But to summarize, this stat is the most telling because it really combines his service game and his return game into one number.
To repeat:
The DR ratio in that table is interesting. In 2015, 1.43 means that Fed broke his opponent’s serve 43% more than he was broken himself compared to just 31% when he dominated the weak era in 2005.
His match Win-Loss percentage is higher, his Ace % is higher, his first serve percentage is higher, his percentage points won on first and second serve is higher, his return points won percentage is higher and his ratio of breaks to being broken himself is higher.
“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practised for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.”
Preach it Roger. You know your game better than anyone.
I don’t say the current fed would beat the fed of 2006 BUT, he has improved A LOT as a player. I have said these things so many times and I know fed says that too. It is quite obvious too!
my answer to who would win between those versions of fed is : I don’t know! I say, both have their advantages…. that fed would benefit over a best of 5 and this one over a best of three…. one thing is for sure though, THAT fed was more ‘reliable’. He almost never disappointed…this fed is relatively moody lol
Well, at least you did say that the current Fed would beat the Fed of 2006. I am not ready to say that! Can we ever really know for sure? It’s a hypothetical argument.
How can his match W/L % be higher now when during 2005-2007, he hardly lost any match(es)?
Every player will improve through time until they past their prime; Rafa,Murray and Novak are also improving all these years. However, Fed relies on exquisite timing to hit his shots, esp his FH, and a loss of some footspeed and a bit slowness in reaction time will lead to a loss in power and precision of his FH for eg. He hardly shanked his FH back then, now he does more often. His serve was good enough back then to win him many points too, not that he had a bad serve in the past.
His FH is his main weapon followed by his serve. With the surfaces slowing down, even with a great serve, his serve could be more returnable now, evident by how Novak could deal with it at Wimbledon, or even Rafa could handle it well on slower HCs at AO. His FH is no longer that formidable as before and so now Fed is more beatable, even by the likes of Seppi, and that Spanish guy at Shanghai.
Its the same with everyone of them – imagine Novak getting slower, you think he still could retrieve so many shots, or rushed so quickly to the net to retrieve a drop shot? No amount of improvement could fully compensate for a decline in speed and power; the same goes for Rafa, watch his matches during 2008 to 2009 AO, and see how incredible his movement and speed around the court, and how powerful his shots are.
We often talk about hitting penetrating shots to push opponent back and how hitting short would allow opponent to take advantage, so thats precisely what happens once a player loses his power and starts hitting shorter and thus losing more points.
I agree with lucky. Watching that 2005 AO semifinal with Fed and Safin made me appreciate just how exceptional Fed was back then. As lucky said, Fed needed great timing on his shots. You can see it in that match. The precision and accuracy of his groundstrokes was breathtaking. When you see Fed back then, you realize that he has lost some foot speed and is a bit slower with his reactions. He didn’t shank shots back then. His serve was a formidable weapon, winning him so many points in crucial moments of matches.
Safin played the match of his life and that’s what it took to beat Fed and end his 26 match streak. When Safin was on his game, he was no slouch either.
Now watching the 2009 AO final, I can see that Rafa has lost some of his speed and movement on the court. It takes watching past matches to see the differences as they get older.
So we got to count by games now, not matches? You pick selectively, I can also pick from Shanghai to Paris and you see how many games and matches he lost. Back in 2006, he only lost five matches the whole year, four to Rafa and one to Murray. This year, other than losing four times to the no.1 player, he was also losing to Monfils, Isner, Seppi, Ramos, Kygrios and Stan, quite a few of them.
Yes, Fed doesn’t have that aura of invincibility anymore. That was also part of why he was so dominating when he was at his peak. Many times his opponents had lost the match before they even got on the court. I know it was true for Roddick. But now you see players beating him who never lost to him. Now they have more belief and realize that he’s not the Fed of old.
Sometimes it’s not just about stats or numbers or whatever. It’s about those intangible qualities that are part of a player’s greatness. Players don’t fear Fed the way they did back then.
NNY *** Players don’t fear Fed the way they did back then.**
Which is why it came as such a shock when Nadal, and to a lesser extent Murray, started to challenge and beat him while they were young enough to still sport bum fluff. However he was never able to make Rafa back off the way he did with Murray when they faced each in Slam finals – and continued to do so until the Olympic showdown.
No that was a typo. It was a 36 match stretch this year, not games.
Fed looking better has to do with the players on the other side of the net. Fed dictated 2003-07 because he was one of the best of all time no question but he also looked unbeatable because of the field at the time. I will say that he isn’t as consistent having more off days than he used to but there was nothing off most of the time that had him at No. 2 for most of this year. He certainly wasn’t off at the US Open. That was his best tennis, especially the US Open until he hit Nole who just wouldn’t let him.
This is not unlike many saying that everyone played way above their level to beat an ailing Rafa this year and last. Rafa allowed them look better than they were because he was ailing.
Federer has been selected by his peers as winner of the Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award for an 11th time and by fans as the ATPWorldTour.com Fans’ Favourite presented by Moët & Chandon for a 13th straight year.
Congrats Roger and his countless fans here too many to name!!!
fans’ favourite, I understand. He is the most popular, very closely followed by Rafa. Have they given any statistics this year? it is usually pretty close between them.
The sportsmanship award is a joke though. Absolute joke
After watching that 2005 AO semifinal the other night with Fed and Safin, I believe that Fed in his prime was better. He may have more savvy and smarts and made adjustments and improvements to his game to still be competitive now, but when you watch him again his prime and see the speed, power and precision of his shots then you realize just how good he was back then.
Federer’s inside out forehand back then alone was devastating. If a beast named Nadal didn’t show up Fed would have like 20-25 slams considering he would always lose in FO to almost always Rafa back then.
yeah…prime fed had a more devastating forehand … overall, prime fed is tougher to beat… not sure about ‘destroying’ this current fed at all but yup, he was tougher to beat, certainly…. even in best of 3, now if I think of it, he did not use to suffer from concentration lapses…the current fed does
@Hawkeye, haha… but current fed is a lot more vulnerable to losing lower ranked players ! he loses too….. THAT hardly is linked to competition…. the competition factor is about the top guys…
The DR ratio in that table is interesting. In 2015, 1.43 means that Fed broke his opponent’s serve 43% more than he was broken himself compared to just 31% when he dominated the weak era in 2005.
Amaaaaazing!!!!!
Here is the link which has the filters I preselected for the comparison.
I have already called out this rubbish from you. Fed missed the entire Indoor season barring TMC in 2005 due to an ankle injury. You’re reading the stats in a vaccuum which means that either you’re being purposefully obtuse or you really don’t know anything about tennis.
No, if you’d been following along or bothered to check the link I provided, in the last 52 weeks ending US Open 2015 when Fed made the claim (not me), he had better serving and receiving stats (namely ace %, 1st srv %, 1st and 2nd srv pts won pct, return pts won % and the DR ratio for any other single year from 2003 to 2007, not just 2005.
Difference between someone who can defend their position and one who can’t is by how personal they get. It’s quite comical really.
No I’ve watched tennis and Federer for all of these years.
Again, all of these debates just come down to who you are a fan of.
But I believe Federer when he says he plays better now than he did back then. He’s definitely cooled off since the US Open though FWIW.
I think I already addressed this before anyway. Leaving 2005 aside the average length of Fed’s matches has increased since his prime years-that by and of itself influences these statistics. If you’re really trying to convince me that a Berdych is beating prime Fed at Wimbledon (honestly, even Djokovic doesn’t, he’s not even a grass-courter. But hey, as long as you can backboard….) or a Seppi is straight-setting a prime Federer as we speak, I’ve just got better things to do than waste my time against a brick wall. Never mind. Carry on the propaganda. I’m sure, if nothing else, it gets you the attention.
Even Sampras called himself better at 30 than 20. I don’t even know why this should even be relevant when assessing what is plain to the naked eye and basically anyone that actually knows tennis. Federer does not like to admit a weakness in public. Nadal loves it. Just PR strategy. End of.
BTW, today’s Fed has won last five matches vs. Murray as opposed to “peak” Fed who was 2-4 first six times they met when Murray.
A 17-yr old Murray beat “peak” 25-year old Fed in straight sets on the fast hard courts in Cincy in 2006.
You only look as good as your competition lets you and “peak” weak era fed had little until the likes of Rafa, Andy and eventually Nole burst on the scene and he suddenly didn’t seem to have the same game anymore against them.
Federer lost most of his matches to Murray between late 2008 and early 2009. That entire stretch he had back problems, destroyed his racquet versus Djokovic after shanking his FH for the nth time and saying “thank God the Hard Court Season is over..”
How on earth does one win prove anything? I can count so many up-and-comers who have those odd wins over Roger. You’re a fan of numbers right? Haven’t you been taught how to read them? Or do you simply reel off wikipedia?
I have to say, you truly are obsessed with the guy. At least the rest of them are talking about a match (regardless of what one thinks of the match). You on the other hand, are talking exclusively about Federer, his awards, his competition, his supposedly being better at 34 (even Nadal would laugh at this). :p
Murray wasnt 17, he was 19 in 2006. Murray didnt meet and beat Fed after that until 2008 and 2009. Fed giving his back issues as reasons for his losses. The roles are reversed now when its Murray having his back issues in 2013-2014 and Fed beating him in return.
I would say Fed being the aggressor and Murray the counterpuncher so their matches are always on Fed’s racket. However, Fed somewhat has problems with great counterpunchers when they wont go away, persist till the end and that irriatate Fed till no end. Fed also find Simon, Monfils, and at times Seppi hard to deal with when the ball keeps coming back at him.
But excuse me, the back issue reason was given by Fed himself, not by any of us here. Fed spoke about it when he was asked at one of the WTF interviews as to why he was losing so often to Murray at end of 2008 to early 2009. Fed lost to Murray at Dubai in 2008 but that was when he had mono. They didnt meet until the USO when Fed beat him in the final. Murray beat Fed at Madrid indoors and then Fed was suffering from a bad back at TMC Shanghai that year and Murray still had to go the distance to beat Fed. Its either you believe Fed or you dont.
Fed wasnt destroying ‘weak era’ opponents in 2008 when he lost to Mardy Fish at IW, Roddick at Miami, Blake at the Olympics, Karlovic at Cincy, and Stepanek at Rome.
Hawkeye you’re arguing for the sake of arguing. Why then did Fed go on to win the USO that year beating Murray in the process? You’re speaking as if Fed’s back was so bad that he couldnt win a match or win something, if that’s the case he wont even be able to take to the court. Back problem could act up during tournaments, Fed during Wimbledon 2012 was having a bad back during his match with Benneteau but in the end he still went on to win the title.
Rafa also suffered from back issue in 2014 and his results were sometimes affected but on good days, he was still able to win, like at the FO.
“Hawkeye you’re arguing for the sake of arguing.”
“Hawkeye misses the point.”
“Hawkeye doesn’t get it.”
You’re better than that Lucky. Keep it about the tennis please and back up your position without commenting on the poster’s ability to process information. They are cheap and hackneyed.
The long rain delay gave Fed time to regroup. Rafa was overcome by nerve too and so the match went the distance. Had it not for the rain delay, I would think Rafa might even win in straights.
Im keeping about the tennis but that doesnt change the fact that 1) i think you didnt get it; 2) you’re really arguing for the sake of arguing; 3) you miss the point. After all I’m having an exchange with somebody, not with tennis, certainly I can form an opinion about that somebody after sensing that person didnt get what I’m trying to bring across.
No, that’s not my opinion. I think neither player was compromised by health that day. You said Fed’s 2008 losses to Murray and others were due to mono early in the year and bad back later in the year.
I just assumed that you include the Wimby final.
I don’t think his injuries affected him much at all in 2008. Nole beat him in Australia and went on to prove that it is his best slam where he is hardest to beat.
Nole did not come close to winning another AO till 2011. AO has been what it has been for Novak only starting 2011 (which lends further credence to the notion that their primes definitely do not coincide). Before that, he was retiring due to heat. :/
No. But he showed his potential similar to how Sampras won his first US Open and going almost three years before winning his next. Both were about the expectations players put on themselves after winning their first when there is less pressure and they are able to play more freely. Sophomore slump if you will.
I am the one who’s watching Fed and Rafa at the 2009 AO final! Great memories! Rafa’s backhand was the shot in that match that did so much damage. I am really enjoying this replay!
Thanks so much VMK for putting that match up. I was in hospital and missed the whole of the 2021 AO – no wifi connection during the night which is the only time in Europe they could be seen. I have since seen the final but never the SF. What an epic.
Thanks for posting that! Yes, this was the semifinal before that marathon battle between Rafa and Novak in the final in 2012!
Wilander has always favored Fed. But I agree that it is fun to listen to them and see how they have to give Rafa credit as he starts to dominate the match.
^^ It’s always amusing to hear any of the commentators back pedalling like mad mid- match when it dawns on them they may have been backing the wrong horse. It must be so painful for great players to hear and read what is being said when things are not going well: equally Federer has had the satisfaction of turning the tables on them more than once. Because he knows what it feels like he has always been sympathetic towards Rafa when the press are rubbing salt into the wounds.
“It’s true that the generation of Djokovic, Murray and Nadal has made me a better player, in particular Rafa has challenged me on many fronts, because the way he plays he is so unlike anyone else. But I wouldn’t say I needed that generation to keep me going; I am just here because I love playing the game, I love competing in a stadium against great players.
I would have been totally cool just playing with the previous generation that I came up with: Hewitt and Roddick and Ferrero and Safin. Or playing with Raonic and all those guys.”
Federer in his prime had : a devastating FH, great speed, incredible power and most important of all, ridiculous amount of confidence and faith in his game. All of those things he clearly lacks now. Tactically, he has become wiser, but has lost that unpredictability element when he used to play on instinct rather than strategies.
Tactically, he has only compensated now. He always had an excellent tennis brain and I’ve heard Darren Cahill point this out so many times when the other abominal commies on ESPN were busy calling him arrogant for not getting a coach. He’s using a bigger racquet now precisely to compensate for his loss of timing so shots that could look easily framed on the previous now look alright. Obviously, it shows huge grit because tennis players are usually set in their ways. But that is it. Nothing more, nothing less.
However I do wish he would stop repeating the mantra over and over again that it is his love for the game which keeps him going. It has an increasingly hollow ring when you see the pain on his face as he leaves the court. e.g. after the loss to Isner last week.
Djokovic has now levelled their h2h. It will be a bitter pill to swallow should it tip in DN’s favour next week.
He’s a competitive guy, why will he be happy for losing? I think if he cared so much about H2Hs he’d have hung up long ago. In fact, it’d be interesting to see how other players would react to his retirement, seeing as the yardstick they’ve been chasing for so long is gone. Not that I want it to happen ever, but given the inevitability of these things, I can’t help but be curious.
I think most people who love tennis will feel sad when he retires, including many Rafans. The current era has been defined by the Fedal rivalry producing as it has many of the best matches of this decade.
The only lop-sided H2H is with Rafa. It is only very recently Djokovic has drawn level.
I don’t usually find myself agreeing with Fed fans, but in this case I do agree. Since I just watched the 2005 AO semifinal with Fed and Safin, that has reinforced my awareness of just how great Fed was back then. At that point in time he had a 26 match winning streak and Safin had to play the match of his life to beat him. I don’t consider Safin a lightweight either. He was one of the more innately gifted players to come along. But he never was able to fully control his emotions on court and that cost him.
A player can only play who is there. This weak field. does not make Fed’s game less great. It doesn’t make the speed and precision of his shots any less impressive. You do realize looking at a match from that time, that Fed has lost some speed and the reflexes are not as good. It’s called getting older and there is no cure for that. Every great champion has to get older.
I remember watching on an aging Laver play a young Borg at some tournament in North Carolina or Virginia. The place is not important. At the time Laver was 36. Borg dominated the match and beat him in straight sets. To see Laver at that point in his
career, was to realize that he was not the same player who won two calendar grand slams.
There are skills that you lose with aging. I also will say again that Fed had the ultimate aura of invincibility in his prime. He doesn’t have it anymore. That’s why players who have not lost to him are now able to beat him. They are not great players either! That would not have happened when Fed was in his prime.
The only one who could beat Fed in his prime was Rafa. Rafa never feared Fed. He went out there and took it to him. That is part of Rafa’s greatness. That he could beat the best when he was in his prime. It takes a special player to do that.
I don’t think H2h is all that matters…especially when we talk about the player who is in his peak, i.e., Novak and the 35 year player, i.e., Federer…Fed is extraordinary in many ways and losing to Novak at this point of his career is nothing to be shocked about or ashamed of…However, beating this Novak, which Fed had managed even at this age, is much greater accomplishment and it is what has to be remembered…I wonder if any of these greats: Rafa, Novak and Andy would still want to be playing at the age of 35…I doubt it…
Fed in his prime was a piece of work…amazing in many ways…brilliant tennis brain, great court positioning, great movements, strategically impressive…and yet Rafa managed to find the answers for him which puts Rafa on the pedestal…I firmly think that this Novak would stand no chance against peak Fed…the same with peak Rafa…
might be, but I say not…I never liked Nole’s tennis…his matches with Rafa have always been mostly physical competition and if Rafa was not slower than usual he would have found the ways to beat him most of the time…whereas Rafa vs Fed matches have always been a tactical competition, the clash of two extraordinary tennis brains outwitting each other…
it has nothing to do with liking Fed better…I don’t even like him as a person…I find him too arrogant for my taste…
” his matches with Rafa have always been mostly physical competition”
Sorry mate but disagree with this. I feel this is respectful to both Djokovic and Rafa. Definitely lots of tactical battles out there. I get the physicality part but that is because both are incredibly gifted in defending and retrieving and are damn quick on the court.
Esp in his early years, rafa did not have to think of a 1000 tactics to beat federer. His fundamental tactic was what we all know: peppering fed’s backhand and then taking advantages.
Not sure how fedal was such a huge tactical competition . It was mostly fed tinkering with stuff under diff coaches and sometimes approaching nets looking totally clueless.
I think the way you would want to describe is that fedal matches have always had more variety in terms of patterns of play and stuff. That I would surely agree with and I have found them to be most exciting. However, I also loved matches like Rafa-Novak Montreal 2013 SF, RG 2013 SF (esp 5th set) and from the early years there were also some great matches….like their match in Queens club 2008.
I think there is a lot of that going around and dominates people’s positions more so than any facts or observations including my own. 🙂
Neither Fed would destroy the other IMO and the debate is pointless really and simply subjective.
I definitely prefer Federer’s style over Nole’s style from an esthetic POV but I’m amazed by both).
Character wise, it’s really an interesting study for me why some prefer one over the other and I can understand both views.
Roger seems like a genuinely nice guy to me any time I see him interviewed away from the court (or anytime he wins) but not when he loses.
For me, Nole just seems more human, warts and all. He shows his flaws. He can’t hide them. I feel he behaves better than Roger after a loss and gives credit to his opponent and I do believe it is sincere but no matter. Everyone has their own reasons.
Also, I was really bored by tennis from 2002-2007 and so once I saw players start to challenge Federer, I was able to enjoy it again. Plus don’t get me started on over zealous fedfans. 90% of nolefans are just ex-fedfans. Another 8% are from Serbia lol.
I told you a while ago…I am one of those Rafans who loves Fed and appreciates his existence as he has made Rafa a better player and vice versa…
anyone but Novak would be my preference…and it has nothing to do with Novak as a person…he is actually a nice fellow and IMO he has significantly grown up when it comes to his behavior or so to say public appearance…I myself particularly disliked his celebration in Madrid but I am over it now… 🙂
so yeah, if Rafa is out of the equation, I would rather see Fed wining this whole thing mostly for I am so amazed with his motivation to play and his constant adjustments to stay in the competition…one must appreciate his effort of a chameleon to change “his colors” to suit the environment… 🙂
well, we will just have to agree to disagree…IMO Novak’s tennis is a ping pong tennis…he runs like a rabbit and engages in the endless rallies awaiting for the opponent to hit shorter ball so that he can take advantage of it…he is lucky to have a great serve to get him out of the trouble but I really see no varieties in his game…he rarely does volleys, he stands on the baseline and it has only been as of late that he has been able to be more agressive mainly due to his high confidence…
remember early version of Novak who would retire whenever he was physically outplayed? I admit his improvements in every department but for me he is still the guy who heavily relies on his physical advantage and fitness created by…hmm…diet and other “tools”…
and I also think that Novak benefits from the weak era…
If Nope plays ping-pong tennis, then you should probably credit Rafa for showing that particular path to Nole.
I don’t think Rafa plays with more variety than Nole does.
For me, Nole has always appeared as an improvised version of Rafa (though with less power). Rafa being a lefty makes him more aesthetically pleasing to watch (as is the convention)
Federer to face Seppi in his first match at Paris Masters.
Congratulations to the amazingly tenacious Roger Federer for regaining the No. 2 spot in the world at 34 years of age.
Amaaaaazing!!!!!
Discussion on Roger’s performance being better than in 2015 probably belongs here so here is the link to the discussion:
https://tenngrand.com/2015/11/01/federer-downs-nadal-for-seventh-basel-title/comment-page-3/#comment-224869
But to summarize, this stat is the most telling because it really combines his service game and his return game into one number.
To repeat:
The DR ratio in that table is interesting. In 2015, 1.43 means that Fed broke his opponent’s serve 43% more than he was broken himself compared to just 31% when he dominated the weak era in 2005.
Amaaaaazing!!!!!
Here is the link which has the filters I preselected for the comparison.
http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/player.cgi?p=RogerFederer&f=A2003qq
His match Win-Loss percentage is higher, his Ace % is higher, his first serve percentage is higher, his percentage points won on first and second serve is higher, his return points won percentage is higher and his ratio of breaks to being broken himself is higher.
Roger says:
“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practised for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.”
Preach it Roger. You know your game better than anyone.
^This !
I don’t say the current fed would beat the fed of 2006 BUT, he has improved A LOT as a player. I have said these things so many times and I know fed says that too. It is quite obvious too!
Not sure he’d agree with you on who would win however.
BO5 is a bit of an unknown because he’s never been great in a deciding set.
my answer to who would win between those versions of fed is : I don’t know! I say, both have their advantages…. that fed would benefit over a best of 5 and this one over a best of three…. one thing is for sure though, THAT fed was more ‘reliable’. He almost never disappointed…this fed is relatively moody lol
The competition now makes him moodier than it used to. 🙂
Not obvious at all that current Fed is better. Quite the opposite is obvious. Fed saying something doesn’t make it the biblical truth.
It’s not obvious that weak era fed would have won a slam this year either.
He hadn’t been pushed to improve his game back then.
peak Rafa forced fed to become a better player.
vamosrafa,
Well, at least you did say that the current Fed would beat the Fed of 2006. I am not ready to say that! Can we ever really know for sure? It’s a hypothetical argument.
How can his match W/L % be higher now when during 2005-2007, he hardly lost any match(es)?
Every player will improve through time until they past their prime; Rafa,Murray and Novak are also improving all these years. However, Fed relies on exquisite timing to hit his shots, esp his FH, and a loss of some footspeed and a bit slowness in reaction time will lead to a loss in power and precision of his FH for eg. He hardly shanked his FH back then, now he does more often. His serve was good enough back then to win him many points too, not that he had a bad serve in the past.
His FH is his main weapon followed by his serve. With the surfaces slowing down, even with a great serve, his serve could be more returnable now, evident by how Novak could deal with it at Wimbledon, or even Rafa could handle it well on slower HCs at AO. His FH is no longer that formidable as before and so now Fed is more beatable, even by the likes of Seppi, and that Spanish guy at Shanghai.
Its the same with everyone of them – imagine Novak getting slower, you think he still could retrieve so many shots, or rushed so quickly to the net to retrieve a drop shot? No amount of improvement could fully compensate for a decline in speed and power; the same goes for Rafa, watch his matches during 2008 to 2009 AO, and see how incredible his movement and speed around the court, and how powerful his shots are.
We often talk about hitting penetrating shots to push opponent back and how hitting short would allow opponent to take advantage, so thats precisely what happens once a player loses his power and starts hitting shorter and thus losing more points.
Nadal-Fed 2009 Aussie Open final is heating up nicely in the 3rd set right now. Nadal just dug out of 0-40 at 4-4.
How? By playing great until he meets Nole.
Fed had a 36 game stretch whereby he beat everyone except three losses to Nole and one to the French Open winner.
He’s beating the vast majority of players like he used to except for the very few that have up and past him namely Nole, and a healthy Rafa.
Lucky doesn’t get it. The math don’t lie. The rest is just subjective.
Correction: a 36 match stretch (not game).
Your arguments are totally flawed.
At least I believe that Rafa is the best!
Ricky,
You are watching the tennis channel replay of the 2009 AO final? I have been watching it and I am recording it, too!
I know it was a great match, but seeing it and reliving it again makes me appreciate it even more.
yep. was–and is–unreal.
hawkeye,
I agree with lucky. Watching that 2005 AO semifinal with Fed and Safin made me appreciate just how exceptional Fed was back then. As lucky said, Fed needed great timing on his shots. You can see it in that match. The precision and accuracy of his groundstrokes was breathtaking. When you see Fed back then, you realize that he has lost some foot speed and is a bit slower with his reactions. He didn’t shank shots back then. His serve was a formidable weapon, winning him so many points in crucial moments of matches.
Safin played the match of his life and that’s what it took to beat Fed and end his 26 match streak. When Safin was on his game, he was no slouch either.
Now watching the 2009 AO final, I can see that Rafa has lost some of his speed and movement on the court. It takes watching past matches to see the differences as they get older.
So we got to count by games now, not matches? You pick selectively, I can also pick from Shanghai to Paris and you see how many games and matches he lost. Back in 2006, he only lost five matches the whole year, four to Rafa and one to Murray. This year, other than losing four times to the no.1 player, he was also losing to Monfils, Isner, Seppi, Ramos, Kygrios and Stan, quite a few of them.
Yes, Fed doesn’t have that aura of invincibility anymore. That was also part of why he was so dominating when he was at his peak. Many times his opponents had lost the match before they even got on the court. I know it was true for Roddick. But now you see players beating him who never lost to him. Now they have more belief and realize that he’s not the Fed of old.
Sometimes it’s not just about stats or numbers or whatever. It’s about those intangible qualities that are part of a player’s greatness. Players don’t fear Fed the way they did back then.
NNY *** Players don’t fear Fed the way they did back then.**
Which is why it came as such a shock when Nadal, and to a lesser extent Murray, started to challenge and beat him while they were young enough to still sport bum fluff. However he was never able to make Rafa back off the way he did with Murray when they faced each in Slam finals – and continued to do so until the Olympic showdown.
No that was a typo. It was a 36 match stretch this year, not games.
Fed looking better has to do with the players on the other side of the net. Fed dictated 2003-07 because he was one of the best of all time no question but he also looked unbeatable because of the field at the time. I will say that he isn’t as consistent having more off days than he used to but there was nothing off most of the time that had him at No. 2 for most of this year. He certainly wasn’t off at the US Open. That was his best tennis, especially the US Open until he hit Nole who just wouldn’t let him.
This is not unlike many saying that everyone played way above their level to beat an ailing Rafa this year and last. Rafa allowed them look better than they were because he was ailing.
Will cheating Gavis Rossdale be seen in Fed’s box again?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3313786/Gavin-Rossdale-cheating-Gwen-Stefani-family-nanny.html
Oh I meant to say that at least vamosrafa DID NOT say that the current Fed would beat the Fed of 2006!
Federer has been selected by his peers as winner of the Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award for an 11th time and by fans as the ATPWorldTour.com Fans’ Favourite presented by Moët & Chandon for a 13th straight year.
Congrats Roger and his countless fans here too many to name!!!
fans’ favourite, I understand. He is the most popular, very closely followed by Rafa. Have they given any statistics this year? it is usually pretty close between them.
The sportsmanship award is a joke though. Absolute joke
This happens every year. So what else is new!
After watching that 2005 AO semifinal the other night with Fed and Safin, I believe that Fed in his prime was better. He may have more savvy and smarts and made adjustments and improvements to his game to still be competitive now, but when you watch him again his prime and see the speed, power and precision of his shots then you realize just how good he was back then.
he was so much better then. Fed in his prime would beat anyone, and certainly would destroy this current Fed.
Federer’s inside out forehand back then alone was devastating. If a beast named Nadal didn’t show up Fed would have like 20-25 slams considering he would always lose in FO to almost always Rafa back then.
yeah…prime fed had a more devastating forehand … overall, prime fed is tougher to beat… not sure about ‘destroying’ this current fed at all but yup, he was tougher to beat, certainly…. even in best of 3, now if I think of it, he did not use to suffer from concentration lapses…the current fed does
@Hawkeye, haha… but current fed is a lot more vulnerable to losing lower ranked players ! he loses too….. THAT hardly is linked to competition…. the competition factor is about the top guys…
“Prime” fed had losing records to both a young Rafa and a young Murray.
He just looked invincible vs weak era opponents like Roddick.
I just saw on the tennis channel classic series that at 8:00 pm eastern time they are showing the 2009 AO final with Rafa and Fed!
YAY! I am recording it and will watch it for sure! One of my personal favorite Rafa slam wins!
This year fed broke serve more and was broken less than any weak era year.
That’s not some wishful nostalgic anti Novak opinion. That’s a fact.
What does that prove?
Hint: Rafa is the best!
what are the stats
The DR ratio in that table is interesting. In 2015, 1.43 means that Fed broke his opponent’s serve 43% more than he was broken himself compared to just 31% when he dominated the weak era in 2005.
Amaaaaazing!!!!!
Here is the link which has the filters I preselected for the comparison.
http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/player.cgi?p=RogerFederer&f=A2003qq
I have already called out this rubbish from you. Fed missed the entire Indoor season barring TMC in 2005 due to an ankle injury. You’re reading the stats in a vaccuum which means that either you’re being purposefully obtuse or you really don’t know anything about tennis.
No, if you’d been following along or bothered to check the link I provided, in the last 52 weeks ending US Open 2015 when Fed made the claim (not me), he had better serving and receiving stats (namely ace %, 1st srv %, 1st and 2nd srv pts won pct, return pts won % and the DR ratio for any other single year from 2003 to 2007, not just 2005.
Difference between someone who can defend their position and one who can’t is by how personal they get. It’s quite comical really.
No I’ve watched tennis and Federer for all of these years.
Again, all of these debates just come down to who you are a fan of.
But I believe Federer when he says he plays better now than he did back then. He’s definitely cooled off since the US Open though FWIW.
I think I already addressed this before anyway. Leaving 2005 aside the average length of Fed’s matches has increased since his prime years-that by and of itself influences these statistics. If you’re really trying to convince me that a Berdych is beating prime Fed at Wimbledon (honestly, even Djokovic doesn’t, he’s not even a grass-courter. But hey, as long as you can backboard….) or a Seppi is straight-setting a prime Federer as we speak, I’ve just got better things to do than waste my time against a brick wall. Never mind. Carry on the propaganda. I’m sure, if nothing else, it gets you the attention.
Even Sampras called himself better at 30 than 20. I don’t even know why this should even be relevant when assessing what is plain to the naked eye and basically anyone that actually knows tennis. Federer does not like to admit a weakness in public. Nadal loves it. Just PR strategy. End of.
I don’t want to convince you of anything tennisfan. Carry on the insults.
And yes, end of indeed.
Weak era fed couldn’t handle an inexperienced Murray.
Today’s fed easily dismisses a better Murray.
And this year’s Murray would destroy 2007-08 Murray who had a 4-2 record vs “Peak” fed at the time.
But why let a few actual facts get in the way of a good nostalgic story.
BTW, today’s Fed has won last five matches vs. Murray as opposed to “peak” Fed who was 2-4 first six times they met when Murray.
A 17-yr old Murray beat “peak” 25-year old Fed in straight sets on the fast hard courts in Cincy in 2006.
You only look as good as your competition lets you and “peak” weak era fed had little until the likes of Rafa, Andy and eventually Nole burst on the scene and he suddenly didn’t seem to have the same game anymore against them.
Federer is right. He is betterer.
Federer lost most of his matches to Murray between late 2008 and early 2009. That entire stretch he had back problems, destroyed his racquet versus Djokovic after shanking his FH for the nth time and saying “thank God the Hard Court Season is over..”
Yep
A 19 year old Andy beat him in straight sets in cincy on a fast hc proving that his 4-2 record was not due to injury.
Roger continued to easily handle weak era players during that time.
How on earth does one win prove anything? I can count so many up-and-comers who have those odd wins over Roger. You’re a fan of numbers right? Haven’t you been taught how to read them? Or do you simply reel off wikipedia?
Name ’em. Not just one match but 4-2 including fast courts in Cincy in 2006 and Dubai in early 2008.
It’s not one or two matches but the information collected together including his improved match statistics and his own self assessment.
^^^That.
Well looky looky here…
The WTF is looming and what are all the Rafans talkin’ ’bout? Roger Federer.
I have to say, you truly are obsessed with the guy. At least the rest of them are talking about a match (regardless of what one thinks of the match). You on the other hand, are talking exclusively about Federer, his awards, his competition, his supposedly being better at 34 (even Nadal would laugh at this). :p
Someone’s gotta or it’s just a praise Rafa site.
Rafa may laugh, but Fed wouldn’t.
Murray wasnt 17, he was 19 in 2006. Murray didnt meet and beat Fed after that until 2008 and 2009. Fed giving his back issues as reasons for his losses. The roles are reversed now when its Murray having his back issues in 2013-2014 and Fed beating him in return.
I would say Fed being the aggressor and Murray the counterpuncher so their matches are always on Fed’s racket. However, Fed somewhat has problems with great counterpunchers when they wont go away, persist till the end and that irriatate Fed till no end. Fed also find Simon, Monfils, and at times Seppi hard to deal with when the ball keeps coming back at him.
It’s curious that fed still managed to destroy weak era competition during 2008 where Murray was 4-2. I’m not talking about 2009.
I guess fed was injured now when Rafa beat him at Wimbledon? No we won’t hear that here lol.cant have it both ways.
But excuse me, the back issue reason was given by Fed himself, not by any of us here. Fed spoke about it when he was asked at one of the WTF interviews as to why he was losing so often to Murray at end of 2008 to early 2009. Fed lost to Murray at Dubai in 2008 but that was when he had mono. They didnt meet until the USO when Fed beat him in the final. Murray beat Fed at Madrid indoors and then Fed was suffering from a bad back at TMC Shanghai that year and Murray still had to go the distance to beat Fed. Its either you believe Fed or you dont.
Fed wasnt destroying ‘weak era’ opponents in 2008 when he lost to Mardy Fish at IW, Roddick at Miami, Blake at the Olympics, Karlovic at Cincy, and Stepanek at Rome.
Is that why Rafa was able to barely edge out Wimbledon 9-7 in the 5th?
Or were his health issues restocked to everybody else he lost to.
This just gets more fascinating.
Both players were tight in the Wimbledon final at various points.
Hawkeye you’re arguing for the sake of arguing. Why then did Fed go on to win the USO that year beating Murray in the process? You’re speaking as if Fed’s back was so bad that he couldnt win a match or win something, if that’s the case he wont even be able to take to the court. Back problem could act up during tournaments, Fed during Wimbledon 2012 was having a bad back during his match with Benneteau but in the end he still went on to win the title.
Rafa also suffered from back issue in 2014 and his results were sometimes affected but on good days, he was still able to win, like at the FO.
Lucky is ignoring my question because it doesn’t fit the story.
Is that why Rafa was able to barely edge out Wimbledon 9-7 in the 5th?
Lemme guess, Rafa bet Fed in that small window of opportunity between Fed’s mono and his bad back.
“Hawkeye you’re arguing for the sake of arguing.”
“Hawkeye misses the point.”
“Hawkeye doesn’t get it.”
You’re better than that Lucky. Keep it about the tennis please and back up your position without commenting on the poster’s ability to process information. They are cheap and hackneyed.
If you truly feel that way then just ignore it.
The long rain delay gave Fed time to regroup. Rafa was overcome by nerve too and so the match went the distance. Had it not for the rain delay, I would think Rafa might even win in straights.
Im keeping about the tennis but that doesnt change the fact that 1) i think you didnt get it; 2) you’re really arguing for the sake of arguing; 3) you miss the point. After all I’m having an exchange with somebody, not with tennis, certainly I can form an opinion about that somebody after sensing that person didnt get what I’m trying to bring across.
So Fed was not at his physical best when Rafa beat him at what most consider to be the best match of all time.
Ahh, gotcha now.
Well thats your opinion. It may be true or it may be that Rafa was just too good on that day but momentum was stopped by the rain delay.
No, that’s not my opinion. I think neither player was compromised by health that day. You said Fed’s 2008 losses to Murray and others were due to mono early in the year and bad back later in the year.
I just assumed that you include the Wimby final.
I don’t think his injuries affected him much at all in 2008. Nole beat him in Australia and went on to prove that it is his best slam where he is hardest to beat.
Nole did not come close to winning another AO till 2011. AO has been what it has been for Novak only starting 2011 (which lends further credence to the notion that their primes definitely do not coincide). Before that, he was retiring due to heat. :/
No. But he showed his potential similar to how Sampras won his first US Open and going almost three years before winning his next. Both were about the expectations players put on themselves after winning their first when there is less pressure and they are able to play more freely. Sophomore slump if you will.
I am the one who’s watching Fed and Rafa at the 2009 AO final! Great memories! Rafa’s backhand was the shot in that match that did so much damage. I am really enjoying this replay!
Talk about nostalgia!
i’m watching. hopefully i haven’t missed some of the absolutely EPIC points that took place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_oLq-b8gT4
You might want to watch this too. Just watched it two days ago and what makes it sweeter is how the commentators change tune from Federer to Rafa 😀
This match probably did not receive the attention it deserved because of the epic that followed
That’s why I am recording it. So I make sure that I don’t miss any of it. Some of those rallies were just jaw dropping!
Thanks so much VMK for putting that match up. I was in hospital and missed the whole of the 2021 AO – no wifi connection during the night which is the only time in Europe they could be seen. I have since seen the final but never the SF. What an epic.
vmk1,
Thanks for posting that! Yes, this was the semifinal before that marathon battle between Rafa and Novak in the final in 2012!
Wilander has always favored Fed. But I agree that it is fun to listen to them and see how they have to give Rafa credit as he starts to dominate the match.
^^ It’s always amusing to hear any of the commentators back pedalling like mad mid- match when it dawns on them they may have been backing the wrong horse. It must be so painful for great players to hear and read what is being said when things are not going well: equally Federer has had the satisfaction of turning the tables on them more than once. Because he knows what it feels like he has always been sympathetic towards Rafa when the press are rubbing salt into the wounds.
Federer confirms what we all know:
“It’s true that the generation of Djokovic, Murray and Nadal has made me a better player, in particular Rafa has challenged me on many fronts, because the way he plays he is so unlike anyone else. But I wouldn’t say I needed that generation to keep me going; I am just here because I love playing the game, I love competing in a stadium against great players.
I would have been totally cool just playing with the previous generation that I came up with: Hewitt and Roddick and Ferrero and Safin. Or playing with Raonic and all those guys.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/rogerfederer/11216129/Roger-Federer-reveals-the-secrets-behind-his-incredible-success.html
Federer in his prime had : a devastating FH, great speed, incredible power and most important of all, ridiculous amount of confidence and faith in his game. All of those things he clearly lacks now. Tactically, he has become wiser, but has lost that unpredictability element when he used to play on instinct rather than strategies.
Tactically, he has only compensated now. He always had an excellent tennis brain and I’ve heard Darren Cahill point this out so many times when the other abominal commies on ESPN were busy calling him arrogant for not getting a coach. He’s using a bigger racquet now precisely to compensate for his loss of timing so shots that could look easily framed on the previous now look alright. Obviously, it shows huge grit because tennis players are usually set in their ways. But that is it. Nothing more, nothing less.
So, so true.
However I do wish he would stop repeating the mantra over and over again that it is his love for the game which keeps him going. It has an increasingly hollow ring when you see the pain on his face as he leaves the court. e.g. after the loss to Isner last week.
Djokovic has now levelled their h2h. It will be a bitter pill to swallow should it tip in DN’s favour next week.
He’s a competitive guy, why will he be happy for losing? I think if he cared so much about H2Hs he’d have hung up long ago. In fact, it’d be interesting to see how other players would react to his retirement, seeing as the yardstick they’ve been chasing for so long is gone. Not that I want it to happen ever, but given the inevitability of these things, I can’t help but be curious.
I think most people who love tennis will feel sad when he retires, including many Rafans. The current era has been defined by the Fedal rivalry producing as it has many of the best matches of this decade.
The only lop-sided H2H is with Rafa. It is only very recently Djokovic has drawn level.
Definitely I’ll be sad when he retires.
My comment at 11.52am was in response to abhirf
I don’t usually find myself agreeing with Fed fans, but in this case I do agree. Since I just watched the 2005 AO semifinal with Fed and Safin, that has reinforced my awareness of just how great Fed was back then. At that point in time he had a 26 match winning streak and Safin had to play the match of his life to beat him. I don’t consider Safin a lightweight either. He was one of the more innately gifted players to come along. But he never was able to fully control his emotions on court and that cost him.
A player can only play who is there. This weak field. does not make Fed’s game less great. It doesn’t make the speed and precision of his shots any less impressive. You do realize looking at a match from that time, that Fed has lost some speed and the reflexes are not as good. It’s called getting older and there is no cure for that. Every great champion has to get older.
I remember watching on an aging Laver play a young Borg at some tournament in North Carolina or Virginia. The place is not important. At the time Laver was 36. Borg dominated the match and beat him in straight sets. To see Laver at that point in his
career, was to realize that he was not the same player who won two calendar grand slams.
There are skills that you lose with aging. I also will say again that Fed had the ultimate aura of invincibility in his prime. He doesn’t have it anymore. That’s why players who have not lost to him are now able to beat him. They are not great players either! That would not have happened when Fed was in his prime.
The only one who could beat Fed in his prime was Rafa. Rafa never feared Fed. He went out there and took it to him. That is part of Rafa’s greatness. That he could beat the best when he was in his prime. It takes a special player to do that.
I don’t think H2h is all that matters…especially when we talk about the player who is in his peak, i.e., Novak and the 35 year player, i.e., Federer…Fed is extraordinary in many ways and losing to Novak at this point of his career is nothing to be shocked about or ashamed of…However, beating this Novak, which Fed had managed even at this age, is much greater accomplishment and it is what has to be remembered…I wonder if any of these greats: Rafa, Novak and Andy would still want to be playing at the age of 35…I doubt it…
Fed in his prime was a piece of work…amazing in many ways…brilliant tennis brain, great court positioning, great movements, strategically impressive…and yet Rafa managed to find the answers for him which puts Rafa on the pedestal…I firmly think that this Novak would stand no chance against peak Fed…the same with peak Rafa…
I think that this whole “debate” comes down to whether or not one prefers Nole or Federer.
Pretty simple really.
might be, but I say not…I never liked Nole’s tennis…his matches with Rafa have always been mostly physical competition and if Rafa was not slower than usual he would have found the ways to beat him most of the time…whereas Rafa vs Fed matches have always been a tactical competition, the clash of two extraordinary tennis brains outwitting each other…
it has nothing to do with liking Fed better…I don’t even like him as a person…I find him too arrogant for my taste…
If Rafa doesn’t win, who would you prefer to win the WTF, Nole or Fed?
Gasquet
Same. ALLEZ GASQUET (behind Stan and Roger of course?)
who is going as the second alternate?
natashao2013 says:
November 12, 2015 at 2:55 pm
” his matches with Rafa have always been mostly physical competition”
Sorry mate but disagree with this. I feel this is respectful to both Djokovic and Rafa. Definitely lots of tactical battles out there. I get the physicality part but that is because both are incredibly gifted in defending and retrieving and are damn quick on the court.
Esp in his early years, rafa did not have to think of a 1000 tactics to beat federer. His fundamental tactic was what we all know: peppering fed’s backhand and then taking advantages.
Not sure how fedal was such a huge tactical competition . It was mostly fed tinkering with stuff under diff coaches and sometimes approaching nets looking totally clueless.
I think the way you would want to describe is that fedal matches have always had more variety in terms of patterns of play and stuff. That I would surely agree with and I have found them to be most exciting. However, I also loved matches like Rafa-Novak Montreal 2013 SF, RG 2013 SF (esp 5th set) and from the early years there were also some great matches….like their match in Queens club 2008.
Hawkeye: ***pretty simple really***
succinctly put and hard to argue with.
I have mellowed toward Roger exponentially as the hostility to Djokovic has increased.
Like Natashao, I am not enamoured by Federer as a person but respect his tennis.
I think there is a lot of that going around and dominates people’s positions more so than any facts or observations including my own. 🙂
Neither Fed would destroy the other IMO and the debate is pointless really and simply subjective.
I definitely prefer Federer’s style over Nole’s style from an esthetic POV but I’m amazed by both).
Character wise, it’s really an interesting study for me why some prefer one over the other and I can understand both views.
Roger seems like a genuinely nice guy to me any time I see him interviewed away from the court (or anytime he wins) but not when he loses.
For me, Nole just seems more human, warts and all. He shows his flaws. He can’t hide them. I feel he behaves better than Roger after a loss and gives credit to his opponent and I do believe it is sincere but no matter. Everyone has their own reasons.
Also, I was really bored by tennis from 2002-2007 and so once I saw players start to challenge Federer, I was able to enjoy it again. Plus don’t get me started on over zealous fedfans. 90% of nolefans are just ex-fedfans. Another 8% are from Serbia lol.
@ hawkeye 2:57 pm,
I told you a while ago…I am one of those Rafans who loves Fed and appreciates his existence as he has made Rafa a better player and vice versa…
anyone but Novak would be my preference…and it has nothing to do with Novak as a person…he is actually a nice fellow and IMO he has significantly grown up when it comes to his behavior or so to say public appearance…I myself particularly disliked his celebration in Madrid but I am over it now… 🙂
so yeah, if Rafa is out of the equation, I would rather see Fed wining this whole thing mostly for I am so amazed with his motivation to play and his constant adjustments to stay in the competition…one must appreciate his effort of a chameleon to change “his colors” to suit the environment… 🙂
[polldaddy poll=9176739]
I agree nats, he’s been very impressive in his ability to stay so relevant consistently over so many years. It’s incredible when you think about it.
Given by all the conversation generated around the WTF, I think most here including me give it a lot more credibility than they are willing to admit.
As it’s going around in boring circles now (and getting personal) I’m off this thread of Fed vs Fed, got it? 🙂
wise decision…me too… 🙂
@ vamosrafa 3:34 pm,
well, we will just have to agree to disagree…IMO Novak’s tennis is a ping pong tennis…he runs like a rabbit and engages in the endless rallies awaiting for the opponent to hit shorter ball so that he can take advantage of it…he is lucky to have a great serve to get him out of the trouble but I really see no varieties in his game…he rarely does volleys, he stands on the baseline and it has only been as of late that he has been able to be more agressive mainly due to his high confidence…
remember early version of Novak who would retire whenever he was physically outplayed? I admit his improvements in every department but for me he is still the guy who heavily relies on his physical advantage and fitness created by…hmm…diet and other “tools”…
and I also think that Novak benefits from the weak era…
If Nope plays ping-pong tennis, then you should probably credit Rafa for showing that particular path to Nole.
I don’t think Rafa plays with more variety than Nole does.
For me, Nole has always appeared as an improvised version of Rafa (though with less power). Rafa being a lefty makes him more aesthetically pleasing to watch (as is the convention)