Roger Federer is the most overrated No.1 of all time. Discuss.

[-RF-]

Don't get me wrong. He's a fantastic player, and his achievements are outstanding. What he has achieved is undoubtedly admirable and some of the records he has set may not be beaten for a long time.


Despite this, it just appears to me that all the hype that he's received since 2004, and even today, just isn't warranted. I'm not saying he's not an amazing player, but that he at times can be ridiculously overhyped, especially when its evident that the majority of his slams were won against comparatively (stress) mediocore players. Upon the emergence of Djokodalray, his true position, to me at least, became clear.



P.S(I admire RF, support him in most matches. What i'm saying does not disqualify my admiration of him; just a mere observation of how others see him as 'god-like' when in reality he isn't)

 

[Logic]

Don't get me wrong. He's a fantastic player, and his achievements are outstanding. What he has achieved is undoubtedly admirable and some of the records he has set may not be beaten for a long time.


Despite this, it just appears to me that all the hype that he's received since 2004, and even today, just isn't warranted. I'm not saying he's not an amazing player, but that he at times can be ridiculously overhyped, especially when its evident that the majority of his slams were won against comparatively (stress) mediocore players. Upon the emergence of Djokodalray, his true position, to me at least, became clear.



P.S(I admire RF, support him in most matches. What i'm saying does not disqualify my admiration of him; just a mere observation of how others see him as 'god-like' when in reality he isn't)

Classic logic fail.

How is evident that the players he beat were mediocre? Maybe they were really good, but Federer was just so good that he made them look bad. Either way, we will never know, because we can't test the fields from different eras against each other.

Bear in mind that Federer didn't lose at a major to Djokovic until 2008, and then again until late 2010 - well past his prime. He didn't lose to Murray at a major until 2013 - past the age at which Sampras had already retired!

 

[EsteL]

He is as much overrated as over-reactive this thread is.

 

[heninfan99]

Anyone can lose to Gulbis when he's on. It's not that shocking. He did give away the 2nd set but that's sport. Winning and losing always ride side by side.

 

[-RF-]

Classic logic fail.

How is evident that the players he beat were mediocre? Maybe they were really good, but Federer was just so good that he made them look bad. Either way, we will never know, because we can't test the fields from different eras against each other.

Bear in mind that Federer didn't lose at a major to Djokovic until 2008, and then again until late 2010 - well past his prime. He didn't lose to Murray at a major until 2013 - past the age at which Sampras had already retired!

How do we know they weren't as good? We just need to look at how many slams they won compared to Djoko/Nadal

 

[WhiskeyEE]

We are seeing with Nadal this year what being in your late 20s does to you.

Reverse the ages and have peak Federer against 28 year old Nadal at the AO, etc. like it was in 2009.

I don't know what you expect from him at almost 33. He could lose every match from now until he retires. It doesn't change how good he was in his prime.

 

[FedererWinsWimbledon2014]

How do we know they weren't as good? We just need to look at how many slams they won compared to Djoko/Nadal

They couldn't win slams, Roger won all the slams lol.

 

[Logic]

How do we know they weren't as good? We just need to look at how many slams they won compared to Djoko/Nadal

This is circular reasoning.

They didn't win many majors because Federer stopped them from doing so.
You can't then say that makes them bad. That doesn't make sense.

By your logic, Player A who wins 5 consecutive CYGS must have bad opposition, because his opposition can't have won many majors (because all the majors are being won by Player A). But it is because of Player A's greatness that his opposition have few majors, not because they are bad.

 

[Jam]

Classic logic fail.

How is evident that the players he beat were mediocre? Maybe they were really good, but Federer was just so good that he made them look bad. Either way, we will never know, because we can't test the fields from different eras against each other.

there is strong evidence that they were not significant outliers compared to the field. This can be seen in his opponents' relative ranking points. Look at the average ranking points of the big 4 between 2008-13. They are way higher than the field. This demonstrates that they are outliers i.e. unlikely and don't happen very often. Before that, the field that he played was much of a muchness. Not much difference in their points. Not much better than each other. And Fed being a significant outlier feasted on it. Once he bumped into other significant outliers though his win ratio (particularly against them) dropped. He wasn't significantly better than them, particularly Nadal and latterly Djokovic. Fed is still an all time great but as an outlier when tested against other outliers, well he was roughly their equal, which is generous when compared with Nadal.

Unless you think Fed and the whole top 100 dropped post-2007 and Nadal, Murray and Djokovic remained the same. Hmmmm, if so then I suggest psychiatric help.

 

[Devilito]

Federer now is just not as good. Fed 2005 would beat modern Federer like 6-3 6-2 6-4. It wouldn't be much of a contest. His level has dropped quite dramatically over the recent years. He's not over rated. Prime Fed would hit winners from anywhere on the court and his footwork was unmatched. Now he cant even hit winner if he has a sitter and his footwork is slowing down pretty badly

 

[Jam]

**** won Wimbledon beating 28 year old roger in a 5 set match using all of his physical abilities, can **** who is 28 now win Wimbledon? beat Djoker in Wimbledon? or even beat Murray in Wimbledon they are all of the same age, the most overrated no1 is actually no 1 right now.

Those players were not as young as Djoker/**** so they did not have the time to watch roger decline so they can have some chance.Roger started to decline and **** started to take advantage of the weak field along with taking over the super weak clay field.

Hmmm and there was me thinking Roger was 26 (and in his prime) at the time. Oh dear.

 

[-RF-]

This is circular reasoning.

They didn't win many majors because Federer stopped them from doing so.
You can't then say that makes them bad. That doesn't make sense.

By your logic, Player A who wins 5 consecutive CYGS must have bad opposition, because his opposition can't have won many majors (because all the majors are being won by Player A). But it is because of Player A's greatness that his opposition have few majors, not because they are bad.

By your logic (no pun intended), the players that were beaten by Federer circa 04-07 may well have been as good as Djokovic/Nadal, thus making it impossible to differentiate between the abilities of the two groups of players.

BUT that argument is inherently flawed: Djokovic and Nadal started to dominate Federer in the slams from 08/09 onwards. That begs the question- why weren't Roddick/Gonzales/Baghaditis etc able to do that just 24 months earlier?

 

[Logic]

there is strong evidence that they were not significant outliers compared to the field. This can be seen in his opponents' relative ranking points. Look at the average ranking points of the big 4 between 2008-13. They are way higher than the field. This demonstrates that they are outliers i.e. unlikely and don't happen very often. Before that, the field that he played was much of a muchness. Not much difference in their points. Not much better than each other. And Fed being a significant outlier feasted on it. Once he bumped into other significant outliers though his win ratio (particularly against them) dropped. He wasn't significantly better than them, particularly Nadal and latterly Djokovic. Fed is still an all time great but as an outlier when tested against other outliers, well he was roughly their equal, which is generous when compared with Nadal.

Unless you think Fed and the whole top 100 dropped post-2007 and Nadal, Murray and Djokovic remained the same. Hmmmm, if so then I suggest psychiatric help.

This again proves nothing. It could have been that the overall field was stronger in 2003-07, thus stopping the top players (other than Federer) from standing out as much. That isn't so bold a claim, as the average quality of the field does change over time. Now, I'm not saying this was or wasn't the case, but either way neither of us can know for sure.

Also, I'm not claiming that Nadal, Djokovic and Murray remained the same after 2007: they improved, and Federer declined. This is the reasonable deduction, if we look at the general age-based progression of tennis players over time. Hence why it is unfair to directly compare post-2007 Federer's perfomance against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, versus his performance against his earlier rivals: because you're actually looking at two different Federers (level-wise).

 

[-RF-]

**** won Wimbledon beating 28 year old roger in a 5 set match using all of his physical abilities, can **** who is 28 now win Wimbledon? beat Djoker in Wimbledon? or even beat Murray in Wimbledon they are all of the same age, the most overrated no1 is actually no 1 right now.

Those players were not as young as Djoker/**** so they did not have the time to watch roger decline so they can have some chance.Roger started to decline and **** started to take advantage of the weak field along with taking over the super weak clay field.

28?!?!

 

[Logic]

By your logic (no pun intended), the players that were beaten by Federer circa 04-07 may well have been as good as Djokovic/Nadal, thus making it impossible to differentiate between the abilities of the two groups of players.

Yes, it is impossible to differentiate between the abilities of players/fields from different eras: because they can't play each other when they are both in their prime.

BUT that argument is inherently flawed: Djokovic and Nadal started to dominate Federer in the slams from 08/09 onwards. That begs the question- why weren't Roddick/Gonzales/Baghaditis etc able to do that just 24 months earlier?

The Federer from 2008-09 was not as good as Federer 04-07.

This is not a bold claim. It happens all the time in tennis history: e.g. McEnroe had some amazing years until 1984 (his best year of all), and then never won a major again. Almost all of the tennis greats have declined dramatically after the age of 26. Why should Federer be the exception?

 

[WhiskeyEE]

By your logic (no pun intended), the players that were beaten by Federer circa 04-07 may well have been as good as Djokovic/Nadal, thus making it impossible to differentiate between the abilities of the two groups of players.

BUT that argument is inherently flawed: Djokovic and Nadal started to dominate Federer in the slams from 08/09 onwards. That begs the question- why weren't Roddick/Gonzales/Baghaditis etc able to do that just 24 months earlier?

Roddick is 5-4 against Djokovic. All but 1 match was played after Novak's 1st slam WELL after Roddick's prime.

He's also 3-7 against Nadal with most matches played 2008 and beyond. Better than most players.

Prime Roddick would wreck 28 year old Nadal everywhere but clay. Nevermind 28 year old Djokovic.

 

[Jam]

This again proves nothing. It could have been that the overall field was stronger in 2003-07, thus stopping the top players (other than Federer) from standing out as much. That isn't so bold a claim, as the average quality of the field does change over time. Now, I'm not saying this was or wasn't the case, but either way neither of us can know for sure.

Also, I'm not claiming that Nadal, Djokovic and Murray remained the same after 2007: they improved, and Federer declined. This is the reasonable deduction, if we look at the general age-based progression of tennis players over time. Hence why it is unfair to directly compare post-2007 Federer's perfomance against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, versus his performance against his earlier rivals: because you're actually looking at two different Federers (level-wise).

So you think post-2007 the whole field (a slow moving constant) and Federer dropped??? Totally insane.

Nadal and Murray were beating Federer way before that anyway from 2004 and 2006 respectively unlike the field at the time.

It's totally obvious the level was raised with Nadal, Djokovic and Murray and that's the main reason he started losing. They were beating him well before 2008 and the field at the time wasn't.

Nadal at 22 beat a 26 year old prime Federer on his best surface and then did it 6 months later at Australia. He was the biggest outlier (with Fed) of the 3 challengers. The others took longer but they got there.

Anyway, I think he's a great player and probably the best so far. But Nadal has a chance to surpass him. Not that I want hime to as I prefer Fed's style and think he actually is more talented. But if Nadal finds a way then fair enough.

 

[kiki]

we´ve been through it.Federer is a great player but his dominance period was over a weak field.Roddick was basically your modern Roscoe Tanner.Safin , although not by far as complete, was a bit like Nastase.Hewitt, no better than Vilas.Old fart Agassi rassembled old fart Rosewall, winning some majors but getting blattantly beaten by a Jimmy Connors.Old Sampras was like old Laver...so Borg did overcame that AND STILL HAD TO CONTEND with three all time greats, two of them, Connors and Mc Enroe during their primes, and a third, Lendl , just on the edge

Now, what would people say of Borg if he had lost to the young Lendl their two major finals? I´ll tell you what, they would talk the same stuff we now talk of Federer...but , of course, Borg won those finals.The difference between a great champion over a tough field and a great champion over a weak field.

Just an example

 

[Magnetite]

People just forget .. They see him now, a shell of his former self, and that's all they remember.

 

[-RF-]

Yes, it is impossible to differentiate between the abilities of players/fields from different eras: because they can't play each other when they are both in their prime.



The Federer from 2006-7 was not as good as Federer 08-09.

This is not a bold claim. It happens all the time in tennis history: e.g. McEnroe had some amazing years until 1984 (his best year of all), and then never won a major again. Almost all of the tennis greats have declined dramatically after the age of 26. Why should Federer be the exception?

Therein lies my argument! Thanks. The very fact that he was not as good from 2008 (when he was 26, disqualifying the 'age' argument) shows how even at his prime he was beginning suffer multiple losses to Djokovic/Nadal.

 

[FedererWinsWimbledon2014]

2003 Wimbledon — 2009 French Open Career Grand Slam
Rod Laver, Andre Agassi, Rafael Nadal

2003 Wimbledon — 2012 Wimbledon 17 titles Stands alone

2003 Wimbledon — 2012 Wimbledon 24 finals Stands alone

2005 Wimbledon — 2007 US Open 10 consecutive finals Stands alone

2003 Wimbledon — 2013 Australian Open 33 semifinals Stands alone

2004 Wimbledon — 2010 Australian Open 23 consecutive semifinals Stands alone
2004 Wimbledon — 2013 French Open 36 consecutive quarterfinals Stands alone
2000 Australian Open — 2013 US Open 56 consecutive appearances Wayne Ferreira

2004 & 2006–2007 3 years winning 3+ titles Stands alone
2004–2007 & 2009 5 years winning 2+ titles Stands alone
2006–2007 2 consecutive years winning 3+ titles Stands alone
2004–2007 4 consecutive years winning 2+ titles Stands alone
2004–2011 8 consecutive years winning 20+ matches Stands alone

2003 Wimbledon —2012 Wimbledon 5+ titles at 2 different Majors Björn Borg, Pete Sampras
2003 Wimbledon — 2012 Wimbledon 4+ titles at 3 different Majors Stands alone
2003 Wimbledon — 2012 Wimbledon 5+ finals at all 4 Majors Stands alone
2003 Wimbledon — 2013 Australian Open 7+ semifinals at all 4 Majors Stands alone
2001 French Open — 2013 French Open 9+ quarterfinals at all 4 Majors Stands alone
2003 Wimbledon — 2008 US Open 5 consecutive titles at 2 different Majors Stands alone
2004 Wimbledon — 2007 US Open 4 consecutive years of winning the two same Majors Stands alone
2003 Wimbledon — 2007 French Open 2+ consecutive finals at all 4 Majors Ivan Lendl
2003 Wimbledon — 2009 French Open 5+ consecutive semifinals at all 4 Majors Stands alone
2003 Wimbledon — 2013 French Open 9+ consecutive quarterfinals at all 4 Majors Stands alone
2003 Wimbledon — 2006 Australian Open First 7 finals won Stands alone
2004 Australian Open — 2010 Australian Open 9 hard court titles Stands alone
2008 US Open — 2009 Wimbledon Simultaneous holder of Majors on clay, grass and hard court Rafael Nadal
2006–2007 & 2009 All 4 Major finals in 1 season Rod Laver
2006 French Open — 2009 US Open Runner-up finishes at all 4 Majors Ivan Lendl
2000 Australian Open — 2013 US Open 260 match wins Stands alone
2000 Australian Open — 2013 US Open 50+ match wins at all 4 Majors Stands alone
2000 Australian Open — 2013 US Open 60+ match wins at 3 different Majors Stands alone
2000 Australian Open — 2013 US Open 135 hard court match wins Stands alone
2006 27 match wins in 1 season Stands alone
2004–2007 & 2009 5 years with match winning percentage of 90%+ Björn Borg
2004 French Open — 2012 US Open 23 No. 1 seeds Stands alone
2004 French Open — 2008 Wimbledon 18 consecutive No. 1 seeds Stands alone
2006 US Open — 2007 French Open 36 consecutive sets won Stands alone
2007 US Open 35 consecutive service points won Stands alone
2009 Wimbledon 50 aces in a final Stands alone
1999 French Open — 2012 US Open 5618 games won Stands alone
2005 Wimbledon — 2007 French Open 2 winning streaks of 25+ matches Stands alone
2005 Wimbledon — 2009 US Open 3 winning streaks of 20+ matches Stands alone
2004 Wimbledon — 2009 US Open 5 winning streaks of 15+ matches Stands alone

Grand Slam tournaments

Australian Open 2004–2010 4 titles overall Andre Agassi
Novak Djokovic
Australian Open 2004–2010 5 finals overall Stefan Edberg
Australian Open 2004–2013 10 semifinals overall Stands alone
Australian Open 2004–2013 10 consecutive semifinals Stands alone
Australian Open 2007 Won title without losing a set Ken Rosewall
Australian Open 2000–2013 68 match wins overall Stands alone
Australian Open 2006–2008 30 consecutive sets won Stands alone
French Open 2006–2009 4 consecutive finals Björn Borg, Ivan Lendl, Rafael Nadal
French Open 2006–2011 4 runner-up finishes overall Stands alone
French Open 2006–2008 3 consecutive runner-up finishes Stands alone
French Open 2005–2009 5 consecutive semifinals Stands alone
French Open—Wimbledon 2009 Accomplished a "Channel Slam": Winning both tournaments in the same year Rod Laver, Björn Borg, Rafael Nadal
Wimbledon 2003–2012 7 titles overall Pete Sampras
Wimbledon 2003–2007 5 consecutive titles Björn Borg
Wimbledon 2003–2012 8 finals overall Stands alone
Wimbledon 2003–2009 7 consecutive finals Stands alone
Wimbledon 2003–2009 7 consecutive semifinals Stands alone
Wimbledon 2005–2006 34 consecutive sets won Stands alone
US Open 2004–2008 5 titles overall Jimmy Connors
Pete Sampras
US Open 2004–2008 5 consecutive titles Stands alone
US Open 2004–2009 40 consecutive match wins Stands alone


Year-End Championship

2003–2011 6 titles overall Stands alone
2002–2012 42 match wins overall Stands alone
2003–2005 14 consecutive match wins Ivan Lendl

ATP Masters 1000 records
2000–2013 280 match wins overall Stands alone
2004–2012 15 hard court titles Stands alone
2005–2006 2 consecutive years winning 4+ titles Stands alone
2002–2011 9 different finals Novak Djokovic
Rafael Nadal
2006 6 finals in 1 season Novak Djokovic
Rafael Nadal
2004–2012 4 Indian Wells Masters titles Stands alone
2002–2007 4 Hamburg Masters titles Stands alone
2005–2012 5 Cincinnati Masters titles Stands alone
2012 Won title without having serve broken or losing a set
(Cincinnati Masters) Stands alone

Other records
2004–2012 302 total weeks at No. 1 Stands alone
2 February 2004 — 17 August 2008 237 consecutive weeks at No. 1 Stands alone
2003–2005 26 consecutive match victories vs. top 10 opponents Stands alone
2005–2006 56 consecutive hard court match victories Stands alone
2003–2008 65 consecutive grass court match victories Stands alone
2003–2005 24 consecutive tournament finals won Stands alone
2001–2013 10+ titles on grass, clay and hard courts Stands alone
2003–2013 13 grass court titles Stands alone
2002–2012 52 hard court titles Stands alone
2006 9 hard court titles in 1 season Jimmy Connors
1998–2013 339 tiebreaks won Stands alone
1999–2013 87.14% (122 - 18 ) grass court match winning percentage Stands alone
1998–2013 82.63% (552–116) hard court match winning percentage Stands alone
2006 94.12% of tournament finals reached in 1 season Stands alone
2004–2008 2 consecutive Olympic games as wire-to-wire No. 1 Stands alone
2004–2012 3 consecutive Olympic games as No. 1 Stands alone
2005–2007 3 consecutive calendar years as wire-to-wire No. 1 Stands alone
2005–2007 3 calendar years as wire-to-wire No. 1 Jimmy Connors
2003–2012 Ended 9 years ranked inside the top 2 Stands alone

2005–2007 2 winning streaks of 35+ matches Björn Borg
2004–2012 7 winning streaks of 20+ matches Stands alone

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Therein lies my argument! Thanks. The very fact that he was not as good from 2008 (when he was 26, disqualifying the 'age' argument) shows how even at his prime he was beginning suffer multiple losses to Djokovic/Nadal.

Nadal at 26 lost in the 2nd round of Wimbledon. And the 1st round at 27.

 

[kiki]

2003 Wimbledon — 2009 French Open Career Grand Slam
Rod Laver, Andre Agassi, Rafael Nadal

2003 Wimbledon — 2012 Wimbledon 17 titles Stands alone

2003 Wimbledon — 2012 Wimbledon 24 finals Stands alone

2005 Wimbledon — 2007 US Open 10 consecutive finals Stands alone

2003 Wimbledon — 2013 Australian Open 33 semifinals Stands alone

2004 Wimbledon — 2010 Australian Open 23 consecutive semifinals Stands alone
2004 Wimbledon — 2013 French Open 36 consecutive quarterfinals Stands alone
2000 Australian Open — 2013 US Open 56 consecutive appearances Wayne Ferreira

2004 & 2006–2007 3 years winning 3+ titles Stands alone
2004–2007 & 2009 5 years winning 2+ titles Stands alone
2006–2007 2 consecutive years winning 3+ titles Stands alone
2004–2007 4 consecutive years winning 2+ titles Stands alone
2004–2011 8 consecutive years winning 20+ matches Stands alone

2003 Wimbledon —2012 Wimbledon 5+ titles at 2 different Majors Björn Borg, Pete Sampras
2003 Wimbledon — 2012 Wimbledon 4+ titles at 3 different Majors Stands alone
2003 Wimbledon — 2012 Wimbledon 5+ finals at all 4 Majors Stands alone
2003 Wimbledon — 2013 Australian Open 7+ semifinals at all 4 Majors Stands alone
2001 French Open — 2013 French Open 9+ quarterfinals at all 4 Majors Stands alone
2003 Wimbledon — 2008 US Open 5 consecutive titles at 2 different Majors Stands alone
2004 Wimbledon — 2007 US Open 4 consecutive years of winning the two same Majors Stands alone
2003 Wimbledon — 2007 French Open 2+ consecutive finals at all 4 Majors Ivan Lendl
2003 Wimbledon — 2009 French Open 5+ consecutive semifinals at all 4 Majors Stands alone
2003 Wimbledon — 2013 French Open 9+ consecutive quarterfinals at all 4 Majors Stands alone
2003 Wimbledon — 2006 Australian Open First 7 finals won Stands alone
2004 Australian Open — 2010 Australian Open 9 hard court titles Stands alone
2008 US Open — 2009 Wimbledon Simultaneous holder of Majors on clay, grass and hard court Rafael Nadal
2006–2007 & 2009 All 4 Major finals in 1 season Rod Laver
2006 French Open — 2009 US Open Runner-up finishes at all 4 Majors Ivan Lendl
2000 Australian Open — 2013 US Open 260 match wins Stands alone
2000 Australian Open — 2013 US Open 50+ match wins at all 4 Majors Stands alone
2000 Australian Open — 2013 US Open 60+ match wins at 3 different Majors Stands alone
2000 Australian Open — 2013 US Open 135 hard court match wins Stands alone
2006 27 match wins in 1 season Stands alone
2004–2007 & 2009 5 years with match winning percentage of 90%+ Björn Borg
2004 French Open — 2012 US Open 23 No. 1 seeds Stands alone
2004 French Open — 2008 Wimbledon 18 consecutive No. 1 seeds Stands alone
2006 US Open — 2007 French Open 36 consecutive sets won Stands alone
2007 US Open 35 consecutive service points won Stands alone
2009 Wimbledon 50 aces in a final Stands alone
1999 French Open — 2012 US Open 5618 games won Stands alone
2005 Wimbledon — 2007 French Open 2 winning streaks of 25+ matches Stands alone
2005 Wimbledon — 2009 US Open 3 winning streaks of 20+ matches Stands alone
2004 Wimbledon — 2009 US Open 5 winning streaks of 15+ matches Stands alone

Grand Slam tournaments

Australian Open 2004–2010 4 titles overall Andre Agassi
Novak Djokovic
Australian Open 2004–2010 5 finals overall Stefan Edberg
Australian Open 2004–2013 10 semifinals overall Stands alone
Australian Open 2004–2013 10 consecutive semifinals Stands alone
Australian Open 2007 Won title without losing a set Ken Rosewall
Australian Open 2000–2013 68 match wins overall Stands alone
Australian Open 2006–2008 30 consecutive sets won Stands alone
French Open 2006–2009 4 consecutive finals Björn Borg, Ivan Lendl, Rafael Nadal
French Open 2006–2011 4 runner-up finishes overall Stands alone
French Open 2006–2008 3 consecutive runner-up finishes Stands alone
French Open 2005–2009 5 consecutive semifinals Stands alone
French Open—Wimbledon 2009 Accomplished a "Channel Slam": Winning both tournaments in the same year Rod Laver, Björn Borg, Rafael Nadal
Wimbledon 2003–2012 7 titles overall Pete Sampras
Wimbledon 2003–2007 5 consecutive titles Björn Borg
Wimbledon 2003–2012 8 finals overall Stands alone
Wimbledon 2003–2009 7 consecutive finals Stands alone
Wimbledon 2003–2009 7 consecutive semifinals Stands alone
Wimbledon 2005–2006 34 consecutive sets won Stands alone
US Open 2004–2008 5 titles overall Jimmy Connors
Pete Sampras
US Open 2004–2008 5 consecutive titles Stands alone
US Open 2004–2009 40 consecutive match wins Stands alone


Year-End Championship

2003–2011 6 titles overall Stands alone
2002–2012 42 match wins overall Stands alone
2003–2005 14 consecutive match wins Ivan Lendl

ATP Masters 1000 records
2000–2013 280 match wins overall Stands alone
2004–2012 15 hard court titles Stands alone
2005–2006 2 consecutive years winning 4+ titles Stands alone
2002–2011 9 different finals Novak Djokovic
Rafael Nadal
2006 6 finals in 1 season Novak Djokovic
Rafael Nadal
2004–2012 4 Indian Wells Masters titles Stands alone
2002–2007 4 Hamburg Masters titles Stands alone
2005–2012 5 Cincinnati Masters titles Stands alone
2012 Won title without having serve broken or losing a set
(Cincinnati Masters) Stands alone

Other records
2004–2012 302 total weeks at No. 1 Stands alone
2 February 2004 — 17 August 2008 237 consecutive weeks at No. 1 Stands alone
2003–2005 26 consecutive match victories vs. top 10 opponents Stands alone
2005–2006 56 consecutive hard court match victories Stands alone
2003–2008 65 consecutive grass court match victories Stands alone
2003–2005 24 consecutive tournament finals won Stands alone
2001–2013 10+ titles on grass, clay and hard courts Stands alone
2003–2013 13 grass court titles Stands alone
2002–2012 52 hard court titles Stands alone
2006 9 hard court titles in 1 season Jimmy Connors
1998–2013 339 tiebreaks won Stands alone
1999–2013 87.14% (122 - 18 ) grass court match winning percentage Stands alone
1998–2013 82.63% (552–116) hard court match winning percentage Stands alone
2006 94.12% of tournament finals reached in 1 season Stands alone
2004–2008 2 consecutive Olympic games as wire-to-wire No. 1 Stands alone
2004–2012 3 consecutive Olympic games as No. 1 Stands alone
2005–2007 3 consecutive calendar years as wire-to-wire No. 1 Stands alone
2005–2007 3 calendar years as wire-to-wire No. 1 Jimmy Connors
2003–2012 Ended 9 years ranked inside the top 2 Stands alone

2005–2007 2 winning streaks of 35+ matches Björn Borg
2004–2012 7 winning streaks of 20+ matches Stands alone

...and the HtH record against main rival?

 

[-RF-]

Nadal at 26 lost in the 2nd round of Wimbledon. And the 1st round at 27.

Interesting fact. I happen to know that. But this thread is about Federer and his nature of being over-rated

 

[Logic]

So you think post-2007 the whole field (a slow moving constant) and Federer dropped??? Totally insane.

Clearly Federer dropped after 2007. To deny that is to deny that Federer follows the ageing pattern of almost all other tennis greats from history.

As for the field, I'm not saying it dropped after 2007, but rather that we don't know about it, so to use arguments about outliers isn't sound.

Nadal and Murray were beating Federer way before that anyway from 2004 and 2006 respectively unlike the field at the time.

Murray didn't beat Federer in a Major until 2013 - when Federer was 32.

It's totally obvious the level was raised with Nadal, Djokovic and Murray and that's the main reason he started losing. They were beating him well before 2008 and the field at the time wasn't.

You also have to take into account Federer's decline. Federer in 2008-09 lost way more to the field (excluding Nadal, Djokovic and Murray) than he did in 2004-07. How do you explain that?

Nadal at 22 beat a 26 year old prime Federer on his best surface and then did it 6 months later at Australia. He was the biggest outlier (with Fed) of the 3 challengers. The others took longer but they got there.

Nadal beat a near 27 year-old past-prime Fed at Wimby. As I've already said, look at almost all other historical greats: past 26 = past prime.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Interesting fact. I happen to know that. But this thread is about Federer and his nature of being over-rated

McEnroe won his last slam at 25. Borg at 24 (even though he retired early, he wasn't going to do anything post-26).

 

[Jam]

fan boy stats. We know he's a great player. The debate is focussed around if the majority of his accomplishments happened in a weak era. The evidence is overwhelmingly in that favour. Don't worry about it fanboy. Back to sleep and dream of Federer.

 

[Logic]

Therein lies my argument! Thanks. The very fact that he was not as good from 2008 (when he was 26, disqualifying the 'age' argument) shows how even at his prime he was beginning suffer multiple losses to Djokovic/Nadal.

I mean't Federer from 2008-09 was worse than Federer 2004-07.

In 2008 Federer was 26-27 - so the age argument holds: almost all other historical greats declined dramatically after 26.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

...and the HtH record against main rival?

And why is that important in today's tennis? I don't remember that players receive trophies, money or points for having positive H2H against main rival. Players play for titles, end of story.

Unfortunately for you, you are stuck in 50s and you still think that this is H2H tour.

 

[Logic]

fan boy stats. We know he's a great player. The debate is focussed around if the majority of his accomplishments happened in a weak era. The evidence is overwhelmingly in that favour. Don't worry about it fanboy. Back to sleep and dream of Federer.

There is no real evidence for a weak era, because short of time travel, you can't compare fields from different eras.

 

[-RF-]

I mean't Federer from 2008-09 was worse than Federer 2004-07.

In 2008 Federer was 26-27 - so the age argument holds: almost all other historical greats declined dramatically after 26.

If you're telling me that Federer's decline from the age of 26 was due to 'old age' i'm going to have to find somebody else to argue with. Ridiculous comment.



26.

 

[Russeljones]

Don't get me wrong. He's a fantastic player, and his achievements are outstanding. What he has achieved is undoubtedly admirable and some of the records he has set may not be beaten for a long time.


Despite this, it just appears to me that all the hype that he's received since 2004, and even today, just isn't warranted. I'm not saying he's not an amazing player, but that he at times can be ridiculously overhyped, especially when its evident that the majority of his slams were won against comparatively (stress) mediocore players. Upon the emergence of Djokodalray, his true position, to me at least, became clear.



P.S(I admire RF, support him in most matches. What i'm saying does not disqualify my admiration of him; just a mere observation of how others see him as 'god-like' when in reality he isn't)

This is the sort of stuff a fat bloke with no hope of getting laid would say to rationalize why he isn't getting laid. "Don't get me wrong, women are wonderful but I don't think there is enough substance to warrant getting into a fit about never getting one into my bed". You exemplify this line of logic. ironic that you should style yourself (RF) after someone you obviously don't respect.

 

[Jam]

Clearly Federer dropped after 2007. To deny that is to deny that Federer follows the ageing pattern of almost all other tennis greats from history.

As for the field, I'm not saying it dropped after 2007, but rather that we don't know about it, so to use arguments about outliers isn't sound.



Murray didn't beat Federer in a Major until 2013 - when Federer was 32.



You also have to take into account Federer's decline. Federer in 2008-09 lost way more to the field (excluding Nadal, Djokovic and Murray) than he did in 2004-07. How do you explain that?



Nadal beat a near 27 year-old past-prime Fed at Wimby. As I've already said, look at almost all other historical greats: past 26 = past prime.

what????? to use arguments about outliers is totally sound and rational. Do you think Federer and the whole field dropped post-2007 apart from Nadal, Murray and Djokovic.????????


It's a ludicrous argument. They had been rising and beating Federer for years unlike his other competitors between 03-07. Fed of course dropped but they also rose. Federer was 26 when Nadal beat him at Wimbledon. After 4 years of beating him at RG (since he was 18 ). Since 2006 Federer has never had a winning record over a 19 year old Murray. I'm not claiming they're better than Federer, fanboy, but the evidence is clear that prior to their arrival he feasted on a weak era. When they arrived it got much closer as is evidenced by their rising pre-2008, their consistent victories over Federer and their ranking etc. Federer was not a significant outlier over Nadal and Djokovic (yes over Murray).

 

[WhiskeyEE]

If you're telling me that Federer's decline from the age of 26 was due to 'old age' i'm going to have to find somebody else to argue with. Ridiculous comment.



26.

While 27 isn't old (he was 1 month shy at Wimbledon 2008 ), it is quite obviously past the peak for a tennis player. Federer actually had a talented young generation to deal with unlike Nadal and Djokovic. Imagine 27 year old Federer against Raonic, Nishikori, and Dimitrov. Or old men like 29 year old Tsonga, Wawrinka, Berdych, etc.

If there has ever been a weak era, it's the current one. Because good athletes have stopped choosing tennis.

 

[mike danny]

...and the HtH record against main rival?

Problem is not all main rivals are the same.

For example Fed would have loved to have someone like Agassi as his main rival compared to Nadal.

Main rivals differ. Some are stronger than others. No all time great in history had a main rival who as a bad match-up

 

[monfed]

The OP is a Nadal fan disguised as a Fed fan. Btw anyone know where LOLville is these days? :lol:

 

[-RF-]

This is the sort of stuff a fat bloke with no hope of getting laid would say to rationalize why he isn't getting laid. "Don't get me wrong, women are wonderful but I don't think there is enough substance to warrant getting into a fit about never getting one into my bed". You exemplify this line of logic. ironic that you should style yourself (RF) after someone you obviously don't respect.

In another of your posts regarding choking you commented about the general disrespectful nature of these forums. Synonymising me with a fat bloke with no hope of getting laid appears to sharply contradict this.

 

[burn1986]

Why the hate on Fed? He loses a match and all of the sudden he's the worst guy of all time. Heck the guy just had another kid, hasn't played for awhile and shows up to play himself into shape. How many kids does Gulbis have? What pressures and responsibilities does he have? He should be winning a lot more than he is. Why isn't he?why did he drag it out with Fed as long as he did?! Dear Lord

 

[-RF-]

The OP is a Nadal fan disguised as a Fed fan. Btw anyone know where LOLville is these days? :lol:

I'm his son

 

[mike danny]

what????? to use arguments about outliers is totally sound and rational. Do you think Federer and the whole field dropped post-2007 apart from Nadal, Murray and Djokovic.????????


It's a ludicrous argument. They had been rising and beating Federer for years unlike his other competitors between 03-07. Fed of course dropped but they also rose. Federer was 26 when Nadal beat him at Wimbledon. After 4 years of beating him at RG (since he was 18 ). Since 2006 Federer has never had a winning record over a 19 year old Murray. I'm not claiming they're better than Federer, fanboy, but the evidence is clear that prior to their arrival he feasted on a weak era. When they arrived it got much closer as is evidenced by their rising pre-2008, their consistent victories over Federer and their ranking etc. Federer was not a significant outlier over Nadal and Djokovic (yes over Murray).

Djokovic owned Fed in slams from 2008? What? It took Djokovic over 2 years to register a second win over past prime Fed in 2010 in a slam.

Nadal did own him but Djokovic and Murray clearly not. Actually he is 10-6 vs them in majors.

And you actually use double standards. You believe that Fed did not drop off after 2007? You believe he actually stood the same? Then I guess Roddick and Blake improved leaps and bounds in 2008.

And using one Murray victory in 2006 is a weak argument. Canas also beat him in his best period. It means nothing. What happened when Muray and Federer actually met in slams? Oh yeah...total trashing.

Let's see how Nadal does now after he turns 28. He looks good because there are no young outliers challenging him.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Problem is not all main rivals are the same.

For example Fed would have loved to have someone like Agassi as his main rival compared to Nadal.

Main rivals differ. Some are stronger than others. No all time great in history had a main rival who as a bad match-up

Plus, Federer's record against two other main rivals is quite impressive, even though they are much younger than him.
Nadal is the only would who constantly troubles him and I don't see what's wrong with that.

 

[Jam]

While 27 isn't old (he was 1 month shy at Wimbledon 2008 ), it is quite obviously past the peak for a tennis player. Federer actually had a talented young generation to deal with unlike Nadal and Djokovic. Imagine 27 year old Federer against Raonic, Nishikori, and Dimitrov. Or old men like 29 year old Tsonga, Wawrinka, Berdych, etc.

If there has ever been a weak era, it's the current one. Because good athletes have stopped choosing tennis.

why say 27??? He was 26. Yes he was 26. Yes we're all 1 year away at a maximum from our next birthday but it's fairly standard when quoting people's age to use the current one not some future one. Why not 36 and say with brackets (he was just 10 years away from it). Because you are trying to pretend he was post-prime. Nadal won 2 slams last year when 27 including against prime-Djokovic. Nadal reached his peak way earlier than Federer but still continued.

Ergo, Federer got beat by the increasing competition that hadn't existed prior to that.

 

[Gonzo_style]

**** won Wimbledon beating 28 year old roger in a 5 set match using all of his physical abilities, can **** who is 28 now win Wimbledon? beat Djoker in Wimbledon? or even beat Murray in Wimbledon they are all of the same age, the most overrated no1 is actually no 1 right now.

Those players were not as young as Djoker/**** so they did not have the time to watch roger decline so they can have some chance.Roger started to decline and **** started to take advantage of the weak field along with taking over the super weak clay field.

Wrong, Federe was 29 years old...

 

[-RF-]

why say 27??? He was 26. Yes he was 26. Yes we're all 1 year away at a maximum from our next birthday but it's fairly standard when quoting people's age to use the current one not some future one. Why not 36 and say with brackets (he was just 10 years away from it). Because you are trying to pretend he was post-prime. Nadal won 2 slams last year when 27 including against prime-Djokovic. Nadal reached his peak way earlier than Federer but still continued.

Ergo, Federer got beat by the increasing competition that hadn't existed prior to that.

And lets not forget that 26 is not old, as much as so many of you want to believe

 

[WhiskeyEE]

why say 27??? He was 26. Yes he was 26. Yes we're all 1 year away at a maximum from our next birthday but it's fairly standard when quoting people's age to use the current one not some future one. Why not 36 and say with brackets (he was just 10 years away from it). Because you are trying to pretend he was post-prime. Nadal won 2 slams last year when 27 including against prime-Djokovic. Nadal reached his peak way earlier than Federer but still continued.

Ergo, Federer got beat by the increasing competition that hadn't existed prior to that.

I also refer to Nadal as 28 because he almost is. Federer always starts the season at a half year to his next birthday. Same with Nadal and Djokovic. That's why people commonly round up.

Nadal at 27 (if you don't want me to round up a few days) is in obvious decline. He was in decline last year as well, but only had other old men or injured players to contend with.

And 11 months can age you A LOT. Just look at Nadal's hair.

 

[mike danny]

why say 27??? He was 26. Yes he was 26. Yes we're all 1 year away at a maximum from our next birthday but it's fairly standard when quoting people's age to use the current one not some future one. Why not 36 and say with brackets (he was just 10 years away from it). Because you are trying to pretend he was post-prime. Nadal won 2 slams last year when 27 including against prime-Djokovic. Nadal reached his peak way earlier than Federer but still continued.

Ergo, Federer got beat by the increasing competition that hadn't existed prior to that.

Djokovic is the same generation as Nadal. Useless comparison. Federer is 6 years his senior.

The only reason Nadal looks good is because he has no young outilers like Federer had at his age. But I don't see you mention this aspect

 

[Logic]

If you're telling me that Federer's decline from the age of 26 was due to 'old age' i'm going to have to find somebody else to argue with. Ridiculous comment.

It's not ridiculous. Here's a list of all time greats from the Open Era who all sharply declined after the age of 26 (if not before):

Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Wilander, Edberg, Sampras etc.

Why should Federer be the exception? Answer me that, please.

what????? to use arguments about outliers is totally sound and rational. Do you think Federer and the whole field dropped post-2007 apart from Nadal, Murray and Djokovic.????????

I don't think you are reading my responses properly, so I'm going to ask you two questions:

1. Do you deny that Federer dramatically declined after 2007. Note, to do so would be to deny that he followed the performance pattern of almost all other all time greats.

2. Do you deny that, as we can't measure relative field strengths from different eras, any claims about "weak eras" are nothing more than conjecture.

It's a ludicrous argument. They had been rising and beating Federer for years unlike his other competitors between 03-07. Fed of course dropped but they also rose. Federer was 26 when Nadal beat him at Wimbledon. After 4 years of beating him at RG (since he was 18 ). Since 2006 Federer has never had a winning record over a 19 year old Murray. I'm not claiming they're better than Federer, fanboy, but the evidence is clear that prior to their arrival he feasted on a weak era. When they arrived it got much closer as is evidenced by their rising pre-2008, their consistent victories over Federer and their ranking etc. Federer was not a significant outlier over Nadal and Djokovic (yes over Murray).

26 is the age of decline (see above).

Also, Murray never beat Federer where it mattered until 2013!

Finally, your weak era conclusion is absurd: Federer's performance post-2007 is as much about his decline as anything else. Answer me this, please: how do you explain Federer's much worse performance against the field (EXCLUDING Nadal, Djokovic, Murray) vs his performance pre-2007?

 

[underground]

He's so overrated they gave him 302 weeks at the top! Ridiculous!

Even more ridiculous is the fact that OP's name is -RF-.

 

[SafinIsGOAT]

The fact is that Federer can no longer keep up with the modern grinding game. Put him in a best-of-5 match against a consistent baseliner on a hard court, and he will lose. I'm a Federer fan, but I will admit that his win against Murray at this year's AO was a fluke; he would not have won if Murray was in full form. If he stays at his level for a few years, he might win a Slam if the stars align correctly, i.e. if he gets a cakewalk draw and has enough energy to play in God Mode for the final.

 

[Jam]

might as well talk to someone else "Logic"...a misnomer if ever there was one. people decline yes, people get better yes. Some eras have more talent than others yes...all the evidence supports Fed's early part of his career 03-07 was one of those with less competition yes...do fanboys pretend it's not true...yes....is the earth flat.....etc.etc