Federer 2007 vs Federer 2010

[samprasvsfederer123]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeK0Xq3Lrqc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tGRfqK-TXg&feature=related

i dont know but seemingly id take 2010 federer

what are the differences has he improved or gone bad in areas

 

[forzamilan90]

one area he's improved i guess is that he's older, so his mentality for the game has changed, it all started nadal overtook his as number 1. what we are seeing today imo is actually federer's ultimate form.

 

[Marshredder]

Every year I think "surely Federers at his peak now" but he seems to keep getting better. A key is that he doesnt play 100% at any time apart from Grand Slams, avoiding injury and keeping up energy.

 

[Jchurch]

A better comparison would be Federer 2007 AO to Federer 2010 AO. I would take 2007 over 2010. The 2007 AO semi against Roddick is one of the top 5 matches I have seen Federer play.

While he is smarter and wiser now, I don't think he is able of pulling out the same firepower he once did.

 

[forzamilan90]

he wont have to put out that firepower cause he has found a way to really play out those slams against all oponents, he must really regret the del potro opportunity and he shall not slip up like that again. as for the firepower, it will come out naturally if a wimbledon 2008 type match comes around again

 

[bruce38]

Yeah Fed wasn't as good by the end of 2007. AO2007 was the last time he was peak Fed. After that, the losses to Canas, etc, things were not the same.

 

[Sephiroth619]

He had awesome hair in 2007. It just glows and flows.

 

[TennisandMusic]

There is no way the 2010 Federer is as good as Federer 06-08. Go look at some of his older matches and how he would hit the ball.

 

[R.Federer]

federer 07 still but 2010 is much better than 09 and 08 fed

 

[Jchurch]

To be honest, I am not really sure if Federer isn't hitting with as much power now because he doesn't need to or because his body won't fair as well like that.

As far as all the Federers go, I would choose 06, 05, 04, 07, 09, 08, 10. I put ten last because I have no idea how well he will do this year. He might get a grand slam or he might not win another slam.

 

[The Edberg]

lets see how 2010 plays out first. Fed was more potent from 05-07 than he is now even though he still winning slams. Djokovic and Murray havent done a whole lot and have underperformed overrall thus far. Del Potro has been out injured along with Nadal. We'll see how Fed does when he finally get some pressure put on him. Eventually he will. The rest of the top guys havent really done a whole lot truth be told from either underperforming or injury plagues. 2010 is still too young to make an accurate comparison. Alot can happen over the course of the season. I do expect one of the top guys other than Fed to step up sometime this year eventually

 

[piece]

As far as all the Federers go, I would choose 06, 05, 04, 07, 09, 08, 10. I put ten last because I have no idea how well he will do this year. He might get a grand slam or he might not win another slam.

This seems to be the order most people put his best years in when ranked from best of the best to worst of the best, with '05 and '06 being the ones that alot consider interchangeable (rationale is typically something like: 05 was better tennis, 06 better results). What I've noticed though is that when it comes to what the best MATCHES federer ever played were, then nothing from '05 is ever mentioned. And by best here I mean highest quality of play from federer, not best overall match, in which case the AO semi with Safin gets mentioned alot, but this surely wasn't one of fed's best matches based only on his performance, although he certainly still played awesome in that one. Fed's had plenty of better performances (AO semi against roddick, '06 TMC against blake, 03 wimby against roddick etc) I'd say he's actually even played better against Safin than he did that day, say in hamburg 2002 or 04 tmc.

But anyway, I was just curious why so many people rate '05 so high when there don't seem to be that many standout performances? Is it just because of the consistency of victory?

 

[MichaelNadal]

Why would you rank 08 ahead of 09?

 

[Pwned]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKETvVqxTmk

I think AO 07 > 10 but not sure about the rest. His final at the AO this year was damn solid.

 

[abmk]

^^

no one did that ....

2k9 was certainly better than 2k8 ...

As far as rating those years go, I'd go with 2k5=2k6,2k4,2k7,2k9,2k8,2k3

we'll see how 2010 goes

 

[joeri888]

Federer's 2007 was better and more consistent, but he played a terrible match against Novak in the USO final, unlike against Murray at the AO.

 

[All-rounder]

Federer 06>> 05>>04>>07>>10>>09>>08

 

[Jchurch]

This seems to be the order most people put his best years in when ranked from best of the best to worst of the best, with '05 and '06 being the ones that alot consider interchangeable (rationale is typically something like: 05 was better tennis, 06 better results). What I've noticed though is that when it comes to what the best MATCHES federer ever played were, then nothing from '05 is ever mentioned. And by best here I mean highest quality of play from federer, not best overall match, in which case the AO semi with Safin gets mentioned alot, but this surely wasn't one of fed's best matches based only on his performance, although he certainly still played awesome in that one. Fed's had plenty of better performances (AO semi against roddick, '06 TMC against blake, 03 wimby against roddick etc) I'd say he's actually even played better against Safin than he did that day, say in hamburg 2002 or 04 tmc.

But anyway, I was just curious why so many people rate '05 so high when there don't seem to be that many standout performances? Is it just because of the consistency of victory?

05 was just the fact that he honestly had a chance to run the table. He could have been undefeated that year. He probably should have beat Safin and very well could have if he didn't go for the tweener on match point. I think he should have been able to handle Nadal then and he held match points on Gasquet. 05 had some impressive matches also. His Wimby win was very good tennis. So was his USO win over Agassi. TMC was a great tournament where he just fell ever so short and even then it was on a bum ankle.

 

[dmt]

05 was just the fact that he honestly had a chance to run the table. He could have been undefeated that year. He probably should have beat Safin and very well could have if he didn't go for the tweener on match point. I think he should have been able to handle Nadal then and he held match points on Gasquet. 05 had some impressive matches also. His Wimby win was very good tennis. So was his USO win over Agassi. TMC was a great tournament where he just fell ever so short and even then it was on a bum ankle.

how should he have been able to handle Nadal on clay? I saw the 05 match and it wasnt very close.

 

[sdont]

lol @ the ad with Vaidisova in 07: "Unstoppable". Ahahah, good stuff.

 

[P_Agony]

Federer 2007 takes it. Now he has a better serve, and he applies "dirty" tactics at times and sometimes "win ugly" (which he refused to do then), but still, his 2007 form was more consistent, his FH was better, his BH was better, he was faster, had more firepower, etc.

Comparing AO 2010 final to USO 2007 final does not represent the comparison between the years. In the final against Murray he was really on while in the USO 07 final his game was off, he had to rely on his clutch serve in the TBs along with Choko's unforced errors just when he was about to win. Federer could have lost that match in straight sets, and yet he won it in straights.

 

[Anaconda]

07. This isn't really a debate for me what so ever. He won the AO without dropping a set. Beat Nadal on clay. Owned Nadal in other tournaments. Decimated Roddick and Djokovic a few times. The guy was on fire.

 

[Jchurch]

how should he have been able to handle Nadal on clay? I saw the 05 match and it wasnt very close.

I disagree. Federer should have been more aggressive in the match and he could have won it. He has always tried to beat Nadal at Nadal's own game of baseline bashing. I am glad he has finally realized that isn't the best way to approach a match with Nadal. Not saying he definitely would have, but I think that was his best chance to beat Nadal at the FO.

 

[Quite Please]

You know you are talking about one of the greatest players of all time, when you by broad consensus consider his worst year (from break through year up until now) being the one he achieved one semifinal (AO 08), two finals (FO 08, WI 08) and one GS title (USO 08).
Pretty sure no player before achievement wise can top that. =)

 

[NamRanger]

how should he have been able to handle Nadal on clay? I saw the 05 match and it wasnt very close.

The 05 match was extremely close, Federer had chances to win nearly every set.

 

[All-rounder]

how should he have been able to handle Nadal on clay? I saw the 05 match and it wasnt very close.

I agree federer's best chance of a calendar slam was 06

 

[samprasvsfederer123]

i remember the 2005 french open federer vs nadal, i noticed that in all of his losses he was like out of control emotionally, ive never seen much of federer looking pissed and mad at the ao 2005 vs safin, he got very pissed in the french, and you could see some temper at the masters vs nalbandian, maybe his attitude had something to do with it, again it is just a fun observation, i dont know but for me 2005 was the year he could have done it all, but seemingly he got outplayed by all the guys he lost to

 

[Anaconda]

I agree federer's best chance of a calendar slam was 06

Nope. 2009 was. Federer should be beating Nadal on hard courts more often than not. Federer should have beaten JMDP. Federer wasn't going to beat Nadal at Roland Garros. It just wasn't going to happen.

 

[darthpwner]

Federer at Australia in 07 was godly since he did not drop a single set to win it. Federer this year in Australia lost a set to Andreev and Davydenko. Overall, I feel he was playing better in 07 even though he lost to Canas at Indian Wells and Miami

 

[Anaconda]

Federer at Australia in 07 was godly since he did not drop a single set to win it. Federer this year in Australia lost a set to Andreev and Davydenko. Overall, I feel he was playing better in 07 even though he lost to Canas at Indian Wells and Miami

Canas isn't a pushover. Federer actually could have wrapped up both matches.

 

[darthpwner]

Canas isn't a pushover. Federer actually could have wrapped up both matches.

Canas is a PUSHER though. Federer struggles against pushers/clay-courters.

 

[abmk]

Nope. 2009 was. Federer should be beating Nadal on hard courts more often than not. Federer should have beaten JMDP. Federer wasn't going to beat Nadal at Roland Garros. It just wasn't going to happen.

he had matchpoints at rome. breadsticked nadal in the first set at RG ! no chance of beating him at RG ??? he just loosened up in the 2nd and nadal came back ... funny 'revisionist' history is. At that time, it did look possible ......

 

[All-rounder]

Nope. 2009 was. Federer should be beating Nadal on hard courts more often than not. Federer should have beaten JMDP. Federer wasn't going to beat Nadal at Roland Garros. It just wasn't going to happen.

Should have beat Nadal?? Should have beat JMDP??

You make it sound like thats easy to do. Federer of 2009, his game was up and down. You never knew whether if he was gonna come onto the court and play amazing tennis or just a match full of shanks.

 

[samprasvsfederer123]

Should have beat Nadal?? Should have beat JMDP??

You make it sound like thats easy to do. Federer of 2009, his game was up and down. You never knew whether if he was gonna come onto the court and play amazing tennis or just a match full of shanks.

ya but federer should have taken the 3rd set tiebreak from nadal, and won in atleast 4 sets against delpo,

 

[All-rounder]

ya but federer should have taken the 3rd set tiebreak from nadal, and won in atleast 4 sets against delpo,

Exactly but he didn't though did he?? Think, if we was talking about federer of 2006 he wouldn't have that much of a problem against JMDP of Nadal on hardcourts.

 

[piece]

05 was just the fact that he honestly had a chance to run the table. He could have been undefeated that year. He probably should have beat Safin and very well could have if he didn't go for the tweener on match point. I think he should have been able to handle Nadal then and he held match points on Gasquet. 05 had some impressive matches also. His Wimby win was very good tennis. So was his USO win over Agassi. TMC was a great tournament where he just fell ever so short and even then it was on a bum ankle.

Yeah, I was just more thinking of specific matches, rather than tournaments, though. wimby final and double bagel against gaudio at tmc were pretty good. But i just find it strange that 04, 06, 07 and even probably 03 had more of those jesusfed performances than 05 even though his 05 season was more dominant than any of these. Also, from what I can recall 05 was a year of fed not bringing his best in big matches. None of the masters he won had very good finals performances from fed, and the ao semi, french semi, and tmc final all, in one way or another, should have been a better performance from fed, at least to my mind

 

[piece]

Nope. 2009 was. Federer should be beating Nadal on hard courts more often than not. Federer should have beaten JMDP. Federer wasn't going to beat Nadal at Roland Garros. It just wasn't going to happen.

I reckon 2004 was his best shot. The french open was a bit of a joke that year. He was totally outplayed by Kuerten, but it wasn't a great match from federer, and he probably didn't realise that he was gonna sweep the rest of the slams so he might not have had the killer attitude he would have otherwise had when finding himself losing to a past his prime kuerten. He would've had to make it through Nalbandian as well, who was still a tough prospect for fed at the time, but fed was a big favourite at the french that year and really let himself down by going out so early.

 

[Jchurch]

I reckon 2004 was his best shot. The french open was a bit of a joke that year. He was totally outplayed by Kuerten, but it wasn't a great match from federer, and he probably didn't realise that he was gonna sweep the rest of the slams so he might not have had the killer attitude he would have otherwise had when finding himself losing to a past his prime kuerten. He would've had to make it through Nalbandian as well, who was still a tough prospect for fed at the time, but fed was a big favourite at the french that year and really let himself down by going out so early.

I think you're right about not realizing he was going to run the table. As for 2004, he just didn't prepare. He only played Rome and just didn't do his utmost to prepare. Same for 2005. He started taking his clay season more seriously once he realized he had a chance at not only the career slam, but also the calendar year grand slam.