The point for the availability has been addressed already multiple times. People react as though what Nike does is the only right way. I guess it speaks volumes for the marketing genius of the people at Nike that they have managed to basically make their consumers identify normal consumer behaviour with the Nike selling strategies, but that is just Pavlov's dog behaviour. BTW, Nike also uses the strategy of limited supply that doesn't satisfy the popular demand, but there aren't many Guthries running around creating threads and posts calling Nike "inept". I wonder why?
If a person wants to have something he/she has to commit to it and it is a done deal. I cannot agree with a person that is making multiple excuses for why he hasn't done that. From his initial reactions to the switch (badmouthing Uniqlo before even Federer was seen on the court with their brand), to his comments on who has to keep the RF logo, to his followups, where he actually didn't buy anything that WAS available to him, his entire attitude stinks. That is no normal consumer behaviour, especially of a consumer who presents himself as a keen follower and someone who is looking to spent for his affiliation.
The funny part is that Federer had the same representation in the early days of his contract with Nike. My suspicion is that they are waiting for his logo to revert back to him, so that they can launch a full-fledged personalised line with much better availability. Everything they do shows that they are slowly getting up to speed: first was the pre order of his Wimbledon kit. Then it was the limited run of his USO kit, and currently the pieces from the AO line are fully or partially still available here and there, which speaks about greater availability. Federer also said that they are looking for better presence.