Is Federer overrated?

Age is irrelevant when it comes to playing level.
I don't much care about the rest of this argument. I'll just let this sit here while I laugh at the irony of you saying this.

after 12 is geriatric grandad era.
Djokovic's main completion was his pigeon Murray and a geriatric grandad. He can't beat himself.
The only version of Fed Djokovic edged was geriatric grampa Fed.
 
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.
I have never understood that reasoning.

Roger won 11 out of 18 slams in 4 years, that is 61% of the slams in those 4 years.

Rafa won 8 out of 14 slams in the four years 2008-2010 and 2013, that is 57%

Djokovic won 9 out of 12 in the 4 years 2011 and 2014-2016, that is in fact 75%

Sampras won 8 out of 14 slams in the 4 years 1993-1995 and 97, that is 57%

All these players won about 60% or more of their slams in their 4 best years, so why all this BS regarding Roger? It is normal for a player to win most of the slams in his 4 best years.
 
C

Charlie

Guest
Remove every player's best four seasons and Federer would come out on top again.
Remove every player's favorite Slam and Federer would come out on top again.
No matter what kind of cherry picking you pick the end result will be the same, Federer on top.
This order doesn't take anything away from other greats of the game so no need for any player's fans, Fed's or somebody else's, to be insecure about it.
 
Yeah but in this decade(2010-2015) only 2 slams won. Why is he even relevant in the current discussion? Stan Wawrinka is more relevant having won 2 slams in 2 years.
No player has won more than two slams after turning 30 sinse Laver. Add to it all the finals Roger has reached post 30, and i think he has done pretty well. Lets see how Novak and Rafa does post 30.
 

Candide

Hall of Fame
There can be no doubt that Federer is simply a very mediocre tenniser who has simply had the GOAT level luck 18 times in his preternaturally flukey career. This has been clearly and scientifically established by various cool and rational posters on these boards many, many, many times over. They have proved the existence and location of the exact calendar boundaries of the very weakest of all tennis eras in which he played. They have objectively identified and exposed all of his myriad frailties and shortcomings from his club level, joke backhand, his inability to play four shots in a row without framing (shanking) a ball into the stands, his total lack of mental fortitude, his comic inability to convert break points, his awful net game and his woefully weak and overrated serve. Not to mention the that they have definitive proof that he has functioning tear ducts - an unacceptable deformity for any professional sportsman and indeed any human male over the age of six.

So in fact if we factor in the Luck to the equation then what we can be certain of is that Federer is the GLOAT. Simples.

 
Last edited:

NGM

Hall of Fame
21st century to date (17 years) has been basically the century of GOAT competition between Federer vs the amazing generation i.e Nadal, Djokovic and Murray and you can count Wawrinka for an extension.

The competition to determine who is GOAT between one man vs an entire generation and that generation is losing.

It speaks volume how great Federer is. He is 5-6 years older than the amazing generation and he beat them left and right.

We are not worthy.
 
Federer is older player than both Djokovic and Nadal..half a decade older at least. I would say he is unlucky not to get 23 slams like Serena Williams, combination of age factor and slower surfaces getting outgrind by young physical players. If they start at same age, Federer would lock up many slams from 30-35 and have positive h2h against both.

People here say he is overrated, i say he is underrated.

We shouldn't talk about weak field, 3 of them played against the same field. Djokovic lost to Wawrinka.

2015+ field is weak as hell with Berdych, Nishikori, Ferrer, Cilic getting worse and Del potro is supposed to challenge in Djokodal's era but he is MIA.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster


Most TW poasters say they play better than this. So i guess he is overrated.

Even those who don't/can't play, rate him quite low. But I guess since they post a lot of tips in the Tips section, they must know something I don't.
 
I'm talking IN major finals.

Federer's won 18 major finals, but he's only beaten Nadal and Djokovic in 4 of them.
What different does it make if its final or SF? o_O

Nadal's won 14 major finals, but he's had to beat (mostly peak) Federer and (mostly peak) Djokovic in 10 of them. Nadal had it so much tougher than Federer in winning his 14.
This is a common misunderstanding. At first thought, it seems reasonable that Nadal was "sandwiched in between" Federer and Djo ko. But Rafas prime was the 6 years 2008-2013 (13 counting). How many slams did Federer stop Nadal from winning those years? Federer isnt even a factor. Djokovic only beat Nadal in 3 slams in a stretch from Wimbledon 11 until Aussie 12. So the 5.5 other years Nadal cant blame either Federer or Djokovic for not winning more slams.
 
Last edited:
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.
You mean his peak. That's any athlete. "A measly 6 slams" One of the most troll threads I've seen here, and I've seen a lot of them in my short time, every other one. This forum is like a competitive field for trolling.
 
Last edited:
I'm talking IN major finals.

Federer's won 18 major finals, but he's only beaten Nadal and Djokovic in 4 of them.

Nadal's won 14 major finals, but he's had to beat (mostly peak) Federer and (mostly peak) Djokovic in 10 of them. Nadal had it so much tougher than Federer in winning his 14.

Before 2008, Djokovic was not the player he was in 2011. Different era. Not helping your argument. I'll agree that Djokovic has won his 12 against much easier competition than Nadal, but not easier than Federer.

Federer sneaked in 12 relatively easy titles (in a weak era often against unseeded players) before a young Nadal won his first non-clay slam.
Irrelevant if he beat them in SF too along the way.

I don't care if Djokovic wasn't as good as his peak in 2011. If you're using post 2007 Fed as peak (LOL) then Djokovic from 07 counts as a formidable opponent.

Also LOL at Fed winning easy titles, when Nadal is crashing out to the likes of Murray x 2 LOL Ferrer x2, Tsonga, Gonzalez, Rosol, Darcis, Brown, Kyrgios, Washed up Hewitt, Blake, Youzny LMAO All guys Fed easily beat during his prime.

The last line of your post is absolute rubbish.
 
Last edited:

Candide

Hall of Fame
Irrelevant if he beat them in SF too along the way.

I don't care if Djokovic wasn't as good as his peak in 2011. If you're using post 2007 Fed as peak (LOL) then Djokovic from 07 counts as a formidable opponent.

Also LOL at Fed winning easy titles, when Nadal is crashing out to the likes of Murray x 2 LOL Ferrer x2, Tsonga, Gonzalez, Rosol, Darcis, Brown, Kyrgios, Washed up Hewitt, Blake, Youzny LMAO All guys Fed easily beat during his prime.

The last line of your garbage post is particularly pathetic and wrong, but I don't expect any better from a pathetic troll.
Dudes like our "new user" prodigy above now exactly how easy it is to win a grand slam. It's a easy as hitting the keys of your computer and just typing in numbers. "Look, given the opposition he had he should have won 20... no 25." The only limits on them is their imagination and their will to provoke and annoy. Those who know tennis, who play tennis and who really watch tennis know the truth. Nothing is easy. It's dedication, pain, denial, focus, anguish, disappointment over and over again until - maybe - you get to hold your fist aloft finally. The truth does hurt but not everyone is up to facing it.
 
What different does it make if its final or SF? o_O



This is a common misunderstanding. At first thought, it seems reasonable that Nadal was "sandwiched in between" Federer and Djo ko. But Rafas prime was the 6 years 2008-2013 (13 counting). How many slams did Federer stop Nadal from winning those years? Federer isnt even a factor. Djokovic only beat Nadal in 3 slams in a stretch from Wimbledon 11 until Aussie 12. So the 5.5 other years Nadal cant blame either Federer or Djokovic for not winning more slams.

Yep. Let's take a look at some Nadal slam losses:

07 AO - Gonzalez (destroyed by Federer in the final)
07 USO - Pigeon Ferrer (LOL)
08 AO - Tsonga (owned by Djokovic in final)
08 USO - Murray (utterly destroyed by Federer in the final)
09 RG - Soderling (destroyed by Federer in the final)
09 USO - GOATing Del Potro in straights (beat Fed too, but in 5 tight sets after Fed choked away that one)
10 AO - Murray (utterly destroyed by Federer in the final)
11 AO - Pigeon Ferrer in straight sets (LOL)
12 Wimbledon - WR100 something Rosol (LOLOLOL)
13 Wimbledon - WR 100 something Darcis (LOLOLOLOLOL)

What a tough era. Nadal only lost to Djokovic or Federer, right????
 
Last edited:
21st century to date (17 years) has been basically the century of GOAT competition between Federer vs the amazing generation i.e Nadal, Djokovic and Murray and you can count Wawrinka for an extension.
Only because of recency bias. There's only one guy in that list who deserves to be nominated for GOAT, and that's Federer. I'm sure within 10 years we'll have 2 or three 'GOAT contenders' again, and Fedalovic will be dropped from most GOAT discussions.
 
Nadal was a 20 year old clay courter at the time.

Federer was still losing at the first round of Wimbledon when he was 20.

Later in Nadal's career you have to take into account his bad luck with injuries. He's missed about 8 majors through injuries and retired hurt in another 4. A lot of these injuries stemming from the birth defect in his feet.

Federer has never had the constant stop-starts throughout his career like Nadal. 2016 was the first time he missed a major in his career.

Sure Federer plays a style of play that revolves around his big serve (which delivers cheap/free points), but so did Sampras. Sampras struggled with injury, Federer has dodged that bullet. Very, very lucky in that sense.

Amazing that Nadal has 14 majors with all the tennis he has missed over the years.
Clay courter with 2 HC masters, 2 HC 500 titles and 1 Wimbledon final... 2 HC wins over the GOAT/HC GOAT, better than most players entire career...

I don't take into account anything regarding injuries or anything, tough luck. Nadal has lost plenty of times to mugs when fit and healthy too.

Fed's style of playing is all court, he can win at his prime via grinding, S&V, first strike tennis, ultra offensive winners based tennis. Nadal is the more one dimensional player who runs side to side playing retrieval tapback tennis.
 
Last edited:
Enough with the personal attacks.

The criticism of Nadal back then was that he was a clay courter. Also, it's probably a reflection on how week an era it was between 2003-07 more than anything that an undeveloped, raw clay courter barely out of puberty was making a Wimbledon final and winning hard court titles.
Nadal entered his prime in 2005.

You're arguing facts with your subjective bollocks. Try again.

There's nothing you can do to excuse Nadal's high number of losses to average players at slams. That's why he's only on 14 and only 5 non RG slams.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
I'm talking IN major finals.

Federer's won 18 major finals, but he's only beaten Nadal and Djokovic in 4 of them.

Nadal's won 14 major finals, but he's had to beat (mostly peak) Federer and (mostly peak) Djokovic in 10 of them. Nadal had it so much tougher than Federer in winning his 14.

Before 2008, Djokovic was not the player he was in 2011. Different era. Not helping your argument. I'll agree that Djokovic has won his 12 against much easier competition than Nadal, but not easier than Federer.

Federer sneaked in 12 relatively easy titles (in a weak era often against unseeded players) before a young Nadal won his first non-clay slam.
Yoi know nothing about his titles, yet you speak like you do.
 
Very convenient to your argument to have Nadal entering his prime at 18. Please, mid-20's is a player's peak. Federer hit his peak during a vacuum in men's tennis. Women's tennis had more depth in that period.

Half of the outdoor season is played on clay. If we're going to discount clay results, then it's only fair if we discount outdoor hard court results too.

It's a shame for Nadal that there's only one clay major but two outdoor hardcourt majors. Nadal might have 20+ majors otherwise.
Nadal hit his prime in 2005 when he became top 2 and won 11 titles... age is irrelevant when looking at player ability. Fed hit his prime at 22, Nadal 19, Djokovic 20. I didn't say anything about peak. Nadal's peak on clay was 05 - 09, peak on grass 07 - 10, peak on hard courts 08 - 13. Djokovic peaked everywhere in 2011-2016.

There was no vacuum there were plenty of top players such as Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Ferrero, Old Agassi, Nalbandian, Nadal etc. Then Djokovic from 07 as well.

Discounting both hard courts and clay leaves Federer on 8 slams and Nadal on 2.

8 > 2 whatever way you want to spin it.

Grass is basically played on three weeks out of the year. Really, when talking about all time great players in the last 20 years, grass shouldn't really be much of a consideration because so little tennis is played on it.

I don't like grass in general. Wimbledon serves up the worst quality tennis of the four majors because of the inconsistent surface.
LMAO Grass is far superior to clay which enables tactics such as "moonball to BH, run like a rabbit side to side playing tap back retrieval tennis".
 
Very convenient to your argument to have Nadal entering his prime at 18. Please, mid-20's is a player's peak. Federer hit his peak during a vacuum in men's tennis. Women's tennis had more depth in that period..
Do you think there is some magic number where players peak, like a computer chip in the human brain?
God you are pathetic with your silly excuses.
Maybe you should watch more sports, then you might see that players peak at different ages, hell some players even peak very late like 28-29 in several sports, while others at 19-20.
Moronic post dude, just accept the truth, Federer is a bigger talent than Nadal, and as KINGROGER said Nadal lost to alot of mugs in grand slams, there really is no excuse for him, he is just overrated apart from Clay period.
 
The fact is that pre-2008 there was a vacuum in men's tennis. Federer faced relatively weak opposition in many of slam finals between 2003-07. That's just a fact.
Get it through your thick head, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF B PLAYER BEATS A PLAYER IN THE FINAL OR SEMI FINAL OR QUARTER FINAL, HE FACED STRONG OPPOSITION, DOESN'T MATTER WHERE AND HAD TO BEAT IT TO GET TO THE FINAL AND WIN, GOD YOU ARE BUTTHURT dude, GET OVER IT.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
The fact is that pre-2008 there was a vacuum in men's tennis. Federer faced relatively weak opposition in many of slam finals between 2003-07. That's just a fact.
You said he often faced unseeded players, which already shows you know nothing about his titles.

And the final isn't the only match in a slam. Fed faced strong opposition before the finals in some of his slams.
 
You said he often faced unseeded players, which already shows you know nothing about his titles.

And the final isn't the only match in a slam. Fed faced strong opposition before the finals in some of his slams.
Its pointless to argue with him, he knows deep inside that Nadal comes short, yet he is trying to delude himself and convince himself in his head that its not the truth to feel better.
Its like they say, if you start telling yourself something over and over again it doesn't matter how insane it might be, ur going to start believing it.
 
Just the one clay court title. A lot more tennis is played on clay than grass, therefore clay performance should be much more heavily weighted.
lolwut

There is one clay major and one grass major. If your boy can't win more than Fed despite apparently being better (according to you), then that's his problem - and yours.
Deal.
 
Exactly. Those guys just aren't on the level of a 2008- Nadal or 2011- Djokovic. Weak era. A lot of those guys had relatively low seedings when Federer beat them.
Nadal must be very overrated then, since those weak players were destroying him all those years in the hard courts and hard slams.
Oh wait... I forgot... that was super bad horrible young baby Nadal, then in 2008 he MAGICALY turned into a GOAT hardcore, grass, clay all around player, best in history that none ever saw, LOL, pathetic troll is pathetic.
 
Im pretty convinced this Truth guy is a troll btw, nobody can be so ignorant, I advice all you people to ignore him and not reply to him anymore, im done too.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
At 18 Nadal was still a raw clay court player. The fact Nadal was able to win a major mere days after turning 19 was testament to simply how good he was as a raw talent. Nadal was beating Federer as a 16 year old after all.




Exactly. Those guys just aren't on the level of a 2008- Nadal or 2011- Djokovic. Weak era. A lot of those guys had relatively low seedings when Federer beat them.



I thought Federer was stuck on 7 grass majors (old archaic grass that no-one plays on anymore).

Just the one clay court title. A lot more tennis is played on clay than grass, therefore clay performance should be much more heavily weighted.





Grass rewards players who seek cheap/free points. Doesn't reward intelligently constructing a point and patience.
Yeah, instead guys like Melzer, Schuettler and Gasquet were toughies. Nadal just couldn't catch a break :D
 
At 18 Nadal was still a raw clay court player. The fact Nadal was able to win a major mere days after turning 19 was testament to simply how good he was as a raw talent. Nadal was beating Federer as a 16 year old after all.




Exactly. Those guys just aren't on the level of a 2008- Nadal or 2011- Djokovic. Weak era. A lot of those guys had relatively low seedings when Federer beat them.



I thought Federer was stuck on 7 grass majors (old archaic grass that no-one plays on anymore).

Just the one clay court title. A lot more tennis is played on clay than grass, therefore clay performance should be much more heavily weighted.





Grass rewards players who seek cheap/free points. Doesn't reward intelligently constructing a point and patience.


Nadal wasn't 16 when he beat Fed.

And? Who cares if they had low seedings... see Safin 04 for prime example. Nadal also lost to many of these weak players during his prime, what's your excuse there?

My bad. Still, 7 > 2 so Fed wins regardless.

No performance on any surface is more heavily weighted than the other, try again pathetic troll.

LOL you call running like a headless chicken side to side playing tap back retrieval tennis and spamming topspin moonballs to Federer's BH "intelligently constructing points?" LMAO delusional troll.
 
Federer is the Most Marketable athlete. He is the poster boy for tennis. May be that is why you find him overrated.
And if he had better backhand/mental strength/stamina/endurance, he would have definitely won another 10 Slams. Hypothetically.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
So he should beat a raw 18 year old clay courter who was a work in progress. Federer was at his peak (and taking 5 sets to beat the young 18 year old clay courter.
I think you should go back to your day job of beating raw eggs at the bakery, banned user returning with new name.

I can see a ban coming up very soon, due to duplicate accounts. And there is no need to hurt, your boy is doing fine and will most likely win RG, and maybe more. I don't see why one rare loss to Fed should hurt you so much.

"It is okay." - as RF-18 once said. You would know, of course, since you were here.
 
So he should beat a raw 18 year old clay courter who was a work in progress. Federer was at his peak (and taking 5 sets to beat the young 18 year old clay courter.
Nadal had the match up advantage and entered his prime aged 19. Nadal wasn't just a clay courter, as proven by his 2 HC masters and 1 500 wins that year.
 
Federer should be grateful enough for the 2003-07 vacuum in men's tennis. He shouldn't get greedy.
No vacuum. Had the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Old Agassi, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Nadal, Djokovic.

Had Nadal been as good as Federer, he wouldn't have lost at slams to Murray x 2, Ferrer x2, washed up 06 Hewitt, Gonzalez, Youzny, Tsonga, Brown, Rosol, Darcis. Prime Federer would and did own most of these guys with his eyes closed.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Stop with these personal attacks. I haven't been personal once.



Is that how it works around here? Provide a opinion different to the status quo and you get banned? I have never posted here, but browsed for quite a while. Pathetic that you cry to ban me.

Just debate the points.
I have a very efficient approach to the guys like you (that come out of nowhere to confront the regular posters in the eh, same old, same old way).

I read several of their posts, engage in a short conversation and when I see what I suspect add them to my ignore list.

Then from time to time when I stumble upon them accidentaly I engage just to reconfirm my initial impression.

From then on they might or not be subject to further attention, but sure as hell they are directly considered in to the troll category.

Oh, welcome to the forum.

:D
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
I read several of their posts, engage in a short conversation and when I see what I suspect add them to my ignore list.
No need to put him on your ignore list. Dupe accounts get banned very fast.

Is that how it works around here? Provide a opinion different to the status quo and you get banned?
The mods seem very tolerant if you ask me. It's just dupe accounts that get banned.
 
Top