Fedr's most dominant Wimbledon title run?

Most dominant title run

  • 2003

  • 2004

  • 2005

  • 2006

  • 2007

  • 2009

  • 2012

  • 2017

Results are only viewable after voting.
falstaff78

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
There may be a case for 2017 to be the most dominant run of them all. Shocking, at age 36.

Stats don't tell the full story. But they tell a good part of it. Here are stats from Federer's 8 title runs at Wimbledon. Both tables are sorted by dominance ratio (% srv. pts. lost / % return pts won). Grass ELO ranking is calculated from the week prior to Wimbledon, and taken from this site.

1yY19Mt.png


The table below shows some of the same stats for the second week - i.e. the last 4 rounds.
8q5AnSF.png



Some other factors:
  • 2012 Fed had a back injury, and his win to me is still the most unbelievable one
  • 2017 Fed faced an injured opponent in the final
Feel free to write in and mention all the other important factors to consider and I'll update the OP.

So which one run do you think was most dominant?

@jwjh @D.Nalby12
 
Last edited:
abmk said:
@falstaff78 : # of times broke serve/#of times serve broken isn't really a good parameter.

if you ask me , a better parameter would be :

(# of times broke serve - # of times serve broken)/(total # of games).
Click to expand...

yes it would. but it's very tricky to get total number games. whereas # of breaks can be taken off tennis abstract with a tiny bit of work.
 
falstaff78 said:
yes it would. but it's very tricky to get total number games. whereas # of breaks can be taken off tennis abstract with a tiny bit of work.
Click to expand...

you can just add up from the score.
I had done that previously and I have it till 12 I think. Might post it some time later.

Only thing would be to remove the TB as a game for evaluating # of breaks/returns.
 
Anyways for the 2006 run, I'll just leave for now with some comments from BBC about what was the highest quality match in that year's Wimbledon ( even if was a straights-sets match):

There it is - an ace from Federer clinches a brilliant win. It was a fantastic display - Ancic couldn't have hoped to play any better, but Federer hit heights there that no other current player could match. He could conceivably win the title this year without dropping a single set. Or with his eyes shut.

Ancic is impressing everyone with his fortitute in the face of the Federer storm. He forces two errors out of Federer and gets a break point, bosses the point and then watches in bewilderment as Federer somehow conjures a crosscourt winner from beyond the tramlines. Ancic isn't going to come out on top this time, but he's got the look of a future Wimbledon champion about him - if aliens manage to abduct Federer first.

Poor old Ancic. Federer breaks him in his first service game of the set, just as he did in the second set. Ancic is looking totally bemused. He's doing everything he should - coming to the net behind deep approaches, mixing it up - but nothing is working.

There it is - a two set lead for the defending champion, and it's hard to see a way back for the Croat. Everything he hits just comes back harder. He comes to the net, he gets passed. He stays back, he gets pulled all over the place. How can anyone beat this man?

"Ancic's report card reads nine out of ten - it's just his bad luck he's come up against Federer." John Lloyd, BBC Sport summariser.

Federer 2-1 Ancic
Ancic does well to hold under another Fed barrage. Some of the shots Rog is playing don't actually seem possible - until he makes them without appearing to break sweat.

Federer 2-0 Ancic
Poor old Ancic. He's played really well, but Federer is destroying him. Mirka, no mean player herself (she played at the Sydney Olympics, you know) is now nodding with open pleasure.

Federer 1-0 Ancic
Extraordinary shot-making from Federer - barely has Ancic come to terms with the loss of the first set when he is broken. Torn to pieces might be more appropriate - no player yet born could have lived with Federer's forehand in that game.

Federer is toying with Ancic. He teases him from one corner of the court to the other before sliding home the killer blow. The crowd gasp at the sheer power of his groundstrokes.

"The only way you could stop Federer would be to get someone to step on him." John Lloyd, BBC Sport summariser.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/5150390.stm
 
Last edited:
fedr was most dominant everywhere in 2006 except grass. He squeaked through four 3-set matches at Halle and then had a much easier draw than the previous year at Wimby. I vote 2005, when he ran the table except for one TB set in 3R vs Kiefer, a solid grass player. He then straight setted 3 slam champions and an eventual slam finalist (JCF, Gonzalez, Hewitt and Roddick.)
 
stringertom said:
fedr was most dominant everywhere in 2006 except grass. He squeaked through four 3-set matches at Halle and then had a much easier draw than the previous year at Wimby. I vote 2005, when he ran the table except for one TB set in 3R vs Kiefer, a solid grass player. He then straight setted 3 slam champions and an eventual slam finalist (JCF, Gonzalez, Hewitt and Roddick.)
Click to expand...

Federer struggled in Halle in 06, but was absolutely dominant/ruthless/brilliant in Wimbledon.

This is just about Wimbledon, not grass overall.

I'd put 05 second, for straight-setting Hewitt&Roddick in impressive fashion.
 
abmk said:
you can just add up from the score.
I had done that previously and I have it till 12 I think. Might post it some time later.

Only thing would be to remove the TB as a game for evaluating # of breaks/returns.
Click to expand...

Adding the score is super painful when you start talking about 80-100 matches.

And yes, tie breaks shouldn't count as games. The ATP does that. It's one of the reasons why I far far prefer tennis abstract
 
falstaff78 said:
There may be a case for 2017 to be the most dominant run of them all. Shocking, at age 36.

Stats don't tell the full story. But they tell a good part of it. Here are stats from Federer's 8 title runs at Wimbledon. Both tables are sorted by dominance ratio (% srv. pts. lost / % return pts won). Grass ELO ranking is calculated from the week prior to Wimbledon, and taken from this site.

1yY19Mt.png


The table below shows some of the same stats for the second week - i.e. the last 4 rounds.
8q5AnSF.png



Some other factors:
  • 2012 Fed had a back injury, and his win to me is still the most unbelievable one
  • 2017 Fed faced an injured opponent in the final
Feel free to write in and mention all the other important factors to consider and I'll update the OP.

So which one run do you think was most dominant?

@jwjh @D.Nalby12
Click to expand...


These stats and numbers are hard to comprehend dominance. My suggestion, just post the seven match results (from 1st round to Final) for each year Federer has won. Also the opponent and his ranking. The scoreline would straightway indicate his dominance.

And many old timers remember somewhat. The scoreline would help that. I remember how Fed demolished the field in 2006. The only competition was set 2 and set 3 of final against Nadal
 
2006 - he had a very tricky draw and basically owned everyone, only Nadal showed some resistence but even he ate a bagel and managed 1 set in a breaker.
 
I think the year when he doesn't drop a set has to be it.

The second-week stats are crazy, including the highest-ranked opponents out of any of his title runs.
 
I think 2006. The reason he lost a set is because he faced young Nadal in the final. Had he faced yesterday's Cilic he would have won 6-0 6-1 6-2, something like that.
 
2005 Wimby Fed was hitting forehand winners at will from anywhere on the court. Most dominant in my opinion, whatever the stats say.
 
Gary Duane said:
Second most dominant Wimbledon in the OE in terms of winning games, second only to JMac in 84. And this includes a final against Nadal where he won the first set 6-0. Only set lost was a TB to Nadal in the final.
Click to expand...
Have you got the winning games table ?
 
@falstaff78 Thanks for the stats!

Can't comment on 2003-5 because i didn't follow tennis back then. :eek: Even 2006 and 2007 are kinda fuzzy for me. lol. How you guys remember in such great detail is beyond me.:oops:

Anyway, the peculiar thing about 2017 is that Fed didn't have to play that well to post those kinds of stats which is why you won't hear how he owned the field/how unbeatable he was despite not dropping a set.
 
metsman said:
Still 03 for me and I don't have to think twice. Only reason he lost a set was because of rain.
Click to expand...

03 was the probably the best SF/F combo ( 05 is debatable), but not overall. The stats aren't that great before those 2 matches.
 
The truly remarkable thing about this year's run is that he posted very dominant stats and didn't drop a set, and yet most of the time it looked as if he had another gear to go to, which he did when needed, such as the tiebreak versus Raonic. It's a shame that Marin most probably was a bit hampered, as given his stellar form he would have been a good touchstone for Fed's level.

What run is truly the most dominant, I'm not sure we can determine. For the true commissars it would always be unthinkable to put 2017 into serious consideration, though.
 
I don't have strong feelings that any one year was the best but I'm very impressed that not only did Fed never drop a set in 2017, he was never ever even down a break. Who does that?
 
@xFedal

The numbers:

The ATP says that Fed won
61.08% of games.

That is, of course, very good. Anything over 60% is typical of major winners in a strong year for them.

My figure is
61.73%

The higher figure is because I count TBs. Normally there is only a very small difference including TBs, but this year Fed's TB record was insanely good: 7/1, meaning 88% of TBs. That is beyond belief, really.

I think my figure is better because not including TBs is very misleading. If anything, they should count as two games, not one, since the lowest possible score is 7-0. Two games, in the old way, could be won in 8 straight points, winning at love on serve and then breaking at love.

In fact, that is the only way to start to understand what happened.

If the ATP figures are correct, Fed won on points:
58.44%

Normally that would produce something like 67% of games, not a bit over 61%. You never see a balance like this for a long period, so most likely his horrendous BP record in some matches explain why the game% if so low in comparison.

In other words, his point% (again if the ATP did not screw up, and I'd like to compare with TA) is an all time record for him and one of the highest I've ever seen, on any surface.

But I never trust the ATP without cross-checking.

The figures for games, however, tally to several decimal places, so I know they didn't screw that up.

In the end it is impossible not to conclude that Fed, this year on grass, was not in all ways at his peak level, although others will claim that inferior competition allowed the numbers to go high.
 
2017 wouldn't be dominant enough to some people in comparison to his prime seasons unless he won each and every game. And even then.....weaker competition would be the explanation on why it still isn't. Prime Fed is Jesus after all.
 
abmk said:
03 was the probably the best SF/F combo ( 05 is debatable), but not overall. The stats aren't that great before those 2 matches.
Click to expand...
He had back problems vs Lopez, still gutted it out in straights, which is impressive, he played brilliantly vs Fish besides the rain delay interrupting his momentum, first 2 rounds, who cares exactly what the level is in those rounds, they were pretty good anyways vs lesser players. And of course the 03 QF was very good and SF/F was just next level stuff. Don't see any reason for it not to be on top given it's the fastest Wimby he won playing more classical grass court tennis and also might contain the 2 best matches he or anyone ever played on grass.

05 SF/F was extremely good (as was the R16) but 03 was another level above, that's how blown away I was when I saw it and really every time I've seen it since.
 
metsman said:
He had back problems vs Lopez, still gutted it out in straights, which is impressive, he played brilliantly vs Fish besides the rain delay interrupting his momentum, first 2 rounds, who cares exactly what the level is in those rounds, they were pretty good anyways vs lesser players. And of course the 03 QF was very good and SF/F was just next level stuff. Don't see any reason for it not to be on top given it's the fastest Wimby he won playing more classical grass court tennis and also might contain the 2 best matches he or anyone ever played on grass.

05 SF/F was extremely good (as was the R16) but 03 was another level above, that's how blown away I was when I saw it and really every time I've seen it since.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. 2005 SF/F was just on the same level, even if not as pleasing to the eye.

It matters when talking about dominance he maintained an impeccable level almost throughout wimby 06, for instance.
The Ancic match in 2006 QF was no less than the 2003 SF if you ask me & a tad above 2003 F.
The Berdych 4R match in 2006 is up there too.

I have the stats for the serve%+return% games.
2006 is above all of them by some distance.
Will post them now.
 
abmk said:
I don't agree. 2005 SF/F was just on the same level, even if not as pleasing to the eye.

It matters when talking about dominance he maintained an impeccable level almost throughout wimby 06, for instance.
The Ancic match in 2006 QF was no less than the 2003 SF if you ask me & a tad above 2003 F.
The Berdych 4R match in 2006 is up there too.

I have the stats for the serve%+return% games.
2006 is above all of them by some distance.
Will post them now.
Click to expand...
well 2006 had weaker opponents, stats will be inflated by all those bagel sets especially in a small sample size. Don't think they mater a whole lot for a 7 match sample.
 
2003 Wimbledon
Roger Federer(4) - 4th Seed
R1 : 6-3 6-3 7-6 H T Lee
R2 : 7-5 6-1 6-1 S Koubek
R3 : 6-3 6-1 4-6 6-1 Mardy Fish
R4 : 7-6 6-4 6-4 Feliciano Lopez
QF : 6-4 6-2 6-4 Jonas Bjorkman
SF : 7-6 6-3 6-3 Andy Roddick(5)
F: 7-6 6-2 7-6 Mark Phillipousis

Only 1 set lost, faced many grass court expert but only 1 seeded player
 
2005 Wimbledon
Roger Federer(1) - Top seed
R1: 6-4 6-2 6-4 Paul Henry Mathieu
R2: 6-4 6-4 6-1 Ivo Minar
R3: 6-2 6-7 6-1 7-5 N Kiefer (25)
R4: 6-3 6-4 7-6 Juan Carlos Ferrero (23)
QF: 7-5 6-2 7-6 Fernando Gonzalez (21)
SF: 6-3 6-4 7-6 Lleyton Hewitt(3)
F: 6-2 7-6 6-4 Andy Roddick(2)

Again one set lost. Demolished all opponents. More seeded players but less grass court specialist
 
2006 Wimbledon
Roger Federer(1) - Top seed

R1: 6-3 6-2 6-2 Richard Gasquet
R2: 6-4 6-0 6-2 Tim Henman
R3: 6-3 7-6 6-4 Nicolas Mahut
R4: 6-3 6-3 6-4 Tomas Berdych(13)
QF: 6-3 6-4 6-4 Mario Ancic(7)
SF: 6-2 6-0 6-2 Jonas Bjorkman
F: 6-0 7-6 6-7 6-3 R Nadal(2)

Again 1 set lost, this time in final. My vote goes to this one. All are big names, even the unseeded ones. And he was hitting lights out winners in every match of 2006. And he even bagelled Nadal.
 
I would be interested to see my own scores for each of the seven matches of 03 and 07, and Fed's opponents also. Haven't seen two of the matches yet, so I'll come back to it.
 
Neil_Fedfan said:
Although I've voted 2006, its between 2005 and 2006 for me.

2017 doesn't even come close in terms of opponents faced.
Click to expand...

To me though, that's kind of unfair to look at it that way. You can't control who you face in slam or a season. It's not up to Fed, it's just how it goes. Murray and Djokovic both not in the best form and nursing injuries, Fed can't do much about that, other than play his respective opponent across the net. Nadal not as good on grass as he was between 2006 and 2011, also not Fed's fault. Bottom line is that it's never easy to win a slam, even if there are a few upsets in the draw. All the guys you play are pro players, so on any given day they have a chance to upset you. Even Fed said said that he rated his chances of winning 2 slams this year as zero. He even joked that maybe he'd win 1, if the other players like got out of his way a bit, lol. Not only did he win Wimbledon at 35, damn near 36 years of age, but he did it w/o dropping a set. That's so unbelievably difficult and rare to see. We will probably never see another player like Federer win a slam at 35+ years of age, and do it without dropping a set. And we've seen two players (Nadal and Fed) win back to back slams without dropping a single set. I really wonder what the Vegas odds were on that, because I bet if you put 100 bucks on something like that, you'd be living in a mansion right about now.
 
Last edited:
Sysyphus said:
The truly remarkable thing about this year's run is that he posted very dominant stats and didn't drop a set, and yet most of the time it looked as if he had another gear to go to, which he did when needed, such as the tiebreak versus Raonic. It's a shame that Marin most probably was a bit hampered, as given his stellar form he would have been a good touchstone for Fed's level.

What run is truly the most dominant, I'm not sure we can determine. For the true commissars it would always be unthinkable to put 2017 into serious consideration, though.
Click to expand...

I think his form was really there, but he didn't feel a hundred percent physically because of his cold. That's why he couldn't give his absolute best. But like you said, he could for short stretches overcome his physical hindrances and play to his true form if needed.

AO he was rusty, very high level alternating with rather low level. Wimby he only brought his best when needed. I think we might see a truly goating Fed at the USO.
 
Big_Dangerous said:
To me though, that's kind of unfair to look at it that way. You can't control who you face in slam or a season. It's not up to Fed, it's just how it goes. Murray and Djokovic both not in the best form and nursing injuries, Fed can't do much about that, other than play his respective opponent across the net. Nadal not as good on grass as he was between 2006 and 2011, also not Fed's fault. Bottom line is that it's never easy to win a slam, even if there are a few upsets in the draw. All the guys you play are pro players, so on any given day they have a chance to upset you. Even Fed said said that he rated his chances of winning 2 slams this year and pretty much zero. He didn't even think he would win 1. Not only did he win Wimbledon at 35, damn near 36, but he did it w/o dropping a set. That's so unbelievably difficult and rare to see. We will probably never see another player like Federer win a slam at 35+ years of age and do it without dropping a set. And we've seen two players (Nadal and Fed) win back to back slams without dropping a single set. I really wonder what the Vegas odds were on that, because I bet if you put 100 bucks on something like that, you'd be living in a mansion right about now.
Click to expand...
I agree with you but that's not what I meant. Its unfortunate that Cilic wasn't 100% in the final and even if he was 100% I still think Fed would've won but that's beside the point. In 2006, Federer faced Gasquet, Mahut, Berdych, Ancic and Nadal (Henman was 32 by then already) en route to his title and all of them were straight sets except the final against nemesis Nadal where Fed lost just one set in a TB. That was when Nadal actually led the H2H 6-1 against Fed and had 4 consecutive wins against him. My whole point was if '06 Fed faced the '17 draw, I seriously doubt if he'd lose more than 4 games per set (let alone a set).

I realize that wasn't the point of this thread as this explicitly asks which run was more dominant (not relative to competition ofcourse) and the obvious answer should be '17 since he didn't drop a set unlike his 7 previous wins. Level of play is subjective but IMO his level in '03-'06 was way higher than it is today on grass. Ofcourse this is also my opinion :)
 
Gazelle said:
I think his form was really there, but he didn't feel a hundred percent physically because of his cold. That's why he couldn't give his absolute best. But like you said, he could for short stretches overcome his physical hindrances and play to his true form if needed.

AO he was rusty, very high level alternating with rather low level. Wimby he only brought his best when needed. I think we might see a truly goating Fed at the USO.
Click to expand...

If this is just the beginning, that's a scary thought:eek:
 
17 basically makes up for 05 where he defacto won without dropping set (1 to Kiefer)

I'd say 03 > 05 > 06 > 04 then everything else is a drop off from that.
 
Yes^
To the OP...yup, stats do tell most of the story.
What do they not tell?
Well, subjectively, how dominant was a given Wimbledon from a fan's perspective?

2003, he was seeded fourth but it was a surprise.
2004, pretty clear he was repeating. Somewhat Dominant.
2005, clear three peat. Kiwi got a breaker, but was sent packing thereafter. Moast dominant.
2006, obvious he was winning but the final got rough for about two hours, as i recall. So i hesitate to cast my vote here.
2007, we knew. Majorly dominant.
2009 and 2012 were in doubt until the end.
2017, clearly dominant! But i thought the final was going five. I really did.

So i voatid for 2005.
 
slice bh compliment said:
2004, pretty clear he was repeating. Somewhat Dominant.

2006, obvious he was winning but the final got rough for about two hours, as i recall. So i hesitate to cast my vote here.

2007, we knew. Majorly dominant.
Click to expand...

eh, 2004 was in far more doubt than in 2006. In 2004, Roddick came all out all guns blitzing, took the first. federer took the 2nd set. Roddick was up 4-2 in the 3rd set before federer pulled back to take the 3rd set in a breaker.

in 2006 final, federer was up 2 sets to love. chances of a nadal win were very remote. Before the match started and at any point within the match as well.
that had 2 easy sets for federer - 1st and 4th. None of the sets in the 04 final were easy.

2007 - the final was a titanic clash b/w fedal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

falstaff78
Cumulative stats - Wimbledon 2018 Week 1
Replies
21
Views
2K
falstaff78
falstaff78
falstaff78
  • Poll Poll
Cumulative stats - Federer [3] vs. Cilic [7] - WIM 2017 F
Replies
41
Views
4K
World Beater
W
falstaff78
Cumulative stats - Federer [3] vs. Dimitrov [13] - WIM 2017 R16
Replies
19
Views
2K
kOaMaster
kOaMaster
falstaff78
  • Poll Poll
Cumulative stats - Federer [3] vs. Berdych [11] - WIM 2017 SF
2
Replies
75
Views
5K
kalyan4fedever
kalyan4fedever
ghostofMecir
Most dominant men’s slam runs by Dominance ratio
Replies
12
Views
395
weakera
weakera
Back
Top