Hole in Federer Resume

[NatF]

To win tournaments, especially slams, one has to play at a very high level for 7 rounds. Great someday players like Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, did not do that very often so cannot be considered all time great players. Federer, Nadal and Novak are all time great players. Murray has 3 slams which is more than Safin Hewitt and Roddick each have and has reached more finals than those 3, which puts him at a higher level than any player Roger had to face 03-07, except for Nadal on clay.

All of which is irrelevant. What matters is the competition on the day, it doesn't matter who it comes from. Djokovic has thrown in a bunch of stinkers in slam finals, I do't actually think Murray has ever played a better slam final than Roddick's 2003 USO win, Wimbledon 2004 etc...at least not obviously better. So what does it matter if those guys weren't as consistent. The tour has been stagnant for years, we're still waiting for the next gen to make a mark. A single major more and you're talking like Murray is on a whole other level

Nadal was making slam finals on grass since 2006 BTW, Djokovic made his first slam final in 2007. In fact Nadal was arguably better in the Wimbledon finals of 06-07 than he was in 10-11. Murray's record is actually at best equal to Hewitt/Roddick at the USO for example. Roddick is unfortunate he had Federer in all his Wimbledon finals and not Raonic and Djokovic (playing his worse slam final ever). Murray's main edge on those guys is at the AO, where Federer's weakest slam draws have come. But his competition at Wimbledon/USO holds up well with anyone of the last 20 years.

Again go watch some tennis and stop spouting generic crap. Let's not forget that Safin/Hewitt had terrible injuries which cut their careers at the top of the game short.

 

[spirit95]

But Djokovic didn't lose to Goatic though.

When did djokovic ever play goatic

 

[thrust]

All of which is irrelevant. What matters is the competition on the day, it doesn't matter who it comes from. Djokovic has thrown in a bunch of stinkers in slam finals, I do't actually think Murray has ever played a better slam final than Roddick's 2003 USO win, Wimbledon 2004 etc...at least not obviously better. So what does it matter if those guys weren't as consistent. The tour has been stagnant for years, we're still waiting for the next gen to make a mark. A single major more and you're talking like Murray is on a whole other level

Nadal was making slam finals on grass since 2006 BTW, Djokovic made his first slam final in 2007. In fact Nadal was arguably better in the Wimbledon finals of 06-07 than he was in 10-11. Murray's record is actually at best equal to Hewitt/Roddick at the USO for example. Roddick is unfortunate he had Federer in all his Wimbledon finals and not Raonic and Djokovic (playing his worse slam final ever). Murray's main edge on those guys is at the AO, where Federer's weakest slam draws have come. But his competition at Wimbledon/USO holds up well with anyone of the last 20 years.

Again go watch some tennis and stop spouting generic crap. Let's not forget that Safin/Hewitt had terrible injuries which cut their careers at the top of the game short.

Like it or not, Winning is what counts most. What is crap is you saying that Roddick, Hewitt or Safin were anywhere as consistently as good as Roger, Rafa, Novak or Murray. In order to Win important tournaments, especially slams and be considered an all time great a player one has to play at a very high level, Consistently!

 

[mike danny]

Like it or not, Winning is what counts most. What is crap is you saying that Roddick, Hewitt or Safin were anywhere as consistently as good as Roger, Rafa, Novak or Murray. In order to Win important tournaments, especially slams and be considered an all time great a player one has to play at a very high level, Consistently!

Who cares how much Djokovic won when he played bad in some big matches? Form on the day matters. So @NatF is right.

Unless you believe Djokovic in the 2013 Wimb final was tougher than Roddick in the 2004 Wimb final.

 

[NatF]

Like it or not, Winning is what counts most. What is crap is you saying that Roddick, Hewitt or Safin were anywhere as consistently as good as Roger, Rafa, Novak or Murray. In order to Win important tournaments, especially slams and be considered an all time great a player one has to play at a very high level, Consistently!

You know what's really crap? Your reading comprehension I never said they were as consisently good as Novak, Roger or Rafa.

But again if you actually watched tennis from back then you might see that actually form is more important than name. Murray still gets straight setted by 33 year old Federer at Wimbledon. Try harder. Consistently reaching the finals is one thing, but if you make it and play badly why does that make you a strong opponent? If less consistent player comes into the final and plays the match of his life why should I consider him easier than the ATG who's spraying errors all of the court.

 

[mike danny]

You know what's really crap? Your reading comprehension I never said they were as consisently good as Novak, Roger or Rafa.

But again if you actually watched tennis from back then you might see that actually form is more important than name. Murray still gets straight setted by 33 year old Federer at Wimbledon. Try harder. Consistently reaching the finals is one thing, but if you make it and play badly why does that make you a strong opponent? If less consistent player comes into the final and plays the match of his life why should I consider him easier than the ATG who's spraying errors all of the court.

If consistency was the deciding factor, Ferrer in that case was tougher to beat than Safin

 

[thrust]

Who cares how much Djokovic won when he played bad in some big matches? Form on the day matters. So @NatF is right.

Unless you believe Djokovic in the 2013 Wimb final was tougher than Roddick in the 2004 Wimb final.

Novak- 12 slams
Roddick- 1 slam
Hewitt - 2 slams
Safin - 2 slams
Form means nothing if you don't win. A player with 12 slams obviously has better form, more often than a player who has 1 or 2 slams.

 

[NatF]

Novak- 12 slams
Roddick- 1 slam
Hewitt - 2 slams
Safin - 2 slams
Form means nothing if you don't win. A player with 12 slams obviously has better form, more often than a player who has 1 or 2 slams.

What does that have to do with the question? Was Djokovic tougher at Wimbledon 2013 than Roddick of 2004?

 

[thrust]

If consistency was the deciding factor, Ferrer in that case was tougher to beat than Safin

Ferrer is very consistent, but physically and ability wise, not the equal of today's big 4. Roddick, Safin and Hewitt were bigger and perhaps more talented than Ferrer, who got the most out of his natural talent. Roddick and Safin, IMO, were underachievers. Hewitt and Ferrer, over achievers.

 

[thrust]

What does that have to do with the question? Was Djokovic tougher at Wimbledon 2013 than Roddick of 2004?

The 2013 Wimbledon final is not Novak's only Wimbledon final, as he has managed to win 3 Wimbledon Titles which is more than: Murray, Nadal, Safin, Hewitt and Roddick have won. Also, Novak was recovering from a very physically tough match against Delpo and not at his physical best in that 13 final.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

If consistency was the deciding factor, Ferrer in that case was tougher to beat than Safin

Of course he was. Remember this?

Safin is nowhere near as good as ferrer or Murray!! And using your logic then kyriagos played tennis that Safin could only dream of! So u defeat your own argument.

Again u defeat your own argument as nadal won 2 majors on grass and 3 on hard court. Federer won only one on clay so nadal seems to have the more complete resume using your logic

 

[mike danny]

Of course he was. Remember this?

Of course, signature worthy

 

[mike danny]

The 2013 Wimbledon final is not Novak's only Wimbledon final, as he has managed to win 3 Wimbledon Titles which is more than: Murray, Nadal, Safin, Hewitt and Roddick have won. Also, Novak was recovering from a very physically tough match against Delpo and not at his physical best in that 13 final.

Therefore Roddick in the 2004 Wimb final >>> Novak in the 2013 Wimb final.

Form on the day is all that matters.

Other cases: Murray in the 2011 AO final wasn't better than Gonzo in the 2007 AO final.

 

[NatF]

The 2013 Wimbledon final is not Novak's only Wimbledon final, as he has managed to win 3 Wimbledon Titles which is more than: Murray, Nadal, Safin, Hewitt and Roddick have won. Also, Novak was recovering from a very physically tough match against Delpo and not at his physical best in that 13 final.

Yes, but that's not the point I'm making. Djokovic is far far greater than Roddick and a better player. But what matters is how he plays on the day. We're comparing slam draws not careers surely?

Both Nadal and Djokovic have had weak slam draws the same as everyone else who gets double digit mahors. I don't think Federer has been particularly lucky in that regard.

Your comments are superficial and lack depth. When you say Federer had not great competition who are you comparing him too? If I point out that some of Federer's supposed lesser competition played better slam finals than some ATGs you move the goalposts.

Fact is Federer had a big hand in why his contemporary players didn't win more. He's been a more consistent roadblock than anyone in probably the entire open era. Even a super consistent guy like a Novak has played a lot of below par slam finals at the USO and Wimbledon combined. No such luck with Fed for Roddick or Hewitt. I think you're being unfair.

 

[Charlemagne]

If Federer has holes in his resume, then other ATGs have craters in theirs.

 

[1477aces]

Hole in the resume is just not true since he holds the record there.

Embarrassed should be the right word tho : since 08, he has won AO 2x and wimbeldon 2x with 2 other finals, and won RG and made a final there. Only lost one final at USO.

Furthermore, look at his losses since 08'

09: blew a set and a break lead than a 2-1 set lead against a 20 year old.
10: had double match point against double fault Djokovic and then couldnt even get it to a breake.
11: blew a 2-0 set lead, then a 5-3 40-15 lead in the fifth not being able to even make the tiebreaker.
12: blown off the court by berdych
13: lost to freaking tommy
14: blown off the court by Cilic when he was the overwhelming favorite to win.
15: went one for a million on breakpoint in the final.

 

[Steve0904]

The biggest hole in Federer's resume is his H2H record against Nadal, particularly at the slams. The H2H that includes losses in his prime at Wimbledon and the AO to go along with 5 at the French. That said, if Nadal doesn't tie or overtake his slam count it doesn't really become a factor. Right now it's still a talking point and always will be, but it doesn't take away Federer's status as the greatest of this era to any objective observer.

 

[duaneeo]

Federer has not won the USO since 2008. This is a huge hole in his resume. It has been nearly a decade.

2016 USO is the most recent. It's been eight years since Federer won the USO, just like it's been eight years since Nadal won the AO.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Federer has not won the USO since 2008. This is a huge hole in his resume. It has been nearly a decade. He has won on RG more recently than USO.

Didn't Federer contract mononucleosis at the end of 2008. Just speculating, but, the USO is probably the most physically demanding event of the year, played near the end of the year, and a mono infection can result in anywhere from mild to debilitating symptoms which can last for weeks to many years e.g. Robin Soderling.

 

[mike danny]

Didn't Federer contract mononucleosis at the end of 2008. Just speculating, but, the USO is probably the most physically demanding event of the year, played near the end of the year, and a mono infection can result in anywhere from mild to debilitating symptoms which can last for weeks to many years e.g. Robin Soderling.

Beginning.

 

[mr tonyz]

I have brought up this very discussion in another thread . The best example I always point out is the 2007 Australian Open were Nadal Lost to Gonzalez in straight sets. Nadal gets defeated in straight sets in the Quarter Final , then Gonzalez get beaten in The Final by Federer in Straight Sets. Overall Nadal is a better player than Gonzalez in Career Achievements , but in that one isolated tournament Nadal was inferior to Mr Gonzalez , because he lost to him & quite convincingly. Yet Gonzalez is I suppose , a nobody or a clown. One in which Straight-Setted Nadal in 2007 AO. Which makes Nadal worse than a Clown in 2007 AO. Or perhaps a baby clown that won 2 French Opens by that stage in his Career.

 

[Bartelby]

Federer contracted it in January but it wasn't diagnosed until some time later - March, from memory. He thought he had food poisoning at the time. Even before it was announced you could see he was sweating profusely at the AO,

 

[Fedfan34]

And a winning record over Rafa in non clay finals

And a winning record against Rafa in all non-defeated finals!

Yeah, he's totally overrated.

5 consecutive major titles leave a hole in your resume. Wow, learn something new every day.

Don't even get me started on Caesar and Alexander the Great. Weak era, low tech mugs. President Bush was a greater military commander.

 

[beltsman]

Yes, but that's not the point I'm making. Djokovic is far far greater than Roddick and a better player. But what matters is how he plays on the day. We're comparing slam draws not careers surely?

Both Nadal and Djokovic have had weak slam draws the same as everyone else who gets double digit mahors. I don't think Federer has been particularly lucky in that regard.

Your comments are superficial and lack depth. When you say Federer had not great competition who are you comparing him too? If I point out that some of Federer's supposed lesser competition played better slam finals than some ATGs you move the goalposts.

Fact is Federer had a big hand in why his contemporary players didn't win more. He's been a more consistent roadblock than anyone in probably the entire open era. Even a super consistent guy like a Novak has played a lot of below par slam finals at the USO and Wimbledon combined. No such luck with Fed for Roddick or Hewitt. I think you're being unfair.

Feder's last USO win is closer to Sampras' last USO win than it is to present.

 

[coloskier]

The only hole is the hole in the OP's brain that used to have brain cells.

 

[Sentinel]

Federer's other holes include:

No Olympic singles gold medal
Not breaking the record for most YE#1s
Not beating Djokovic in a Wimbledon final
Not beating Nadal at the FO
Deficient H2H against Nadal and Djokovic

And much much more. Too many to mention.

Talk about Swiss cheese.

 

[Bender]

This thread reeks of trypophobia.

 

[thrust]

Yes, but that's not the point I'm making. Djokovic is far far greater than Roddick and a better player. But what matters is how he plays on the day. We're comparing slam draws not careers surely?

Both Nadal and Djokovic have had weak slam draws the same as everyone else who gets double digit mahors. I don't think Federer has been particularly lucky in that regard.

Your comments are superficial and lack depth. When you say Federer had not great competition who are you comparing him too? If I point out that some of Federer's supposed lesser competition played better slam finals than some ATGs you move the goalposts.

Fact is Federer had a big hand in why his contemporary players didn't win more. He's been a more consistent roadblock than anyone in probably the entire open era. Even a super consistent guy like a Novak has played a lot of below par slam finals at the USO and Wimbledon combined. No such luck with Fed for Roddick or Hewitt. I think you're being unfair.

There is no doubt that Federer is one of the three greatest players of all time, so that it is not surprising that he would dominate players like: Roddick, Hewitt, and the other top players 03-07. Had Roger, Novak and Rafa been the same age I doubt that Roger would have won 18 slams. I do think that Roger would have the advantage over both Novak and Rafa off clay, but not as much as he had over Hewitt, Roddick etc.. The same is probably true with Gonzalez, Laver and Rosewall. Had they been the same age, and no pro tour, their accomplishments would have been very different, most likely. Perhaps the most equal era, age wise, was the Borg-Connors-McEnroe-Lendl era as they pretty much shared the slams and other important events.

 

[Russeljones]

There is no doubt that Federer is one of the three greatest players of all time, so that it is not surprising that he would dominate players like: Roddick, Hewitt, and the other top players 03-07. Had Roger, Novak and Rafa been the same age I doubt that Roger would have won 18 slams. I do think that Roger would have the advantage over both Novak and Rafa off clay, but not as much as he had over Hewitt, Roddick etc.. The same is probably true with Gonzalez, Laver and Rosewall. Had they been the same age, and no pro tour, their accomplishments would have been very different, most likely. Perhaps the most equal era, age wise, was the Borg-Connors-McEnroe-Lendl era as they pretty much shared the slams and other important events.

He would have won a lot more. He would have broken their spirits.

 

[NatF]

There is no doubt that Federer is one of the three greatest players of all time, so that it is not surprising that he would dominate players like: Roddick, Hewitt, and the other top players 03-07. Had Roger, Novak and Rafa been the same age I doubt that Roger would have won 18 slams. I do think that Roger would have the advantage over both Novak and Rafa off clay, but not as much as he had over Hewitt, Roddick etc.. The same is probably true with Gonzalez, Laver and Rosewall. Had they been the same age, and no pro tour, their accomplishments would have been very different, most likely. Perhaps the most equal era, age wise, was the Borg-Connors-McEnroe-Lendl era as they pretty much shared the slams and other important events.

Your analysis is ignoring that Federer has been greatly disadvantaged in his 30-35 years by having peak ATG's around, any that he might lose in that 03-07 window he is quite likely to pick up to some extent at least when his rivals decline. He was denied possibly 4 slams only by peak Djokovic in 14-16. The reverse is also true, the likes of Djokovic and Rafa and Murray definitely don't have 5 USO's and 7 Wimbledons between them if Federer is the same age as them. It's not like they had to deal with peak Federer in their best years either. Also 2/3 Nadal's best years had occured before Djokovic truly broke out too.

I think on aggregate the competition for current ATG's has been roughly equal, I don't think Federer's competition has been significantly weaker than any other double digit major winner.

 

[mike danny]

Your analysis is ignoring that Federer has been greatly disadvantaged in his 30-35 years by having peak ATG's around, any that he might lose in that 03-07 window he is quite likely to pick up to some extent at least when his rivals decline. He was denied possibly 4 slams only by peak Djokovic in 14-16. The reverse is also true, the likes of Djokovic and Rafa and Murray definitely don't have 5 USO's and 7 Wimbledons between them if Federer is the same age as them. It's not like they had to deal with peak Federer in their best years either. Also 2/3 Nadal's best years had occured before Djokovic truly broke out too.

I think on aggregate the competition for current ATG's has been roughly equal, I don't think Federer's competition has been significantly weaker than any other double digit major winner.

I see you have updated your signature

Great gem that one

 

[mike danny]

There is no doubt that Federer is one of the three greatest players of all time, so that it is not surprising that he would dominate players like: Roddick, Hewitt, and the other top players 03-07. Had Roger, Novak and Rafa been the same age I doubt that Roger would have won 18 slams. I do think that Roger would have the advantage over both Novak and Rafa off clay, but not as much as he had over Hewitt, Roddick etc.. The same is probably true with Gonzalez, Laver and Rosewall. Had they been the same age, and no pro tour, their accomplishments would have been very different, most likely. Perhaps the most equal era, age wise, was the Borg-Connors-McEnroe-Lendl era as they pretty much shared the slams and other important events.

2 points I want to make:

1. What you said about Federer not having 18 slams if he was the same age as Nole and Rafa, applies to Nole and Rafa too. They wouldn't have 12 and 14 slams respectively if all 3 were the same age. Federer has showed in his 30's that he is more than capable of adapting to the Rafa-Nole threat and was able to steal some slams away from them, despite Nole and Rafa being much younger than Fed. A younger Federer would have definitely adapted to them, probably even more successfully, if you take into account that he would also have youth on his side. I can see Fed with at least 12-13 slams if they were of the same age, with chances to add even more to his total once Nole and Rafa start declining.

2. I wouldn't say Borg, Connors and McEnroe were generational rivals. Connors was 4 years older and Mac was 3 years younger.In terms of the age differences, that's like saying SoderlIng and Wawrinka were part of Fed's generation. Plus, by the time Mac reached his first slam final (and won it), Borg was already on 9 slams. That doesn't sound like they were generational rivals when Borg won so many slams before Mac even reached his first slam final.

 

[mike danny]

There is no doubt that Federer is one of the three greatest players of all time, so that it is not surprising that he would dominate players like: Roddick, Hewitt, and the other top players 03-07. Had Roger, Novak and Rafa been the same age I doubt that Roger would have won 18 slams. I do think that Roger would have the advantage over both Novak and Rafa off clay, but not as much as he had over Hewitt, Roddick etc.. The same is probably true with Gonzalez, Laver and Rosewall. Had they been the same age, and no pro tour, their accomplishments would have been very different, most likely. Perhaps the most equal era, age wise, was the Borg-Connors-McEnroe-Lendl era as they pretty much shared the slams and other important events.

Also, you can have strong draws in weaker years and weak draws in stronger years.

For example, Federer's 2007 USO draw was tougher than Nadal's 2013 USO draw. Even Fed's 2006 draw was tougher than Nadal's 2013 USO draw.

 

[mikeeeee]

This thread makes so much sense. In what reality should he be winning MORE slams as he gets older than 95% of the competition??