Would Fed's Legacy Be Better if He had Retired after Wimbledon 2012?

[Gary Duane]

I actually came out the day he won Wimbledon 2012 and said that Fed should retire on a high. I sensed then, perhaps like many of you, that he had captured lightning in a bottle that tournament and should quit while he was ahead.

Now I am a huge fan of Fed (my nickname has nothing to do with my allegiances, despite the accusations that I am some Machiavellian troll), and I would have missed out on some exciting victories post 2012, most notably a couple of beatdowns of Djokovic in Cincy and exciting GS runs in 2014-15.

BUT, if Fed had retired, many on here would believe, erroneously as history has proven, that Fed would have won more GS titles in the years to follow. He hasn't really stopped his main rivals from building their resumes. What is his record post Wimbledon 2012 in GS matches against Nadal and Djokovic? In GS matches, he has lost 5 straight to the two of them. He only managed to win more than a set in one of those encounters. He has gone 7-11 since Djokovic in all matches and is 1-5 against Nadal (that's a combined 8-16 against his two greatest rivals).

He has not won any major events, only a few Masters 1000 tourtnaments that do nothing for his resume. His continued pursuit of matches will only result in more beatdowns by Djokovic and maybe even Nadal as we move forward.

In a nutshell, Fed would have the benefit of the doubt argument had he retired in 2012. Now he won't ever be able to rely on that, and may suffer a painful decline in the years that follow. 2013 appeared to be that year but at least he has surprised us with some occasional brilliance in 2014-2015.

I always figured that Nadalgaenger is just word play on Doppelgaenger.

WIthout doubt his reputation is being hurt right now. People are going to see that he is getting consistently beaten by Novak, and that's going to make him look weaker.

But the same thing is happening to Nadal right now. His hair is falling out. He was out in the 1st round. Everyone is going to thump on him. That's just the way it goes.

But if Nadal wins another FO, or if he makes enough of a comeback to win more tournaments, even if they are not majors, ultimately it will add to his legacy.

In the end we remember champions partially for their longevity, and aging players in their 30s who are still winning matches, even in smaller tournaments in Bo3, make some kind of huge impression. Rosewall got clobbered by Connors twice in slams. That hardly seemed like a good thing for Rosewall. But it was in 74, when Rosewall was 39, and Connors was very young and already dominant. To me that tells me that Rosewall at his peak was probably a better player than Connors.

In 1977, Sydney Indoor, Connors needed three sets to beat Rosewall. Rosewall was 42.

So I think Fed is ADDING to his legacy right now. But that will not sink in until the other again players either fade the same way at his age, or retire earlier because they can't play nearly as well at nearly 35 years old.

 

[HewittAlwaysDisappoints]

No, he should have been rewarded the title for winning seven best-of-five matches, as these tournaments require. There is nothing shocking about it in aggregate when one of the best players on a surface for several years wins a slam on that surface.



Soderling *did* beat Nadal. You act as though Nadal is entitled to every slam final, and that if he fails, it counts against somebody else. These scenarios are irrelevant to whether a player wins a title, and in fact could be constructed in such a way to make every champion seem lucky if naysayers desire.

That's a very simplistic and incorrect way of thinking. You are treating all wins just the same just because they are wins. Context is important, and who you beat to get the title matters. Federer could never beat peak Nadal at RG so needed someone to do the dirty work for him. If he did, it would have highlighted his grit and determination and been one of the best, if not the best, wins in his career.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

That's a very simplistic and incorrect way of thinking. You are treating all wins just the same just because they are wins. Context is important, and who you beat to get the title matters. Federer could never beat peak Nadal at RG so needed someone to do the dirty work for him. If he did, it would have highlighted his grit and determination and been one of the best, if not the best, wins in his career.

I could equally argue that Nadal got lucky in 2010 that Nole took care of Fed at the USO. I am not going to. I know better. But the point is this can be argued both ways and it's Nadal who has missed far more such matches lined up in the draw on grass and hard. Fed faithfully turned up year after year for the annual slaughter at RG and that is being held against him. Nobody would actually venture to call Nadal opportunistic for his problems with injury if Nadal fans weren't so pathetic in constantly denying Fed credit for RG 2009. At the end of the day, he came through tough matches himself to beat the guy who beat Nadal. Period.

 

[ledwix]

That's a very simplistic and incorrect way of thinking. You are treating all wins just the same just because they are wins. Context is important, and who you beat to get the title matters. Federer could never beat peak Nadal at RG so needed someone to do the dirty work for him. If he did, it would have highlighted his grit and determination and been one of the best, if not the best, wins in his career.

It's actually a very probabilistic and logical approach. For a period, Nadal got to the RG final 83% of the time, and so did Fed. Over the course of six years, they overlapped in finals four times. The other two times, one guy lost early and the other faced Soderling in the final. That's exactly what you would expect from guys that consistently good on clay: to overlap usually, but not always.

The simplistic way of thinking is to assume that tennis is some kind of video game with bosses at the end, and that dirty work is actually a thing that needs to be done. Did Nadal ever beat peak Fed at USO or peak Djokovic at AO? Soderling was working exclusively for Soderling, not for Federer, which was proven in 2010.

 

[HewittAlwaysDisappoints]

I could equally argue that Nadal got lucky in 2010 that Nole took care of Fed at the USO. I am not going to. I know better. But the point is this can be argued both ways and it's Nadal who has missed far more such matches lined up in the draw on grass and hard. Fed faithfully turned up year after year for the annual slaughter at RG and that is being held against him. Nobody would actually venture to call Nadal opportunistic for his problems with injury if Nadal fans weren't so pathetic in constantly denying Fed credit for RG 2009. At the end of the day, he came through tough matches himself to beat the guy who beat Nadal. Period.

That is preposterous to say that, Nadal loves playing Federer in Grand Slams. What makes you think Federer would have won that match? If you are going to call Nadal lucky in US Open 2010, say it for his lucky weak as **** draw, but that's another matter altogether.

It's actually a very probabilistic and logical approach. For a period, Nadal got to the RG final 83% of the time, and so did Fed. Over the course of six years, they overlapped in finals four times. The other two times, one guy lost early and the other faced Soderling in the final. That's exactly what you would expect from guys that consistently good on clay: to overlap usually, but not always.

The simplistic way of thinking is to assume that tennis is some kind of video game with bosses at the end, and that dirty work is actually a thing that needs to be done. Did Nadal ever beat peak Fed at USO or peak Djokovic at AO? Soderling was working exclusively for Soderling, not for Federer, which was proven in 2010.

No it'a not. For the umpteenth time, if you cannot defeat someone and need that person to lose in order for you to win the title, that is very lucky when it turns out you have an easier path to the final.

Nadal never met Federer at US Open, but there is nothing to suggest Nadal would not beat him, esp considering their H2H in slams. Nadal only played Djokovic once at AO, and out up a much bigger hell of a fight than Federer has ever done at RG against Nadal. Don't think Nadal's sole AO title can be deemed lucky when you take into consideration his time spent, quality of play and opponent.

 

[SublimeTennis]

I actually came out the day he won Wimbledon 2012 and said that Fed should retire on a high. I sensed then, perhaps like many of you, that he had captured lightning in a bottle that tournament and should quit while he was ahead.

Now I am a huge fan of Fed (my nickname has nothing to do with my allegiances, despite the accusations that I am some Machiavellian troll), and I would have missed out on some exciting victories post 2012, most notably a couple of beatdowns of Djokovic in Cincy and exciting GS runs in 2014-15.

BUT, if Fed had retired, many on here would believe, erroneously as history has proven, that Fed would have won more GS titles in the years to follow. He hasn't really stopped his main rivals from building their resumes. What is his record post Wimbledon 2012 in GS matches against Nadal and Djokovic? In GS matches, he has lost 5 straight to the two of them. He only managed to win more than a set in one of those encounters. He has gone 7-11 since Djokovic in all matches and is 1-5 against Nadal (that's a combined 8-16 against his two greatest rivals).

He has not won any major events, only a few Masters 1000 tourtnaments that do nothing for his resume. His continued pursuit of matches will only result in more beatdowns by Djokovic and maybe even Nadal as we move forward.

In a nutshell, Fed would have the benefit of the doubt argument had he retired in 2012. Now he won't ever be able to rely on that, and may suffer a painful decline in the years that follow. 2013 appeared to be that year but at least he has surprised us with some occasional brilliance in 2014-2015.

When greats stay on too long, they are not as appreciated while they are faded, but a short time after they are remembered for their prime, this is true for Ali and every great.

 

[PeterHo]

i think most on here miss the point the OP mentioned, that the "perception" of Federer as a great player is less with him having played on since 2012.

had he retired in 2012, on a high, people would think he is capable of winning more slams and even automatically give him "extra" slams in a scenario when he needs to be compared against another ATG who played longer. Eg. Borg, many discussions have people saying Borg would have won a few more slams had he not retire. So Borg is not just 11, but many people believe he's worthy of 12, 13, 14 slams. I personally think Borg is as great as Sampras, he's fully capable of winning 14 slams. if Borg didn't retire and actually didn't win anymore, I wouldn't think that way.

Had Fed retired in 2012, there will be arguments in the future stating he could have won 20 had he played on.

but he didn't retire, so when Federer really retires on a low, there is no possibility of padding him with those extra, hypothetical titles. he just stays on 17

 

[icedevil0289]

If you need to rely on someone to lose to win the title, that is called being lucky. Isn't knowing you beat the best to win the title more meaningful, than an upset of epic proportions so you get an easier path to the title? I'm looking at you RG 2009.

funny enough even though he didn't face rafa at FO 2009, his path to the final was not an easy one whatsoever. He almost got bounced out by haas and had very difficult matches against monfils and del potro, he deserved that slam no matter what people say. At the end of the day, as long as you beat who is in front of you, most people will not care. At this stage of his career, it is unfair to say, oh well he didn't beat djokovic(as if he never has in his life) so his slam win is less worthy or w/e.

 

[mike danny]

If you need to rely on someone to lose to win the title, that is called being lucky. Isn't knowing you beat the best to win the title more meaningful, than an upset of epic proportions so you get an easier path to the title? I'm looking at you RG 2009.

He did beat Djokovic at Wimb in 2012. It's not like he has to prove he can do it since he already has.

Nadal at RG is different since Fed indeed has never beaten him there.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

That is preposterous to say that, Nadal loves playing Federer in Grand Slams. What makes you think Federer would have won that match? If you are going to call Nadal lucky in US Open 2010, say it for his lucky weak as **** draw, but that's another matter altogether.

The point is that a player has to win 7 matches en route to a slam, not just one. It is not Fed or anybody else's fault if Nadal loses to Soderling or Rosol or whomsoever else. That is Nadal's inconsistency, plain and simple. It does not make Fed lucky, it just makes him more consistent. You can't make excuses for Nadal not turning up at slams and, these days, getting beaten by journeymen. No, seriously, there were some Nadal fans who actually thought Fed was lucky that Nadal lost to Rosol. So whose fault is it that he can't beat low ranked players, in fact gets blown off the grass in week 1 nowadays?

 

[HewittAlwaysDisappoints]

funny enough even though he didn't face rafa at FO 2009, his path to the final was not an easy one whatsoever. He almost got bounced out by haas and had very difficult matches against monfils and del potro, he deserved that slam no matter what people say. At the end of the day, as long as you beat who is in front of you, most people will not care. At this stage of his career, it is unfair to say, oh well he didn't beat djokovic(as if he never has in his life) so his slam win is less worthy or w/e.

Federer is 6-1 H2H against Monfils on clay and won in straights and 3-0 and 1-0 against Del Potro and Haas respectively. Players you expect him to beat at RG regardless.

Federer only has himself to blame for putting himself in those awkward positions that nearly saw him exit the tournament. Down 2 sets to 0 against Haas and 2 sets to 1 against 1... if the pressure of finally winning RG was not there, he would have won much easier.

 

[HewittAlwaysDisappoints]

The point is that a player has to win 7 matches en route to a slam, not just one. It is not Fed or anybody else's fault if Nadal loses to Soderling or Rosol or whomsoever else. That is Nadal's inconsistency, plain and simple. It does not make Fed lucky, it just makes him more consistent. You can't make excuses for Nadal not turning up at slams and, these days, getting beaten by journeymen. No, seriously, there were some Nadal fans who actually thought Fed was lucky that Nadal lost to Rosol. So whose fault is it that he can't beat low ranked players, in fact gets blown off the grass in week 1 nowadays?

You clearly went off tangent, I'm talking about RG09. To call Nadal inconsistent at RG is laughable.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

That's not the point and I did not call him inconsistent at RG. No, Fed doesn't have to have beat Nadal at RG for it to be legit. He's lost to others there too, including Kuerten. A slam is a slam is a slam. Fed will never be as great as Nadal on clay anyway.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I could equally argue Nadal would have never won a single Wimbledon had the grass stayed fast. His recent struggles in week 1 seem to suggest as much. Changing conditions just to make the field more competitive never seems to figure as luck?

 

[roysid]

In hindsight it is better..no doubt. But who would have known at end of 2012.
Since 2012 the only big achievement is Davis cup. Then cincy,shanghai,Basel and Dubai. On the other side, all those painful loses.
But who would have really known.

 

[icedevil0289]

Federer is 6-1 H2H against Monfils on clay and won in straights and 3-0 and 1-0 against Del Potro and Haas respectively. Players you expect him to beat at RG regardless.

Federer only has himself to blame for putting himself in those awkward positions that nearly saw him exit the tournament. Down 2 sets to 0 against Haas and 2 sets to 1 against 1... if the pressure of finally winning RG was not there, he would have won much easier.

The point was his path to the final was not easy. Imo it didn't lose any merit. He won 7 matches hence he won the title. And if he wins Wimbledon or uso without playing nole (where he has beat Nole before so rg comparisons are a bit off) it wouldn't lose any merit especially at this stage of his career

 

[icedevil0289]

That's not the point and I did not call him inconsistent at RG. No, Fed doesn't have to have beat Nadal at RG for it to be legit. He's lost to others there too, including Kuerten. A slam is a slam is a slam. Fed will never be as great as Nadal on clay anyway.

Mte at the end of the day the wins will count no matter what some people think

 

[icedevil0289]

I could equally argue Nadal would have never won a single Wimbledon had the grass stayed fast. His recent struggles in week 1 seem to suggest as much. Changing conditions just to make the field more competitive never seems to figure as luck?

TBH I'm sure luck has played a factor for every player at one point in their career. Doesn't take away from their wins

 

[The_18th_Slam]

and he should be reward the title for being second best should he?

If Soderling did not beat Nadal, you think something different would have happened than all the other previous years? Federer would have beat Nadal if both made it to the final? No way in hell.

At the 2009 French Open, Federer was the best. Which is why he won it. Try again.

 

[RunDatGame]

No. His level at 34 yrs is unbelievable and only adds to his legacy imo because he would dominate slams even at 34 if not for Djokovic.

 

[StannisTheMannis]

no...because it wasn't.

i dont know whether its sad or funny you actually took that seriously, and seem to take Cincy as that important that seriously

 

[metsman]

i dont know whether its sad or funny you actually took that seriously, and seem to take Cincy as that important that seriously

Still don't get sarcasm do you chump?

 

[Agassifan]

If Fed retired in 2012, it would have been like Sampras where everyone will think he squeezed the last ounce that he had in him.

LOL. Fed was ranked #1 in the world (and in the top 3 for the next 4 years). Pete was clearly on his last legs.

 

[StannisTheMannis]

Still don't get sarcasm do you chump?

Don't kid yourself. You just got overly defensive of someone knocking Federer

 

[metsman]

That's a very simplistic and incorrect way of thinking. You are treating all wins just the same just because they are wins. Context is important, and who you beat to get the title matters. Federer could never beat peak Nadal at RG so needed someone to do the dirty work for him. If he did, it would have highlighted his grit and determination and been one of the best, if not the best, wins in his career.

You are treating all wins just the same just because they are wins. Context is important, and who you beat to get the title matters. Djokovic could never beat peak or prime Federer or Nadal at RG/Wimby/USO. He had to wait for them to decline and age for him to do the dirty work. If he did, it would have highlighted his grit and determination and been one of the best, if not the best, wins in his career.

 

[metsman]

Don't kid yourself. You just got overly defensive of someone knocking Federer

Cincy as a real slam is one of the best memes on here. You're also something of a meme and an absolute clown so I'm going to block you now.

 

[StannisTheMannis]

Cincy as a real slam is one of the best memes on here. You're also something of a meme and an absolute clown so I'm going to block you now.

I know it's a meme. You don't accept it and take it seriously.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Yeah, nobody asked Nadal to lose to Soderling. Or to Rosol or to Kyrgios. Etc etc.

i did...

 

[Chicharito]

The 2014- period has actually been one of the most interesting periods of Federer's career, finding new ways to win and showing off new skills (SABR). It has been extremely successful too, Year end #2 and 3. 2 YEC Finals, 3 slams finals and 2 more semis, 11 titles, the special performance v Murray in Wimbledon 2015 SFs and a Davis Cup. Unfortunately there has been no crowning glory. If there was one, this period of career would actually be the stuff of legend.


Plus the Federer legend has grown, legacy isn't all about Numbers. The 4th set of Wimbledon 2014, 2nd set breaker Wim 15. The 2nd set US Open 15. Each time thousands and thousands going absolutely wild in the stands (including Oscar winning actresses and future British Kings). These External factors, 'Intangibles' contribute to legacy.


--------------------------------------------------------------
He has bolstered his minor records. SFs, QFs etc and having your name on all the records is pretty sweet.


10 Wimbledon finals* is the big one for me though, that is something that will be talked about a lot over the next 40 years. ''10 Wimbledon finals''. That would not have been possible without playing on.

*Yes Nadal at RG is better, relax. He may get 10 titles there which words are not needed for. But Wimbledon is Wimbledon and therefore I do feel that does bolster his legacy

 

[metsman]

I could equally argue Nadal would have never won a single Wimbledon had the grass stayed fast. His recent struggles in week 1 seem to suggest as much. Changing conditions just to make the field more competitive never seems to figure as luck?

He would have had to battle on the 90's grass but we can't assume that Nadal wouldn't have adjusted his game either. He has the ability to play and serve very aggressively as we saw in Wimby 2006. The reason he went to a more grinding style in 07 and 08 is because Federer matches up far better against agressivedal than grindal.

But his style and level at 06 Wimbledon at just 20 gives me some solid proof that he would have what it takes to be solid on faster grass too. Could he win multiple Wimbledon's? maybe not..but he wouldn't have been a muster or anything.

 

[metsman]

The 2014- period has actually been one of the most interesting periods of Federer's career, finding new ways to win and showing off new skills (SABR). It has been extremely successful too, Year end #2 and 3. 2 YEC Finals, 3 slams finals and 2 more semis, 11 titles, the special performance v Murray in Wimbledon 2015 SFs and a Davis Cup. Unfortunately there has been no crowning glory. If there was one, this period of career would actually be the stuff of legend.


Plus the Federer legend has grown, legacy isn't all about Numbers. The 4th set of Wimbledon 2014, 2nd set breaker Wim 15. The 2nd set US Open 15. Each time thousands and thousands going absolutely wild in the stands (including Oscar winning actresses and future British Kings). These External factors, 'Intangibles' contribute to legacy.


--------------------------------------------------------------
He has bolstered his minor records. SFs, QFs etc and having your name on all the records is pretty sweet.


10 Wimbledon finals* is the big one for me though, that is something that will be talked about a lot over the next 40 years. ''10 Wimbledon finals''

*Yes Nadal at RG is better, relax. He may get 10 titles there which words are not needed for. But Wimbledon is Wimbledon and therefore I do feel that does bolster his legacy

Pete's 7 of 8 is the greatest singular Wimbledon feat imo. But Federer gets the ever so slight edge because while in his prime he was "only" 6 of 7, but he did make 7 straight finals whereas Pete lost in a quarter, won a Wimbledon close to 31 years old and reached two more finals at 33-34.

 

[mistik]

Once your biggest rivals in your peak are Rodmug and Hewitt and 35 years old Agassi you cant have a great legacy.

 

[cknobman]

Once your biggest rivals in your peak are Rodmug and Hewitt and 35 years old Agassi you cant have a great legacy.

lmao this the kind of stupid logic i am talking about.

Djokovic biggest rivals are a 34/35 year old federer, fallen off the radar nadal old and tired beaten up from injury, and punching bag murray.

lmao

 

[mistik]

lmao this the kind of stupid logic i am talking about.

Djokovic biggest rivals are a 34/35 year old federer, fallen off the radar nadal old and tired beaten up from injury, and punching bag murray.

lmao

I also cant decide which one is worse so you have a point.

 

[tennisaddict]

I also cant decide which one is worse so you have a point.

What about winning 9 out of 14 slams on 1 surface ?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Once your biggest rivals in your peak are Rodmug and Hewitt and 35 years old Agassi you cant have a great legacy.

Peak Hewitt and old Agassi would be tougher to beat than current Fed and he's Stretch's only competition.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

i dont know whether its sad or funny you actually took that seriously, and seem to take Cincy as that important that seriously

I don't know whether it's sad or funny you're a fan of both Stan and Stretch.

 

[ibbi]

Probably to stupid people, yes. For me I'd say he's done some of the most impressive stuff of his career since then, so I'd think a lot less of him if he had. In the past couple of years his complete reinvention of how he's playing the game, the tactical approaches that he's taking in order to stay in touch with the guys in the prime of their careers bely a willingness to change, and evolve to his surroundings in order to succeed. It completely puts to bed the idiotic stubbornness that personally kept me from ever quite buying into the hype when he was on top of the world.

 

[Steve0904]

In hindsight it is better..no doubt. But who would have known at end of 2012.
Since 2012 the only big achievement is Davis cup. Then cincy,shanghai,Basel and Dubai. On the other side, all those painful loses.
But who would have really known.

No it's not better. Federer's made back to back Wimbledon finals and a USO final since then. Changing his game to stay relevant while guys like a 29 year old Nadal are struggling mightily. Federer's late career accomplishments have essentially put an end to the "best of this generation" argument until Nadal can bounce back or Djokovic proves he can win enough at an older age to challenge Federer, IF either of those guys do those things. I understand that winning is what really matters to guys like him, but saying it would be better if he retired after 2012 is just flat out wrong. As the years keep going by, objective people will be applauding Federer's longevity saying "Wow, Federer made TEN Wimbledon Finals." Yes, that's a 10. Which btw, is more than Nadal has made at RG, just for perspective.

Saying it would be better if he retired is basically the equivalent of the H2H "logic" that thinks it's better to lose to a "scrub" in the first week than it is to lose to your rivals in SF's and Finals (while beating them at a fair clip over your career as it is).

 

[PrinceMoron]

Well he is going to retire after WO 2012, just not immediately afterwards.

Kinda think he was happy he waited around till Switzerland won the DC. Might well have seen Nadal out.
Total number of slam matches won, hitting 100m, and not to forget playing with Hingis, that is enough to keep anyone's pecker up.

 

[Gary Duane]

i think most on here miss the point the OP mentioned, that the "perception" of Federer as a great player is less with him having played on since 2012.

had he retired in 2012, on a high, people would think he is capable of winning more slams and even automatically give him "extra" slams in a scenario when he needs to be compared against another ATG who played longer. Eg. Borg, many discussions have people saying Borg would have won a few more slams had he not retire. So Borg is not just 11, but many people believe he's worthy of 12, 13, 14 slams. I personally think Borg is as great as Sampras, he's fully capable of winning 14 slams. if Borg didn't retire and actually didn't win anymore, I wouldn't think that way.

Had Fed retired in 2012, there will be arguments in the future stating he could have won 20 had he played on.

but he didn't retire, so when Federer really retires on a low, there is no possibility of padding him with those extra, hypothetical titles. he just stays on 17

But I see it differently. Borg quit when he should have been at his peak. I saw this as almost cowardice on his part, being afraid to continue when McEnroe started to beat him. Quitting so early for me is a huge knock against him. And I was a fan of Borg.

 

[djokerer]

I actually came out the day he won Wimbledon 2012 and said that Fed should retire on a high. I sensed then, perhaps like many of you, that he had captured lightning in a bottle that tournament and should quit while he was ahead.

Now I am a huge fan of Fed (my nickname has nothing to do with my allegiances, despite the accusations that I am some Machiavellian troll), and I would have missed out on some exciting victories post 2012, most notably a couple of beatdowns of Djokovic in Cincy and exciting GS runs in 2014-15.

BUT, if Fed had retired, many on here would believe, erroneously as history has proven, that Fed would have won more GS titles in the years to follow. He hasn't really stopped his main rivals from building their resumes. What is his record post Wimbledon 2012 in GS matches against Nadal and Djokovic? In GS matches, he has lost 5 straight to the two of them. He only managed to win more than a set in one of those encounters. He has gone 7-11 since Djokovic in all matches and is 1-5 against Nadal (that's a combined 8-16 against his two greatest rivals).

He has not won any major events, only a few Masters 1000 tourtnaments that do nothing for his resume. His continued pursuit of matches will only result in more beatdowns by Djokovic and maybe even Nadal as we move forward.

In a nutshell, Fed would have the benefit of the doubt argument had he retired in 2012. Now he won't ever be able to rely on that, and may suffer a painful decline in the years that follow. 2013 appeared to be that year but at least he has surprised us with some occasional brilliance in 2014-2015.

You were spot on for the most part. But I disagree for the Feds legacy part. His losses after 2012 also define Fed.
Imagine a player can see future. If he walk overs every match he is going to lose and end up with 4 slams 10 masters and say 100-0 win loss record over a period of 10 years, will we say he is the greatest player ever? I doubt it.
People ask this question a lot, is Federer's career better off if he lost in Semis instead of all those finals etc.
Point is If Fed is good enough to be in finals, then losing the final should also be considered a part of his legacy. And as it stands, he lost many matches to his rivals. Which nullifies his goat claim.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

He would have had to battle on the 90's grass but we can't assume that Nadal wouldn't have adjusted his game either. He has the ability to play and serve very aggressively as we saw in Wimby 2006. The reason he went to a more grinding style in 07 and 08 is because Federer matches up far better against agressivedal than grindal.

But his style and level at 06 Wimbledon at just 20 gives me some solid proof that he would have what it takes to be solid on faster grass too. Could he win multiple Wimbledon's? maybe not..but he wouldn't have been a muster or anything.

Oh sure, he would have been better than a Muster. Winning a slam on 90s grass though? Looks like a tall order. But again, I wouldn't write him off. My point there was to just show the luck card can be played in n number of ways. A slam is a slam. People complicate things way too much in tennis discussion, most often when they have an 'agenda' as our disappointed Hewitt fan.

 

[swordtennis]

This whole idea of having to win everything is a somewhat recent phenomena. Never bought into 100%. Poncho Gonzales as an example.

 

[I am the Greatest!]

and he should be reward the title for being second best should he?

If Soderling did not beat Nadal, you think something different would have happened than all the other previous years? Federer would have beat Nadal if both made it to the final? No way in hell.

Nadal announced that he was injured. If he was injured, how could he match up against Roger in the finals? Roger would have smoked him if his knees were ailing.