If Federer wins US Open it will be his best season

Terry Tibbs

Terry Tibbs

Hall of Fame
Due to the fact he didn't lose a match in the one slam he didn't win due to not playing it would be a 100% record in slams for the season. Add in his other titles at Indian Wells, Miami and Halle and final appearance at Montreal, a US Open title would surely mean that he has had his most successful season at the age of 35/36. For this reason though together with his back problem I dont see him winning it. It would just be too an unreal an accomplishment so is unlikely to happen.
 
I don't think it will be his best season - his total absence from clay is a significant hole relative to 2006 and 2007 when he was close to winning the calendar year Slam. However, three Slams as a 35/36yo could very well be the most impressive achievement by a tennis player ever.
 
wangs78 said:
I don't think it will be his best season - his total absence from clay is a significant hole relative to 2006 and 2007 when he was close to winning the calendar year Slam. However, three Slams as a 35/36yo could very well be the most impressive achievement by a tennis player ever.
Click to expand...

There is no need to inflate Fed's 2017 achievements by comparing to 2006/2007 when he played the FULL schedule. Winning 3 slams at 36 years old even skipping clay is monumental!
 
I think Federer's best season(s), in terms of quality was 2011 and 2005. He just happened to come up against zoning players.


This will be the most impressive year considering his age.
 
Yes, it would because unlike in 2006, Federer was not coming off knee surgery and missing six of the year to rehab along with the time missed after having knee surgery. Also he was not expected to have 3 slam season at 35/36.
 
fedtennisphan said:
Yes, it would because unlike in 2006, Federer was not coming off knee surgery and missing six of the year to rehab along with the time missed after having knee surgery. Also he was not expected to have 3 slam season at 35/36.
Click to expand...

No, comeback-factor is not relevant. In terms of pure quality 2006 will be #1. 92-5, 12 titles, 3 slams, Golden Bagel award. Pure dominance!
 
Gary Duane said:
2011 is a strange pick for best year...
Click to expand...

It was a troll post.


Federer played true all court tennis in 2004 & 2005, he was a joy to watch. After that, I found his game to be a bit one dimensional - being a serve + forehand guy. Which to be fair, was a stroke of genius; No way does Federer win slams after 07 without his serve improving. Genius. But, I didn't like his game as much as I did in 04/05. I'm allowed this opinion.
 
Gary Duane said:
2011 is a strange pick for best year...
Click to expand...
Haha, yes it is. I was wondering the same. @cataclysm meant it in terms of quality of play, not results- but even so, it's a bit of a stretch putting it above any of 2004-08.

This certainly won't be his best season even if he wins the USO. It might be the most impressive considering he's 36, but 2004-07 were all much better in terms of absolute results.
 
cataclysm said:
It was a troll post.


Federer played true all court tennis in 2004 & 2005, he was a joy to watch. After that, I found his game to be a bit one dimensional - being a serve + forehand guy. Which to be fair, was a stroke of genius; No way does Federer win slams after 07 without his serve improving. Genius. But, I didn't like his game as much as I did in 04/05. I'm allowed this opinion.
Click to expand...

I would say he was more all-court in style for quite a long time, actually. His results declined after 2007, but the first year when he really employed his current style- dependent on serve and chip-and-charge more often- was 2014. His ground game wasn't that good at all in 2014 when he played the Wimby final. It's much better now, of course, with the new backhand and him having grown into the new racket.
 
wangs78 said:
I don't think it will be his best season - his total absence from clay is a significant hole relative to 2006 and 2007 when he was close to winning the calendar year Slam.
Click to expand...

I agree that nothing aside from the CYGS would top his 2006. But you must be kidding to think Roger skipping clay this year is "a significant hole" in his season. He skipped clay to win Wimbledon and that panned out exactly as planned. If he wins the USO and three majors in one year at the age of 35/36, it will be the greatest accomplishment in tennis since Laver in '69. No one historically will ever remember or care that he wisely ducked clay. And almost certainly he won't play clay again in his career. That is no "significant hole." That hole was plugged in June, 2009 for Fed.
 
BeatlesFan said:
I agree that nothing aside from the CYGS would top his 2006. But you must be kidding to think Roger skipping clay this year is "a significant hole" in his season. He skipped clay to win Wimbledon and that panned out exactly as planned. If he wins the USO and three majors in one year at the age of 35/36, it will be the greatest accomplishment in tennis since Laver in '69. No one historically will ever remember or care that he wisely ducked clay. And almost certainly he won't play clay again in his career. That is no "significant hole." That hole was plugged in June, 2009 for Fed.
Click to expand...

True enough. I can imagine the howls of protest if Fed never plays on clay again.
 
BeatlesFan said:
No one historically will ever remember or care that he wisely ducked clay. And almost certainly he won't play clay again in his career. That is no "significant hole." That hole was plugged in June, 2009 for Fed.
Click to expand...

Imagine him winning the USO and then basically shutting down his season except for the WTF, which he also wins and seals YE no.1.
Then he goes on a long break.
Skips everything- except the AO- till the clay arrives in 2018.
Wins Monte Carlo, Rome, and RG, beating Nadal in an epic 5-setter in the final.
Screams his head off, goes partly insane, and lives out the rest of his days as a new-age wellness guru in the Swiss mountains.
 
BlueClayGOAT said:
Imagine him winning the USO and then basically shutting down his season except for the WTF, which he also wins and seals YE no.1.
Then he goes on a long break.
Skips everything- except the AO- till the clay arrives in 2018.
Wins Monte Carlo, Rome, and RG, beating Nadal in an epic 5-setter in the final.
Screams his head off, goes partly insane, and lives out the rest of his days as a new-age wellness guru in the Swiss mountains.
Click to expand...

that scenario would blow everyone's head off. Please no.
 
BlueClayGOAT said:
I would say he was more all-court in style for quite a long time, actually. His results declined after 2007, but the first year when he really employed his current style- dependent on serve and chip-and-charge more often- was 2014. His ground game wasn't that good at all in 2014 when he played the Wimby final. It's much better now, of course, with the new backhand and him having grown into the new racket.
Click to expand...


I would say he started to implement his serve and forehand combination around the US Open 2006.


Federer's movement in 2007 started to decline. This much is obvious. He started to become defensive on the BH, with no aggression on the ROS. However he improved his serve and stayed relevant in the game. I have no doubts that Federer without his improved serve does not win a slam after 2007 even if his basline game stayed the same - his footwork wasn't the same. It worked out well for him, however he did become more one dimensional.



I've never seen anyone improve their serve over time as Federer has. Nadal was able to win the US Open 2010, but Federer literally added 5 slams and an extra five years by improving it.




(And no, I don't think Federer is a top 10 server of the 00's)
 
Given the circumstances regarding Fed's age, physical problems the year before, slam drought etc., this would probably go down as his finest season to date, though many others were better in an absolute sense.
 
[QUOTE="BeatlesFan, post: 11536462, member: 740525"]I agree that nothing aside from the CYGS would top his 2006. But you must be kidding to think Roger skipping clay this year is "a significant hole" in his season. He skipped clay to win Wimbledon and that panned out exactly as planned. If he wins the USO and three majors in one year at the age of 35/36, it will be the greatest accomplishment in tennis since Laver in '69. No one historically will ever remember or care that he wisely ducked clay. And almost certainly he won't play clay again in his career. That is no "significant hole." That hole was plugged in June, 2009 for Fed.[/QUOTE]

Djokovic's 2015 would top it ;)
 
Firstservingman said:
I really hope he never does touch clay again, and I suspect that he won't.
Skip the dirt and get ready for the main event in July.
Click to expand...
Nice. When I arrived at that opinion, myself, I was really surprised that I ever felt otherwise! It's such a great position to be in for him... achieved his goals, and now he can just tell every clay tourney to stuff it. :)
 
I don't mind clay as a surface, but several of the tournaments have issues. The FFT in general, and the lack of hawkeye are glaring problems.
If a few top players decided to start giving clay/RG a miss more often, it would de-legitimise them enough to spur change. You'd see hawkeye brought in quickly.

There are many players who would lose little by skipping clay. Federer showing this year (and Murray in 2013) that it doesn't necessarily hurt your season should help.
 
Firstservingman said:
I don't mind clay as a surface, but several of the tournaments have issues. The FFT in general, and the lack of hawkeye are glaring problems.
If a few top players decided to start giving clay/RG a miss more often, it would de-legitimise them enough to spur change. You'd see hawkeye brought in quickly.

There are many players who would lose little by skipping clay. Federer showing this year (and Murray in 2013) that it doesn't necessarily hurt your season should help.
Click to expand...
The French may have erred in their decision to play on clay in the '14 DC finals. In a lead-up interview, I recall Stan saying something to the effect of... "That could backfire on them." :D
 
Firstservingman said:
I don't mind clay as a surface, but several of the tournaments have issues. The FFT in general, and the lack of hawkeye are glaring problems.
If a few top players decided to start giving clay/RG a miss more often, it would de-legitimise them enough to spur change. You'd see hawkeye brought in quickly.

There are many players who would lose little by skipping clay. Federer showing this year (and Murray in 2013) that it doesn't necessarily hurt your season should help.
Click to expand...
You surely don't believe that every single clay tournament is simply being stubborn and penny-pinching in not using Hawkeye? Might there not be a more rational reason --- like the technology has not proven sufficiently reliable on clay.
 
FedFosterWallace said:
The French may have erred in their decision to play on clay in the '14 DC finals. In a lead-up interview, I recall Stan saying something to the effect of... "That could backfire on them." :D
Click to expand...
I was so happy when they got owned in that final after making that decision. It was clearly just to try and neutralise Federer and it ended up backfiring beautifully.
 
pame said:
You surely don't believe that every single clay tournament is simply being stubborn and penny-pinching in not using Hawkeye? Might there not be a more rational reason --- like the technology has not proven sufficiently reliable on clay.
Click to expand...
I think that's an excuse. They think they don't need Hawkeye because of the ball marks. No way could any version of Hawkeye (which primarily relies on the flight of the ball, nothing to do with the surface) be worse than the awful ball mark solution.
 
Firstservingman said:
I was so happy when they got owned in that final after making that decision. It was clearly just to try and neutralise Federer and it ended up backfiring beautifully.
Click to expand...

No their big mistake was putting Monfils against Federer to open the round. Fred's back was bad, so even Gasquet would have won that. They should have thrown Gasquet out first and than had Monfils beat Fred in the 4th point and leave it up to Stan to have to clinch the final point. Stan might have choked.
 
smoledman said:
No their big mistake was putting Monfils against Federer to open the round. Fred's back was bad, so even Gasquet would have won that. They should have thrown Gasquet out first and than had Monfils beat Fred in the 4th point and leave it up to Stan to have to clinch the final point. Stan might have choked.
Click to expand...
To be fair I think their true mistake was to not have better tennis players.
 
Terry Tibbs said:
Due to the fact he didn't lose a match in the one slam he didn't win due to not playing it would be a 100% record in slams for the season. Add in his other titles at Indian Wells, Miami and Halle and final appearance at Montreal, a US Open title would surely mean that he has had his most successful season at the age of 35/36. For this reason though together with his back problem I dont see him winning it. It would just be too an unreal an accomplishment so is unlikely to happen.
Click to expand...
You're the same kind of person that believes Federer is playing his best tennis today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Purplemonster said:
Annoying arrogant person that he is.
Click to expand...
Can you really back that claim up though, beyond one or two lines here and there that he said years ago?
There are many players who are much more arrogant than Federer. A very slight hint of arrogance in the past is a poor excuse for hating on him.
 
Best year since 2008, for sure.

Anyway, I wonder how the conditions play out. Someone quote Brad Gilbert as saying the court and balls play slow this year. If that is indeed the case, Nadal should feel quite comfortable with the conditions. Federer also said the courts suit him well, so let's wait and hear what the players say about the conditions after a few rounds.
 
In terms of level through the first 3 majors he's clearly worse than 04-09, and a little worse than 11/12. With a spectacular USO showing he can overtake 11/12 maybe but that's about it.
 
I wouldn't pay much attention to what BG or any player is saying re: court speed. I'll decide for myself when I see the opening round.
 
Doesn't look like it going by stats:
win loss record: 2006: 92-5, 2005: 81-4 vs 35-3 this year.
top 10 wins 2004-2007: 18 15 19 17 vs 9 this year.
 
If taking into account his age,winning 3 majors is at least as great as what he did in 2006 season.
Seriously, his achievement by now in this year has been out of imagination for any player in tennis history,let alone winning 3 majors.
 
BlueClayGOAT said:
Imagine him winning the USO and then basically shutting down his season except for the WTF, which he also wins and seals YE no.1.
Then he goes on a long break.
Skips everything- except the AO- till the clay arrives in 2018.
Wins Monte Carlo, Rome, and RG, beating Nadal in an epic 5-setter in the final.
Screams his head off, goes partly insane, and lives out the rest of his days as a new-age wellness guru in the Swiss mountains.
Click to expand...

Replacing Pepe Imaz in Djokovic's camp in the process. :)
 
Terry Tibbs said:
Due to the fact he didn't lose a match in the one slam he didn't win due to not playing it would be a 100% record in slams for the season. Add in his other titles at Indian Wells, Miami and Halle and final appearance at Montreal, a US Open title would surely mean that he has had his most successful season at the age of 35/36. For this reason though together with his back problem I dont see him winning it. It would just be too an unreal an accomplishment so is unlikely to happen.
Click to expand...

Playing more means winning more matches but also losing more matches.

There is no way that scoring a final in a clay Masters is worse result than not participating in it.

With that said, because of the circumstances in which this season is unfolding, it ranks amongst the best ever for him already and can reach ridiculous heights, if he wins USO (not likely).

:cool:
 
Terry Tibbs said:
Due to the fact he didn't lose a match in the one slam he didn't win due to not playing it would be a 100% record in slams for the season.
Click to expand...

Wow, now that you mention it, I also didn't lose any match in the slams I didn't play this year. Or last year. Or the year before that.

My mind is blown. :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Reptilian Schizo
If Federer wins US Open..
Replies
30
Views
2K
kabob
kabob
T
What should be the Masters level events?
Replies
23
Views
2K
Blinkism
Blinkism
N
With a Us open win Nadal will have his best ever Grand slam season.
Replies
32
Views
1K
joekapa
joekapa
S
Why doesn't Novak take his foot off the gas?
Replies
38
Views
2K
PeterHo
PeterHo
C
If RAFA wins Gold and US Open...it WILL BE the greatest individual season ever!
3 4 5
Replies
209
Views
16K
tennis-hero
tennis-hero
Back
Top