If Federer was smart and serious from start like Novak or Rafa, he would be GOAT long time ago

[mike danny]

That’s a good one actually, wonder if there’s any apologetics on that

Nadal himself had declined by then. Old Fed wasn't beating Peakdal either.

 

[mike danny]

The only reason Nadal didn't beat Federer was because they didn't meet several times other than the 2017 season, or do you think that if Del Potro, Anderson, Millman, Tsitsipas, Dimitrov and Djokovic himself at the 2020 Australian Open, could they beat the Swiss player, wouldn't Nadal have done it too?
But you can continue to believe that the Spanish player would not have defeated your idol if they had faced each other more times outside of clay.

I mean, if you wanna go down this route, then let's start talking about all the times Nadal dodged Federer and thus stopping him from improving the H2H.

 

[Spencer Gore]

I mean, if you wanna go down this route, then let's start talking about all the times Nadal dodged Federer and thus stopping him from improving the H2H.

Nadal played Federer six times in slams between 2008 and 2017. 3 times on hard, twice on clay, once on grass.

Nadal won them all.

Their infrequent meetings in that period saved Roger's blushes.

 

[Hypo Crisis]

Why did Djokovic only win 3 slams in 2012-2014?

Idk why. Ask him.
I do know that his grandad he loved so much, died in 2012 and his first coach Jelena Gencic died in 2013.
Maybe it has something to do with his slump, maybe not.

 

[Rattler]

Did I say that ?
Stop trolling for likes.

Congratulations! This is the clearest case of “Hello Pot!” I’ve seen on the internet in a few days.

Think about that, what an accomplishment.

You must be so proud.

What will you do next?



Edited for a typo

 

[Hypo Crisis]

Congratulations! This is the clearest case of “Hell Pot!” I’ve seen on the internet in a few days.

Think about that, what an accomplishment.

You must be so proud.

What will you do next?

If I knew wtf you are talking about, I would return you a favor in congrats.
Since I do not, I must inform you my next steps as you asked - I will go to toilet for no 2. Hope that covers you.

 

[Rattler]

If I knew wtf you are talking about, I would return you a favor in congrats.
Since I do not, I must inform you my next steps as you asked - I will go to toilet for no 2. Hope that covers you.

wash your hands

 

[WeekendTennisHack]

It's true Federer had more talent to surpass the other two, but mentally weak on BPs cost him.

 

[Milanez82]

Why did Djokovic only win 3 slams in 2012-2014?

Wasn't clutch mostly. Had real shots at UO12, RG13, Wimb13 and UO13.

Its possible losing that 5 setter epic vs Rafa at RG affected him next 12 months.

 

[Holmes]

You forgot to finish the sentence.

The other 2 guys ended up being better in the Career Inflation Era

Fedfans really do not want to bring up Weak Eras. Let's keep the convo on a ground we can actually hold: pretty backhand, money, popularity, chocolate sponsorships, etc.

 

[TMF]

You forgot to finish the sentence.

The other 2 guys ended up being better in the Career Inflation Era

 

[DSH]

Not a good comparison. Fed in 2014 was coming off the worst season of his career, Nadal in 2019 wasn't.

You don't understand, Federer played very well in that edition of the Australian Open but was clearly outclassed by Nadal.
And Nadal may have had a very good season in 2019, but his performance in the Wimbledon semifinals was not up to par against a winnable opponent.

 

[TMF]

And you're just an idiot. Get a life

And don't drag this wonderful forum down the toilet even further

 

[jackson vile]

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Pffft.
If he was serious from the start, there would be no 40-15. Not one.

What do you mean serious? At some point he was ONLY losing to Nadal.
And players develop at their own rhythm, you couldn't have had a hypothetical Slam-winning Federer before he became exactly that.

 

[Hypo Crisis]

What do you mean serious? At some point he was ONLY losing to Nadal.
And players develop at their own rhythm, you couldn't have had a hypothetical Slam-winning Federer before he became exactly that.

Serious like Nadal in his early years, like Alcaraz, like Novak to an extent.
You can say also that Gulbis had his rhythm although many were saying he was more talented than Djokovic, he did absolutely nothing bcs of his attitude towards game and his "duties" as a player. I am not saying that Fed didn't do a lot, he certainly reshaped the game, but for conversation sake - he could've done much much more if he wasn't laid back in his teen years and bit later. We all know Fed as late bloomer. That coin wasn't made up for nothing.

 

[mike danny]

You don't understand, Federer played very well in that edition of the Australian Open but was clearly outclassed by Nadal.
And Nadal may have had a very good season in 2019, but his performance in the Wimbledon semifinals was not up to par against a winnable opponent.

Federer didn't play very well if he lost in straights to Nadal.

 

[SeeItHitIt]

To a regular guy, the act of winning a Slam (5 Slams, 15 Slams) becomes been-there, done that. Fed appears as well adjusted as any of these Uber rich, pampered, spoiled kids as anyone. Borg comes to mind too, add Johnny Mac would to round out my list. Some players have no basis in life beyond this ‘count’. Nicklaus didn’t care; Tiger was obsessed. Maybe it’s the media driven worl, I dunno.

Fed is certainly the most ‘balanced’ guy since Bjorn.

 

[hoodjem]

Yep. From 1998 to 2003, he was just dumb and goofing off.

 

[Fedforever]

If you read about Federer's early years you see he wasn't far off wasting his abilities altogether. Maybe this is why he seems so content now.

He's happy with his achievements and his fans should be too.

It's crazy to me that if Alcaraz won the CYGS next year (OK, I know that's a very big IF!!!) he'd be a third of the way to 24 at the age of 22.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

That's possible (and because the others were not yet close enough when he got to 15 either). Because I also think he may have lost a bit of motivation starting around 2010. Or he simply wasn't effective enough anymore in converting his style into results. The consequence was missing out on many titles that were really "must wins" in hindsight, like USO 2014, WIM 2016 (yes, I know he was injured, but he only got injured against Raonic in the 5th set after failing to get it done in 4), USO 2017, WIM 2019 (or even USO 2009 already). And he had too many bad losses like against Stakhovsky, Robredo, Seppi, Anderson etc.

14 Slams was always way overrated as a target, you are completely right here. It was literally the FIRST serious Slam record of the Open Era, and Sampras had way too many limits to set a really high target. Remember RG was never any option and he also won only one hardcourt Slam after age 25. This could never last forever. And if players like Rosewall or Laver had an Open Era, or if Borg would have played a bit longer and all 4 Slams per year, all of them would have come close to 20 already. Also the numbers for the top women were exactly in the range that we have for the Big 3 now, and since dominance over the field is relative, it was to be expected to get those numbers in the men's game as well.

Exactly. In hindsight it is quite surprising that it was the consensus that 14 would stand for a long time. Reason 14 was ever the record in the first place was that apart from Pete not many players took the record seriously. Borg and Laver would definitely have beaten it under normal career circumstances. I wouldn’t go as far as saying that the women’s records were very indicative as there was way less depth, but that 14 would have been beaten sooner or later was crystal clear.

 

[Mustard]

That's just the way it was. Young Federer was a talented headcase, even more of a headcase than Safin. Young Nadal was a phenom. Young Djokovic was cocky and confident.

From Federer's generation, it was Hewitt who was most mentally ready for the elite very early on.

Exactly. In hindsight it is quite surprising that it was the consensus that 14 would stand for a long time. Reason 14 was ever the record in the first place was that apart from Pete not many players took the record seriously. Borg and Laver would definitely have beaten it under normal career circumstances. I wouldn’t go as far as saying that the women’s records were very indicative as there was way less depth, but that 14 would have been beaten sooner or later was crystal clear.

When Hewitt was world number 1, the dominant narrative was "No male player is going to dominate like Sampras, because the players are now too good". That completely flipped in 2004.

 

[hoodjem]

Reason 14 was ever the record in the first place was that apart from Pete not many players took the record seriously. Borg and Laver would definitely have beaten it under normal career circumstances. I wouldn’t go as far as saying that the women’s records were very indicative as there was way less depth, but that 14 would have been beaten sooner or later was crystal clear.

True.
There is that old story (I’ve told more than a few times) that in a locker room c.1970 or so, Laver asked Emerson how mamy “majors” (no one called them slams back then) Emerson had won.

Emmo said he had no idea—he’d never counted them up.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Fed was smart but incapable early on.

 

[socallefty]

Whoever taught him a 1HBH probably doomed his chances of becoming the GOAT. He probably would have had a beautiful looking 2HBH if he had been taught that and that would have withstood the high topspin of the poly era on serves and shots much better.

 

[FlyingSaucer]

Whoever taught him a 1HBH probably doomed his chances of becoming the GOAT. He probably would have had a beautiful looking 2HBH if he had been taught that and that would have withstood the high topspin of the poly era on serves and shots much better.

Federer broke the slam record in 2009.

 

[socallefty]

Federer broke the slam record in 2009.

He did good in the first decade of the poly era, but then got outlapped once younger players who grew up with poly came of age.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Whoever taught him a 1HBH probably doomed his chances of becoming the GOAT. He probably would have had a beautiful looking 2HBH if he had been taught that and that would have withstood the high topspin of the poly era on serves and shots much better.

If he has 2hbh we have zero idea if he would be as good as he was. This is Fantasyland

 

[Dropshot777]

Imagine Federer doing his stuff 3 years earlier that he did from 2004-2007.
He would be sitting alone at 30 Slams, Rafa and Novak would just need to bow to him without making much effort for their own sake.
He had clear path, it's only him to blame.

Djoker wasn't serious for his early career. He was more concerned imitating other players' service routines.

 

[Dropshot777]

Yeah his career is so pathetic

No.

 

[bigbadboaz]

Whoever taught him a 1HBH probably doomed his chances of becoming the GOAT. He probably would have had a beautiful looking 2HBH if he had been taught that and that would have withstood the high topspin of the poly era on serves and shots much better.

His game was formed at a time no one could predict the changes in courts and playstyle. This is a criticism that can only be made in hindsight.

Second, he himself said that he wasn't able to hit a two-hander and developing the one- was the only choice for his biomechanics.

And with his game as formed he would STILL have a solid GOAT case if he'd only closed that one 2019 match.

 

[GuyForget]

Imagine Federer doing his stuff 3 years earlier that he did from 2004-2007.
He would be sitting alone at 30 Slams, Rafa and Novak would just need to bow to him without making much effort for their own sake.
He had clear path, it's only him to blame.

wouldn't have mattered, he still wouldn't have beaten Nadal at a slam from 07-17, and + would have still ended up as Djokovic's pigeon. Having a lower number of slams isn't the reason Feds isn't the GOAT

 

[GuyForget]

His game was formed at a time no one could predict the changes in courts and playstyle. This is a criticism that can only be made in hindsight.

Second, he himself said that he wasn't able to hit a two-hander and developing the one- was the only choice for his biomechanics.

And with his game as formed he would STILL have a solid GOAT case if he'd only closed that one 2019 match.

one 2019 match vs Djoks winning yet another 3 slams in 21, and yet another 3 slams in 23 plus the YEC plus an OG. This is why I thank god Feds didn't win that match because everyone would have romanticized it as 5 slams

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Imagine Federer doing his stuff 3 years earlier that he did from 2004-2007.
He would be sitting alone at 30 Slams, Rafa and Novak would just need to bow to him without making much effort for their own sake.
He had clear path, it's only him to blame.

No matter how many majors Federer won, he did not have the ability to win the Grand Slam--the achievement required to be one of the GOAT players.

 

[mental midget]

Serious like Nadal in his early years, like Alcaraz, like Novak to an extent.
You can say also that Gulbis had his rhythm although many were saying he was more talented than Djokovic, he did absolutely nothing bcs of his attitude towards game and his "duties" as a player. I am not saying that Fed didn't do a lot, he certainly reshaped the game, but for conversation sake - he could've done much much more if he wasn't laid back in his teen years and bit later. We all know Fed as late bloomer. That coin wasn't made up for nothing.

man...i mean, mentality is a big part of the sport so kind of tough to play 'what if' and just set that aside, but...gulbis could have been very good indeed. i'd rank him very high on the squandered potential list, somewhere close to the top tbh. huge hitter, great hands and creativity, could move quite well...but, a lunatic.

 

[pierceforehands]

Djokovic started beating Nadal regularly again around the same time Nadal stopped beating Fed outside of clay.

It was interesting how Nadal hit a total wall against both Djokovic and Federer outside of clay around the same point. Granted some of that was beginning in his major temporary of decline in 2015-2016, but even when he recovered some form that never receded. Djokovic it isn't as surprising as despite being a year younger he is a much later bloomer than Nadal, and had always been a mini nightmare opponent for even prime Nadal, having some success on clay even, but Federer the older player it is really striking.