Why is Federer's Masters 1000 record 'mediocre'?

[NBP]

I couldn't think of another word instead of mediocre. It isn't really, considering he is the third most successful player at this level, but...

+ His finals conversion rate is a joke. 24-18 is quite bad (all of this is by his standards).
+ A 77% win rate - which has actually risen as he has gotten older.
+ From 2007-2010 (still in his prime), he only won 5 - 3 in Cincinnati, 1 in Hamburg and 1 in Madrid - out of 34. That's pretty shambolic all things considered.
+ He has a losing finals record in Monaco, Rome, Canada and a 2/4 in Shanghai.
+ 7 in Cincinnat and 6 in Madrid/Hamburg mean that 13/24 come in two events. Compare that with Djokovic who has the most even record across the board (4,5,2,1,4,3,0,3,4)

Why is this the case? Maybe he just prioritised the slams? But still, why has he been poor (again, by his very own high standards) in Masters 1000 since 2007? Even in 2007, when he won 3 slams and the WTF, he only won 2 and lost three finals.

Why?

 

[NatF]

1) He used to skip a lot during his peak in 04-06 especially
2) He became heavily focused on slams and the record in 07+
3) He lost a lot of finals to Nadal on clay, back when Nadal on clay meant he showed up in the masters not just the FO
4) He's lost a lot of recent finals in Masters to Djokovic which doesn't help either

 

[Bukmeikara]

It's not mediocre, it like saying that Djokovic 10-8 is mediocre. From 18 losses Federer has 7 vs Nadal(on clay) and 4 vs Djokovic. At 21 he lost Agassi, at 33 to Tsonga and Wawrinka. He is not a machine.

 

[NBP]

It's not mediocre, it like saying that Djokovic 10-8 is mediocre. From 18 losses Federer has 7 vs Nadal(on clay) and 4 vs Djokovic. At 21 he lost Agassi, at 33 to Tsonga and Wawrinka. He is not machine.

I couldn't think of another word instead of mediocre. It isn't really, considering he is the third most successful player at this level, but...

Loses like the Wawrinka one is the reason for this thread. He has no right losing that match...

 

[Bukmeikara]

Loses like the Wawrinka one is the reason for this thread. He has no right losing that match...

Wawrinka has reached every single big clay final there is out there

 

[NatF]

Loses like the Wawrinka one is the reason for this thread. He has no right losing that match...

Wawrinka was playing really well. Stan won it rather than Roger losing it.

 

[ollinger]

"He has no right losing that match," the OP informs us. Yawn.

 

[NBP]

"He has no right losing that match," the OP informs us. Yawn.

Your point?

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Loses like the Wawrinka one is the reason for this thread. He has no right losing that match...

Did Novak have the right to lose last June?
As for the OP, he started to prioritize Masters more at the time he was already past his peak. Then again, a lot of those losses were to Nadal on clay, and 41 finals is damn impressive anyway.

 

[Steve0904]

Your point?

The point is that you're crapping on Stan's victory probably because he's "just" Stan and not Nadal or Djokovic. If Djokovic wins a match like that we're praising his "fighting" spirit to the heavens, but because it's just Stan that means Federer choked. It's today's mindset because the top players have spoiled us into believing that they should never lose to anyone outside the big 4 bubble. He didn't choke He lost a close TB in which he was never really in a winning position IIRC (and don't tell me something like an early minibreak is a winning position because it's not), and then Stan started blasting away and Federer never had a chance. It's classic TTW to try and blame a loss on someone rather than just admitting the other guy was better. It's old and tired now. And it's most prevalent with Federer fans because most of them think he's perfect or something because of the way he plays or how many ways he can win a match, which is utterly ridiculous.

 

[NBP]

The point is that you're crapping on Stan's victory. It's not like Federer choked. He lost a close TB in which he was never really in a winning position IIRC (and don't tell me something like an early minibreak is a "winning position" because it's not), and then Stan started blasting away and Federer never had a chance. It's classic TTW to try and blame a loss on someone rather than just admitting the other guy was better. It's old and tired now. And it's most prevalent with Federer fans because most of them think he's "perfect" or something because of the way he plays or how many ways he can win a match, which is utterly ridiculous.

Oh wow I say one match in which I think Fed shouldn't have lost and now its like I say it all the time. And the part I bolded is just lol. No one thinks he's perfect, what kind of nonsense is that? And no, I'm not 'crapping' Wawrinka's win, don't twist my words.

 

[Steve0904]

Oh wow I say one match in which I think Fed shouldn't have lost and now its like I say it all the time. And the part I bolded is just lol. No one thinks he's perfect, what kind of nonsense is that? And no, I'm not 'crapping' Wawrinka's win, don't twist my words.

So then tell me why he shouldn't have lost? Surely not because he won the first set?

 

[tennisaddict]

Oh wow I say one match in which I think Fed shouldn't have lost and now its like I say it all the time. And the part I bolded is just lol. No one thinks he's perfect, what kind of nonsense is that? And no, I'm not 'crapping' Wawrinka's win, don't twist my words.

I suggest you watch the match from the second set tie breaker. Federer did not have a chance.

It was a precursor to RG2015 final.

Anyway , no one really cares about masters. Why bother ? To me it is just another title with more number of points.

 

[NBP]

So then tell me why he shouldn't have lost? Surely not because he won the first set?

No maybe he should have been more clutch in the tie-break, so maybe he did he a right losing the match. It was just frustrating seeing him lose another 1000 final after being in a commanding position like against Djokovic the month before. Or are you going to tell me he was always going to lose both matches, even if he was a set up and deep into sets two and three in both matches? But again, what do I know...

 

[Steve0904]

I suggest you watch the match from the second set tie breaker. Federer did not have a chance.

It was a precursor to RG2015 final.

Anyway , no one really cares about masters. Why bother ? To me it is just another title with more number of points.

This is correct. Federer did not have a chance. Wawrinka even broke to start the second set. Then I think it went on serve after Federer got the break back with no late BP chances for Federer. Then come the TB Wawrinka was up 4-2 and 6-3. Then the 3rd was a 6-2 beatdown. You cannot honestly say or insinuate that Federer blew that match. It just boggles the mind.

 

[Steve0904]

No maybe he should have been more clutch in the tie-break, so maybe he did he a right losing the match. It was just frustrating seeing him lose another 1000 final after being in a commanding position like against Djokovic the month before. Or are you going to tell me he was always going to lose both matches, even if he was a set up and deep into sets two and three in both matches? But again, what do I know...

So you're admitting now that you're saying this out of frustration (as you have been known to do before) which is clearly clouding your objectiveness. I don't think I need to argue the point any further.

 

[tennisaddict]

No maybe he should have been more clutch in the tie-break, so maybe he did he a right losing the match. It was just frustrating seeing him lose another 1000 final after being in a commanding position like against Djokovic the month before. Or are you going to tell me he was always going to lose both matches, even if he was a set up and deep into sets two and three in both matches? But again, what do I know...

With players who attack like Stan, it is not dependent on Fed alone to win a match. He cannot decide that 'I am going to be clutch and I will win no matter what'.

When the other player is as offensive and has a great day, you can only do so much.

 

[NBP]

This is correct. Federer did not have a chance. Wawrinka even broke to start the second set. Then I think it went on serve after Federer got the break back with no late BP chances for Federer. Then come the TB Wawrinka was up 4-2 and 6-3. Then the 3rd was a 6-2 beatdown. You cannot honestly say or insinuate that Federer blew that match. It just boggles the mind.

Well whether it boggles your mind or not, don't group me with a bunch of others claiming that I think ''Federer is perfect''. Now that might be the most nonsensical cr*p I've seen around here since I joined. So relax, stop taking things ultra personal and just agree to disagree...

 

[NBP]

With players who attack like Stan, it is not dependent on Fed alone to win a match. He cannot decide that 'I am going to be clutch and I will win no matter what'.

When the other player is as offensive and has a great day, you can only do so much.

Fair enough. After the second set Wawrinka was always going to win. That I know.

 

[tennisaddict]

You can grudge losses like Delpo USO, Safin AO but Fed has had some lucky escapes as well. Over his career, it appears he has had more close losses than let us say , Rafa or Novak, in majors. I think it is because of Fed's offensive game .

 

[Steve0904]

Well whether it boggles your mind or not, don't group me with a bunch of others claiming that I think ''Federer is perfect''. Now that might be the most nonsensical cr*p I've seen around here since I joined. So relax, stop taking things ultra personal and just agree to disagree...

I think you'd be surprised how many Federer fans think he's "perfect" or close to it, but maybe that's just me. I'm sorry if I offended you, but I hate when people say stuff like that without at least trying to remember how the match went even if they have to look it up. There are a few matches I believe Federer "never should've lost" though. The USO 2009 Final for instance because I think if he goes up 2 sets he wins and he was serving at 6-3 5-4 30-0 before Del Potro broke. Another one is the USO 2011 SF. Novak came up with the goods, but when Federer has 2 MP's on his serve I expect it to be over.

The MC 2014 final however, is not one of those matches.

 

[NBP]

You can grudge losses like Delpo USO, Safin AO but Fed has had some lucky escapes as well. Over his career, it appears he has had more close losses than let us say , Rafa or Novak, in majors. I think it is because of Fed's offensive game .

He's definitely lost more close ones than won. Maybe it is his offensive game. I think it's his mental as well. Djokovic has gotten away with murder far too many times in his career - and that's because of his mental strength, something Federer doesn't have as much.

 

[NBP]

I think you'd be surprised how many Federer fans think he's "perfect" or close to it, but maybe that's just me. I'm sorry if I offended you, but I hate when people say stuff like that without at least trying to remember how the match went even if they have to look it up. There are a few matches I believe Federer "never should've lost" though. The USO 2009 Final for instance because I think if he goes up 2 sets he wins and he was serving at 6-3 5-4 30-0 before Del Potro broke. Another one is the USO 2011 SF. Novak came up with the goods, but when Federer has 2 MP's on his serve I expect it to be over.

The MC 2014 final however, is not one of those matches.

No I fully remember the MC final. First set won. Down 0-2 in the second. Breaks back. Dominated from 6-6. I guess my reasoning was vague. Even though Wawrinka was on a very high wave of confidence, Fed really should have put him away, considering the H2H, and winning the first set. Wawrinka played really well, I know that. I just feel Federer should have taken advantage of the superiority he held over Wawrinka. Maybe my reasoning isn't good or viable, but that's the way I see it. I take nothing away from Stan, that's for certain though.

 

[Steve0904]

You can grudge losses like Delpo USO, Safin AO but Fed has had some lucky escapes as well. Over his career, it appears he has had more close losses than let us say , Rafa or Novak, in majors. I think it is because of Fed's offensive game .

It's mostly because I think Fed can play crappy and still push a match to 5, whereas Novak and especially Rafa have had more 3 and 4 set losses when they don't play well. Also, as you say he's had his fair share of great escapes too. It always baffles me a bit when people talk about his close losses and don't stop to consider how many close wins he's had in his career. Some of which have led to a GS at the end. RG 2009 being the most obvious example.

 

[tennisaddict]

He's definitely lost more close ones than won. Maybe it is his offensive game. I think it's his mental as well. Djokovic has gotten away with murder far too many times in his career - and that's because of his mental strength, something Federer doesn't have as much.

During Fed's prime , he had 4 close losses (Safin , Delpo, AO/Wimb Rafa) and 3 after (USO 10 , USO 11, Wimb 14)

Novak also lost the plot in RG2013 , USO 2012 and USO 2013. We have to see how Novak performs from now till 34 in close matches.

 

[falstaff78]

I couldn't think of another word instead of mediocre. It isn't really, considering he is the third most successful player at this level, but...

+ His finals conversion rate is a joke. 24-18 is quite bad (all of this is by his standards).
+ A 77% win rate - which has actually risen as he has gotten older.
+ From 2007-2010 (still in his prime), he only won 5 - 3 in Cincinnati, 1 in Hamburg and 1 in Madrid - out of 34. That's pretty shambolic all things considered.
+ He has a losing finals record in Monaco, Rome, Canada and a 2/4 in Shanghai.
+ 7 in Cincinnat and 6 in Madrid/Hamburg mean that 13/24 come in two events. Compare that with Djokovic who has the most even record across the board (4,5,2,1,4,3,0,3,4)

Why is this the case? Maybe he just prioritised the slams? But still, why has he been poor (again, by his very own high standards) in Masters 1000 since 2007? Even in 2007, when he won 3 slams and the WTF, he only won 2 and lost three finals.

Why?

How's his record at avoiding injuries during majors?

Can't win a major if you're injured or not at your best.

Prioritisation is the name of the game, and historically Federer has played that game better than anyone in post-Lendl era of professionalism.

 

[TheFifthSet]

For me it's two things mainly. One, he was very Sampras-like at his absolute peak in that he skipped a lot of non-slam tournaments that he probably would have won (but unlike Sampras, always went balls-to-the-wall when he did play in them). His generation was sandwiched between the Sampras and Djokodal one, the former placing little emphasis on Masters events and the latter still viewing them as tune-ups but also having an impact on your legacy. So the school of thought was a little different. From 04-06 he played in the two yearly indoor Masters only one time, '06 Madrid. Those fields were unusually depleted due to pesky end-of-the-year-burnout withdrawals so it's likely Federer would have won at least 3 of the 5 tournaments he missed. Overall he played 20 out of 27 Masters tournaments during those three years.

Secondly, going 0-8 in Rome/MC finals really skews things lol. He was unlucky to have not prevailed in at least one of the two finals where he was favoured, and the other six were mismatches. Going into his age 32 year, he was 22-12 in Masters finals and 22-7 outside of the first two clay Masters. Not too shabby. I do agree he underachieved, but not as much as some may think.

 

[Mainad]

Seems a bit funny to call 24 Masters titles 'mediocre'. It's in line with what the 2 other contemporary ATG's have achieved (27 for Nadal, 26 for Djokovic) and more than any previous ATG has ever achieved!

 

[smoledman]

Even those he was shambolic in MS-1000 from 2007-2010, remember he also won 7 slams and 2 YEC. he really was all about peaking for the biggest events during that time.

 

[metsman]

Even those he was shambolic in MS-1000 from 2007-2010, remember he also won 7 slams and 2 YEC. he really was all about peaking for the biggest events during that time.

but I thought Murray's wins over him during that time were supposed to prove something!

 

[nolefam_2024]

Even those he was shambolic in MS-1000 from 2007-2010, remember he also won 7 slams and 2 YEC. he really was all about peaking for the biggest events during that time.

So did him not winning masters make the era look stronger than a greedy guy grabbing 6 titles?

 

[TheFifthSet]

@Steve0904

Off topic but I gotta agree with the 09 final as an example of a blown match, I dunno if I've ever been more annoyed over a Fed loss than the 09 Open lol....more upset yes, annoyed no.

I was at work about to end my shift and I checked the score on my phone; it was 6-3 5-3. I'm thinking "OMG YES HE GAAAT DISSS" . . . then my phone dies so I go home expecting to see Fed w 2 sets in the bag and possibly up a break in the third. I come home, turn on the tube and the score is "6-3 6-7 3-3" or something like that. I had to read it multiple times before it fully registered.

Everything about that match annoyed me, even though I rate 09 as my favourite Fed year. Won the first set comfortably, was up a break in the second then had BPs to go up a double break. Finally he's up 5-4 30-0 and he nets a bh after being in control of the rally and having a good look at an I/O fh early on. Then instead of pounding a short ball at 30-15 he hits a crappy drop shot like a goddamn fool, gets lobbed and pushes the reply long. Now it's 30-all and he again is fed a short return with which he can go I/O as Delpo is heavily shading towards the deuce court. Instead he hits a weak fh right into Delpos forehand and gets passed with the ball originally being called out. Alas it was in by mere millimetres. Finally on BP he hits a decent approach shot and has open court to work with but doesn't stick the bh volley and gets broken.

The fun doesn't stop here, however, as he loses the set, loses a very winnable 4th set and utterly implodes in the 5th. In the match he barely served over 50%, didnt attack Delpo's second serve nearly enough and DF'd about 10 times. And still should have won.

In retrospect, the randomness of the loss is also annoying. Fed played so well in his semi and you'd think if anyone were to snap his win streak at the Open it would have been a member of the big 4. It would have been easier to swallow if Delpo became a force in the men's game, but of course injuries really prevented that. Only consolation is that Classpotro has a slam to his name; otherwise yeughh..

 

[timnz]

I couldn't think of another word instead of mediocre. It isn't really, considering he is the third most successful player at this level, but...

+ His finals conversion rate is a joke. 24-18 is quite bad (all of this is by his standards).
+ A 77% win rate - which has actually risen as he has gotten older.
+ From 2007-2010 (still in his prime), he only won 5 - 3 in Cincinnati, 1 in Hamburg and 1 in Madrid - out of 34. That's pretty shambolic all things considered.
+ He has a losing finals record in Monaco, Rome, Canada and a 2/4 in Shanghai.
+ 7 in Cincinnat and 6 in Madrid/Hamburg mean that 13/24 come in two events. Compare that with Djokovic who has the most even record across the board (4,5,2,1,4,3,0,3,4)

Why is this the case? Maybe he just prioritised the slams? But still, why has he been poor (again, by his very own high standards) in Masters 1000 since 2007? Even in 2007, when he won 3 slams and the WTF, he only won 2 and lost three finals.

Why?

Finals records are deceiving. If a player loses in the semi's rather than loses in the finals - then they have a better finals record. Hence, losing in the semi's is better than losing in the finals. Well that is what the implications of that logic are. Why couldn't someone lose the final simply because they were the second best in the tournament ie there was another guy playing better.

Also how is Federer comparing in Masters 1000 record to Sampras at the moment? Before Nadal, Federer and Djokovic came along Sampas was number 2 on Masters 1000's won.

Also how is being the third best of all time at something mediocre, in any book?

 

[Steve0904]

@Steve0904

Off topic but I gotta agree with the 09 final as an example of a blown match, I dunno if I've ever been more annoyed over a Fed loss than the 09 Open lol....more upset yes, annoyed no.

I was at work about to end my shift and I checked the score on my phone; it was 6-3 5-3. I'm thinking "OMG YES HE GAAAT DISSS" . . . then my phone dies so I drive home expecting to see Fed w 2 sets in the bag and possibly up a break in the third. I come home, turn on the tube and the score is "6-3 6-7 3-3" or something like that. I had to read it multiple times before it fully registered.

Everything about that match annoyed me, even though I rate 09 as my favourite Fed year. Won the first set comfortably, was up a break in the second then had BPs to go up a double break. Finally he's up 5-4 30-0 and he nets a bh after being in control of the rally and having a good look at an I/O fh early on. Then instead of pounding a short ball at 30-15 he hits a crappy drop shot like a goddamn fool, gets lobbed and pushes the reply long. Now it's 30-all and he again is fed a short return with which he can go I/O as Delpo is heavily shading towards the deuce court. Instead he hits a weak fh right into Delpos forehand and gets passed with the ball originally being called out. Alas it was in by mere millimetres. Finally on BP he hits a decent approach shot and has open court to work with but doesn't stick the bh volley and gets broken.

The fun doesn't stop here, however, as he loses the set, loses a very winnable 4th set and utterly implodes in the 5th. In the match he barely served over 50%, didnt attack Delpo's second serve nearly enough and DF'd about 10 times. And still should have won.

In retrospect, the randomness of the loss is also annoying. Fed played so well in his semi and you'd think if anyone were to snap his win streak at the Open it would have been a member of the big 4. It would have been easier to swallow if Delpo became a force in the men's game, but of course injuries really prevented that. Only consolation is that Classpotro has a slam to his name; otherwise yeughh..

Yeah, it wasn't a fun time . To add to the randomness, he won AO 2010 in blistering form. However, I'd take what actually happened (if we're assuming Federer doesn't win both slams) over what could've happened. That being that he won at RG and lost at the USO. The reverse leaves him with no RG and likely no career slam. I agree he still should've won the USO though.

 

[nowhereman]

So 24 titles, which is third most of all time, is considered mediocre now?

 

[metsman]

@Steve0904

Off topic but I gotta agree with the 09 final as an example of a blown match, I dunno if I've ever been more annoyed over a Fed loss than the 09 Open lol....more upset yes, annoyed no.

I was at work about to end my shift and I checked the score on my phone; it was 6-3 5-3. I'm thinking "OMG YES HE GAAAT DISSS" . . . then my phone dies so I drive home expecting to see Fed w 2 sets in the bag and possibly up a break in the third. I come home, turn on the tube and the score is "6-3 6-7 3-3" or something like that. I had to read it multiple times before it fully registered.

Everything about that match annoyed me, even though I rate 09 as my favourite Fed year. Won the first set comfortably, was up a break in the second then had BPs to go up a double break. Finally he's up 5-4 30-0 and he nets a bh after being in control of the rally and having a good look at an I/O fh early on. Then instead of pounding a short ball at 30-15 he hits a crappy drop shot like a goddamn fool, gets lobbed and pushes the reply long. Now it's 30-all and he again is fed a short return with which he can go I/O as Delpo is heavily shading towards the deuce court. Instead he hits a weak fh right into Delpos forehand and gets passed with the ball originally being called out. Alas it was in by mere millimetres. Finally on BP he hits a decent approach shot and has open court to work with but doesn't stick the bh volley and gets broken.

The fun doesn't stop here, however, as he loses the set, loses a very winnable 4th set and utterly implodes in the 5th. In the match he barely served over 50%, didnt attack Delpo's second serve nearly enough and DF'd about 10 times. And still should have won.

In retrospect, the randomness of the loss is also annoying. Fed played so well in his semi and you'd think if anyone were to snap his win streak at the Open it would have been a member of the big 4. It would have been easier to swallow if Delpo became a force in the men's game, but of course injuries really prevented that. Only consolation is that Classpotro has a slam to his name; otherwise yeughh..

that 5-4 30-15 dropshot in the second set annoys the crap out of me to this day.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Yeah, it wasn't a fun time . To add to the randomness, he won AO 2010 in blistering form. However, I'd take what actually happened (if we're assuming Federer doesn't win both slams) over what could've happened. That being that he won at RG and lost at the USO. The reverse leaves him with no RG and likely no career slam. I agree he still should've won the USO though.

Oh for sure, wouldn't trade RG for a thing. It's just the match on its own is what's so irksome, especially now given that Fed hasn't won a USO in going on 8 years. Fed pulled a Houdini at RG that year but I don't know if those were matches that he was lucky to win like Delpo was lucky to win their final. Versus Haas he didn't lose a point on serve going into the first set tiebreak, and won sets 3-5 by upping his level. In the semifinal both guys played equally well and there was very little choking or squandered opportunities.

 

[tennisaddict]

Oh for sure, wouldn't trade RG for a thing. It's just the match on its own is what's so irksome, especially now given that Fed hasn't won a USO in going on 8 years. Fed pulled a Houdini at RG that year but I don't know if those were matches that he was lucky to win like Delpo was lucky to win their final. Versus Haas he didn't lose a point on serve going into the first set tiebreak, and won sets 3-5 by upping his level. In the semifinal both guys played equally well and there was very little choking or squandered opportunities.

The only way i console myself was Soderling did a good deed taking out Rafa at RG.

USO 10, USO 11, Wimb 14 are all adding fuel to the fire that was lit by Delpo and Safin.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Actually that MC match got closer than I had hoped for. I really thought Stan was going to obliterate Fed as the former was in amazing form throughout that tournament. You must have missed how he crushed Ferrer (still called the 'greatest player to never win a slam' and all that) earlier on. Exactly right that this was simply a precursor to RG 2015. Fed has been getting weaker on clay while Stan had found his range on the surface that suits his style the most.

 

[Steve0904]

Oh for sure, wouldn't trade RG for a thing. It's just the match on its own is what's so irksome, especially now given that Fed hasn't won a USO in going on 8 years. Fed pulled a Houdini at RG that year but I don't know if those were matches that he was lucky to win like Delpo was lucky to win their final. Versus Haas he didn't lose a point on serve going into the first set tiebreak, and won sets 3-5 by upping his level. In the semifinal both guys played equally well and there was very little choking or squandered opportunities.

I know exactly what you mean. At the time I never looked at it as a sort of one for one trade either. I just wanted him to win the USO because he had plenty of chances. It's a match I'll always feel he "should've" won. Alas, it was not to be, but there's more than Federer that's had those types of matches slip away as well.

 

[NBP]

So 24 titles, which is third most of all time, is considered mediocre now?

I literally say in the first line ''it really isn't, but I couldn't find another word''. The emphasis is on his finals record and poor form from 2007-2010, for his own very high standards.

 

[veroniquem]

It's not mediocre! 3rd best. Try Sampras for mediocre record in masters...