I am annoyed to no end that Federer lost the #1 ranking

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Some fans just can't accept any criticism of Federer. I'm not one of those fans. You don't have to get all bent out of shape about my comments. It stands to reason that I don't think the greater hc player(by some distance) should have lost three out of four AO matches vs Nadal. His match-up vs Nadal was a weakness for the great man which thankfully, he seems to be addressing FINALLY with a more aggressive backhand and a never say die attitude vs Nadal(these are things he could have done in the past.)

You need to accept the non-clay slam losses vs Nadal were a weakness for Federer. It's not the end of the world when Federer has the achievements that he has.
And you need to accept that not all losses are equal. Fed had no bussiness winning in 2012 and especially in 2014.
 

Zhilady

Professional
And you need to accept that not all losses are equal. Fed had no bussiness winning in 2012 and especially in 2014.
He had no business winning in 2017, either. And that win makes up for his 2009 loss, which is the only AO match against Nadal that he “should have” won.
 

Backspin1780

Semi-Pro
He had no business winning in 2017, either. And that win makes up for his 2009 loss, which is the only AO match against Nadal that he “should have” won.

He should have won wimbeldon. Should have asked to continue match day after instead of in darkness which is a diaadvantage for a shot maker and someone who hita early and paints lines
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Bollocks. Nadal was at his very peak, Federer wasn't.

So Djokovic not looking as good in 2012-2014 is because he was facing better competition than in 2011?
Federer was in his Prime in my opinion. Like I said he just lost to Nadal who has a higher peak than Federer a plexicushion AO.
Yes. 2012 was slightly stronger than 2012 in terms of competition. Nadal was playing better in 2012-2013 and being more agressive and using the down the line forehand more vs Djokovic. Federer was probably slightly better in 2012 than 2011. Murray was better in 2012-2013 before injury than 2011. Djokovic probably played a slightly lower level in 2012-2013 but not enough to say he was out of his Prime or peak. 2014 was Djokovic playing on a low level but still his Prime he won 4 masters 1000 titles with a very tough field still.
 

prairiegirl

Hall of Fame
If Federer hadn't lost to freaking Kokkinakis in a third set tiebreak (Who loses two matches in a row in third set tiebreaks????) he would've still had the #1 ranking going into his four months vacation. There would've been a good chance that he would've never lost it over the duration of the entire clay season.

Nadal is defending 4680 points on clay. Nadal has barely won any points in 2018. He's ranked #40 in the Race. I don't think there's ever been a current #1 with such a big disparity in their actual ranking and Race ranking in April. There's no one else even close to Fed other than Nadal. Delpo is 2nd in the Race but he's not playing clay either.
So my point is, there's a HUGE chance that Fed would've retained his #1 ranking for about 16 more weeks if only he hadn't lost to the Kokk.

I know what most fellow Fed fans will say: "He has won so much already, who cares about a few extra weeks at #1?" My response to that: "Sour grapes. Being #1 in the world is a huge honour and every single week at that spot means a lot. It's ridiculous to have Nadal with his measly 360 pts earned in 2018 occupy that spot right now and it would've been awesome to be #1 during the entire clay season without having to step foot on a clay court." Federer messed this one up in tremendous fashion. It just has to be said.
You have WAY too much time on your hands.
 
Top