Is Federer overrated?

[jga111]

If I was a bird I would be able to fly

 

[5555]

How many tennis experts have said you have any credibility whatsoever?

You have not answered my question.

 

[zagor]

I mean most of his reputation rests on a 4-year stretch from 2004-2007 when he won 11 slams. If you factor that out, he's won a measly 6 slams.

 

[-NN-]

I wonder about the Federer-Ljubicic tandem going forward. Seems all these coaches are just condiments to the main Luthi meal.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

His 17 slams is a misleading statistic.

Hey there mate!

17 slams would be a misleading statistic now, yes.

 

[tennis_pro]

The most overrated 18 time Slam champion ever.

 

[Drlexus]

I mean most of his reputation rests on a 4-year stretch from 2004-2007 when he won 11 slams. If you factor that out, he's won a measly 6 slams.

It cant be overlooked that since 2008 he has won less majors and has an inferior h2h to nadal and djokovic.

However he is not overrated. You can only beat whats in front of you and winning majors is difficult.

It makes the whole goat debate redundant as you cannot compare ayers of different eras and federer isnt actually the era of nadal and djokovic but in reality overlapped withbthere era.

If federers peak was said to have continued until his last major success then no he canr be goat. Too many beat downs from nadal and djokovic.

If though federers absolute peak years were before nadal and djokovic hit there peak then we will never know who was better.

The only people who can answer this whole question is someone who has played all the players at their peak on all surfaces. In terms of the big three i can only think of roddick and hewitt and possibly murray who have faced them everywhere at their best.

 

[Drlexus]

Yes he is. The problem with Federer, and the black mark on his resume, is that he hasn't got a all time great match, where he was pushed to 5 sets, against a peak player, and was able to push through and win it in the end. Case in point, versus Djokovic US Open 2010, 2011. He could have won those matches, but when the going got tough, he simply collapsed.

Djokovic and Nadal have had a number of classic matches, where they were able to push through at crucial point. This has been the REAL rivalry of this generation (something that Nadal himself admitted, indirectly, a few months back in an interview).

Federer, unfortunatley was stuck between 2 eras of tennis. A weak era, and a new "golden age" brought on by Djokovic, Nadal, Murray etc. He shined through in the weak era (not taking anything away from him), but struggled once really good opponents started to come around.

Anybody who doesn't see this, is simply fooling themselves.

Yes this is spot on. Didnt nadal say after uso 2013 on court interview to djokovic that he was the best player he has ever played?

And hasnt djokovic said nadal made him the player he is today? I mean its quite clear what they are suggesting i think. And the one thing i did note when nadal lost last week was he did not refer to federer as the goat. I thought he would do at that point although given rod laver was there perhaps that stopped him. But he did say that about djokovic in 2013 effectively

 

[mike danny]

Yes this is spot on. Didnt nadal say after uso 2013 on court interview to djokovic that he was the best player he has ever played?

And hasnt djokovic said nadal made him the player he is today? I mean its quite clear what they are suggesting i think. And the one thing i did note when nadal lost last week was he did not refer to federer as the goat. I thought he would do at that point although given rod laver was there perhaps that stopped him. But he did say that about djokovic in 2013 effectively

Djokovic though said in 2015 that Federer is the greatest of all time.

 

[KINGROGER]

Yea overrated quite a bit (Im sure alot of has to do with his aesthetically pleasing tennis and marketing hype) . An all time great but not this "hands down GOAT" that people claim. A highly inflated resume due to coming along at the right time during a transitional period when past all time greats were on their last leg or retired and no other greats would come along for quite a few years.. It was an extremely weak period for a good 4-5 year stretch there. When greats came along to challenge him he had all kinds of issues and his breaking the record had more to do with Nadal's injury issues and Nole not coming into his own until 2011. His slam count is so high because he had a 5 year period there where he could do whatever he wanted. Because there are was no pressure put on him but another great player.

Extremely questionable on the big stage against the big dogs when the biggest pressure is on.

Definitely one of the greatest players ever and always will be.. Hands down greatest ever? Absolutely not. Top 4-5 ever for sure.. Hes not this tennis messiah that the nuts claim he is however.

I will say hes definitely the greatest ever at beating the guys hes supposed to beat. But that doesn't mean hes the greatest to ever play. You're greatest is put to the test though on the big stage against other all time greats.. And Fed did NOT deliver there.


If the guy was the true GOAT, when you factor in how many times he put himself in positions to win ( all those semis and finals appearances at all these tournaments), he would have far more than 17 slams and his masters count. But hes been stopped by 2 other all time greats so many times I lost count.

Federer was a cyclops at a time when the rest of the tour was blind.. But then 2 guys came along and really put Federer's greatness into question where, maybe he was NEVER as great as advertised.

People need to remember, Fed wouldn't even have the slam record right now if not for injuries to Nadal during the prime of his career (especially at his peak in 2009)

But theres absolutely nothing wrong with being among the top 4-5 players to ever play the game when you consider how many people have played tennis over the last 100 years

Load of rubbish.

Had Federer, Nadal and Djokovic been the same age, Fed would have more slams. His Wimbledon/USO tally wouldn't be affected in his prime years, and he'd win 4-5 AO, 2 x RG, 3-4 Wimbledons, 3-4 USO in his post prime 29 - 35 year old years.

Fed is actually really unlucky that his post prime years clashed with 2 prime ATG in Nadal and Djokovic. Since he himself entered his prime at age 22, compared to age 29 for Rafa and 20 for Djokovic. Both guys 5 years younger than him and cost him a bucketload of unhindered slams between ages 29 - 35.

 

[mike danny]

It cant be overlooked that since 2008 he has won less majors and has an inferior h2h to nadal and djokovic.

However he is not overrated. You can only beat whats in front of you and winning majors is difficult.

It makes the whole goat debate redundant as you cannot compare ayers of different eras and federer isnt actually the era of nadal and djokovic but in reality overlapped withbthere era.

If federers peak was said to have continued until his last major success then no he canr be goat. Too many beat downs from nadal and djokovic.

If though federers absolute peak years were before nadal and djokovic hit there peak then we will never know who was better.

The only people who can answer this whole question is someone who has played all the players at their peak on all surfaces. In terms of the big three i can only think of roddick and hewitt and possibly murray who have faced them everywhere at their best.

What's with this 2008 obsession? Is it because Nadal finally beat Federer at Wimb? So if Fed had lost the 2007 final, the strong era would have begun in 2007? Or if Fed had won the 2008 final, then the weak era would have continued until 2009?

Why is 2008 the boundary? It can't be because of Djokovic since Fed finished with a winning record over him that year, as well as higher in the rankings. He also reached more slam finals than Novak that year.

And it can't be because Nadal and Djokovic were top 3 players, because they were top 3 players in 2007 too when Fed was dominating.

 

[KINGROGER]

against a baby Nadal.

Yeah baby with 3 GS titles, 2 Wimbledon finals, multiple masters titles, including HC ones dating back to 05, multiple wins over peak GOATerer.

It cant be overlooked that since 2008 he has won less majors and has an inferior h2h to nadal and djokovic.

However he is not overrated. You can only beat whats in front of you and winning majors is difficult.

It makes the whole goat debate redundant as you cannot compare ayers of different eras and federer isnt actually the era of nadal and djokovic but in reality overlapped withbthere era.

If federers peak was said to have continued until his last major success then no he canr be goat. Too many beat downs from nadal and djokovic.

If though federers absolute peak years were before nadal and djokovic hit there peak then we will never know who was better.

The only people who can answer this whole question is someone who has played all the players at their peak on all surfaces. In terms of the big three i can only think of roddick and hewitt and possibly murray who have faced them everywhere at their best.

2008 was a bad year for Federer thanks to his debilitating mono illness he suffered at the end of 07. There's a reason his peak years were cut short and he was terrible that year until the USO where he finally picked up his form. His fitness and confidence suffered a huge blow.

Anything from 2010 onward is Federer past his prime vs 2 ATG who were 5 years younger than him. If Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were the same age, then the latter 2 would have 1 Wimbledon title at most and maybe 1 USO each too. Fed's totals wouldn't be affected, in fact he'd win a lot more considering he'd clean up aged 30-35 when Djokodal both decline.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah baby with 3 GS titles, 2 Wimbledon finals, multiple masters titles, including HC ones dating back to 05, multiple wins over peak GOATerer. What a stupid thng to say.



2008 was a bad year for Federer thanks to his debilitating mono illness he suffered at the end of 07. There's a reason his peak years were cut short and he was terrible that year until the USO where he finally picked up his form. His fitness and confidence suffered a huge blow.

Anything from 2010 onward is Federer past his prime vs 2 ATG who were 5 years younger than him. If Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were the same age, then the latter 2 would have 1 Wimbledon title at most and maybe 1 USO each too. Fed's totals wouldn't be affected, in fact he'd win a lot more considering he'd clean up aged 30-35 when Djokodal both decline.

If Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were the same age, all would have a lesser slam count. Fed would lose slams in his prime to Nadal and Djokovic, but so would Nadal and Djokovic lose slam in their primes to Federer.

Fed would make up for the deficit in his 30's when at least Nadal would not be the player he was in his prime. By the looks of it, neither would Djokovic.

 

[KINGROGER]

If Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were the same age, all would have a lesser slam count. Fed would lose slams in his prime to Nadal and Djokovic, but so would Nadal and Djokovic lose slam in their primes to Federer.

Fed would make up for the deficit in his 30's when at least Nadal would not be the player he was in his prime. By the looks of it, neither would Djokovic.

Fed would still likely win 5-6 Wimbledons, 4-5 USOs, 2-3 AOs during his prime and maybe 1-2 RG if Djokovic took out peak Nadal for him as Fed would be favoured vs Djokovic in the F as evidenced in 2011.

That's 12-16 majors during this period. Then as you say during his 30s I could see Fed winning 4-5 AO, 3-4 Wimbledon, 2 RG (2011, 2012), 3-4 USO so that's another 11-15 slams meaning he'd likely be around 22-25 slams when all is said and done, and literally doing a Serena and sweeping up the weak field in her / his 30s.

He's been really unlucky actually that 1. he wasn't able to enter his prime until he was 22. Had he primed from age 19/20 like Djokodal then he would have a few more slams between 2001-2003 period for sure, 1-2 potential more FO as well.

and 2. his later years have clashed with 2 prime top 5 of all time ATG Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[mike danny]

Let me guess, Federer had a recurrence of mono for the '09 AO?

The effects of mono is overrated. Federer went through the 2008 FO without losing a set until the final. Nadal was just that much better than Federer.

Federer lost 3 sets on his way to the final.

And in the final he played like garbage.

 

[Drlexus]

Djokovic though said in 2015 that Federer is the greatest of all time.

Did he say the or one of the?

 

[Drlexus]

What's with this 2008 obsession? Is it because Nadal finally beat Federer at Wimb? So if Fed had lost the 2007 final, the strong era would have begun in 2007? Or if Fed had won the 2008 final, then the weak era would have continued until 2009?

Why is 2008 the boundary? It can't be because of Djokovic since Fed finished with a winning record over him that year, as well as higher in the rankings. He also reached more slam finals than Novak that year.

And it can't be because Nadal and Djokovic were top 3 players, because they were top 3 players in 2007 too when Fed was dominating.

Simply because its when nadal proved he could win big events on all surfaces and ive always thought 21 is like when players peaks start in earnest. Historically most have great players have achieved something at or by 21

 

[Shaolin]

He's been underrated for years. Everyone counted him out for another slam even though he was right there in close proximity the whole time.

#18 was a nice kick in the nuts to the haters.

 

[mike danny]

Did he say the or one of the?

http://www.skysports.com/tennis/new...serve-was-the-key-to-victory-over-andy-murray

 

[Drlexus]

Yeah baby with 3 GS titles, 2 Wimbledon finals, multiple masters titles, including HC ones dating back to 05, multiple wins over peak GOATerer.

2008 was a bad year for Federer thanks to his debilitating mono illness he suffered at the end of 07. There's a reason his peak years were cut short and he was terrible that year until the USO where he finally picked up his form. His fitness and confidence suffered a huge blow.

Anything from 2010 onward is Federer past his prime vs 2 ATG who were 5 years younger than him. If Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were the same age, then the latter 2 would have 1 Wimbledon title at most and maybe 1 USO each too. Fed's totals wouldn't be affected, in fact he'd win a lot more considering he'd clean up aged 30-35 when Djokodal both decline.

Id love to get roddick or hewitt or murray or nalbandian or all of them to give a detailed report on who they thought was the best they played at their peak out of federer nadal and djokovic.

They always avoid the question though because of fheir friendships with the three.

What i do know is federer should have hit his backhamd like he has in australia a decade ago.

He could win the french open btw. Dont rule him out. He outlasted nadal in alot of long rallies. So dont just focus on wimbledon.

 

[Drlexus]

http://www.skysports.com/tennis/new...serve-was-the-key-to-victory-over-andy-murray

Thank you

 

[mike danny]

Thank you

Anytime

 

[KINGROGER]

Id love to get roddick or hewitt or murray or nalbandian or all of them to give a detailed report on who they thought was the best they played at their peak out of federer nadal and djokovic.

They always avoid the question though because of fheir friendships with the three.

What i do know is federer should have hit his backhamd like he has in australia a decade ago.

He could win the french open btw. Dont rule him out. He outlasted nadal in alot of long rallies. So dont just focus on wimbledon.

I agree regarding his BH. He should have upped the aggression from about 08 onward, or at least from 2010. I feel he missed a few opportunities playing too passively and should've switched rackets around 2010 as well, as soon as he started getting blown off the court by the likes of Soderling and Berdych.

 

[Drlexus]

Anytime

I take the players views as gospel given they actually are the ones who face each other and get to feel the heat.

Just hope nadal keeps his form up. Federer will im sure but nadal? Im not so sure he will. At times dimitrov, zverev and monfils made him look pedestrian.

Nobody makes federer look pedestrian. That is a crucial point in terms of consistency going forward

 

[KINGROGER]

Let me guess, Federer had a recurrence of mono for the '09 AO?

The effects of mono is overrated. Federer went through the 2008 FO without losing a set until the final. Nadal was just that much better than Federer.

No in the 09 AO he just served like crap but still made it a quality 5 set match but ran out of steam by the end as his fitness was nowhere near Nadal's.

Mono affected him from the start of 08 and messed up his training blocks / fitness which led to a lack of confidence. That's why his sudden sharp decline in form between the 07 WTF, and the 08 AO.

 

[-NN-]

If Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were the same age, all would have a lesser slam count. Fed would lose slams in his prime to Nadal and Djokovic, but so would Nadal and Djokovic lose slam in their primes to Federer.

Fed would make up for the deficit in his 30's when at least Nadal would not be the player he was in his prime. By the looks of it, neither would Djokovic.

I don't even believe this. Depends on the starting point. Maybe the spread would be different but if they all start when Fed started then I imagine that today they'd have more than 44 Slams combined right now.

 

[Drlexus]

I agree regarding his BH. He should have upped the aggression from about 08 onward, or at least from 2010. I feel he missed a few opportunities playing too passively and should've switched rackets around 2010 as well, as soon as he started getting blown off the court by the likes of Soderling and Berdych.

The greatest are also the most stubborn!

You woukd think nadal might have realised at the stage of career he is at he needs cheaper points and hence a better serve and to stand closer to the baseline when returning!

 

[AceSalvo]

Slightly overrated by beating a 14 slam champion after being down a break in the 5th set.

Fed deserves the "Overrated Champion" title.

 

[90's Clay]

All time great. GOAT Candidate. But hands down GOAT to ever pick up a racket and no one else compares? Thats what makes him overrated.

To answer your question, Yes he is overrated

 

[mike danny]

I was thinking of Wimbledon '08 where he went through until the final without losing a set.

Then a young clay courter beats the greatest player of all time on his favourite surface...

That's how good Nadal was. Federer at his peak in his mid-20's, but the young clay courter was better than best grass court player of all time.

In that case Soderling was better than the best clay courter of all time.

 

[AceSalvo]

I was thinking of Wimbledon '08 where he went through until the final without losing a set.

Then a young clay courter beats the greatest player of all time on his favourite surface...

That's how good Nadal was. Federer at his peak in his mid-20's, but the young clay courter was better than best grass court player of all time.

1 slam A Rod took the greatest grass court player of all time to 5 sets at Wimb as well. What does it tell us?

 

[Praetorian]

It cant be overlooked that since 2008 he has won less majors and has an inferior h2h to nadal and djokovic.

However he is not overrated. You can only beat whats in front of you and winning majors is difficult.

It makes the whole goat debate redundant as you cannot compare ayers of different eras and federer isnt actually the era of nadal and djokovic but in reality overlapped withbthere era.

If federers peak was said to have continued until his last major success then no he canr be goat. Too many beat downs from nadal and djokovic.

If though federers absolute peak years were before nadal and djokovic hit there peak then we will never know who was better.

The only people who can answer this whole question is someone who has played all the players at their peak on all surfaces. In terms of the big three i can only think of roddick and hewitt and possibly murray who have faced them everywhere at their best.

Ahhh.. logic. The bane of the TT forum existence.

 

[AceSalvo]

because of injury.

LOL.

What happened to Fed in 2008 happened to Nadal in 2009. Thats all there is to it.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

All time great. GOAT Candidate. But hands down GOAT to ever pick up a racket and no one else compares? Thats what makes him overrated.

To answer your question, Yes he is overrated

I thought there were no excuses after the AO final...

 

[tennis_crazy]

No matter whatever happens...idiots will continue to be idiots

 

[PrinceMoron]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

 

[KINGROGER]

Okay, but a healthy Federer took 5 sets to beat a recently turned 21 year old clay courter in the Wimbledon 07 final.

Even last week Federer admitted mono wasn't the reason for losing Wimbledon 08. It was because Nadal had mentally broken him clay. Federer basically admitted he lost to Nadal because of mental weakness, not physical illness.

His overall level of play was much worse in 08 than 07 and losing the RG final so heavily was partly down to his own level and fitness being lower than previous years where he competed well and took a set each time.

Also Rafa wasn't just a "clay courter" he has multiple hard court masters wins and 2 Wimbledon finals.

Fed's absolute grass peak was 03-06 with 07 being lesser peak. His last peak tournament was 07 WTF.

 

[KINGROGER]

If you can only beat what's in front of you, then Serena Williams is better than Federer because 23 majors is better than 18. Also, more weeks at number one, Williams has had to comeback from injury throughout her career. Imagine how good she would be without injury.

Federer didn't miss a single major until last year. Truly astonishing injury run.

Dat Federer luck.

Federer entered his prime 1-2 years later than Djokodal both did and had two 5-6 years younger ATG top 5 ever players to contend with from the age of 24-26 onward on mostly slow surfaces vs two defensive grinders.

If they were all the same age, Fed would have 25+ slams as he'd clean up ages 30-35 to compensate for the 3-4 slams he'd lose to Nadal and Djokovic during his prime. Fed was actually really unlucky.

Serena = Federer but with no Djokovic/Nadal in his later years.

 

[-NN-]

His overall level of play was much worse in 08 than 07 and losing the RG final so heavily was partly down to his own level and fitness being lower than previous years where he competed well and took a set each time.

Also Rafa wasn't just a "clay courter" he has multiple hard court masters wins and 2 Wimbledon finals.

Fed's absolute grass peak was 03-06 with 07 being lesser peak. His last peak tournament was 07 WTF.

Buddy, I can't agree. I love me some 2010 AO Fed, Davydenko hiccup and all. What about some of Federer's later Cinci performances? As dominant as it gets. He continued to improve his serve and dominant quickfire patterns of play beyond 2007 and it's resulted in some beautiful tournament performances on faster HC, such as winning Cinci without losing a set in 2012 and 2015, not even having his serve broken on one occasion (2015? memory hazy here).

**

Didn't get broken in 2012 or 2015 at Cinci, and only faced break points in one game during 2015, against Deliciano Lopez.

Thanks, @ZiggyStardust

 

[ZiggyStardust]

Buddy, I can't agree. I love me some 2010 AO Fed, Davydenko hiccup and all. What about some of Federer's later Cinci performances? As dominant as it gets. He continued to improve his serve and dominant quickfire patterns of play beyond 2007 and it's resulted in some beautiful tournament performances on faster HC, such as winning Cinci without losing a set in 2012 and 2015, not even having his serve broken on one occasion (2015? memory hazy here).

He didn't lose serve both times! In Cinci '15 he faced break points in only one game in the entire tournament (against Feliciano Lopez of all people)

 

[KINGROGER]

Buddy, I can't agree. I love me some 2010 AO Fed, Davydenko hiccup and all. What about some of Federer's later Cinci performances? As dominant as it gets. He continued to improve his serve and dominant quickfire patterns of play beyond 2007 and it's resulted in some beautiful tournament performances on faster HC, such as winning Cinci without losing a set in 2012 and 2015, not even having his serve broken on one occasion (2015? memory hazy here).

I meant his grass peak . I haven't seen Fed play at a very high level since 07, he's gradually been getting worse and worse and doesn't seem able to bring an attacking A game to Wimbledon in my opinion. Even in 09 he relied on his serve and Roddick choking.

He's still had some HC master classes since then but overall apart from the USO 08 was a step below 07 which is a shame he declined that much being only 26-27 years old but he never dominated in the same fashion as 03 (Wimbledon and WTF) - 06 or 07 in my opinion.

 

[-NN-]

I meant his grass peak . I haven't seen Fed play at a very high level since 07, he's gradually been getting worse and worse and doesn't seem able to bring an attacking A game to Wimbledon in my opinion. Even in 09 he relied on his serve and Roddick choking.

He's still had some HC master classes since then but overall apart from the USO 08 was a step below 07 which is a shame he declined that much being only 26-27 years old but he never dominated in the same fashion as 03 (Wimbledon and WTF) - 06 or 07 in my opinion.

What annoys me about the 2014 Wimbledon final is that he brought wonderful tennis to the fore to turn the match around and take it into set 5, but once he got to set 5 he reverted. He needed to try and fly through like that till the very end. I think he had it in his legs to do that but perhaps he felt in control by then and felt his more standard approach would suffice. He did get that first BP in the 5th and yeah.... we know what happened.

If Federer's backhand is no fluke, I think we can see more peak Federer in the future on grass and HC. During AO 2017 there were glimpses of his FH being the best it's been with the RF97, and his backhand was a consistent revelation. What if he gets his top notch movement back without letting that tempt him to fall into less aggressive tactics in his ground-game? Watch out.

The key is to be efficient and quick about business, because even if he produces more top top form in the future, no matter what his body will recover less quickly than it once did. We also can't take his fitness for granted.

 

[KINGROGER]

Took 4 sets in the 06 Wimbldeon final to beat a clay courter who had recently turned 20. Took 4 sets to beat a crippled baseliner in the 2005 US Open final. Same baseliner who wasn't good enough 3 years prior to that to beat a Sampras with a really bad back.

Funny how the end of his peak coincided right with the moment that Nadal got the best of him on grass. Rogi could go through Wimbledon 2008 without losing a set up until the final, but if only he was still at his peak. Would have straight setted Nadal in the final...

And? Rafa the clay god needed 4 sets to beat Fed on his worst surface at RG 05-07 a reverse of Wimbledon 06, with the bagel thrown in there... also not just a "clay courter" with 2 HC masters you pathetic troll.

08 Fed wasn't peak. He beat Djokovic in straights at the 07 USO but then was comfortably beaten in straights come the AO where he played about 20% as well as his 07 masterclass.

Nadal got the best of him on grass for exactly that reason, he wasn't at his best. Go and watch the 06 and 08 finals again and notice how 06 Fed is far far better in all aspects especially precision and depth on both wings and overall movement.

How the f was Agassi "crippled" he was a GS finalist and a danger for anyone. Losing 1 set is no shame and regardless Fed won once the match wore on.

If Fed was at his peak in 2008, the W final likely would've gone back and forth for a 4-5 set win for Fed and he wouldn't have choked a 4-1 games lead 2nd set.

I'm not sure what exactly your point is you troll, other than you stupidly and erroneously claiming 2008 Federer is somehow still peak despite performing worse in absolutely every metric compared to 04-07. Heck, 07 was worse than 04-06 by 3-4 titles and win %.

 

[KINGROGER]

What annoys me about the 2014 Wimbledon final is that he brought wonderful tennis to the fore to turn the match around and take it into set 5, but once he got to set 5 he reverted. He needed to try and fly through like that till the very end. I think he had it in his legs to do that but perhaps he felt in control by then and felt his more standard approach would suffice. He did get that first BP in the 5th and yeah.... we know what happened.

If Federer's backhand is no fluke, I think we can see more peak Federer in the future on grass and HC. During AO 2017 there were glimpses of his FH being the best it's been with the RF97, and his backhand was a consistent revelation. What if he gets his top notch movement back without letting that tempt him to fall into less aggressive tactics in his ground-game? Watch out.

The key is to be efficient and quick about business, because even if he produces more top top form in the future, no matter what his body will recover less quickly than it once did. We also can't take his fitness for granted.

I would absolutely love to see this Fed playing ultra aggressive tennis at Wimbledon and USO and hope he can bring it. Great post agreed.

 

[KINGROGER]

I think you're trolling me...

Nadal was 18 when he beat a peak Federer in 4 at the 2005 French Open. I'm not even sure Nadal was shaving yet or had completed puberty. Not to mention the huge advantage Federer had in terms of experience.

On Federer's best surface, Nadal could match and better Federer.

On Nadal's best surface, Federer was no match at all. Even when Nadal was going through the late stages of puberty.

Not trolling. Just flipping your ridiculous "lost a set" argument against 06 Fed when Rafa lost a set to Federer on Fed's worst surface in each of 05,06,07,11 at RG.

Your puberty comments are what to expect from a pathetic and dumb troll. Rafa in 05 played some of the best clay court tennis ever. Age is irrelevant when it comes to playing level.

Nadal was better than Fed on clay than Fed was on grass yeah I agree with that although I don't think Rafa would beat peak Fed at Wimbledon.

However Fed was a better overall tennis player, that's why he has 18 grand slams, 5 x 3 at different slams, 1 RG with 4 other finals. Multiple titles on every surface. Undefeated on grass during his peak. Insane almost unbeatable HC winning record between 04 - 06 period etc etc.

 

[KINGROGER]

Except Federer was the greatest player in the history of the universe and at his peak. An old baseliner took a set off him still.

Nadal was a raw, 18 year old clay courter. Still a work in progress. Yet still beat the greatest player in the history of the universe who was in 2005 at his peak. Nadal was quite a few years from his peak.

Incredible of the 18 year old. A prodigy. If it wasn't for conditions conspiring against Nadal in the QF of the French Open in 2009, the greatest player in the history of the universe has no clay court majors to his name.



I agree is was incredible tennis. Nadal in 2008 was playing at a higher level again.



I consider 2007 Federer to be at his peak and the young clay courter took Rogi to 5 sets at Wimbledon.

I consider 2008 Federer to be at his peak and the young clay courter beat Rogi in 5 sets at Wimbledon. Federer reached the final of Wimbledon 08 without losing a set. That's how high a level of tennis Rogi was playing.



You have to look at the level of someone's competition. You can't just look at raw numbers. Federer has so many relatively easy major finals 2003-07. The quality just wasn't there.

Nadal has played 21 major finals, with his opponent being Federer (mostly at his peak) and Djokovic (mostly at his peak) in 16 of those encounters. Incredible. Nadal has had to face two guys with 30 majors between them in nearly 80% of his GS finals.

Nadal's won 10 of his 14 major titles by beating Federer (mostly at his peak) and Djokovic (mostly at his peak).

In contrast, Federer has 18 major titles, but in only 4 of the 18 has he beaten Nadal or Djokovic. There's no doubt Federer had it a lot easier than Nadal.

08 Federer isn't peak. If he was, then he'd have another 2-3 slam year rather than just the USO. Djokovic didn't become a better player between 07 uso and 08 ao, Fed just became much worse over a few months. It doesn't matter what a pathetic little troll like you thinks is peak level. Fed didn't drop a set before his 2015 USO F either but was still demonstrably much worse than he was back in 04-08. That isn't evidence someone's level of play.

Also LOL @ Nadal's competition. Federer is no competition on clay when he can simply moonball to his BH. Also Djokovic played like **** in both his USO final losses to Nadal so you can't go off just name alone.

Also no idea why you keep calling a man with multiple Hard court masters titles, multiple Wimbledon finals a "clay courter" as if he's some sort of specialist who sucked on other surfaces (when he demonstrably didn't).

Yes Fed's peak is the highest in tennis history across the whole tour. 5 straight Wimbledon, 4 straight USO, 3/4 AO, 2 FO finals&1 SF only losing to the clay GOAT during this period. Unbeaten on grass. Almost invincible on hard courts between 04-06 with only a handful of losses. Quite simply the best player ever and that's why he has 18 GS, 302 weeks at number 1 with 237 in a row, 5 GS at 3 different majors.

 

[mike danny]

What annoys me about the 2014 Wimbledon final is that he brought wonderful tennis to the fore to turn the match around and take it into set 5, but once he got to set 5 he reverted. He needed to try and fly through like that till the very end. I think he had it in his legs to do that but perhaps he felt in control by then and felt his more standard approach would suffice. He did get that first BP in the 5th and yeah.... we know what happened.

If Federer's backhand is no fluke, I think we can see more peak Federer in the future on grass and HC. During AO 2017 there were glimpses of his FH being the best it's been with the RF97, and his backhand was a consistent revelation. What if he gets his top notch movement back without letting that tempt him to fall into less aggressive tactics in his ground-game? Watch out.

The key is to be efficient and quick about business, because even if he produces more top top form in the future, no matter what his body will recover less quickly than it once did. We also can't take his fitness for granted.

As much as I didn't like to see Fed lose To Djokovic in those slam finals, I think those losses proved to be a blessing in disguise. And I say that because I think Federer needed those losses to succeed this time around.

 

[mike danny]

If Federer is overrated, so is everyone else.

 

[KINGROGER]

Except Federer was the greatest player in the history of the universe and at his peak. An old baseliner took a set off him still.

Nadal was a raw, 18 year old clay courter. Still a work in progress. Yet still beat the greatest player in the history of the universe who was in 2005 at his peak. Nadal was quite a few years from his peak.

Incredible of the 18 year old. A prodigy. If it wasn't for conditions conspiring against Nadal in the QF of the French Open in 2009, the greatest player in the history of the universe has no clay court majors to his name.



I agree is was incredible tennis. Nadal in 2008 was playing at a higher level again.



I consider 2007 Federer to be at his peak and the young clay courter took Rogi to 5 sets at Wimbledon.

I consider 2008 Federer to be at his peak and the young clay courter beat Rogi in 5 sets at Wimbledon. Federer reached the final of Wimbledon 08 without losing a set. That's how high a level of tennis Rogi was playing.



You have to look at the level of someone's competition. You can't just look at raw numbers. Federer has so many relatively easy major finals 2003-07. The quality just wasn't there.

Nadal has played 21 major finals, with his opponent being Federer (mostly at his peak) and Djokovic (mostly at his peak) in 16 of those encounters. Incredible. Nadal has had to face two guys with 30 majors between them in nearly 80% of his GS finals.

Nadal's won 10 of his 14 major titles by beating Federer (mostly at his peak) and Djokovic (mostly at his peak).

In contrast, Federer has 18 major titles, but in only 4 of the 18 has he beaten Nadal or Djokovic. There's no doubt Federer had it a lot easier than Nadal.

Also you got your numbers wrong, pathetic troll.

Federer has beaten one of Djokodal on route to :

06 Wimbledon
07 AO
07 Wimbledon
07 USO
08 USO
12 Wimbledon
17 AO

That's 7 / 18 before we even consider occasions when Nadal or Djokovic were owned by guys Fed beat handily. Such as Gonzalez owning Nadal in 07, Murray owning Nadal in 08 and 10 (Fed going on to win all 3 finals) or Djokovic owned by Roddick in 2009 AO QF or Haas in 09 Wimbledon QF.

Fed has had it much harder. If all 3 were born in 1981, Fed is still winning 5-6 Wimbledons 5 straight USO, 2-3 AO, maybe 1 FO extra if Djokovic takes out Nadal for him.

Then he sweeps up Serena style if not better between age 30-35 for a final slam total of 22-25 minimum. He's really unlucky he hit his prime later than the other two, then had his peak cut short by mono, had to face two ATG 5 years younger from age of 26, stopped by clay god winning 6 RG etc.

 

[fednad]

Yes Federer is overrated.
Now count from 1 to 18 and eat a toffee -> Rinse and repeat till you get bored of life.