. Hewitt
5. Nadal
6. Nadal
7. Federer 15

I see that 2021 does not even make the list.

 

[InsideOut900]

of course flip 15 and 14 if we're looking at finals only. 15 clearly had more potential, but 14 final he showed better stamina.
17 > 11 because of better or rather more aggressive returning/ability to convert. But it is close.

No, if you swap draws between 2011 and 2017 Fed I don't think you are going to have the same conclusion.

You cannot magically de-age when you have the loss of speed and shot tolerance 2017 Fed had compared to his younger self. So 2017 can only land ahead if you think 2011 Fed considerably underperformed, else there is a pretty comfortable cushion between them levelwise in favor of the younger version.

In short, 2017 Fed doesn't do better in 2011, might do worse imo. 2011 Fed beats the 2017 draw blindfolded.

 

[Hitman]

Well, I kind of predicted him to straight set everyone at Wimbledon, said he was going to steamroll on his way to the title....

He didn't disappoint.

 

[BGod]

I see that 2021 does not even make the list.

Nor should it. Completely pampered draw to QF and then his knee collapses. How do you even rate that? 2013 Fed more choked against Stakhovsky than was beaten so it's his worst of the list but content needed.

I was also going off the other guy otherwise could include 2001 with 2019 and 2002 with 2013.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Well, I kind of predicted him to straight set everyone at Wimbledon, said he was going to steamroll on his way to the title....

He didn't disappoint.

 

[abmk]

No, if you swap draws between 2011 and 2017 Fed I don't think you are going to have the same conclusion.

You cannot magically de-age when you have the loss of speed and shot tolerance 2017 Fed had compared to his younger self. So 2017 can only land ahead if you think 2011 Fed considerably underperformed, else there is a pretty comfortable cushion between them levelwise in favor of the younger version.

In short, 2017 Fed doesn't do better in 2011, might do worse imo. 2011 Fed beats the 2017 draw blindfolded.

I do think Fed under-performed in the 2011 QF match by some margin by not returning aggressively/smartly enough, by not clustering the return points well. He didn't have a BP after early in the 1st set. Tsonga broke him 3 times, yet fed ended up with higher% of return points clearly.
Fed winning 29% of return points and having only 1 BP in a 5-setter is bad clustering of return points.
Tsonga won only 24.1% of return points and broke thrice.

Of course fed 11 mows through the 17 draw comfortably enough.

 

[InsideOut900]

I do think Fed under-performed in the 2011 QF match by some margin by not returning aggressively/smartly enough, by not clustering the return points well. He didn't have a BP after early in the 1st set. Tsonga broke him 3 times, yet fed ended up with higher% of return points clearly.
Fed winning 29% of return points and having only 1 BP in a 5-setter is bad clustering of return points.
Tsonga won only 24.1% of return points and broke thrice.

Of course fed 11 mows through the 17 draw comfortably enough.

Yes, I agree with this, Fed could have played better against Tsonga, but do you think 2017 Fed would do better? I don't.

Just as a general rule, do you think 2017 Fed had some invincible aura and would never underperform against elite opponents like peak Tsonga or peak Djokovic?

I know he did well in both AO and Wimbledon relative to the expectations, but Nadal/Wawrinka are not elite opponents to the level of 2011 Tsonga/2015 Djokovic to really test Fed out. With reduced movement and defence, how resourceful do you really think he can be at 35/36? This part affects his entire game in rallies unless he can really make up for it with a much better serve.

 

[Noleberic123]

No, if you swap draws between 2011 and 2017 Fed I don't think you are going to have the same conclusion.

You cannot magically de-age when you have the loss of speed and shot tolerance 2017 Fed had compared to his younger self. So 2017 can only land ahead if you think 2011 Fed considerably underperformed, else there is a pretty comfortable cushion between them levelwise in favor of the younger version.

In short, 2017 Fed doesn't do better in 2011, might do worse imo. 2011 Fed beats the 2017 draw blindfolded.

Federer was ridiculously good in 2017

 

[abmk]

Yes, I agree with this, Fed could have played better against Tsonga, but do you think 2017 Fed would do better? I don't.

Just as a general rule, do you think 2017 Fed had some invincible aura and would never underperform against elite opponents like peak Tsonga or peak Djokovic?

I know he did well in both AO and Wimbledon relative to the expectations, but Nadal/Wawrinka are not elite opponents to the level of 2011 Tsonga/2015 Djokovic to really test Fed out. With reduced movement and defence, how resourceful do you really think he can be at 35/36? This part affects his entire game in rallies unless he can really make up for it with a much better serve.

I'm not sure if 17 fed would do better, but he could possibly do better wrt to clustering of returning points. which is enough to change a 5-set loss to 5-set win.
We can't say 17 fed would never under-perform vs peak Tsonga or peak Djoko, but we can't say he would for sure either. Just giving a mentally+physically rejuvenated 17 fed some benefit of doubt that he'd perform to potential rather than under-perform. he still loses to Djoko of Wim 15, but the Tsonga one could go either way.

Fed 17 could've lost a set to M.Zverev, Dimi (1st, dimi started off well before flailing), Raonic (3rd), berdych (1st/2nd). But didn't.

 

[mike danny]

better than 14/15, worse than 12. (especially if focus on last 3 rounds)

Don't see in which way 2017 was better than 2014/2015.

 

[abmk]

Don't see in which way 2017 was better than 2014/2015.

better returning in 17 for sure compared to 14.
better ability to keep up level/stamina in 17-early 18 compared to 14-15, especially Wim 15 final.
biggest factors.
he was also a little better from the baseline in 17 compared to 14/15.

 

[mike danny]

How can you say this? Yes, he didn't have the very best opponents in 2017, but he totally destroyed them, and in spectacular fashion. You couldn't see any weakness there. Also don't forget how he destroyed Zverev in Halle shortly before, who was usually kind of a nemesis for him. Federer himself said it was his best Wimbledon in an interview. where he explicitly looked back on each of his titles in 2018.

And "only slightly better than 2019" doesn't mean anything, because 2019 was also great. He lost the final, but he was clearly the better player and he quite easily beat Nadal who had his best off-clay stats in 2019. The 40-15 fiasco shouldn't distract us from the massive performance Federer showed that tournament.

2012 on the other hand looked rather difficult for him. 5 sets against Benneteau (he really was almost out in that match), and the Malisse match wasn't impressive either. I remember back then I always feared a loss while in 2017 I knew he would win without much trouble.

2019 was extremely mental but can't blame him since he had 0 reasons to be confident vs Djokovic.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Cryic. LOL
The Berdych and Raonic matches were great performances.

 

[DSH]

I've been thinking this one over for a bit. Despite being a tournament Federer won without dropping a set, no one actually talks about this Slam run with reference to how good Fed was there. Fed fans don't really talk about it that much (because it wasn't in 2003-2009) and Djokovic fans don't endlessly hype this one up like 2015 (naturally, as Federer didn't lose to Djokovic here). Whenever it even enters the conversation, it's just been mutually agreed that Wimbledon 2017 is "hard to rank because Cilic had blisters". I find this interesting because while Federer had a very weak draw here, Nadal had essentially the same situation happen to him at the French Open earlier that year (won it without dropping a set, competition wasn't good) and yet that one is typically agreed to have been one of his better performances at the French Open. But Wimbledon 2017 remains unrankable.

I'd like to invite some discussion about exactly how good Federer was on grass in 2017. From my eye test, he looked quite sturdy off the baseline as opposed to 2014 and 2015 where he was fairly substandard in that regard and had to rush the net more to increase his chances. This was a trend of Fed's 2017 season in general where he beefed up both his FH and his BH. His serve also looked in tip-top shape here, although he never had any serving masterclasses like in the 2015 SF vs. Murray.

Earlier in the grass season, he had strangely lost to a 39-year-old Tommy Haas on the verge of retirement in Stuttgart. Then he blasted his way through Halle playing some solid tennis and demolished Zverev in the final (which is still one of my favorite ABZ moments btw, along with the Raonic match at the 2019 AO and of course the US Open 2020 disasterclass). At Wimbledon, he beat Dimitrov, Raonic, Berdych, and Cilic, although none of those players were very good in their matches with Fed, at least none that I recall.

So how good was Federer here, if we can possibly leave aside the common answer of "it's hard to rank because of the draw"? Compared to his other versions on grass?

His only decent opponent was Berdych in the semi-finals, which speaks volumes about the quality of opponents the Swiss had in practice and not on paper.
The final, without words; unless you're a fan of the Swiss player, it was one of the worst shows ever seen in a Wimbledon final, even worse than Djokovic vs. Anderson and Djokovic vs. Berrettini.

 

[Noleberic123]

Don't see in which way 2017 was better than 2014/2015.

2017 was magic. Better than 2014 definitely. Whether 2017 is better than 2015 is more debatable but I would it is slightly better.

 

[mike danny]

2017 was magic. Better than 2014 definitely. Whether 2017 is better than 2015 is more debatable but I would it is slightly better.

Fair enough, I guess, but the difference in opponents was stark.