What Would It Say For Federer If He Loses?

#52
Yes. And that’s a big issue in the GOAT debate, the gradual chipping away of some, possibly many, of Fed’s records. If Fed ends up with more slams but Nole with more YE 1 and more weeks at #1, and if someone else is the clay GOAT and Fed is only GOAT of one surface and co GoAT of another the differences between the Big start blurring in more and more.
What will it say for Djoker if he were to lose to RBA on Friday? Much worse than a 37.93 year old losing to a ATG 5 years younger?
 
#56
Exciting for you maybe. I am not looking forward to Friday. A win would be great, but then he has to face Djoker. A loss? Well, I think it's fair to say...

I think either way (Fed or Nadal), they will have to play out of their skin to go on and win the title. What sucks for both is that they may drain each others' energy and possibly rob us of a competitive final.
 
#57
Yet they have each other and Federer to contend with. The greatest three in the sport's history, I would call that fairly stiff competition.
Not even close to what Fed had to deal with. Fed dealt "consistently" with Nadal, Djoko, Murray, Stan and "many" second tier folks.

Nadal and Djoko don't even have 2nd tier folks to deal with. Just Thiem on clay.
 
#59
I'm not even a Fed fan but this post lacks sense

He'd already won 6 Wimbledon when Novak won his first in 2011. He's been in 11 Wimbledon finals and is one match away from a 12th at the age of 37

Nole has made 5 finals at the age of 32. Nadal has made 5 finals at the age of 33. You do the math

If he loses, it tells us absolutely nothing. He's not expected to win
 
#60
Why always those nonsensical H2H questions and arguments?

What shall I say here? Yeah, you are right, losing in R1 would have been better for his legacy instead of losing in the SF to Nadal or in the final to Djokovic?

We could discuss what it means if Nadal wins Wimbledon and it’s only 19-20 then. Nadal would most likely overtake Federer then, and that would mean something for his legacy. But also not that Federer failed NOW with 38, but rather didn’t won enough from 28-34 (2010-2016) to finally be crowned GOAT.

That’s why he has to stop Nadal even NOW with 38, no matter what a gigantic task it it. But surely not because of irrelevant H2H statistics.

Or do you think it’s better for Sampras that he lost to dozens of seperate players on all surfaces even in his best years compared to Federer who mostly only lost against the best? I will never understand this absurd king of logic. And with Borg, don't you think it's a bit easier not to be "dominated" when retiring at 26 as an early bloomer and in an era were being young generally was a bigger advantage? I think until around 1993 you could have seen him being "dominated" by his "main rivals" (if there even would have been those, because what are "main rivals" if he wouldn't compete for titles in any way?).
 
#61
Why always those nonsensical H2H questions and arguments?

What shall I say here? Yeah, you are right, losing in R1 would have been better for his legacy instead of losing in the SF to Nadal or in the final to Djokovic?

We could discuss what it means if Nadal wins Wimbledon and it’s only 19-20 then. Nadal would most likely overtake Federer then, and that would mean something for his legacy. But also not that Federer failed NOW with 38, but rather didn’t won enough from 28-34 (2010-2016) to finally be crowned GOAT.

That’s why he has to stop Nadal even NOW with 38, no matter what a gigantic task it it. But surely not because of irrelevant H2H statistics.

Or do you think it’s better for Sampras that he lost to dozens of seperate players on all surfaces even in his best years compared to Federer who mostly only lost against the best? I will never understand this absurd king of logic. And with Borg, don't you think it's a bit easier not to be "dominated" when retiring at 26 as an early bloomer and in an era were being young generally was a bigger advantage? I think until around 1993 you could have seen him being "dominated" by his "main rivals" (if there even would have been those, because what are "main rivals" if he wouldn't compete for titles in any way?).
What is this you write? Is this what they call sense and logic? It must have been difficult to figure this out...
 
#62
Hey don't get me wrong,Federer is actually my favourite of the 3 but all I'm saying is,if they all finished on 20 slams (it's looking increasingly likely that all 3 will finish on 20+) this is an argument that is going to come up time and time again - Federer has come up short when it counts against his 2 biggest rivals more often than he came out on the winning side,these are just facts no matter how you spin it with age. These guys had beaten Federer multiple times in slams before he was 30 and well within his peak still...
Fed is like fox or vulture, always waiting for his main rivals to lose to pick up slams. I know a lot of Fed fans will jump on me now but think about it.
 
#63
Especially against Djokovic in the final,how will it affect his legacy? I mean,this is a guy who is claimed by most to be the greatest grass court player ever but he would be 0-3 in Wimbledon finals against one of his biggest rivals. How can he make that claim when someone else has his number? Who dominated Borg on grass,or Sampras? Or against Nadal he would be 2-2 H2H on his favourite surface. You can bring up age,but when Federer lost the 2014 Wimbledon final he was 32. Djokovic is 32 now and dominating Wimbledon and if Federer is playing well enough to get to the final,well he can't be that bad can he?
It will ruin it. He will never be goat. If he loses to either rafa or Novak it definitely proves peak fed is second to one of these, hell maybe both
 
#64
It will ruin it. He will never be goat. If he loses to either rafa or Novak it definitely proves peak fed is second to one of these, hell maybe both
Well, that clears it up. Debate over. Fed will never be goat if he loses on Friday. In a SF. At age 37.93. Against an ATG who has 2 WC. Who already owns him in h2h.
 
#65
Well, that clears it up. Debate over. Fed will never be goat if he loses on Friday. In a SF. At age 37.93. Against an ATG who has 2 WC. Who already owns him in h2h.
Absolutely he has nothing to gain and everything to lose. Age is not important, he is in the form of his life. If peak fed gets beat that’s the end of that chapter
 

sredna42

Hall of Fame
#66
Fed is the new Gatekeeper taking duties from ex-Prince swining Ferrer yet he just doesnt know it yet
He thinks he can win on the slower grass court surface in history, unfortunately Mirka
will be woffing her nails and stocking up on lots of hair dye for both of them after this.
Nadal has a great chance to win on Green Clay but Nole if on song will amake ripper final.
This. I was actually gonna post this. Fed has slid to like nishikori/ferrer status now, beating everyone but losing to djokodal.
 

sredna42

Hall of Fame
#68
So who is Rafa then? He has not beaten Djoker since 2013 off clay... Fed has beaten Djoker and Rafa a combined 8 times since then... but nice try.
Not talking about nadal or djokovic or whatever is happening between them.
I'm a fed fan mate, but fed has aged, and slid noticeably to a rung beneath them now. That's really all it is. I'm just glad he's lasted this long.
 
#69
Not talking about nadal or djokovic or whatever is happening between them.
I'm a fed fan mate, but fed has aged, and slid noticeably to a rung beneath them now. That's really all it is. I'm just glad he's lasted this long.
He definitely is not the same, but to say he is a Ferrer or Nishi? That's harsh and inaccurate. He is more like a Murray in his early years (has a chance every slam, but very minor).
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#70
It would mean that Fed fans will have to produce excuses as they did since 2004 when infant Nadal was capable of beating Federer while the Roddicks and the Hewitts couldn't.
 
#73
I don't know if you FEDALOVIC fan boys realize this but they are all past their primes, all of them! So this he is younger and he is older nonsense doesn't matter since they permanently reach finals and win slams anyway.

And it's just ridiculous when Federer fan boys say his peak was in 2007. This means pre peak Nadal still beat him then and OLD past his prime granpa Federer in 2008 and 2009. lol
 
#75
Especially against Djokovic in the final,how will it affect his legacy? I mean,this is a guy who is claimed by most to be the greatest grass court player ever but he would be 0-3 in Wimbledon finals against one of his biggest rivals. How can he make that claim when someone else has his number? Who dominated Borg on grass,or Sampras? Or against Nadal he would be 2-2 H2H on his favourite surface. You can bring up age,but when Federer lost the 2014 Wimbledon final he was 32. Djokovic is 32 now and dominating Wimbledon and if Federer is playing well enough to get to the final,well he can't be that bad can he?
Borg quit before Mac could dominate him, Dampras quit before Federer could.

Yes Fed was the same age in 2014 as Djokovic is now but Djokovic isnt playing any all time great who is 26. 32 year old Fed against current Djokovic would have a massive chance, probably would be favourite. Let's not also forget Fed beat Djokovic in 2012 at Wimbledon

Fed isnt playing bad, but the field ain't that great, Djokovic is a massive step up though
 
#78
This is an interesting question. It will mean Federer lost to a great player like Nadal or Djokovic. Nothing more, nothing less. Federer will remain the King of grass unless Djokovic can reach 8 Wimbledon titles. Because, in terms of greatness on grass:

Number of Wimbledon titles > H2H.

I hope my answer satisfy the 3 fanbases.
 
#83
Borg quit before Mac could dominate him, Dampras quit before Federer could.
True for Borg, not so much for Sampras though. Federer didn't really take over until 2004 and wasn't much of a factor in Slams while Pete was still reaching and winning US Open finals beating guys like Agassi, Rafter, Roddick, Safin and Hewitt until he retired.
 
#86
The complete fail on this is that Federe adapted to a huge technology change. Nadal and Djoko were the first great players born and bred on Poly string. There games developed around it. Federe should not be winning anything, let alone when he's in his 38th year. He should be long gone like Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, and many, many more.

We can try to take away McEnroe's 1984 with graphite just like Fed's 2004, but then compare the results afterwards. Federe is very special and something Djoko and Nadal can never match as they had it very easy in their youngerer years when they were the wolfs among the all court sheep. Fed had competition during his earliest years. The rest of the Big 4 had it very easy coming up with only Fed off clay and Nadal on clay. Hoovering up in a vacuum created by technology change. Yes it was hard to get the early slam, but plenty else ready for consumption especially with Federer slam focused and Nadal not near his hard court prime.
This is incorrect friend. Kuerten introduced 100% poly strings at the '97 RG when everybody was using gut, which turned the tennis world upside down. Federer didn't make his Slam debut until two years later: 1999 RG. He never even used full poly and a used a hybrid mixed with gut and poly. Far as I know, he still uses that today but someone can correct me on it. Djokovic, Murray and Serena also use hybrid strings. Nadal and Wawrinka are 100% poly. The point is the technology shift happened before Federer came along.

As for as him having it tougher early on, I strongly disagree with this because it is much harder to dethrone an established ATG player who is dominating along with a strong field of other players than it is to come in with a group of peers all trying to make it to the top with no dominant ATG in the way. This drum has been beaten to death though so no need to take it further than that.
 
#87
True for Borg, not so much for Sampras though. Federer didn't really take over until 2004 and wasn't much of a factor in Slams while Pete was still reaching and winning US Open finals beating guys like Agassi, Rafter, Roddick, Safin and Hewitt until he retired.
What I mean is if Sampras has played til 38 and counting, so 2009, it's a possibility he'd have come up vs Federer again at Wimbledon and lost, unless he was just so bad that he never reached Fed. I dont see Sampras beating Fed if he had stuck around though who knows, maybe he could have had a resurgence
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
#90
Essentially nothing, given that the circumstances make him a clear underdog in the match. If he was Nadal's contemporary and they were playing on fast, slick grass it would be a different story but he isn't and they're not.

It's telling how much Nadal fans are focused on Fed and his "legacy" though, almost like they hate Fed more than they love their guy.
 
#91
Essentially nothing, given that the circumstances make him a clear underdog in the match. If he was Nadal's contemporary and they were playing on fast, slick grass it would be a different story but he isn't and they're not.

It's telling how much Nadal fans are focused on Fed and his "legacy" though, almost like they hate Fed more than they love their guy.
The only way this would hurt Fed would be if Rafa goes on to win the final. Even then it does not really hurt Fed, but helps Rafa legacy. One can also even argue that h2h means even less considering Rafa is so good that being 5 years younger he should be dominating in that category.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
#92
The only way this would hurt Fed would be if Rafa goes on to win the final. Even then it does not really hurt Fed, but helps Rafa legacy. One can also even argue that h2h means even less considering Rafa is so good that being 5 years younger he should be dominating in that category.
I wasn't debating whether it hurts or doesn't hurt Fed or Rafa legacy but rather making a remark that they (Nadal fans) seem more focused on disparaging Fed for the potential loss than being happy that their guy is a WImbledon contender again.
 
#93
To answer the thread, Federer's legacy is secure no matter what happens. He made the SF of both RG and Wimby back to back at 37. That's pretty impressive. He probably just wouldn't be happy with a Nadal win because that would place him within 1 Slam of his record. But a loss here to either guy wouldn't damage him in imo.
 
#94
I'm sorry, are there 25-27 year old new ATGs playing now or am I missing something? Who exactly is challenging Djokovic now who's half a decade younger than him?

Can't believe we still have to go through this s**t every second week. His biggest rivals on basically every surface are still Federer, aged 38 and Nadal, aged 33.
 
Last edited:
#95
What I mean is if Sampras has played til 38 and counting, so 2009, it's a possibility he'd have come up vs Federer again at Wimbledon and lost, unless he was just so bad that he never reached Fed. I dont see Sampras beating Fed if he had stuck around though who knows, maybe he could have had a resurgence
Sure Federer would have beaten Sampras then most if not all the time. Sampras didn't like to train as hard anymore after his 1999 injury and adapt to the circumstances (all the court and technology changes), that's why he did best in the US Open afterwards because it still fit his game the best.

The only way this would hurt Fed would be if Rafa goes on to win the final. Even then it does not really hurt Fed, but helps Rafa legacy. One can also even argue that h2h means even less considering Rafa is so good that being 5 years younger he should be dominating in that category.
This age debate is ridiculous. It's not like Federer was out for years or didn't do well in Slams or wasn't in shape. Federer has been in good shape for 15 years because if he wasn't he would lose in every early round. If at all, it was Nadal who took time off the most because of his injuries. When Federer got big his biggest rival was Agassi, who was 11 years older then, that's a real age gap, not 5 years, especially when both players are past their primes. I would even go so far to say if Connors ever met MacEnroe in the late 80s or early 90s in the US Open, he would have most likely beaten him, despite not being as good and being 7 or 8 years older. He just looked to be tougher and in better shape then.
 
#96
Sure Federer would have beaten Sampras then most if not all the time. Sampras didn't like to train as hard anymore after his 1999 injury and adapt to the circumstances (all the court and technology changes), that's why he did best in the US Open afterwards because it still fit his game the best.



This age debate is ridiculous. It's not like Federer was out for years or didn't do well in Slams or wasn't in shape. Federer has been in good shape for 15 years because if he wasn't he would lose in every early round. If at all, it was Nadal who took time off the most because of his injuries. When Federer got big his biggest rival was Agassi, who was 11 years older then, that's a real age gap, not 5 years, especially when both players are past their primes. I would even go so far to say if Connors ever met MacEnroe in the late 80s or early 90s in the US Open, he would have most likely beaten him, despite not being as good and being 7 or 8 years older. He just looked to be tougher and in better shape then.
Does not matter to me, h2h is ridiculous. Ask Rafa if he would give up his h2h for just one slam. He would in a heartbeat.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
#99
Hey don't get me wrong,Federer is actually my favourite of the 3 but all I'm saying is,if they all finished on 20 slams (it's looking increasingly likely that all 3 will finish on 20+) this is an argument that is going to come up time and time again - Federer has come up short when it counts against his 2 biggest rivals more often than he came out on the winning side,these are just facts no matter how you spin it with age. These guys had beaten Federer multiple times in slams before he was 30 and well within his peak still...
If all of them ended up tied on slams I don't see Nadal having much of a statistical argument outside the H2H. All the H2H would show us then is that despite Nadal having a 10+ match advantage they still ended up tied. So in essence both guys missed mostly equal opportunities in this scenario to untie the score. Nadal by not converting AO 2012 and 2014 into wins etc.... and Federer for not beating Nadal at Wimby 2008 or AO 2009 etc...

This idea that Federer has to beat Nadal (and Djokovic) 1 vs 1 is one of the biggest media driven narratives in tennis that always ignores the fact that Federer has 6 WTF's and Nadal has zero, or that Federer dominated the game and racked up consecutive weeks at #1 which Nadal has never come close to and never will.

If Djokovic is tied that's another story entirely since his stats would match up much better to Federer's, and in his case he'd break some of Federer's important records, but Nadal gave Federer much more trouble before 30. Grouping Djokovic and Nadal in terms of who gave prime Federer more trouble is borderline disrespectful to Nadal.
 
Top