Federer 2017 or Federer 2009 - Which season was better?

[SABRvolley]

Roger Federer has had 3 seasons where he won 2 slams: 2005, 2009 and 2017.

I think we can all agree that 2005 was by far the best of those 3 seasons, but which one was second best - 2009 or 2017?

On paper, 2017 looks a lot more impressive: 7 titles (including 3 masters which included the sunshine double), winning Wimbledon without dropping a set, and of course going 4-0 against Nadal (albeit post-prime Nadal). He also had a win percentage of 91%, his fourth highest ever. He ended the year ranked #2, all at the tender age of 36.

In 2009, he made all 4 slam finals, finally winning the French Open and regaining his Wimbledon crown, won 2 masters titles (including one of only 2 clay wins in his career over Nadal) and made a total of 7 finals. Were it not for GOATing Delpo at USO or GOATing Nadal at AO, he could have won all 4 slams. He won 4 titles overall and ended the year number 1 for the final time in his career and with a win percentage of 83%.

Now, it seems pretty easy, right? 2017 had more titles, more masters titles, better win percentage, a better record against his arch rival and of course, his neo-backhand. However, the stats don’t tell the full story.

It is of my belief that the competition in 2009 was miles ahead of the 2017 competition, for starters. Djokovic, Murray, Delpo, and even Nadal (for the first half of the year) were much better in 2009 than in 2017 imo. Not to mention guys like prime Davydenko, Tsonga, Berdych, Roddick etc. also in the mix a lot of the time.

In 2017, you had a post-prime (but still mightily impressive) Nadal, an out-of-form and injured Djokovic, an out-of-form Murray, a declining Wawrinka and a resurgent (but still less impressive than 2009) Delpo. Not that the 2017 competition was as bad as today’s competition, but clearly well below 2009.

My opinion?
These 2 seasons were both highly successful for Federer and 2017 was the perfect fairytale comeback, probably the most satisfying one as a Federer fan.

However, I would put 2009 slightly above 2017, for 2 reasons:

1. He skipped clay in 2017 altogether, whereas he had a great run on it in 2009, beating prime Nadal in Madrid and winning his only RG title. Had he played on clay in 2017, his stats might have been significantly worse, especially against resurgent Nadal.
2. 2009 competition was way tougher than 2017, and as impressive as the latter season was, poorer competition no doubt inflated the season stats somewhat.

So, there’s that. I think both seasons were awesome, but I’d give a slight nod to 2009.

What do you think?

 

[InsideOut900]

I would have no issue seeing 2009 Fed easily win AO, Wimbledon, USO, Sunshine Double, Rome, Canada, Cincy, YEC in the 2017 field based on how he played and his potential draws.

And duck it out with Nadal in Madrid and RG.

Probably doesn't win all, but surely outpaces his 2017 self.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I mean Fed in 09 was 8 years younger so naturally he would play a higher level than his 17 self in absolute terms. I agree with tougher competition, however, in terms of which season was better/greater it is still 2017 for me. The key difference here is that he dominated Nadal and even though he ended the year at #2 as opposed to #1 in 2009, he was clearly the best player in 2017 while he benefitted from Rafa’s injury in 09.
For me it is a little like comparing which Sampras season was better 1995 or 1999. In 95 he ended #1 but was overall 2-3 against Agassi and, let’s face it, had Andre played a normal schedule after the USO he likely would have grabbed the YE #1 so Pete was lucky here. In 99, he dominated Agassi 4-1 with four straight set wins (two of which in Wimbledon and YEC final) and the only loss in a meaningless RR match. In 99 he was the clearer best player of the year for me than in 95 regardless of what the ranking said. Same as with Fed’s 09 vs 17, the competition was tougher in 95 than in 99.

 

[Third Serve]

2017 Fed was really good for his age bud 2009 brought a different level of athleticism and shotmaking even despite some inconsistency in Bo3. And of course he managed this without having to skip the entire clay season for rest.

Not to mention the competition was leagues tougher in 2009 than in 2017 which veered into very weak territory.

Here’s my usual event-by-event analysis which I use for these types of comparisons:

AO: 2009 takes it. Looking at the two AO finals which both involved the same players, the difference in level of tennis between those matches is pretty significant. Federer himself was strong off both wings in 2009 and moved incredibly well around the court—the only thing he did rather poorly for his standards was serve.

IW: I’d give this to 2017. Fed took a bit of a dip in 2009 around this time while Fed played his best tournament of the season here in 2017.

Miami: It’s a close call because Fed was up and down in both tournaments. However, I give this to 2017 because the match Fed ultimately lost in 2009 was very, very bad from him.

The whole clay season goes to 2009 Fed by default.

Wimbledon: I’m going with 2009. Fed was good in 2017 but he was never really tested. Top class serving performance in 2009 mixed with a very solid baseline game. Return could have been better but I doubt 2017 Fed would do any better against a player with Roddick’s serve.

Canada: 2009 takes it. The loss to Tsonga was a bit unfortunate but Fed was actually injured in 2017.

Cincinnati: 2017 didn’t play so 2009 by default

US Open: 2009 pretty clearly. There are quite a few things that went wrong in the 2009 final, but Fed was very solid up to that point and he wasn’t injured like 2017 Fed was.

Shanghai: 2009 didn’t play so 2017 by default

Paris: Gonna call this even. 2017 didn’t play but 2009 lost in the first round to Benneteau so that’s not really an improvement.

ATP Finals: 2009 gets it purely because I thought Fed played quite a bit better in his loss to Davydenko compared to his loss to Goffin. Davydenko also the much better opponent.

I think 2009 frankly clears. 2015 is a better comparison with 2017.

 

[RS]

10 matches at each slam?

 

[nolefam_2024]

Fed sucked in 2009. His competition Nadal was out in RG Wimbledon and he won those.

Nole sucked in 2009 as well but he beat fed 2 times before RG I believe.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Nole sucked in 2017. He was the guy fed lost in 2015 as well so with Nole gone fed won 2 slams and 3 masters.
Both years fed was playing vs weaker competition. Especially in 2017

 

[Milanez82]

I mean Fed in 09 was 8 years younger so naturally he would play a higher level than his 17 self in absolute terms. I agree with tougher competition, however, in terms of which season was better/greater it is still 2017 for me. The key difference here is that he dominated Nadal and even though he ended the year at #2 as opposed to #1 in 2009, he was clearly the best player in 2017 while he benefitted from Rafa’s injury in 09.
For me it is a little like comparing which Sampras season was better 1995 or 1999. In 95 he ended #1 but was overall 2-3 against Agassi and, let’s face it, had Andre played a normal schedule after the USO he likely would have grabbed the YE #1 so Pete was lucky here. In 99, he dominated Agassi 4-1 with four straight set wins (two of which in Wimbledon and YEC final) and the only loss in a meaningless RR match. In 99 he was the clearer best player of the year for me than in 95 regardless of what the ranking said. Same as with Fed’s 09 vs 17, the competition was tougher in 95 than in 99.

Excellent take.

 

[Razer]

Nadal won 2 slams in 2008 & won 2 slams in 2019
Federer won 2 slams in 2009 & won 2 slams in 2017
Djokovic won 3 slams in 2015 & won 3 slams in 2023

Lack of great talents emerging in 2017 is what made all of this possible.

Trash, weak willed, low testosterone & unskilled tennis players born in 1990s are the reason for this power vacuum, Alcaraz and his gang are on the path to correct this imbalance but it will take 2 more years.