What hurts Federer more?

[Eren]

USO 2011 to Cincy 2012 was remarkable for Federer he went 78-8 in that period. Hardly suprising he beat and troubled Novak in spite of his age. In this case you should look at his level as well.

I have already said often enough that that indeed was the turning point. He could compete up to and including the age of 31 with Djokovic. After that (i.e. 2012) it was game over.

By no means was I implying that 2011-2012 Fed was on amateur mode. He simply wasn't peak, but still very good. consistent enough to reach SF in Slams and had high peaks in certain matches only (could not perfom consistently on a high level during an entire tournament even).

When he was on, he was hard to beat on grass/hard in Slams but he showed kinks in his armour. Lost to Tsonga at Wimbledon after leading two sets to zero. Held MPs against Djokovic on his own serve and still lost at USO. Lost to Berdych at USO the following year. Reached only two Slam finals winning one. For Federer's standards that's pretty much a mug period.

 

[Eren]

Imagine Federer beats Nadal at the 2015 RG... Any version of Fed...Yeah, that's right! I can't either!

2006 Federer Rome final version.

That should be enough.

 

[Nadal_Django]

2006 Federer Rome final version.

That should be enough.

Lol, yeah right.

 

[KINGROGER]

Feds form in 09 RG wasn't anything special IMO. Just because the guy finally won it, somehow people claim that he was majestic that year on the surface .
He was VERY lucky that Nadal was gone by the final, or it would've been another RU trophy .
Lets remember that Fed had several 4 setters against nobodies, plus he was down 2 sets to Haas, who then ran out of gas.
Yes he played his best match in that final V Soderling, but Fed wasn't beating Nadal if they met that year.

He was clearly better than in 07/08 (07 F his FH was a disgrace) but I agree if Rafa showed up in decent form it was likely another 4 set, maybe 5 loss for Fed.

Same applies for Djokovic though. He had 15-16 with no peak Nadal and also had 2014 which was a lesser version compared to 05-13.

Nadal also managed to win the USO without beating peak Fed so it goes both ways.

 

[KINGROGER]

Fed switched from an obsolete 90 inch racket to a 97 inch racket at the beginning of the 2014 season. So although Fed wasn't nearly as durable or as quick in 2015, players could no longer pick on Fed's backhand since he had a modern racket. Fed was more balanced with the bigger racket. Why Fed hung onto that piece of garbage racket for so long is a mystery to me.

So there's definitely some validity to your point. I really wish that the younger Fed that was a speed-burner had access to a modern racket. Fed's refusal to switch might very well cost him the slam title race.

To Djoker's credit, he still kept beating new-racket Fed. Nobody else could own the New Racket Fed. That is quite the testament to Djoker

Old Racket Fed(2010-2013) vs New Racket Fed(2014-2017)

Old Racket(2010-2013)
248-55, .818 overall
46-34, .575 vs top 10
3-5 vs Berdych(includes 0-2 in slams)
5-5 vs Murray
3-9 vs Nadal
7-10 vs Djokovic

New Racket(2014-2017)
206-34, .858 overall
47-17, .734 vs top 10
8-0 vs Berdych
5-0 vs Murray
5-1 vs Nadal
7-2 vs Stan
6-8 vs Djokovic

You need to really take out 2013 to see the true comparison. Fed was playing all sorts of minor events losing to mugs everywhere trying to regain some form. 2016 too actually. 2010-2012 vs 2014,2015,2017 (3 years)

 

[abmk]

When I talk about not having a shot, I am talking about putting money on it, I would not put any money on Fed winning that match even if he won that first set, otherwise in theory everyone has a shot in every match and why upsets happen.

I don't think that's how "having a shot " is used commonly.

Roddick had a shot (i.e. a decent chance or non-negligible chance) at Fed in Wim 04, but not sure how many (or you) would put money on it.

 

[axlrose]

Fed switched from an obsolete 90 inch racket to a 97 inch racket at the beginning of the 2014 season. So although Fed wasn't nearly as durable or as quick in 2015, players could no longer pick on Fed's backhand since he had a modern racket. Fed was more balanced with the bigger racket. Why Fed hung onto that piece of garbage racket for so long is a mystery to me.

So there's definitely some validity to your point. I really wish that the younger Fed that was a speed-burner had access to a modern racket. Fed's refusal to switch might very well cost him the slam title race.

To Djoker's credit, he still kept beating new-racket Fed. Nobody else could own the New Racket Fed. That is quite the testament to Djoker

Old Racket Fed(2010-2013) vs New Racket Fed(2014-2017)

Old Racket(2010-2013)
248-55, .818 overall
46-34, .575 vs top 10
3-5 vs Berdych(includes 0-2 in slams)
5-5 vs Murray
3-9 vs Nadal
7-10 vs Djokovic

New Racket(2014-2017)
206-34, .858 overall
47-17, .734 vs top 10
8-0 vs Berdych
5-0 vs Murray
5-1 vs Nadal
7-2 vs Stan
6-8 vs Djokovic

What was the right time for Fedr to switch his stick, according to you? He still won Slam in 2012, he tried the new one in 2014.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I don't think that's how "having a shot " is used commonly.

Roddick had a shot (i.e. a decent chance or non-negligible chance) at Fed in Wim 04, but not sure how many (or you) would put money on it.

What you think and what I think are not always going to be the same. I think it is safe to say you and I have nothing more to say on this particular duscussion. We agree to disagree, time to move on.