Has Federer undeachieved on slams after 2010 Australian Open?

[beard]

Your words contradict themselves. How can he be the better player if he lost so many times? Ranking is misleading. Form does not always reflect ranking.

Well, you answered yourself... Ranking means better, in most cases, it exclude subjectivity and eye test of form... Off course, form don't always reflect ranking, but there isn't better way, ask atp which is using that system for more than 50 years...

 

[Nadal_King]

Post AO2010
Non clay slams
Roger-4
Rafa- 5
Since roger is goat/Co goat at non clay surfaces and roger age at Ao2010 was 28 so it wasn't like he was too old so definitely he has underperformed a bit.

 

[mike danny]

It depends what age you're talking about. It's clearly too early to predict that Nadal or Djokovic will match Federer at 37 or 38, although it's possible. It's not likely that they will match him at 35, although I give Djokovic a fighting chance. It's inarguable that Federer at 30 was better than they were (Federer: August 2011 through August 2012; Djokovic May 2017 through May 2018; Nadal June 2016 through June 2017, but before he won RG 2017). But it's inarguable that Federer was worse at 31 than they were (Federer: August 2012 through August 2013; Djokovic May 2018 through May 2019; Nadal June 2017 including RG 2017 through June 2018). Those two age-related categories are not at all close: Federer was obviously the best at 30 and obviously the worst at 31. I think Federer was pretty clearly the weakest at 32 but I suppose an argument could be made about competition that might muddy it somewhat. No competition-related arguments will muddy it at 30 or 31, in my view. Not good faith ones. And Djokovic isn't 33 yet, so there's no point talking about that.

I don't really take age literally though like yiu do.

Whether you are 31 exactly or one month away from 31 is no difference. I generally refer to the seasons when they turned those respective ages.

 

[NatF]

LOL, I don't know if you're being serious Roddick is anything but 1-dimensional. That was just to catalyze some discussions. The rest of my post was serious.

Never been more sarcastic in my life

 

[CYGS]

For someone with his talent, he has overachieved for his entire life.

 

[kevaninho]

No, actually he has overachieved at an ubelieavable rate. If you had told somone at Federer`s peak around 07 that he would go on winning slams, reaching finals and basically making almost every slam semi final until the year 2020 people would have called you crazy. The fact that he was able to extend his career like twas totally unheard of before hom. Remember that basically all great ülayers before him fell of a cliff after turning 30, most of them actually earlier.

What are you talking about? he hasn't even made slam semi finals, in over half, that hes competed in, in the last 7 years.

That's hardly 'basically making almost every slam final until 2020' .

 

[GuyForget]

if any had any mental strength, he might have won US10, US11, W14 and W19 and made final of W18

 

[helterskelter]

I don't really take age literally though like yiu do.

Whether you are 31 exactly or one month away from 31 is no difference. I generally refer to the seasons when they turned those respective ages.

Fine, let's talk by calendar year. That makes it all the clearer in one case:

1. Federer in 2013 was clearly worse than Nadal in 2018 or Djokovic in 2019. This is beyond quibbling about the state of the field. I hope you agree with this.
2. Federer in 2014 was I think worse than Nadal in 2019 or than Djokovic has started 2020, but this is more debatable, and I take it is what you were referring to.
3. Federer in 2012 was perhaps on a par with Nadal in 2017 or Djokovic in 2018.

 

[mike danny]

Fine, let's talk by calendar year. That makes it all the clearer in one case:

1. Federer in 2013 was clearly worse than Nadal in 2018 or Djokovic in 2019. This is beyond quibbling about the state of the field. I hope you agree with this.
2. Federer in 2014 was I think worse than Nadal in 2019 or than Djokovic has started 2020, but this is more debatable, and I take it is what you were referring to.
3. Federer in 2012 was perhaps on a par with Nadal in 2017 or Djokovic in 2018.

2014 Fed and 2019 Rafa were about on par at the AO. Fed was better at Wimb, while Rafa was better at the USO and RG. Rafa was a bit better, but Fed didn't win a slam because he had Djokovic instead of Thiem or Medvedev.

 

[NatF]

Fine, let's talk by calendar year. That makes it all the clearer in one case:

1. Federer in 2013 was clearly worse than Nadal in 2018 or Djokovic in 2019. This is beyond quibbling about the state of the field. I hope you agree with this.
2. Federer in 2014 was I think worse than Nadal in 2019 or than Djokovic has started 2020, but this is more debatable, and I take it is what you were referring to.
3. Federer in 2012 was perhaps on a par with Nadal in 2017 or Djokovic in 2018.

2012 Fed > 2017 Nads and 2018 Djok IMO

Would call 2014 Fed about on par with 2019 Nadal, Fed better at 2/4 majors and stronger at the YEC.

 

[StrongRule]

2012 Fed > 2017 Nads and 2018 Djok IMO

Would call 2014 Fed about on par with 2019 Nadal, Fed better at 2/4 majors and stronger at the YEC.

Lol, what is this nonsense?

 

[NatF]

Lol, what is this nonsense?

Fed at the AO and Wimby, Nadal at the FO and USO. Fed better at the YEC as well.

 

[helterskelter]

2012 Fed > 2017 Nads and 2018 Djok IMO

Would call 2014 Fed about on par with 2019 Nadal, Fed better at 2/4 majors and stronger at the YEC.

I disagree on both judgments, but there's no real way to resolve it. For what it's worth, I would say:

2012 Federer = 2018 Djokovic = 2017 Nadal. If I had to make a call, I would reluctantly vote 2017 Nadal the best, but it's close enough to be unable to make a decision without seeing them play against each other.

I would put 2019 Nadal ahead of 2014 Federer. I think he was better at all the majors other than Wimbledon. At best, I could accept that they were maybe on a par in Australia.

Anyway, my main point is that aging isn't linear.

 

[helterskelter]

2014 Fed and 2019 Rafa were about on par at the AO. Fed was better at Wimb, while Rafa was better at the USO and RG. Rafa was a bit better, but Fed didn't win a slam because he had Djokovic instead of Thiem or Medvedev.

You have a better claim for that argument in 2015, in my opinion. In 2014, Federer lost to Cilic at the US Open and almost lost to Monfils, so he wasn't stopped only by Djokovic and Nadal. Anyway, overall I think 2019 Nadal better than 2014 Federer. No doubt, you disagree, which is fine.

 

[StrongRule]

Fed at the AO and Wimby, Nadal at the FO and USO. Fed better at the YEC as well.

Not sure why Federer in AO 2014 was better than Nadal in AO 2019. Both were bad in the matches they lost.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

Never been more sarcastic in my life

LOL, thought so But your response was definitely classy

 

[mike danny]

You have a better claim for that argument in 2015, in my opinion. In 2014, Federer lost to Cilic at the US Open and almost lost to Monfils, so he wasn't stopped only by Djokovic and Nadal. Anyway, overall I think 2019 Nadal better than 2014 Federer. No doubt, you disagree, which is fine.

I did say Nadal was better in 2019 than Fed in 2014.

At the USO though, you could argue that if Fed got Berrettini instead of Cilic, he might have done better.

 

[StrongRule]

I did say Nadal was better in 2019 than Fed in 2014.

At the USO though, you could argue that if Fed got Berrettini instead of Cilic, he might have done better.

Medvedev in USO 2019 played on a higher level than 2014 Federer though. Maybe Federer could still beat him because of matchup issues, but based on pure level of play Medvedev should beat him. A well playing Federer would beat Cilic as well. (even though that was one of the very few times when Cilic didn't choke)

 

[NatF]

Not sure why Federer in AO 2014 was better than Nadal in AO 2019. Both were bad in the matches they lost.

Don't think Fed was as bad though AO is a slight edge for me.

 

[NatF]

I disagree on both judgments, but there's no real way to resolve it. For what it's worth, I would say:

2012 Federer = 2018 Djokovic = 2017 Nadal. If I had to make a call, I would reluctantly vote 2017 Nadal the best, but it's close enough to be unable to make a decision without seeing them play against each other.

I would put 2019 Nadal ahead of 2014 Federer. I think he was better at all the majors other than Wimbledon. At best, I could accept that they were maybe on a par in Australia.

Anyway, my main point is that aging isn't linear.

Djokovic was rubbish for half of 2018 though and I think Federer was better overall than Nadal, hell I'd take 2017 Fed over 2017 Nadal and I consider 2012 clearly a better year from Federer than 2017...

I think Nadal had a baby poo soft draw at the AO in 2019 so don't see him as better than Fed at all in 2014 there. Can agree to disagree on this though.

 

[NatF]

LOL, thought so But your response was definitely classy

Your turn to be sarcastic? It's not as funny when you do it back to someone, you have to be first. That's why Nadal or Djokovic need to beat Fed's record by at least 6 to be GOAT

 

[ThiemPlayer]

Well, you answered yourself... Ranking means better, in most cases, it exclude subjectivity and eye test of form... Off course, form don't always reflect ranking, but there isn't better way, ask atp which is using that system for more than 50 years...

I didn't say tanking means better, where did I say that?

 

[Deleted member 744633]

Your turn to be sarcastic? It's not as funny when you do it back to someone, you have to be first. That's why Nadal or Djokovic need to beat Fed's record by at least 6 to be GOAT

No, that was a real compliment. I have noticed that fans can be rather acerbic when responding to posts that are not favorably inclined towards their favorite. But you cut out the vitriol in your reply conveying the message in a far more subtle but pleasant way

 

[NatF]

No, that was a real compliment. I have noticed that fans can be rather acerbic when responding to posts that are not favorably inclined towards their favorite. But you cut out the vitriol in your reply conveying the message in a far more subtle but pleasant way

You didn't see my first draft

 

[Deleted member 744633]

You didn't see my first draft

LOL, perhaps you're a practitioner of the old adage ... when you're angry, count to 10 before responding?

 

[DSH]

Don't forget that Benneteau was just two points away from defeating Federer at Wimbledon 2012.
If that is not a bit of luck, the meaning of that word has lost its value.

 

[beard]

I didn't say tanking means better, where did I say that?

I didn't said that you said, we obviously don't understand each other I'll finish our little conversation now...

 

[tennistiger]

He wasn't ever beating Nadal at RG when he couldn't even do it when fully in his prime and at his peak years earlier, not even vs an 18 year old Nadal, so how is he now going to do it probably past his prime altogether. No matter what opportunities he took early in the match Nadal would have found a way to win.

2011 U.S Open? Maybe but again he would have had to beat Nadal even if he finished off Djokovic, and he was on the firm losing side of their rivalry, especialy in slams, at that point.

2014 Wimbledon? I am not sure, I saw the match and Djokovic should have finished it off in 4 sets and it is not like Federer choked at the end of the 5th set either. I think Djokovic was the better player that day, and Federer had to be in better form overall to have won that match as opposed to not choking.

2015 U.S Open agreed, he had many chances in that match.

2018 Wimbledon, dunno, I think if he lost to Anderson he was not going to beat a resurgent Djokovic here. I don't think his form in 2018 was up to winning slams anyway, Australia was a super weak event/draw.

2019 Wimbledon agreed 100%

Not forget the Slams he lost due to ONE single point in the final!:
W 2008
AO 2009
US 2009
W 2019

 

[GabeT]

Au contraire... He has been very lucky with some of his Slam wins in the 10s. Djokovic slumping in 2012 and Rafa's unlucky defeat to Rosol, is the sole reason why he won the 2012 Wimbledon.
Also Djokovic going full hippy mode, hugging threes in 2017-18 period made room for some timely Fed vulture at 17 and 18 AO and 17 Wimbledon.

Fed should hand over the AO17, W17, and AO18 titles to their rightful owner, Novak.

 

[heftylefty]

At the top of every sports, mental toughness is the determinant. Nobody thinks Montana and Brady were the most physically gifted. but they're considered the best QB's in history. The only ones who combined best talent and mind, that I can think of, are Jordan and Woods.

Why are we comparing football to tennis? It's a little easy to be "mentally tough" when you have a talented offensive line and world class athletes catching passes.

Federer is the first male to reach 20 Slams. He shattered Sampras record while playing against an incredibly strong field. That fact that Federer is still in the mix at nearly 40 is amazing; especially considering how much more athletic tennis as become over the past 20 years.

 

[SonnyT]

Why are we comparing football to tennis? It's a little easy to be "mentally tough" when you have a talented offensive line and world class athletes catching passes.

At the Super Bowl level, generally both teams have talented offensive lines, receivers and running backs, so often it comes down to which QB performs better under pressure, and which QB cracks, just as in tennis! And don't kid yourself, with MJ Bulls, we all know who took the Bulls by the horns!

In tennis and golf, a player only has to manage himself in critical situations. In team sports, the team leader (such as QB) has to lead the whole team; he has to be a leader of men.

 

[ThiemPlayer]

I didn't said that you said, we obviously don't understand each other I'll finish our little conversation now...

If ranking were so important, especially beyond the top 2, check how many times the final 16 highest seeds all actually made it to round of 4, it rarely happens.

 

[heftylefty]

At the Super Bowl level, generally both teams have talented offensive lines, receivers and running backs, so often it comes down to which QB performs better under pressure, and which QB cracks, just as in tennis! And don't kid yourself, with MJ Bulls, we all know who took the Bulls by the horns!

In tennis and golf, a player only has to manage himself in critical situations. In team sports, the team leader (such as QB) has to lead the whole team; he has to be a leader of men.

I think the quarterback position is somewhat overrated since the QB does not have to make any stops, and it's the defense that determines Superbowl winners. Quarterback being the leader of men is most the romanticizing of the position and football in general. Topics for another thread.

I just think it's not a good comparison

 

[SonnyT]

My point stands, at the top of individual or team sports, the mental game separates almost equally gifted competitors.

A great QB has to be both physically gifted and a great leader!

 

[beard]

If ranking were so important, especially beyond the top 2, check how many times the final 16 highest seeds all actually made it to round of 4, it rarely happens.

Why top 16 highest? We are talking about winning slams, and top 16 has nothing to do with winning slams....

We are talking about top 3, where Federer was most of time... In last 10 years top 3 won about 85% of slams (34 slams or so)... Tell me now ranking doest mean form...

But, being top 3 haven't helped Federer who won only 4... Other two big 3 members won well over 10 each... That is point of thread...

 

[nolefam_2024]

Murray has 3 slams. Federer should have done better in 2010 then murray would have no slams.

 

[ThiemPlayer]

Why top 16 highest? We are talking about winning slams, and top 16 has nothing to do with winning slams....

We are talking about top 3, where Federer was most of time... In last 10 years top 3 won about 85% of slams (34 slams or so)... Tell me now ranking doest mean form...

But, being top 3 haven't helped Federer who won only 4... Other two big 3 members won well over 10 each... That is point of thread...

Top 16 because those are the people you face along the way to winning slams. That the top 16 don't consistently make it shows that ranking has little meaning because there are always 'upsets' along the way. The field is so weak that Nadal and Djokovic make it consistently to slam finals. The field is so weak that even old Federer can often make it deep, but not as often anymore because he is older than the other two and recovery is much more difficult. Therefore, lower seeds can upset him more often.

 

[quirotkicks]

He returned to the top briefly due to Rafa's shock RG loss which led to a 6-8 month funk for him. He was still a major contender, but his period of total dominance was already over for a good 2+ years at that point, and that had been obvious for awhile.

So no I would not say he underachieved to win 5 slams and been close to many others since the start of 2010, already the year he was turning 29.