Federer was playing better in 2008

Federer played better in 2008 or 2009

  • 2008

    Votes: 19 16.1%
  • 2009

    Votes: 99 83.9%

  • Total voters
    118
  • Poll closed .

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
Losing sets to Haas whose worst surface is clay, c'mon. Fed should have lost to Haas, Acasuso or Del Potro in 2009... Fed was never in danger of losing before the 2008 FO final.
Fed shouldnt have lost to Haas because it was Fed saving the BP in the third set and raising his bar even more to beat him.He got aggressive on returns,used drop shots frequently to throw Haas off-balance,continued to serve well,attacked the net.In short-Played some really good tennis.
 

ksbh

Banned
I agree with the thread title.

Federer was playing incredible tennis in 2008, far superior to 2009.
 
Losing sets to Haas whose worst surface is clay, c'mon. Fed should have lost to Haas, Acasuso or Del Potro in 2009... Fed was never in danger of losing before the 2008 FO final.

Haas played better at this years French than anyone Federer played in 2008. Del Potro is light years better than anyone Federer played in 2008, it would be laughable to say Monfils or Gonzalez of last year are close to Del Potro. Acasuso is tough for a 3rd round, much tougher than anyone Federer played before the quarters last year. I dont see why you are arguing this so hard. You dont even like Federer. The fact is Federer wasnt playing well at all at last years French, much worse than this year even (not that he was that great this year) and would have lost to Djokovic who was on fire last year. End of story.
 
Because sets lost do not always indicate a drop in level :wink:
FYI-Roger did not lose a single point on his serve in the first set against Haas.It was just one blip in the tb that gave Haas the set.Thats not called playing bad tennis.
As for Del Po-You'd have to be really clueless not to admit the guy played out of his mind.

The Federer Haas match at this years RG was a horrible match, Roger choked the first 2 sets away because he realised this was his best chance with Nadal getting knocked out the day before so he got nervous, and then Haas choked the last 2 sets with failing to get over not converting his breaking point at 4-3 in the 3rd.
 
The Federer Haas match at this years RG was a horrible match, Roger choked the first 2 sets away because he realised this was his best chance with Nadal getting knocked out the day before so he got nervous, and then Haas choked the last 2 sets with failing to get over not converting his breaking point at 4-3 in the 3rd.

Haas is such a choker. I always knew he would find a way to not win the match even when he up 2 sets to 0 and up in the 3rd. I have watched him enough over the years to see that coming.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
The Federer Haas match at this years RG was a horrible match, Roger choked the first 2 sets away because he realised this was his best chance with Nadal getting knocked out the day before so he got nervous, and then Haas choked the last 2 sets with failing to get over not converting his breaking point at 4-3 in the 3rd.
Roger was playing under pressure,I wont deny that but there was hardly any choking there.Haas himself was very solid on his own serve especially in the first couple of sets which made it tough for Roger to break him.And Fed SAVED the BP rather than Haas failing to convert it.Atleast watch the match before you speak.
 

Cyan

Hall of Fame
Haas played better at this years French than anyone Federer played in 2008. Del Potro is light years better than anyone Federer played in 2008, it would be laughable to say Monfils or Gonzalez of last year are close to Del Potro. Acasuso is tough for a 3rd round, much tougher than anyone Federer played before the quarters last year. I dont see why you are arguing this so hard. You dont even like Federer. The fact is Federer wasnt playing well at all at last years French, much worse than this year even (not that he was that great this year) and would have lost to Djokovic who was on fire last year. End of story.

The fact is, IF Nadal lost before the 2008 FO final and before Wimbledon 2008 final, Fed would have won 3 slams in 2008. Take Nadal out of FO and Wimbledon 2009 and Fed still won 2 slams this year not 3.
 
The fact is, IF Nadal lost before the 2008 FO final and before Wimbledon 2008 final, Fed would have won 3 slams in 2008. Take Nadal out of FO and Wimbledon 2009 and Fed still won 2 slams this year not 3.

No that is not a fact. That is your opinion. Many people would agree with me that Djokovic would have beaten Federer at last years French, and said so at the time too. Regardless how you try and spin it Federer wasnt playing well at all at last years French, and yes worse than this year (and he probably wouldnt have even won this year playing Djokovic in his 2008 FO form). He was lucky in the form he was in to even make the final, and very lucky the very on fire Djokovic was in Nadal's half.
 

Cyan

Hall of Fame
Now comparing Andreev to Del Potro, ROTFL!!! Why dont you just give up before you make yourself look more stupid than you already are.

The only idiots are the *******s like you that don't realize that Fed's 2009 looks better than Fed's 2008 because NADAL WAS INJURED. He is not playing better this year at all, his loss at USO proves it. He just got lucky that Nadal got injured. He had not won any titles this year before Nadal's injury in Madrid SF. Period.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
The fact is, IF Nadal lost before the 2008 FO final and before Wimbledon 2008 final, Fed would have won 3 slams in 2008. Take Nadal out of FO and Wimbledon 2009 and Fed still won 2 slams this year not 3.
That has NOTHING to do with the level at which he was playing .He's played better tennis this year.The sets lost,Nadal being tired and injured ( LOL..Same drama every year ) are moot points.
 

flying24

Banned
The only idiots are the *******s like you that don't realize that Fed's 2009 looks better than Fed's 2008 because NADAL WAS INJURED. He is not playing better this year at all, his loss at USO proves it. He just got lucky that Nadal got injured. He had not won any titles this year before Nadal's injury in Madrid SF. Period.

I am not a *******, and you with the Nadal avatar and all your posts being about Federer vs Nadal in some indirect way are the last one who is entitled to call anyone else a ****. The fact you think comparing an on fire Andreev to an on fire Del Potro on hard courts as some kind of parallel analogy already says it all about the idiotic arguments you are trying to convince people with in this thread. Stop wasting your time since you just look like a fool.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
The fact is, IF Nadal lost before the 2008 FO final and before Wimbledon 2008 final, Fed would have won 3 slams in 2008. Take Nadal out of FO and Wimbledon 2009 and Fed still won 2 slams this year not 3.
That has NOTHING to do with the level at which he was playing .He's played better tennis this year.The sets lost,Nadal being tired and injured ( LOL..Same drama every year by his fans :lol: ) are moot points.
 

flying24

Banned
That has NOTHING to do with the level at which he was playing .He's played better tennis this year.The sets lost,Nadal being tired and injured ( LOL..Same drama every year by his fans :lol: ) are moot points.

I agree. Although that being said I do think in the slams it is fairly close to which year he was playing better:

2008 Australian vs 2009- much better in 2009
2008 French vs 2009- much better in 2009
2008 Wimbledon vs 2009- similar
2008 U.S Open vs 2009-similar, maybe a bit better in 2009

However in Masters events and overall he has played much better this year, despite that he only won 1 (last year he won 0 anyway of course). So I would say overall his form this year is definitely improved.
 

Cyan

Hall of Fame
You can spin it anyway you want to. If Nadal had gotten injured before the FO and Wimbledon in 2008, Fed would have won 3 slams in 2008. In 2009 Nadal gets injured before the FO and Wimbledon and Fed still wins 2 slams not 3. Meaning he is not playing better even with injured Nadal because he lost to Del Potro at the USO. If he was playing better than in 2008 then he would have won the USO this year vs a newbie in the final.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
You can spin it anyway you want to. If Nadal had gotten injured before the FO and Wimbledon in 2008, Fed would have won 3 slams in 2008. In 2009 Nadal gets injured before the FO and Wimbledon and Fed still wins 2 slams not 3. Meaning he is not playing better even with injured Nadal because he lost to Del Potro at the USO. If he was playing better than in 2008 then he would have won the USO this year vs a newbie in the final.
You're just so clueless about tennis,its funny :lol:
BTW-Are you trying to tell us that just because it was Del Po's first slam final we should discredit his win? Sounds fine to me :D
Fed won 'only' 2 slams in 2005 as compared to his other dominant seasons.I still consider the year better for him level-wise.
 

flying24

Banned
You can spin it anyway you want to. If Nadal had gotten injured before the FO and Wimbledon in 2008, Fed would have won 3 slams in 2008. In 2009 Nadal gets injured before the FO and Wimbledon and Fed still wins 2 slams not 3. Meaning he is not playing better even with injured Nadal because he lost to Del Potro at the USO. If he was playing better than in 2008 then he would have won the USO this year vs a newbie in the final.

You are the one trying to spin facts. Many in this thread have already disagreed with you that Federer would have won the French last year without Nadal so your "3 without Nadal" is not a fact. It is funny how much you lowball Del Potro's abilities too and a sign to your cluelessness on the game. Comparing Del Potro to Andreev on hard courts, not even seeming to realize Del Potro is much better than anyone Federer played at the French last year, etc....Are you forgetting the smackdown your favorite player has gotten the last 2 times he played Del Potro on hard courts (and lost 3 times in a row)? Oh I forgot, now we are going to hear poor witty bitty Rafa was "injured", as if he would have beaten Del Potro in the U.S Open semis this year he lost 6-2, 6-2, 6-2 with some small injury if he were healthy, ROTFL!!!!
 

flying24

Banned
You're just so clueless about tennis,its funny :lol:
BTW-Are you trying to tell us that just because it was Del Po's first slam final we should discredit his win? Sounds fine to me :D
Fed won 'only' 2 slams in 2005 as compared to his other dominant seasons.I still consider the year better for him level-wise.

Federer was playing much better in 2005 than 2004 or 2007. Of course he was playing exceptionally well all those years, but 2005 and 2006 are his 2 highest caliber years of tennis ever. Yet he won only 2 slams in 2005 like you said, and 3 in 2004 and 2007.
 

Cyan

Hall of Fame
You're just so clueless about tennis,its funny :lol:
BTW-Are you trying to tell us that just because it was Del Po's first slam final we should discredit his win? Sounds fine to me :D
Fed won 'only' 2 slams in 2005 as compared to his other dominant seasons.I still consider the year better for him level-wise.



You must be a fool to not see the obvious. Fed is getting older and so is his back. He beat Murray in the 2008 USO final, Murray was a final newbie just like Del Potro was a final newbie this year at the USO. If Fed was playing better in 2009 there is no way he should have lost at the USO. He is not playing better. Must be his back getting worse with age or maybe the mono is coming back....
 
Last edited:

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
I agree. Although that being said I do think in the slams it is fairly close to which year he was playing better:

2008 Australian vs 2009- much better in 2009
2008 French vs 2009- much better in 2009
2008 Wimbledon vs 2009- similar
2008 U.S Open vs 2009-similar, maybe a bit better in 2009

However in Masters events and overall he has played much better this year, despite that he only won 1 (last year he won 0 anyway of course). So I would say overall his form this year is definitely improved.

He won 2 masters this year,not 1.
I agree with USO as well.I think the final was some really good stuff from both players-a little disappointing from Roger when it came to the serve but I think it was high quality tennis.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
So how come he beat Murray in the 2008 USO final, Murray was a final newbie just like Del Potro was a final newbie this year at the USO. If Fed was playing better in 2009 there is no way he should have lost at the USO. He is not playing better. Must be his back getting worse with age or maybe the mono is coming back....
No,his level just dropped very slightly in the second set and quite a lot in the fifth set but that has nothing to do with the fact that his level was still pretty high .Not to mention Del Po was in killer mode in both semis and the finals.He was playing brilliant tennis.
I agree though that he played better at the Open last year ( overall) but the final this year was still high quality.
 
Last edited:
I agree. Although that being said I do think in the slams it is fairly close to which year he was playing better:

2008 Australian vs 2009- much better in 2009
Agreed.

2008 French vs 2009- much better in 2009
Disagree. He played terribley against Haas, Mathieu and Acasuso, ok he didn't play well in 08 but he played like trash in 09 apart from the final.

2008 Wimbledon vs 2009- similar
Better in 08. He didn't drop a set in 08 and lost to the great Nadal in the final, this year he dropped a set to Kohlscheber and nearly lost to Roddick (and would have lost to Roddick if Andy makes that backhand volley in the second set tiebreak)

2008 U.S Open vs 2009-similar, maybe a bit better in 2009
In 08 he didn't play that well to the semis, but this year he was hardly great, lost a set to his pidgeons old man Hewitt and Soderling and struggled with a slumping Djokovic and lost to Del Potro in the final, in 08 he beat a good Djokovic and destroyed Murray in the final.
However in Masters events and overall he has played much better this year, despite that he only won 1 (last year he won 0 anyway of course). So I would say overall his form this year is definitely improved.

I agree here, but he played terribly at Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo and Rome this year, choked a 5-1 lead against Tsonga in Canada. He has only played well at Madrid and Cincy and he played pretty well at Monte Carlo and Hamburg last year.
 

flying24

Banned
He won 2 masters this year,not 1.
I agree with USO as well.I think the final was some really good stuff from both players-a little disappointing from Roger when it came to the serve but I think it was high quality tennis.

Sorry, thanks for the correction. I agree about this years U.S Open. I think he was playing excellent tennis. His dominance leading up to the final including over an on fire Soderling and in form Djokovic speaks to that. The final was a litlte below standard of his other matches, but Del Potro also played on a whole different level than Murray in last years final. Not everyone handles a first slam final the same way, Del Potro certainly handled it alot better than Murray despite some early nerves, and Federer had an off serving day which was enough to make the difference.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
Sorry but Roger played way better at this year's Wimbledon than last year.
And no coulda,woulda,shoulda please.
I dont care how many sets he lost or he didnt.As I said they're moot points when comparing your level.Losing a set is NOT an indicator of a player's level.
The level of play this year was pretty even on both sides with Roger just showing more grit.
And we could talk about lost opportunities the whole day.Using that logic Roger should've won this year's AO and other matches against Nadal.That however is not an indicator of the kind of tennis a player displays.
 
Cesc, we usually agree on most things but do you really feel Federer was playing better at last years French? I thought he was playing awful at last years French and lucky to make the final. I have no doubts Djokovic, who was playing some outstanding tennis at last years French, would have beaten Federer had they played there. Hence why I refuse to agree with anyone saying he would have won 3 slams last year without Nadal.

This year he struggled vs Haas and Acasuso in the 3rd and 4th rounds but I dont even remember who Federer played in the 3rd and 4th round last year. I suspect the way he was playing if it was anyone semi noteable he would have struggled as well. I dont see him getting past Del Potro at all the way he was playing last year, keep in mind Del Potro was playing some excellent tennis in that semifinal and is a much better player than Monfils who was Roger's semifinal opponent of last year. He had to be playing better than last years French to survive him at all.

This year he was lucky Nadal went out and Djokovic was out of form. Last year he was lucky Djokovic was in the other half. I think Djokovic has surpassed Federer on clay now, and next year Del Potro probably will as well.
 

Cyan

Hall of Fame
Fed served better in the 2008 USO final than in this years USO final.... Again those pesky back problems...
 
Cesc, we usually agree on most things but do you really feel Federer was playing better at last years French? I thought he was playing awful at last years French and lucky to make the final. I have no doubts Djokovic, who was playing some outstanding tennis at last years French, would have beaten Federer had they played there. Hence why I refuse to agree with anyone saying he would have won 3 slams last year without Nadal.

This year he struggled vs Haas and Acasuso in the 3rd and 4th rounds but I dont even remember who Federer played in the 3rd and 4th round last year. I suspect the way he was playing if it was anyone semi noteable he would have struggled as well. I dont see him getting past Del Potro at all the way he was playing last year, keep in mind Del Potro was playing some excellent tennis in that semifinal and is a much better player than Monfils who was Roger's semifinal opponent of last year. He had to be playing better than last years French to survive him at all.

This year he was lucky Nadal went out and Djokovic was out of form. Last year he was lucky Djokovic was in the other half. I think Djokovic has surpassed Federer on clay now, and next year Del Potro probably will as well.

I think he was playing trash in both years :), but you have a point that if he played like he did against Monflis last year, Del Potro would have beaten him this year.
 
Fed served better in the 2008 USO final than in this years USO final.... Again those pesky back problems...

I agree with that. I dont think it was the back though. He was serving very well before the final. I think like flying said it was just an off serving day, but also the pressure Del Potro was putting on his serve by hitting the returns so agressively. Lets face it Murray last year played a pathetic final, all but handed it to Federer.
 

Cyan

Hall of Fame
I agree with that. I dont think it was the back though. He was serving very well before the final. I think like flying said it was just an off serving day, but also the pressure Del Potro was putting on his serve by hitting the returns so agressively. Lets face it Murray last year played a pathetic final, all but handed it to Federer.

I think his back is only going to get worse with aging. His serve was off at both the AO final and USO final this year.
 
I think he was playing trash in both years :), but you have a point that if he played like he did against Monflis last year, Del Potro would have beaten him this year.

Well this year I think he was playing a bit better from the quarters on than last year. I agree both years was nothing great though and somewhat lucky (even more lucky this year than last though). His best ever clay court tennis was definitely 2005-2007 by far but of course Rafa was too good for him even then.

I dont think we will see Federer in another FO final neccessarily. I would be very surprised if he wins another French.
 
I think his back is only going to get worse with aging. His serve was off at both the AO final and USO final this year.

You could be right. If that is the case it will be curtains for him, since his ground game and movement are already visibly regressed from what it used to be.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
You can spin it anyway you want to. If Nadal had gotten injured before the FO and Wimbledon in 2008, Fed would have won 3 slams in 2008. In 2009 Nadal gets injured before the FO and Wimbledon and Fed still wins 2 slams not 3. Meaning he is not playing better even with injured Nadal because he lost to Del Potro at the USO. If he was playing better than in 2008 then he would have won the USO this year vs a newbie in the final.

Who’s spinning? The facts are there…66-15(2008), 1GS is much worse than 55-8(2009), 2GS.

First, whether Nadal was out in 2008 or not, it doesn’t changed the fact that Roger had physical problems that year. He was sick, missed practices and wasn’t inform as he use to. Federer is in much better shape than last year. But no matter what, Roger’s winning streak has to end, and his losses are credited by the winners.

Second, Nadal did not miss RG. He played and got beat by a hot player[Soderling] fair and square. And Roger WAS the one who beat Robin in the final. Every year changes, nothing stay the same. Just b/c Roger lost to him from 2005-08 doesn’t automatically means he would beat him again. Every winning streak has to end, upset do happened, and it’s stupid think otherwise. Roger won and is the best player this year after having such a tough 2008. He gets all the credits for his win, and of course Del Potro for beating him.

Third, healthy Nadal or not there’s no evidence from you to say Nadal would of made the SW19 final, let alone winning it. Again, just b/c he won in 2008 doesn’t mean he would of winning it again. Outside of clay tournaments, how many time did Nadal ever repeat as champion?
 

Cyan

Hall of Fame
You could be right. If that is the case it will be curtains for him, since his ground game and movement are already visibly regressed from what it used to be.

Notice his serve let him down at both HC slam finals this year. This is why Wimbledon will be his best chance to win slam number 16 next year.
 
Well this year I think he was playing a bit better from the quarters on than last year. I agree both years was nothing great though and somewhat lucky (even more lucky this year than last though). His best ever clay court tennis was definitely 2005-2007 by far but of course Rafa was too good for him even then.

I dont think we will see Federer in another FO final neccessarily. I would be very surprised if he wins another French.

Hopefully. :) The french Open next year will be contesting by Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro and Federer.
 
Hopefully. :) The french Open next year will be contesting by Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro and Federer.

I agree those are the main contenders. I would love to see a Nadal-Djokovic French Open final though! Do you think Monfils should be considered a dark horse? Sometimes I think he is on the verge of a breakthrough, but in the back of my mind I think he is forever destined to be an underachiever.
 

Cyan

Hall of Fame
Again, just b/c he won in 2008 doesn’t mean he would of winning it again. Outside of clay tournaments, how many time did Nadal ever repeat as champion?

Exactly and just because Fed won the FO in 2009 doesn't mean he will be fluking it again next year :) FO is a young players slam.
 
Wait-Djokovic is better than Roger on clay? On what basis?

Career wise overall, not even close. However he was playing better on clay in 2008 after Monte Carlo. Do you dispute Djokovic played higher caliber tennis than Federer in 2008 at Rome, Hamburg, and the French Open all, especialy Rome and the French Open. This year he was also playing better tennis than Federer on clay until Madrid (and some would argue even in Madrid where Federer feasted on a gassed Nadal in the final).
 
I agree those are the main contenders. I would love to see a Nadal-Djokovic French Open final though! Do you think Monfils should be considered a dark horse? Sometimes I think he is on the verge of a breakthrough, but in the back of my mind I think he is forever destined to be an underachiever.

I don't think the guy has the stamina, after the first set against Nadal at the Open he was gassed. A great athlete he is with a powerful forehand but I don't think he has the concentration or stamina.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Fed served better in the 2008 USO final than in this years USO final.... Again those pesky back problems...

I agree on this one....his serve in that final was the worst of all the 21 GS final he played.

But remember, it's only one match. Overall, 66-15(2008), 1GS is worse than 55-8(2009), 2GS
 
I don't think the guy has the stamina, after the first set against Nadal at the Open he was gassed. A great athlete he is with a powerful forehand but I don't think he has the concentration or stamina.

I often think he doesnt work nearly as hard as he should be working off the court. For as athletic as he is, he should have alot better stamina and conditioning than he does. He also seems to lack a real game plan out there, or understanding what to do vs certain opponents, which leads me to wonder about his coaching as well. It would be a shame if he didnt a better player than he currently is since he has some insane athletic ability, and a great serve and forehand. He should be able to make himself alot better than he is now, but I am not sure if he ever will. I am not a Monfils fan by any means but he should become better than he is now at some point or he is really wasting alot of potential.
 

AAAA

Hall of Fame
Well this year I think he was playing a bit better from the quarters on than last year. I agree both years was nothing great though and somewhat lucky (even more lucky this year than last though). His best ever clay court tennis was definitely 2005-2007 by far but of course Rafa was too good for him even then.

I dont think we will see Federer in another FO final neccessarily. I would be very surprised if he wins another French.

what is luck?

Luck is winning when the best player underperformed.

Luck is winning a tournament when those players who can beat you get knocked out by someone else.

Luck is being the best player in the draw and beating only inferior opponents - winning by default

Luck is being born with better genes than most.

Luck is being born in a society with more opportunities than most other parts of the world.

Your luck argument applies all the time to every winner one way or another.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Exactly and just because Fed won the FO in 2009 doesn't mean he will be fluking it again next year :) FO is a young players slam.

Believe in "fluking" to yourself if it helps you sleep well at night.

It's not Roger's fault b/c Nadal wasn't good enough to make the final.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
Career wise overall, not even close. However he was playing better on clay in 2008 after Monte Carlo. Do you dispute Djokovic played higher caliber tennis than Federer in 2008 at Rome, Hamburg, and the French Open all, especialy Rome and the French Open. This year he was also playing better tennis than Federer on clay until Madrid (and some would argue even in Madrid where Federer feasted on a gassed Nadal in the final).
surpassed is a wrong word.He or someone else may outperform Roger next year or after that but that is inevitable.
 

Cyan

Hall of Fame
Career wise overall, not even close. However he was playing better on clay in 2008 after Monte Carlo. Do you dispute Djokovic played higher caliber tennis than Federer in 2008 at Rome, Hamburg, and the French Open all, especialy Rome and the French Open. This year he was also playing better tennis than Federer on clay until Madrid (and some would argue even in Madrid where Federer feasted on a gassed Nadal in the final).

Nadal and Nole were playing better claycourt tennis than Fed until the Madrid SF which was where they both exhausted/killed themselves and then bombed at the FO.
 

Cyan

Hall of Fame
Believe in "fluking" to yourself if it helps you sleep well at night.

It's not Roger's fault b/c Nadal wasn't good enough to make the final.

Agreed. Roger is not to blame for Nadal's physical injury or Nole's mental destruction after losing the Madrid SF. But Roger got really lucky at the FO. Fact.
 
Top