Which run against Federer, was the most devastating, for Federer ?

[Tennis_Hands]

People need to look in the dictionary and see what "devastation" means.

 

[Big_Dangerous]

Fed was expected to win against Nadal and he lost.

Against Djokovic it would have been a surprise if he had won.

Easy choice. No 1

Yeah if I remember correctly, Fed was a pretty big betting line favorite against Rafa @ Wimbledon 2008, and Australia 2009.

He was a betting line underdog at all the slams vs Djokovic in 2015/2016.

 

[Rafa the King]

Rafa and it's not that close, Roger was still in his prime. He was the favorite to win those finals at Wimbledon and Australian Open and would have won those had Rafa not peaked so early and played out of his mind. Those losses raised the question: How can one be the Greatest Ever when one is dominated by someone else while still being at the top of their game. Those Novak losses didn't really hurt him that badly, they would have been an incredibly nice bonus, but he never was expected to do so well at that age and was not expected to beat Novak.

 

[S'in-net]

The Rafa run is devastation on paper, but somehow Roger went right out and won 3 of the next 4 slams and runner-up in five in the 4th, immediately afterwards
The Novak run is just as devastating on paper and feels more final
Rafa's run in 2008, including the brilliantly absurd RG/Stella/AELTC treble (only time ever done), amounst his summer exploits
and Novac's 2015, match anything Roger did at his peak, for sure
When these guys go on runs, they sometimes even make their great rivals look ordinary

Anyone saying Roger is the best, without question, has to be wearing rose tinted glasses, more or less because of these runs

 

[The Fedfather]

The Rafa run is devastation on paper, but somehow Roger went right out and won 3 of the next 4 slams and runner-up in five in the 4th, immediately afterwards
The Novak run is just as devastating on paper and feels more final
Rafa's run in 2008, including the brilliantly absurd RG/Stella/AELTC treble (only time ever done), amounst his summer exploits
and Novac's 2015, match anything Roger did at his peak, for sure
When these guys go on runs, they sometimes even make their great rivals look ordinary

Anyone saying Roger is the best, without question, has to be wearing rose tinted glasses, more or less because of these runs

It feels more final because Federer is 35. It has nothing to do with Novak's run.

 

[90's Clay]

Id say Djokovic for the simple reason those Wimbledon/AO/USOs matches were his last chance to add to his slam tally. Fed even though older should have been the favorite at Wimbledon at least. Nole is much more vulnerable on grass. He isn't nearly as good on grass as he is the other surfaces. Those Wimbledon matches Fed should have won

 

[beltsman]

There was pic I don't know in which one of 1000000 threads after USO15 Final).
I'm lazy to search old forum threads.
For the record ,I don't condemn him (or any player who cried when failed to achieve big goal)

In any case it was Nadal run, but to say Djokovic run is did nothing to his legacy is LOL worthy

That pic is from Wimbledon 14.

 

[S'in-net]

Id say Djokovic for the simple reason those Wimbledon/AO/USOs matches were his last chance to add to his slam tally. Fed even though older should have been the favorite at Wimbledon at least. Nole is much more vulnerable on grass. He isn't nearly as good on grass as he is the other surfaces. Those Wimbledon matches Fed should have won

I'd say Djokovic as well
I'm not buying the 'Fed is too old escuse' at all
He himself says he's serving better than ever and Murray said that was definately the best Federer had served against him, in the AELTC 2015 semi

Take AELTC 2014, AELTC 2015, US OPEN 2015, AUS OPEN 2016...and the theme is consistent with Fed only losing 3 sets in 23 matches in getting to Djokovic
whilst Djokovic loses 10 sets in 23 matches in getting to Federer...
That's the equivalent of Djokovic playing 2 extra matches yet Djokovic goes 4-0 on Federer in those tournament matches and 12-5 in sets.

The telling stat is :
Djokovic is - 7 in sets in getting to Federer and then +7 in sets in dispatching Federer

Believe me, Djokovic is just as devastating to Federer, as Nadal was

 

[Noelan]

That pic is from Wimbledon 14.

Read the whole post before you reply, VamosBamos

FYI he cried at USO15 too.

 

[metsman]

I'd say Djokovic as well
I'm not buying the 'Fed is too old escuse' at all
He himself says he's serving better than ever and Murray said that was definately the best Federer had served against him, in the AELTC 2015 semi

Take AELTC 2014, AELTC 2015, US OPEN 2015, AUS OPEN 2016...and the theme is consistent with Fed only losing 3 sets in 23 matches in getting to Djokovic
whilst Djokovic loses 10 sets in 23 matches in getting to Federer...
That's the equivalent of Djokovic playing 2 extra matches yet Djokovic goes 4-0 on Federer in those tournament matches and 12-5 in sets.

The telling stat is :
Djokovic is - 7 in sets in getting to Federer and then +7 in sets in dispatching Federer

Believe me, Djokovic is just as devastating to Federer, as Nadal was

yes because beating the mug population is the same as playing Djokovic. Fed at this age with his hugely declined movement is still good enough to put away mugs and people playing poorly (which is what 99% of the tour is these days) but against an in form elite ATG opponent? Forget it. That's all that means. Those Nadal losses, or loss really, are the only black mark on his resume. No tennis observer in their right minds would favor him against Djokovic at that age and he was lucky the rest of the field was sucked and let him cakewalk to the finals anyways.

 

[S'in-net]

yes because beating the mug population is the same as playing Djokovic. Fed at this age with his hugely declined movement is still good enough to put away mugs and people playing poorly (which is what 99% of the tour is these days) but against an in form elite ATG opponent? Forget it. That's all that means. Those Nadal losses, or loss really, are the only black mark on his resume. No tennis observer in their right minds would favor him against Djokovic at that age and he was lucky the rest of the field was sucked and let him cakewalk to the finals anyways.

Not accurate when you look at the matches :

AELTC 2014 qf : bt Wawrinka 3/6, 7/6, 6/4. 6/4 (and he lost to Wawrinka in next GS meeting)
Federer also beat up and coming Raonic, grass courter Muller and Robredo (who he had lost to in previous slam meeting)

AELTC 2015 sf : bt Murray 7/5, 7/5, 6/4 (best ever serving performance)
Federer also beat Querrey (one yr before his run), big serving Groth and Simon who had troubled him in GS's several times

US OPEN 2015 rnd 4 : bt Isner 7/6, 7/6, 7/5...qf : bt Gasquet 6/3, 6/3, 6/1...sf bt Wawrinka 6/4, 6/3, 6/1 (one year before he lifted the cup)

AUS OPEN 2016 Federer bt Dolgopolov, Dimitrov, Goffin , Berdych

So you can see in the 4 tournaments where he lost to Djokovic, Federer bt THREE elite opponents along the way as well as numerous other dangerous opponents
and all that with a set loss ratio of only 3 sets dropped in 23 matches, thereby taking the conditioning aspect out of it, for the forthcoming Djokovic matches
In doing that, the only way for that to be possible is that Federer himself is playing well and not overly tired physically before the Djokovic matches

This leaves the only reasonable solution : That Djokovic can beat Federer even when Federer repeatedly has a good tournament...leaving people to use the fall back of 'age' to explain the phenomenon. Djokovic was also easily beating other top rivals in other finals at this time, like Nadal, where the fallback of 'age' was not presented

 

[mike danny]

Not accurate when you look at the matches :

AELTC 2014 qf : bt Wawrinka 3/6, 7/6, 6/4. 6/4 (and he lost to Wawrinka in next GS meeting)
Federer also beat up and coming Raonic, grass courter Muller and Robredo (who he had lost to in previous slam meeting)

AELTC 2015 sf : bt Murray 7/5, 7/5, 6/4 (best ever serving performance)
Federer also beat Querrey (one yr before his run), big serving Groth and Simon who had troubled him in GS's several times

US OPEN 2015 rnd 4 : bt Isner 7/6, 7/6, 7/5...qf : bt Gasquet 6/3, 6/3, 6/1...sf bt Wawrinka 6/4, 6/3, 6/1 (one year before he lifted the cup)

AUS OPEN 2016 Federer bt Dolgopolov, Dimitrov, Goffin , Berdych

So you can see in the 4 tournaments where he lost to Djokovic, Federer bt THREE elite opponents along the way as well as numerous other dangerous opponents
and all that with a set loss ratio of only 3 sets dropped in 23 matches, thereby taking the conditioning aspect out of it, for the forthcoming Djokovic matches
In doing that, the only way for that to be possible is that Federer himself is playing well and not overly tired physically before the Djokovic matches

This leaves the only reasonable solution : That Djokovic can beat Federer even when Federer repeatedly has a good tournament...leaving people to use the fall back of 'age' to explain the phenomenon. Djokovic was also easily beating other top rivals in other finals at this time, like Nadal, where the fallback of 'age' was not presented

How many 34 year olds defeated 10+ major winners in GS?

 

[Urkezi]

Not accurate when you look at the matches :

AELTC 2014 qf : bt Wawrinka 3/6, 7/6, 6/4. 6/4 (and he lost to Wawrinka in next GS meeting)
Federer also beat up and coming Raonic, grass courter Muller and Robredo (who he had lost to in previous slam meeting)

AELTC 2015 sf : bt Murray 7/5, 7/5, 6/4 (best ever serving performance)
Federer also beat Querrey (one yr before his run), big serving Groth and Simon who had troubled him in GS's several times

US OPEN 2015 rnd 4 : bt Isner 7/6, 7/6, 7/5...qf : bt Gasquet 6/3, 6/3, 6/1...sf bt Wawrinka 6/4, 6/3, 6/1 (one year before he lifted the cup)

AUS OPEN 2016 Federer bt Dolgopolov, Dimitrov, Goffin , Berdych

So you can see in the 4 tournaments where he lost to Djokovic, Federer bt THREE elite opponents along the way as well as numerous other dangerous opponents
and all that with a set loss ratio of only 3 sets dropped in 23 matches, thereby taking the conditioning aspect out of it, for the forthcoming Djokovic matches
In doing that, the only way for that to be possible is that Federer himself is playing well and not overly tired physically before the Djokovic matches

This leaves the only reasonable solution : That Djokovic can beat Federer even when Federer repeatedly has a good tournament...leaving people to use the fall back of 'age' to explain the phenomenon. Djokovic was also easily beating other top rivals in other finals at this time, like Nadal, where the fallback of 'age' was not presented

Where do they find guys like you? Is there a Stupid tree you people fall off and land on this forum? Do yourself and the community here a favor and simply stop. Posting. Forever.

 

[S'in-net]

How many 34 year olds defeated 10+ major winners in GS?

Federer was 32 at AELTC 2014
and Djokovic was on 6 slams going into AELTC 2014 and as a crucial point had lost his last three slam finals going into that final
Federer lost an opportunity to see off Djokovic right there, resulting in Djokovic ultimately going on his own run and seeing off Federer instead

 

[mike danny]

Federer was 32 at AELTC 2014
and Djokovic was on 6 slams going into AELTC 2014 and as a crucial point had lost his last three slam finals going into that final
Federer lost an opportunity to see off Djokovic right there, resulting in Djokovic ultimately going on his own run and seeing off Federer instead

Same rule applies.

While Federer at that point hadn't won a slam for 2 years. So no mental advantage.

 

[nadalfan2008]

Nadal's 2008-09 run, for sure. In 2004-2007, Federer didn't know what losing means. He always felt like a winner and then he started getting demolished by the same player again, again and again. Remember his reaction after Wimbledon'08 and AO'09 finals. He didn'y expect himself to lose to RAFA outside of clay.

 

[S'in-net]

Where do they find guys like you? Is there a Stupid tree you people fall off and land on this forum? Do yourself and the community here a favor and simply stop. Posting. Forever.

You haven't quoted my post, let alone attacked it, try to point score it down etc. My quote stands, yours falls

Same rule applies.
While Federer at that point hadn't won a slam for 2 years. So no mental advantage.

Also : No mental disadvantage
The rule evens out
Which is why that particular match was a balanced chances match

 

[Prabhanjan]

Nadal 2005-2008 Clay run devastated if anything devastated Fed at all

 

[Urkezi]

You haven't quoted my post, let alone attacked it, try to point score it down etc. My quote stands, yours falls

There is simply nothing to "attack", you fail on so many points that I see no reason to waste 20 minus of my life to school you on the basics of tennis. However, you must be warned that you are a moron since you don't see it for yourself - my job is complete.

 

[S'in-net]

There is simply nothing to "attack", you fail on so many points that I see no reason to waste 20 minus of my life to school you on the basics of tennis. However, you must be warned that you are a moron since you don't see it for yourself - my job is complete.

I can't be your mug
Just because you've got a devious mind bordering on clever, though certainly not clever, doesn't make you smart

Smart people understand projection and the interplay between themselves and other people's programming
Especially when they come across somebody with particularly shoddy programming
Devious people are morons because they use reverse psychology on someone they think should be their 'mug'

A smart person can never be a devious person's 'mug'

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Is the OP serious?

Watch Federer's forehand upto '07 - his breadwinner. It changed in '08 when he began to put more spin and trajectory on it, particularly on break points.

Hmmm - I wonder why?

Evolution of Federer's forehand over the years:

He lost confidence in '08 and its been a pattern ever since. In important moments he gets ultra-conservative aiming for the error.

 

[beltsman]

Read the whole post before you reply, VamosBamos

Post accurate pictures instead of deception.

 

[RSH]

Not accurate when you look at the matches :

AELTC 2014 qf : bt Wawrinka 3/6, 7/6, 6/4. 6/4 (and he lost to Wawrinka in next GS meeting)
Federer also beat up and coming Raonic, grass courter Muller and Robredo (who he had lost to in previous slam meeting)

AELTC 2015 sf : bt Murray 7/5, 7/5, 6/4 (best ever serving performance)
Federer also beat Querrey (one yr before his run), big serving Groth and Simon who had troubled him in GS's several times

US OPEN 2015 rnd 4 : bt Isner 7/6, 7/6, 7/5...qf : bt Gasquet 6/3, 6/3, 6/1...sf bt Wawrinka 6/4, 6/3, 6/1 (one year before he lifted the cup)

AUS OPEN 2016 Federer bt Dolgopolov, Dimitrov, Goffin , Berdych

So you can see in the 4 tournaments where he lost to Djokovic, Federer bt THREE elite opponents along the way as well as numerous other dangerous opponents
and all that with a set loss ratio of only 3 sets dropped in 23 matches, thereby taking the conditioning aspect out of it, for the forthcoming Djokovic matches
In doing that, the only way for that to be possible is that Federer himself is playing well and not overly tired physically before the Djokovic matches

This leaves the only reasonable solution : That Djokovic can beat Federer even when Federer repeatedly has a good tournament...leaving people to use the fall back of 'age' to explain the phenomenon. Djokovic was also easily beating other top rivals in other finals at this time, like Nadal, where the fallback of 'age' was not presented

The only elite grass player up there is Murray. The rest are solid guys except for Robredo. Regarding Querry and Wawrinka, future performances don't dictate the quality of resistance from the past.

On the current Federer/Djokovic dynamic: Age isn't the phenomenon -- it's decline in ability due to age. Federer's original base and peak level was so high that his declined base and peak level is still good enough to consistently beat the field -- this is why he can cleanly navigate a draw; he plays well, but it's relative to his current base/peak level. When he plays an ATG like Djokovic, he doesn't have the base/peak level to consistently duel with him (except maybe U.S. Open '15), and Djokovic can properly punish his weaknesses in a way the field can't.

Furthermore, Djokovic doesn't really take the field seriously because his base/peak level is also ridiculously high, so he floats through draws losing sets here or there without care, but he takes Federer extremely seriously and makes it a point to come out gangbusters when they play. These two factors explain why their tournament trajectories look negative for Novak and positive for Roger, and why the late round h2h looks lopsided in favor of Novak.

 

[abmk]

I'd say Djokovic as well
I'm not buying the 'Fed is too old escuse' at all
He himself says he's serving better than ever and Murray said that was definately the best Federer had served against him, in the AELTC 2015 semi

Take AELTC 2014, AELTC 2015, US OPEN 2015, AUS OPEN 2016...and the theme is consistent with Fed only losing 3 sets in 23 matches in getting to Djokovic
whilst Djokovic loses 10 sets in 23 matches in getting to Federer...
That's the equivalent of Djokovic playing 2 extra matches yet Djokovic goes 4-0 on Federer in those tournament matches and 12-5 in sets.

The telling stat is :
Djokovic is - 7 in sets in getting to Federer and then +7 in sets in dispatching Federer

Believe me, Djokovic is just as devastating to Federer, as Nadal was

unbelievable, the amount of dumbness that goes around as opinion here.

djokovic would lose all 3 of the matches - wim 14/wim 15/USO 15 , if it had been prime federer. He's lucky due to federer's decline ...djoko just goes through the draw not bothering much, losing sets along the way. federer has to clean up as he has to conserve energy ...

Even in 2011, at ~30, federer was the only one to beat him in a slam ( & was a point away from doing it in another ) --rafa didn't even come close -- though he was still in his prime.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Both are equally devastating imo, but for different reasons.

Ultimately though, even two ATGs put together, who have a combined twenty six slams between them, couldn't stop Federer from reaching the top. That is the measure of the man that Federer was, is and always will be.

 

[S'in-net]

Both are equally devastating imo, but for different reasons.

Ultimately though, even two ATGs put together, who have a combined twenty six slams between them, couldn't stop Federer from reaching the top. That is the measure of the man that Federer was, is and always will be.

One thing that's not often spoken of is Federer's extreme resilience

in talking about peak Federer, usually 2006 is mentioned, followed by 2007 and to a lesser extent 2004, but almost no-one mentions the 2009-2010 run where Federer won 3 out of 4 slams (and runner up in five in the 4th), which is the same as the 04/06/07 runs but with the added handicap of coming right after the devastating losses to Nadal
RG 08/AELTC 08/AUS 09

The Nadal run could have seen Federer off, instead Federer came back with the same numbers as his other run years
After all, the last time Nadal won 3 finals in a row against a rival (Coria), he basically saw them off

That makes Federer's 2009/10 run arguably his best ever run

 

[Deleted member 307496]

.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

One thing that's not often spoken of is Federer's extreme resilience

in talking about peak Federer, usually 2006 is mentioned, followed by 2007 and to a lesser extent 2004, but almost no-one mentions the 2009-2010 run where Federer won 3 out of 4 slams (and runner up in five in the 4th), which is the same as the 04/06/07 runs but with the added handicap of coming right after the devastating losses to Nadal
RG 08/AELTC 08/AUS 09

The Nadal run could have seen Federer off, instead Federer came back with the same numbers as his other run years
After all, the last time Nadal won 3 finals in a row against a rival (Coria), he basically saw them off

That makes Federer's 2009/10 run arguably his best ever run

His 2009/2010 run was decent, but nothing compared to 2004-2006.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Cry some more fanboy.

Aren't you the one that goes crying to the mods whenever someone makes fun of you?

 

[Druss]

When Federer returns next year it will have been @ five years since he last beat Djokovic in a grand slam and ten years since he last beat Nadal...and counting

How many major tournaments has Nadal won in last couple years? Hmmmm his legacy must be questionable!!!

I will ask this same question about Djokovic in 2020/21.

 

[S'in-net]

unbelievable, the amount of dumbness that goes around as opinion here.

djokovic would lose all 3 of the matches - wim 14/wim 15/USO 15 , if it had been prime federer. He's lucky due to federer's decline ...djoko just goes through the draw not bothering much, losing sets along the way. federer has to clean up as he has to conserve energy ...

Even in 2011, at ~30, federer was the only one to beat him in a slam ( & was a point away from doing it in another ) --rafa didn't even come close -- though he was still in his prime.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/09/tennis/tennis-sampras-federer-djokovic/

Federer's quest for an 18th is now in its fourth year. The Swiss has finished runner-up to Djokovic three times during that period, but Sampras says he is stunned Federer is still slugging it out at the top with a generation of younger players.
"With Roger I'm amazed," said Sampras. "He's 34 now, he's still ranked two, three in the world. He's competing for majors, he's still playing great tennis.
"He's almost playing better now than he did 10 ten years ago. He's improving!"

Sampras wasn't buying into Federer losing to Djokovic during the Djokovic run, primarily because Federer was in decline, in whatsoever way you want to describe decline

 

[mike danny]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/09/tennis/tennis-sampras-federer-djokovic/

Sampras isn't buying into Federer losing to Djokovic during the Djokovic run, primarily because Federer was in decline, in whatsoever way you want to describe decline

Sampras doesn't even know how it is to compete at 33-34 at the highest level. The guy was retired after 31.

 

[abmk]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/09/tennis/tennis-sampras-federer-djokovic/


Sampras wasn't buying into Federer losing to Djokovic during the Djokovic run, primarily because Federer was in decline, in whatsoever way you want to describe decline

Sampras was also saying he was playing his best tennis at 31 ..

Use your goddamn eyes, memory and common sense..that is if you can ..

 

[abmk]

One thing that's not often spoken of is Federer's extreme resilience

in talking about peak Federer, usually 2006 is mentioned, followed by 2007 and to a lesser extent 2004, but almost no-one mentions the 2009-2010 run where Federer won 3 out of 4 slams (and runner up in five in the 4th), which is the same as the 04/06/07 runs but with the added handicap of coming right after the devastating losses to Nadal
RG 08/AELTC 08/AUS 09

The Nadal run could have seen Federer off, instead Federer came back with the same numbers as his other run years
After all, the last time Nadal won 3 finals in a row against a rival (Coria), he basically saw them off

That makes Federer's 2009/10 run arguably his best ever run

yeah, because a comparison b/w freakin coria and federer makes sense as far as resilience goes.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/09/tennis/tennis-sampras-federer-djokovic/


Sampras wasn't buying into Federer losing to Djokovic during the Djokovic run, primarily because Federer was in decline, in whatsoever way you want to describe decline

Just admit Djokovic is a weak era champion already. For everyone's own sanity.

 

[S'in-net]

Sampras doesn't even know how it is to compete at 33-34 at the highest level. The guy was retired after 31.

Sampras beat Federer in an exo when he was 36 and Federer was 26

 

[abmk]

Sampras beat Federer in an exo when he was 36 and Federer was 26

yeah, read that again ..

exo,

E-X-O

meanwhile 19 year old federer dethroned 30 yo sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 in their one and only real match ...

 

[mike danny]

Sampras beat Federer in an exo when he was 36 and Federer was 26

Yeah, that's playing at a high level alright

36 year old Fed would probably beat peak Djoko in a meaningless exho.

 

[S'in-net]

Just admit Djokovic is a weak era champion already. For everyone's own sanity.

This weak era argument is so faux it's not even funny, it's pathetic

1) Djokovic beat Tsonga for his first GS (and Federer 3/0 in the semi)
After that, this is who he beat in the next 11 finals ;
2) Murray (and Federer 3/0 in the semi)
3) Nadal
4) Nadal (and Federer in the semi)
5) Nadal (and Murray in the semi)
6) Murray (+ Wawrinka)
7) Federer
8) Murray (+ Wawrinka)
9) Federer
10) Federer
11) Murray (+ Federer)
12) Murray

And in nine losing finals he played :
Federer, Nadal, Nadal, Murray, Murray, Nadal, Nadal, Wawrinka. Wawrinka

 

[Deleted member 307496]

This weak era argument is so faux it's not even funny, it's pathetic

1) Djokovic beat Tsonga for his first GS (and Federer 3/0 in the semi) -- Federer who lacked proper preparation and mug Tsonga.. wonderful.
After that, this is who he beat in the next 11 finals ;
2) Murray (and Federer 3/0 in the semi) -- Murray who played the worst match of his life, decent Fed though.
3) Nadal -- Decent.
4) Nadal (and Federer in the semi) -- Decent.
5) Nadal (and Murray in the semi) -- Decent.
6) Murray (+ Wawrinka) -- LOL.
7) Federer -- LOL.
8) Murray (+ Wawrinka) -- LOL.
9) Federer -- LOL.
10) Federer -- LOL.
11) Murray (+ Federer) -- LOL.
12) Murray -- LOL.


And in nine losing finals he played :
Federer, Nadal, Nadal, Murray, Murray, Nadal, Nadal, Wawrinka. Wawrinka

If you're going to pump up old Fed and Murray, might as well pump up Hewitt, Roddick and old Agassi.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Didn't Djokovic win Roland Garros over freaking Murray?

 

[KINGROGER]

This weak era argument is so faux it's not even funny, it's pathetic

1) Djokovic beat Tsonga for his first GS (and Federer 3/0 in the semi)
After that, this is who he beat in the next 11 finals ;
2) Murray (and Federer 3/0 in the semi)
3) Nadal
4) Nadal (and Federer in the semi)
5) Nadal (and Murray in the semi)
6) Murray (+ Wawrinka)
7) Federer
8) Murray (+ Wawrinka)
9) Federer
10) Federer
11) Murray (+ Federer)
12) Murray

And in nine losing finals he played :
Federer, Nadal, Nadal, Murray, Murray, Nadal, Nadal, Wawrinka. Wawrinka

You defeated your own argument, when you include pigeon Murray (x5) and Grampa Fed (x3) as evidence of a "strong" era.

Yeah Fed had no mental disadvantage in 2014. Just a huge physical one, what with being a 32 going on 33 year old Grandad facing a prime 27 year old ATG defensive master/pusher 5 set expert and return expert.

 

[duaneeo]

In 2008 Federer was losing to everyone...Djokovic (Australian Open), Murray (Dubai, Madrid, Tennis Masters Cup), Fish (Indian Wells), Roddick (Miami), Stepanek (Rome), Simon (Canada, Tennis Masters Cup), Karlovic (Cincinnati), and Blake (Olympics), so it's no surprise that he would fare so badly against nemesis Nadal. Many doubted whether he would ever be #1 again or would break Sampras' slam record. Not only did Roger eventually surpass the record by 3 slams, but he also the weeks-at-#1 record by 16 weeks.

Which is why I pick the run by Djokovic. Likewise, it's no surprise that 6-years-beyond-his-prime Federer would lose to prime Djokovic, but if Roger had won just one of those matches, it would have made his most-legendary status even that much more legendary.