Federer's career performance at the Aussie Open

Fedeonic

Hall of Fame
#1
After a monumental 20th Grand Slam from Federer, he got his 6th Australian Open, but let's take a look of his career at the 1st major of the year:
-6 titles.
-7 finals overall.
-14 semifinals overall (only lost to Safin, Djokovic (x3), Nadal (x2) and Murray, all posible Hall of Famers).
-94 match wins overall.
-Never lost before the 3rd round in 19 appearances.

Now the question is, has Federer overachieved or underachieved at the Aus Open?
 
Last edited:
#2
After the monumental 18th Slam from Federer, he got his 5th Australian Open, but let's take a look of his career at the 1st major of the year:
-5 titles
-6 finals
-13 semifinals (only lost to Safin, Djokovic (x3), Nadal (x2) and Murray, all posible Hall of Famers)
-87 match wins
-Never lost before the 3rd round in 18 appearances.

Now the question is, has Federer overachieved or underachieved at the Aus Open?
If he's won 5/11 finals, he's pretty much on par for the course.
 
#4
Huh? Is Federer 11-13 in semis while he's appeared in 18 AOs? I've edited it to avoid any confusion. Althought a 5-6 finals records is way better than a 2-5 record.
I just mean 5/11 is as close to 50% as one can get, and one should expect about a 50% winrate in any match, particularly against opponents that consistently reach finals.
 

Fedeonic

Hall of Fame
#5
I just mean 5/11 is as close to 50% as one can get, and one should expect about a 50% winrate in any match, particularly against opponents that consistently reach finals.
True to that, but Federer record in AO finals is actually his best finals rate conversion, just look his finals rate conversion in each of the 4 Grand Slams:
Australian Open: 5-1 (83%)
Roland Garros: 1-4 (20%)
Wimbledon: 7-3 (70%)
US Open: 5-2 (71%)

So Fed is not 5-6 at AO finals, he's actually 5-1 in AO finals, but he's 6-7 at AO semis, so i give you that Fed is "on par for the course" in the semis.
 
#6
True to that, but Federer record in AO finals is actually his best finals rate conversion, just look his finals rate conversion in each of the 4 Grand Slams:
Australian Open: 5-1 (83%)
Roland Garros: 1-4 (20%)
Wimbledon: 7-3 (70%)
US Open: 5-2 (71%)

So Fed is not 5-6 at AO finals, he's actually 5-1 in AO finals, but he's 6-7 at AO semis, so i give you that Fed is "on par for the course" in the semis.
Yeah, didn't notice what you meant. Frankly, it's extremely humbling to see someone who can convert an average of 74% of his finals outside of clay. The guy is one of the greatest players of the AO, right behind Emerson and Djokovic.
 
#10
I would hasten to say if the courts weren't changed from RA to Plexi he would be the GOAT of the Aussie Open as well..
Doubt it
Rebound Ace was an erratic Med/Slow pace high bouncing surface.
Plexi cushion is consistent Med pace, average bounce surface.
I don't see speeding up a surface and reducing the bounce would hinder Federer. The change move the surface away from Nadal / Djokovic towards Djokovic / Federer / Murray.
 
#12
Doubt it
Rebound Ace was an erratic Med/Slow pace high bouncing surface.
Plexi cushion is consistent Med pace, average bounce surface.
I don't see speeding up a surface and reducing the bounce would hinder Federer. The change move the surface away from Nadal / Djokovic towards Djokovic / Federer / Murray.
I think if they had kept rebound ace Djokovic would've won only 4+ AO and I think Fed would be on 6+ imo.
 
#13
Had he not had mono, he would have won the '08 AO instead of Novak. That loss still stings to me. Fed was not quite peak anymore by 2008, but he still should have beaten Novak easily at that point in their respective careers.

I think he has underachieved.
 
#14
Had he not had mono, he would have won the '08 AO instead of Novak. That loss still stings to me. Fed was not quite peak anymore by 2008, but he still should have beaten Novak easily at that point in their respective careers.

I think he has underachieved.
Mono had to be the reason for exiting his peak as well. His 07 WTF performance was absolutely peak then all of a sudden has that terrible 08 AO and was never quite the same.
 
#15
Mono had to be the reason for exiting his peak as well. His 07 WTF performance was absolutely peak then all of a sudden has that terrible 08 AO and was never quite the same.
So like Nadal, Federer can't lose when playing well, it has to be some other reason?! He straight setted Blake and Berdych before that match which is a huge sign off being in a good form. What else would Djokovic had to do in order to show you people that he is on the same level with Fedal. After that he won Indian Wells and Rome ...
 
#16
So like Nadal, Federer can't lose when playing well, it has to be some other reason?! He straight setted Blake and Berdych before that match which is a huge sign off being in a good form. What else would Djokovic had to do in order to show you people that he is on the same level with Fedal. After that he won Indian Wells and Rome ...
Fed was not good at all against Blake, his footwork was looking very sluggish, pulled out the sets at the end.

That being said, Djokovic was tremendous at that AO, probably one of his 2 best performances at the tournament so he may well have taken Fed out if Federer had been in full form, but it would have been a tight match.
 
#17
So like Nadal, Federer can't lose when playing well, it has to be some other reason?! He straight setted Blake and Berdych before that match which is a huge sign off being in a good form. What else would Djokovic had to do in order to show you people that he is on the same level with Fedal. After that he won Indian Wells and Rome ...
Ye, but there's no way Djokovic beats prime Fed in 3 straight sets. I'm not saying he couldn't beat prime Fed, but surely not that easily. His victory was far too simple to not suggest something was wrong with Fed.
 
#18
A good part of his losses were to amazing players but it's tough to call 5 AOs an underachievement.

Personally I struggle to call the most successful player an underachiever in anything though, since he has left a big mark pretty much everywhere.
 
#21
So like Nadal, Federer can't lose when playing well, it has to be some other reason?! He straight setted Blake and Berdych before that match which is a huge sign off being in a good form. What else would Djokovic had to do in order to show you people that he is on the same level with Fedal. After that he won Indian Wells and Rome ...
07 AO Fed would've won that match in 4 sets.
 
#24
I'd say Wimbledon is his best 'peak' results followed by US Open 2nd. AO his most consistent. After all, the last US Open he won was 2008 and only 1 Wimbledon title this decade.

He actually has won 2 AOs this decade compared to only 1 Wimbledon, 0 FO/USO.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#25
I'd say Wimbledon is his best 'peak' results followed by US Open 2nd. AO his most consistent. After all, the last US Open he won was 2008 and only 1 Wimbledon title this decade.

He actually has won 2 AOs this decade compared to only 1 Wimbledon, 0 FO/USO.
I was talking more about the 2 HC slams. Obviously his best tennis comes at Wimb usually.

But between AO and USO, I think at the USO Federer has a much higher peak and can beat absolutely anybody when playing close to his best.
 
#26
So like Nadal, Federer can't lose when playing well, it has to be some other reason?! He straight setted Blake and Berdych before that match which is a huge sign off being in a good form. What else would Djokovic had to do in order to show you people that he is on the same level with Fedal. After that he won Indian Wells and Rome ...
When Djokovic wins his 18th Major and is ranked #1 for 300+ weeks total, then I'll say he's on the same level as Federer. At 13 Majors I might say he's on the same level as Nadal. This is an overall assessment.

I will concede that he has the strongest 1-year period in the Open Era since Laver, when he won the 4 Majors in a row ending at the FO 2016. Many argue his 2015 year was the greatest ever, but I rate Federer's 2006 as stronger (just my opinion).

If we're talking about peak level of play, that's very subjective and impossible to resolve.
 
#27
I will concede that he has the strongest 1-year period in the Open Era since Laver, when he won the 4 Majors in a row ending at the FO 2016. Many argue his 2015 year was the greatest ever, but I rate Federer's 2006 as stronger (just my opinion).

If we're talking about peak level of play, that's very subjective and impossible to resolve.
i would rate lavers 1967 ahead of his 1969

1. laver 1967
2. laver 1969
3. Macenroe 1984
4. Federer 2005
5. Djokovic 2011
6. Connors 1974/ djokovic 2015/ Federer 2006
7. nadal 2008
 
#28
i would rate lavers 1967 ahead of his 1969

1. laver 1967
2. laver 1969
3. Macenroe 1984
4. Federer 2005
5. Djokovic 2011
6. Connors 1974/ djokovic 2015/ Federer 2006
7. nadal 2008
I always find it interesting when people put Federer's 2005 above his 2004, 2006 and 2007 on I feel mostly subjective evaluations (although is it possible he earned more points in 2005 than in those other years?). And I don't see putting Nadal's 2008 over his 2010.
 
#29
I always find it interesting when people put Federer's 2005 above his 2004, 2006 and 2007 on I feel mostly subjective evaluations (although is it possible he earned more points in 2005 than in those other years?). And I don't see putting Nadal's 2008 over his 2010.

i understand your point and its all subjective
Nadal faced a strong Federer in 2008
nadal was so dominant at rg in 2008, i can't imagine anyone beating him... except maybe the guy who had 3 years where he was more dominant at RG

I don't know where to place borg's years

if he wins any of the us opens between 78-80 he completes the calendar GS easily at the AO and probably becomes goat
 

pame

Hall of Fame
#30
So like Nadal, Federer can't lose when playing well, it has to be some other reason?! He straight setted Blake and Berdych before that match which is a huge sign off being in a good form. What else would Djokovic had to do in order to show you people that he is on the same level with Fedal. After that he won Indian Wells and Rome ...
I'm sure you accidentally overlooked the strange match against Tipsarevic - if that was a sign of being in good form, I'm a monkey's uncle.
 
#31
I'm sure you accidentally overlooked the strange match against Tipsarevic - if that was a sign of being in good form, I'm a monkey's uncle.
Tipsarevic is a future top 10 player.

Wimbledon 12 - 5 sets vs Benneteau - after that beats Djokovic-Murray
US 08 - 5 sets vs Andreev - after that beats Djokovic-Murray
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#32
Tipsarevic is a future top 10 player.

Wimbledon 12 - 5 sets vs Benneteau - after that beats Djokovic-Murray
US 08 - 5 sets vs Andreev - after that beats Djokovic-Murray
Except Tipsarevic has been beaten decisevely by Federer ever since, without winning a set.

Neither Benneateau nor Andreev pushed Federerto a 10-8 5th set. That alone makes me question Fed's form at 2008 AO. He needed to win 10-8 in the 5th against a guy who has bent over for him ever since.
 
#33
Except Tipsarevic has been beaten decisevely by Federer ever since, without winning a set.

Neither Benneateau nor Andreev pushed Federerto a 10-8 5th set. That alone makes me question Fed's form at 2008 AO. He needed to win 10-8 in the 5th against a guy who has bent over for him ever since.
Even worse, without breaking Fed's serve. After AO 2008, Tipsy has managed to only get about 2 breakpoints against the Fed serve (in all their matches combined!), none of which he converted.
 
#35
Except Tipsarevic has been beaten decisevely by Federer ever since, without winning a set.

Neither Benneateau nor Andreev pushed Federerto a 10-8 5th set. That alone makes me question Fed's form at 2008 AO. He needed to win 10-8 in the 5th against a guy who has bent over for him ever since.
Federer is 21-3 against Roddick, does this means that Andy is not a worthy player or that Fed was injuried everytime he lost to him?! You can always make excuses. Maybe Fed had mono and because of that he lost but also "maybe" he won some matches where his opponent was injuried or not feeling well. Luck works in both ways and for a 20 years of career you can be sure that Federer earned all of his success one way or another! Enjoy his star moments and accept the defeats, the later probably make him stronger!
 
#36
Federer is 21-3 against Roddick, does this means that Andy is not a worthy player or that Fed was injuried everytime he lost to him?! You can always make excuses. Maybe Fed had mono and because of that he lost but also "maybe" he won some matches where his opponent was injuried or not feeling well. Luck works in both ways and for a 20 years of career you can be sure that Federer earned all of his success one way or another! Enjoy his star moments and accept the defeats, the later probably make him stronger!
Roddick pushed Federer many times and the h2h was pretty decent post 2007 when Federer's key matchup advantages declined. Tipsy got destroyed every time but that one.
 
Top