Federer fans, be honest...

Is Federer to blame?


  • Total voters
    95
  • This poll will close: .
#52
What all of you don't understand is Federer has 2 ATGs 5/6 years his junior chasing him. Nadal and Djokovic have no one. They are benefiting tremendously from this and hence their slam count is highly inflated.
Inflated? Please, you can only beat the guy across the net. Whatever you end up with is what you did and it doesn't matter who you played or who came after you, or anything else.
 
#56
The slam race is tightening up now. Perhaps it's closer than you initially thought it might ever be. Federer still sits 2 slams in front of Nadal, and 5 in front of Djokovic. Both might not equal or surpass him, but my question to y'all is is Federer in part to blame for it being so close? I know he is 5-6 years older than Djokodal which gives him a disadvantage in the physical department for some years now, but are you satisfied that he did enough in the position he's been in, or are you slightly disappointed that he wasn't able to put up more of a fight in the past 9 years or so? Answer honestly.

Edit: Let's keep it civil. Federer fans only please.
This year Nadal stopped Thiem at age 33, so I fail to see why Federer did not stop Djokovic at Wimbledon at age 33 (Wimbledon 2014 final). You can say "Djokovic is an ATG, Thiem isn't", but without Nadal Thiem already would have 3 RG titles and would be considered an ATG on clay, in the same tier of Kuerten/Lendl. If Nadal keeps stopping Thiem the next 3/4 years at RG, it will mean Thiem would have won 6 or more RG titles without Nadal.
 
#57
It is more fruitful to have weaker era when you are in your early 30’s

When at your physical peak it doesn’t matter as much - Fed 2004-07, Djoker 2014-16
Doesn't make any sense. When you are in early 30s you think of retirement, you probably have family, but when you are in early 20s.... even lost gen players could make a career. Talking about pre Fed time.
 
#58
Doesn't make any sense. When you are in early 30s you think of retirement, you probably have family, but when you are in early 20s.... even lost gen players could make a career. Talking about pre Fed time.
That is the point really

You don’t see early 30’s thinking about retirement now because next gen is not pushing them out

Look at Cilic , Stan and Ferrer
 
#59
6. Lost to no names at his best slams. Nadal and Djokovic didn't lose to no names at RG and AO.
I agreed with your entire post except that part. What 'no names' did Fed lose to at Wimbledon besides Stakhovsky? Unless you're talking about Berdych/Tsonga/Raonic type players. But Novak has losses at Australia to Istomin/Chung/Roddick/Tsonga, so that more than evens out. Nadal has the one loss to Soderling, who is on that Berdych/Tsonga level and would've likely had another loss to a no name if he hadn't withdrawn in 2016.

Obviously he has more bad losses in NY, but they were all after 30 and after the surface had been slowed down to such a degree that it was unrecognizable from the tournament he first won in 04.
 
#61
What all of you don't understand is Federer has 2 ATGs 5/6 years his junior chasing him. Nadal and Djokovic have no one. They are benefiting tremendously from this and hence their slam count is highly inflated.
13 of Federers majors were before Nadal and Djokovic were 21...Nadal and djokovic there whole career have had each other to deal with plus peak federer until around 2012.

Your argument has relegated Federer to no.3.
 
#63
You cared enough about Djokovic's record against Roddick and you were foaming at the mouth upon Nadal's record against Djokovic being mentioned.
Lmao Roddick can have his H2H record over Djokovic. Oh well. But Nadal and Djokovic have the H2H over Federer and as long as that stings you right up the arse I'm more than happy cuz I know that one really gets the Federer fans mad.

As for your other crappy post you guys deserve it given all you Federer fans have done is crap on Nadal since he won #18. Stay mad.
 
#66
Imagine if Raonic, Dimitrov or Nishikori actually were ATGs, and had won 4 or 5 slams each by now. Djokovic and Nadal would be sitting at about 10 slams a piece which is commiserate with their true tennis skill level.
Imagine the nice head-start Fed could build if he had 2003 - 2007 all to himself before the other two matured on all surfaces
 
#68
Lmao Roddick can have his H2H record over Djokovic. Oh well. But Nadal and Djokovic have the H2H over Federer and as long as that stings you right up the arse I'm more than happy cuz I know that one really gets the Federer fans mad.

As for your other crappy post you guys deserve it given all you Federer fans have done is crap on Nadal since he won #18. Stay mad.
I don't think there are any Fed fans that are mad about the Djokovic H2h. Federer led the H2h until he was 34. It's hilarious how Djokovic and Nadal fans band together on this. It's very telling.
 
#71
Few things in his career can top this:



:cool:
Agreed!

If we look at his career as a whole, and each of his achievements in context (i.e. his previous achievements are possible bc of his age/etc., so it's more possible, while AO17 is 'much less' possible bc of his age/injury-return/etc.), I might have to rate this AO17 win as his greatest. It's not necessarily bc it's a win (he did win 17 before that, no?), but it's the circumstances surrounding the way he did it. If we are to find a better achievement of his, it will have to come from his coming days, not his past.
 
#73
Lmao Roddick can have his H2H record over Djokovic. Oh well. But Nadal and Djokovic have the H2H over Federer and as long as that stings you right up the arse I'm more than happy cuz I know that one really gets the Federer fans mad.

As for your other crappy post you guys deserve it given all you Federer fans have done is crap on Nadal since he won #18. Stay mad.
VB started trashing Fed before the RG had even started so zip it. Fed has the slam record, not to mention other important things over dear Nadal so we are pretty happy. It’s been more than a decade since your compatriots started the h2h debate and now it’s just irksome that you people still need to go back to it every time. Really, what else do you have for arguing? Not much.
 
#76
To me, the biggest knock on Federer's legacy is that he was beaten at his best slam by a rival on his worst surface twice. He just barely won in 2009. 2008 through 2016 for Federer at Wimbledon made me raise my eyebrows a lot. But especially 2008 through 2010. It also took Federer 4.5 years to reach the semis of a slam (and ultimately win one). But that is mainly because the field was much stronger from 1999 through 2003. There's no question the guy is an ATG. His run from 2004 through 2007 was pretty sickening. Incredible longevity. But he clearly was prevented from 2008 forward from making mincemeat of the field. His rivals came into their own and the field got stronger.

If Federer/Djokovic/Nadal were the same age, they'd probably have very equivalent (and lower) slam counts.
 
#79
If I go back to some specific moments, sure, there were quite a few disappointing matches and there were losses against Nadal and Djokovic that hurt. Still, the mental aspect of it, Federer often struggling under the pressure in his head, they are an important part of his journey and my experience as a fan. It's amazing to see your favorite win but victories that come after losses, the ones that were long awaited are always that much sweeter. I also think Federer's game and character were influenced by having to fight really hard to win, to be the best. It gave us the 5th set of the AO 2017 believe.

To sum up, Federer had the potential to win more with the level he sustained during a big part of that period. However, looking at what Roger achieved in the past decade, while losing his edge as he got older, and how he achieved it, I'm not even close to being disappointed, there's only admiration.
Such an excellent post! You said everything I wanted to say

It’s what it is. As a Fed fan I’ve completely gotten over the slam race orbGOAT debate. It really doesn’t matter if both of Nadal and Djoker pass him in slam counts. My greatness book isn’t defined by these numbers. You can’t choose your age, your era, your competition. Think about for it for a moment for Berdychm Tsonga and Ferrers alike, are they worse players than Tsitsipas/Zeverv/ Thiem? I doubt. But they will most likely achieve less wins and titles some of these next gens will because the era and competitions they played in. At the end of the day fans and players themselves just have to make sense of it and focus on the incredible careers they’ve had. Same goes to Fed. I feel not many true Fed fans are glory hunters and will abandon him as soon as the slam count is surpassed. I’m definitely not one of those. Won’t even be disappointed
 
#80
Get a clue, man.

Nadal and Djokovic became who they are because of Federer.

The bar was raised so high that they had no choice but to fashion their games accordingly.

That eluded you somehow?
Actually, I'd say it's the other way around. Federer has become who he is because of Nadal/Djokovic/Murray. They all turned Federer into a better server, forced him to be a better returner, forced him to improve his backhand, and even forced him to change his racquet. In my opinion, 2010 through 2016 was a serious period where Federer learned/adjusted/learned/adjusted/learned/adjusted. He saw lots of changes in game approach. Lots of changes to his body. Coaching changes. And of course, there was an injury in there.

It doesn't take anything away from him. The reality is, he is at the tip-top of Open Era ATGs. He's 37 and he's still going. I sincerely hope he keeps it up.
 
#83
Too true.

Blistering the field was never his thing until they came along.

As a reminder, Federer went 92-5 in 2006.

Minus Nadal and Murray, Federer would have gone undefeated for an entire season.

Next. :)
How are the guys who came later raised the bar of the sport? That’s like saying it’s because of Fed Kuerten became an excellent player. That guy’s logic is completely absent.
 
#84
13 of Federers majors were before Nadal and Djokovic were 21...Nadal and djokovic there whole career have had each other to deal with plus peak federer until around 2012.

Your argument has relegated Federer to no.3.
Ridiculous. It's irrelevant what age they were. They are ATGs. Nadal had already won a slam by 19. The point which eludes you is that after 2009 when Fed was around 28 year old, Nadal and Djokovic rose to power together. Fed declined and they started taking away slams from Fed. Djokodal are now almost 33 and there NO ONE taking away slams from them. You can't be this obtuse can you?
 
#85
Imagine the nice head-start Fed could build if he had 2003 - 2007 all to himself before the other two matured on all surfaces
Nadal matured on all surface by 2008, he made semi's of HC slams. You can't have it both ways. Nadal was beating Fed on HC by 2004, so he was clearly mature. Djokovic made USO final in 2007, mature. Fed didn't really have much of a head start. It's Djokodal who is cleaning up now with no one else behind them willing to step it up.
 
#87
Nadal matured on all surface by 2008, he made semi's of HC slams. You can't have it both ways. Nadal was beating Fed on HC by 2004, so he was clearly mature. Djokovic made USO final in 2007, mature. Fed didn't really have much of a head start. It's Djokodal who is cleaning up now with no one else behind them willing to step it up.
There is a big difference between winning a M1000 and a slam. Djoker has Nadal and Federer to contend with which he has had his entire career.
 
#89
Ridiculous. It's irrelevant what age they were. They are ATGs. Nadal had already won a slam by 19. The point which eludes you is that after 2009 when Fed was around 28 year old, Nadal and Djokovic rose to power together. Fed declined and they started taking away slams from Fed. Djokodal are now almost 33 and there NO ONE taking away slams from them. You can't be this obtuse can you?
Djokodal isn't one player. It's two all time great players, having to contend with each other, consistently. And we see what happenes when one of them is in a low (Nole slam). Fed would have won 4 in a row as well if not for Rafa, as we know well.
 
#90
Nadal matured on all surface by 2008, he made semi's of HC slams. You can't have it both ways. Nadal was beating Fed on HC by 2004, so he was clearly mature. Djokovic made USO final in 2007, mature. Fed didn't really have much of a head start. It's Djokodal who is cleaning up now with no one else behind them willing to step it up.
He clearly wasn't, since he didn't have the consistency on the surface at all. Same with Novak until 2011.
 
#94
No, because I know that 30+ year old Nadal and Djokovic wouldn’t do better against peak or prime Federer than he did against them.

In fact they would do probably much worse.
20 year old Rafito took peak Fed to 5 sets at Wimby 2007, even after having a ****ty schedule; same with Wimby 2008
whachoo talkin bout

If anything, 35-37 year old Fed is higher level on hard courts and grass than 30-33 year old Rafa
 
Last edited:
#97
There is a big difference between winning a M1000 and a slam. Djoker has Nadal and Federer to contend with which he has had his entire career.
LOL!

Djokodal isn't one player. It's two all time great players, having to contend with each other, consistently.
This is a better description of Fedal. From 2005 - 2010 (a mere 6-year period), they were the top-2 players (four YE#1s for Federer, two for Nadal), won 21 of 24 slams, won 31 Masters, and faced each other in 18 finals.

He clearly wasn't, since he didn't have the consistency on the surface at all.
Nadal won the USO, his lone AO title, and 5 of his 9 HC Masters (including his lone indoor hard title, won in a BO5 final) all before 2010. To add, he also won his two Wimbledon titles before 2010.
 
Top