Top 5 at each slam for the top 5 of the open era

[The Guru]

I think 04 and 06 are clearly the best and then the other 3 I think you can put in basically any order
07 had the best match vs Roddick but as a tournament I’d take 05
Then 08 had some hiccups but the last two rounds were very good
I think old agassi on hard court is better than old fed so gonna have to disagree there
Think fed has the serve advantage but I just don’t think he could keep that up
Agassi was just a better ballstriker at that age

I think 08 should always be put at 3. The final 2 rounds are just much better than 07 and 05 and those are the most important. 07 is also better than 05 imo but that's closer. I think 08 is clearly much better.

Agassi might have been the better ball striker but he was clearly worse at literally everything else and only at best a marginally better ball striker so I don't think it's particularly close. Fed's absolute dominance over the non Djokovic field from early grass season to the USO F proves just how strong he was during that period. He was vastly more impressive than Agassi to the point where it's crazy to even compare them imo. Fed didn't drop a set on his way to the final at USO and wasn't broken on the way to the final at W and was incredibly good at Cinci and also Halle too. He was dominant. Agassi at least made the finals at Canda (through a powder puff draw) only to lose to 05 Rafa on hard. Then he struggled through another powder puff draw including 3 5 setters vs unseeded opponents and your really telling me he's better? I mean cmon. The massive difference in movement and serve should be enough basically on its own to call Fed the better player. Then you can look at the fact that Agassi never even made a tour level final ever again in his career and Fed would go on to win 3 more slams and stay in the top 3 for four more years and also that I just don't think you can look at any age and say Agassi was better except for when they were very young because Fed is just a different tier of player. These are the type of claims that make me seriously doubt the rational faculties of the Fed GOAT crowd. Though are you a Rafa fan? Regardless, wild claim imo.

 

[JoelSandwich]

I think 08 should always be put at 3. The final 2 rounds are just much better than 07 and 05 and those are the most important. 07 is also better than 05 imo but that's closer. I think 08 is clearly much better.

Agassi may have been the better ball striker but he was worse at literally everything else and only a marginally better ball striker so I don't think it's particularly close. Fed's absolute dominance over the non Djokovic field from early grass season to the USO F proves just how strong he was during that period. He was vastly more impressive than Agassi to the point where it's crazy to even compare them imo. Fed didn't drop a set on his way to the final at USO and wasn't broken on the way to the final at W and was incredibly good at Cinci and also Halle too. He was dominant. Agassi at least made the finals at Canda (through a powder puff draw) only to lose to 05 Rafa on hard. Then he struggled through another powder puff draw including 3 5 setters vs unseeded opponents and your really telling me he's better? I mean cmon. The massive difference in movement and serve should be enough basically on its own to call Fed the better player. Then you can look at the fact that Agassi never even made a tour level final ever again in his career and Fed would go on to win 3 more slams and stay in the top 3 for four more years and also that I just don't think you can look at any age and say Agassi was better except for when they were very young because Fed is just a different tier of player. These are the type of claims that make me seriously doubt the rational faculties of the Fed GOAT crowd. Though are you a Rafa fan? Regardless, wild claim imo.

I get where you’re coming from but I just try to look at the tournaments themselves instead of what happened before or after
I don’t really mind that Agassi struggled a bit since he beat an extremely good Blake and went toe to toe with peak Fed for 3 sets
I think that competition played a hand in making Fed look better than he was
Fed absolutely played well and I could see him beating Agassi but I just don’t think he would
I think it goes 5 for sure regardless
I like Fed and Djokovic about equally
Then Rafa is my third favorite
Nadal Dasco is my favorite match

 

[The Guru]

I get where you’re coming from but I just try to look at the tournaments themselves instead of what happened before or after
I don’t really mind that Agassi struggled a bit since he beat an extremely good Blake and went toe to toe with peak Fed for 3 sets
I think that competition played a hand in making Fed look better than he was
Fed absolutely played well and I could see him beating Agassi but I just don’t think he would
I think it goes 5 for sure regardless
I like Fed and Djokovic about equally
Then Rafa is my third favorite
Nadal Dasco is my favorite match

I think you're right to just look at tournaments but I'm using the appeal to all of the other results in the near vicinity to try to get you to see the light, and even withing the tournament from R1-SF I think it's abundantly clear how superior Fed was. Sure Fed's competition was not stellar for sure but I'm not prepared to say it was worse than Agassi's and again I'm leaving the tournament but Fed (not including himself) beat the top 2 players in the world in Cinci. I just think if Agassi was so good in that final there would be some evidence of it anywhere else in his matches before or after but it just isn't there. I mean Agassi is like the taylor made perfect matchup for Nadal and he still couldn't handle 05 babydal in Canada. I think it's clear if you just look at both finals but the context of what happens around them makes it even more obvious. 05 USO Fed is peak Fed in the way that 13 USO Djok is peak Djok. There just wasn't a 13 Nadal around to take advantage of it. At least you agree that 05 is not on 04/06 level but really it isn't on 08's level or even 07's either. I didn't really want to say this because of the uproar it will cause but imo it's not as good as 09 or 11 either.

 

[metsman]

At least you agree that 05 is not on 04/06 level but really it isn't on 08's level or even 07's either. I didn't really want to say this because of the uproar it will cause but imo it's not as good as 09 or 11 either.

Quoted for posterity.

But seriously why is it above 15? 15 was more dominant leading up to the final, had a better run at Cincy, and ran into an opponent that could expose him, which you astutely pointed out was not the case for 05. And what's the difference between 04 and 05 for that matter? Losing a set to a 16 year old Baghdatis, struggling even more against old Agassi. Surely beating up an old serve and volleyer and a powerless Hewitt isn't that impressive. 05 Federer beat up a flat (fat) Nalbandian too. Even in 06, Federer struggled against Blake, the guy that lost to aforementioned geriatric Agassi in 05 and was in trouble against a pretty punchless Roddick. Only easy win was beating up a tired and flat Davydenko. I see plenty of ways that 04-06 are overrated and since he didn't face the ultimate barometer, I think you can reasonably argue that 09, 11, and 15 (where he did) can easily be above them, just ran into someone who could expose him.

 

[PeoplesChamp]

Today I learned that 05 Federer is comparable to 2013 Djokovic

Boy oh boy...

 

[The Guru]

Quoted for posterity.

But seriously why is it above 15? 15 was more dominant leading up to the final, had a better run at Cincy, and ran into an opponent that could expose him, which you astutely pointed out was not the case for 05. And what's the difference between 04 and 05 for that matter? Losing a set to a 16 year old Baghdatis, struggling even more against old Agassi. Surely beating up an old serve and volleyer and a powerless Hewitt isn't that impressive. 05 Federer beat up a flat (fat) Nalbandian too. Even in 06, Federer struggled against Blake, the guy that lost to aforementioned geriatric Agassi in 05 and was in trouble against a pretty punchless Roddick. Only easy win was beating up a tired and flat Davydenko. I see plenty of ways that 04-06 are overrated and since he didn't face the ultimate barometer, I think you can reasonably argue that 09, 11, and 15 (where he did) can easily be above them, just ran into someone who could expose him.

05 and 04 are different for obvious reasons if you cared to actually evaluate honestly instead of shame me on and mock my opinion and defeat a straw man of it. First, if you bothered to do even the slightest bit of analysis or research you would know that the 04 QF Fedassi match had crazy winds that drastically effected play. Agassi does not win two sets if not for the windy conditions. Second, Agassi was much better in that match and in that season than he was the following season. This is backed both by the eye test and by his results. Instead of struggling through unseeded players he dominated them playing only 12 sets and a game in 4 matches including beating Ginepri in straights instead of in 5. Also, he won Cincinnati despite an absolutely brutal draw right before the US Open. Most importantly of all though he was not nearly as fatigued as he did not play 3 5 set matches consecutively at the age of 35 in the last tournament of his career where he was even remotely relevant because of his breaking down body and his already bad movement was not even more hindered because he wasn't tired. It's also worth a mention he was probably the second best player at the AO he just got screwed vs Safin and was clearly much worse the next year. As far as the Hewitt match that was obviously very impressive and his dismantling of Henman while expected was also great which is why I think 04 Fed was absolutely phenomenal and his best ever level at the USO. I'll quickly mention Baghdatis. Dropping one TB set and absolutely dominating the rest of the match in the 2nd round has no bearing on my evaluation of his 04 run. He did what he needed to do and won comfortably. Nothing else need be said.

Next for 06. I wouldn't exactly call leading every set in DR having a 1.31 DR and winning in 4 from 2-0 up and losing the only set you lost 11-9 in a TB struggling but ok. Why would Davy be tired he was in the prime of his career and only had one tough match? Nonsense. Roddick also gave a solid effort and losing one set while winning sets 2 and 1 against a server such as Roddick that's GOAT tier stuff. Very good USO from Fed and the eye test backs it up.

The 09 USO is probably Fed's best slam in 09 if you ask me. How he managed to lose that final at the level he was at is beyond me. Obviously, was stellar prefinal the tweener vs Djokovic was epic and goes up 6-3 5-4 serving playing great tennis and just blows it. JMDP deserves all the credit in the world for how he raised his level and played great the rest of the match but Fed opened the door. He never got back up to his first set level but didn't play a bad final by any means. Beating Djok in straights (this is the best 09 Djok by a lot I was at the Jesse Witten match though and man was that rough) was very impressive stuff. 11 the results and eye test speak for themselves. One set dropped on the way to the semis including blasting peak Tsonga after losing to him at W and taking two sets off of Peak Djok with amazing serving and baseline play. Not hard to tell that was pretty great.

15 Fed though I defend him frequently since he's been trashed to insane levels on this board by many of the people who claim to be his fans was not as good as 05 Fed. This I support more from the eye test than results however I will say the gap is far far smaller than spending time on here would lead you to believe.

So with proper context and actually understanding the arguments that I actually made instead of making stuff up and simplifying what I said so you can take it down as a straw man my claim makes logical sense and is in my opinion accurate. I know I have committed the great sin of saying 1 of Fed's 5 USO runs was subpar and that he's not the perfect god of tennis but I hope you will forgive me.

Sincerely,
The Guru

 

[mike danny]

I think his level was unconvincing throughout the tournament especially against Agassi. Very similar to 06 AO imo

Not comparable to 2006 AO. He beat better opposition at 2005 USO with less effort.

I mean, are people expecting Fed to breeze past guys like Hewitt and Agassi all the time?

Even Djokovic at his very best USO's in 2011 and 2015 didn't exactly crush the opposition.

 

[abmk]

Not comparable to 2006 AO. He beat better opposition at 2005 USO with less effort.

I mean, are people expecting Fed to breeze past guys like Hewitt and Agassi all the time?

Even Djokovic at his very best USO's in 2011 and 2015 didn't exactly crush the opposition.

Shh, don't tell him Djok was 1 all vs tipsy before tipsy's injury problems started in the match and he had retire in the 4th set in USO 11.

 

[mike danny]

I think that's reasonable but that's also a level that later USO Feds was also at like 09 and 11. It's also a standard he was at at many later AOs. I just take issue with it being placed as in the same tier as 04 and 06 which I think it clearly isn't. It's funny to me that Fed beating a 35 year old Agassi in 4 moving like a tortoise in his last ever tournament ever even at a semi-competitive level is like this amazing peak stuff while Novak beating 35 year old Fed in 4 (a much better player than Agassi) who would go on to reach number 1 a couple years later and stay competitive for another 4 years was like this wholly unimpressive performance. Especially considering their respective forms coming in and how they performed in the final it's just absolutely ludicrous to me. I mean Agassi went 5 with 3 straight unseeded players and was already on his last legs and the degree to which Fed struggled with him after all that is kinda embarrassing for a supposedly peak Fed.

With that level of hitting, 2005 Agassi would have troubled anyone. Agassi didn't need to move that much when he could hit the ball like that and take time away from Fed.

You're also underestimating how good Blake was. Saying he was unseeded hides how good he actually was. Great win from Agassi, even if his matches against Malisse and Ginepri weren't great. Certainly tougher than anyone 2015 Fed faced at the USO.

2005 USO Fed really wasn't worse than 2015 USO Djokovic.

 

[NatF]

With that level of hitting, 2005 Agassi would have troubled anyone. Agassi didn't need to move that much when he could hit the ball like that and take time away from Fed.

You're also underestimating how good Blake was. Saying he was unseeded hides how good he actually was. Great win from Agassi, even if his matches against Malisse and Ginepri weren't great. Certainly tougher than anyone 2015 Fed faced at the USO.

2005 USO Fed really wasn't worse than 2015 USO Djokovic.

He was quite obviously better lol.

 

[abmk]

With that level of hitting, 2005 Agassi would have troubled anyone. Agassi didn't need to move that much when he could hit the ball like that and take time away from Fed.

You're also underestimating how good Blake was. Saying he was unseeded hides how good he actually was. Great win from Agassi, even if his matches against Malisse and Ginepri weren't great. Certainly tougher than anyone 2015 Fed faced at the USO.

2005 USO Fed really wasn't worse than 2015 USO Djokovic.

2005 fed was obviously considerably better than 2015 USO djokovic
Heck 2011 USO fed was better than 2015 USO djokovic given he was up 2 sets to love and had MPs vs 2011 USO djokovic (who was better than USO 2015 Djokovic).

2006, 2004, 2005, 2007,2008, 2009 , 2011 USO fed in that order

 

[BGod]

AO: Fed, Novak, Andre, Edberg, Lendl
FO: Rafa, Borg, Wilander, Lendl, Kuerten
WMB: Fed, Pete, Novak, Becker, McEnroe
USO: Pete, Fed, Connors, McEnroe, Rafa

 

[abmk]

Today I learned that 05 Federer is comparable to 2013 Djokovic

Boy oh boy...

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

My guess is it's not but I saw the highlights yesterday and I think Djokovic might've been a lot better than I thought and my bias of being pissed effected my judgment of the quality. 07 RG is a high bar to cross though.

Bro, watch the full match.

 

[RS]

Yeah maybe I was hoping he was playing like **** so I'd have hope for next year if he could not play like ****. Looking at those highlights though I have to say he looked pretty solid but they were highlights so I'd need to see the match again. Not sure I'm up for putting myself through that again anytime soon.

He did not serve so well TBH and made a fair few errors his worse RG final but obs Rafa in that form did not exactly help.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

So much effort spent promoting lulz.

 

[RS]

05 and 04 are different for obvious reasons if you cared to actually evaluate honestly instead of shame me on and mock my opinion and defeat a straw man of it. First, if you bothered to do even the slightest bit of analysis or research you would know that the 04 QF Fedassi match had crazy winds that drastically effected play. Agassi does not win two sets if not for the windy conditions. Second, Agassi was much better in that match and in that season than he was the following season. This is backed both by the eye test and by his results. Instead of struggling through unseeded players he dominated them playing only 12 sets and a game in 4 matches including beating Ginepri in straights instead of in 5. Also, he won Cincinnati despite an absolutely brutal draw right before the US Open. Most importantly of all though he was not nearly as fatigued as he did not play 3 5 set matches consecutively at the age of 35 in the last tournament of his career where he was even remotely relevant because of his breaking down body and his already bad movement was not even more hindered because he wasn't tired. It's also worth a mention he was probably the second best player at the AO he just got screwed vs Safin and was clearly much worse the next year. As far as the Hewitt match that was obviously very impressive and his dismantling of Henman while expected was also great which is why I think 04 Fed was absolutely phenomenal and his best ever level at the USO. I'll quickly mention Baghdatis. Dropping one TB set and absolutely dominating the rest of the match in the 2nd round has no bearing on my evaluation of his 04 run. He did what he needed to do and won comfortably. Nothing else need be said.

Next for 06. I wouldn't exactly call leading every set in DR having a 1.31 DR and winning in 4 from 2-0 up and losing the only set you lost 11-9 in a TB struggling but ok. Why would Davy be tired he was in the prime of his career and only had one tough match? Nonsense. Roddick also gave a solid effort and losing one set while winning sets 2 and 1 against a server such as Roddick that's GOAT tier stuff. Very good USO from Fed and the eye test backs it up.

The 09 USO is probably Fed's best slam in 09 if you ask me. How he managed to lose that final at the level he was at is beyond me. Obviously, was stellar prefinal the tweener vs Djokovic was epic and goes up 6-3 5-4 serving playing great tennis and just blows it. JMDP deserves all the credit in the world for how he raised his level and played great the rest of the match but Fed opened the door. He never got back up to his first set level but didn't play a bad final by any means. Beating Djok in straights (this is the best 09 Djok by a lot I was at the Jesse Witten match though and man was that rough) was very impressive stuff. 11 the results and eye test speak for themselves. One set dropped on the way to the semis including blasting peak Tsonga after losing to him at W and taking two sets off of Peak Djok with amazing serving and baseline play. Not hard to tell that was pretty great.

15 Fed though I defend him frequently since he's been trashed to insane levels on this board by many of the people who claim to be his fans was not as good as 05 Fed. This I support more from the eye test than results however I will say the gap is far far smaller than spending time on here would lead you to believe.

So with proper context and actually understanding the arguments that I actually made instead of making stuff up and simplifying what I said so you can take it down as a straw man my claim makes logical sense and is in my opinion accurate. I know I have committed the great sin of saying 1 of Fed's 5 USO runs was subpar and that he's not the perfect god of tennis but I hope you will forgive me.

Sincerely,
The Guru

How would you rate the USO 05 final from Fed and Agassi out of 10?

 

[mike danny]

He was quite obviously better lol.

I know.

Still tried to meet him halfway. Ridiculous how 2015 USO Djokovic is revered while 2005 USO Fed is so underestimated. Still don't get why that is.

 

[NatF]

I know.

Still tried to meet him halfway. Ridiculous how 2015 USO Djokovic is revered while 2005 USO Fed is so underestimated. Still don't get why that is.

In some cases where there is doubt, it's fine to meet halfway but with the sheer amount of hot takes I don't see the point in conceding on these obvious things...

 

[mike danny]

In some cases where there is doubt, it's fine to meet halfway but with the sheer amount of hot takes I don't see the point in conceding on these obvious things...

I mean suddenly 2005 USO is being compared to 2006 AO.

2020 AO Thiem the same level as 2009 Wimb Roddick.

Never really pictured these as being similar.

 

[NatF]

I mean suddenly 2005 USO is being compared to 2006 AO.

2020 AO Thiem the same level as 2009 Wimb Roddick.

Never really pictured these as being similar.

Yeah they're not similar lol.

 

[abmk]

I mean suddenly 2005 USO is being compared to 2006 AO.

2020 AO Thiem the same level as 2009 Wimb Roddick.

Never really pictured these as being similar.

2020 AO Thiem should be compared to 2018 AO Cilic and 2018 AO Fed to 2020 AO Djoko.
I already told that previously.

But if comparisions keep getting absurd or absurd ones keep getting repeated, I see 3 options:
a) There is more ammo - based on just facts. djoko facing weakest gen ever for starters.(Raonic-Nishi-Dimi gen).
b) 2009 Wim Roddick > 2014 Wim Djokovic and such comparisions - that are close enough, but could be considered controversial.
c) might have to actually make some ridiculous comparisions to pull it down as a last option to show the mirror.

 

[RS]

He was quite obviously better lol.

Not really lol as both struggled with older men and in the final and dropped the same amount of sets in the event.

Nadal of USO 10 would clean all the finalists in both btw

 

[NatF]

Not really lol as both struggled with older men in the final and dropped the same amount of sets in the event.

2005 Fed probably beats 2015 Djokovic in four

 

[RS]

2005 Fed probably beats 2015 Djokovic in four

We know Fed wins most fantasy matches here and see the edit

 

[abmk]

Not really lol as both struggled with older men and in the final and dropped the same amount of sets in the event.

Nadal of USO 10 would clean all the finalists in both btw

nadal would be literally struggling to pick up the returns coming back fast at his feet with his USO 2010 serve. Loses to 2005 USO fed in 5 sets. Obviously loses to 2004 USO&2006 USO fed

 

[RS]

nadal would be literally struggling to pick up the returns coming back fast at his feet with his USO 2010 serve. Loses to 2005 USO fed in 5 sets. Obviously loses to 2004 USO&2006 USO fed

Nothing obvious about it at all

 

[abmk]

Nothing obvious about it at all

very much obvious.

Just as Nadal being over-rated at the USO is:

Top Ten
1. Lendl > 18
2. Sampras > 16
3. Federer > 16
4. McEnroe > 15
4. Connors > 15
6. Agassi > 13
7. Djokovic > 12
8. Borg > 8
8. Wawrinka > 8
10. Nadal > 7


Top Five
1. Connors > 9
1. Sampras > 9
1. Federer > 9
4. McEnroe > 8
4. Lendl > 8
6. Agassi > 7
7. Djokovic > 6
8. Borg > 5
8. Wawrinka > 5
10. Kodes | Tanner | Edberg | Nadal | Del Potro | Nishikori | > 4


There's something off with this picture. Can anybody spot what that is?

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/uso-greats-by-top-ten-and-top-five-wins.687298/

 

[Biotic]

Nothing obvious about it at all

It's a hypothetical. And it's Fed. So, it's clearly obvious...

 

[RS]

very much obvious.

Just as Nadal being over-rated at the USO is:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/uso-greats-by-top-ten-and-top-five-wins.687298/

I would be the first to sadly admit had Nadal has had more luck at the USO compared to other greats.

Nothing wrong with thinking Nadal of USO 10 final would beat 2005 Fed at all.

 

[abmk]

I would be the first to sadly admit had Nadal has had more luck at the USO compared to others.

Nothing wrong with thinking Nadal of USO 10 final would beat 2005 Fed at all.

I was talking about this as obvious: Obviously (Nadal) loses to 2004 USO&2006 USO fed.

If you think any version of Nadal beats 2004 USO/2006 USO fed, well then ....

I did NOT use obvious for this ->

nadal would be literally struggling to pick up the returns coming back fast at his feet with his USO 2010 serve. Loses to 2005 USO fed in 5 sets.

 

[RS]

I was talking about this as obvious: Obviously (Nadal) loses to 2004 USO&2006 USO fed

Hard disagree still lol.

 

[NatF]

Not really lol as both struggled with older men and in the final and dropped the same amount of sets in the event.

Nadal of USO 10 would clean all the finalists in both btw

We know Fed wins most fantasy matches here and see the edit

Trolling aside it would be a good match between 2005 Fed vs 2010 Nadal. Not interested in proclaiming a winner.

 

[abmk]

Hard disagree still lol.

Fine if you want it that way, be my guest.

Let me throw another thing into the mix.

Delpo if healthy and in 2009 USO form would beat 2010 USO Nadal.
Nadal so lucky defending champ Delpo not there in USO 2010 due to injuries.

 

[RS]

Fine if you want it that way, be my guest.

Let me throw another thing into the mix.

Delpo if healthy and in 2009 USO form would beat 2010 USO Nadal.
Nadal so lucky defending champ not there in USO 2010 due to injuries.

If that is how you feel pretty sure a few people probably do feel that way.

I do think Del Potro would have a better shot vs 2013 Nadal in the final though.

 

[abmk]

If that is how you feel be my guest as some people do actually feel that way.

I do think Del Potro would have a better shot vs 2013 Nadal in the final though.

I mean delpo did beat mediocre serve nadal 2,2 and 2 (in 2009) as opposed to djokovic who needed 4 sets to beat mediocre serve Nadal (in 11) . So.

given fed 09 was 2 points away from beating delpo in USO 09 and USO 05 fed was clearly better, let alone USO 04 and 06 Fed. .......

 

[RS]

I mean delpo did beat mediocre serve nadal 2,2 and 2 (in 2009) as opposed to djokovic who needed 4 sets to beat mediocre serve Nadal (in 11) . So.

given fed 09 was 2 points away from beating delpo in USO 09 and USO 05 fed was clearly better, let alone USO 04 and 06 Fed. .......

Had no idea 2009 Nadal was comparable to them versions or even 2011 Nadal serving at WTA level in the final probably

But like i say if you really believe 2009 Del Potro is the favourite to beat 2010 Nadal or 2011 Djokovic an will hardly hold it against you but just disagree.

 

[metsman]

05 and 04 are different for obvious reasons if you cared to actually evaluate honestly instead of shame me on and mock my opinion and defeat a straw man of it. First, if you bothered to do even the slightest bit of analysis or research you would know that the 04 QF Fedassi match had crazy winds that drastically effected play. Agassi does not win two sets if not for the windy conditions. Second, Agassi was much better in that match and in that season than he was the following season. This is backed both by the eye test and by his results. Instead of struggling through unseeded players he dominated them playing only 12 sets and a game in 4 matches including beating Ginepri in straights instead of in 5. Also, he won Cincinnati despite an absolutely brutal draw right before the US Open. Most importantly of all though he was not nearly as fatigued as he did not play 3 5 set matches consecutively at the age of 35 in the last tournament of his career where he was even remotely relevant because of his breaking down body and his already bad movement was not even more hindered because he wasn't tired. It's also worth a mention he was probably the second best player at the AO he just got screwed vs Safin and was clearly much worse the next year. As far as the Hewitt match that was obviously very impressive and his dismantling of Henman while expected was also great which is why I think 04 Fed was absolutely phenomenal and his best ever level at the USO. I'll quickly mention Baghdatis. Dropping one TB set and absolutely dominating the rest of the match in the 2nd round has no bearing on my evaluation of his 04 run. He did what he needed to do and won comfortably. Nothing else need be said.

Next for 06. I wouldn't exactly call leading every set in DR having a 1.31 DR and winning in 4 from 2-0 up and losing the only set you lost 11-9 in a TB struggling but ok. Why would Davy be tired he was in the prime of his career and only had one tough match? Nonsense. Roddick also gave a solid effort and losing one set while winning sets 2 and 1 against a server such as Roddick that's GOAT tier stuff. Very good USO from Fed and the eye test backs it up.

The 09 USO is probably Fed's best slam in 09 if you ask me. How he managed to lose that final at the level he was at is beyond me. Obviously, was stellar prefinal the tweener vs Djokovic was epic and goes up 6-3 5-4 serving playing great tennis and just blows it. JMDP deserves all the credit in the world for how he raised his level and played great the rest of the match but Fed opened the door. He never got back up to his first set level but didn't play a bad final by any means. Beating Djok in straights (this is the best 09 Djok by a lot I was at the Jesse Witten match though and man was that rough) was very impressive stuff. 11 the results and eye test speak for themselves. One set dropped on the way to the semis including blasting peak Tsonga after losing to him at W and taking two sets off of Peak Djok with amazing serving and baseline play. Not hard to tell that was pretty great.

15 Fed though I defend him frequently since he's been trashed to insane levels on this board by many of the people who claim to be his fans was not as good as 05 Fed. This I support more from the eye test than results however I will say the gap is far far smaller than spending time on here would lead you to believe.

So with proper context and actually understanding the arguments that I actually made instead of making stuff up and simplifying what I said so you can take it down as a straw man my claim makes logical sense and is in my opinion accurate. I know I have committed the great sin of saying 1 of Fed's 5 USO runs was subpar and that he's not the perfect god of tennis but I hope you will forgive me.

Sincerely,
The Guru

Thanks, I had no idea the 04 USO QF had wind, but boy does it look severe. Still, Federer lost the 2nd and was far from convincing in the third in normal conditions. He dominated Agassi for 2.5 sets in 2005, the only bad periods he had was because his BH was going off. Still, I understand how that's a disastrous performance against an AARP member, but the 09 F isn't a "bad final by any means", makes perfect sense. He beat Djokovic in 2009 after all and that's the ultimate barometer. Plus, he took 2 sets off Delpo who then later once took 2 sets off Djokovic at a slam. Incredible stuff. In 2006, Fed was double set points down in the first set TB. Almost blew a double break lead in the 4th set. Seems pretty embarrassing to me. Contrast his performance to the 11 USO QF where Federer dismissed noted USO savant Tsonga in straights and then did the impossible and took 2 sets off Djokovic, what did he do in 2006 that was anywhere near that impressive? And my whole point is that it's tough to determine his level since he didn't play Djokovic or anyone like that from 04-06, so what do we compare to?

 

[mike danny]

Not really lol as both struggled with older men and in the final and dropped the same amount of sets in the event.

Nadal of USO 10 would clean all the finalists in both btw

Fed mostly struggled vs fellow top guys. Djokovic struggled with the likes of RBA and old man Lopez whom he nearly went 5 with.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah they're not similar lol.

Well, not going through that rabbit hole again with Guru, LOL.

 

[RS]

It's a hypothetical. And it's Fed. So, it's clearly obvious...

Boy you should read old threads for time to time

TBH Federer gets underated as well these days.

 

[The Guru]

Thanks, I had no idea the 04 USO QF had wind, but boy does it look severe. Still, Federer lost the 2nd and was far from convincing in the third in normal conditions. He dominated Agassi for 2.5 sets in 2005, the only bad periods he had was because his BH was going off. Still, I understand how that's a disastrous performance against an AARP member, but the 09 F isn't a "bad final by any means", makes perfect sense. He beat Djokovic in 2009 after all and that's the ultimate barometer. Plus, he took 2 sets off Delpo who then later once took 2 sets off Djokovic at a slam. Incredible stuff. In 2006, Fed was double set points down in the first set TB. Almost blew a double break lead in the 4th set. Seems pretty embarrassing to me. Contrast his performance to the 11 USO QF where Federer dismissed noted USO savant Tsonga in straights and then did the impossible and took 2 sets off Djokovic, what did he do in 2006 that was anywhere near that impressive? And my whole point is that it's tough to determine his level since he didn't play Djokovic or anyone like that from 04-06, so what do we compare to?

More stupid sarcasm and dumb arguments. No point in discussing with someone so obnoxious and condescending. I've made my views and the rationale behind them very clear no point in restating them when they're intentionally warped.

 

[The Guru]

I know.

Still tried to meet him halfway. Ridiculous how 2015 USO Djokovic is revered while 2005 USO Fed is so underestimated. Still don't get why that is.

Don't get why it is the opposite. No one has made any effort to refute any of my points just gone tehee he's wrong right haha what an idiot. You guys are not interested in actual discussion just cramming your opinion down on others.

 

[The Guru]

Had no idea 2009 Nadal was comparable to them versions or even 2011 Nadal serving at WTA level in the final probably

But like i say if you really believe 2009 Del Potro is the favourite to beat 2010 Nadal or 2011 Djokovic an will hardly hold it against you but just disagree.

Haha. Peak Del Po>Peak Djokodal and I'm the troll

 

[The Guru]

2020 AO Thiem should be compared to 2018 AO Cilic and 2018 AO Fed to 2020 AO Djoko.
I already told that previously.

But if comparisions keep getting absurd or absurd ones keep getting repeated, I see 3 options:
a) There is more ammo - based on just facts. djoko facing weakest gen ever for starters.(Raonic-Nishi-Dimi gen).
b) 2009 Wim Roddick > 2014 Wim Djokovic and such comparisions - that are close enough, but could be considered controversial.
c) might have to actually make some ridiculous comparisions to pull it down as a last option to show the mirror.

Fed actually faced the weakest gen for grass and hard. 75-79 is weaker than Lost Gen on those surfaces but that's always swept under the rug.

 

[mike danny]

Don't get why it is the opposite. No one has made any effort to refute any of my points just gone tehee he's wrong right haha what an idiot. You guys are not interested in actual discussion just cramming your opinion down on others.

I did actually respond to you.

 

[mike danny]

Fed actually faced the weakest gen for grass and hard. 75-79 is weaker than Lost Gen on those surfaces but that's always swept under the rug.

He faced his own gen more often any way.

 

[The Guru]

He faced his own gen more often any way.

So did Djokovic and yet we get the endless whining about Lost Gen and nothing about Transition Gen

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Don't get why it is the opposite. No one has made any effort to refute any of my points just gone tehee he's wrong right haha what an idiot. You guys are not interested in actual discussion just cramming your opinion down on others.

How do you envision this discussion happening, hm? All we're doing is comparing narratives while adjusting and refining them further in the process. If you spend more effort to go deeper you get down to axiomatic rationales forming each one of us's personal framework of understanding tennis, along with match analysis based on direct observation, assessed within that framework. The best we could do is sit down together to watch a match and discuss it at length game after game, only that would take a lot of time and effort even if enough goodwill is present. I'm not in the mood for tennis at this time, for one...

 

[The Guru]

I did actually respond to you.

My bad I missed that but you were the only one so my point still stands. I'm sorry for lumping you in though.

With that level of hitting, 2005 Agassi would have troubled anyone. Agassi didn't need to move that much when he could hit the ball like that and take time away from Fed.

You're also underestimating how good Blake was. Saying he was unseeded hides how good he actually was. Great win from Agassi, even if his matches against Malisse and Ginepri weren't great. Certainly tougher than anyone 2015 Fed faced at the USO.

2005 USO Fed really wasn't worse than 2015 USO Djokovic.

I went into a lot more detail as to why I rate 05 so much lower than 06 and 04 in another post below the one you responded to if you want to read it.

Blake was pretty good for sure but not someone who's playing at the level one would need to to challenge the highest USO peak ever would not go 5 with Blake ... and Ginepri and Malisse ... consecutively. Loved that match though it was super entertaining.

If the claim was that 05 USO Fed "really wasn't worse" than 15 Djok I'd take a lot less issue with it. The claim is that he's significantly better to the point where the comparison shouldn't be made. It's "05 Fed in 4" and other such nonsense.

This all quite strange for me because the prevailing theory on here I've literally not once ever encountered in the real world. I've never met a single tennis fan who has the same theories that you all seem to have. It's pretty much universally accepted even from the staunchest Fed fans in my experience that he had weaker competition in his prime and Murray>Hew/Rod and all this other stuff. I think the echo chamber here of this same theory has swayed a lot of people because I had literally never encountered this perspective before joining TTW.