Roger is not given enough credit for this

[Deleted member 688153]

We know about Fed's 3-slam years, but I think we forget how amazing it was that they were back to back.

Connors, Djokovic, Nadal have also had 3-slam seasons, but they were all worse in some way than 2006.

Only Fed made all four slam finals for starters.
Also, Fed won the WTF too. Djokovic went on a walkabout after USO 2011, Nadal got beaten by Fed himself at WTF 2010, and Connors didn't win the WTF either.

Basically, only Fed was able to keep it up for the whole year, which sets him apart.


In 2006, Roger went W-F-W-W at the slams (27-1).
He also won the WTF and 4 MS tourneys.
He was 92-5 for the year (94.85%)
This was the best season of the Open Era easily.

Now here's the clincher:

Federer went into 2006 coming off a 3-slam year in 2004, and what should have been a 3-slam year in 2005 (if not for ultra-flukey Safin loss).
He should have been absolutely exhausted.

Instead, he posted the best season on record in the Open Era, (going W-F-W-W winning 94.85% of matches), and then, for good measure, decided to go W-F-W-W in 2007 too!

He was basically Superman.

We talk about 17-6-302 (the GOAT stats by far), but his absolutely inhuman performance for four straight years (and then notching up more multi-slam years out of his prime) is what makes him the best ever.

Even if someone exceeds his slam count by a modest amount (say they get 18-19 slams), they would not have done what Federer did.

In a nutshell: Federer is where it's at, and will be for a long, long time.

 

[Nadal>>>>>Federer]

1). Just more proof of a weak era

2). Don't call Safin's AO a fluke, he simply out-played Fed

 

[Deleted member 307496]

1). Just more proof of a weak era

2). Don't call Safin's AO a fluke, he simply out-played Fed

It says about as much about Nadal as it does about Federer, who was #2 the whole of 2006?

 

[Noleberic123]

It says about as much about Nadal as it does about Federer, who was #2 the whole of 2006?

He was a 19-20 year old in 2006......

 

[Deleted member 307496]

He was a 19-20 year old in 2006......

He was still the #2 player in the world. Age shouldn't come into the equation, it's a known fact Nadal was an early bloomer..

He also made the Wimbledon final that year, showing he wasn't just a one surface wonder..

Djokovic also cracked the top 5 when he was 19, that doesn't mean 2007 was weak by any means..

 

[Deleted member 688153]

1). Just more proof of a weak era

2). Don't call Safin's AO a fluke, he simply out-played Fed

Or it's proof that Federer basically represented the second coming.

Weak era is BS and you know it.
It is the last bastion of those who resent the FACT that Federer is by far the most achieved tennis player ever.

And Fed had MP and should have closed out.
So yeah, a complete fluke.

 

[Noleberic123]

Or it's proof that Federer basically represented the second coming.

Weak era is BS and you know it.
It is the last bastion of those who resent the FACT that Federer is by far the most achieved tennis player ever.

And Fed had MP and should have closed out.
So yeah, a complete fluke.

So USO 10 and USO 11 semis were complete flukes also then? :lol:

 

[Deleted member 688153]

He was a 19-20 year old in 2006......

Rafa was faster and had better endurance in 2006 than he has had for several years.
06-08 was Rafa's best stint on clay.

His numerical age means nothing.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

So USO 10 and USO 11 semis were complete flukes also then? :lol:

Yep.

Djokovic's epic return in 2011, epic though it was, was a complete fluke.

 

[Noleberic123]

Yep.

Djokovic's epic return in 2011, epic though it was, was a complete fluke.

yeah believe whatever you wish

 

[RF-18]

No! Federer did not achieve the CYGS during that period so those achievements are minor and they don't count!

I know. The logic I have can be compared to a dog, so please, try to understand. Thank you.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

yeah believe whatever you wish

Well he admits it himself too.

“If it comes in, it comes in,” said Djokovic. “It’s a risk. Last year I was in a very similar situation, facing two match points against Roger. I just hit my forehand as hard as I could. If it’s out then you lose the match. If It’s in, you have a chance.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...r-Federers-title-hopes-in-epic-encounter.html

But I fear we're getting a little off-topic.

 

[Nadal>>>>>Federer]

Yep.

Djokovic's epic return in 2011, epic though it was, was a complete fluke.

Lol Fed choked both times. Also choked in 05

 

[Noleberic123]

Well he admits it himself too.

“If it comes in, it comes in,” said Djokovic. “It’s a risk. Last year I was in a very similar situation, facing two match points against Roger. I just hit my forehand as hard as I could. If it’s out then you lose the match. If It’s in, you have a chance.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...r-Federers-title-hopes-in-epic-encounter.html

But I fear we're getting a little off-topic.

He took the risk?? and got a bit of luck. that's something Federer wouldnt do. And your just saying that because it was MP, if it was any other point in the match, you would be saying how good djokovics returns are.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Lol Fed choked both times. Also choked in 05

Djokovic blasting a lucky FH isn't choking bro.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Lol Fed choked both times. Also choked in 05

So was Djokovic too good for Federer or did Federer choke? Which is it?

 

[Noleberic123]

Djokovic blasting a lucky FH isn't choking bro.

He choked after out of shock of what djokovic just did. Maybe I should make a thread about how djokovic is not given enough credit for that :lol:

 

[Deleted member 688153]

He took the risk?? and got a bit of luck. that's something Federer wouldnt do. And your just saying that because it was MP, if it was any other point in the match, you would be saying how good djokovics returns are.

I say that anyway :lol:

Also I'm glad Novak won in 2011 anyway, much better than seeing Fed get rekt by Nadal in the final.

 

[Noleberic123]

I say that anyway :lol:

Also I'm glad Novak won in 2011 anyway, much better than seeing Fed get rekt by Nadal in the final.

No no no. he would have beaten nadal since he is some untouchable GOD that cant players like djokovic cant even take sets off.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

He choked after out of shock of what djokovic just did. Maybe I should make a thread about how djokovic is not given enough credit for that :lol:

Go ahead!

But we digress, this one's about 04-07.

Congratulations to Novak for winning in 2011, as I said above I'm actually happy he did in retrospect.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

No no no. he would have beaten nadal since he is some untouchable GOD that cant players like djokovic cant even take sets off.

Was.

Also match-up issue.

Rafa in four at USO 2011 if they had met.

 

[Noleberic123]

Was.

Also match-up issue.

Rafa in four at USO 2011 if they had met.

GODs don't have match up issues :lol:

 

[Deleted member 688153]

GODs don't have match up issues :lol:

Even Gods can bleed, Rafa proves it.

Superman has his kryptonite.

 

[Noleberic123]

Even Gods can bleed, Rafa proves it.

Superman has his kryptonite.

Not Federer, you know once again since no body can even take a set off him.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Not Federer, you know once again since no body can even take a set off him.

Tell that to Rafa!

If prime Djoker can barely beat 2014 Federer, how's he going to go against 200% better 2005 Federer?
At AO and RG it'd be close, I'm not delusional.
But at WIM or USO every match they've played (almost all of them outside Roger's prime) has either been a drubbing to Fed or has gone the distance.

Djokovic has a match-up issue with Federer, simple.

 

[Noleberic123]

Tell that to Rafa.

If prime Djoker can barely beat 2014 Federer, how's he going to go against 200% better 2005 Federer?

If a pre-prime djoker could beat prime fed why cant prime djoker even take a set off prime fed? this is why nadal fans are so much better

 

[RF-18]

If a pre-prime djoker could beat prime fed why cant prime djoker even take a set off prime fed? this is why nadal fans are so much better

You can do better than that.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

If a pre-prime djoker could beat prime fed why cant prime djoker even take a set off prime fed? this is why nadal fans are so much better

In what respect?

 

[Noleberic123]

You can do better than that.

no I cant actually. Because its true. Explain that logic of how a pre-prime djokovic can beat a prime fed but a prime djokovic wouldn't even take a set?

 

[Noleberic123]

In what respect?

Because nadal is greater, but they don't act like nadal is 3 times a better tennis player.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

no I cant actually. Because its true. Explain that logic of how a pre-prime djokovic can beat a prime fed but a prime djokovic wouldn't even take a set?

I'm talking about fast surfaces only.

Your example is an extremely slow surface (AO plexicushion 2008 I presume).
Also Fed had mono then, not Prime Fed.

 

[RF-18]

no I cant actually. Because its true. Explain that logic of how a pre-prime djokovic can beat a prime fed but a prime djokovic wouldn't even take a set?

I don't think he was being serious when saying that. I think he just tried to point out how difficult Djokovic would have with prime Fed. Because he would have had major problems.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Because nadal is greater, but they don't act like nadal is 3 times a better tennis player.

Because Nadal is only double the tennis player Djokovic is. :lol: Djokovic isn't close enough to either of them to be realistically compared to them.. He is still in the Agassi/Connors league..

 

[Noleberic123]

I'm talking about fast surfaces only.

Your example is an extremely slow surface (AO plexicushion 2008 I presume).
Also Fed had mono then, not Prime Fed.

mono fed is bull*****. Dubai and montreal in 2007 are examples of pre-prime djokovic winning sets. Unless you are just talking about grand slams.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Because nadal is greater, but they don't act like nadal is 3 times a better tennis player.

That's because Djokovic is a serious threat to Nadal every time they play and his fans know it.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I'm talking about fast surfaces only.

Your example is an extremely slow surface (AO plexicushion 2008 I presume).
Also Fed had mono then, not Prime Fed.

I think even if Federer was healthy, Djokovic would have pulled it off in 4 or 5. He's a beast on plexicushion, and Federer, although very good, isn't as good as he was on Rebound Ace.

But as you said, that's a slow surface. Djokovic hasn't won Cincinnati once, and thus proves he's more equipped to slower surfaces than faster ones..

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I don't think he was being serious when saying that. I think he just tried to point out how difficult Djokovic would have with prime Fed. Because he would have had major problems.

Thank you.

I somehow doubt that Fed would have won in three straight sets, even the best players can only really do that against lower guys.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

That's because Djokovic is a serious threat to Nadal every time they play and they know it.

Only outside slams. Nadal hasn't lost to Djokovic in a slam in over 2 years. His days of being a true "threat" to Nadal ended along with 2011..

 

[Djokovic2011]

Tell that to Rafa!

If prime Djoker can barely beat 2014 Federer, how's he going to go against 200% better 2005 Federer?
At AO and RG it'd be close, I'm not delusional.
But at WIM or USO every match they've played (almost all of them outside Roger's prime) has either been a drubbing to Fed or has gone the distance.

Djokovic has a match-up issue with Federer, simple.

Peak Federer probably wouldn't lose a set against peak Djokovic at Wimbledon but I think he would at the US Open.

 

[Noleberic123]

That's because Djokovic is a serious threat to Nadal every time they play and his fans know it.

And you don't fear djokovic at all?

 

[RF-18]

Only outside slams. Nadal hasn't lost to Djokovic in a slam in over 2 years. His days of being a true "threat" to Nadal ended along with 2011..

They have only met in FO and 1 time in USO since that latest win in slams vs nadal.

Djokovic not being a threat to nadal in slams and that it ended in 2011 is something even the biggest nadal fan and djokovic hater (not calling you that) wouldn't say. Come on.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

mono fed is bull*****. Dubai and montreal in 2007 are examples of pre-prime djokovic winning sets. Unless you are just talking about grand slams.

When you're pale, sweating more than Nadal, and look like you recently swallowed bull****, I think it's safe to say that you're unwell.

I still think Djokovic would have won though even if Fed was fit to play.
Djoker was playing at Prime level at AO 2008.

Dubai was in 2011, not prime Fed.

Montreal I will happily give you, that was a great match.

 

[Noleberic123]

When you're pale, sweating more than Nadal, and look like you recently swallowed bull****, I think it's safe to say that you're unwell.

I still think Djokovic would have won though even if Fed was fit to play.
Djoker was playing at Prime level at AO 2008.

Dubai was in 2011, not prime Fed.

Montreal I will happily give you, that was a great match.

No they played in 2007 as well. Federer won 6-3 6-7 6-3.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

And you don't fear djokovic at all?

I do, but I don't think Roger does all that much (even if he should).

 

[Deleted member 688153]

No they played in 2007 as well. Federer won 6-3 6-7 6-3.

Oh okay, but I thought you were only talking about Djokovic victories.

 

[Noleberic123]

Oh okay, but I thought you were only talking about Djokovic victories.

No im trying to convince you Federer had problems with djokovic even before djokovics prime.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Peak Federer probably wouldn't lose a set against peak Djokovic at Wimbledon but I think he would at the US Open.

I think you're right.

I think the best version of USO Djokovic (2011 final?) could potentially take some versions of Prime Fed to five, especially with the slightly slower 2011 conditions.

It's only Wimbledon where I think Novak would be gone in three, I do not underrate Djokovic on HC.

 

[Djokovic2011]

This thread is completely pointless anyway. We all know that Federer never achieved the ultimate feat in tennis, which is of course doing the CYGS. Winning 3 majors a year, even doing it three times, is merely majoring in minors. :twisted:

 

[tennisaddict]

This thread is completely pointless anyway. We all know that Federer never achieved the ultimate feat in tennis, which is of course doing the CYGS. Winning 3 majors a year, even doing it three times, is merely majoring in minors. :twisted:

You forgot the magic words - 'concentrated dominance' .

 

[Deleted member 688153]

No im trying to convince you Federer had problems with djokovic even before djokovics prime.

I wouldn't say he had problems with pre-prime Novak very often.
You're always going to get the odd time.

Simon has taken Fed to 5 in slams on multiple occasions.