When Federer hit 20in AO 18

mike danny

Bionic Poster
There's only like 3 of these I'd actually agree with tbh.

He was never beating Nadal at RG regardless of missing BPs or being up 5-2 in the 1st set. Hard to call them missed opportunities when he was never near winning.

The W 2008 BP that Federer had was well saved by Nadal. Fed did nothing wrong. Nadal was clutch. AO 2009 is questionable. Nadal clearly wasn't tired the way he was playing but Fed missed some opportunities for sure.

USO 2009 I fully agree with. USO 2011 is debatable. At the time I didn't think Fed would beat Nadal and I still don't think it, but many Federer fans disagree which is fair.

W 2014 yes and no. Probably should've won the 5th, but he was lucky to be in a 5th too.

USO 2015 is a match I don't think Federer was winning regardless. If Federer had converted more BPs I think Djokovic would've clamped down even more eventually. Never felt like a match Novak was going to lose, though again many Federer fans disagree which is fair.

W 2018 I agree no business losing to Anderson, probably loses to Djokovic though. In any case he never came near winning so this tournament isn't worth a mention on this list IMO.

W 2019, obviously agree wholeheartedly.

P.S. EDIT: I'd actually put AO 2005 on this list over many of the mentioned ones.
Why not Wimb 2014? Fed clearly deserved to steal a slam from Djokovic like Djokovic has done.

Why not Wimb 2018? After Djokodal softened each other up in the semis, Fed wouod have beaten whoever came out as the winner. Assuming Fed was in good shape, which he wasn't.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Why not Wimb 2014? Fed clearly deserved to steal a slam from Djokovic like Djokovic has done.

Why not Wimb 2018? After Djokodal softened each other up in the semis, Fed wouod have beaten whoever came out as the winner. Assuming Fed was in good shape, which he wasn't.
I can't remember Wimbledon 2014 that well tbh. Fed's botched overhead wasn't on the BP though, it would've given 0-30 correct? I think the actual BP was saved with good play from Djokovic. So I can't begrudge him that. And it's not even like he's guaranteed to win after going up the break against a player of that caliber.

And Wimbledon 2018 is a guessing game to me. The last time Djoker or Nadal were tired against Federer in a slam final was literally never. Can't count on those guys giving up because they're tired. Certainly not a slam that you can be guaranteed Federer would've won.

As such, I prefer to zone in on USO 09 where he was serving for a 2 set lead and up 30-0 against a player that wasn't Djokodal, where Fed was in his prime and Delpo was in his first slam final. Or W 19 where he had 2 MPs. Or even AO 2005 where he was up two mini breaks in the 4th set TB against Safin (forget the tweener on MP that's not the worst thing he did) and would've gotten Hewitt in the final who I'm confident he would've beaten. Again, not a player of Djokodal caliber and in Federer's prime.

These guesses on what would've happened in a lot of these matches where Federer was never in a clear winning position are just guesses at the end of the day.
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I can't remember Wimbledon 2014 that well tbh. Fed's botched overhead wasn't on the BP though, it would've given 0-30 correct? I think the actual BP was saved with good play from Djokovic. So I can't begrudge him that.

And Wimbledon 2018 is a guessing game to me. The last time Djoker or Nadal were tired against Federer in a slam final was literally never. Can't count on those guys giving up because they're tired. Certainly not a slam that you can be guaranteed Federer would've won.

As such, I prefer to zone in on USO 09 where he was serving for a 2 set lead and up 30-0. Or W 19 where he had 2 MPs. Or even AO 2005 where he was up two mini breaks in the 4th set TB against Safin (forget the tweener on MP that's not the worse thing he did) and would've gotten Hewitt in the final who I'm confident he would've beaten.

These guesses on what would've happened in a lot of these matches where Federer was never in a clear winning position are just guesses at the end of the day.
Given Fed was very close to beating both last year, it's silly to say he has no chance against just one of them in the final. Especially since that one guy would be a bit tired.

Djokovic doesn't have a great track record in slam finals after playing a long SF match after AO 2012.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Given Fed was very close to beating both last year, it's silly to say he has no chance against just one of them in the final. Especially since that one guy would be a bit tired.

Djokovic doesn't have a great track record in slam finals after playing a long SF match after AO 2012.
Again, it's just a guess. I don't see why W 2018 is high on a list of Federer's missed opportunities. He would've gotten a player in the final who was in great form, could've run on adrenaline for all we know instead of being tired. Just a guessing game. Not worth being on a list of Federer's greatest missed opportunities. I can think of so many I'd rank above that one.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
Tbh I never ruled Rafa out of catching him even after '18 AO. I knew his chances were lower at the time but him being such a lock at the French while remaining a top contender at the other majors, the lack of good next-gen players, Federer already looking much weaker than in 2017, and being 5 years younger than Fed all played massively in his favor.

And all of this came into fruition:

- Rafa has won all 3 RGs played since (all coming in painless fashion)
- He's remained a top contender at the other 3 majors (picked off the 2019 US Open, thanks for coming)
- Still no consistent next-gen threat (no, Thiem is not a nextgen)
- Federer hasn't added to his total since (damn you Novak)
- And now being 5 years younger, you're really starting to see the major difference such an age gap has once you're older
 
Last edited:

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Did you actually watch any tennis from that era? Or just read some names off the Federer troll bingo card?
Yes, I actually watched tennis from that era.

None of those guys were serious contenders in majors from 04-07 era apart from Agassi in US04.

If you have the balls, why don't you actually provide some evidence to the contrary? Go ahead, please do so...
 

clout

Hall of Fame
This is honestly sad, but true.

For me, it's why the order will always be Fed > Nadal > Djoker, regardless of what happens at the end of their respective careers.
Well I mean there's the other way around too. Fed won 4 slams before Rafa broke though in spring '05 and he won 10 slams before Novak emerged as a top player in spring '07.
 

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
Well I mean there's the other way around too. Fed won 4 slams before Rafa broke though in spring '05 and he won 10 slams before Novak emerged as a top player in spring '07.
For whatever reason, it bothers me less for an up and comer to start winning, than it does for an established player to artificially stack at the end.

For me it's one of the reasons why Steffi > Serena.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
For whatever reason, it bothers me less for an up and comer to start winning, than it does for an established player to artificially stack at the end.

For me it's one of the reasons why Steffi > Serena.
I have Steffi > Serena too by the smallest of margins but I wouldn't underestimate the longevity aspect of things. It takes A LOT for a pro athlete who's already worth 8-9 figures in their late 20s (an age where many are still in search of what they really like) to have the desire to continue pushing their bodies at an older age, especially in such a physically demanding sport like tennis where players typically retire much earlier than any other profession.
 

wangs78

Hall of Fame
Fed will look back on USO 09, USO 11 and of course W 19 as the real heartbreakers. I don't think he beats either Djoker or Nadal at W 18.
Both of the USO semifinals that Fed lost to Djokovic in 5 (did he have match points for both?) were heartbreakers. No guarantee he would have won the final if he had beaten Djoker but almost a certainty that he would have won one of them. But I agree that USO '09 and Wimby '18 should have been won, no question.

At the end of the day, we all kind of knew this was coming, that the Slam race would end up very close. It's silly for us to say, "ooooohhhh Nadal (or Djokovic, or Federer) is the GOAT because one has x number of titles and the other has x+1 or x+2". 20 vs 18 or 22 vs 20 does not show that one is *greater* than the other. If the gap was 26 to 20, then ok.

We should just acknowledge that all three created a 15-20 year period that are almost indisputably the greatest period in tennis we've ever seen. We, the fans, are the winners and have been given a gift and let's leave it at that.
 

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
I have Steffi > Serena too by the smallest of margins but I wouldn't underestimate the longevity aspect of things. It takes A LOT for a pro athlete to have the desire to continue pushing their bodies at an older age, especially in such a physically demanding sport like tennis where players typically retire much earlier than any other profession.
I don't underestimate it, but I also can't penalize someone like Steffi for moving on. Steffi retired just as she turned 30 coming off a RG win and a W final, whereas Serena will play for another 10 years past the age of 30 and did so going into a weak era as most of the good players retired or had kids. And even at that, Steffi has almost every stat in her column except for being down by one major to a player who has literally 7 more full seasons under her belt.
 
Yes, I actually watched tennis from that era.

None of those guys were serious contenders in majors from 04-07 era apart from Agassi in US04.

If you have the balls, why don't you actually provide some evidence to the contrary? Go ahead, please do so...
Just usual troll bingo stuff. Surprised you haven’t mention Bagdhatis.
 
Some people say that Djokodal’s or Fedal’s longevity is only because of a weak NextGen. I understand your points, but I’d like to then ask why we are also seeing increased longevity in so many other sports?

Just today, Lebron James won Finals MVP today at age 35. Tom Brady won a Super Bowl at 41. Manny Pacquiao is current welterweight champion at 41, etc. etc.

I don’t think all of these sports are suffering from weak NextGen problems.
 

AceSalvo

Legend
Fed bungled up slams in 2014-2015 and 2019. They will always come back to haunt no matter what. Considering Fed had 2 GOAT candidates (not just ATG) on his tail, he did superb. I have no qualms about Fed being 2nd or 3rd.
 

Patriots

Rookie
Two can play this game.

Missed Major opportunities for Rafa that he "should have won".

2012 AO finals v Djokovic (5th set 4-2)
2017 AO finals v Federer (5th set 3-1)
2018 W SF v Djokovic (BP on Djokovic's serve late in match), Kevin A. was going to lose regardless to the winner)

And admittedly more debatable

2007 W v Federer

So with that Nadal the count would be:

Nadal 23
Federer 19
Djokovic 15
 

Achilles82

Professional
It's because NextGen is pathetic. Stats are artificially inflated. Fed had Djokodal take over. Those guys have absolutely no one following up against these 30+ aged ATGs.
Next gen has talent, but not the commitment like the big three. Bunch of them made money, and has a mentality of "near enough is good enough". Federer wasnt satisfied with 17 slams at age 30, Djokovic wasnt satisfied with being world no3 in 2010. Same goes for Nadal. Money is not issue for those guys, its the competitive nature and wanting to win more and more. Next gen doesnt have that.
 

DSH

G.O.A.T.
I can't remember Wimbledon 2014 that well tbh. Fed's botched overhead wasn't on the BP though, it would've given 0-30 correct? I think the actual BP was saved with good play from Djokovic. So I can't begrudge him that. And it's not even like he's guaranteed to win after going up the break against a player of that caliber.

And Wimbledon 2018 is a guessing game to me. The last time Djoker or Nadal were tired against Federer in a slam final was literally never. Can't count on those guys giving up because they're tired. Certainly not a slam that you can be guaranteed Federer would've won.

As such, I prefer to zone in on USO 09 where he was serving for a 2 set lead and up 30-0 against a player that wasn't Djokodal, where Fed was in his prime and Delpo was in his first slam final. Or W 19 where he had 2 MPs. Or even AO 2005 where he was up two mini breaks in the 4th set TB against Safin (forget the tweener on MP that's not the worse thing he did) and would've gotten Hewitt in the final who I'm confident he would've beaten. Again, not a player of Djokodal caliber and in Federer's prime.

These guesses on what would've happened in a lot of these matches where Federer was never in a clear winning position are just guesses at the end of the day.
AO 2017 Final, ring a bell?
:sneaky:
 

roysid

Hall of Fame
I can't remember Wimbledon 2014 that well tbh. Fed's botched overhead wasn't on the BP though, it would've given 0-30 correct? I think the actual BP was saved with good play from Djokovic. So I can't begrudge him that. And it's not even like he's guaranteed to win after going up the break against a player of that caliber.

And Wimbledon 2018 is a guessing game to me. The last time Djoker or Nadal were tired against Federer in a slam final was literally never. Can't count on those guys giving up because they're tired. Certainly not a slam that you can be guaranteed Federer would've won.

As such, I prefer to zone in on USO 09 where he was serving for a 2 set lead and up 30-0 against a player that wasn't Djokodal, where Fed was in his prime and Delpo was in his first slam final. Or W 19 where he had 2 MPs. Or even AO 2005 where he was up two mini breaks in the 4th set TB against Safin (forget the tweener on MP that's not the worse thing he did) and would've gotten Hewitt in the final who I'm confident he would've beaten. Again, not a player of Djokodal caliber and in Federer's prime.

These guesses on what would've happened in a lot of these matches where Federer was never in a clear winning position are just guesses at the end of the day.
Agree to it. Lots of ifs and buts.

But the two finals he clearly screwed up are USO 2009 and W 2019
 

wangs78

Hall of Fame
I don't underestimate it, but I also can't penalize someone like Steffi for moving on. Steffi retired just as she turned 30 coming off a RG win and a W final, whereas Serena will play for another 10 years past the age of 30 and did so going into a weak era as most of the good players retired or had kids. And even at that, Steffi has almost every stat in her column except for being down by one major to a player who has literally 7 more full seasons under her belt.
Steffi is greater in my book. I also have to add that the amenities that top players have are MUCH better than 20-30 years ago. From private jets to much nicer first class commercial flights vs what existed in the 80s to the big entourages that top players bring with them nowadays make staying on tour much less of a grind.
 

swizzy

Hall of Fame
People keep going back and forth on matches fed should have nailed down.. the truth can be said for his opponents.. that's tennis. Nadal should have won in Australia.. he had that match on his racket. the lost generation garbage is also silly since almost no one can beat these 3 still..a few generations along and we are still seeing a match like yesterday with Nadal facing Novak for another major. as much as people complain and go on about it they will miss this when it ends.
 

davced1

Hall of Fame
It's because NextGen is pathetic. Stats are artificially inflated. Fed had Djokodal take over. Those guys have absolutely no one following up against these 30+ aged ATGs.
The more I think about this the more true it get's. Just take a quick look at the players who are roughly 5 years younger than Djokodal. We have Scwartzman, Goffin, PCB, Dimitrov and Raonic. They are the ones who were supposed to take over. If they were ATG material, even in this sports medicine era, by now without doubt they should have enough experience to take over. The problem is and it was obvious for many years, neither of them are ATG material, not in this era or any other era.

Also let's not forget about Murray. When he finally rose to no1 and had it all figured out, convincingly beating Djokovic for the WTF title he is slowed down by injuries never to be the same again.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Some people say that Djokodal’s or Fedal’s longevity is only because of a weak NextGen. I understand your points, but I’d like to then ask why we are also seeing increased longevity in so many other sports?

Just today, Lebron James won Finals MVP today at age 35. Tom Brady won a Super Bowl at 41. Manny Pacquiao is current welterweight champion at 41, etc. etc.

I don’t think all of these sports are suffering from weak NextGen problems.
Team sports != tennis.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I know Hewitt don't. Safin and Gonzales also leads h2h with Djokovic and yet they are ridiculed a lot around here.
They were very good players even without the H2Hs with Djokovic, which are irrelevant really as they barely faced a more mature Djokovic. Gonzo didn't face him at all after 2006.

Regardless, people will always find a way to ridicule them and argue that the muginess of the lost and next gens is normal.
 
Has nothing to do with the list of players mentioned...

Useless, unsubstantiated crap. What else should I expect from someone with zero balls....
Coming from someone who’s original post mentioned Bagdhatis and Gonzalez :-D Nadal fan should be the last to talk of weak draws given his last 2 USO.

What comes next?
Weak era?
Baby in diapers Djokovic and Nadal?
Slam titles dried up as soon as better players matured in 2008?
Federer always peak?
 

movies99

New User
Nadal was at 16 slams.
Djoker lying at 12 slams and languishing for 2 years.

Federer was favourite to win couple more gramd slams and be way ahead.

How things turned. Nadal and Djoker progressed are at 20 and 17 now. While Feder is stuck at 20
Federer showed you can win even in late 30s, djokovic said multiple times he wants to play long. Nadal is always motivated and adapted to make the points shorter and played aggressively
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
It was 14-0-0-0 at one point. Poor PETE
When PETE played his final slam, Fed’s best slam performance was a QF, Nadal had just made his debut on tour, and Novak Djokovic hadn’t even played an ATP match.

Of course if he’d have known they’d all win more than 14 slams in his absence, he’d have re-tooled, re-focused and kicked ass for the next 10 years before retiring with 34 slams.

Nuff said.
 

Terry Tibbs

Professional
To be honest, Fed should be sitting on 21 slams. He choked away the match. Even with the two match points, he still had chances because it was on his serve.
I believe he has choked a fair few matches but I'm not sure Wimby 2019 was a joke. Just dreadfully unlucky. The serve at 40-15 hit the very top of the tape. Another cm higher and he would have got the win. Also at break point later on in the set, Djokovic miss hit a smash and it just landed in. Federer dominated every key stat in the match and served like a machine all match. Such an injustice to lose that match.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
When PETE played his final slam, Fed’s best slam performance was a QF, Nadal had just made his debut on tour, and Novak Djokovic hadn’t even played an ATP match.

Of course if he’d have known they’d all win more than 14 slams in his absence, he’d have re-tooled, re-focused and kicked ass for the next 10 years before retiring with 34 slams.

Nuff said.
Fed would have been too much for him, no matter how much Pete would have retooled his game.
 
Team sports != tennis.
Boxing is an individual sport. Also, anyone who follows NBA will admit that Lebron is still very athletic at 35. It's not like he declined to benchwarmer level and by luck was on a winning team with players better than him—he was the Finals MVP at 35.

He was also a top 3 regular season MVP candidate. These awards are mostly based on individual statistics, which would reflect whether or not an NBA player has significantly declined. Lebron's individual stats in the Finals series were 29.8 points, 11.8 rebounds and 8.5 assists. These are phenomenal numbers for anyone of any age, especially for a 35-year-old who's been professional for 17 years.

Stats like Lebron's can't simply be an exaggeration due to weak NextGens. You don't even hear this argument in the NBA community. They recognize it for what it is—legit longevity—for which both Djokodal and Fedal should also be rightfully credited for.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Boxing is an individual sport. Also, anyone who follows NBA will admit that Lebron is still very athletic at 35. It's not like he declined to benchwarmer level and by luck was on a winning team with players better than him—he was the Finals MVP at 35.

He was also a top 3 regular season MVP candidate. These awards are mostly based on individual statistics, which would reflect whether or not an NBA player has significantly declined. Lebron's individual stats in the Finals series were 29.8 points, 11.8 rebounds and 8.5 assists. These are phenomenal numbers for anyone of any age, especially for a 35-year-old who's been professional for 17 years.

Stats like Lebron's can't simply be an exaggeration due to weak NextGens. You don't even hear this argument in the NBA community. They recognize it for what it is—legit longevity—for which both Djokodal and Fedal should also be rightfully credited for.
Are the youngsters terrible in basketball though? I genuinely don't know because I don't follow basketball.
 
Are the youngsters terrible in basketball though? I genuinely don't know because I don't follow basketball.
No worries. There is a lot of talent in the younger players as well. Lebron finished #2 in the regular season MVP race; the player who beat him for #1 was 25-year old Giannis Antetokounpo, who is a freak athlete at 6'11". The player at #3 was Slovenian prodigy Luka Doncic who already plays at MVP caliber at only age 21.

The longevity/team sports argument makes sense if the older player's stats have declined and he or she just relies on teammates to win. However, if the player still has great stats and is still a major driving force of a team, then it shows that he is still an elite player at an older age. Lebron is an example of this.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
No worries. There is a lot of talent in the younger players as well. Lebron finished #2 in the regular season MVP race; the player who beat him for #1 was 25-year old Giannis Antetokounpo, who is a freak athlete at 6'11". The player at #3 was Slovenian prodigy Luka Doncic who already plays at MVP caliber at only age 21.

The longevity/team sports argument makes sense if the older player's stats have declined and he or she just relies on teammates to win. However, if the player still has great stats and is still a major driving force of a team, then it shows that he is still an elite player at an older age. Lebron is an example of this.
But Lebron apparently was beaten by a younger player for #1. Literally there is no such player Djokodal today have to worry about.
 

WildRevolver

Semi-Pro
Both of the USO semifinals that Fed lost to Djokovic in 5 (did he have match points for both?) were heartbreakers. No guarantee he would have won the final if he had beaten Djoker but almost a certainty that he would have won one of them. But I agree that USO '09 and Wimby '18 should have been won, no question.

At the end of the day, we all kind of knew this was coming, that the Slam race would end up very close. It's silly for us to say, "ooooohhhh Nadal (or Djokovic, or Federer) is the GOAT because one has x number of titles and the other has x+1 or x+2". 20 vs 18 or 22 vs 20 does not show that one is *greater* than the other. If the gap was 26 to 20, then ok.

We should just acknowledge that all three created a 15-20 year period that are almost indisputably the greatest period in tennis we've ever seen. We, the fans, are the winners and have been given a gift and let's leave it at that.
He might have beaten Rafa in the 2011 USO Final but definitely not 2010.
 
Top