Was Federer clutcher, less nervous, in the 2004-2009 period ?

beltsman

Legend
He usually looked confident when he faced bums like Roddick, Bagdhatis, Hewitt, Philippousis, Kiefer who rolled over when they saw him opposite side of net.

When he faced considerable resistance? Same story as his entire career. 05 Safin was a mini break up in tiebreak blew it and lost after MPs. Nearly lost miami 05. Lost 05 RG sf 4th set from break up. Blew 2 MPs in 06 Rome final on east FHs. 2-1 0-40 3rd set of RG 06 and loses in 4. 5-1 up first set Hamburg 08 loses 7-6 :laughing:

more often than not he folded when he played someone on his level. Flat track bully.
Even if what you said was true, Novak will never be GOAT :-D
 

beltsman

Legend
Agreed completely. I think W 07 and AO 17 finals are his best wins of his career. But yeah, he only has "the aura" around Smurfs. His peers don't fear him at all.
His "peers" who are a generation younger? Why do I even respond to such trolls...

Djokovic's peers are Tsonga Berdych Nishikori Raonic
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
His "peers" who are a generation younger? Why do I even respond to such trolls...

Djokovic's peers are Tsonga Berdych Nishikori Raonic
Again, Federer dominated 04-07. 4 years isn't an "era", and even during this period Nadal was one of his two main competitors. No matter how you slice it, Federer is part of the Djokodal generation, and he's #2, possibly soon to be #3
 

Forehanderer

Semi-Pro
I watched him around that time. He would look in trouble at 15-40 on serve but will neutralize with an ace/unreturnable serve or neutralize the return with rallies painting the lines. At that time, he looked the most clutch tennis player I've seen since Sampras. Regardless of the results we are seeing for the past 5 years, the mental capacity goes down once someone hits 30-35. Its the weakness of the players who came after the big 3 that has made them win well past their 30s.
In the past, some youngster in the early 20s will take down someone in their 30s. Early 20s is when a man is at his physical/mental peak and late 20s is when he gets his experience which makes him stronger in all aspects. So a 10 year period roughly in the 20s is when the player is in his prime. Its not a new thing that Federer struggled in his 30s against younger opponents. But right now players like Thiem, medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas are struggling against the big 3. Its not because of their age. Its because the pressure of beating someone who has won 20/20/18 slams that bears down on them and they crumble mentally
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
I watched him around that time. He would look in trouble at 15-40 on serve but will neutralize with an ace/unreturnable serve or neutralize the return with rallies painting the lines. At that time, he looked the most clutch tennis player I've seen since Sampras. Regardless of the results we are seeing for the past 5 years, the mental capacity goes down once someone hits 30-35. Its the weakness of the players who came after the big 3 that has made them win well past their 30s.
In the past, some youngster in the early 20s will take down someone in their 30s. Early 20s is when a man is at his physical/mental peak and late 20s is when he gets his experience which makes him stronger in all aspects. So a 10 year period roughly in the 20s is when the player is in his prime. Its not a new thing that Federer struggled in his 30s against younger opponents. But right now players like Thiem, medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas are struggling against the big 3. Its not because of their age. Its because the pressure of beating someone who has won 20/20/18 slams that bears down on them and they crumble mentally
He may very well be been able to do that against Baghdatis or Philippousis or Roddick but unfortunately he always had issues with clutchness against Rafa and that developed more with Nole. Beating underlings is good but doesn't show clutch when you fail to do so against your rivals. Imagine if Petros could save Bps against Henman for example but failed against Agassi, Becker, Edberg and Courier?
 

Forehanderer

Semi-Pro
He may very well be been able to do that against Baghdatis or Philippousis or Roddick but unfortunately he always had issues with clutchness against Rafa and that developed more with Nole. Beating underlings is good but doesn't show clutch when you fail to do so against your rivals. Imagine if Petros could save Bps against Henman for example but failed against Agassi, Becker, Edberg and Courier?
Not sure if you are really a Pete fan. You look more like a Nadalovic troll who gets more attention by saying you are Pistol fan. Petros was a great player but I saw you in another thread mentioning Lendl and Mcenroe as his rivals. That says it all "pete" fan :-D Grow up dude
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Not sure if you are really a Pete fan. You look more like a Nadalovic troll who gets more attention by saying you are Pistol fan. Petros was a great player but I saw you in another thread mentioning Lendl and Mcenroe as his rivals. That says it all "pete" fan :-D Grow up dude
Then you didn't read the post. I said they made cameo appearances, and in fact were both in good form when Pete beat them for his first slam. Pete beating Lendl, Mac and 'Dre is significantly more impressive as a slam run than anything Fed has done on the way to a slam title, dude.

Once again, Fed was clutch against Kiefer and Bogdanovic but when it came to even baby Nadal he struggled
 

ewiewp

Professional
We know that he has never been the best under pressure, but I always thought that he was more confident back then.Somehow his mistakes, his inability to cross the finish line in tight matches got more and more prevalent from 2010 onwards.The matches at the USO in 2010 & 2011 vs Novak, the match vs Tsonga at Wimbledon, in 2011, the IW match vs Delpo in 2018, the notorious final of Wimbledon 2019, you name it.Let me know what you think on the subject.
he was more confidents but he still exhibited same pattern of losing close deciding sets to likes of Nadal, Safin and Del Potro.
He is a GOAT front runner.
But he tends to play conservative under pressure (similar pattern as 2019 Wimbledon).
Playing aggressively in return game was the remedy that all world class coaches suggested from 2008-9 when Nadal started to take over.
He tried those with Edberg, Anacone and then Lubjicic with who he finally seems to have overcome a bit.
 

socallefty

Hall of Fame
You don’t win 20 Slams without being clutch. Someone posted already that he has won ten matches down 0-2 in sets which is tied for the record. I bet the number of matches he has won when down 1-2 in sets might be close to the ATP record too.

If you play a lot of tennis, you know that it is easier to be clutch when you are the player expected to win and it is very hard to be clutch in close matches when you are the player expected to lose against a higher seeded opponent. So, Federer has struggled against Nadal mostly on clay and against Djokovic since 2010 because they were expected to win against him and Federer was not the favorite for the oddsmakers in most of those matches. The only exception is some losses in 2008-09 against Nadal and Del Porto when Federer lost some winnable matches when he was the favorite in Wimbledon08, AO09 and USO09. Federer probably didn‘t feel confident in other matches going up against a higher ranked opponent in Djokovic like any normal person and that tension shows up on break points and set points.

The problem is that his fans expect him to be a Superman and go into matches against Djokovic expecting to win and against Nadal on clay expecting to win because in their minds he is the GOAT and should behave that way. I think Federer in his mind ceded dominance to Djokovic since 2011 on everything except the fastest hard courts and to Nadal on clay since Nadal was a teenager and his results just reflect that. It is not surprising that those two players are now on the threshold of breaking his most cherished records.
 
Last edited:

Forehanderer

Semi-Pro
Then you didn't read the post. I said they made cameo appearances, and in fact were both in good form when Pete beat them for his first slam. Pete beating Lendl, Mac and 'Dre is significantly more impressive as a slam run than anything Fed has done on the way to a slam title, dude.

Once again, Fed was clutch against Kiefer and Bogdanovic but when it came to even baby Nadal he struggled
Dude I'm sure you weren't even born at that time. Lendl and Mcenroe were nearing retirement by the time Pete started his reign. So beating them is not an achievement. Keep on trolling. Not gonna entertain you anymore
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Dude I'm sure you weren't even born at that time. Lendl and Mcenroe were nearing retirement by the time Pete started his reign. So beating them is not an achievement. Keep on trolling. Not gonna entertain you anymore
Ad hominem aside, Lendl was going for his NINTH straight US Open title. Mac was showing great form and was considered a favorite to win. He was in the semis for crying out loud.You're going to discount Pete's wins over them but then ooh and aah at Roger for beating ancient, broken Backassi in 04 and 05 simply because Backassi pushed him hard?
 

Forehanderer

Semi-Pro
Ad hominem aside, Lendl was going for his NINTH straight US Open title. Mac was showing great form and was considered a favorite to win. He was in the semis for crying out loud.You're going to discount Pete's wins over them but then ooh and aah at Roger for beating ancient, broken Backassi in 04 and 05 simply because Backassi pushed him hard?
Calling you a troll is ad hominem :laughing: are you that weak millenial. no wonder next gen is struggling against the big 3. Lendl wasn't going for his ninth straight us open finals not win. Again your knowledge (or lack of) about Pete is showing. So are you a Nadal fan or Djokovic's or just a Federer hater. I never discounted Pete's wins like you are trying to do to Roger's wins.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Calling you a troll is ad hominem :laughing: are you that weak millenial. no wonder next gen is struggling against the big 3. Lendl wasn't going for his ninth straight us open finals not win. Again your knowledge (or lack of) about Pete is showing. So are you a Nadal fan or Djokovic's or just a Federer hater. I never discounted Pete's wins like you are trying to do to Roger's wins.
yeah was a typo but going for a ninth straight final shows he was still in great form.

The whole discussion between us is you saying Pete's wins over Lendl and Mac to win his first Open weren't great wins...
 

mwym

Rookie
His talent was so huge and 'sufficient' to make him 'the best human in tennis ever' it drugged him into infantile narcissism that prevented his mind from growing into an adult. By his mind accepting it's own shortcomings and improving to go pass them.

Djokovic is the one who exposed the fact. By doing EXACTLY the opposite with his own mind. And by exploiting the fact to achieve what he is still achieving.

It takes a rather 'blind' mind not to see such an obvious fact. Being abstract and not visible in physical world makes it hard for many to 'see' it. It is this age of 'forced infantilism' (Christopher Hitchens, 1996)
 
Last edited:

ewiewp

Professional
You don’t win 20 Slams without being clutch. Someone posted already that he has won ten matches down 0-2 in sets which is tied for the record. I bet the number of matches he has won when down 1-2 in sets might be close to the ATP record too.

If you play a lot of tennis, you know that it is easier to be clutch when you are the player expected to win and it is very hard to be clutch in close matches when you are the player expected to lose against a higher seeded opponent. So, Federer has struggled against Nadal mostly on clay and against Djokovic since 2010 because they were expected to win against him and Federer was not the favorite for the oddsmakers in most of those matches. The only exception is some losses in 2008-09 against Nadal and Del Porto when Federer lost some winnable matches when he was the favorite in Wimbledon08, AO09 and USO09. Federer probably didn‘t feel confident in other matches going up against a higher ranked opponent in Djokovic like any normal person and that tensions shows up on break points and set points.

The problem is that his fans expect him to be a Superman and go into matches against Djokovic expecting to win and against Nadal on clay expecting to win because in their minds he is the GOAT and should behave that way. I think Federer in his mind ceded dominance to Djokovic since 2011 on everything except the fastest hard courts and to Nadal on clay since Nadal was a teenager and his results just reflect that. It is not surprising that those two players are now on the threshold of breaking his most cherished records.
In his prime or younger days, he won 99.9% of his matches with GOAT front running masteries.
He always had problem in 0.1% of matches with top players in "deciding" sets. (A notable exception I recall was 2010 US Open straight set loss against zoning Cilic, IMHO)
For example, in 2017 he started to win a lot of deciding sets and produced strange stats that he won 1st deciding set since 2005 in Miami, for example.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Regardless of the results we are seeing for the past 5 years, the mental capacity goes down once someone hits 30-35.
There are several reasons. One is age, and if you check return stats, the always go down with age. So the only way aging players compensate is by ending points faster, but that's risky. And it means that when they get in trouble, they can't grind the same way. So you see them push harder to take control. It's beautiful to see when it works because then you see all the experience and tactical growth come online. That's why you see all of the Big 3 look magnificent at times.

But look carefully at Joker so far this year:


28%. For just about any other player that would be amazing, but not for him. Why did he win? Because of this:


Almost 91%. Put those together and you have 59.5% of games. And of course it's only fair to take into account the injury.

But if that stays there, that 28% on return, he's slipping. If it falls lower he's in decline. Then if he can't stay close to 90% on serve, which he has never done before in a year on hard, he's touchable. He can still win, but he becomes a bit more mortal.

So when aging players start to reach this point - it's already happened to Fed and Nadal - they start to know they are vulnerable, and that makes them choke more. I've been watching this happen all the way back to Laver and Rosewall.
Its the weakness of the players who came after the big 3 that has made them win well past their 30s.
In the past, some youngster in the early 20s will take down someone in their 30s. Early 20s is when a man is at his physical/mental peak and late 20s is when he gets his experience which makes him stronger in all aspects. So a 10 year period roughly in the 20s is when the player is in his prime.
Fed fans know that. Rafa fans know that. Fans of Novak don't. Sooner or later it will hit them in the face, because it always happens. But they just won't believe it until it's fact. Look at when Novak started winning. It was Miami, 2007, his first 1000. AO before his 21st birthday. Do you think for one minute that if there were young guys playing like the Big 3 were playing in their early 20s that the Big 3 would still be cleaning up?

If you are the fan of any of the Big 3, you can enjoy the weakness of the young players, but it should not be happening. Nadal and Novak should not be cleaning up. Fed should not have cleaned up in 2017. What is happening should not be happening, and the only explanation is incredible weakness in the young players.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Wimb 2018 is one no one looks at but imo it could've been a crucial point in the Fed/Djokovic rivalry

Fed was in slam winning form more than Novak. He had the momentum. If he went past Anderson I would've fancied him to win since it was Novak's first high level tournament and don't think he would've beaten Nadal and Fed back to back in his first slam return, Fed could've struck an early blow like he did with Nadal in 2017 which set him up full of confidence for future matches vs Nadal

by the time Djokovic won Wimb 18 he was back and confident

long shot but that's how I see it
I have to agree here.It would have been a key moment in their rivalry, extremely important from the confidence perspective.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Miami 05
Wimbledon 07
RG 09

I rate as great clutch performances.

AO 05
MC 05
RG 05
Rome 06
RG 06
RG 07
AO 09
Canada 09
USO 09

the opposite :-D :whistle:
Only AO 2009, MC 2005 and Rome 2006 can be examples of unclutchness or choking, but nothing comes close to the 40-15s from 2010 onwards.In AO 2009 he wasn't even close to win the match anyway, neither in any of those RG matches that you mentioned.In the 2005 AO match Safin was just too good on the day.
 

Sudacafan

Talk Tennis Guru
In his prime or younger days, he won 99.9% of his matches with GOAT front running masteries.
He always had problem in 0.1% of matches with top players in "deciding" sets. (A notable exception I recall was 2010 US Open straight set loss against zoning Cilic, IMHO)
For example, in 2017 he started to win a lot of deciding sets and produced strange stats that he won 1st deciding set since 2005 in Miami, for example.
I think you’re talking about 2014 zoning Cilic.
 

BGod

Legend
Again, Federer dominated 04-07. 4 years isn't an "era", and even during this period Nadal was one of his two main competitors. No matter how you slice it, Federer is part of the Djokodal generation, and he's #2, possibly soon to be #3
No, just objectively that's an extremely recently tinted narrative because of a very weak talent pool (in part due to other sports and in part the top heavy wealth concentration) and Federer's leading longevity. Tennis was always, prior to the Big 3, about a 5 year window of prime years.

Borg: 76-81 (6 years)
McEnroe: 79-84 (6 years)
Lendl: 84-90 (7 years)
Becker: 85-91 (6 years) + a slam run in 96
Edberg: 85-92 (8 years)
Sampras: 93-00 (8 years) + a slam run in 90 & 02

Agassi & Connors were somewhat scattered outliers, having some concentrated success with gaps inbetween.

Federer's period was pretty well extended as it went from 2003-2010 which is 8 seasons. Nadal's prime period was 2008-2013, a span of 6 years. Djokovic, like Connors and Agassi had a noticeable middle gap albeit in the Big 2 era but after his 2011 his 2012-2014 period saw him as a consistent yet ultimately single slam a year player. Then he had 2015 arguably the GOAT season and pound for pound the best player in 2016 before a steep drop off in 2017. Since coming back to form in 2018 he's become consistent in being a multi-slam a year champion. Of course that did not happen in 2020 but most would agree given a cancelled event he would have been favoured in and a freak DQ in a terribly orchestrated other event renders 2020 a moot point. He has 1 in 3 chances to continue his ride in 2021. We'll see how the story ends. Nadal too deserves credit winning 5 Slams in a 3 season run from 2017-2019.
 

Nole_King

Professional
he was more confidents but he still exhibited same pattern of losing close deciding sets to likes of Nadal, Safin and Del Potro.
He is a GOAT front runner.
But he tends to play conservative under pressure (similar pattern as 2019 Wimbledon).
Playing aggressively in return game was the remedy that all world class coaches suggested from 2008-9 when Nadal started to take over.
He tried those with Edberg, Anacone and then Lubjicic with who he finally seems to have overcome a bit.
Wim 2019 was very different. He was not a frontrunner in the match but still somehow hung in there. Once he was broken in the 5th set I thought he was done but he somehow got back and reached the infamous 40-15. Tennis is games of millimeters. See his serve at 40-15 in slo-mo. Hits the tape as Novak moves the wrong way. Few mm above it would have be his passing shot to break Novak at for 8-7 that would have been talked about in these forums. Federer would have been so clutch.

In the end, you cannot be everything. One of the best shot makers ever, one of the smoothest plays with a lovely offensive approach and now the forum wants him to be the clutchest ever. If that was the case then you would have had the perfect player ever. Just listen to what Nadal says about him in the documentary on their 2008 Wimbledon final.

As for fellow Novak fans who have been trolling Federer endlessly, you are not alone. Some decades back it was a fashion to troll Windows and Bill Gates too.
 
Let's see Novak in his mid 30's up against a younger guy his own level and see if he'll still be as clutch.

We'll never know unfortunately.
We probably wouldn't know in that instance neither because he might well just get his clock cleaned in straights. Can't be unclutch when you get wrecked *black dude pointing to temple meme*.
 

daphne

Professional
We know that he has never been the best under pressure, but I always thought that he was more confident back then.Somehow his mistakes, his inability to cross the finish line in tight matches got more and more prevalent from 2010 onwards.The matches at the USO in 2010 & 2011 vs Novak, the match vs Tsonga at Wimbledon, in 2011, the IW match vs Delpo in 2018, the notorious final of Wimbledon 2019, you name it.Let me know what you think on the subject.
Not hard to be clutch with the weak era opposition.
 

maratha_warrior

Hall of Fame
Wimb 2018 is one no one looks at but imo it could've been a crucial point in the Fed/Djokovic rivalry

Fed was in slam winning form more than Novak. He had the momentum. If he went past Anderson I would've fancied him to win since it was Novak's first high level tournament and don't think he would've beaten Nadal and Fed back to back in his first slam return, Fed could've struck an early blow like he did with Nadal in 2017 which set him up full of confidence for future matches vs Nadal

by the time Djokovic won Wimb 18 he was back and confident

long shot but that's how I see it
Exactly ..

Fed had chances to win 3-4 Wimbledon in a row ( 17,18,19,16 )
That match with Anderson cost him dearly !!!
If he wins WB 18 ,he wins WB 19 too based on confidence of beating nole .

If I remember , Fed was a break up in 4th set or serving for match vs Raonic in SF in 2016 . He fell down in the middle of 5th set and then lost. If he ended Raonic in 4th set , he had great chance to win WB 16 too .
 
Last edited:

maratha_warrior

Hall of Fame
On topic -

Fed was known for destroying his opponents during 2004-07 ( except Rafa at RG ) .
He never needed to be clutch to win matches .so he never learnt playing like that . Can't really blame him .
 

Nole_King

Professional
On topic -

Fed was known for destroying his opponents during 2004-07 ( except Rafa at RG ) .
He never needed to be clutch to win matches .so he never learnt playing like that . Can't really blame him .
That has been exactly my thought as well. When someone is the best frontrunner it is hard to be the best come from behind guy as well.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
If it's just a naturally occuring feature of his game, then perhaps the narrative that he is intrinsically a "better player" than both Djokovic/Nadal and would have far more slams than both if he wasn't unclutch on BP's should be put to rest then.

Pressure moments are part of playing after all.
I still believe he would be an even better player than he turned out to be if he actually had a rival of equal ability early on. Would have forced him to improve even more and become mentally tougher.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I watched him around that time. He would look in trouble at 15-40 on serve but will neutralize with an ace/unreturnable serve or neutralize the return with rallies painting the lines. At that time, he looked the most clutch tennis player I've seen since Sampras. Regardless of the results we are seeing for the past 5 years, the mental capacity goes down once someone hits 30-35. Its the weakness of the players who came after the big 3 that has made them win well past their 30s.
In the past, some youngster in the early 20s will take down someone in their 30s. Early 20s is when a man is at his physical/mental peak and late 20s is when he gets his experience which makes him stronger in all aspects. So a 10 year period roughly in the 20s is when the player is in his prime. Its not a new thing that Federer struggled in his 30s against younger opponents. But right now players like Thiem, medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas are struggling against the big 3. Its not because of their age. Its because the pressure of beating someone who has won 20/20/18 slams that bears down on them and they crumble mentally
They also don't have the ability. The AO final was a perfect illustration of that.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
You don’t win 20 Slams without being clutch. Someone posted already that he has won ten matches down 0-2 in sets which is tied for the record. I bet the number of matches he has won when down 1-2 in sets might be close to the ATP record too.

If you play a lot of tennis, you know that it is easier to be clutch when you are the player expected to win and it is very hard to be clutch in close matches when you are the player expected to lose against a higher seeded opponent. So, Federer has struggled against Nadal mostly on clay and against Djokovic since 2010 because they were expected to win against him and Federer was not the favorite for the oddsmakers in most of those matches. The only exception is some losses in 2008-09 against Nadal and Del Porto when Federer lost some winnable matches when he was the favorite in Wimbledon08, AO09 and USO09. Federer probably didn‘t feel confident in other matches going up against a higher ranked opponent in Djokovic like any normal person and that tension shows up on break points and set points.

The problem is that his fans expect him to be a Superman and go into matches against Djokovic expecting to win and against Nadal on clay expecting to win because in their minds he is the GOAT and should behave that way. I think Federer in his mind ceded dominance to Djokovic since 2011 on everything except the fastest hard courts and to Nadal on clay since Nadal was a teenager and his results just reflect that. It is not surprising that those two players are now on the threshold of breaking his most cherished records.
Great post (y) See, it's not hard. ;)
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
In his prime or younger days, he won 99.9% of his matches with GOAT front running masteries.
He always had problem in 0.1% of matches with top players in "deciding" sets. (A notable exception I recall was 2010 US Open straight set loss against zoning Cilic, IMHO)
For example, in 2017 he started to win a lot of deciding sets and produced strange stats that he won 1st deciding set since 2005 in Miami, for example.
Huh???
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
There are several reasons. One is age, and if you check return stats, the always go down with age. So the only way aging players compensate is by ending points faster, but that's risky. And it means that when they get in trouble, they can't grind the same way. So you see them push harder to take control. It's beautiful to see when it works because then you see all the experience and tactical growth come online. That's why you see all of the Big 3 look magnificent at times.

But look carefully at Joker so far this year:


28%. For just about any other player that would be amazing, but not for him. Why did he win? Because of this:


Almost 91%. Put those together and you have 59.5% of games. And of course it's only fair to take into account the injury.

But if that stays there, that 28% on return, he's slipping. If it falls lower he's in decline. Then if he can't stay close to 90% on serve, which he has never done before in a year on hard, he's touchable. He can still win, but he becomes a bit more mortal.

So when aging players start to reach this point - it's already happened to Fed and Nadal - they start to know they are vulnerable, and that makes them choke more. I've been watching this happen all the way back to Laver and Rosewall.

Fed fans know that. Rafa fans know that. Fans of Novak don't. Sooner or later it will hit them in the face, because it always happens. But they just won't believe it until it's fact. Look at when Novak started winning. It was Miami, 2007, his first 1000. AO before his 21st birthday. Do you think for one minute that if there were young guys playing like the Big 3 were playing in their early 20s that the Big 3 would still be cleaning up?

If you are the fan of any of the Big 3, you can enjoy the weakness of the young players, but it should not be happening. Nadal and Novak should not be cleaning up. Fed should not have cleaned up in 2017. What is happening should not be happening, and the only explanation is incredible weakness in the young players.
Well, Fed in 2017 still had a generation younger ATG in Nadal to deal with, so at least he had someone. Djokodal have had no one.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
sampras was much more erratic than federer, still much much more clutch.
The surfaces favored Sampras back in his time. He also didn't play anyone on the level of Djokodal.

Fed has been playing against Djokodal on slower surfaces mostly that favor their defensive games with very few exceptions. Different kettle of fish.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Exactly ..

Fed had chances to win 3-4 Wimbledon in a row ( 17,18,19,16 )
That match with Anderson cost him dearly !!!
If he wins WB 18 ,he wins WB 19 too based on confidence of beating nole .

If I remember , Fed was a break up in 4th set or serving for match vs Raonic in SF in 2016 . He fell down in the middle of 5th set and then lost. If he ended Raonic in 4th set , he had great chance to win WB 16 too .
Fed was in too bad form and injured too at 2016 Wimb. Would not have beaten Murray.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
On topic -

Fed was known for destroying his opponents during 2004-07 ( except Rafa at RG ) .
He never needed to be clutch to win matches .so he never learnt playing like that . Can't really blame him .
He did win matches thanks to clutchness even in 2004-2007. Being clutch is how he dominated in 2004 because that's when he built his aura.
 

Forehanderer

Semi-Pro
At the very least it wasn't a bigger achievement than beating 2003-2005 Agassi.
Yeah he also said I'm somehow diminishing Sampras' achievements which I never did. He did not even know that Lendl and Mcenroe were not Pete's rivals. So much for being his fan. He probably saw the wikipedia section and started his trolling. Another millenial spotted
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Yeah he also said I'm somehow diminishing Sampras' achievements which I never did. He did not even know that Lendl and Mcenroe were not Pete's rivals. So much for being his fan. He probably saw the wikipedia section and started his trolling. Another millenial spotted
Hey, he even said Edberg was a main rival of his. He never even defeated Edberg in a slam and didn't face him at that level again after early 1993.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
We know that he has never been the best under pressure, but I always thought that he was more confident back then.Somehow his mistakes, his inability to cross the finish line in tight matches got more and more prevalent from 2010 onwards.The matches at the USO in 2010 & 2011 vs Novak, the match vs Tsonga at Wimbledon, in 2011, the IW match vs Delpo in 2018, the notorious final of Wimbledon 2019, you name it.Let me know what you think on the subject.
Of course, in that Roger had no ATG competition of clay till 08
 
Top