Too bad Fed was the latest bloomer of the BIG 3...

[Mark-Touch]

Nadal launched his slams at the age of 19 years 364 days.
Djoker launched his slams at the age of 20 years.
Fed launched his slams at the age of 22 years 332 days.

Had Fed launched his slams even two years earlier, at 20 years 332 days,
and went on a similar winning streak to when he launched at 22; winning 12 of 18 possible slams, (counting from his first slam Jul 6, 2003),
he would have added at least 4 more slams to his bag.

 

[Tony48]

Federer strung together more slams after winning his first. Were as Djokovic and Nadal didn't do as well.

Here's how they performed in the following 11 slams after winning their first (including their 1st slam):

Djokovic: 1/12 (after his 2008 Australian Open, he wouldn't win another slam until 2011)
Nadal: 3/12 (only won 3 French Opens)
Federer: 7/12 (he dominated shortly after his first slam win)

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Had, had, had... Doesn't exist.

 

[Mark-Touch]

...

 

[Courierfh]

Nadal launched his slams at the age of 19 years 364 days.
Djoker launched his slams at the age of 20 years.
Fed launched his slams at the age of 22 years 332 days.

Had Fed launched his slams even two years earlier, at 20 years 332 days,
and went on a similar winning streak to when he launched at 22; winning 12 of 18 possible slams, (counting from his first slam Jul 6, 2003),
he would have added at least 4 more slams to his bag.

But he didnt did he.

 

[KINGROGER]

AO 2002
Wimbledon 2002
AO/USO 2003

seem like the biggest chances. Maybe Wimbledon 2001 too.

 

[Sudacafan]

Nadal launched his slams at the age of 19 years 364 days.
Djoker launched his slams at the age of 20 years.
Fed launched his slams at the age of 22 years 332 days.

Had Fed launched his slams even two years earlier, at 20 years 332 days,
and went on a similar winning streak to when he launched at 22; winning 12 of 18 possible slams, (counting from his first slam Jul 6, 2003),
he would have added at least 4 more slams to his bag.

Fed launched his slam count at one year earlier of age than you stated. 21 - 332

 

[Mark-Touch]

Fed launched his slam count at one year earlier of age than you stated. 21 - 332

Yes you are are correct. Thanks!
Well all still applies. I had stated two years earlier, which would put his age close to the other two, around 20 yrs. old.

 

[Lew II]

Nadal launched his slams at the age of 19 years 364 days.
Djoker launched his slams at the age of 20 years.
Fed launched his slams at the age of 22 years 332 days.

Had Fed launched his slams even two years earlier, at 20 years 332 days,
and went on a similar winning streak to when he launched at 22; winning 12 of 18 possible slams, (counting from his first slam Jul 6, 2003),
he would have added at least 4 more slams to his bag.

Nadal had just turned 19.
Federer was 21 and 11 months.

Djokovic is the one who peaked later. By the age Nole won his second slam Federer and Nadal had already won respectively 4 and 6 slams. But there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

You know why he didn't? Because he had to wait for the transitional period after Sampras and Agassi were past their best to take advantage. In other words, he wasn't good enough at a young age to win slams when there was stiffer competition around. Further evidence to this is the decline in his slam win rate post 2007 when both Nadal and Djokovic came of age on all surfaces. The 2003 - 2007 transitional period is responsible for a minimum of 60% of Fed's current statistical standing and without it he isn't close to being in the GOAT conversation I'm afraid.

 

[Mark-Touch]

Nadal had just turned 19.
Federer was 21 and 11 months.

Djokovic is the one who peaked later. By the age Nole won his second slam Federer and Nadal had already won respectively 4 and 6 slams. But there's nothing wrong with it.

Thanks for the correction on Nadal's age Lew.
Basically Nadal was 19, Djoker 20, and Fed 22.
This post is not about 'peaking'.
It is simply about launching the first slam.
And Fed launched his first slam roughly a couple of years after the other two, age-wise.

 

[mental midget]

You know why he didn't? Because he had to wait for the transitional period after Sampras and Agassi were past their best to take advantage. In other words, he wasn't good enough at a young age to win slams when there was stiffer competition around. Further evidence to this is the decline in his slam win rate post 2007 when both Nadal and Djokovic came of age on all surfaces. The 2003 - 2007 transitional period is responsible for a minimum of 60% of Fed's current statistical standing and without it he isn't close to being in the GOAT conversation I'm afraid.

nah. it just took him longer to find his game, too many options and temperamental as a youth which held him back. more pieces to put together into a winning formula.

time-travel 2005-6 fed back to the sampras/agassi era and those guys are in trouble...i watched all of their careers from start to finish, fed simply the best i've ever seen in full flight. jmo of course!

 

[Sudacafan]

Too bad

 

[Holmes]

Suddenly his slam winning rates dropped after 2009...what happened?

 

[The Sinner]

Just imagine, Fedr and Djoko’s year of birth were reversed, with the Swiss Maestro 6 years younger, would be sweeping slams left right and centre since 2016/17+… he‘d be making a mockery of this field of past few years. 20 slams is just the beginning.

 

[Tennisbg]

If I had started training at r years old I woild ha e won a slam, too bad I didnt.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Federer could have added a few slams back then. Some losses were understandable like Nalbandian or even Haas. But losing in straights to MIRNYI, Arazi, Horna or Ancic at his best slam (Ancic was a great player with tons of potential before mono, but we are talking a straight-sets defeat at his best slam when Ancic wasn't even seeded) is too poor for a player of his caliber. He wasn't that young at the time.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Apart from 2-3 chokes in big matches - I don't think there are big regrets in Fed's career. He could have easily won 22-23 slams. That's all..

 

[GoatNo1]

yes, it's really sad that fed, according to his fans, was a late bloomer who blossomed at 23 and withered, again according to his fans, already at 28.

 

[Rovesciarete]

Does anybody know why Federer won so many more return points in 2003 than 2002?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

He definitely should have won a couple of slams in 2002 and more than one in 2003. After his great season in 2001 he severely regressed in 2002 and that was one of the weakest years in recent history.

 

[Holmes]

Just imagine, Fedr and Djoko’s year of birth were reversed, with the Swiss Maestro 6 years younger, would be sweeping slams left right and centre since 2016/17+… he‘d be making a mockery of this field of past few years. 20 slams is just the beginning.

If ages were reversed then Fedr may never have emerged from out the shadow of DjokoGOAT and NadalClayGOAT, and may have ended up a companion of Murray and Ashe on the 3 slam count. Or so some say.

 

[fedfan24]

yes, it's really sad that fed, according to his fans, was a late bloomer who blossomed at 23 and withered, again according to his fans, already at 28.

28? Late 2009? He won the AO a few months after turning 28 and played close to prime tennis until he was 31. It’s 2013 where he started to seriously decline, that’s why he changed to a bigger racket to compensate.

 

[GoatNo1]

28? Late 2009? He won the AO a few months after turning 28 and played close to prime tennis until he was 31. It’s 2013 where he started to seriously decline, that’s why he changed to a bigger racket to compensate.

I think that he was in his prime even 2014 and 2015. 2017- 18, when nole was out, he won 3 slams. But it is his fans that keep saying that he was too old from 2010 onwards when he lost his no1 and rafole began to win over him more often. My statement was a little sarcastic.

 

[fedfan24]

I think that he was in his prime even 2014 and 2015. 2017- 18, when nole was out, he won 3 slams. But it is his fans that keep saying that he was too old from 2010 onwards when he lost his no1 and rafole began to win over him more often. My statement was a little sarcastic.

in his prime 2014-2015 but won 0 slams with 0 slam wins over djokovic? What changed from 2011-2012 to go from slam winning form to not? Djokovic got too good?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

If ages were reversed then Fedr may never have emerged from out the shadow of DjokoGOAT and NadalClayGOAT, and may have ended up a companion of Murray and Ashe on the 3 slam count. Or so some say.

So some Fed haters say but it is ridiculous. It could well have happened that being the chaser would be easier mentally for Fed and he wouldn’t choke away so many winnable matches against the other two. Being 5/6 years younger he would definitely clean in the latter years of his career against the current mug competition.
Anywho, under no possible hypothetical scenario maybe other than a Günther Parche-like attack would Fed ever end with a Murray-career.

 

[GoatNo1]

in his prime 2014-2015 but won 0 slams with 0 slam wins over djokovic? What changed from 2011-2012 to go from slam winning form to not? Djokovic got too good?

It was main reason but even rafa become more concurrent on all surfaces. And when you begin to lose matches you lose even your confidence. Loses like USO10 and 11 leave their marks after in coming seasons.

 

[Neptune]

Just imagine, Fedr and Djoko’s year of birth were reversed, with the Swiss Maestro 6 years younger, would be sweeping slams left right and centre since 2016/17+… he‘d be making a mockery of this field of past few years. 20 slams is just the beginning.

Based on how badly Fedr smoked by Rafa? LOL

 

[TMF]

It was main reason but even rafa become more concurrent on all surfaces. And when you begin to lose matches you lose even your confidence. Loses like USO10 and 11 leave their marks after in coming seasons.

Federer won 15 slams and set/breaks countless of records prior 2010. He dominated the 2000s decade and has nothing more to prove back then. Because of lost some motivation/hunger/desire plus past his best, of course one can't expect him to dominate forever. Despite of all that, he still had match points against the energized Nole in 2010/2011 US Open. Keep in mind Federer set the benchmark, not a chaser anymore after 2009. Unlike Nole who's a chaser from ground zero all the way to 2023 !

It's much easier to be a chaser than a setter

 

[TMF]

Just imagine, Fedr and Djoko’s year of birth were reversed, with the Swiss Maestro 6 years younger, would be sweeping slams left right and centre since 2016/17+… he‘d be making a mockery of this field of past few years. 20 slams is just the beginning.

Exactly, given an opportunity to play in the CIE is a dream

 

[GoatNo1]

Federer won 15 slams and set/breaks countless of records prior 2010. He dominated the 2000s decade and has nothing more to prove back then. Because of lost some motivation/hunger/desire plus past his best, of course one can't expect him to dominate forever. Despite of all that, he still had match points against the energized Nole in 2010/2011 US Open. Keep in mind Federer set the benchmark, not a chaser anymore after 2009. Unlike Nole who's a chaser from ground zero all the way to 2023 !

It's much easier to be a chaser than a hunter

at the end of the day, none of this does not matter. all three played together against the same rivals under the same circumstances for most of their careers. and in the end, everything will come down to how much who won and what achievements and records they set! fed did his job, while rafa and nole are still able to add something towards the end without him, just like fed was without them at the beginning.

 

[Razer]

12 difference champions won 15 slams from 2000USO until RG 2004, that was the vacuum which Federer could have exploited earlier, he missed it. 2001-03 was a period when Federer should have won but he probably had not matured physically? ....

 

[Neptune]

He dominated the 2000s decade and has nothing more to prove back then

Wasn't Fed owned by Rafa since 2004?

 

[TMF]

Based on how badly Fedr smoked by Rafa? LOL

Don't be ridiculous. Federer is 7-1 against Rafa between 2015-2019.

IF Federer being born 6 years later will make it a lot easier in the CIE

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Don't be ridiculous. Federer is 7-1 against Rafa between 2015-2019.

IF Federer being born 6 years later will make it a lot easier in the CIE

Will you ever get tired of repeating that? It is 6-1 not 7-1 you know this fully well.

 

[TMF]

Wasn't Fed owned by Rafa since 2004?

I didn't know the ATP has only 2 players on the tour from 2000-2009

 

[Razer]

It's much easier to be a chaser than a hunter

It is much easier to hunt that to chase.
If Chasing was easier then everybody chasing would be better placed.
Whoever gets ahead on a growth curve is always at an advantage, never protray that as a minus.

Djokovic neded tonnes of more points to become rank 1 breaking thought Fedal but Federer had to beat some philippoussis guy & his pigeon road-duck to win his first slam...

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

It's much easier to be a chaser than a hunter

What exactly is the difference?

 

[TMF]

What exactly is the difference?

I meant to say the chaser vs. the setter

Fixed my post

 

[jl809]

I've said this before but I actually think Djoker and Nadal probably end up with better stats than Fed at the end of the 'weak era' at the end of 07, if they'd enjoyed the age dynamic that he did

• If Nadal had been the one born in 1981 and Fed born in '86
  • Nadal wins every RG from 2000-2003... maybe 2004 he doesn't win because of physical issues, idk... then 2010dal > 2005dal, 2012dal ~ 2007dal. So 5 or 6 RGs
  • Probably wins a few Wimbledons, 06 and 07dal might struggle on the fast grass in 01/02 but 08, 10 and 11dal would have been happy once stuff slowed down
  • Has a fantastic shot at AO 04 (09dal), USO 05, USO 06 and AO 07
  • So that's in the range of 11-13 slams compared to Fed's 12 IRL, but also has the CGS and possibly the DCGS
  • AND, with his freakishly early development on grass, and the fact he was basically a guaranteed RG winner from age 19 onwards, he would have had a shot at YE number #1 in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003… at which point he gets good on HC too - so continues to tie up YE #1 through 04-07. We're talking 300+ weeks at number 1 by the end of 07

• If Djoker had been born in 81
  • In 2001 (07ovic) he's a big contender at the US Open, 2002 AO is a lock, 2003 USO + 2005 AO are possibles, then 2005 USO, 2006 AO + USO he doubles up, then takes AO 07 for sure - so that's somewhere between 5-8 slams on HC
  • 2001 and 2002 (ie 2008ovic) can win RG, then it’s possible that 2011ovic wins in 05 (unlikely, but possible). Will give him 1 here to be conservative
  • 2011 Djoker wins Wimbledon 05 for sure. Not sure if 2012 Djoker wins Vs Youngdal in 06, I might give him that too
  • So he gets 7-13 slams depending on how biased you want to be. 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007 he picks up a tonne of weeks at number 1 too… AND unlike Fed, he’s got the CGS, possibly even the DCGS

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I meant to say the chaser vs. the setter

Fixed my post

I actually agree with that as long as we are talking the direct match-up between the two. Fed actually showed that he was way tougher mentally when he was the ‘chaser’ or at least not the favourite (Wimbledon 01 against Pete, AO 2017 against Rafa etc.).

 

[TMF]

Will you ever get tired of repeating that? It is 6-1 not 7-1 you know this fully well.

Removed 1 match doesn't change my point

We get tired of Fed haters bringing up Nadal as if he's the only player on the ATP tour and all of Federer's 1,500 career matches are agains the same player(Rafa). So much trolling

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Removed 1 match doesn't change my

We get tired of Fed haters bringing up Nadal as if he's the only player on the ATP tour and all of Federer's 1,500 career matches are agains the same player(Rafa). So much trolling

Nobody does that other than haters. Nevertheless the H2H is a minus in his GOAT claims (the one against Djoko not so much). It is great for Fed that he improved it in later years but no need to make up additional wins that did not happen.

 

[Holmes]

Removed 1 match doesn't change my point

We get tired of Fed haters bringing up Nadal as if he's the only player on the ATP tour and all of Federer's 1,500 career matches are agains the same player(Rafa). So much trolling

Agreed, it does get tiring after a time. Especially for us Fedfans.

 

[Neptune]

It's much easier to be a chaser than a setter

What exactly is the difference?

Maybe it means the best strategy in a competition is to fall behind and chase? LOL

 

[Biotic]

Djoko was the latest bloomer. His 07-08 lukewarm effort followed by 09 and 10 monstrosity leave a lot to be desired at best.

Unfortunately, he got serious at 24, leaving the door open for the unnatural extension of the hideous Srichaphan era.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

He definitely should have won a couple of slams in 2002 and more than one in 2003. After his great season in 2001 he severely regressed in 2002 and that was one of the weakest years in recent history.

Yep, he also won no M1000 at all in 2003. And only one in 2002 and on his worst surface.

 

[Smecz]

Nadal launched his slams at the age of 19 years 364 days.
Djoker launched his slams at the age of 20 years.
Fed launched his slams at the age of 22 years 332 days.

Had Fed launched his slams even two years earlier, at 20 years 332 days,
and went on a similar winning streak to when he launched at 22; winning 12 of 18 possible slams, (counting from his first slam Jul 6, 2003),
he would have added at least 4 more slams to his bag.

Let's be happy that he managed to start his career!!!

Because he was close to failing, he had great talent, but he was also grumpy, arrogant and not entirely focused on Tennis!!!.

It even seems to me that his career was hanging by a thread, if he hadn't won Wimbledon 2003, who knows what his career would have been like...

Maybe he would have never fired up...

As for Rafeal, his career is very smooth, and Novak apparently won a slam when he was 20 years old, but then he had to wait 3 years for another one!!

He also could have been stranded with one grand slam!!.

Back to Federer,
It's good that he woke up in time, because his talent would have been wasted and Tennis would have lost a lot of popularity...

I can confidently say that Roger, Rafael and Novak gave this discipline the most power and took it to the greatest heights.!!!

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Djoko was the latest bloomer. His 07-08 lukewarm effort followed by 09 and 10 monstrosity leave a lot to be desired at best.

Unfortunately, he got serious at 24, leaving the door open for the unnatural extension of the hideous Srichaphan era.

I wouldn't say 2007 and 2008 was lukewarm. It was great considering his age, from Indian Wells 2007 to Roland Garros 2008 he was really good and at the same level as Fedal basically. At Hamburg 2008 he was one set away from #2 and Nadal got to #1 only a few months later. The second half of 2008 was disappointing but he still had solid results in the NA swing and won the Masters. 2009 and 2010 were the problem, 2010 in particular.

 

[fedfan24]

It was main reason but even rafa become more concurrent on all surfaces. And when you begin to lose matches you lose even your confidence. Loses like USO10 and 11 leave their marks after in coming seasons.

but then Federer beat djokovic handily in 2012 using his old racket and style of play. After the racket change he got dominated from the back of the court in 14/15. Djokovic too good ?