Race for greatness: The case for Roger Federer

Hey Rory, You clearly know your racquet stuff, but I remember Agassi opined on that issue in his book and said it was crazy the difference new strings were making in 2005 to bring everyone up to speed. Speaking of which I remember the 1999 and 2000 semis between Agassi and Rafter in which they beat each other up in the semis only to cope a comparatively fresh Sampras in the final - fun times. Its a bit like those draws when one of Fed, Novak, Nadal and Murray were injured, which could led to one semi with the big four and the other semi being a relative cake walk. Lastly, I reckon Nadal's achievement in 2008 is crazy considering that Court still had zip - the only thing near it is Agassi's effort in 1992 given the Court speed / opponents and bouffant hair involved.

I agree that Andy and Delpo would have taken majors off the others if fit. Delpo in particular a monster in full flight. Beat peak Nadal and Fed to win a U.S. Also agree with Stefan that focusing on the opponent in the final is too selective. Maybe people have become too used to the incredible finals the big 3 regularly treat us to. These weren't really the norm before, finals were often an anticlimax as one player wilted or a bolter succumbed to the pressure. It is quite difficult to assess the depth of then vs now, not least because racquet technology took another leap, i think around the time the Babolat Pure Drive came out. I could be wrong but I recall it meant an increase in head size and sweet spot over and above what graphite racquets had already achieved through the 80's and 90's. We can talk about the move from wood to metal to graphite as huge but there is also an enormous difference between a max200g and the racquets of today. Also the uniformity of court speed today, including with grass. There were plenty of awkward specialist players around. It was seriously difficult for a baseliner to beat a decent serve volleyer at wimbledon even not so long ago. Which made Nadal's first Wimbledon final such an achievement.

I really like Rory's comments - in that someone like Safin lacked the consistency of the big three but on his day or on a good run could seriously take down anyone (ask Sampras or Agassi). I also agree with the comment below that you need to consider Federer's peak when taking into account H2H, as it makes sense that Novak has scored some wins later in his career, where as between 2011 and 2012 they were much much closer (trading wins at various semi finals). Admittedly that does make Federer's late resurgence against Nadal a bit nuts. Some of the draws in the early naughties also generally look deeper than more recent draws. Take the 2004 Wimbledon - from the third round onwards Federer played Johansson, Karlovic, Hewitt, Grosjean and Roddick on grass - that's a hell of a draw for a No. 1 seed to get. I also kind of feel like Agassi drops out of a few of these "easier title" conversations, particularly given Federer had to edge him in five on the way to the US Open title in 2004 then beat him in the US Open title in 2005. He also beat him in at the 2005 AO only to lose to Safin in an epic semi final. Lastly, if we want to base comments on who played who in finals only, how to we treat Novak's wins against Tsonga (albeit his first title, an Anderson (who played a 5 hour game then a 7 hour game on the way to the final), injured Del Potro, Thiem (still developing, but on the Court for six hours longer) or, to be blunt, a 38 year old Roger Federer last year. Similarly Nadal has titles against Mariano Puerta, Berdych, Ferrer, Anderson and two against Thiem (although admittedly much more of a threat on clay). Do these need asterisks aswell? Also some seem to suggest titles against Murray don't count, which is a bit weird. Not saying I know all the answers, and admittedly I favour one player of the others, but I just thought I'd throw a few ideas into the mix.

Whilst your comment is a fair one Rory, its hard to think of worthy competition and trying to compare them to GOATs who have swept all before them for the last 15 years. I think what makes Stan, Andy, Delpo and Cilic stand out more than Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Tommy Hass, Ljubicic, Nicolas Massu and others during Federer's prime years is at least they won Grand Slams in the ear of 3 GOATs. We highly doubt that had they been around now, any of those would of achieved the success of Andy, Stan, Delpo etc etc. I dont hold Federer's early successes against him in any way. He did not pick when he was born and could only compete against who was there. Just like I take nothing away from what Rafa and Novak have done in their careers. There is a 5/6 year age gap between Roger and Rafa/Novak. I also believe if Andy stayed healthy and Delpo was not constantly injured, Fed, Rafa and Novak would have all won less than what they have. I just say appreciate what we have/are witnessing at the present time because sooner or later they will all exit stage left and we will just have memories of their great matches and record breaking careers.

In looking at the standards of the eras its also the case that, apart from Murray, Stan and Del Potro when fit (which has been very rare) there hasn't really been anyone in 10-12+ years who has been of a standard to seriously trouble the big 3. Especially since Berdych past his peak. So while its true that 17 years ago Federer didn't have 2 potential GOATS to face, it could be said that there was greater depth, and there was certainly a variety of styles around which could make things tricky. At least there seemed to be more players around who were explosive enough to randomly blast their way through a fortnight of 5 setters a la Safin or Philippoussis. Gonzalez gets written off now but he was awesome in that fortnight in the Australian open. In recent years there seems to be very little threatening the big 3 until they meet each other in the semis and finals. And then it is just whoever wins the inevitable epic war of attrition. Usually Nadal or Novak as they are insanely good psychologically.

FAKE GOAT FEDERER (FGF) in grand slam finals versus Djokovic and Nadal is 4 wins and 10 losses at 28% - 4 out of 14 in the most important matches of his career = fake goat/tennis propaganda! Nadal VS Federer 24–16 (overall) 10-4 (grand slams) 6-3 (grand slam finals) Nadal vs Djokovic 26–28 (overall) 9–6 (grand slams) 4-4 (grand slam finals) Djokovic vs Federer 27–23 (overall) 11–6 (grand slams) 4–1 (grand slam finals) ===================================== Nadal VS Djokovic VS Federer Rivalry Nadal 50 wins, 44 losses (53%) 19-10 (grand slams) (65%) 10-7 (grand slam finals) (58%) Djokovic 55 wins, 49 losses (52%) 17-15 (grand slams) (53%) 8-5 (grand slam finals) (61%) Federer 39 wins, 51 losses (43%) 10-21 (grand slams) (32%) 4-10 (grand slam finals) (28%) Federer (20 titles - 11 runner ups) beat up on Roddick (4-0), Murray (3-0), Cilic (2-0) in grand slam finals Nadal (19 titles - 8 runner ups) Djokovic (17 titles - 9 runner ups) (5-2 vs Murray is grand slam finals) Stan Wawrinka won 3 grand slams in 3 years (2014-2016) and only lost 1 final in 2017. (3 wins and 1 loss vs Nadal and Djokovic = damn good career) Andy Murray won 3 slams from (2012-2016) but 8 finals defeats for his career.

The question about weaker opponents and former World Number 1s is a interesting one. Roddick won 1 Grand Slam, Hewitt and Safin 2 Grand Slams each. Very good players indeed, all time GREATS ? I say NO. Future Hall of Famers ? NO. That club should be exclusive and be for the very very best. Roger could of not picked when he was born and could only play the opponents in front of him. Thats not his fault. But opposition matters. Rafa, Novak, Andy, Stan, Del Potro are in my opinion much better players than the earlier guys Roger faced. I think a fair comparison for the 3 Tennis greats is, Federer is like Magic Johnson, Rafael Nadal is like Larry Bird and Novak Djokovic is like Michael Jordan and there are still more chapters to add to this amazing period of tennis royalty.

In the 2008 Aus Open Semi FInal, Novak was 20 years old and Federer was 26. There is a 6 year age gap between them. One question that needs to be asked of Federer fans is "When do Fed fans say he was at his prime" ? and when do they say "When he was old and out of his prime" ? By answering that question, a lot more analysis and comparison would become easier.

1. This is a factual mistake: "Federer history against Novak Djokovic is a little happier. He leads the Serbian 27-23 – 21-10 since 2011 – and 13-6 in finals." It is simply no true. It is Djokovic that leads 27-23, 21-10 since 2011... 2. Again, you got it wrong: "No singles Olympic gold may be a minor blip, but it’s the only major competition Federer hasn’t won." Federer has not won Monte Carlo Masters 1000 (which is considered to so called "Big Titles"). Djokovic is the only player in history to have won all 9 masters. 3. "To be fair, Federer has been out of his prime while Djokovic and Nadal have been at their best and lost a fair share against his rivals." The last time Federer won with Djokovic on a Grand Slam was Wimbledon 2012. Was he out of his prime 8 years ago? First time Djokovic has beeten Federer on a Grand slam was in 2008 AO, when Federer was 28 and Djokovic was barely 20. So much for Federer prime. 4. "Furthermore, Federer’s 12 grand slams titles in 2003-07 came against Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Marcos Baghdatis, Mark Philippoussis and a very young Nadal. " To put it into perspective: Philippoussis career-high was 8th place on ATP, never won a single Grand Slam, same goes for Bagdhdatis, 8th record-high, not a single Major won, Fernando Gonzalez record-high was 5th place on ATP, also not a single Major won in a career, the biggest threats were Safin, Hewitt and Roddick, all of whom during their careers won two Grand Slams, less then e.g. Wawrinka, Murray (who btw had to fight in the time of the Big Three).

Sure, but Nadal could have switched from Uncle Toni to Carlos Moya 5 years earlier. Agassi could have not gone on meth benders and won half a dozen more titles.

Federer is an anomaly among champions in that he's some what mentally weak. Someone like Sampras actually became better when the pressure ramped up. Djokovic and Nadal (to a lesser extent in the last couple of years) also are pressure sponges.

Your list of "weaker" opponents includes 4 world number 1s. I'm not sure if you can discount wins against a young Nadal while including losses as a 38 year old. I reckon Federer's greatest regret when looking back on his career (other than Wimbledon last year) will be not switching to the bigger racquet 5 years earlier.

"He also had two match points against Djokovic in a US Open semi-final but still lost." Not once, but twice. Those came in 2010 and 2011. Also, to be fair, Roddick, Hewitt and Safin all won five major titles between them. Roddick in particular could consider himself unlucky not to win a Wimbledon title, especially in 2009 when it took Federer until the death to break the American's serve for the first time in the match. Federer could have also advanced into another AO final in 2005, had he converted one of the two match points he held against Safin (who he'd beaten to the title the previous year) in the fourth set. While Safin vs Hewitt was the most-watched tennis match in Australia to my knowledge, a Federer vs Hewitt final would've smashed the roof. Presently, I think the lure of trying to finally win the Olympic singles Gold Medal is what's driving him to play on this year.

Yes, this may be skewed by many games being played on clay I don't understand why this is brought up. Clay is 1/3rd of the season. Most players will only play one or two grass tournaments all year. If anything, disproportionate success on grass should be viewed with skepticism because it's a unique surface no conducive to good tennis.