Federer fans, be honest... (part 2)

[ForumMember]

Yes he underperformed.. age did play a big part in fedal & fedovic matchups, but still there are so many losses which were the case when roger defeated himself (particularly against djok).
He let 9 slams slip under his belt by choking on some of the most important tennis points in the history of sports..
Here are all of them, it's upon you to judge

AO 2005 (bullsh*t swiss)
Wim 2008
AO 2009
UO 2009
FO 2006/2011
UO 2011 (bullsh*t swiss)
Wim 2014
UO 2015
Wim 2019 (bullsh*t swiss)

Honestly, lets stop keeping UO 2011 in that list. He wasn't few points or games away from winning title there but a whole match plus one point away. And match too where he wouldn't have been favorite to win.
I know he should have won that SF against Djokovic but considering the phase his rivalry with Nadal was in, he was not likely to win a BO5 grand slam final against Nadal. As a Nadal fan I was wishing so much for Fed to win that match.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Maybe not 25, but 23 definitely.

USO 2009, Wimb 2019, AO 2005 should have been definite wins.

AO 2009 very much so, won 13 more points throughout the first four sets then the meltdown. USO 11 as well, while that was a semi, a clutch Federer doesn't lose to the Nadal the way he played in the final.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Honestly, lets stop keeping UO 2011 in that list. He wasn't few points or games away from winning title there but a whole match plus one point away. And match too where he wouldn't have been favorite to win.
I know he should have won that SF against Djokovic but considering the phase his rivalry with Nadal was in, he was not likely to win a BO5 grand slam final against Nadal. As a Nadal fan I was wishing so much for Fed to win that match.

We're discussing a hypothetically clutch Federer who doesn't keep losing matches from winning positions. That Federer wouldn't be losing 2011 USO final to Nadal, who wasn't playing nearly as well as Djokovic, who Federer should have beaten.

 

[mike danny]

AO 2009 very much so, won 13 more points throughout the first four sets then the meltdown. USO 11 as well, while that was a semi, a clutch Federer doesn't lose to the Nadal the way he played in the final.

The most annoying thing about Fed is his habit to slowly but steadily crush your hope. He is a master of half-comebacks, just not a master of full comebacks.

Yesterday when he pushed the match to a 3rd set, I knew he would lose. He just sucks at performing a comeback against a top player.

 

[Fedforever]

It would have changed the story a lot. Wimb 2019 would have forever shut critics up.

Instead, it reinforced the idea that Fed is a chokemeister.

I don't think the numbers stack up for W19 being a bigger win.

If Nadal had won AO 17 and Fed W19 they would now be on 20-20 rather than 19-20. Djokovic may not get to 20 let alone 21.

The chokemeister thing doesn't really hold up anyway. There are plenty of examples of Fed winning the big points - he just tends to go for broke on them. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Fedforever]

He doesn't have it in him to come back against absolutely great players.

AO 17?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

The most annoying thing about Fed is his habit to slowly but steadily crush your hope. He is a master of half-comebacks, just not a master of full comebacks.

Yesterday when he pushed the match to a 3rd set, I knew he would lose. He just sucks at performing a comeback against a top player.

You should differentiate between having a winning position and not having it. Fred's game was crap this tournament and it's a positive sign for his mentality that he fought and snatched a TB that shouldn't have happened. Getting owned like against Rublev would've been worse.

 

[ForumMember]

We're discussing a hypothetically clutch Federer who doesn't keep losing matches from winning positions. That Federer wouldn't be losing 2011 USO final to Nadal, who wasn't playing nearly as well as Djokovic, who Federer should have beaten.

match ups don't work that way. With that logic Federer should have won FO final too as he had defeated Djokovic to reach there and same Djokovic was toying with Nadal on clay in that season.

 

[mike danny]

I don't think the numbers stack up for W19 being a bigger win.

If Nadal had won AO 17 and Fed W19 they would now be on 20-20 rather than 19-20. Djokovic may not get to 20 let alone 21.

The chokemeister thing doesn't really hold up anyway. There are plenty of examples of Fed winning the big points - he just tends to go for broke on them. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't.

It more often than not fails him against great players than pays off.

Nadal is still guaranteed to break the slam record, so in the end AO 2017 won't end up being that significant.

Wimb 2019 would have been a much bigger win and it's not even close. Victories over Djokodal back to back at nearly 38 would have made it the greatest win for anyone.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

match ups don't work that way. With that logic Federer should have won FO final too as he had defeated Djokovic to reach there and same Djokovic was toying with Nadal on clay in that season.

If actual Federer repeatedly troubled Nadal and mostly failed in the clutch (on the most significant junctions) time and time again, a hypothetically clutch Federer would've won most of those close matches outside of RG, maybe even scored a RG win along the way. What I'm saying is he had the talent to overcome the match-up as well, except on clay.

 

[mike danny]

AO 17?

Exception that solidifies the rule. We were marveled at that because Fed never does it.

And Fed was in control most of the match. He wasn't behind until the 5th set.

 

[Eren]

Nah, a set down is nothing for Nadal at RG.
Let's not forget that Djokovic could have taken that match to the fifth set in the semifinals between him and Federer.

Nadal in 2011 was vulnerable tbh. Never seen him so shaky. That's the worst version of Nadal that Federer had to deal with at RG.

 

[Fedforever]

Nadal is still guaranteed to break the slam record

How guaranteed? Likely to equal it I imagine but winning the FO at 2021 isn't a certainty, even for him.

Plus without AO 17 his head to head at the AO with Rafa would be 0-4.It's one thing for Fed never to have beaten Rafa at Roland Garros, not having beaten him at the Australian would be pretty embarrassing!! AND Nadal would have had the Double Career GS which I think is likely to be a unique achievement for a long while.

 

[beard]

I am not Fed fan, so haven't voted.

On one hand, he underperformed because of 10-20 against main rivals. Age is not issue, just look at his latest results against Nadal, he turned h2h around, so its something else, not age...

On the other hand, he haven't underperformed because he really did his very best to win, but it is not his fault he is just 3rd best among big 3.

 

[mike danny]

How guaranteed? Likely to equal it I imagine but winning the FO at 2021 isn't a certainty, even for him.

Plus without AO 17 his head to head at the AO with Rafa would be 0-4.It's one thing for Fed never to have beaten Rafa at Roland Garros, not having beaten him at the Australian would be pretty embarrassing!! AND Nadal would have had the Double Career GS which I think is likely to be a unique achievement for a long while.

True. One stain avoided.

Too bad he is 0-3 in Wimb finals against Djokovic. This hurts a lot because Wimb is Fed's slam.

 

[Frank Bannister]

Despite the age differences, Fed should have done better against Novak and Rafa.

His Wimb record against Djokovic will remain his biggest stain. Not his record vs Rafa.

He beat Djokovic when it mattered as far as the best example comparing level/age back in 2012. Take that info and know that Federer is the superior player.

 

[mike danny]

He beat Djokovic when it mattered as far as the best example comparing level/age back in 2012. Take that info and know that Federer is the superior player.

Not enough.

He was good enough to win one Wimb final vs Djokovic. He just didn't have it in him to do it. This year proves it.

 

[Pheasant]

Here are the slam titles that I believe that Fed would have won, had he not choked:

2005 AO
2009 USO
2019 Wimbledon

note: 2011 USO final is probably a coin flip with Nadal. This was far from being a Fed win. 2005 Fed would have dismantled Hewitt in the AO final. 2010 at the USO was another choke by Fed. However, Nadal that year played better at the USO than I have ever seen. Fed would have lost in the final that year. That leaves 3 slam titles that Fed choked away, IMHO


However, there’s a flip side to the coin. Federer has gutted out some clutch slam wins too.

2007 Wimbledon
2009 Wimbledon
2017 AO

We remember the losses much more than we remember the wins. Now granted, as Fed gets older, he will get tired more often in the 5th set. He will choke more often.

I see this as a wash. Fed gutted out 3 slam titles and he likely gave away 3 titles.

Quite honestly, what more could we Fed fans hope for? At ages 29-30, Sampras was demolished in the 2000 and 2001 USO finals to Safin and Hewitt. He also ended his Wimbledon streak for good against 19 year old Fed at age 29, then lost the following year in the 2nd round of Wimbledon. Sampras flamed out much earlier than Fed did. Look at Becker, McEnroe, Wilander, Borg, Edberg, and Courier. I don’t think any one of those legends won a slam title in his 30’s.

We Fed fans have been very fortunate. Fed has had to play through the entire prime years of two other legends. Think about that one.. Federer has bagged 8 slam titles since Nadal and Djoker both got on the board. That’s incredible. We Fed fans have been spoiled for years.

20 slam titles. Are you kidding me? That is a ton. After Nadal beat Fed in the 2008 Fed final, I thought that Fed would be lucky to tie Sampras. Here’s why: That year, Djoker straight-setted him at the AO. Nadal destroyed Fed at the FO, and now, had just beaten Fed on his best surface. This left Fed at 12 slam titles. Where were the others coming from? Murray and Djoker improved immensely over the past year and Murray already had a winning record against the declining Fed. Nadal was only 22. I figured that he’d get even better. It looked grim for Fed to top 14.

And yet, some of us are crying that Fed “only” has 20 slam titles.
I will go on record now that if a new favorite player of mine comes along and he “only” wins 20 slam titles, I will be quite happy.

it will always be great to be a Fed fan, even after his slam record is broken.

 

[Frank Bannister]

Not enough.

He was good enough to win one Wimb final vs Djokovic. He just didn't have it in him to do it. This year proves it.

Well, I'm not taking the results of 37/38 year old player to use as a scale lol. You're entitled to your opinion though.

 

[thrust]

Yes he underperformed.. age did play a big part in fedal & fedovic matchups, but still there are so many losses which were the case when roger defeated himself (particularly against djok).
He let 9 slams slip under his belt by choking on some of the most important tennis points in the history of sports..
Here are all of them, it's upon you to judge

AO 2005 (bullsh*t swiss)
Wim 2008
AO 2009
UO 2009
FO 2006/2011
UO 2011 (bullsh*t swiss)
Wim 2014
UO 2015
Wim 2019 (bullsh*t swiss)

NO player wins all the time. Hasn't Roger won enough, do you all want only ONE player to win all the slams?

 

[mike danny]

Well, I'm not taking the results of 37/38 year old player to use as a scale lol. You're entitled to your opinion though.

Age had nothing to do with his failure at Wimb this year.

 

[Frank Bannister]

Age had nothing to do with his failure at Wimb this year.

Not in the moment it didn't. I agree with that much. The difference is that a young Fed wouldn't be in that position. The match would have been over already.

 

[mike danny]

Not in the moment it didn't. I agree with that much. The difference is that a young Fed wouldn't be in that position. The match would have been over already.

We don't know that. Remember AO 2009.

A young Fed with mental block is just as bad.

 

[Fedforever]

Hasn't Roger won enough, do you all want only ONE player to win all the slams?

Yes.

 

[Fedforever]

Here are the slam titles that I believe that Fed would have won, had he not choked:

2005 AO
2009 USO
2019 Wimbledon

note: 2011 USO final is probably a coin flip with Nadal. This was far from being a Fed win. 2005

Fed would have dismantled Hewitt in the AO final. 2010 at the USO was another choke by Fed. However, Nadal that year played better at the USO than I have ever seen. Fed would have lost in the final that year. That leaves 3 slam titles that Fed choked away, IMHO


However, there’s a flip side to the coin. Federer has gutted out some clutch slam wins too.

2007 Wimbledon
2009 Wimbledon
2017 AO

We remember the losses much more than we remember the wins. Now granted, as Fed gets older, he will get tired more often in the 5th set. He will choke more often.

I see this as a wash. Fed gutted out 3 slam titles and he likely gave away 3 titles.

Quite honestly, what more could we Fed fans hope for? At ages 29-30, Sampras was demolished in the 2000 and 2001 USO finals to Safin and Hewitt. He also ended his Wimbledon streak for good against 19 year old Fed at age 29, then lost the following year in the 2nd round of Wimbledon. Sampras flamed our much earlier than Fed did. Look at Becker, McEnroe, Wilander, Borg, Edberg, and Courier. I don’t think any one of those legends won a slam title in his 30’s.

We Fed fans have been very fortunate. Fed has had to play through the entire prime years of two other legends. Think about that one.. Federer has bagged 8 slam titles since Nadal and Djoker both got on the board. That’s incredible. We Fed fans have been spoiled for years.

20 slam titles. Are you kidding me? That is a ton. After Nadal beat Fed in the 2008 Fed final, I thought that Fed would be lucky to tie Sampras. Here’s why: That year, Djoker straight-setted him at the AO. Nadal destroyer Fed at the FO, and now, had just beaten Fed on his best surface. This left Fed at 12 slam titles. Where were the others coming from? Murray and Djoker improved immensely over the past year and Murray already had a winning record against the declining Fed. Nadal was only 22. I figured he’s get even better. It looked grim for Fed to top 14.

And yet, some of us are crying that Fed “only” had 20 slam titles.
I will go on record now that if a new favorite player of mine comes along and he “only” wins 20 slam titles, I will be quite happy.

it will always be great to be a Fed fan, even after his slam record is broken.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Frank Bannister]

We don't know that. Remember AO 2009.

A young Fed with mental block is just as bad.

2019 Djokovic wouldn't have a chance against prime/peak Federer. Straight sets or 4 sets. That's just where I stand on it.

 

[mike danny]

2019 Djokovic wouldn't have a chance against prime/peak Federer. Straight sets or 4 sets. That's just where I stand on it.

Agree with you here.

But it's time to stop transporting Federer to his peak/prime to win a slam match vs Djokovic. He had every chance to do it in the last 7 years.

 

[ABCD]

2019 Djokovic wouldn't have a chance against prime/peak Federer. Straight sets or 4 sets. That's just where I stand on it.

“I always believe that I have improved over the last 10 years, you know, that I’ve not gone backwards, and I’ve been able to win (the Open) 10 years ago, so I always feel as I move forward I am a more complete player, a better player,” Federer said. (December, 2013).


“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practiced for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.” (August, 2015)


Question:

In 2003 you won your first title in Dubai. How much chances would the Federer of 2003 have against the Federer of today?

Answer from Federer:

Not many chances I believe. The game has extremely changed. It is more dynamic, faster and has become somewhat ruthless. The players are more athletic and the material makes the game faster. I myself have become better. In fact, I had to become better because I had new opponents and new challenges. Tennis on this level doesn’t allow you stagnancy. (March, 2019)

 

[Sudacafan]

As far as Fed is concerned, there is no unpredictability in sports. He is extremely predictable after he loses the first set of a slam match against Novak or Rafa.

And when the stars align for him to negate that, he finds a way to blow it.

 

[Frank Bannister]

“I always believe that I have improved over the last 10 years, you know, that I’ve not gone backwards, and I’ve been able to win (the Open) 10 years ago, so I always feel as I move forward I am a more complete player, a better player,” Federer said. (December, 2013).


“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practiced for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.” (August, 2015)


Question:

In 2003 you won your first title in Dubai. How much chances would the Federer of 2003 have against the Federer of today?

Answer from Federer:

Not many chances I believe. The game has extremely changed. It is more dynamic, faster and has become somewhat ruthless. The players are more athletic and the material makes the game faster. I myself have become better. In fact, I had to become better because I had new opponents and new challenges. Tennis on this level doesn’t allow you stagnancy. (March, 2019)

No one gives a Fog.

 

[mike danny]

And when the stars align for him to negate that, he finds a way to blow it.

There is no middle ground with him. Djokovic defeated him with his B game FFS.

 

[DSH]

 

[StrongRule]

The matches Federer should have won and where he really let it slip IMO are:

UO 2009
FO 2011
Wimbledon 2019 (by far)

I guess only you know how exactly Federer "should" have won RG 2011.

 

[KINGROGER]

Yeah definitely underperformed from 2008-2012 and he should’ve grabbed a slam in 2014-2015 too. Too many chokes in matches where he was clearly the better player.

 

[tennisaddict]

Fed may not be the most mentally tough amongst the 3

But he is the best player among the three . The 5-6 year age gap is always forgotten here .

Fed has no business being top 2 / top 3 at age 36-38

 

[clout]

Am I wrong in thinking Wimb 2019 was a bigger loss than AO 2017 was as a win?

Honestly yeah. Despite beating Rafa, the h2h is still quite lopsided in the Spaniards favour and as of right now, it looked like that win was only a delay to the inevitable of Rafa passing his slam total.

However, winning the 2019 Wimbledon would’ve sealed the deal on the GOAT debate imo as the “Fed struggles to beat his rivals in big matches” stigma would have been defeated as well. Unfortunately for Fed, it just wasn’t meant to be.

 

[NFN]

Fed may not be the most mentally tough amongst the 3

But he is the best player among the three . The 5-6 year age gap is always forgotten here .

Fed has no business being top 2 / top 3 at age 36-38

No the age gap is not forgot it has been spammed non stop. And the age gap has a been a advantage to Federer and a disadvantage.

 

[clout]

Fed may not be the most mentally tough amongst the 3

But he is the best player among the three . The 5-6 year age gap is always forgotten here .

Fed has no business being top 2 / top 3 at age 36-38

I believe uncle Toni once told Rafa straight up that Federer is so much better than him at tennis talent-wise that the only hope you got against him is to play like you want it more than him. Guess that paid its dividends

 

[ForehandRF]

I am not Fed fan, so haven't voted.

On one hand, he underperformed because of 10-20 against main rivals. Age is not issue, just look at his latest results against Nadal, he turned h2h around, so its something else, not age...

On the other hand, he haven't underperformed because he really did his very best to win, but it is not his fault he is just 3rd best among big 3.

The last time I verified is not Fed who is third in the slam race.Comeback to me when both Djokovic and Nadal break Federer's slam record and then we will talk about Fed as the 3rd best.Otherwise it's BS from your part and you are dishonest.The greatness of a player is measured in titles so H2H won't compensate the lack of slams.

 

[ForehandRF]

No the age gap is not forgot it has been spammed non stop. And the age gap has a been a advantage to Federer and a disadvantage.

The rival fanbases also use the age as an excuse "baby Nadal, baby Djokovic ".

 

[Eren]

I guess only you know how exactly Federer "should" have won RG 2011.

I could have mentioned AO '09.

Can you mention any version of Nadal that Federer had to face at RG which was so shaky as in 2011 (even Isner took him to five sets that year).

 

[StrongRule]

I could have mentioned AO '09.

Can you mention any version of Nadal that Federer had to face at RG which was so shaky as in 2011 (even Isner took him to five sets that year).

Nadal was very vulnerable that year, but why does it mean Federer "should" have beaten him? It was still not anything close to 2015 Nadal, you know.

 

[Eren]

Nadal was very vulnerable that year, but why does it mean Federer "should" have beaten him? It was still not anything close to 2015 Nadal, you know.

Yes, but I guess that was Fed's best chance to beat him at RG. Perhaps I should have stated it more clear. IMO, Federer should have won the first set (since Nadal was almost handing it to him by making UEs in the first few games which got Federer the break). After winning the first set, anything would have been possible.

I agree though, it was no easy task and Nadal 2011 was far and far better than Nadal 2015/2016........ but I get your point as well lol, he lost 6-1 in the 4th set.

 

[beard]

The last time I verified is not Fed who is third in the slam race.Comeback to me when both Djokovic and Nadal break Federer's slam record and then we will talk about Fed as the 3rd best.Otherwise it's BS from your part and you are dishonest.The greatness of a player is measured in titles so H2H won't compensate the lack of slams.

H2H shows who is 3rd wheel, and its not that they played 3 matches, but 30....10/20 shows who is who... Forget those titles agains Nalbadians and Hewitts and fcn Gonzaless...

Anyway, very soon he will be second wheel in slams, and some more time third wheel... Even Fed realise that and he is veeeery nervous about it...

 

[StrongRule]

Yes, but I guess that was Fed's best chance to beat him at RG. Perhaps I should have stated it more clear. IMO, Federer should have won the first set (since Nadal was almost handing it to him by making UEs in the first few games which got Federer the break). After winning the first set, anything would have been possible.

I agree though, it was no easy task and Nadal 2011 was far and far better than Nadal 2015/2016........ but I get your point as well lol, he lost 6-1 in the 4th set.

Yes, Federer lost the first set from 5-2 up. On the other hand Nadal also lost the third set after being 4-2 up and for some reason nobody ever mentions that. Also, in the second set Nadal missed a few break leads (and a few setpoints on serve), though he still got it done in a tie break. Both were getting tight when they had a lead.

 

[ForehandRF]

H2H shows who is 3rd wheel, and its not that they played 3 matches, but 30....10/20 shows who is who... Forget those titles agains Nalbadians and Hewitts and fcn Gonzaless...

Anyway, very soon he will be second wheel in slams, and some more time third wheel... Even Fed realise that and he is veeeery nervous about it...

Well, I won't start an argument but let's agree to disagree.

For the bolded part, are you sure about that ? It remains to be seen I would say because, you know, it's not like death and taxes.

 

[The Fedfather]

He absolutely underperformed in some Slams based on his skills and ability, but he also performed better than can be expected of any athlete at an advanced age. So Federer only underperformed by his standards, and that's not the same as underperforming generally.

 

[ForehandRF]

I don't think the numbers stack up for W19 being a bigger win.

If Nadal had won AO 17 and Fed W19 they would now be on 20-20 rather than 19-20. Djokovic may not get to 20 let alone 21.

The chokemeister thing doesn't really hold up anyway. There are plenty of examples of Fed winning the big points - he just tends to go for broke on them. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't.

Fed would be sitting at 17 slams right now had he lost that AO final.Can't see him winnig another slam after losing to Rafa once more.

 

[mike danny]

No the age gap is not forgot it has been spammed non stop. And the age gap has a been a advantage to Federer and a disadvantage.

It has been more of a disadvantage than an advantage.

 

[tennisaddict]

Federer is showing by example how to excel to 2-3 generations younger than him that includes everyone from Nadal/Djokovic to Thiem/Cilic /Stan/Murray to Tsitsipas/Medvedev / Zverev

Fed is the mould and the others are impressions from it