Roger Federer 2007 vs 2004

[CyBorg]

Would anyone (Tim?) be kind enough to use ELO to compare these two years by Federer?

I partook to a debate on another board in regards to this. I thought that Federer in 2007 was a better player than he was in 2004, in large part due to his competition.

Would be interesting to know if ELO suggests otherwise. Thanks - I hope this is possible.

[princess bossass]

Would anyone (Tim?) be kind enough to use ELO to compare these two years by Federer?

I partook to a debate on another board in regards to this. I thought that Federer in 2007 was a better player than he was in 2004, in large part due to his competition.

Would be interesting to know if ELO suggests otherwise. Thanks - I hope this is possible.

I don't even know what ELO is, but I really like your avatar.

[stormholloway]

Forget the stats. He's better in 2007. His game improved since then.

I think he might have been sharpest in 2005-2006 though. His backhand technique improved for 2005. He was more reliable on the backhand side and added more rotation on the shot.

[Casey10s]

Boy, we now have Federer in the former player category. And not even a mention that Federer should retire. We need a new thread discussing when Federer made his retirement announcement.

[CyBorg]

Boy, we now have Federer in the former player category. And not even a mention that Federer should retire. We need a new thread discussing when Federer made his retirement announcement.

Oh, good point. I just prefer this board.

[superman1]

I'll take '04 Federer over '07 Federer. I'll even take '03 Federer over '08 Federer, so far. I agree that he was best in '05-'06, even though he won one less Slam in '05 than in '04. He was just a better player.

[stormholloway]

Safin was just too strong at the Aussie. Federer was so confident from the baseline in 2005. It was a pleasure to watch him that year.

[daddy]

Safin was just too strong at the Aussie. Federer was so confident from the baseline in 2005. It was a pleasure to watch him that year.

If the guy who calculates elo shows up, he can calculate it for the past GS winners. As far as I remember Safin had a pretty low ELO for his 05 AO win, one of the lowest - this is arguable but I am just saying.

As for the Federer's play, I prefer the 03 Wimbledon agressive and crude version of him to all the others. I have to agree his best period was spring '05 until the end of '06 but a bit less atractive then previously. '07 had its ups and downs and he managed to keep up the pace with GS wins and blur some bad results to make the year excellent.

[CyBorg]

If the guy who calculates elo shows up, he can calculate it for the past GS winners. As far as I remember Safin had a pretty low ELO for his 05 AO win, one of the lowest - this is arguable but I am just saying.

I'm assuming that the ELO would take into consideration Safin's wins in Madrid and Paris. He was pretty highly ranked at the time. I don't think we would be looking at his results after AO.

[CyBorg]

I'll take '04 Federer over '07 Federer. I'll even take '03 Federer over '08 Federer, so far. I agree that he was best in '05-'06, even though he won one less Slam in '05 than in '04. He was just a better player.

You see, the 04 Federer had neither Nadal nor Djokovic. He was also significantly worse on clay than in 07. He had Hewitt who was past his peak and Safin who was invisible until the indoor portion. The Roddick part kind of cancels out IMO.

[crawl4]

AO 07 was one of feds best peformances, i was amazed.

[Nathaniel_Near]

I'd probably take 07 Federer. He was a much improved player on clay and had a greater variety of strokes and spins probably through his constant messing about on the practice courts. He was more experienced and his game had become a little less aggressive; he played higher percentage tennis. I still think 04 Federer though would have had similar chances to claim 3 out of 4 of the Slam events as 07 Federer. I don't fancy 04 Federer losing to Canas twice in a row though...
Both 2004 and 2007 Federer were in a peak physical condition.

How's about 2004 Federer vs 2009 Federer?

I THINK I'd take 2004 but he still wouldn't be winning RG.

[Matt H.]

watching the Fed vs. Agassi TMC final from '03 had me thinking he would spank the current federer.

he was whipping winners all over the darn place.

[davey25]

Federer in order as far as his actual tennis:

1. Federer 2005
2. Federer 2006
3. Federer 2004
4. Federer 2007
5. Federer 2003
6. Federer 2009
7. Federer 2008

Too early to tell of Federer for 2010. I could see it ending up 4th or 5th on the list though. He played better in Australia than he has in a slam for a long time, since atleast the 08 U.S Open.

[davey25]

You see, the 04 Federer had neither Nadal nor Djokovic. He was also significantly worse on clay than in 07. He had Hewitt who was past his peak and Safin who was invisible until the indoor portion. The Roddick part kind of cancels out IMO.

I dont agree Hewitt was past his peak in 2004. In 2004 and 2005 he lost to the eventual winner in all 7 slams he played, and 5 of those were Federer. He probably would have won multiple slams and been ranked #1 or #2 in both 04 and 05 without Federer. At the peak of his "results" in 2001-early 2003 he was still losing to Moya (hard courts), Escude, Canas, Robredo, El Aynaoui,
Alberto Martin, in the early rounds of slams. The peak of his tennis was probaly 2004-2005, but since Federer was there he obviously wasnt going to win any big titles since prime Roger was a horrible matchup for him.

Safin reached the Australian Open final in 2004. He played well for awhile that year but kept getting tough draws with his low ranking to start the year, often running into Federer and Roddick early. Safin is a more talented player than Roddick of course, but Roddick was a bad matchup for him, Safin has played really well many times and still lost to Roddick. The only part of the year Safin didnt play well was the summer on grass (expected) and hard courts.

Djokovic is overrated. I dont get why people keep talking about this guy like he is so great. He has 1 slam and he doesnt look he is getting any closer to a 2nd at the moment. His last slam final was over 2 years ago now, and he hasnt beaten a real top player in a slam for a long time (Verdasco at a stretch is the only instance in the last 2 years). Last year he won only 1 Masters, losing in the finals to one of the big guns 4 other times. He definitely is a tougher matchup for Federer than Hewitt or Roddick but even so I doubt in his prime he would not get more than the very occasional win over Federer at his peak. Even Roger probably past his peak he is dominated by overall in the slams, save for that one big day he had in Australia. As far as his actual tennis playing ability it still isnt obvious yet he is better than someone like Roddick or Hewitt. He has overall achieved much less than both at this point, especialy Hewitt. Granted he is alot younger so that is unfair in a way, but he isnt certain to achieve the things he hasnt yet either. The fact he keeps failing in the last 2 years to do things that he is predicted by many to is further proof of that. Also Roddick arguably past his prime beat him 3 times in a row last year and always gives him a tough time. Djokovic is clearly more talented than someone like Roddick but Roddick has maximized his talent in his career which someone like Djokovic hasnt shown being able to do up to now.

[Chopin]

Tough call, but I'd pick 2004.

I agree with Davey's comments on Hewitt, which makes Federer's 6–0, 7–6(3), 6–0 U.S. Open win all the more impressive.

I think Djokovic is the real deal, but agree that Roddick is the guy who has really maximized his potential (even if he chokes at the end of big matches). Roddick>Djokovic.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Tough call, but I'd pick 2004.

I agree with Davey's comments on Hewitt, which makes Federer's 6–0, 7–6(3), 6–0 U.S. Open win all the more impressive.

I think Djokovic is the real deal, but agree that Roddick is the guy who has really maximized his potential (even if he chokes at the end of big matches). Roddick>Djokovic.

I keep going back and forth to myself with this idea. I keep thinking he will win 1 or 2 more slams and show he is the real deal, but at the same time compared to the other top guys he lacks the flair and 'x-factor' that seems to be required at the moment to win these things. I think ultimately time will prove that the current generation right now who are around about 21 - 23 will be a generation of multiple fine champions. I'm pretty excited.:)

[Nathaniel_Near]

Federer in order as far as his actual tennis:

1. Federer 2005
2. Federer 2006
3. Federer 2004
4. Federer 2007
5. Federer 2003
6. Federer 2009
7. Federer 2008

Too early to tell of Federer for 2010. I could see it ending up 4th or 5th on the list though. He played better in Australia than he has in a slam for a long time, since atleast the 08 U.S Open.

I wouldn't be surprised if 2010 ends up being a spectacular year for Federer and forces itself and Federer 2009 to be reconsidered in terms of how high Federer's quality of play was/is. If he does I'm sure people will start talking about Federer experiencing a '2nd prime', differently nuanced to the 1st one. That would be pretty unique.

[hoodjem]

Oh, good point. I just prefer this board.

Me too. More sane, rationale, deeper conversations. Less idolatry.

[Changmaster]

Me too. More sane, rationale, deeper conversations. Less idolatry.

Except for borg#1 :)

[Lotto]

What's this ELO stuff?

[Chopin]

Me too. More sane, rationale, deeper conversations. Less idolatry.

And more Chopin, naturally.

[tricky]

FWIW, Chopin > Beethoven :D

Felt 2004 and 2005 Federer were the last "fun" Federer years for me, in the sense that he was still outshotmaking (and net play) his main opponents rather than playing pure percentages and the same patterns (i.e. inside out, then finish.)

Having said that, 2007 Federer > 2004 Federer. His transition game at that point was almost impossible to break. His FH could leave whole sets and still he'd win those sets.

[hoodjem]

FWIW, Chopin > Beethoven
Yes, particularly in his symphonies and string quartets.

[Chopin]

^^Both were revolutionaries.

[davey25]

I wouldn't be surprised if 2010 ends up being a spectacular year for Federer and forces itself and Federer 2009 to be reconsidered in terms of how high Federer's quality of play was/is. If he does I'm sure people will start talking about Federer experiencing a '2nd prime', differently nuanced to the 1st one. That would be pretty unique.

I think that is very possible but it wouldnt change my opinion on where I rank 2009. Looking back on 2009 he was playing better than 2008 but clearly not as well as his best years of tennis. He lost both hard court slam finals he was in despite being expected by the vast majority of people to win both going in. He didnt win a hard court Masters until the end of the year. He was outplayed by Roddick in the Wimbledon final despite winning. He struggled with some vastly inferior opponents on the clay at the French on his way to winning the title with Nadal taken out of his way for him.

[Dark Victory]

Federer in order as far as his actual tennis:

1. Federer 2005
2. Federer 2006
3. Federer 2004
4. Federer 2007
5. Federer 2003
6. Federer 2009
7. Federer 2008


This ranking is spot on.

[Chopin]

This ranking is spot on.

Sounds about right.

[Slazenger07]

I saw 2004 Federer in person and it was spectacular...................

[abmk]

Federer in order as far as his actual tennis:

1. Federer 2005
2. Federer 2006
3. Federer 2004
4. Federer 2007
5. Federer 2003
6. Federer 2009
7. Federer 2008

Too early to tell of Federer for 2010. I could see it ending up 4th or 5th on the list though. He played better in Australia than he has in a slam for a long time, since atleast the 08 U.S Open.

I'd put 2005 equal to 2006, 2005 was more shotmaking and all-court, but 2006 he got better at the baseline ( and clay of course )

2009 overall is better than 2003, clearly ... Although he did play spectacular tennis in the later half of 2003 , too many bad losses in the first half !!

[Nathaniel_Near]

I'd put 2005 equal to 2006, 2005 was more shotmaking and all-court, but 2006 he got better at the baseline ( and clay of course )

2009 overall is better than 2003, clearly ... Although he did play spectacular tennis in the later half of 2003 , too many bad losses in the first half !!

Scary. I was about to post EXACTLY the same thing.. well not quite, I give 2006 the edge over 2005, but actually thinking about it 2008 was a more successful year than 2003. Even though Federer was suffering with issues to do with consistency, his tennis was good, developed and rounded enough to make 3 slam finals.

2006
2005
2004
2007
2009
2008
2003

I'll predict 2010 right now:


2006
2005
2004
2007
2010
2009
2008
2003

[Dark Victory]

I'd put 2005 equal to 2006, 2005 was more shotmaking and all-court, but 2006 he got better at the baseline ( and clay of course )

2009 overall is better than 2003, clearly ... Although he did play spectacular tennis in the later half of 2003 , too many bad losses in the first half !!

To nitpick, Fed lost 5 matches in 2006, 4 of those to Rafa and 1 to Murray in a bad, early round loss (if he really tanked, that makes it even worse). In 2006, it became clear that Nadal posed a difficult match-up for him and that the signs of what was going to be a future "mental block" against Rafa was already starting to shape up. Fed lost 4 matches in 2005. Of those 4, he had matchpoint on 3 and was two sets up to love against Nalbandian in TMC. In all four losses he was pushed to the limit (his close, 4-set loss to Nadal at RG was the de facto final), which is amazing really, showing what kind of effort and extraordinary level of play it took to defeat him during that time. Also, his game looked much better, more complete in 2005.

As for 2003, I think that year gets him much credit for two things primarily: Wimbledon and TMC. The latter especially given how frighteningly good he looked winning the event, which was a portent for what he's truly capable of achieving and, what he did accomplish in 2004. But yeah, agreed 2009 overall was a better year.

[Chopin]

To nitpick, Fed lost 5 matches in 2006, 4 of those to Rafa and 1 to Murray in a bad, early round loss (if he really tanked, that makes it even worse). In 2006, it became clear that Nadal posed a difficult match-up for him and that the signs of what was going to be a future "mental block" against Rafa was already starting to shape up. Fed lost 4 matches in 2005. Of those 4, he had matchpoint on 3 and was two sets up to love against Nalbandian in TMC. In all four losses he was pushed to the limit (his close, 4-set loss to Nadal at RG was the de facto final), which is amazing really, showing what kind of effort and extraordinary level of play it took to defeat him during that time. Also, his game looked much better, more complete in 2005.

As for 2003, I think that year gets him much credit for two things primarily: Wimbledon and TMC. The latter especially given how frighteningly good he looked winning the event, which was a portent for what he's truly capable of achieving and, what he did accomplish in 2004. But yeah, agreed 2009 overall was a better year.

I respectfully disagree with your analysis of Federer's loss to Murray in 2006 as a "bad loss."

1) The scoreline is close.
2) Federer had just won 3 straight tournaments (including the previous North American hard-court tournament) and by all accounts, wanted time to rest.
3) Federer had only played Murray once previously (no real rivalry to speak of).
4) Federer has gone on to show us time and time again that Murray is not on his level in the biggest matches (giving credibility to the theory that he was not in top form for that particular match).
5) He went on to dominate the end of the season.

A bad loss would be Federer losing at Wimbledon to Nadal, or getting blown off the court in the French Open final, not losing an early round match in a non-slam to a guy who has never won a slam.

In all honesty, I wouldn’t define Federer as having any truly bad losses (at least since winning his first Wimbledon) except the ‘08 French Open final, ‘08 Wimbledon final, and possibly the ‘09 Australian Open final.

*For me, a bad loss is not just a match where one plays badly, but a loss of significance in terms of either rankings, rivalry or momentum.