which was roger's better year - 04 or 05? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

which was roger's better year - 04 or 05?

megadeth
09-15-2005, 02:31 AM
'04 - 3 slams, 3 masters, 11 titles all in all, 70-6 W/L

'05 - 2 slams, 4 masters and coutning, 10 titles and counting. so far, 71-3 W/L

question is if fed surpasses the 11 titles this year, would his '05 be better even if he didn't win 3 slams?

discuss

Experimentee
09-15-2005, 02:34 AM
04 was better. The Slams are what matters in tennis.

wcr
09-15-2005, 02:35 AM
'04 - 3 slams, 3 masters, 11 titles all in all, 70-6 W/L

'05 - 2 slams, 4 masters and coutning, 10 titles and counting. so far, 71-3 W/L

question is if fed surpasses the 11 titles this year, would his '05 be better even if he didn't win 3 slams?

discuss

2005 appears to be Roger's best year. Struggling with a foot ailment that started before the AO he goes on to defend all but three of his titles so far. Misses Toronto and Gstaad and adds Cincy and Miami to his list of titles. And in the middle of the year he takes off 6 weeks to heal his ailing feet only to return and win two titles in a row. 2005 makes 2004 look like a walk in the park for Roger.

There's only one title left to defend and he is scheduled to play more indoor events including Basel.

Amazing.

And yes, 2005 = better hair.

megadeth
09-15-2005, 02:41 AM
roger failed to defend 2 titles actually - AO and Canada

personally, i believe '05 is his best as well because he managed to live up to the hype of being the best even when people were downplaying him for failing to win the first 2 slams.

he really showed them who's still the boss.

megadeth
09-15-2005, 02:42 AM
2 more titles to defend - thailand and shanghai..

i hope he can add madrid, basel, and paris to that list this year..

PaulieM
09-15-2005, 02:48 AM
personally, i believe '05 is his best as well because he managed to live up to the hype of being the best even when people were downplaying him for failing to win the first 2 slams.

he really showed them who's still the boss.
that's probably the most impressive things he did this year.

that and he got even hotter in '05, i didn't think it was possible but i was wrong.
Amazing! :angel: ;)

megadeth
09-15-2005, 02:52 AM
and the other factor he did well at - handle the pressure of the new rising star - nadal

they may have only faced twice so far this year, but when nadal was bagging all these titles and threatening the race to number 1, fed was cool and calm and also stealthely won as much titles... even more now

Tourmalante
09-15-2005, 03:18 AM
Yes 2005 is more impressive and despite the AO loss, is actually his more dominant year in terms of wins, rankings points, and titles. The fact that he won two slams, defeating precedent for triple slam titlists in the following year was huge.And he defended Wimbledon with even more panache then last year. The way he beat Roddick was integral, by showing that they have only drifted farther in ability rather than Roddick closing the gap. To look only at slams is a narrow and fallacious view.

Billy Moonshine
09-15-2005, 03:21 AM
2005.
In 2004 he proved he was the real deal. But still, myself included, people doubted.
In 2005 he really showed the tennis world what he was: An all time great.
2005: The year federer became my favorite player.

Experimentee
09-15-2005, 03:24 AM
I think Roger would much prefer to have won the AO than to have a few less losses on his record. In 2005 he only showed he could still beat the same guys as last year, and Nadal is just coming up and not at his peak. The real test will be next year when Nadal is better, whether Roger can continue beating him on hard and start beating him on clay.

megadeth
09-15-2005, 03:28 AM
yes, it would be interesting how the 2 will match up next year.

will nadal keep that fire burning and improve on faster courts?
will federer close the gap on nadal on clay?

Fergie
09-15-2005, 03:32 AM
2005! :yeah:

Federerhingis
09-15-2005, 03:35 AM
Hard to say, However, if he's able to defend his masters cup theres no if or buts that '05 would be an even more dominant year for him. Nevertheless,I just loved how dominant he began the year by winning the Aussie and playing at his very best in '04, guess his dominance from the '03 masters cup just carried over.

Billabong
09-15-2005, 03:36 AM
If he wins another TMS, Basel and the TMC, I would definitely say 2005:)

Havok
09-15-2005, 03:37 AM
2004 easily. 3 Slams compared to 2 this year, that seals the deal and there really shouldn't be a discussion going on about this topic imo :shrug:. He was also better vs top 10 players in 04 than this year ( didn't he not lose one single match vs a top 10 player last year? I know he lost to Henman early in the year, but Tim wasn't close to top 10 at that time).

NYCtennisfan
09-15-2005, 03:41 AM
IN the long run people will remember 2004. Technically, it was this year. This is as close as someone will get to going undefeated probably ever. He has played 13 tournaments and won 10 of them, made the SF in at least 12 of them and made the QF in all of them. He had match points in two of his defeats and played a truly horrible match in Paris lost decisively for the only time this year (so far). That's just incredible.

rofe
09-15-2005, 03:44 AM
2005.

2004 was when he realized his potential but 2005 is when he matured while defending his titles.

It is much harder to defend titles especially GS and he has done an admirable job of doing it this year. This year (more than last year) probably will give him a lot of confidence in his abilities which will help him immensely in 2006.

BlackSilver
09-15-2005, 04:05 AM
You should have waited until the end of November

etiage
09-15-2005, 04:05 AM
2005
backed up a great 2004 and showed that he can stand up to the pressure of defending

megadeth
09-15-2005, 04:35 AM
You should have waited until the end of November

for sure someone will bring up this thread again as the season comes to a close..

wcr
09-15-2005, 04:36 AM
Excellent thread. Thanks megadeth.

MisterQ
09-15-2005, 04:43 AM
He was also better vs top 10 players in 04 than this year ( didn't he not lose one single match vs a top 10 player last year? I know he lost to Henman early in the year, but Tim wasn't close to top 10 at that time).

An amazing year from him. However, I always thought this was a strange accomplishment to highlight. Wouldn't it be more impressive to lose 6 times only to top ten players, rather than 6 times to less accomplished ones?

mishar
09-15-2005, 04:45 AM
Personally, I think 2005, despite the AO. Mainly by the way he has crushed all his previous rivalries. At the end of 04 -- despite Federer's dominance -- people were still speaking about the big 4 -- and Federer has just left Roddick and Hewitt in the dust. All old adversaries (Agassi, Henman, Nalbandian) beaten again and again.

I think it's a more dominating year overall (at least so far.) He's supposed to play 5 more events -- we'll see what happens.

Sjengster
09-15-2005, 04:46 AM
An amazing year from him. However, I always thought this was a strange accomplishment to highlight. Wouldn't it be more impressive to lose 6 times only to top ten players, rather than 6 times to less accomplished ones?

Not really, because it showed how faultless his record was in the latter rounds of tournaments (ie, the matches where you're going to meet the top players). He lost one QF in the whole of last year, and that was to Henman in Rotterdam. The SF match he lost to Safin at this year's AO was the first SF he'd lost anywhere since Ferrero beat him back in Madrid at the end of 2003.

megadeth
09-15-2005, 04:46 AM
An amazing year from him. However, I always thought this was a strange accomplishment to highlight. Wouldn't it be more impressive to lose 6 times only to top ten players, rather than 6 times to less accomplished ones?

that's a good point ;)

oneandonlyhsn
09-15-2005, 05:41 AM
that's probably the most impressive things he did this year.

that and he got even hotter in '05, i didn't think it was possible but i was wrong.
Amazing! :angel: ;)

:bowdown: :bowdown: I concur, in 2004 he had less pressure and wasnt really the main target of almost the enitire ATP. In 2005 he didnt let the pressure affect him, and the 2 big losses at AO and RG just further motivated him.

Dirk
09-15-2005, 06:09 AM
No 04 was the best. Had he kept Oz this year then I would say this was his best year. I thought his foot problems started at Oz. No matter as long as they don't come back at this Oz in 06.

swellde
09-15-2005, 07:09 AM
I have to wait until the Master's Cup to decide but I'm leaning towards 2005. If Federer can three-peat his undefeated victory in the year end championship, that would just be astounding, but we'll have to wait and see.
For the majors, Federer actually has one more grand slam win this year than last year, which is very impressive but I can understand viewing that being not as impressive as having being the champion of 3 of the majors in 2004.
For me though, I have to view 2005 as the better year, because I see 2004 as the year Federer became the favorite that will probably win the tournaments he plays in, and 2005, as the year he became the favorite, that might not being playing great or coming off of a break, but you just automatically chalk up to another title because he will win.

Puschkin
09-15-2005, 07:14 AM
If he remains nr.1 which is highly probable, but not yet confirmed by the maths: 2005 without the slightest hesitation. It is much more difficult to defend under pressure than to achieve for the first time.

deliveryman
09-15-2005, 07:18 AM
I'd say 2005 is more impressive. Which one is STASTICALLY better? Well, again 2005, he has already almost matched his ranking points from 2004, and he has 5 more tournaments to play in. :O

mickymouse
09-15-2005, 07:25 AM
2005....he played well below his best and still won 2 Slams.

Mrs. B
09-15-2005, 08:09 AM
'04. 3 Slams in a year is something hard to accomplish in this day and age.

J. Corwin
09-15-2005, 08:23 AM
2005 = better hair

Were you a Roger lover before "the hair"? ;)

I agree he does have better suaver looking hair instead of that greasy bun.

jacobhiggins
09-15-2005, 08:45 AM
I think 2004 was a little better because he won 3 slams BUT not by much. He proved himself this year. He stayed number 1 and he is still king. He could end the year 500 some points ahead of Nadal, the number 2 player in the world. Another accomplishment that people don't realize, he held off the rise of Nadal. True champions have staying power and with this latest threat he has proved himself again.

landoud
09-15-2005, 09:03 AM
2004 better game
2005 better hair

TheMightyFed
09-15-2005, 09:42 AM
Both are great but the combo 04-05 is unique in open era ! :worship:

G O
09-15-2005, 11:52 AM
An amazing year from him. However, I always thought this was a strange accomplishment to highlight. Wouldn't it be more impressive to lose 6 times only to top ten players, rather than 6 times to less accomplished ones?


No.

As you know already a loss is not a loss. You have to look at the circumstancses of each of those loses in 04.

Plus, few will remember loses to guys like Pavel, Hrbaty and Clement....

And finally, I think most knowledgeable fans are aware that players don't always intend on competing to their fullest when they show up for an event. Everyone needs a break....even Roger.

Auscon
09-15-2005, 12:08 PM
I'd have them on par...1 more slam last year, sure, but this year he's become an outright opponent killing machine.

3 losses, 2 of which where he had match points himself, the 3rd on his least favoured surface against the king of said surface.....Just can't place 05 below 04

jtipson
09-15-2005, 12:52 PM
No.

As you know already a loss is not a loss. You have to look at the circumstancses of each of those loses in 04.

Plus, few will remember loses to guys like Pavel, Hrbaty and Clement....


You're quite right, I certainly don't remember his losses to Pavel or Clement last year ;)

I don't think Fed wanted to be in Cincinnati, and that partly explains the loss to Hrbaty. He certainly didn't seem to be at all unhappy about it. There aren't any extenuating circumstances for the match against Guga though.

WF4EVER
09-15-2005, 02:04 PM
Even if the season ended at the USO, I'd still think 2005 was the better year. True, he only own two Slams this year but he made the SF in both Slams he didn't win, losing to the eventual winner. If he'd made the Finals it would sound a lot better, but on the other hand he wouldn't have kept his impeccable Finals record intact.

Impeccable indeed. To have had that string of Final wins at the end of 2004 was remarkable, but to have had to continue winning FInals until this point is a huge task. The pressure to have maintained that streak must certainly be greater this year than it was in 2004.

Also, Roger has lost just 3 matches this year. If someone could post how many losses he had at the end of the USO last year that would be nice, maybe it was 6, I can't recall, or maybe it was already 7. So far Roger has only 3 losses and already has the same number of titles as he did the whole of last year!

Apart from that, Roger has not even played as well as he played last year and was still able to rack up the wins and dominate.

I'm not really 'blaming' Tony Roche for Roger's lowered level of play but I think his coaching has something to do with it. Maybe he's trying to teach ROger some new tricks that may have caused Roger not to play as sharp as he played last year. I say this because last year Roger had to rely so much on himself so he left no room for error. He was very focused onw hat needed to be done to win but maybe he's listening to someone else he's putting his trust in someone else and he hasn't quite all got it yet.

I think ROger is a bit lucky that he laid that foundation last year because if he hadn't already garnered that respect from his peers with his domination he might not have gone into some of his matches with that air of 'greatness' and awe about him.

Despite his play being at a higher level last year, his results this year, continuing his domination of recent nemeses, maintaining his finals streak, general consistent results (even in the three tournaments he didnt win),TMS results (holding the record for the most in one year), defending Wimby and the USO, have outshone 2004 in my mind.

2004 was definitely the breakout year, but 2005 has shown that he's not a fluke.

R.Federer
09-15-2005, 02:16 PM
In history books where they focus more on the slam, 2004 will be better.

But Two slam win, Two slam sf, 70-3 so far, 4 T.M.S is very special also

PamV
09-15-2005, 03:18 PM
'04 - 3 slams, 3 masters, 11 titles all in all, 70-6 W/L

'05 - 2 slams, 4 masters and coutning, 10 titles and counting. so far, 71-3 W/L

question is if fed surpasses the 11 titles this year, would his '05 be better even if he didn't win 3 slams?

discuss

To the average person '04 would seem better. However, I wonder how many points Roger had in 2004 vs. how many points this year? Maybe we have to wait until the end of '05 to know for sure.

Roger had a matchpoint in his SF with Safin at the AO. If Roger had won that match, he probably would have beaten Hewitt in the final. So Roger was really close to repeating all 3 majors this year. I can only imagine how people would be complaining now if that had happened.

PamV
09-15-2005, 03:21 PM
In history books where they focus more on the slam, 2004 will be better.

But Two slam win, Two slam sf, 70-3 so far, 4 T.M.S is very special also

That's true and if he increases his match wins up to 84 he would reach McEnroe's record. So that's would make 2005 one of the peak years of all time.

yanchr
09-15-2005, 04:46 PM
2004 was simply superb, but 2005 is not only superb but also touching, and yes I'm not talking about it statistically. I think 2004 would be the best year so far for him technically, because in 2004 he really showed his most beautiful tennis. Whileas in 2005, he has gone through much more tough matches, loads of pressure, injuries, breaks, even challenges from the young, and his own level down a bit...he handled all of them. He had one heartbroken loss in AO, which I really think he struggled quite a lot to come back and pick up his confidence again, and another bad loss in FO, which directly caused the fact that he had to go into Wimbledon at the risk of no slam this year. It was just touching that he managed Wimbledon finally and with style. It's not easy as it seems.

So personally, 2004 is better tennis-wise, but 2005 is better emotion-wise, and of course statistically.

WyveN
09-15-2005, 05:08 PM
2005 was probably harder and he has been more consistent but the only way you top 3 slams in a year is with 4 slams in a year.

Purple Rainbow
09-15-2005, 06:11 PM
It seems some people in here treat slams as the only thing that counts in tennis. Strange. Even if the year ends now, I'd rank this year above 2004. Last year Roger already had an aura of invincibilty, but he lost occasionally in the 1st round of tournaments, a habit he got rid of this year, giving him a true sense of invincibilty.

Roger's freaking 10/13 in tournaments this year and there are still 4 tournaments to go. The prospects of where this year might end are scary. He's riding a 25-game winning streak at the moment, has a good shot of breaking his own year-end ranking point total, could exceed his record 4 masters series title, has a chance of equalling the best last 100-game record (you have to thank NYC tennis fan for figuring that one out).

nobama
09-15-2005, 06:57 PM
It seems some people in here treat slams as the only thing that counts in tennis.Roger certainly doesn't. He's said numerous times that it's not just about the slams for him, that he enjoys the smaller tournaments as well.

For me 2005 is more special just because of all the pressue he was under after the year he had in 2004. The tough loss at AO, and everyone wondering what he would do, how he would react, ect. And then of course he goes on to have (statistically) his best year ever. Winning a record four Masters Series events (and the year's not over yet!). Winning all three MS events in the United States - Indian Wells and Miami back-to-back, Cincy after coming off a six week holiday, and then topping it off with the US Open.

And I like the fact he wants more, he's not complacent. In that New York Times interview he made it clear he wants to play all the remaining tournaments he has scheduled, and that he hopes this year the top players won't pull out of events like Paris and Madrid like they did last year.

gillian
09-15-2005, 07:22 PM
2005 = better hair

LOL. True. I like to call 2004 The Year of Dominance w/regard to RFed. In keeping with that, I guess I could call 2005 The Year of Consolidated Dominance.

:)

Sjengster
09-15-2005, 09:19 PM
Am I the only person who much preferred Federer with the ponytail? At least back then there was no opportunity for Agassi to mock his habit of folding his hair back as he prepares to return serve, which is what happened at the IW benefit this year. This curly mess that droops over his eyes when the rallies get tough does not at all befit a world no. 1.

PamV
09-15-2005, 09:30 PM
Am I the only person who much preferred Federer with the ponytail? At least back then there was no opportunity for Agassi to mock his habit of folding his hair back as he prepares to return serve, which is what happened at the IW benefit this year. This curly mess that droops over his eyes when the rallies get tough does not at all befit a world no. 1.

I'm glad you had the guts to stand up for the ponytail. I did like that look for Roger.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/PJ2004/Tennis/Flying-Federer.jpg

BlackSilver
09-15-2005, 10:54 PM
Is useless discuss this by now.
Many people here give much importance to regularity, consistence and things like that, that make this year better for them, but until the year finish, Federer can lose some times more, don't earn one more TMS and even choke in some importante match, annuling most of what happened, that made this year better for them.

BlackSilver
09-15-2005, 11:00 PM
Am I the only person who much preferred Federer with the ponytail? At least back then there was no opportunity for Agassi to mock his habit of folding his hair back as he prepares to return serve, which is what happened at the IW benefit this year. This curly mess that droops over his eyes when the rallies get tough does not at all befit a world no. 1.

Certainly not. All time that I see him playing, make I pray to the tennis gods to force Federer to return to the ponytail

Ten_Isse_Fan
09-15-2005, 11:11 PM
No.

As you know already a loss is not a loss. You have to look at the circumstancses of each of those loses in 04.

Plus, few will remember loses to guys like Pavel, Hrbaty and Clement....

And finally, I think most knowledgeable fans are aware that players don't always intend on competing to their fullest when they show up for an event. Everyone needs a break....even Roger.
Federer last year lost to : Henman (Rotterdam), Nadal (Miami), Costa (Roma), Kuerten (RG), Hrbaty (Cincy) and Berdych (Athens). Not Clément or Pavel :confused:

WF4EVER
09-15-2005, 11:21 PM
I prefer the ponytail too; in fact I miss it, but I don't mind his hair the way it is and I really don't think Roger does. Sometimes players leave things that we think are bothersome becasue it gives them something to do between points or when they're nervous.

If his hair bothered him he would have let it grow back. OTOH maybe this new 'do is a demonstration of his evolution. Maybe he'll try something new next year, lol

G O
09-16-2005, 04:00 AM
Federer last year lost to : Henman (Rotterdam), Nadal (Miami), Costa (Roma), Kuerten (RG), Hrbaty (Cincy) and Berdych (Athens). Not Clément or Pavel :confused:


Yes. I pulled those out of my ass :)

You missed the point.