what 's best wimbledon run ? 2006 wimbledon federer vs 2017 wimbledon federer ?

skypadq

Semi-Pro


most of agree that this is two best wimbledon run ever
06 wimbledon federer is only lost one set by final at nadal and
2017 wimbledon federer was without a drop a set
i think it 's 2017
2017 wimbledon federer was more mentally strong and never lose control never
only match was little troble was semi final tomas beydych match
but federer win 3 three set that match
 

Xavier G

Professional
Federer 2006 is better, of course, but 2017 was a pretty good win for Federer at 35, imo. The final was poor due to the opponent, but Fed's own championship run was quite impressive
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
2017 Fed not dropping a set obviously has a bit of an asterisk due to an injured final opponent. First round retirement after just a set too iirc.

In no world was it a better performance than any of 03-05.
2006 Federer was more impressive than 2003 Federer to me. I would also favor 2017 Federer over 2003 Federer on any court except the ATP finals.
 

ForehandCross

Semi-Pro
2006 Federer was more impressive than 2003 Federer to me. I would also favor 2017 Federer over 2003 Federer on any court.

On Wimbledon?
Madness Utter madness.

Watch 2003 WB SF.
John McEnroe starts the match by salivating over Roddick. But by the end of it, and mind you Federer had a grand total of zero titles,
McEnroe said that Federer might be the most complete player he had ever seen.

His movement on that day was the best I have seen anyone move on the surface.


I don't say 2017 won't take a set,it might even be stretched to five but 2003 will definitely win.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
On Wimbledon?
Madness Utter madness.

Watch 2003 WB SF.
John McEnroe starts the match by salivating over Roddick. But by the end of it, and mind you Federer had a grand total of zero titles,
McEnroe said that Federer might be the most complete player ever he had seen.

His movement on that day was the best I have seen anyone move on the surface.


I don't say 2017 won't take a set,it might even be stretched to five but 2003 will definitely win.
Untestable, impossible to know who would win.

Your argument is valid, but not "definitive", because it is an untestable question.

2017 Federer had a better shot-making, better serve and backhand. On the other hand, you may prefer 2003 Federer because he was younger. At the end of the day, you can find arguments to favor one or the other, but no one knows what would have happened.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Untestable, impossible to know who would win.

Your argument is valid, but not "definitive", because it is an untestable question.

2017 Federer had a better shot-making, better serve and backhand. On the other hand, you may prefer 2003 Federer because he was younger. At the end of the day, you can find arguments to favor one or the other, but no one knows what would have happened.
The best judge of that would be Federer himself.
 

ForehandCross

Semi-Pro
Untestable, impossible to know who would win.

Your argument is valid, but not "definitive", because it is an untestable question.

2017 Federer had a better shot-making, better serve and backhand. On the other hand, you may prefer 2003 Federer because he was younger. At the end of the day, you can find arguments to favor one or the other, but no one knows what would have happened.
I vehemently disagree on the better shotmaking part, Federer that year for all his inconsistency was a mad genius when it comes to shotmaking. His WB and YEC matches are a testament to that

But agree that it's untestable so no point really in discussing it.
 

ForehandCross

Semi-Pro
The best judge of that would be Federer himself.
Just like Nadal. And Nadal considers a match he played more than a decade ago as his best. And also believe that he hasn't improved. Also that he is not at all sure that he would beat his younger version.

I agree with Nadal, you agree with Federer. Good for you.
 

MeatTornado

Legend
2006 Federer was more impressive than 2003 Federer to me. I would also favor 2017 Federer over 2003 Federer on any court except the ATP finals.
Oh yeah I'd probably put 06 over any of those too. I left it out because 06 was already in the thread topic.

I wasn't really clear with what I said. What I meant was that 06 vs any of 03-05 would be a better debate than 06 vs 17.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Just like Nadal. And Nadal considers a match he played more than a decade ago as his best. And also believe that he hasn't improved. Also that he is not at all sure that he would beat his younger version.

I agree with Nadal, you agree with Federer. Good for you.
I agree with Nadal as well. Both Nadal and Federer are right. Nadal about Nadal and Federer about Federer.
 
2006 Federer was more impressive than 2003 Federer to me. I would also favor 2017 Federer over 2003 Federer on any court except the ATP finals.
2017 Fed=MUCH better serve, MUCH better BH, Better strategy, touch, variety
2003 Fed=Better return, goes for broke on FH more, MUCH faster
Overall advantage? Probably 2017 for me. Fewer weaknesses.
 

MeatTornado

Legend
2017 Fed=MUCH better serve, MUCH better BH, Better strategy, touch, variety
2003 Fed=Better return, goes for broke on FH more, MUCH faster
Overall advantage? Probably 2017 for me. Fewer weaknesses.
Overall I agree. But even at Wimbledon would you take 17 over 03?
 

ForehandCross

Semi-Pro
2017 Fed=MUCH better serve, MUCH better BH, Better strategy, touch, variety
2003 Fed=Better return, goes for broke on FH more, MUCH faster
Overall advantage? Probably 2017 for me. Fewer weaknesses.
Where do I begin ? Well better not to. I have had enough of this things.


P.S: I watched 2003 SF/F About 4-5 months ago so I am not being nostalgic. I think many people should rewatch older matches to refresh their memory

I wasn't lucky enough to have watched tennis in early 2000s but I most probably have watched 50% of important matches of the time multiple times.

And while I see the stability issues in Federer shots , people over generalize a lot.
And it goes both ways,His BH WAS NOT weak. It was good just not great. And on Grass where ball stayed low and he moved better, it was a great shot given his slices.

But while I don't contest that Federer FH is the Greatest, people forget how much errors he used to casually spray at times.


Too many generalizations when it comes to past.
 
Last edited:

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Yes Federer was also right when he said Nadal is one dimensional , Djokovic was a coward, that his matches against Nadal even on clay are always on his racquet.

Federer is such a great analytical mind.
I can't say that this was untrue when he said it. He certainly knows these things better than me.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Overall I agree. But even at Wimbledon would you take 17 over 03?
Yes, I think he meant even at Wimbledon, especially considering he won the tournament without losing a set. But 2003 Federer would have the clear advantage in the ATP finals over 2017 Federer.
 
2017 Fed=MUCH better serve, MUCH better BH, Better strategy, touch, variety
2003 Fed=Better return, goes for broke on FH more, MUCH faster
Overall advantage? Probably 2017 for me. Fewer weaknesses.
Quite the opposite.

2003 = much better forehand, much better movement, better slice, better variety and touch

2017 = better serve, more durable topspin backhand

Ez pz.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Quite the opposite.

2003 = much better forehand, much better movement, better slice, better variety and touch

2017 = better serve, more durable topspin backhand

Ez pz.
Federer's forehand nowadays is difficult to analyze. Probably, nowdays in the majority of his matches his forehand is not as lethal as in his 20s, but in the Federer-Djokovic ATP finals 2019 match his forehand was as lethal as in his peak years. It was a missil that could put the ball in the lines with extreme precission.

The same can be said of his Wimbledon 2019 final, and especially the semifinal, when he was destroying Nadal with lethal forehand winners. You can claim that young Federer was better in movement, but no way his forehand was better than the aforementioned matches of 2019.

In 2017 Federer's forehand was as good as always.
 

ForehandCross

Semi-Pro
How many GS finals did this legendary tennis machine make in 2003? How many Masters did he win?
He didn't win many because his 2003 year was more of a Wawarinka phase. He had every tool but didn't get them together always.

Are you telling me that Federer suddenly woke up one day in January 2004 and went on to win AO, IW, Hamburg ,WB e.t.c ?

He had it in him by 2003 to do that. Just couldn't glue it all together except for a few tourneys.

@Sport you want lethal FHs ?
 
Last edited:

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
On Wimbledon?
Madness Utter madness.

Watch 2003 WB SF.
John McEnroe starts the match by salivating over Roddick. But by the end of it, and mind you Federer had a grand total of zero titles,
McEnroe said that Federer might be the most complete player he had ever seen.

His movement on that day was the best I have seen anyone move on the surface.


I don't say 2017 won't take a set,it might even be stretched to five but 2003 will definitely win.
But the movement was the only thing that was better in 2003 (apart from the slice which doesn't matter that much these days). And Federer himself said that his 2003 version wasn’t better than 2017 overall.

Roddick wasn’t as bad as some people like to make him, but still this was only one match, while in 2017 Federer was untouchable from start to finish, in every set. In 2003 he lost a set against Fish.

Also Cilic might be injured in the final, but not right from the start and he would have been destroyed anyway on that day.
 
But the movement was the only thing that was better in 2003 (apart from the slice which doesn't matter that much these days). And Federer himself said that his 2003 version wasn’t better than 2017 overall.
Why does dropping a random early set matter at all?? Like if Federer dropped the first set of his AO 07 campaign but then played exactly as well as he did to the end, it would've suddenly become much worse, or even appreciably worse, because of an early blip (and Fred was actually 3-5 down in that set so it's a realistic alternative). If Djokovic's 2008 and 2011 are indeed worse, it's not just because he dropped a set.

Also Cilic might be injured in the final, but not right from the start and he would have been destroyed anyway on that day.
Cilic was the first to get to BP by the way, the match didn't start like a rout until the blister debacle and suddenly there's no fight.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
2003-2009 Federer went 72-1 on grass. That’s one loss in 7 years. It took peak Nadal 5 sets to dish out that one loss.

2003 Federer had far more tools than 2017 Fed. His much better side to side movement is obvious. His far better return of serve is obvious. But what isn’t mentioned is his far better net play. 2017 Fed lacked the explosive lunges that is required to cover the net so well. 2003 Fed covered the net substantially better than 2014-present Fed ever did.

2017 Fed might take a set off of 2003 Fed at Wimbledon.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
Why does dropping a random early set matter at all?? Like if Federer dropped the first set of his AO 07 campaign but then played exactly as well as he did to the end, it would've suddenly become much worse, or even appreciably worse, because of an early blip (and Fred was actually 3-5 down in that set so it's a realistic alternative). If Djokovic's 2008 and 2011 are indeed worse, it's not just because he dropped a set.



Cilic was the first to get to BP by the way, the match didn't start like a rout until the blister debacle and suddenly there's no fight.
Exactly. You hit the nail on the head on all of these. 2017 Fed was good, but nowhere near the peak version.
 
2003-2009 Federer went 72-1 on grass. That’s one loss in 7 years. It took peak Nadal 5 sets to dish out that one loss.

2003 Federer had far more tools than 2017 Fed. His much better side to side movement is obvious. His far better return of serve is obvious. But what isn’t mentioned is his far better net play. 2017 Fed lacked the explosive lunges that is required to cover the net so well. 2003 Fed covered the net substantially better than 2014-present Fed ever did.

2017 Fed might take a set off of 2003 Fed at Wimbledon.
Djokovic 2011-present is far better than anyone Fed faced on grass during that run. Roddick 2004 maybe beat grass competition Fed faced.
 

MeatTornado

Legend
But the movement was the only thing that was better in 2003 (apart from the slice which doesn't matter that much these days). And Federer himself said that his 2003 version wasn’t better than 2017 overall.
It still matters immensely on grass. It's one of the biggest reasons he's still making Wimbledon finals while this whole new generation of baseline bashers can't get out of the first week.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Look at how many random guys Fed lost to in 2003.
2017 Fed was better.
We are talking specifically Wimbledon 2003 Federer, so I don't necessarily care about those other tournaments. Wimbledon 2003 was one of Federer very finest Wimby title runs, if not his absolute best in terms of form. And if anyone complains about the draw (muh weak era), I would kindly show them Wimbledon 2017's much weaker draw, but not after showing them a video of the Fed-Roddick semifinal.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
Djokovic 2011-present is far better than anyone Fed faced on grass during that run. Roddick 2004 maybe beat grass competition Fed faced.
I don’t believe this at all. 2012 Fed still beat Djoker at Wimbledon, along with Murray. . But this Version of Fed was still beatable. Fed lost to Berdych and Tsonga from2010-2011. 2003-2009 Fed only lost to peak Nadal.

2010, 2011, 2013, 2018 Fed lost to Berdych, Tsonga, Stakhovsky, and Kandy at Wimbledon.

Heck, 2017 Fed lost to 39 year old Haase on grass.

And lastly, 2011+ Djoker was 0-2 vs Murray on grass. If remember correctly, he didn’t even take a set off of Murray.

Fed’s worst result during a 7 year span on grass was losing to Peak Nadal in 5 sets on Grass.

It’s not even close. 2008 Fed destroys 2017 Fed. 2003 does too.
 
Top