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

mike danny

Bionic Poster
People act like Federer never faced certain styles of players when he was dominating..."ohhhhh, Federer can't handle da great Berdych and Tsonga," like he didn't face and dominate Safin (aside from one nail-biting classic slam loss) and pre-pusher Roddick. They act like he never faced excellent baseliners such as Djokovic, when he dominated Davydenko.

The proof that Federer could handle these guys in his prime is in watching him handle certain styles when he was dominating. Federer used to have the answers. As time went on, the wrist flicks disappeared...the around-the-netposts shots disappeared...the liquid whip forehand disappeared...the confidence in the backhand down the line disappeared...the probe slice and routine passing shots off said probe slice disappeared. Federer doesn't play the same as he used to.
He also dominated counterpunchers like Hewitt, who is similar to Murray
 
Hes definitely the most OVERRATED of the all time tier 1 greats. Overinflated resume due to coming along at a perfect time between eras (Post Sampras/Agassi pre prime Nadal/Nole) where was certainly a talent vacuum. Benefitting from the transitional era with little to no talent around at the top, and when he finally had to deal with those greats in their prime on the big stage, (Nadal and eventually Nole once he hit his stride) we saw what happen and saw the ball shrivel up and fall off.

Fed is the greatest ever of bullying the Mugs on a consistent basis but the WORST of the tier 1 greats in terms of beating the fellow elite on the big pressure stage.

He couldn't keep his main rival at bay so as a result Nadal has 14 slams. Fed was dominant but not dominant enough to keep the main rivals at bay. Thats another knock on his GOAT argument status.

His renowned as this hands down GOAT Of tennis but the truth is he is no higher than top 5 on the GOAT list. Clearly below Laver, Pancho, Rosewall, and Tilden. Greater resume than Sampras but Sampras could at least keep his main rivals at bay. Fed couldn't. And you know PEte would have never allowed Nadal to get 14 or more and beat him ON ALL SURFACES at the slams. And Nadal still may overtake Fed's slam count.
100 % accurate! Federer was the best at beating mediocre players due to his ruthless tempement that borders on tennis mania! Imagine what Boris Becker could have done with that mind set or Goran Ivanisevic or Michael Stich, not to mention Petre Korda whose stroke making was from another planet.
 

Smasher08

Legend
Btw, isn't it funny how Fred haters never mention one simple fact:

Nads >>>>>>>>>> Krajicek

Fact is, for a four year period Petros had no answers whatsoever. And if Richie had been more consistent on the tour, Petey would have a lot less than 14.

Krackerjack had his number, full stop pwnage.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Btw, isn't it funny how Fred haters never mention one simple fact:

Nads >>>>>>>>>> Krajicek

Fact is, for a four year period Petros had no answers whatsoever. And if Richie had been more consistent on the tour, Petey would have a lot less than 14.

Krackerjack had his number, full stop pwnage.
In a way I agree. I mean this guy defeated peak Sampras in straights at W. Not even Nadal managed that against Federer at W
 
No, it wasn't. You weren't comparing styles. You were comparing legacies, and declaring Pancho the GOAT.
The rules of the game were changed for one player! Serve Volley was outlawed - does any one have doubts as to who was the greatest of all time? Pancho was unplayable - think of Pete raised to the power of 4 and we get Pancho. It is interesting that as great as Pete was, he had a losing record against Richard Krajicek and Michael Stich - that means that Pete could beaten at his own game. Rafa has owned Federer for the last couple of years on all surfaces, while Pancho dominated everybody Jack Cramer threw at him. Pancho is the greatest of all time. Sorry Roger, your resume means little when victories include muggers like Fernando Gonzales and Andy Roddick whose volley could hardly be classified as a professional stroke not to mention that abomination that is meant to be called a backhand! Just to illustrate my point - just have look what Goran did to Roddick at 2001 Wimbledon, it's as if Roddick were a schoolboy learning how to play. Oh, and did I mention Tim Henman's record against the great Roger!
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
The rules of the game were changed for one player! Serve Volley was outlawed - does any one have doubts as to who was the greatest of all time? Pancho was unplayable - think of Pete raised to the power of 4 and we get Pancho. It is interesting that as great as Pete was, he had a losing record against Richard Krajicek and Michael Stich - that means that Pete could beaten at his own game. Rafa has owned Federer for the last couple of years on all surfaces, while Pancho dominated everybody Jack Cramer threw at him. Pancho is the greatest of all time. Sorry Roger, your resume means little when victories include muggers like Fernando Gonzales and Andy Roddick whose volley could hardly be classified as a professional stroke not to mention that abomination that is meant to be called a backhand! Just to illustrate my point - just have look what Goran did to Roddick at 2001 Wimbledon, it's as if Roddick were a schoolboy learning how to play. Oh, and did I mention Tim Henman's record against the great Roger!
Roddick was only 18 in that W 2001 match
 

above bored

Semi-Pro
Losing sometimes (unless it is most of the time) to a past their prime player means nothing. When you have two all time greats, the player past their prime will always win some matches. I believe an old Djokovic would win some matches vs a prime Federer too if the scenarios were reversed. Some of you have such a warped view you seem to view Djokovic as if he were Murray, not beating Federer in a slam until Federer was 31. Steffi Graf had a loss to 34 and 36 year old Navratilova, does that mean she would never beat a prime Navratilova, lol! (meanwhile peak Navratilova lost a match 6-2, 6-2 to 15 year old Graf).

Federer might have the edge prime to prime vs Djokovic, but it would be no blowout. Djokovic has been a tough opponent for him since late 2007 now. In 2008-2009 when Federer was closer to his prime than Djokovic they were 4-4.

And I would for sure favor Djokovic on Plexicushion. Their 2008 and 2011 matches were so emphatic in Djokovic's favor that even considering Federer's illness in 2008 and being past his best a bit in 2011, I would give Djokovic the edge.
Obviously, in the day to day fluctuation of level, anyone can win. During his peak years, Federer has lost to worse players than the current Djokovic, mainly in 2007. However, comparing best for best, I think Federer completely dominates Djokovic, including on Plexicushions.

After 2007, Federer was a shadow of the player he was prior. More errors, less quick, less explosive. The focus and spring in his step were not there anymore, at least not to the same degree. Even in 2007, we started to see the cracks of mileage weariness. Ironically, his illnesses in 2008 gave him something to focus on again (getting well), but the physical and mental damage caused by the disruption were already done. That’s not to say he was not still a great player, but the x factor that gave him the unwavering confidence he displayed prior was gone, not to mention he was no longer at his physical or technical peak.

In this respect I think that Djokovic was closer to his prime than Federer. In fact, Djokovic was right at the beginning of his prime, while Federer was exiting his. Historically, greats have achieved their best results between the ages of 20 – 26. At the end of 2008, Djokovic was 21 (Federer 27) and had been in 2 Major finals, winning one of them, had a World Championship title, 4 Masters Series (and 2 finalist finishes). 2011 was not the start of Djokovic’s prime as some like to think. That was the time when the further improvements he realised he had to make bore the most fruit. He had to pull out all the stops to make those improvements, i.e. oxygen tanks and gluten free diets. There was some artifice behind it. It was not a natural progression, but one forced upon him by the dominance of Federer, then Nadal. He was well established by the end of 2008 already. On top of this, as with all prior transitionary periods, youth has other psychological advantages. The pressure is on the established great. The up and comer can swing for the fences, pressure free and with nothing to lose. This was also a dynamic in their early encounters.

Have a look at the link below. It shows typical career trajectories for the greats.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=7186355#post7186355
 
People (i.e., kids and Nadochists) keep conveniently forgetting that Peak Agassi was 29-33.

And even then, they conveniently forget that "Old" Agassi was among the very most fit on the tour and he didn't so much age but that his back finally went.
Well folks, it did happen! 2014 Wimbledon - Federer played his best game ever against peak Joker - and the great Roger came up short. When Pete played at his peak vs his rivals at their peak . . . just one unswer - 1999 Wimbledon Final ! Sorry Roger you lose by a mile.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
I laugh at people who say that Fed can't handle this new "strong" generation.

Fed is 10-7 vs Nole and Murray at GS and 4-1 vs them in GS finals. And they mostly played old Fed.

Fed was nr.1 in 2010 and 2012 during this new generation.

This new "strong" generation. Yeah Wawrinka, Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgy are all time greats.

I don't want to hear another peep against Fed not being able to handle 14 GS champion when Nadal and Sampras couldn't handle complete mugs in their primes in grand slams.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Mmm, not really abmk.
yes, really.

He played close to his best in the first 2 sets and had nole *strangled* so to speak . Then his level dipped, he slowly got tired - esp set 4. novak's level increased as a result. IN set 5, he went for one last try and did well until collapsing after that return from nole.

very very unlikely that prime federer would go down stamina wise as he did or collapse the way he did in the 5th.

He played very well and I don't think anyone except djokovic would've beaten him at that USO, yes, not even nadal ..but still clearly below his prime IMO.
 
In a way I agree. I mean this guy defeated peak Sampras in straights at W. Not even Nadal managed that against Federer at W
And let's not forget Wimbledon 1992 when Goran Defeated peak Sampras who had demolished Michael Stich (defending champion) the previous round. In a shootout, Goran won 91% of the points on his first serve and did not face a single break point!
 
Well folks, it did happen! 2014 Wimbledon - Federer played his best game ever against peak Joker - and the great Roger came up short. FWhen Pete played at his peak vs his rivals at their peak . . . just one unswer - 1999 Wimbledon Final ! Sorry Roger you lose by a mile.
If you think Wimby 2014 was Federer's best game ever, you've either never watched tennis until Wimbledon 2014, or you're just being a troll for the sake of trolling.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Well folks, it did happen! 2014 Wimbledon - Federer played his best game ever against peak Joker - and the great Roger came up short. When Pete played at his peak vs his rivals at their peak . . . just one unswer - 1999 Wimbledon Final ! Sorry Roger you lose by a mile.
Actually, the closest you'll find age-wise is probably the Sampras-Federer of 2001 (I'll spare you the Bastl humiliation). Of course, that was still baby Fed at that time, which explains why Sampras was able to make it so competitive. Still, it was a good effort by him, considering the difference in levels.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
yes, really.

He played close to his best in the first 2 sets and had nole *strangled* so to speak . Then his level dipped, he slowly got tired - esp set 4. novak's level increased as a result. IN set 5, he went for one last try and did well until collapsing after that return from nole.

very very unlikely that prime federer would go down stamina wise as he did or collapse the way he did in the 5th.

He played very well and I don't think anyone except djokovic would've beaten him at that USO, yes, not even nadal ..but still clearly below his prime IMO.
I'll accept that he was below(though really not by much) his very peak but when people say "way below" or "clearly below" I just don't see it myself. Agree to disagree on this one I'm afraid.
 
Btw, isn't it funny how Fred haters never mention one simple fact:

Nads >>>>>>>>>> Krajicek

Fact is, for a four year period Petros had no answers whatsoever. And if Richie had been more consistent on the tour, Petey would have a lot less than 14.

Krackerjack had his number, full stop pwnage.
I agree, just have look at the match Richard played against peak Michael Stich at the 1992 Australian Open QF, it is 5 sets of big-serve-volley feast that few players could withstand and Richard emerged victorious! There is nobody on earth that could have beaten him on that day - I have the match on tape and the reigning Wimbledon champion with the best second serve at the time got beat at his own game!
 
Bingo to the bold.
Actually it is a quote by 100+ tennis writers including such luminaries as Bud Collins, not to mention admission from players themselves. More, it was the match of the highest standard, Roger paying all court attacking tennis and moving better than ever! Roger has never played a better match that is a plain fact. Correct me if I am wrong.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Well folks, it did happen! 2014 Wimbledon - Federer played his best game ever against peak Joker - and the great Roger came up short. When Pete played at his peak vs his rivals at their peak . . . just one unswer - 1999 Wimbledon Final ! Sorry Roger you lose by a mile.
Well let's not forget Fed was very close to 33 in this year's W finals. Pete was close to 28 in 1999. Big difference. Pete wasn't even playing in 2004 at Roger's current age

Why not use the 2001 W match instead? Pete playedd well and still lost
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Actually it is a quote by 100+ tennis writers including such luminaries as Bud Collins, not to mention admission from players themselves. More, it was the match of the highest standard, Roger paying all court attacking tennis and moving better than ever! Roger has never played a better match that is a plain fact. Correct me if I am wrong.
You're wrong.
 
Well let's not forget Fed was very close to 33 in this year's W finals. Pete was close to 28 in 1999. Big difference. Pete wasn't even playing in 2004 at Roger's current age

Why not use the 2001 W match instead? Pete playedd well and still lost
True, but yet again, Andre Agassi got to number one at 33 and it took Mark Philippoussis' 46 aces to defeat him at Wimbledon that year. Mark did not stand a chance against Rog in the final.
 
True, but yet again, Andre Agassi got to number one at 33 and it took Mark Philippoussis' 46 aces to defeat him at Wimbledon that year. Mark did not stand a chance against Rog in the final.
And as I outlined in a previous post, Federer right now (at 33), has about 50 more career matches than Agassi had when he retired at age 36.

Agassi at 33 had way less mileage than Fed does at the same age, yet Fed can never age. According to some, he's in a perpetual peak state. Decline? Never! He just keeps playing his best ever level tennis, he keeps improving, yet the competition is just so much better that he loses now.

I just can't believe that anyone would say with a straight face that 2014 was Fed's best match at Wimbledon. It was his worst level in a Wimby final ever, followed by 2009. His other finals, 2003-2008 and 2012 were all of a higher level than 2014.
 
So which one was his best match? 2008 Wimbledon Final - that is officially hailed as the best match at Wimbledon ever - Roger lost that one too. Had Nadal played Pete that day scoreline would have been something like Pete Sampras 6-4, 6-3, 6-4.
Do you mean like when 19 year old Fed played Pete at Wimbledon, when Pete was going for five titles in a row, and Federer beat him in five sets?

If Fed can play his best ever match at 33, why can't Pete play his best ever match at 29? Do you see how ludicrous this all sounds?
 
And as I outlined in a previous post, Federer right now (at 33), has about 50 more career matches than Agassi had when he retired at age 36.

Agassi at 33 had way less mileage than Fed does at the same age, yet Fed can never age. According to some, he's in a perpetual peak state. Decline? Never! He just keeps playing his best ever level tennis, he keeps improving, yet the competition is just so much better that he loses now.

I just can't believe that anyone would say with a straight face that 2014 was Fed's best match at Wimbledon. It was his worst level in a Wimby final ever, followed by 2009. His other finals, 2003-2008 and 2012 were all of a higher level than 2014.
The way he came back in that fourth set from a break down to win 7-5 would have made any other player wilt
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
The way he came back in that fourth set from a break down to win 7-5 would have made any other player wilt
Well Federer in 2008 came back from 2 sets down by winning 2 tiebreakers. This year he couldn't even win the 3rd set tiebreak.
I say he was playing better in 2008 than now
 
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)
You're full of poop.

Roger's the dreamiest!!!
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Do you mean like when 19 year old Fed played Pete at Wimbledon, when Pete was going for five titles in a row, and Federer beat him in five sets?

If Fed can play his best ever match at 33, why can't Pete play his best ever match at 29? Do you see how ludicrous this all sounds?
He obviously doesn't :)
 
Do you mean like when 19 year old Fed played Pete at Wimbledon, when Pete was going for five titles in a row, and Federer beat him in five sets?

If Fed can play his best ever match at 33, why can't Pete play his best ever match at 29? Do you see how ludicrous this all sounds?
Actually Pete did play his best match at 31 against peak Agassi at the US Open 2002 and in the first two sets he obliterated the worlds greatest returner. As to why he quit tennis after that remains a conundrum, I was sure he was going to return at SW19 in 2003 to atone that disaster agains Bastl. Help me out on this one guys.
 

TJfederer16

Hall of Fame


H2H vs Djokovic - 18-17
H2H vs Murray - 11-11
H2H vs Roddick - 21-3
H2H vs Hewitt - 18-9
H2H vs Agassi - 8-3
H2H vs Sampras - 1-0
H2H vs Del Potro - 15-5
H2H vs Safin - 8-2
H2H vs Nalbandian - 11-8
H2H vs Tsonga - 11-5
H2H vs Berdych - 12-6
H2H vs Ferrer - 16-0
H2H vs Ferrero - 10-3
H2H vs Ivanisevic - 2-0
H2H vs Wawrinka - 14-2
H2H vs Raonic - 6-0
H2H vs Dimitrov - 1-0
H2H vs Davydenko - 19-2
H2H vs Rios - 2-0
H2H vs Moya - 7-0
H2H vs Haas - 13-3
H2H vs Gonzalez - 12-1
H2H vs Soderling - 16-1
H2H vs Henman - 7-6

Whether it was the generation before him, his generation, the next generation or the generation after that Roger has a winning record over pretty much all of them bar very few, the only person he's had a real problem with is obviously Nadal. Even with Nadal, his absolute kryptonite, the H2H off of clay is 10-8 in Nadal's favour and 4-2 in slams which is pretty damn close and if you discount Roger's declining years it is a lot closer and is even in Roger's favour off of clay. So you can't possibly bring up this weak era rubbish because he's beaten the previous generation of players including Sampras and Agassi, utterly dominated his generation of players, kept up with the next generation of players and dominated the generation of players after that so far. Overated? can't name many players that have done that in the past.
 
I won 1



H2H vs Djokovic - 18-17
H2H vs Murray - 11-11
H2H vs Roddick - 21-3
H2H vs Hewitt - 18-9
H2H vs Agassi - 8-3
H2H vs Sampras - 1-0: <---- :lol: :lol: :lol:
H2H vs Del Potro - 15-5
H2H vs Safin - 8-2
H2H vs Nalbandian - 11-8
H2H vs Tsonga - 11-5
H2H vs Berdych - 12-6
H2H vs Ferrer - 16-0
H2H vs Ferrero - 10-3
H2H vs Ivanisevic - 2-0
H2H vs Wawrinka - 14-2
H2H vs Raonic - 6-0
H2H vs Dimitrov - 1-0
H2H vs Davydenko - 19-2
H2H vs Rios - 2-0
H2H vs Moya - 7-0
H2H vs Haas - 13-3
H2H vs Gonzalez - 12-1
H2H vs Soderling - 16-1
H2H vs Henman - 7-6

Whether it was the generation before him, his generation, the next generation or the generation after that Roger has a winning record over pretty much all of them bar very few, the only person he's had a real problem with is obviously Nadal. Even with Nadal, his absolute kryptonite, the H2H off of clay is 10-8 in Nadal's favour and 4-2 in slams which is pretty damn close and if you discount Roger's declining years it is a lot closer and is even in Roger's favour off of clay. So you can't possibly bring up this weak era rubbish because he's beaten the previous generation of players including Sampras and Agassi, utterly dominated his generation of players, kept up with the next generation of players and dominated the generation of players after that so far. Overated? can't name many players that have done that in the past.
Fixed.

__________________
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Do you mean like when 19 year old Fed played Pete at Wimbledon, when Pete was going for five titles in a row, and Federer beat him in five sets?

If Fed can play his best ever match at 33, why can't Pete play his best ever match at 29? Do you see how ludicrous this all sounds?
Because Pete won 0 title in 2001 and was completely unmotivated as he already broke the record and the second greatest guy in his era was not even close to him.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Because Pete won 0 title in 2001 and was completely unmotivated as he already broke the record and the second greatest guy in his era was not even close to him.
On the other hand, he was the only all-time great who didn't have another all-time great in front of him for most of his career, and he capitalized a lot on this vacuum, so you can't have your cake (ie no competition) and eat it (ie be motivated by said lack of competition), I guess.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Because Pete won 0 title in 2001 and was completely unmotivated as he already broke the record and the second greatest guy in his era was not even close to him.
Disagree. Sampras was VERY motivated to win Wimbledon 2001.

That's like saying Nadal was not motivated at the FO after he won a record 7 titles in 2012.
 
Because Pete won 0 title in 2001 and was completely unmotivated as he already broke the record and the second greatest guy in his era was not even close to him.
Does it change the fact that Sampras was on a 31 match win streak at Wimby and going for his fifth consecutive title?

My point is, if Sampras was washed up and past his prime at 29, how can anyone realistically expect Federer to be better than ever at 33? Can we even expect him to be the same player? Of course not. It defies logic, but that is what's presented on TTW. "Fed played his best match against Djokovic at Wimby 14", or "Fed didn't get worse, the competition got better", both fall into the asinine category.

2000-2002 is considered a very transitional, weak era in tennis, yet there we were with Sampras losing to "mugs" (Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, etc.) when he was 28-30 years old. Did Pete get worse or did the competition get better? No one ever claims 2000-2002 was a strong time, but Pete was beaten soundly, often by these players, at an age where people have expected Federer to be better than ever, or even proclaimed that he's better than ever. The double standard (and lack of acknowledgment of the double standard) is astounding to me.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
It's just impossible to know any of this because peak Fed vs peak Djokovic never really happened. Novak hit his peak (2011), after Fed left his prime, and long after Fed left his peak. Still, in 2011, Fed beat Novak at RG, and served for their match at the USO. That to me means that peak Federer performs even better.
Federer played better at RG in 2011 than he did any other year. The proof is in how he played vs Rafa in the very next match and Fed himself saying it was possibly "his best ever performance on clay" afterwards. He has never been closer to pushing an RG match to 5 vs Nadal.

Unless you want to say 25 year old Rafa was declined in 2011 as well, but we know that is BS as I have shown several times that 2011 Rafa had better performance numbers across the board (serve, return, top 10 wins, over-all win %) with the SOLE exception of Djokovic compared to his absolute peak year of 2010.

In any case 2011 was not Djokovic's peak at RG either, he played better in 2013 at RG as well.

I love people using the Agassi 2004 match as a knock against Fed. One of the windiest matches I've ever seen, and Agassi playing very well. Agassi was a bit older then than Fed is now, but had far less mileage on his body. Yet Agassi at that time was half dead old grandpa and the fact that he pushed Fed means Fed is a joke. Soooooo Fed pushing Djokovic to five sets at Wimby must mean Djokovic is a joke? It's easy to make false equivalencies that don't hold any water. Just for comparisons sake, Agassi played 1,144 matches in his career, Fed has 1,196 matches so far, so he has more mileage on him at 33 than Agassi had at 36.
Its not a knock, its to show the ridiculousness of the argument. Fed fans point out 2011 USO was close so peak Fed would destroy peak Nole at USO, but then don't apply the same logic to an Agassi who was 4 years older doing the same to Fed at USO 04. If you want to use that argument then peak Agassi would destroy peak Fed. I don't believe this because I don't just blindly tout ages and actually watch match quality.

Fed in that particular match in 2011 was playing at very high levels, just like Agassi in that match in 2004 so it doesn't indicate apropo about how either peak match would go at the USO.

Also Agassi had more mileage on him heading into the 04 USO match than Fed did heading into the 11 USO match.

I still think this is impossible because these peak v peak matches will never happen, so we don't know. I do think Fed gets a hard time because he hasn't been able to dominate two eras worth of players, which no one has ever done, nor been asked to do. The fact that he leads the h2h with Djokovic and is tied with Murray and has continued to compete for and win big titles is a testament to how great he actually is. Far from overrated.
I never argued the point that peak vs peak is something we can't know, I am only arguing these ridiculous positions Fed fans take that peak vs peak would be 38-2 or that Nole has no chance to win at USO like the Fed fans want to make it seem or even more ridiculous using absolute peak Fed at AO vs baby teenage Nole in 07 to justify that rebound ace would be 4-0 LMAO.

His h2h vs Nole is not just a function of prime Nole vs past prime Fed like you make it seem either.

Pre-2011 was prime Fed vs pre prime Nole: Fed led 13-6
2011+ was prime Nole vs post prime Fed: Nole leads 11-5

Both have done what they were supposed to and pre prime Nole has bothered Fed the same way post prime Fed has bothered Nole.

People on here go around actually touting him as not just the GOAT, but that it is indisputable and he is on another level from everyone else, when based on the very same metrics you guys admonish Nadal fans for doing (ignoring accomplishments and focusing on unprovable quality of competition era arguments) you guys then turn around and do the same and ignore that Laver and Gonzalez are miles ahead of Fed in accomplishments. So yes, I would say Fed is definitely over-rated as he should not have any claim to GOAT over those two, yet people say he is a lock for it.

How is this not objective? If a player in his peak is struggling in 5 sets, saving match points vs a declining player, logic follows that the latter, in his peak, would obliterate the former.
so why don't you apply this logic to 34 year old Agassi vs peak Fed at USO 04? Logic follows that peak Agassi would obliterate peak Fed then right?

By that scenario you excuse the match as "Agassi was playing well and had low mileage" without even stopping to consider that Agassi in 04 had more mileage on him than Fed in 11 had and that the "playing well" argument could apply to Federer as well.

Also I find it hilarious how big of a hypocrite you are always going on about how you can't compare eras or competition, but then saying definitively Laver's era was weaker than Federer's so his accomplishments are better and now saying Fed would go 38-2 vs Djokovic:)

Sit down clown.
 
Last edited:

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Fixed.

__________________
Don't be such a Sampras fanboy. All he's doing is proving that Federer is not overrated. So he listed the fact that Federer did beat Sampras in the 1 match they played. Insignificant perhaps, but nothing to get your panties in a bunch about either.
 
Federer played better at RG in 2011 than he did any other year. The proof is in how he played vs Rafa in the very next match and Fed himself saying it was possibly "his best ever performance on clay" afterwards. He has never been closer to pushing an RG match to 5 vs Nadal.

Unless you want to say 25 year old Rafa was declined in 2011 as well, but we know that is BS as I have shown several times that 2011 Rafa had better performance numbers across the board (serve, return, top 10 wins, over-all win %) with the SOLE exception of Djokovic compared to his absolute peak year of 2010.

In any case 2011 was not Djokovic's peak at RG either, he played better in 2013 at RG as well.



Its not a knock, its to show the ridiculousness of the argument. Fed fans point out 2011 USO was close so peak Fed would destroy peak Nole at USO, but then don't apply the same logic to an Agassi who was 4 years older doing the same to Fed at USO 04. If you want to use that argument then peak Agassi would destroy peak Fed. I don't believe this because I don't just blindly tout ages and actually watch match quality.

Fed in that particular match in 2011 was playing at very high levels, just like Agassi in that match in 2004 so it doesn't indicate apropo about how either peak match would go at the USO.

Also Agassi had more mileage on him heading into the 04 USO match than Fed did heading into the 11 USO match.



I never argued the point that peak vs peak is something we can't know, I am only arguing these ridiculous positions Fed fans take that peak vs peak would be 38-2 or that Nole has no chance to win at USO like the Fed fans want to make it seem or even more ridiculous using absolute peak Fed at AO vs baby teenage Nole in 07 to justify that rebound ace would be 4-0 LMAO.

His h2h vs Nole is not just a function of prime Nole vs past prime Fed like you make it seem either.

Pre-2011 was prime Fed vs pre prime Nole: Fed led 13-6
2011+ was prime Nole vs post prime Fed: Nole leads 11-5

Both have done what they were supposed to and pre prime Nole has bothered Fed the same way post prime Fed has bothered Nole.

People on here go around actually touting him as not just the GOAT, but that it is indisputable and he is on another level from everyone else, when based on the very same metrics you guys admonish Nadal fans for doing (ignoring accomplishments and focusing on unprovable quality of competition era arguments) you guys then turn around and do the same and ignore that Laver and Gonzalez are miles ahead of Fed in accomplishments. So yes, I would say Fed is definitely over-rated as he should not have any claim to GOAT over those two, yet people say he is a lock for it.



so why don't you apply this logic to 34 year old Agassi vs peak Fed at USO 04? Logic follows that peak Agassi would obliterate peak Fed then right?

By that scenario you excuse the match as "Agassi was playing well and had low mileage" without even stopping to consider that Agassi in 04 had more mileage on him than Fed in 11 had and that the "playing well" argument could apply to Federer as well.

Also I find it hilarious how big of a hypocrite you are always going on about how you can't compare eras or competition, but then saying definitively Laver's era was weaker than Federer's so his accomplishments are better and now saying Fed would go 38-2 vs Djokovic:)

Sit down clown.
You quoted two different people in this post so I'm not sure if it's all directed at me, but I've never said Fed would be 38-2 against Djokovic. I've said Novak would have an edge at the Australian Open (especially on Plexi). And they'd be pretty even at RG. I do think Fed would have a sizeable edge at Wimby and USO. I agree about Fed's 2011 RG run. That truly was a turn back the clock moment for Fed.

In regards to the 2011 USO, I think it's tough because Fed did play really well, but he let the match go at the end. My personal opinion is that Fed from 2004-2007 wouldn't lose a two set lead, not would he fail to close it out at 5-3 40-15 in the fifth set. Even if Fed was 99% of his peak level in that match, the 1% probably wins him the one point he needed at the end. Maybe I'm wrong, but as I stated before, we'll never know because the matchups can't happen.

I'd also argue that the 2004 match vs Agassi is hard to compare to 2011 because of the wind factor, which is the greatest equalizer in tennis, imo, and Agassi was a legendary wind player. I do get your point though that you can't make blanket statements based on individual matches. You mentioned that you watch for match quality, which I appreciate, because I think it's far too easy for people to say things like "grandpa broke back Agassi" without watching the actual level of the matches, as an example.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
I never said that peak Fed was way above peak Nadal/Nole, but rather that peak Fed was above them by enough that he would still win the majors which he won in '04-'07 even with peak Nadal/Nole present.
If he isn't way above them, there is no way he would still win all of those same majors. You are basically then saying peak Safin >> peak Nole and Nadal because he could take a slam off Fed, but they couldn't (besides clay Nadal). If there is only a minor difference in their levels some matches would go the other way.


This is false. When you are past your prime, not only are you less consistent, but the top level you can reach on any given day is also lower. It's simple biology - you are slower, have slower reaction speed, less power, worse co-ordination etc. - so how can your top level be the same as before? Hence, if you actually watch '04-'07 Federer (who could defend like a beast and hit winners at will) you'll see a marked difference to '10-12 Federer in terms of his level of play, especially in the big matches you note.
Thats what Peak level is. Like I said Fed in 05-06 was performing markedly than in 10-12 in those areas, but his USO 07-AO 12 form did not have those marked declines. I have already shown you how many great players played well until 31 (Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Lendl, Agassi, Connors, Federer) its no coincidence that this drop in simple biology does not happen until a bit later than you would like to believe to prop up Federer. Please don't bother trying to present BS to counter each example, at that point its a trend not an outlier. The outlier is McEnroe not the other way around. Borg retired so we have no idea on him.


So what? This just proves that even declined Federer can beat the lower guys - it doesn't mean his '08-'12 isn't declined, it just means that '12-'14 is even more declined. To say Fed's decline started at the end of 2012 is a joke - it means you're saying he had a 10 year prime!
Fed's noticeable decline based on biology as you say came at the end of 2012, until then his consistency went down noticeably every year but he could still reach the same levels in 2012 on occasion that he did in 07 (not his peak 05-06 years though). Most greats as I have alluded to maintained high level play for about 10 years so I don't see why this is unreasonable.

You don't find it convenient that 08 was when Fed was only 26 and suddenly when he stopped dominating, he is in decline? Doesn't make more sense that the field got stronger? Nadal at 27 just last year had his 2nd best season, and Djokovic at 27 this year has a chance to do the same. Laver at 31 won a CYGS, Connors won the USO/Wimb double at past 30. GTFO with this Fed declined at 26 BS.


Again, this is false - watch the matches. Federer is slower, has slower reactions etc, has less power etc.: all of which have nothing to do with Djokovic.
I have, I literally watched the 07 and 11 matches side by side yesterday and all I could see was higher levels from Nole. Not much of a difference from Fed's side especially in the 1st, 2nd, and 5th sets.

No - but we have only one sample on Rebound Ace, so I have to go with that.
Ya seems reasonable to use teenage Nole vs Peak Fed to extrapolate your records and then also say Fed who has won 0 sets off Nole on plexicushion could even win 1 match.:)


Past-prime Agassi never beat Federer.
Federer beat Djokovic several times during his prime and past his prime, and had MP twice way past his prime.

See above. It's simple biology.
Lol so simply biology dictates Agassi was not past his prime in 2002 at age 32 when he was beating Federer, but Federer was "way past his prime" in 2010 at age 29 when he lost in a slam to Nole?

34 year old Agassi pushed peak Fed to 5 sets at USO
30 year old Fed pushed peak Nole to 5 sets at USO

There is no way around saying peak Fed would destroy peak Nole at USO, without either
A) admitting the same about peak Agassi vs peak Fed
B) admitting single match levels vary from year round levels and hence acknowledging its an unreasonable extrapolation


I completely disagree. Federer at the FO was better '05-'07 than in '11 - just look at the difference in speed between the two versions of Federer for one thing.
How about instead of espousing subjective metrics we look at common performance. Fed in 11 played a closer match vs Nadal at RG in 11. Unless you want to say "simple Biology" caused 25 year old (which admitted is in your peak 22-26 range) Nadal was declined and 19-21 year old Nadal (which is not in your peak range) was in his peak, you have objective indicators which level was higher.


Again - complete rubbish. Watch the two matches and see that Federer is slower, has slower reactions, less power etc. in '11 (as you would expect due to age): all things which are independent of his opponent.
I did, he also has better court IQ, positioning, understanding which are all expected due to gained experience. His over-all abilities at the 11 USO were similar to 07 USO, just not on the level of his earlier peaks.


Given that peak Djokovic lost to way-past-prime Federer on clay convincingly, this is clearly false. I can perhaps agree with your point on hard courts though.
Given that 2011 RG Fed was far from being "way past his prime" and that 2011 Nole wasn't even his highest levels at RG, this is clearly true.


I agree on Plexicushion, but probably 2-2 or possibly even 3-1 to Federer on Rebound Ace.
Based on nothing but conjecture from a match that has little relevance. Literally think Safin was better on slow hards than Nole and that 06 Fed having trouble with Baghdatis could beat 2013 AO Nole?

Rebound and Plexi aren't these worlds apart different surfaces you make it seem like. Both were slow courts, its just a very SLIGHT variation in bounces and speeds.


'11 Djokovic beats '04 Fed, I agree; but '05-'07 Fed is better than '11 Fed, which even '11 Djokovic couldn't beat - so '05-'07 Fed wins the rest. 3-1 to Federer.
13 Djok was better than 11 Djok at RG and 05-07 Fed was not better at RG than 11 Fed. So no 2-2


This one I strongly disagree with. '11 Djokovic could barely beat '11 Federer, let alone '04 Federer, which is probably the highest level ever seen at the USO (double bagelling Hewitt - he was playing out of his mind in that match).
I agree that we should wait to see '14 Djokovic's level, so I will say 3-1 or 4-0 to Federer.
Again so 95 Agassi >>> 04 Fed then based on what we say from 04 Agassi at 34 vs 04 Fed.


I don't see Djokovic beating prime Federer at Wimbledon (he couldn't even beat him when he was almost 31). 4-0 to Federer.
And Nole played his worst match on grass in his prime that year. He played far better the year before against a Nadal who himself felt he was at a higher level on grass than he was when he beat Fed in 08:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrpwgQYhd5Y - source

Given that I don't think its unreasonable to consider it possible for Nole to grab 1.

Not to mention he just beat Fed at 32 at this Wimbledon in 5 the same way Fed beat Agassi at 34 at USO 04, yet that doesn't sway you from thinking prime Agassi wouldn't beat prime Fed.
 
Last edited:

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
You quoted two different people in this post so I'm not sure if it's all directed at me, but I've never said Fed would be 38-2 against Djokovic. I've said Novak would have an edge at the Australian Open (especially on Plexi). And they'd be pretty even at RG. I do think Fed would have a sizeable edge at Wimby and USO. I agree about Fed's 2011 RG run. That truly was a turn back the clock moment for Fed.
I suppose it was a blanket statement since you, RJ, Logic, and several others have been disputing my points. I appreciate your sentiment and apologize if it seemed I misrepresented your positions.

I actually agree almost entirely with your position. RG would be even, Nole has the edge at AO (especially on Plexi), and Fed has the edge at USO/Wimb.

The only point of contention I make is that Fed's chances to win at AO would be the same as Nole's chances to win at the USO and that Wimbledon wouldn't assuredly be a 4-0 shut-out the way many Fed fans think.

Some even think it would be 10-0 Fed at Wimbledon, which I think is very disrespectful of a multiple time Wimbledon champion who did beat a Nadal that took prime Fed out in one of those wins.

In regards to the 2011 USO, I think it's tough because Fed did play really well, but he let the match go at the end. My personal opinion is that Fed from 2004-2007 wouldn't lose a two set lead, not would he fail to close it out at 5-3 40-15 in the fifth set. Even if Fed was 99% of his peak level in that match, the 1% probably wins him the one point he needed at the end. Maybe I'm wrong, but as I stated before, we'll never know because the matchups can't happen.
Thats a fair position and I can understand that. I said USO between the two in 4 peak vs peak years would likely go 3-1 Fed or 2-2 depending on Nole's form this year. Like you said we would never know, I also think that Nole coming back has more to do with his level than Fed's lack of closing. Fed has never been a clutch 5th set player in big time matches vs top rivals (Safin AO 05, Nalbo TMC 05, Nadal Rome 06, Nadal Wimb 08, Del Po USO 09, Djok USO 10, USO 11, Wimb 14, Murray 13 AO) and has only pulled out 3 epics (vs Roddick 09 Wimb - his pigeon and beating young Nadal at Miami 05 and Wimb 07), so I think Nole could clutch out a close one in his peak form.

I'd also argue that the 2004 match vs Agassi is hard to compare to 2011 because of the wind factor, which is the greatest equalizer in tennis, imo, and Agassi was a legendary wind player. I do get your point though that you can't make blanket statements based on individual matches. You mentioned that you watch for match quality, which I appreciate, because I think it's far too easy for people to say things like "grandpa broke back Agassi" without watching the actual level of the matches, as an example.
I agree wind played a role, but I would say the same happened with Nole vs Murray at USO 12, but people don't allow the same excuse for that.

And I agree, its not fair to admonish Agassi as grandpa in 04, but I only say that to those like Logic who are saying 29 year old Fed in 2010 was "way past his prime." I feel, if you don't want Agassi being referred to as grandpa at 34, stop referring to Fed at 29-31 in the same way (not directed at you, but those who do). Acknowledge the high levels both had and don't use that to say peak Fed >>>>>> peak Nole, and then ignore peak Agassi vs peak Fed.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Not sure why people think Nole could beat 2004 Federer at the USO. Roger's finals form was a level above anything Novak has ever shown at the USO.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Could easily be straights, similar to the AO 11 match between them in reverse.
1st set and 3rd set, I don't think nole wins more than 3-4 games each... 2nd set yeah, federer had a letdown, so would be close ...
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
You quoted two different people in this post so I'm not sure if it's all directed at me, but I've never said Fed would be 38-2 against Djokovic. I've said Novak would have an edge at the Australian Open (especially on Plexi). And they'd be pretty even at RG. I do think Fed would have a sizeable edge at Wimby and USO. I agree about Fed's 2011 RG run. That truly was a turn back the clock moment for Fed.

In regards to the 2011 USO, I think it's tough because Fed did play really well, but he let the match go at the end. My personal opinion is that Fed from 2004-2007 wouldn't lose a two set lead, not would he fail to close it out at 5-3 40-15 in the fifth set. Even if Fed was 99% of his peak level in that match, the 1% probably wins him the one point he needed at the end. Maybe I'm wrong, but as I stated before, we'll never know because the matchups can't happen.

I'd also argue that the 2004 match vs Agassi is hard to compare to 2011 because of the wind factor, which is the greatest equalizer in tennis, imo, and Agassi was a legendary wind player. I do get your point though that you can't make blanket statements based on individual matches. You mentioned that you watch for match quality, which I appreciate, because I think it's far too easy for people to say things like "grandpa broke back Agassi" without watching the actual level of the matches, as an example.
How wonderful it would be if all Federer fans were as level-headed and objective as you. Great post.
 
Top