Federer 2004 vs 2007

Which is the better season?


  • Total voters
    39

Towny

Hall of Fame
Just want to get a public opinion on this. Which season do you consider greater/better?

2004
3 slams and one 3R loss
3 masters titles, 0 additional finals
YEC
11 overall titles
74-6 win loss ratio

2007
3 slams with one Final loss
2 masters title with 3 additional finals
YEC (1 RR loss)
8 overall titles
68-9 win loss ratio
 
Last edited:

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Federer in 2004 lost in the 3R of RG to Kuerten (I repeat, Kuerten, not Nadal).

So I voted for 2007. 2007 was a more all-around year on all surfaces. If not for Nadal, Federer would have achieved the Grand Slam in 2007.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Federer in 2004 lost in the 3R of RG to Kuerten (I repeat, Kuerten, not Nadal).

So I voted for 2007. 2007 was a more all-around year on all surfaces. If not for Nadal, Federer would have achieved the Grand Slam in 2007.
Federer was not yet a force on BO5 on clay in 2004 so the loss to Kuerten it's not as bad as many think.Can't see 2005-2012 Fed losing on clay against that version of Kuerten, maybe except 2010.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Federer’s peak was better in 2004. He was also 18-0 vs the top 10, something that’s never been done before. 2007 featured a year where Federer starting losing far more frequently to less than great players.
At the slams he played at a higher level at the AO & RG in 2007, but yeah, overall he was less consistent compared to 2004.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I think 4 additional titles would add more to his legacy than one extra slam final, as things stand right now. hence why I rate it higher.

I agree on the second part plus I think he displayed a higher level in 04.
Yeah I'm someone that actually thinks pure title count has a lot of merit so I won't argue if you put 2004 above.

Federer was not yet a force on BO5 on clay in 2004 so the loss to Kuerten it's not as bad as many think.Can't see 2005-2012 Fed losing on clay against that version of Kuerten, maybe except 2010.
Could see 2012 Fed losing to Kuerten for sure, maybe some others if they weren't sharp. Running into a player like Kuerten early in the draw is a nightmare, top players don't aim to peak in the R3 - Kuerten wasn't at his best but he was having his last good run. If Fed got through that match he may well have lost to Nalbandian, had a pretty brutal draw tbh.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Federer was not yet a force on BO5 on clay in 2004 so the loss to Kuerten it's not as bad as many think.Can't see 2005-2012 Fed losing on clay against that version of Kuerten, maybe except 2010.
Fed was actually in poor form at RG in 2012. Lost a set in every match from R2 to R4 and was fortunate to make the semis due to Delpo's injury. One of those times where I admit Fed was lucky.

I feel like at that RG editions he was just going through the motions. He knew he stood no chance of winning and only played to not leak many points since he was chasing the no.1 ranking. His attitude suggested more of a "let's just get this over with" mentality.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I think 4 additional titles would add more to his legacy than one extra slam final, as things stand right now. hence why I rate it higher.

I agree on the second part plus I think he displayed a higher level in 04.
It's 3 additional titles, not 4.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Yeah I'm someone that actually thinks pure title count has a lot of merit so I won't argue if you put 2004 above.



Could see 2012 Fed losing to Kuerten for sure, maybe some others if they weren't sharp. Running into a player like Kuerten early in the draw is a nightmare, top players don't aim to peak in the R3 - Kuerten wasn't at his best but he was having his last good run. If Fed got through that match he may well have lost to Nalbandian, had a pretty brutal draw tbh.
Okay, you have a point with 2012 Fed.He was not that convincing after all in that edition.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I know he was better on clay in 2007, but I feel he was more destructive in 2004, so I vote for that year.

2004 Fed today would tear everyone apart, including Djokodal and we wouldn't be hearing anymore of how great the Big 3 still are and that's why the younger ones can't break through.

We would also finally have a great Next Gen on our hands.
 

Standaa

G.O.A.T.
I know he was better on clay in 2007, but I feel he was more destructive in 2004, so I vote for that year.

2004 Fed today would tear everyone apart, including Djokodal and we wouldn't be hearing anymore of how great the Big 3 still are and that's why the younger ones can't break through.

We would also finally have a great Next Gen on our hands.
you don’t even need a player of 04 Fed caliber to dominate the field nowadays. Peak Roddick could take everything off clay.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Fed was actually in poor form at RG in 2012. Lost a set in every match from R2 to R4 and was fortunate to make the semis due to Delpo's injury. One of those times where I admit Fed was lucky.

I feel like at that RG editions he was just going through the motions. He knew he stood no chance of winning and only played to not leak many points since he was chasing the no.1 ranking. His attitude suggested more of a "let's just get this over with" mentality.
It would have been better for him to lose earlier.The SF vs Djoker was a low budget version compared to the one in 2011.In fact, both players played poorly for their standards.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
That two piece Canas gave him in the Spring that year makes me say 2004 was the better year. I also think he was playing a bit of a higher level in 2004.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
you don’t even need a player of 04 Fed caliber to dominate the field nowadays. Peak Roddick could take everything off clay.
Depends on what you mean by these days. Would have had trouble with Federer in 2015/2017 still but not as much of course as in the days were he beat Roddick everywhere . Djokovic in the back end of slams would still trouble Roddick.
 

Roddick85

Hall of Fame
I'd go with 2004 as well, just better results overall. In my mind, 2004 Federer still had this aura of invincibility as he was wiping the floor with pretty much anyone. 2007 Federer was still great but you felt he was getting more and more vulnerable and nowhere near as dominant and his style started to change as well.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
maybe not if Djoker would show the level from 19 AO F but Roddick never really peaked at AO IMO.
He peaked but ran had tough draws, maybe he could beat Djokovic of this years 4th round but Djokovic was too sharp in the SF and F.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
you don’t even need a player of 04 Fed caliber to dominate the field nowadays. Peak Roddick could take everything off clay.
No version of Roddick stands any chance against a well-playing Djokovic at the AO or Nadal at the USO. OK, at Wimbledon he could be dangerous but no one knows who would win hypothetical matchups because time machines do not exist.

Let us remember that Roddick won his one and only US Open title defeating the clay court specialist Juan Carlos Ferrero in the final.

Roddick's game was good, but not good enough to defeat a 2019 Djokovic or 2019 Nadal outside grass. Outside grass, once he loses his serve, set over for him. As the US Open is the second lowest Slam, he would stand no chance against Nadal, who is an excellent returner on slow hard courts (top 12 ATP return rating on hard courts). Nadal with 4 US Open is 4 times better than Roddick at the USO. And the level Djokovic played at the AO leave Roddick no chance.

To say "Roddick would have won Slams outside grass in 2019" is so speculative as saying "Carlos Moyá would have defeated Federer at the AO 2018". But of course, Federer wins all hypothetical scenarios and Nadal loses all hypothetical scenarios in TTW, so "of course" Federer would demolished Moyá at the AO 2018, while Roddick would have defeated Nadal at the USO 2019.
 
Last edited:

Standaa

G.O.A.T.
No version of Roddick stands any chance against a well-playing Djokovic at the AO, Djokovic at WB or Nadal at the USO.

Let us remember that Roddick won his one and only US Open title defeating the clay court specialist Juan Carlos Ferrero in the final.

Roddick's game was good, but not good enough to defeat a 2019 Djokovic or 2019 Nadal outside grass. Outside grass, once he loses his serve, set over for him. As the US Open is the second lowest Slam, he would stand no chance against Nadal, who is an excellent returner on slow hard courts (top 12 ATP return rating on hard courts). Nadal with 4 US Open is 4 times better than Roddick at the USO. And the level Djokovic played at the AO leave Roddick no chance.

To say "Roddick would have won Slams outside grass in 2019" is so especulative as saying "Carlos Moyá would have defeated Federer at the AO 2018". But of course, Federer wins and Nadal loses all hypothetical scenarios in TTW, so "of course" Federer would demolish Moyá at the AO 2018, while Roddick would have defeated Nadal at the USO.
lmao, not even gonna give peak Roddick Wimbledon? lol, okay
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
Fed was actually in poor form at RG in 2012. Lost a set in every match from R2 to R4 and was fortunate to make the semis due to Delpo's injury. One of those times where I admit Fed was lucky.

I feel like at that RG editions he was just going through the motions. He knew he stood no chance of winning and only played to not leak many points since he was chasing the no.1 ranking. His attitude suggested more of a "let's just get this over with" mentality.
Yeah, that 2012 RG semifinal was extremely low quality. Federer was up a break in the first set, 3 times up a break in the second and still lost without even pushing Djokovic to a tie break.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Guy doesn't know his ass from his elbow, was arguing the USO 2013 final was the best 4-set match of the decade earlier :-D
That is, indeed, my opinion. Just accept the fact that not everybody shares your viewpoint and move on. No need to bring that topic in another thread which has nothing to do with it.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
That is, indeed, my opinion. Just accept the fact that not everybody shares your viewpoint and move on. No need to bring that topic in another thread which has nothing to do with it.
Well you b!tched out and ran away from my last reply to you there and I wasn't finished making you look like a fool :unsure:
 
Top