2009 federer Vs 2017 federer

[Monster07]

Which one was better?
2009
2 slams
2 finals
Season record: 61–12 (83.56%)
4 titles ( 2 masters, 2 slams)
Record Vs nemesis :1-1
Year end number 1

2017
2 slams
Season record: 52–5 (91.23%)
7 titles ( 3 masters, 2 slams)
Record Vs nemesis :4-0
Year end number 2

 

[TheAssassin]

2009

 

[mightyrick]

This is a good example of where the only thing that really matters is whether or not you are the best player in the world. It's binary.

2009 was better than 2017.

 

[Djokovic2011]

2009 overall, although he performed better this year in non slam tournaments.

 

[Djokovic2011]

This is a good example of where the only thing that really matters is whether or not you are the best player in the world. It's binary.

2009 was better than 2017.

It doesn't always work like that. I mean Djokovic finished at #2 in 2016 but his results that season were actually better than when he finished at #1 in 2014.

 

[Monster07]

2009 overall, although he performed better this year in non slam tournaments.

Could 2009 federer have beaten 2017 jmdp

 

[Djokovic2011]

Could 2009 federer have beaten 2017 jmdp

I don't see why not.

 

[mightyrick]

It doesn't always work like that. I mean Djokovic finished at #2 in 2016 but his results that season were actually better than when he finished at #1 in 2014.

The point is that the better results (in terms of raw numbers) aren't the determining factor. Being the best means that you have better results than *everyone else* in a given year. Comparing the season-ending results of one player to themselves in another year is a useless red-herring if the player was the best in the world in one year... and not in the other year.

 

[mike danny]

2009. Those extra major finals outweigh anything else he has achieved this year.

Only if he won the WTF, would this be a debate.

 

[Djokovic2011]

The point is that the better results (in terms of raw numbers) aren't the determining factor. Being the best means that you have better results than *everyone else* in a given year. Comparing the season-ending results of one player to themselves in another year is a useless red-herring if the player was the best in the world in one year... and not in the other year.

I guess that's where I think the YE#1 ranking is a little bit overrated. It simply means you had better results than any other player in that particular season but not necessarily better than someone who finished at #2(or perhaps even lower than that) in another one.

 

[Pete Player]

The winning ratio would give some idea, which was better year.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[mightyrick]

I guess that's where I think the YE#1 ranking is a little bit overrated. It simply means you had better results than any other player in that particular season but not necessarily better than someone who finished at #2(or perhaps even lower than that) in another one.

It's only overrated to people looking to inflate results from a non number one year.

If competition is high, then the achievements of the #1 player will not be as good as the results if the competition was not high.

I didn't invent that notion. It is the definition of a zero sum game. Once you understand that concept, all of this aggregate number stuff goes away.

 

[mental midget]

if not for donskoy and haas losses federer would have gone 54-3 this year...? jeez.

 

[Djokovic2011]

It's only overrated to people looking to inflate results from a non number one year.

If competition is high, then the achievements of the #1 player will not be as good as the results if the competition was not high.

I didn't invent that notion. It is the definition of a zero sum game. Once you understand that concept, all of this aggregate number stuff goes away.

I'm sorry but that first line makes no sense. Results are results, they're what actually happened on the court so I don't see how it's possible to "inflate" anything. I guess if you take competition into account then that's another way of looking at it but that's always murky territory to enter in to at the best of times as it's an entirely subjective matter whereas the player's results aren't, they simply can't be argued away.

 

[True Fanerer]

My comfort level this year watching him was much higher. 2009 was a little more nerve racking between breaking Pete and achieving the career slam at RG. After the AO I felt the nerves as a Federer fan had finally calmed. Do I think 2017 was better? No. Just a heckuva lot less pressure.

 

[mightyrick]

I'm sorry but that first line makes no sense. Results are results, they're what actually happened on the court so I don't see how it's possible to "inflate" anything. I guess if you take competition into account then that's another way of looking at it but that's always murky territory to enter in to at the best of times as it's an entirely subjective matter whereas the player's results aren't, they simply can't be argued away.

Your post shows you don't understand what a zero sum game is. You probably also don't understand a certain level of statistics. I can't really say it any other way. I can't really argue the point anymore.

If it makes you feel good to compare seasons and assign arbitrary aggregate values within a zero-sum game... go for it. Do what makes you feel good.

This isn't a life-threatening endeavor, so it really doesn't matter.

 

[NatF]

if not for donskoy and haas losses federer would have gone 54-3 this year...? jeez.

Only he retired before his next matches...

 

[Djokovic2011]

Your post shows you don't understand what a zero sum game is. You probably also don't understand a certain level of statistics. I can't really say it any other way. I can't really argue the point anymore.

If it makes you feel good to compare seasons and assign arbitrary aggregate values within a zero-sum game... go for it. Do what makes you feel good.

This isn't a life-threatening endeavor, so it really doesn't matter.

So Sampras' '98 season was better than any YE#2 simply because he finished at #1? Is that what you're trying to say? If you are then I couldn't disagree with you more but you're entitled to hold that view, as absurd as it seems to me.

 

[MeatTornado]

It's crazy how little people think of 2009 Fed sometimes. To think that this is even a discussion...smh.

09 Fed was just 2 sets away from the calendar slam.

 

[mightyrick]

So Sampras' '98 season was better than any YE#2 simply because he finished at #1? Is that what you're trying to say? If you are then I couldn't disagree with you more but you're entitled to hold that view, as absurd as it seems to me.

Sigh. What does "better" mean??? This argument is like trying to argue with a climate-change denier. "So you are saying that 1998 wasn't hotter than 1999??? Huh??? Huh???" It is a stupid argument that has nothing to do with the question being asked.

The OP posts aggregate results from individual performances by Federer in 2017 and 2009. Then asks, "Is 2017 or 2009 better?" My point is that the entire premise is a complete red-herring. It doesn't matter what those results are. It only matters if he did better than all other players in the aggregate.

The concept of "B-b-b-b-but he did more better than all the other players in 2017..." is useless.

Now, if the OP is trying to ask the question, "Was Federer's form better in 2009 than 2017?"... then we can have those discussions. But that is not the way the question was framed.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Sigh. What does "better" mean??? This argument is like trying to argue with a climate-change denier. "So you are saying that 1998 wasn't hotter than 1999??? Huh??? Huh???" It is a stupid argument that has nothing to do with the question being asked.

The OP posts aggregate results from individual performances by Federer in 2017 and 2009. Then asks, "Is 2017 or 2009 better?" My point is that the entire premise is a complete red-herring. It doesn't matter what those results are. It only matters if he did better than all other players in the aggregate.

The concept of "B-b-b-b-but he did more better than all the other players in 2017..." is useless.

Now, if the OP is trying to ask the question, "Was Federer's form better in 2009 than 2017?"... then we can have those discussions. But that is not the way the question was framed.

Ooh I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one mon ami.

 

[mike danny]

It's crazy how little people think of 2009 Fed sometimes. To think that this is even a discussion...smh.

09 Fed was just 2 sets away from the calendar slam.

Yeah 2009 Fed all the way. Fed needed to win the WTF this year for this to even be a debate.

At least in 2009 he lost in the WTF SF to a much better player.

 

[RF-18]

If we look at it statistically then 2009 is better thanks to the YE#1 (but fed did not play clay this year so it is a different debate).

 

[mike danny]

If we look at it statistically then 2009 is better thanks to the YE#1 (but fed did not play clay this year so it is a different debate).

If that were the case, why didn't old erer win the WTF this year? Against a weaker field too?

 

[metsman]

Better at all 4 slams and WTF, this isn't even a debate

 

[TheAverageFedererFan]

2009.

 

[RF-18]

If that were the case, why didn't old erer win the WTF this year? Against a weaker field too?

Sometimes you win, sometimes you don't. Federer didn't win WTFs in 2009 either. Pluss had 2 losses

Edit

 

[Sport]

2009 Federer played GS finals on all surfaces (hc, grass and clay). Therefore, the logical conclusion is that 2009 Federer was a much better player. In 2009 Roger was an all-around threat. Now he is a joke on clay.

 

[duaneeo]

I agree, no debate: 2009

 

[BeatlesFan]

2009. No debate or reflection is necessary. And 2009 Fed beats 2017 Roger on any surface in straight sets.

 

[mike danny]

2009. No debate or reflection is necessary. And 2009 Fed beats 2017 Roger on any surface in straight sets.

IW 2017 Fed played pretty awesome. I don't think 2009 Fed beats him in straights. AO and Wimb, I agree. 2009 Fed was better at both. At the USO as well. WTF too.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

2009 he was only two sets away from the CYGS so close.

I think the bigger racket has made an enormous difference so I am less convinced that 2009 Fed actually played better tennis than Fed at his very best in 2017.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Which one was better?
2009
2 slams
2 finals
Season record: 61–12 (83.56%)
4 titles ( 2 masters, 2 slams)
Record Vs nemesis :1-1
Year end number 1

2017
2 slams
Season record: 52–5 (91.23%)
7 titles ( 3 masters, 2 slams)
Record Vs nemesis :4-0
Year end number 2

2009. Much better competition, eye test and the fact he was No. 1 not No. 2.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

2009 he was only two sets away from the CYGS so close.

I think the bigger racket has made an enormous difference so I am less convinced that 2009 Fed actually played better tennis than Fed at his very best in 2017.

Lol? This crap again?

How about the fact he needs a bigger racquet to get to shots he would have in 2009 with a smaller racquet.

The racquet change signals a physical decline.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

IW 2017 Fed played pretty awesome. I don't think 2009 Fed beats him in straights. AO and Wimb, I agree. 2009 Fed was better at both. At the USO as well. WTF too.

But the point is Roger, while playing great, isn't playing at the same level he did in '09.

2017 has perhaps the worst top 10 ever. 2009 quite the opposite so competition factors in quite a bit.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Sometimes you win, sometimes you don't. Federer didn't win WTFs in 2009 either. Pluss had 2 losses

Edit

Wait until Djoker returns M8. You'll regret this "at his peak at 50" crap with Roger.

 

[mike danny]

But the point is Roger, while playing great, isn't playing at the same level he did in '09.

2017 has perhaps the worst top 10 ever. 2009 quite the opposite so competition factors in quite a bit.

2009 Fed played a stinker against Murray. 2017 Fed would not have played like that.

I agree on average 2009 Fed played better than 2017 Fed, but in IW and Miami 2017 was better IMO.

 

[mike danny]

Wait until Djoker returns M8. You'll regret this "at his peak at 50" crap with Roger.

Djoker will probably still have a good year in 2018. 31 year old Roger and Rafa both had good years, so Djoko could too. 31 is still a good age.

32+, things get much harder.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Djoker will probably still have a good year in 2018. 31 year old Roger and Rafa both had good years, so Djoko could too. 31 is still a good age.

32+, things get much harder.

Probably but he won't dominate IMO.

 

[mike danny]

Probably but he won't dominate IMO.

If he does, it only shows how pathetic the field is.

If you have an equal competitor when you're older, you are not going to dominate. Look no further than Fed 2015 with Nole and Rafa 2017 with Fed.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

2009 Fed played a stinker against Murray. 2017 Fed would not have played like that.

I agree on average 2009 Fed played better than 2017 Fed, but in IW and Miami 2017 was better IMO.

I agree he was better this year than 2009 during the Sunshine Double. But besides that not really.

Also seems like Roger has to work harder for wins against lower ranked players than years like '07-'09.

 

[killerboi2]

2009 Fed beats 2017 Fed at any slam and also had better competition in 2009. In non slams it might be more interesting though.

 

[RF-18]

Wait until Djoker returns M8. You'll regret this "at his peak at 50" crap with Roger.

You Think I care what you will say? I dont get affected by others. No matter how much you and your cult (80% of this forum) are trying to affect me and think I'm an aron boy like others in this forum. I will continue to speak my thoughts.

 

[abmk]

At all the slams - 2009
Yec - 09
IW, Miami and Madrid /Shanghai to 17. Basel is close.

The other Bo3 events to 09.

 

[tennis_pro]

Compare the top 10 in 2009 to the top 10 in 2017.

2009 blows 2017

 

[Red Rick]

Take 1 look at slam results

Take another look at the competition.

Think for 2 seconds

Come to the conclusion that 2009 is miles better

Get a beer

Enjoy the rest if your day

 

[Deleted member 307496]

You Think I care what you will say? I dont get affected by others. No matter how much you and your cult (80% of this forum) are trying to affect me and think I'm an aron boy like others in this forum. I will continue to speak my thoughts.

When everyone says it? Hell yeah.

PS - I don't care about your "thoughts" -- just like making fun of how unfounded they are.

 

[Sudacafan]

The answer to this thread makes me dislike this thread.

 

[metsman]

At all the slams - 2009
Yec - 09
IW, Miami and Madrid /Shanghai to 17. Basel is close.

The other Bo3 events to 09.

I'd give Basel to 2017. 09 was dreadful in the final.

 

[abmk]

I'd give Basel to 2017. 09 was dreadful in the final.

not a particularly memorable match, but don't recall it being any worse than the Mannarino match this year.

I could see it going to 17 on the basis of the Tiafoe and Goffin matches this year though.