PDA

View Full Version : Federer's Greatest Year?


Chopin
12-03-2009, 05:49 PM
Which year in which Roger Federer finished #1 in the world is most impressive?

Year Record Winning% Titles (Slams)
2009 61-12 .836 4 (2)
2007 68-9 .883 8 (3)
2006 92-5 .948 12 (3)
2005 81-4 .953 11 (2)
2004 74-6 .925 11 (3)

crackbillionair
12-03-2009, 05:54 PM
Which year in which Roger Federer finished #1 in the world is most impressive?

Year Record Winning% Titles (Slams)
2009 61-12 .836 4 (2)
2007 68-9 .883 8 (3)
2006 92-5 .948 12 (3)
2005 81-4 .953 11 (2)
2004 74-6 .925 11 (3)


2005. He hurt his calf and still nearly beat Nalbandian in the YEC final. He beats him, no injury, and he ties Johnny Mac's best ever 81-3. Also, take out the trick shot against Safin and he goes 83-2, 3 slams, and that is unheard of. He would have smoke hewitt in that final at Oz.

Not that 2006 was much worse.

JennyS
12-03-2009, 06:00 PM
2006 beats 2005. He was in all four Slam finals and won 3, compared to 2 Slams/finals in 2006. He also made it to the finals of all clay court tournaments he played.

clayman2000
12-03-2009, 06:33 PM
I feel that from Wimby 05 - YEC 05 was his best overall level of play.

Overall 06 was better

Serendipitous
12-03-2009, 06:34 PM
1981



10 charf

veroniquem
12-03-2009, 06:39 PM
2006 of course. That's when he got the best stats, fewest losses and most titles.

Knightmace
12-03-2009, 06:39 PM
I feel that from Wimby 05 - YEC 05 was his best overall level of play.

Overall 06 was better
2004 US Open was he could have won 6-0,6-2,6-0 if he had won a point on 0-40. That's unheard of

President of Serve/Volley
12-03-2009, 06:49 PM
I give the edge to 2006, because he was simply unbelieveable at the baseline that year. In 2005, he had more of an attacking game, and played awesome. 2004 was his absolute best chance to win 4 Slams in a year, considering that FO had a bit of a weak field. His best tournament I have seen is the 2006 Masters Cup, he just couldn't miss a shot there. It was just absolutely unbelieveable how good he played at that Masters Cup.


Now if he can somehow find that groove in 2010 in Slams, he can very well win all 4 slams. But that's asking a bit too much even for him.

Changmaster
12-03-2009, 07:05 PM
I give the edge to 2006, because he was simply unbelieveable at the baseline that year. In 2005, he had more of an attacking game, and played awesome. 2004 was his absolute best chance to win 4 Slams in a year, considering that FO had a bit of a weak field. His best tournament I have seen is the 2006 Masters Cup, he just couldn't miss a shot there. It was just absolutely unbelieveable how good he played at that Masters Cup.


Now if he can somehow find that groove in 2010 in Slams, he can very well win all 4 slams. But that's asking a bit too much even for him.

Fed certainly had amazing matches at the 2006 Masters, although what's surprising is that Roddick actually had a match pt in the second set tiebreak during their round robin match. So that match couldn't have been his best tennis. His final, however, with Blake was definitely one of his finest performances. That match was a backhand festival. Fed was hitting ABSURD backhand winners, Blake could only smile or shake his head in disbelief.

Chopin
12-03-2009, 07:16 PM
2005. He hurt his calf and still nearly beat Nalbandian in the YEC final. He beats him, no injury, and he ties Johnny Mac's best ever 81-3. Also, take out the trick shot against Safin and he goes 83-2, 3 slams, and that is unheard of. He would have smoke hewitt in that final at Oz.

Not that 2006 was much worse.

I disagree with the logic. He still lost to Safin and still lost to Nalbandian. He won more slams and titles in 2006 as well.

I could just as easily say, "wow, Federer squandered some chances against Nadal in the 3rd set of the Aussie Open that would have allowed him to serve for the set and go up to 2-1 and be in a strong position to win the match" and "wow, Federer served for a 2 sets to none lead over Del Potro and probably would have destroyed him in the 3rd set had he won those couple of points." You know?

OddJack
12-03-2009, 07:21 PM
He will tell you his greatest year is 2009

President of Serve/Volley
12-03-2009, 07:23 PM
He will tell you his greatest year is 2009



Just because he won the FO? or on a personal standpoint of marriage and children?

TheMusicLover
12-03-2009, 07:25 PM
In terms of 'most titles & wins': 2006.
In terms of BEST TENNIS: 2005.

OddJack
12-03-2009, 07:38 PM
Just because he won the FO? or on a personal standpoint of marriage and children?

Both. I argue he would've trade AO and USO for a FO.
The greatest year is the year most everybody called him the greatest, after completing the career grand slam. The year he matched and then broke Sampras' record and rewrote the history books. He married, and then became a father. He went from the lowest down under to the top all in one year.

The real greatness is this. When you come back while everyone has written you off, keep fighting and never give up and then win against the odds.

JennyS
12-03-2009, 07:43 PM
How about Federer's best 52 week (non calendar year)? I'd say March 2006-Feb 2007:

Record: 86-4 (95.56%)


1. Indian Wells: won (lost only one set)
2. Miami: won (lost only one set)
3. Monte Carlo: runner up
4. Rome: runner up
5. French Open: runner up
6. Halle: won
7. Wimbledon: won (lost only one set)
8. Canada: won
9. Cincy: lost in 2R
10. US Open: won (lost only two sets)
11. Tokyo: won (lost only one set)
12. Madrid: won (didn't drop a set)
13. Basel: won (dropped only one set)
14. Masters Cup: won (undefeated, lost only 2 sets)
15. Australian Open: won (didn't drop a set)
16. Dubai: won

lawrence
12-03-2009, 07:59 PM
ok that is pretty insane

namelessone
12-03-2009, 10:01 PM
Best tennis:2005-early 2006
Best results:2006 by far.
Most satisfying year:2009(for obvious reasons).

What Roger has accomplished is outstanding.In a sense he is unlucky because he should have had at least 2 calendar slams by now if borg's successor hadn't appeared on clay.

JoshDragon
12-03-2009, 10:09 PM
1981



10 charf

Roger, was too focused on learning to crawl that year. That's the only reason that he didn't win a major. :P

tudwell
12-03-2009, 11:46 PM
1. 2006
2. 2004
3. 2005
4. 2007
5. 2009

Rafter22
12-04-2009, 12:45 AM
How about Federer's best 52 week (non calendar year)? I'd say March 2006-Feb 2007:

Record: 86-4 (95.56%)


1. Indian Wells: won (lost only one set)
2. Miami: won (lost only one set)
3. Monte Carlo: runner up
4. Rome: runner up
5. French Open: runner up
6. Halle: won
7. Wimbledon: won (lost only one set)
8. Canada: won
9. Cincy: lost in 2R
10. US Open: won (lost only two sets)
11. Tokyo: won (lost only one set)
12. Madrid: won (didn't drop a set)
13. Basel: won (dropped only one set)
14. Masters Cup: won (undefeated, lost only 2 sets)
15. Australian Open: won (didn't drop a set)
16. Dubai: won

Good one. The level of play was insane, especially the forehand was at its very best.

Best tennis:2005-early 2006
Best results:2006 by far.
Most satisfying year:2009(for obvious reasons).

What Roger has accomplished is outstanding.In a sense he is unlucky because he should have had at least 2 calendar slams by now if borg's successor hadn't appeared on clay.

Are you kidding? From the level of play, the 06 Aussie Open was his worst Slam Win out of the 15. And he was injured after the 05 US Open. The rest of 05 was great, no doubt about it. But 06 and beginning of 07 is when he was at his very best.

MuseFan
12-04-2009, 01:56 AM
06 Aussie Open was hardly Fed's worst slam win. In terms of poor quality play, 08 US Open would be the worst.

Anaconda
12-04-2009, 02:53 AM
2006 beats 2005. He was in all four Slam finals and won 3, compared to 2 Slams/finals in 2006. He also made it to the finals of all clay court tournaments he played.

In terms of results then 2006 is infact his best year. But Federer's level was at an all time high in 2005. Safin decided to show up at the time, Nadal was unbeatable on clay since the age of 10 and Nalbandian was Nalbandian who plays good at the end of the season.

crackbillionair
12-04-2009, 05:25 PM
I disagree with the logic. He still lost to Safin and still lost to Nalbandian. He won more slams and titles in 2006 as well.

I could just as easily say, "wow, Federer squandered some chances against Nadal in the 3rd set of the Aussie Open that would have allowed him to serve for the set and go up to 2-1 and be in a strong position to win the match" and "wow, Federer served for a 2 sets to none lead over Del Potro and probably would have destroyed him in the 3rd set had he won those couple of points." You know?


81-3 is the best record in the history of the game. Roger was 81-4 that yr. So factor out any of the ifs and buts that you like and it is still pretty close to the best record ever.

Blinkism
12-04-2009, 05:28 PM
2006 by results. That is his greatest seasons, for sure.

2004-2006 is Fed's peak.

If we're talking pure quality, Fed's form from 2000-2004 was brilliant, but he spent most of the time choking and losing important matches before 2003.

IvanAndreevich
12-04-2009, 05:30 PM
How about Federer's best 52 week (non calendar year)? I'd say March 2006-Feb 2007:

Record: 86-4 (95.56%)


1. Indian Wells: won (lost only one set)
2. Miami: won (lost only one set)
3. Monte Carlo: runner up
4. Rome: runner up
5. French Open: runner up
6. Halle: won
7. Wimbledon: won (lost only one set)
8. Canada: won
9. Cincy: lost in 2R
10. US Open: won (lost only two sets)
11. Tokyo: won (lost only one set)
12. Madrid: won (didn't drop a set)
13. Basel: won (dropped only one set)
14. Masters Cup: won (undefeated, lost only 2 sets)
15. Australian Open: won (didn't drop a set)
16. Dubai: won

Does anyone in the history of the game have a more dominating stretch of 1 year's time?

crackbillionair
12-04-2009, 07:41 PM
Does anyone in the history of the game have a more dominating stretch of 1 year's time?


Ivan, that's a different argument. If we want to contort the schedules and the months to make May to April calendars for Nadal or Fed April to March, we'll be pouring over stats until our eyes bleed.

That said, I'd like to mention 07 for a moment. Sure, 68-9 is pedestrian for Roger's prime, and the number of tournaments he won overall was down, but he won 3 slams and the YEC. 27-1 at the slams, which matter most. Pretty sick, the way he was able to 'flip the switch' on the big stage that year.

pame
12-05-2009, 05:55 AM
Ivan, that's a different argument. If we want to contort the schedules and the months to make May to April calendars for Nadal or Fed April to March, we'll be pouring over stats until our eyes bleed.

That said, I'd like to mention 07 for a moment. Sure, 68-9 is pedestrian for Roger's prime, and the number of tournaments he won overall was down, but he won 3 slams and the YEC. 27-1 at the slams, which matter most. Pretty sick, the way he was able to 'flip the switch' on the big stage that year.

I don't see any problems in considering a 52-week stretch; after all, the "calendar" year is kinda happenstance. Pope Gregory could just as easily have figured the calendar year should begin on Midsummer's Eve, and that's prob what we'd be living by now :)

Spider
12-05-2009, 06:12 AM
Both. I argue he would've trade AO and USO for a FO.
The greatest year is the year most everybody called him the greatest, after completing the career grand slam. The year he matched and then broke Sampras' record and rewrote the history books. He married, and then became a father. He went from the lowest down under to the top all in one year.

The real greatness is this. When you come back while everyone has written you off, keep fighting and never give up and then win against the odds.

That is what champions do and Federer this year proved it again. When people wrote him off after yet another defeat to Nadal at AO, and then to come back and win the next two slams and get back your number one position, that makes 2009 an epic year even for Federer's standards.

I would call 2009 so far as his best year. Although 04, 06 and 07 he won more slams, MS events and Masters cup, this is the year that marks a return of the champion (along with winning a title that could get him the title of being the greatest of all time -- RG).

Spider
12-05-2009, 06:21 AM
2006 was his best tennis year without a shadow of a doubt because of his level of play at the point in time. I won't caste a vote though as it is debatable because 04, 05, 06, 07 and 09 were all unbelieveable years for him so far (I won't be surprised if we discuss about more years in future as well).

fps
12-05-2009, 06:26 AM
The real greatness is this. When you come back while everyone has written you off, keep fighting and never give up and then win against the odds.

I understand and respect your opinion, but disagree. Greatness involves a level of performance that doesn't allow for critics. And I mean real critics, not the amateur hackjob trash-spouters that permeate this forum. The greats don't answer their critics, they keep them at bay. With the exception of early-mid 2008, when he was ill and results appeared to show a turning tide, within an 8 month frame still impressive by most standards, Federer has done this.

oh, and 2006.

dh003i
12-05-2009, 06:28 AM
2006 by results. That is his greatest seasons, for sure.

2004-2006 is Fed's peak.

If we're talking pure quality, Fed's form from 2000-2004 was brilliant, but he spent most of the time choking and losing important matches before 2003.

Amazing to think he could have even more slams by now if he'd had a better mental game back then. 2001 Wimbledon was definitely winnable by Federer, for example. So too, definitely, was the 2002 Wimbledon (Hewitt vs. Nalbandian in the final? come on!).

fps
12-05-2009, 06:32 AM
Amazing to think he could have even more slams by now if he'd had a better mental game back then. 2001 Wimbledon was definitely winnable by Federer, for example. So too, definitely, was the 2002 Wimbledon (Hewitt vs. Nalbandian in the final? come on!).

disrespect hewitt gets on this forum is ridiculous.

Anaconda
12-05-2009, 09:01 AM
Amazing to think he could have even more slams by now if he'd had a better mental game back then. 2001 Wimbledon was definitely winnable by Federer, for example. So too, definitely, was the 2002 Wimbledon (Hewitt vs. Nalbandian in the final? come on!).

Wrong!!!!!


Hewitt owned Federer everywhere up until 2003.

Chopin
12-05-2009, 10:53 AM
81-3 is the best record in the history of the game. Roger was 81-4 that yr. So factor out any of the ifs and buts that you like and it is still pretty close to the best record ever.

That's fine, but I'd still rather have an extra slam and title.

Chopin
12-05-2009, 11:04 AM
disrespect hewitt gets on this forum is ridiculous.

I agree. Hewitt was pretty dominant for a while.

OddJack
12-05-2009, 01:15 PM
I understand and respect your opinion, but disagree. Greatness involves a level of performance that doesn't allow for critics. And I mean real critics, not the amateur hackjob trash-spouters that permeate this forum. The greats don't answer their critics, they keep them at bay. With the exception of early-mid 2008, when he was ill and results appeared to show a turning tide, within an 8 month frame still impressive by most standards, Federer has done this.

oh, and 2006.

I disagree that a performer should consider critique or try to keep them at bay. There has always been critics and always will, and there should. That's their job.

Even if we consider critics then the two most important argument against his g.o.a.t was;

He has not win all four majors, Agassi did, and four others...when did that change? 2009

He has won less Majors than Sampras... changed in 2009

He is in a slump, has not won a Master title for 7 months: changed in 2009

He lost the number one ranking and maybe will never see it again Changed in 2009

Ever since Federer made his name he had never had to fight back to regain his ranking or come back from a crisis in his career. In 2009 he experienced it all and overcame all odds.

To me, those percentage numbers they cite from 2006 is good for simple minded people. They are only good for those critics to chew on. All they see, basically, is to see which number is bigger then call it a better year.

What history will recall the most will be what happened in 2009. The rest will be some numbers deep inside the ATP website.
If anybody cares to look, that is.

Ocean Drive
12-05-2009, 06:58 PM
definitely played his best in 2005 then 2004.

TheTruth
12-05-2009, 07:10 PM
Which year in which Roger Federer finished #1 in the world is most impressive?

Year Record Winning% Titles (Slams)
2009 61-12 .836 4 (2)
2007 68-9 .883 8 (3)
2006 92-5 .948 12 (3)
2005 81-4 .953 11 (2)
2004 74-6 .925 11 (3)

It looks like 2005 and 2006. The fact that he played more and had such an outstanding winning percentage says a lot, so it's a toss up to me.

edmondsm
12-05-2009, 07:13 PM
I voted 2009 because his ultimate achievements were realized. But yes, 2006 was the best tennis.

TheTruth
12-05-2009, 07:14 PM
That is what champions do and Federer this year proved it again. When people wrote him off after yet another defeat to Nadal at AO, and then to come back and win the next two slams and get back your number one position, that makes 2009 an epic year even for Federer's standards.

I would call 2009 so far as his best year. Although 04, 06 and 07 he won more slams, MS events and Masters cup, this is the year that marks a return of the champion (along with winning a title that could get him the title of being the greatest of all time -- RG).

That's a great post!

fps
12-06-2009, 02:53 AM
I disagree that a performer should consider critique or try to keep them at bay. There has always been critics and always will, and there should. That's their job.

Even if we consider critics then the two most important argument against his g.o.a.t was;

He has not win all four majors, Agassi did, and four others...when did that change? 2009

He has won less Majors than Sampras... changed in 2009

He is in a slump, has not won a Master title for 7 months: changed in 2009

He lost the number one ranking and maybe will never see it again Changed in 2009

Ever since Federer made his name he had never had to fight back to regain his ranking or come back from a crisis in his career. In 2009 he experienced it all and overcame all odds.

To me, those percentage numbers they cite from 2006 is good for simple minded people. They are only good for those critics to chew on. All they see, basically, is to see which number is bigger then call it a better year.

What history will recall the most will be what happened in 2009. The rest will be some numbers deep inside the ATP website.
If anybody cares to look, that is.

i was responding to your idea that a great champion comes back when people have written them off, which implies critics. federer's 2009 is an amazing comeback, but in terms of his tennis it hasn't been his greatest year, he has not played his best tennis this year, and to win his two slams he didn't have to get through nadal, djokovic or murray, his main contenders this year along with del potro.

was it a year in which he showed incredible heart, courage and levels of performance? yes. but it's not a year that established him as the dominant player of the era as 2004/5/6/7 did, years that established a peak to climb back to.

it's true that several stats played against him in the ridiculous neverending goat argument were overturned in 2009. but that's not because of 2009 alone, it's because he had already racked up so many slams and achieved so much in the other years- 2009 finishing the argument/ sealing the deal in terms of his achievements doesn't, on its own, make it his greatest year.

Anaconda
12-06-2009, 03:52 AM
2006 beats 2005. He was in all four Slam finals and won 3, compared to 2 Slams/finals in 2006. He also made it to the finals of all clay court tournaments he played.

No it doesn't. Federer was really close to losing the AO/W/US. Davydenko and haas just did their routine choke, Nadal could have beaten Federer in Wimbledon 06 and Blake and Roddick had chances in US open.

2005 was far more decisive - Federer came up against Safin who showed up (unlike 2006 where most people played good at best). 2005 Nadal was just to sick for anyone on clay. Wimbledon, Federer dismantled Hewitt and Roddick on grass - who are no slouches and lost only 1 set.

Yep i agree that obviously in terms of success, 2006 was a better year - having said that players like Hewitt/Roddick/Safin were nowhere to be found and Nadal was still learning grasscourt tennis. 2005 the field was much stronger.

In terms of quality, 2005 takes it as he was doing everything on the tennis court. 2006 (and from there on) he was relying on his serve and his forehand and his ability of making other people choke towards the end of sets.

Carsomyr
12-06-2009, 04:16 AM
No it doesn't. Federer was really close to losing the AO/W/US. Davydenko and haas just did their routine choke, Nadal could have beaten Federer in Wimbledon 06 and Blake and Roddick had chances in US open.

2005 was far more decisive - Federer came up against Safin who showed up (unlike 2006 where most people played good at best). 2005 Nadal was just to sick for anyone on clay. Wimbledon, Federer dismantled Hewitt and Roddick on grass - who are no slouches and lost only 1 set.

Yep i agree that obviously in terms of success, 2006 was a better year - having said that players like Hewitt/Roddick/Safin were nowhere to be found and Nadal was still learning grasscourt tennis. 2005 the field was much stronger.

In terms of quality, 2005 takes it as he was doing everything on the tennis court. 2006 (and from there on) he was relying on his serve and his forehand and his ability of making other people choke towards the end of sets.

Federer got nowhere even close to losing Wimbledon or the US Open in 2006; his Wimbledon performance was arguably his most dominant, and despite losing the third set to Nadal, he was up a double-break in the fourth.

And I'm not sure what Federer you were watching, but when has he not relied on his serve and forehand?

:confused:

Yeah, he didn't S&V as much in 2006 as he did in 2005, but only because he realized that he didn't need to; Fed is obviously more comfortable from the baseline, and he realized he could beat most everyone from the back of the court. And honestly, I'd take the more comfortable Federer.

Anaconda
12-06-2009, 04:56 AM
Federer got nowhere even close to losing Wimbledon or the US Open in 2006; his Wimbledon performance was arguably his most dominant, and despite losing the third set to Nadal, he was up a double-break in the fourth.

And I'm not sure what Federer you were watching, but when has he not relied on his serve and forehand?

:confused:

Yeah, he didn't S&V as much in 2006 as he did in 2005, but only because he realized that he didn't need to; Fed is obviously more comfortable from the baseline, and he realized he could beat most everyone from the back of the court. And honestly, I'd take the more comfortable Federer.

But 2005 Hewitt and Roddick (on grass) would own Nadal 2006 (on grass) and Federer dismantled both of them in straight sets.

1)Blake and Roddick had chances to beat Federer in US open 2006.
2)Davydenko and Haas should have beat Federer in AO 2006.
3)Nadal could have beaten Federer at wimbledon 2006.
4)FO - Nadal didn't even play his best and still won. Unlike 2005 where Nadal probably played better and had to tough it out.

Carsomyr
12-06-2009, 05:43 AM
But 2005 Hewitt and Roddick (on grass) would own Nadal 2006 (on grass) and Federer dismantled both of them in straight sets.

1)Blake and Roddick had chances to beat Federer in US open 2006.
2)Davydenko and Haas should have beat Federer in AO 2006.
3)Nadal could have beaten Federer at wimbledon 2006.
4)FO - Nadal didn't even play his best and still won. Unlike 2005 where Nadal probably played better and had to tough it out.

The transitive property doesn't work in this case; Nadal is a bad match-up for Federer, so it doesn't really matter what Federer did to Hewitt and Roddick in 2005. And Fed still bagelled him.

I'm not arguing that Federer didn't have a great AO, but when it mattered, he stepped up. People say Davy choked, but I watched the match, and Federer clearly upped his level of play. And I'm not sure how you're getting that Blake and Roddick had chances to beat Federer at the US Open; Federer led two sets to love against Blake before losing the third and taking control of the fourth. And no, Nadal could not have beaten Federer at the 2006 Wimbledon. Fed was clearly in control of that match - even when he lost the third set tiebreaker, he responded by breaking Nadal twice.

Anaconda
12-06-2009, 05:47 AM
The transitive property doesn't work in this case; Nadal is a bad match-up for Federer, so it doesn't really matter what Federer did to Hewitt and Roddick in 2005. And Fed still bagelled him.

I'm not arguing that Federer didn't have a great AO, but when it mattered, he stepped up. People say Davy choked, but I watched the match, and Federer clearly upped his level of play. And I'm not sure how you're getting that Blake and Roddick had chances to beat Federer at the US Open; Federer led two sets to love against Blake before losing the third and taking control of the fourth. And no, Nadal could not have beaten Federer at the 2006 Wimbledon. Fed was clearly in control of that match - even when he lost the third set tiebreaker, he responded by breaking Nadal twice.

Davydenko choked, as usual.

Nadal should have served out for the second set.

Roddick had 0-40 at 4-4 at the third set of US open 2006

Blake had chances to win each set (except the set he got bageled)

And Nadal isn't such a horrible matchup for Federer as Federer has beaten him 7 times. Nadal just plays better on the day, as usual.

Carsomyr
12-06-2009, 05:57 AM
Davydenko choked, as usual.

Nadal should have served out for the second set.

Roddick had 0-40 at 4-4 at the third set of US open 2006

Blake had chances to win each set (except the set he got bageled)

And Nadal isn't such a horrible matchup for Federer as Federer has beaten him 7 times. Nadal just plays better on the day, as usual.

I'm not sure why you're putting such emphasis on shoulda-coulda-woulda; Agassi was ahead a break in the third set of the 2005 USO final, too. And yeah, Nadal is a pretty horrible match-up for Federer - his cross court forehand (easiest stroke in the game) goes right into Fed's backhand, which doesn't handle high spin too well.

Mustard
12-06-2009, 06:09 AM
Obviously 2006. Nadal was responsible for 4 of his 5 losses that year.

pame
12-06-2009, 06:14 AM
In terms of quality, 2005 takes it as he was doing everything on the tennis court. 2006 (and from there on) he was relying on his serve and his forehand and his ability of making other people choke towards the end of sets.

I have this strong vision of Fed, instead of serving, rushing up to his opponents and stuffing tennis ball fluff down their throats, thus making them choke

Anaconda
12-06-2009, 06:26 AM
I have this strong vision of Fed, instead of serving, rushing up to his opponents and stuffing tennis ball fluff down their throats, thus making them choke

Not funny. It brings back memmories of my cat choking to death whilst swallowing a bird alive.

mandy01
12-06-2009, 06:44 AM
2005..Not for the stats but for the level at which he played and the way he played.

Anaconda
12-06-2009, 07:30 AM
And you could also agrue that Federer was the best in 2004 - Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Gaudio, Agassi all won slams and were still great this year were constantly rolled over by Federer.

And the thing is the likes of Hewitt, Gaudio (obviously) and Roddick were amazing that year - you can't say that now.

oh well, 2004 or 2005.

TheFifthSet
12-06-2009, 08:09 AM
1)Blake and Roddick had chances to beat Federer in US open 2006.

Hewitt and Agassi had chances to beat Federer at the '05 US Open.


2)Davydenko and Haas should have beat Federer in AO 2006.

Davydenko maybe, but Haas? Federer was up two sets, and won the fifth 6-2.

3)Nadal could have beaten Federer at wimbledon 2006.

Yeah, he could have, but he didn't. He wasn't really all that close either.

Anaconda
12-06-2009, 08:22 AM
Hewitt and Agassi had chances to beat Federer at the '05 US Open.




Davydenko maybe, but Haas? Federer was up two sets, and won the fifth 6-2.


Yeah, he could have, but he didn't. He wasn't really all that close either.


Yes but haas managed to battle back to 2-2 and had the momentum on his side and at the very least could have done better in the 5th set. Federer was clearly on the ropes and haas was very much the man after the 4th set.

wimbledon 2006 was close, except for the 1st set where Nadal looked lost (maybe due to the occasion). If Nadal capitilised on missed chances then it goes into a fifth set - and Nadal's 5th set record is immense.

true, a lot of if's/but's/maybe's/should have/could haves but we are discussing a topic which needs these point of views.

rjg007
12-06-2009, 09:07 AM
It's a toss up between '04,'06 and '07. 3 slam wins in a year 3 times is pretty impressive stuff. I don't know what his maters performances were in those years but I can't imagine they were too bad.

Anaconda
12-06-2009, 09:43 AM
It's a toss up between '04,'06 and '07. 3 slam wins in a year 3 times is pretty impressive stuff. I don't know what his maters performances were in those years but I can't imagine they were too bad.

2005 in terms of quality were better than all of them.

Chopin
12-06-2009, 10:21 PM
This thread is one of my many triumphs on this board! Thank you for participating folks! The force is with us.

anointedone
12-06-2009, 11:54 PM
But 2005 Hewitt and Roddick (on grass) would own Nadal 2006 (on grass) and Federer dismantled both of them in straight sets.

1)Blake and Roddick had chances to beat Federer in US open 2006.
2)Davydenko and Haas should have beat Federer in AO 2006.
3)Nadal could have beaten Federer at wimbledon 2006.
4)FO - Nadal didn't even play his best and still won. Unlike 2005 where Nadal probably played better and had to tough it out.

ROTFL such an insanely biased accessment.

1. Blake was lucky to even get into a 4th set after Federer missed out on a match point in the 3rd set tiebreaker. The match was competitive but Federer was always in control and he wasted more chances than did Blake. The final match stats had similar errors, Federer with 20+ more winners, and simlar errors. As for the final Federer killed Roddick in the 1st and 4th sets, and had more pressure on Roddick than vice versa throughout the 3rd. The final match stats had Federer with over double the winners as Roddick.

2. The Davydenko match was tight. Haas should have beaten Federer though!?! That is stupidity. Haas was only in a 5th set since Federer went on a mid match walkabout when he was destroying Haas. Then in the 5th set Federer snapped back in and mauled Haas. It was one of the most uncompetitive 5 set matches I ever saw. Federer had about 70 winners and Haas about 30, Haas never had any control how that match would go.

3. As a Nadal fan Federer was the clear winner of that match. Virtually even 2nd and 3rd sets, and Federer destroying Nadal in the 1st and 4th sets. He won 9 more games in only 4 sets.

Thanks for your summary, it had me laughing in stiches, especialy the parts about Blake and Haas and your accessment of those matches, LOL!

Gaudio2004
12-07-2009, 08:15 AM
2006 only because he won 3 slams that year and only 2 in 2005. He was nearly impossible to defeat in 2005 - like playing a computer on "elite" mode or something.

Agassifan
12-07-2009, 08:39 AM
2006 was the best in terms of results. 2005 was his best ever in terms of domination/level of play.

It is fair to say that the federer peaked in 05-06. Still better than the rest even after a slow four year decline.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
12-07-2009, 08:44 AM
2005 and 2006 was the best domination wise results wise impressive wise and level wise, although MY best year as a Fed-fan would have to be 2009 where he got his 1st French and the 6th Wimbledon that makes him "stand alone" !! :twisted:

pc1
12-19-2009, 12:42 PM
Does anyone in the history of the game have a more dominating stretch of 1 year's time?

Helen Wills once went about seven years without losing a set.

Some had said Tilden didn't lose a match in one year but it's possible he may have lost one match that year which I believe was 1924.

John McEnroe was 82-3 in 1984 winning Wimbledon and the US Open and losing the French Open final after leading two sets to none.

Martina Navratilova lost only 14 matches in a five year period so that's averaging less than 3 losses a year. I think in her best year she lost only 1 match.

Graf had some years in which she lost only 2 matches.

Alice Marble had consecutive years (I think it was 1939 and 1940 but I'm not sure) in which she didn't lose a match.

Suzanne Lenglen probably went through years in which she didn't lose.

Jimmy Connors in 1974 went 99-4 and won the Australian Open, Wimbledon and the US Open. He was not allowed to enter the French Open that year.

Tony Trabert in 1955 and Frank Sedgman in 1952 had great years. I think Trabert may have done as well or better than Federer's best year but that was in the amateurs or I wouldn't count it.

chanee
12-19-2009, 12:45 PM
Federer was most dominant in 2006 but in turn the field was the weakest of this decade. Hewitt injured, Nadal was still finding his game on grass and HC. Roddick was out of sorts. No Murray and no Djokovic.

Dimension
12-19-2009, 03:00 PM
Federer was most dominant in 2006 but in turn the field was the weakest of this decade. Hewitt injured, Nadal was still finding his game on grass and HC. Roddick was out of sorts. No Murray and no Djokovic.

It's kind of true in a way, but it's also because fed's phenonmenal playing level that put him above all players during his domination. Can't discredit that.

clayman2000
12-19-2009, 08:17 PM
04 - 07 was the greatest 4 year span of tennis ever.
04 was amazing because he dominated tennis like no other had in 30+ years.
05 was amazing because he lost only 4 matches
06 was amazing because he lost only 1 match to someone not named Nadal, and didnt make the final of only 1 event he played.
07 was amazing because he had the most dominant performance in a major ever (until FO 08), defeated Nadal on clay in stunning fashion, won his 5th wimby

Overall 05 and 06 stand out as his bests years because of his winning % and the combined 9 losses.
09 has been great for him, but that sense of invincibility he had in 04 - 07 was gone.
If this was that time, no way he looses to Benneteau or Wawrinka or Tsonga