[Saitama]

How has it changed in the last three years

Since start of 2017

Majors won

Djokovic - 5
Nadal - 5
Federer - 3

He added Majors but the gap has been reduced by the other 2 members of the 'Big 3'

 

[guitarra]

In think it's pretty simple: he added 3 slams and several other tournaments to his tally and was back at #1. So he's improved his legacy considerably.

But of course I can't wait for those bitter Einsteins who will say he ruined it because he lost the 40-15.

 

[Time Violation]

If he didn't win those 3, now he's already passed/equaled so obviously he improved it.

 

[Bakano]

How could anyone's legacy be described other than 'improved' after adding up three slams?

How improved? Well, less improved than if there weren't 40-15, and two slams less improved than his main rivals but improved nonetheless.

 

[ssynhtn]

Winning more slams improved his legacy a bit
Beating Nadal's ass again and again improved his legacy a LOT

 

[The Federest]

Getting past 100 tour titles was very special, as was getting back to #1.

Being ranked #3 at the age of 38 is also pretty special, as was beating Rafa and Novak last year.

 

[Johnny Groove]

Well if he didn't, he would already be passed in slams so good thing for him he did

 

[FedFan10]

Tbh he did well with some tournaments and he f-up some of them.In my opinion he had to go deeper at US Open in at least one of 2017,18 or 19 editions,but he didn't seem well prepared for any of them and ofc he f-up W18 and 19.

Apart from those I cant really complain much.He lost to Stefanos last year at the AO,but Djokovic was probably too strong at that tournament.Last years FO was great for him.He even played great in that semifinal and probably could've won a set if not for the wind.But still great considering he didn't play clay event for 4 years.

So yeah,just really surprised that he didn't manage to have a good run at the USO in this period considering he was playing great at IW and Miami and the surface is pretty similar there as in NY.I have a feeling that he gives everything into his W campaign and after that he is pretty much done for the year.

The only real thing missing for Federer in these late years of his career is a victory over Djokovic at a GS.He managed to succesfully fight the ghosts with his victory over Nadal at AO,but imo he has to beat Djokovic somehow in order to really protect his legacy.I'm not going around saying that he should beat him consistenly at this day and age ,but a win against the Djoker at this years Wimbledon is something Federer has to do.He has the game,we've seen that last year.This time around he needs to back it up mentally at the most important moments.

 

[Fargif]

It depends on how and which circunstances that happened.
From Wimby12 to AO17 he didnt win a single slam. Not even a week at number 1. And never won WTF again.
Why this? Simple Rafa and Nole dominated those 5 years. Andy, Stan and Marin took a few when Rafa and Nole werent up to form.
So AO17 comes along Nole isnt to his usual level. Rafa seems good for the win. But New Federer manages to beat him. And Wins Wimby easly also.
AO18 Still no Nole and Rafa injured was a sure bet for Federer. After that Nole came back to level. Rafa also. Wgere was Federer? Just like those 5 years from 2012.

On the flip side its always better when you get more then you had. So its up to each one interpretation.

 

[FedFan10]

It depends on how and which circunstances that happened.
From Wimby12 to AO17 he didnt win a single slam. Not even a week at number 1. And never won WTF again.
Why this? Simple Rafa and Nole dominated those 5 years. Andy, Stan and Marin took a few when Rafa and Nole werent up to form.
So AO17 comes along Nole isnt to his usual level. Rafa seems good for the win. But New Federer manages to beat him. And Wins Wimby easly also.
AO18 Still no Nole and Rafa injured was a sure bet for Federer. After that Nole came back to level. Rafa also. Wgere was Federer? Just like those 5 years from 2012.

On the flip side its always better when you get more then you had. So its up to each one interpretation.

In 2013 Federer's problems werent Nadal and Djokovic.His general form was so bad he lost to Tsonga in straight sets at the FO and in straight sets against Robredo at USO with that horrible loss against Stakhovsky at Wimbledon.That year was clearly plagued by a back injury as well as raquet change.2016 was much the same with that knee injury and I thought he did quite well in 2014 and 15 bar that US Open in 2014 and that freak run by Cilic.Maybe a bit unlucky not to win a slam in those 2 years considering he lost a few tight matches against Djokovic,but yeah.Those were Djokovic's years to dominate.I mean the guy was what 26-27-28 and Federer was 32-33-34,He will obviously need a bit of luck at that age to win a slam just like Djokovic will need it in the next few years.

 

[doubletrollt]

It is a huge bonus to Federer's legacy, when compared to Rafole in the goat debate.

At AO'17 35.5 y.o. Federer was at 17 slams and with an abysmal H2H vs Nadal.

32.7 y.o. Djokovic is at 17 slams and Nadal won his 18th & 19th being 30 & 33.3 y.o.

So, consequentially, Rafole have been still chasing Federer' overall resume and after those two Fedal rubbers at AO & Wimb Federer' H2H vs Nadal is not as poor as before 2017.

Even those two wasted Championship' points is a bonus to Federer' resume and goat debate, because Federer was almost 38 y.o. at Wimb'19 and Rafole is still to prove they can also reach slam final and match point at that age, even if one of them surpasses Federer's slam count a lot earlier.

 

[Darth Vaderer]

I would say his legacy since then has been harmed 40% and benefited 15% by all the events that have transpired

 

[guitarra]

I would say his legacy since then has been harmed 40% and benefited 15% by all the events that have transpired

There, there - didn't take long for Fed haters to come out of their ruins.
For you Fed ruined his legacy when he didn't retire after LC like you lied he would.

 

[hammett]

Back at the end 16' his legacy was more intact , there was a player, the x factor, in Murray, who'd protect his # 1 weeks and slam count which was 17 14 12. Djokovic injured /struggling like a normal human being after outrageous 14' 15'. There was no serious debate/ fear upon Fed status as GOAT in the tennis world just yet. Nadal was a HC / grass non factor compared to his glorious days and injury prone. An era may be turning , with gen useless rising, it would be the most natural thing to happen, but it didnt.

Edit: in 17' and 18' we finally came to know the human limits could be pushed even further by these 3 insane players after "career ending" injuries! And millage.

If you ask me , fed fans and fed himself now would go back to that year of uncertainty.

 

[Andrej]

His legacy is in great danger now, much bigger danger than it was at the end of 2016.
Sure, he added 3 more slams, but this doesn't mean much if both his rivals pass him. The man himself seemed to have made peace with the idea that at least one will overtake him, judging from his interviews.
He was supposed to be the undisputed GOAT, and now his most important records are under severe threat. RAFA has a chance to equal the slam number, while Djoker will probably surpass his weeks at #1 record this year. Whichever way you slice, this would be a HUGE blow to his fans and to the man himself.

 

[décentré]

It depends on how and which circunstances that happened.
From Wimby12 to AO17 he didnt win a single slam. Not even a week at number 1. And never won WTF again.
Why this? Simple Rafa and Nole dominated those 5 years. Andy, Stan and Marin took a few when Rafa and Nole werent up to form.
So AO17 comes along Nole isnt to his usual level. Rafa seems good for the win. But New Federer manages to beat him. And Wins Wimby easly also.
AO18 Still no Nole and Rafa injured was a sure bet for Federer. After that Nole came back to level. Rafa also. Wgere was Federer? Just like those 5 years from 2012.

On the flip side its always better when you get more then you had. So its up to each one interpretation.

Yes, this is exemplified by the fact that all his loses in slams since 2017 were solely to Nadal and Djokovic while he was playing at his peak.

 

[Darth Vaderer]

There, there - didn't take long for Fed haters to come out of their ruins.
For you Fed ruined his legacy when he didn't retire after LC like you lied he would.

what Do you mean? I was just trying to quantify my response

 

[guitarra]

what Do you mean? I was just trying to quantify my response

Great effort, mate.

 

[Budadiii]

I'm guessing for the most nothing much has changed since Rafa and Djok also won since then, in fact they got closer, so the argument looks closer for most.

 

[Pantera2]

This is tricky. Numerically he has added to his legacy but the problem is for most of his career he has been third fiddle to Nadal and Djokovic which for many will be a huge question mark. Had he retired in 2012 then his struggles against Nadal and Djokovic would have been put down to his decline due to age. In 2012 he was on 17 Majors and although he would be 3rd on the list i think he might have had a stronger GOAT case.

While his fans will claim Nadal and Djokovic have never beaten peak Federer (that may or may not be true) as time passes and people look back in say 40 years time they will see Federer was 3rd of 3 legends for most of his career.

This is a good thread and raises the wider sporting question of when a legend should retire. For instance Borg was unquestionably best of his era. What we will never know is whether in fact McEnroe had his number and would have beat down on him time after time.

As a Nadal fan all i know for sure is had Federer retired in 2012 to protect his legacy millions would have missed out on thr glorious tennis he still can produce albeit a lot rarer than in his heyday.