Federer's Greatest Year?
- Thread starter Chopin
- Start date
crackbillionair
Rookie
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.
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
I feel that from Wimby 05 - YEC 05 was his best overall level of play.
Overall 06 was better
Overall 06 was better
S
Serendipitous
Guest
1981
10 charf
10 charf
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
2006 of course. That's when he got the best stats, fewest losses and most titles.
Knightmace
Professional
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
Semi-Pro
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.
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.
Last edited:
Changmaster
Rookie
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.
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?
Last edited:
President of Serve/Volley
Semi-Pro
TheMusicLover
G.O.A.T.
In terms of 'most titles & wins': 2006.
In terms of BEST TENNIS: 2005.
In terms of BEST TENNIS: 2005.
OddJack
G.O.A.T.
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
Hall of Fame
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
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
namelessone
Legend
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.
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
Hall of Fame
Roger, was too focused on learning to crawl that year. That's the only reason that he didn't win a major.
Good one. The level of play was insane, especially the forehand was at its very best.
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.
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
Rookie
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.
IvanAndreevich
Legend
Does anyone in the history of the game have a more dominating stretch of 1 year's time?
crackbillionair
Rookie
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
Hall of Fame
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
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).
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).
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.
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.
That's fine, but I'd still rather have an extra slam and title.
OddJack
G.O.A.T.
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.
D
Deleted member 22147
Guest
definitely played his best in 2005 then 2004.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
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.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
That's a great post!
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.
Last edited:
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
Legend
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?
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.
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?
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
Legend
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
Legend
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.
Last edited:
pame
Hall of Fame
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.
Similar threads
