Federer's set scores During Number 1 Reign

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Knightmace, May 10, 2009.

  1. Knightmace

    Knightmace Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    940
    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
     
    #1
  2. <3tennis!!!

    <3tennis!!! Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    476
    haha sweet stats, shows just how dominant fed was in his prime
     
    #2
  3. Blinkism

    Blinkism Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    8,598
    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.
     
    #3
  4. tennis-hero

    tennis-hero Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,090
    Location:
    uk
    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
     
    #4
  5. Cesc Fabregas

    Cesc Fabregas Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,318
    He won AO, Wimbledon and the USO how is 2007 not his prime?:confused:
     
    #5
  6. tennis-hero

    tennis-hero Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,090
    Location:
    uk
    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
     
    #6
  7. Cesc Fabregas

    Cesc Fabregas Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,318
    Don't care about all that he won 3 slams, 2 masters shields and the masters cup 2007 was defo a prime year.
     
    #7
  8. tennis-hero

    tennis-hero Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,090
    Location:
    uk
    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
     
    #8
  9. aphex

    aphex Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,263
    Location:
    athens, greece
    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.
     
    #9
  10. clayman2000

    clayman2000 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,849
    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
     
    #10
  11. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    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.
     
    #11
  12. harrpau7

    harrpau7 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    177
    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??
     
    #12
  13. LanceStern

    LanceStern Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,332
    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
     
    #13
  14. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    But they dont mentioned the SCRUBS he played for the majority of the time. LOL
     
    #14
  15. Swissv2

    Swissv2 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,491
    Location:
    Tennis Courts!
    Another "weak era" fan. I knew this would happen.
     
    #15
  16. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    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
     
    #16
  17. Swissv2

    Swissv2 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,491
    Location:
    Tennis Courts!
    McEnroe was playing in a "weak era" :twisted:
     
    #17
  18. tacou

    tacou Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,044
    ridiculous numbers. barely lost sets
     
    #18
  19. defrule

    defrule Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    826
    #19
  20. Knightmace

    Knightmace Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    940
    ^^^and??????
     
    #20
  21. tennis-hero

    tennis-hero Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,090
    Location:
    uk
    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:
     
    #21
  22. chief wiggum

    chief wiggum New User

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    69
    It is great to see that his numbers now are nothing like they used to be.
     
    #22
  23. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    The title states DURING HIS #1 REIGN (not in his 'prime' - whatever that is).

    He was ranked #1 for most of 2008.
     
    #23
  24. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Nadal's Set Stats?

    Some Nadal fan should comb through his set stats and post his numbers as #1 and #2... then we'll compare them :twisted:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2009
    #24
  25. Knightmace

    Knightmace Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    940
    lol.............
     
    #25
  26. Joseph L. Barrow

    Joseph L. Barrow Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,251
    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.
     
    #26
  27. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Funny little doodle... ain't it? :grin:

    I feel the artist captured the overall feel and content of a flame war...
     
    #27
  28. AprilFool

    AprilFool Guest

    #28
  29. jelle v

    jelle v Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,978
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    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.
     
    #29
  30. Blade0324

    Blade0324 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,569

    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.
     
    #30

Share This Page