PDA

View Full Version : Federer's set scores During Number 1 Reign


Knightmace
05-10-2009, 01:20 AM
Total Sets Played

984

Total sets won: 819

819

Total sets lost:

165

Sets winning %= 83.2%

WINNING SETS

6-0= 48
6-1= 92
6-2= 125
6-3= 217
6-4= 147
7-5= 66
7-6= 124

Total sets won while #1= 819

LOSING SETS

0-6= 1 set
1-6= 6 sets
2-6= 19 sets
3-6= 34 sets
4-6= 36 sets
5-7= 23 sets
6-7= 46 sets

Total sets lost while #1 = 165

credit:NYC Tennis Fan

<3tennis!!!
05-10-2009, 02:56 AM
haha sweet stats, shows just how dominant fed was in his prime

Blinkism
05-10-2009, 03:23 AM
Wow, he only got bagel'ed once in his whole reign as #1?

I'm guess that was at the French Open final in 2008 to Nadal, eh?

Otherwise, pretty big stats, for sure.

tennis-hero
05-10-2009, 03:52 AM
umm this is incorrect

how can you use 2008?

he played just as well (probably better) in 2003 then 2008

but its obvious that 2004-2006 was his prime

2007 was not prime fed either

Cesc Fabregas
05-10-2009, 04:40 AM
umm this is incorrect

how can you use 2008?

he played just as well (probably better) in 2003 then 2008

but its obvious that 2004-2006 was his prime

2007 was not prime fed either

He won AO, Wimbledon and the USO how is 2007 not his prime?:confused:

tennis-hero
05-10-2009, 04:49 AM
He won AO, Wimbledon and the USO how is 2007 not his prime?:confused:

his losses in 07 compared to 04-06

his reliance on his serve

his FH shanking

his BH completely breaking down

staying back all the time

in 04-06, prime Fed had was the GOAT at "ghosting" in

hitting a strong shot and coming in and in perfect place for any followup

07 onwards he'd miss sitters that he just wouldn't miss before

Cesc Fabregas
05-10-2009, 04:50 AM
his losses in 07 compared to 04-06

his reliance on his serve

his FH shanking

his BH completely breaking down

staying back all the time

in 04-06, prime Fed had was the GOAT at "ghosting" in

hitting a strong shot and coming in and in perfect place for any followup

07 onwards he'd miss sitters that he just wouldn't miss before

Don't care about all that he won 3 slams, 2 masters shields and the masters cup 2007 was defo a prime year.

tennis-hero
05-10-2009, 05:02 AM
no it wasn't

[sigh]

04 74-6
05 81-4
06 92-5

07 65-9

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22749998-11088,00.html



However, as mighty as his 65-9 season has been, Federer is under siege as never before.

With losses to David Nalbandian in Paris and now Gonzalez, it is first time since June, 2003 that Federer has dropped successive matches.

"It's not that easy to keep up the pace I have the last few years," Federer said.

"Some players or people might think 'Now he's more vulnerable.'



but lets put it into perspective

65-9 is still better then Nadal's 82-11 (2008- his best season)

Nadal's 2009, he has already lost 3 times, Mac lost 3 times total in 84

aphex
05-10-2009, 05:12 AM
He won AO, Wimbledon and the USO how is 2007 not his prime?:confused:

correct.
even though he played worse than 04-06, he was so far ahead of everyone else anyway,
that he got those titles.

but maybe his '07 level of play seems worse than it actually was because it was right after '06-a year in which federer's tennis was almost incomprehensibly good.

clayman2000
05-10-2009, 06:51 AM
correct.
even though he played worse than 04-06, he was so far ahead of everyone else anyway,
that he got those titles.

but maybe his '07 level of play seems worse than it actually was because it was right after '06-a year in which federer's tennis was almost incomprehensibly good.

2007 was statisticaly his worst prime year, but you could argue he played his best tennis at certain points:
AO -- didnt loose a set
Hamburg -- destoryed Nadal on clay
USO -- played very well when it mattered
MC - demolished all except for 1 hiccup against Gonzo

egn
05-10-2009, 07:45 AM
umm this is incorrect

how can you use 2008?

he played just as well (probably better) in 2003 then 2008

but its obvious that 2004-2006 was his prime

2007 was not prime fed either

First of all he was 68-9 in 2008. He won 3 slams, made it to the finals in the fourth one, had 2 master series, 3 runner ups in master series and the YEC. Sure it is not his peak or his best but 2007 was his last glory year. He was still top notch at points but he was not top player week in and week out. Also if you read the topic it was during his number 1 reign? He was still number 1 for a portion of 2008 if you don't recall.

harrpau7
05-10-2009, 07:52 AM
Total Sets Played

984

Total sets won: 819

819

Total sets lost:

165

Sets winning %= 83.2%

WINNING SETS

6-0= 48
6-1= 92
6-2= 125
6-3= 217
6-4= 147
7-5= 66
7-6= 124

Total sets won while #1= 819

LOSING SETS

0-6= 1 set
1-6= 6 sets
2-6= 19 sets
3-6= 34 sets
4-6= 36 sets
5-7= 23 sets
6-7= 46 sets

Total sets lost while #1 = 165

credit:NYC Tennis Fan

Surely thats wrong/incomplete.

What about sets won/lost where it was a 5th set with no tie break

ie Aus Open v Safin/Tipsarevic

Wimbo v Nadal??

LanceStern
05-10-2009, 05:44 PM
First of all he was 68-9 in 2008. He won 3 slams, made it to the finals in the fourth one, had 2 master series, 3 runner ups in master series and the YEC. Sure it is not his peak or his best but 2007 was his last glory year. He was still top notch at points but he was not top player week in and week out. Also if you read the topic it was during his number 1 reign? He was still number 1 for a portion of 2008 if you don't recall.

2007 you mean.

It certainly wasn't a PRIME year even with the 3 slams. But it was still a great year and he still dominated

GameSampras
05-10-2009, 05:46 PM
But they dont mentioned the SCRUBS he played for the majority of the time. LOL

Swissv2
05-10-2009, 06:16 PM
But they dont mentioned the SCRUBS he played for the majority of the time. LOL

Another "weak era" fan. I knew this would happen.

GameSampras
05-10-2009, 06:17 PM
Another "weak era" fan. I knew this would happen.

Im just playing. I like to get u Fed fans riled up. :twisted:


Great domination by Fed no doubt. Especially 06. You cant really get more dominant than that other than Johnny Mac's 84 season

Swissv2
05-10-2009, 06:27 PM
Im just playing. I like to get u Fed fans riled up. :twisted:


Great domination by Fed no doubt. Especially 06. You cant really get more dominant than that other than Johnny Mac's 84 season

McEnroe was playing in a "weak era" :twisted:

tacou
05-10-2009, 06:27 PM
ridiculous numbers. barely lost sets

defrule
05-10-2009, 06:32 PM
Just watched this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU95BItKFug

Knightmace
05-12-2009, 01:50 AM
^^^and??????

tennis-hero
05-12-2009, 02:00 PM
Just watched this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU95BItKFug

i know its just a stick hitting a ball but

gosh thats some game

funny story- Henin, isn't the most attractive woman on the planet (if we're being polite) however i always thought she was quite attractive purely on the way she could strike a ball.... uhhh, in tennis i mean :oops:

chief wiggum
05-12-2009, 05:33 PM
It is great to see that his numbers now are nothing like they used to be.

Bud
05-12-2009, 06:26 PM
umm this is incorrect

how can you use 2008?

he played just as well (probably better) in 2003 then 2008

but its obvious that 2004-2006 was his prime

2007 was not prime fed either

The title states DURING HIS #1 REIGN (not in his 'prime' - whatever that is).

He was ranked #1 for most of 2008.

Bud
05-12-2009, 06:28 PM
Some Nadal fan should comb through his set stats and post his numbers as #1 and #2... then we'll compare them :twisted:

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_RLIYzXhfZQ0/Sgoj3dzzwdI/AAAAAAAAIKU/anOsefAYQIw/s800/flamewar_doodle.jpg

Knightmace
05-12-2009, 08:55 PM
lol.............

Joseph L. Barrow
05-12-2009, 09:06 PM
umm this is incorrect

how can you use 2008?

he played just as well (probably better) in 2003 then 2008

but its obvious that 2004-2006 was his prime

2007 was not prime fed either
Did you not read the title's specification as a reference to his "#1 reign"? Federer wasn't #1 in 2003, and was #1 for most of 2008.

Bud
05-12-2009, 10:24 PM
Some Nadal fan should comb through his set stats and post his numbers as #1 and #2... then we'll compare them :twisted:

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_RLIYzXhfZQ0/Sgoj3dzzwdI/AAAAAAAAIKU/anOsefAYQIw/s800/flamewar_doodle.jpg

lol.............

Funny little doodle... ain't it? :grin:

I feel the artist captured the overall feel and content of a flame war...

AprilFool
05-13-2009, 08:41 AM
Just watched this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU95BItKFug

Good match. People here who say that Roddick sux are idiots.

jelle v
05-13-2009, 09:01 AM
his losses in 07 compared to 04-06

his reliance on his serve

his FH shanking

his BH completely breaking down

staying back all the time

in 04-06, prime Fed had was the GOAT at "ghosting" in

hitting a strong shot and coming in and in perfect place for any followup

07 onwards he'd miss sitters that he just wouldn't miss before

Exactly.. I'm so glad to finally see someone else besides me saying that 07 was when his decline became visible! Everybody keeps bringing up the good stats he had that year, but tenniswise it just wasn't the same as before.

Blade0324
05-13-2009, 03:16 PM
no it wasn't

[sigh]

04 74-6
05 81-4
06 92-5

07 65-9

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22749998-11088,00.html



but lets put it into perspective

65-9 is still better then Nadal's 82-11 (2008- his best season)

Nadal's 2009, he has already lost 3 times, Mac lost 3 times total in 84


So how exactly is 65-9 better than 82-11.

82-11 is a .876 win percent where as 65-9 is .872. Yes they are close but not one is not exactly much better then the other. Just more matches. By this logic 9-4 is an amazing year as there was only 4 losses. It's all relative man.