Why has Federer under-performed as Masters 1000 events?

spinovic

Hall of Fame
We are strictly talking about ATP and ITF events, nothing to do with Olympics, exhibition or any outside events. Federer has a gold medal but Federer fans are not holding that against any players, especially the past generations.

I don't disagree. My point is that all these discussions about WTF's, Masters, Gold medals, etc are virtually meaningless. It is all about slams.
 

Silverbullet96

Hall of Fame
There's no such thing as "he would have more masters if he hadn't skipped Paris, Madrid indoors, etc." We all know how Fed is careful and smart about his body, he probably skipped Paris to rest for the tour finals, if he didn't skip Paris then maybe he would have less tour finals, if he didn't skip Madrid then he would have gotten injured or something due to playing so many tournaments, he skipped those tournaments for a reason. And he still has 3rd most Masters 1000 tournaments, even when there are no Grass Masters at all.
 

zam88

Professional
I don't disagree. My point is that all these discussions about WTF's, Masters, Gold medals, etc are virtually meaningless. It is all about slams.

well those tournaments must mean something... they shape who is #1 and the players seem to take them seriously and there is a lot of money at stake
 
F

FedererWinsWimbledon2014

Guest
Of course Fed has under-performed at Masters. He should have about 35 as there are twice as many Masters as slams.

Here is the answer why:

He quickly lost desire in Masters events as once he hit his peak he accumulated slams at an astonishingly quick rate. Masters events became irrelevant quite quickly, it was all about slams for Roger and rightly so.

Also he missed quite a few. He only played 5 events in 2005 (winning 4) Also he didn't play Paris 04, 05 or 06.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
Of course Fed has under-performed at Masters. He should have about 35 as there are twice as many Masters as slams.

Here is the answer why:

He quickly lost desire in Masters events as once he hit his peak he accumulated slams at an astonishingly quick rate. Masters events became irrelevant quite quickly, it was all about slams for Roger and rightly so.

Also he missed quite a few. He only played 5 events in 2005 (winning 4) Also he didn't play Paris 04, 05 or 06.

So basicaly at some events he went on the court with the desire to lose because they are not important. And how you can prove that all the skipped tournaments would have been won by Federer after all there would have been a reason for his absence most likely not being 100% fit so its kind of dump to thing that he should have won them.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
Novak won almost 2mln from Indian Wells and Miami. You cant call a tournament where every top player gives his very best an unimportant one it is just naive to believe it.
 
F

FedererWinsWimbledon2014

Guest
So basicaly at some events he went on the court with the desire to lose because they are not important. And how you can prove that all the skipped tournaments would have been won by Federer after all there would have been a reason for his absence most likely not being 100% fit so its kind of dump to thing that he should have won them.

No desire to lose just not enough to win. Fed has under achieved at Maters. It is simple Maths. He has won 17 slams.


I didn't say he would have won those Masters just giving reasons why he didn't win that many compared to his amazing 17 slams.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Despite there isn't any MS on his best surface(grass) but there are 3 MS on his worst surface(clay), it's remarkable that he still managed to win 21 titles. Had there were played on grass, he could be sitting at 30 titles today.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
So basicaly at some events he went on the court with the desire to lose because they are not important. And how you can prove that all the skipped tournaments would have been won by Federer after all there would have been a reason for his absence most likely not being 100% fit so its kind of dump to thing that he should have won them.

No. He didn't want to lose I'm sure. Just that when the going got tough in a masters event perhaps he didn't give 100%. And he didn't say that Federer would've won all those events, just that he didn't play them for whatever reason so naturally he lost the ability to be able to win them, but that could be said of anyone to be fair.

That said, it seems Federer has underperformed because Djokovic looks like he will pass him which you wouldn't guess if you looked at both players major counts, but I still think 21 MS to this point is pretty good. Djokovic is clearly awesome in MS and Nadal has mopped the clay, but there has to be some truth to Federer peaking for majors (i.e the "more" important events) as opposed to MS, and doing it better than either of them, especially Djokovic because I don't think he's getting near 17. 10 is probably an optimistic estimation for him now.
 
Last edited:
I just played chess and checkers with my kids last night.
They are learning that sometimes you can lose a few small battles in order to win larger conflicts.

grand slam specialists like roger and sampras have this concept down.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Federer also prized the slams over anything anything else. Going deep and winning as many masters as possible (especially when some had best of 5 finals) could have damaged his prep for the majors.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Because Fed had the toughest competition at masters.

Just look who Fed had to play at almost all of his masters.

I think his masters draws were the toughest there is.

Also no masters on his best surface grass.

Also he focused a bit more maybe on majors and WTF.

And he under-performed only vs Rafa. If we count WTF titles, he didn't really under-perform. I mean he used some of his energy for masters to win WTF so many times.

Also, Rafa is better on clay than Fed is on HC. So, a lot of close matches Fed loses on HC. But Rafa always won those close matches vs competition on clay.

So, combination of all things above is the reason.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Because Fed had the toughest competition at masters.

Just look who Fed had to play at almost all of his masters.

I think his masters draws were the toughest there is.

Also no masters on his best surface grass.

Also he focused a bit more maybe on majors and WTF.

And he under-performed only vs Rafa. If we count WTF titles, he didn't really under-perform. I mean he used some of his energy for masters to win WTF so many times.

Also, Rafa is better on clay than Fed is on HC. So, a lot of close matches Fed loses on HC. But Rafa always won those close matches vs competition on clay.

So, combination of all things above is the reason.

With 3 MS on clay, Nadal won 18 MS titles. Had there was 3 MS on grass, Roger would have add a lot more titles. I say this because he won 5 Halle easy. He may not win as much as 18 MS on grass, but let say he wins 15, that's enough to put him well over 30 MS total.

As for hc, sure, Roger is better. But since the courts have been slowed down, that canceled out.
 

LazyNinja19

Banned
^^Suuuure. And what about the 6 Masters that are there for Freddy on Hard courts? Where he's the all time leader.

Lemme guess, tougher competition no?
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
^^Suuuure. And what about the 6 Masters that are there for Freddy on Hard courts? Where he's the all time leader.

Lemme guess, tougher competition no?

So, why do you think Fed can win slams and WTFs, but has problems in masters?

Why do other all-time greats under-perform vs Connors at winning overall titles?
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Not sure why your reply to me had to be so nasty when all I was doing was stating facts.:confused: 21 Masters+6 WTFs is more impressive than 26 Masters and 17 is obviously better than 13 so actually, boy, my mathematics is pretty good.

And I was talking solely about Federer and Nadal so your bringing up Djokovic's stats is mystifying to me.

Yeah. By this logic Connors did even better than Fedal, since he has tons of 250 and 500 equivalents.

Why did those under-perform so much against Connors?
 

coloskier

Legend
But doesn't the 5 set format favor Murray and Djokovic?

No, because if the MS titles were all 5 set finals Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal would be out half the year with injuries and would have half the MS titles that they have now because they would have to skip events to stay healthy.
 
People who think Federer puts more effort into slams than masters tournaments are wrong. If Federer plays a masters, he plays all out. He hates to lose.

Now, he does prioritize slams over masters, in that he'll pull out of a masters tournament if he's hurt to make sure he's healthy for the next slam/in the long run. But he isn't "underachieving" in masters because of effort.

It's because:

1. He's missed several that he would have stood excellent chances of winning
2. 3 of the 9 are on clay, where Nadal dominates.

He's won Cincinnati 5 times and Indian Wells 4, so he hasn't come up short there. You could compare Cincinnati to the US Open and Indian Wells to the Australian Open. He's won Miami and Canada (Toronto in this case) twice - he's skipped Canada 3 times since 2004, and he struggles some with the Miami surface. Djokovic and Murray blocked him from 2 more Canada titles, and that may have been partly due to them having only been best of 3.

That leaves Madrid/Shanghai and Paris. Federer skipped Paris 3 years in a row when he was dominating tennis (04-06), and skipped Madrid indoors in 04 and 05. He has since skipped both of them additional times.

I think Federer stands an excellent chance of winning Cincinnati this year again, provided he stays healthy. He may bag Paris as well, I think.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Don't forget masters til 2007 were often best of 5 sets in the final and maybe because of this Federer would often skip one or 2 each year where as now players often play them all. On the other hand he probably would have had the advantage playing best of 5 sets (matches like the Canadian finali 2007 I think he'd have won) but he did skip quite a few masters and he just generally, in best of 5 he was less likely to get beaten by a Canas, or Volandri or Gasquet etc.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I think Federer stands an excellent chance of winning Cincinnati this year again, provided he stays healthy. He may bag Paris as well, I think.

IMO Federer could and should have won Indian Wells this year. Unfortunately, he allowed his serve and game to drop significantly after winning the first set. This makes me doubtful about how clutch he is in big finals at the moment.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Not sure how you come to that conclusion Mainad. Djokovic was a break up in that final set and was serving for the match at 5-4 so it really shouldn't have even gone to a tiebreak. He was the better player from the middle of the second set to the end of the match and was constantly putting more pressure on Fed's serve than the other way round so I don't see how Federer should have won it.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
So, why do you think Fed can win slams and WTFs, but has problems in masters?
Simple: because in his prime Federer was the master at peaking for the tournaments that matter most: the majors.

Comparing players second tier achievements (the masters) when their top tier achievements are far, fare more important in pretty much every way (historically etc) is seeking out minor metrics by which to criticise someone who for the most part has achieved so much they set a new bar for the most important metrics - at least relative to anyone else in the past 40 or so years.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Not sure how you come to that conclusion Mainad. Djokovic was a break up in that final set and was serving for the match at 5-4 so it really shouldn't have even gone to a tiebreak. He was the better player from the middle of the second set to the end of the match and was constantly putting more pressure on Fed's serve than the other way round so I don't see how Federer should have won it.

IMO Fed's service levels declined sharply in the 2nd set and he started making many more UEs with his groundstokes. It was as if Federr0r took him over after he played great tennis in the first set. He even looked visibly more nervous and out of sorts and it really puzzled me as he had been playing so well at the start of the match. Of course Djokovic was constantly putting him under pressure with the quality of his returns and Fed just seemed to crumble. He played well in patches and fought hard to recover the break in that last set but then played an absolutely terrible tie-breaker. He almost gifted it to Novak. I thought it was one of his strangest performances and I continue to think so.

IMO, Novak played much better in Miami. He was really ruling the roost there and sweeping everyone aside. The IW win obviously boosted his confidence enormously. But Federer's oddly erratic performance in the IW final has now left me a bit suspicious as to his ability to close out finals.
 

NEW_BORN

Hall of Fame
IMO, Novak played much better in Miami. He was really ruling the roost there and sweeping everyone aside. The IW win obviously boosted his confidence enormously. But Federer's oddly erratic performance in the IW final has now left me a bit suspicious as to his ability to close out finals.

You'd be right to think that given that Fed's only won 2 of his last 8 finals appearances, and having to come from a set down in each, so effectively he could easily have lost his last 8.

For someone who once won 24 consecutive finals, his record in recent times is truly atrocious.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
I just played chess and checkers with my kids last night.
They are learning that sometimes you can lose a few small battles in order to win larger conflicts.

grand slam specialists like roger and sampras have this concept down.

Now Roger just has to do the second part of the concept. :)
 
Top