Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by 5555, Dec 3, 2012.
In OP's video... holy 8:23
Federer was already declining by 2007, Djokovic would get owned on a medium-fast hard court by a Prime Federer (2004-2006). And besides, look what happened in a MAJOR when they met like a month later. It's insulting to Federer to compare him to Cvac..:?
Wouldn't get owned as hard as some people Federer owned in that time period. Let's face it, Djokovic is a better player than Hewitt, Roddick and the like. He would be able to front up against Federer and claim a few wins, just not to the extent Nadal has.
LOL, good one.
It's true.. those losses to Canas, Volandri and the like wouldn't have happened in 2006 or 2005.
No, he just lost to Gasquet and pre-prime Murray.
To be fair they were pretty one off losses in those seasons (I mean in terms of surprising losses), to players better than the ones he lost to in 2007. Plus the one vs Murray was after Federer had played 11 consecutive finals in a row form the beginning of the season..
I would say he was still prime in 2007 for sure but he was starting to drop a little bit, mainly outside the slams.
gasquet was on-fire in that match , it was an excellent performance from him ....
As far as the murray match goes,federer had just come to cincy from Canada playing 4 back to back 3-setters in Canada masters ( there were no byes at that time ) ...
Fed's match record in:
2005- 81-4 (95%)
2006- 92-5 (95%)
2007- 68-9 (88%)
So yes he indeed had more "bad" losses/upsets in 2007 compared to 2005 and 2006 combined (with more wins in each year also).
However I wouldn't call 2007 a decline from his peak, it wasn't his best year ever like 2006 (when he reached his record # of finals in a row, like Nadal did in 2011) but was still a great (peak) year.
But he loses to a future 5-time Slam winner (who already had a Masters title at the time, unlike Gasquet and Murray) and it's the signal of a decline.
Fed fan logic is weird.
Not true, it was 3-2 in Djokovic's favor.In this I might say even rivalry, Federer had winning record in four seasons(2006,2007,2008 & 2010), and Djokovic in three seasons(2009,2011 and 2012).After four consecutive Fed wins , Djokovic is leading 13-12.
And Djokovic is 7-3 in 2011-2012 where Federer is well passed his prime and Djokovic in his absolute peak, and please spare us with the nonsense that Federer was playing as good as ever during this period.
First of all I don't buy this decline kind of thing.Federer lost a set to young Nole in MC in 2006.You can find the match highlights on you tube.Djokovic of today would win this match, easily.Federer had many bad days in past, but his aura of invincibility was so BIG for most players except for Nadal.Everybody was 'afraid' of him, they were losing matches in the locker room.Federer fans do not want to accept the fact that Nadal,Djokovic and Murray are three best players against whom he played in career.
Federer was in a great shape and form at the beginning of 2011 season.It's a nonsense thing that you Fed fans want put every time he lose a match.
Great shape and form in the beginning of 2011? He won Doha a warm up tournament but then he didn't win a tournament until Basel and you still would compare this with the Federer of 2007?
And still at the age of 31 was able to beat Djokovic and Murray to win the most important tournament.
Do you actually think that Federer would have played the same way if he was to face the Djokovic of 2011?
Do you actually think that Prime Federer would slaughter Prime Djokovic?
Put Prime Federer and prime Djokovic on a fast court and see that for yourself Remember Cincinnati 2012
If the grass was as fast as it were in the 90s Djokovic would still be waiting for his first Wimbledon
No, not at all. I just think its unfair to say that Federer of 2011 and 2012 is playing as good as when he was 24-25 years old. I am really curious to see how will Nadal and Djokovic do when they will hit 30 years of age.
I don't think they both will play till 30. Djokovic may play
mistakenly carried over a match from 2010, my mistake. overall h2h is 16-13 Federer.
No one said the loss to Djokovic was the signal of a decline, we said that it was a more unexpected result than him winning the other matches that year. Federer had more credentials, more titles, was higher ranked, and thus the favorite in that match. That's also true for Murray and Gasquet, both of which were more surprising upsets than the Montreal final.
We also mentioned he was more susceptible to bad losses in 2007 than previous years, which is a sign he was losing that extra gear. No one ever said this was directly the reason he lost to Djokovic. He appeared to lose focus in both tiebreaks, and Djokovic took advantage. The point was that Federer did that more often in 2007 than 2005/2006.
Prime Federer versus 19 year old Murray:
Separate names with a comma.