Roger Federer 2007 vs 2004

[Lotto]

What's this ELO stuff?

[Chopin]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

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

And more Chopin, naturally.

[tricky]

FWIW, Chopin > Beethoven

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]

Originally Posted by tricky

FWIW, Chopin > Beethoven

Yes, particularly in his symphonies and string quartets.

[Chopin]

^^Both were revolutionaries.

[davey25]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

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]

Originally Posted by 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

This ranking is spot on.

[Chopin]

Originally Posted by Dark Victory

This ranking is spot on.

Sounds about right.

[Slazenger07]

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

[abmk]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by abmk

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]

Originally Posted by abmk

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]

Originally Posted by Dark Victory

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.