Federer highlights from his five-year dominance at the US Open

[King No1e]

Not sure if this has already been posted before but about a month ago the US Open posted this neat little video with nice points from pretty much every match Fed played during his five-year reign over the US Open. Clocks in at a whopping 35 minutes and there are plenty of fun points to watch, so check it out if you want while GPPD burns in flames.

A few observations about this video:

- The Agassi QF in 2004 seems to be highlighted the most out of any of the matches in this compilation, and rightly so. It's a great match, marred a bit by the terrible wind for parts of it. Probably about 3 minutes in total for the match starting from 3:38.

- Missing the Fed-Lopez 2007 match??? A shame because there are some pretty nice points from there. There are a few other matches missing as well, but they're all early rounds thankfully.

- Sadly, a few matches with great Fed points are glossed over, but that's the price you pay for trying to condense something like this into 35 minutes.

- Pretty backhand fans, click on 17:40

- As for Fed's level of play, his forehand is just godly here. It was best in the 2004-2005 editions (as you can probably tell in the video) but 2006-2008 was phenomenal as well. The backhand, on the other hand, looked better in the 2006-2008 points (2006 looks like the best of the lot in this video which reflects how good it was in that tournament as a whole). Here, I step into controversy for a bit, but the 2004 USO forehand is probably the best forehand of all time imo.

Observations about Fed at the US Open irrespective of what the video shows:

- I think his best USO was 2004 and the worst of these five would be 2007, but only the good points are shown here so you wouldn't be able to tell. In order, I have them 2004 > 2006 > 2005 > 2008 > 2007. Not to say that 2007 Fed wasn't still incredible, but just not as good as the other four.

- I'd forgotten about the Andreev match in 2008 going five. Can anyone explain what exactly happened there? I'm not sure if I remember what it was that made Fed struggle so much here (and they also had a somewhat close match in AO 2010 IIRC).

- The matches I'd probably recommend to you all for the quality of play would be the 2004 QF, the 2005 SF-F, the 2006 QF and F, the 2007 QF, and the 2008 SF.

That was pretty long, but peak Fed at the US Open is my favorite player to watch honestly. It's why you've seen a little bit of fanboying here and also why I decided to make the thread in the first place. I know this thread will be susceptible to trolling, but if you can, keep it low for this one. 'ts all.

I could watch those court level points from USO04 vs Agassi all day. Pure ballstriking at its finest, especially the first night when they weren't playing through a hurricane.

 

[Novichok]

I could watch those court level points from USO04 vs Agassi all day. Pure ballstriking at its finest, especially the first night when they weren't playing through a hurricane.

and what a primal roar at the end of that match...

 

[D.Nalby12]

Fed looked so much muscular between 2004-06. Don't why he got so slim after.

 

[JaoSousa]

but the 2004 USO forehand is probably the best forehand of all time imo.

I would say Nadal's forehand in 2010 and 2012 was comparable.

But Federer's forehand in this tourney was special. Just because he could hit a winner from any spot on the court with that shot, even when he was falling away. 2005 forehand is very similar. Kind of reminds me of the Jordan fadeaway.

 

[daphne]

fed at the USO 11 had 2 MPs vs the peakest of peak Djoko at USO 11. LULZ.

Ah, those two MPs, heartbreaking, heartbreaking! LULZ

 

[abmk]

It's a bit baity, but hardly much imo. Yes Nadal was better (lol), but still not so good to actually take the set against Federer playing like that, as I said it was one of Federer's absolute peak sets don't you agree? So what if he loses 4-6 instead of 2-6, not a big deal.

its the difference b/w a dominant set and a competitive set (in most cases atleast). not a big deal as far as final result goes. But matters when you are saying something along the lines of - aha you said peak USO Nadal is only just as good as 2006 USO Roddick.

I just feel it is proper to express harsh sentiments harshly rather than dress them up in feigned politesse. So as you do acknowledge that Djokodal are overall below Federer as players, and their overall competition is inferior also, that makes them: a) inferior (in tennis); b) bigger vultures (in terms of winning thanks to feeble opposition); c) second fiddle against peak Fred since he is better hence in control and a clear favourite overall season-long. Sounds like the way I said it was quite correct, regardless of the apparently inflammatory wording.

I express it how I feel most of the times. again who is better varies from slam to slam, event to event. I did mention Wim/USO for fed, RG for Nadal, AO for Djokovic. Just said federer comes out better overall in the end.

Now this goes one round further: Since you hold the above to be true, regardless of whether you choose different words to express it, that means those who disagree fail to see the truth, according to you, or even believe in a falsehood if they rather think one or both of Djokodal are better. Since most Djokodal fans, at least the ones posting here, naturally do not accept that Federer is the superior player no matter how much Djokodal win against meddling opponents, that makes them inferior at understanding tennis, as they reject the truth you see. What does that make them, in your eyes? I guess those who dare oppose this objective truth are like anti-vaxxers who reject objectively proven science, and so invite deserved ridicule and derision, while those who merely follow their delusion are more like fools not enlightened enough to see the light.

Now, indeed, I can't tell what's actually on your mind, so that's what I'm asking: how exactly is it possible for anyone (be that you, le guru, theorder, whoever, anywhere on the net or IRL) to consider others to believe something that is not true, and not look down upon them? This just doesn't make sense, does it? Obviously, if I think someone believes in a certain falsehood, I think at least a little less of their ability to reason/understand/resist bias. So yes, I don't see how you could not look down on the Djokodal fans en masse for not accepting Federer's superiority, even the inoffensive ones would elicit a mental equivalent of nose wrinkling, and of course the heathens that actually argue their falsehood-based cases against your truth-based case, and persist in refusing to accept the reality of Federer>Djokodal, receive harsh reactions and respond in kind, as to them, their case is the one based on truth while yours is a brazen falsehood, and so it continues forever.

no. simply not the case. This is subjective to quite an extent. People give different weightage to different things. As long as weightage to a factor is not unrealistic, its all good. For example, overall I think 2006 and 2015 are similar years effectiveness wise. People who give higher weightage to depth or the fact that Nadal was an absolute road block on clay would go for 2006, people who give higher weightage to top 4 play or consistency would give for 2015. Both of which are fine as is saying both are similar or about equal. Problem comes if someone says 2006 was way better or 2015 was way better.

Re: Nadal & Djokovic

The question is how you frame your arguments and what you base it on.
Nadal for example: his peak from 08 clay season to 09 clay season (including beating fed thrice in slams), his longevity has darn good - been a lot more than many expected, USO 10 etc, grass peak level in 07 QF-F, 08, 10 QF-F , getting back at djokovic in 12-13, better mental strength at prime/over course of career than anyone etc.

Djokovic for example: 11 - dominant season in a year of pretty good competition. dominating prime Nadal from 11-early 12. NCYGS in 15-16, pretty good longevity, 5 YECs, winning 2 of each of the Masters, the weeks/years at #1, best mental strength over a year (11)/or at his zenith etc.

just stop saying stuff like 04,05,07 were joke/very weak years etc.

Of course, this applies to every argumentative user, oodles of them. I've been singling you out because you're also a Fredfan so couldn't dismiss my motivations as based on fan allegiance. I could say the same to anyone you argue against, just that they are less apt to listen. That's why what a so-called fruitful discussion is typically not worth aiming for around here, because everyone looks down on disagreement, perceiving it as misguided at best and wilfully deluded at worst, either way fallacious; people throw arguments past each other without good faith, and a good-natured dispute is hardly possible.

point is not about what others are doing. Point is about whether YOU want to engage in good faith discussion. I have had plenty of them with good faith fans of other players like Hitman, zagor (he's a fan of both fed and djokovic), sabrina, RS etc. (not just fed fans)

I realise this has been a rant and you'd want to ask why I should write this at all. I admit I got worked up emotionally, this is obvious isn't it. I don't like it when you talk like you offer plenty fruitful discussion or reasonable debate if only others were willing, because it's false as your attitude is too much.

What else am I supposed to say? even if I think someone is unreasonable, I try with reason at first, only after that I try to show them the mirror. What do you mean by attitude is too much here?

Of course our bunch (regular users, that is) is not well-adjusted for the most part, so this is further exacerbated by others being abrasive in response and not being able to deal with abrasiveness generally. Takes a very diplomatic and good-natured person like krosero to withstand and talk pleasantly even to the likes of, say, BobbyOne (long banned I remember, shame as he was knowledgeable though fiercely fanatic). Actually, in this thread specifically, what incensed me originally was your implication that Nadal may well lose to Federer even in straight sets (...4 sets or less). Even 2011dal spilled his guts to grab a set despite playing deplorably; the idea that peak Nadal loses a BO5 match on any modern surface in stright sets is just super disrespectful, and if you did consider that a possibility worth mentioning it doesn't seem like you hold his off-clay exploits in that much regard. Four sets, yeah sure, peak surface ATGs are damn well difficult to take to five sets and however commendable Nadal's fighting spirit is it can't radically retool his game for that.

So ask me directly about that instead of baiting or snarking around. How difficult is that?

I also think peak Nadal could take peak fed in straight sets at RG (based on last 2 sets of RG 07 final) if he can maintain it - with maybe one slip. But it'd be competitive straight sets match. It could go 4 as well obviously (more likely)

Somewhat similarly at the USO. most likely? fed takes Nadal in 4 sets. but there is also a smaller chance of a competitive straight sets win if fed is at his very best maintaining it with maybe one slip.

And yes, I do realise fed's chances of straight-setting nadal at USO is lesser than nadal's of straight-setting fed at RG.

I don't think Nadal was deplorable in the 3rd set of USO 11 final btw.

...You should probably remind me to stop the next time I'm being bitter again, ha. Sorry in case whatever I said made you feel bad (I don't think it would but anyway).

I just did. But don't expect me to keep letting go if you continue on the same path.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Despite his failures post 2009, the only regret remains is the choke against Potro. He has no reason to lose Slam final to someone who could not ever win another Slam.

 

[ForehandRF]

Despite his failures post 2009, the only regret remains is the choke against Potro. He has no reason to lose Slam final to someone who could not ever win another Slam.

At that point in time, he didn't believe that any other than Nadal can beat him in a slam final and the USO was like his backyard.

 

[Third Serve]

Despite his failures post 2009, the only regret remains is the choke against Potro. He has no reason to lose Slam final to someone who could not ever win another Slam.

That was bad but I think AO 2009 was worse from a legacy standpoint.