Poll: 2004-2007 Federer vs 2008-2010 Federer [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Poll: 2004-2007 Federer vs 2008-2010 Federer

2003
03-23-2010, 05:44 AM
Most people around these parts are of the opinion that Roger Federer is not as good as he used to be.

Do the statistics support this assumption?

The same semi final streak Federer began in 2004 remains going, and he reaches the semi finals of slams about as easily as he used to. 2009 he had some 5 setters, but not really any different to the 5 setter vs Tommy Farce in 2006 AO.

Since winning his first grand scam in 2003 Wimbledon, Federer has failed to reach the finals of a grand slam tournament 5 times. Only one of those losses came during the 2008-2010 period. The remaining 4 times were during his so called prime years 2003-2007.

Some people claim Federer peak was to 2006, and the aging process started in 2007. Others like to say that being a 3 slam year, 2007 was still peak Federer.

In my opinion, the first time I felt Roger looked aged was 2009 AO. He looked a step slower on that fast surface. But in 2009 USO and 2010 AO he seems to be as fast as he used to be. Some argue what he lacks in shot making he has gained in old man experience factor. He showed a lot of that to close out set 3 to Mugray in AO.

Some would say Rogers record outside of slams indicates he sucks more now, which started in 2007 where he began losing to all sorts of clowns outside of GS events.

This is a hotly contested point, but in my opinion, since losing to Shandi Dick Todd before 2007 AO, Roger has been tanking matches outside of grand slams, and more lately, possibly to avoid Rafael Nadal. Whether hes scared of him, or whether he wants to keep the
h2h respectable,I believe this is the case. I am not saying that every time he has lost outside of slams he tanked, or that he planned to do it, but matches like Wawrinka 2009, I just can't accept that he tried very hard or that he bought his A game.

In my opinion you have to look to the slams to get an answer to the question..and the results are about the same in terms of tournaments won. Old man Roger reaches more slam finals, but peak Federer won slightly more slams. Depending on whether you start in 2003 Wimbledon or 2004 AO you can tweak the stats to slightly make Fed look better or worse in comparing peak Fed to Old man Fed.

Okay, Federer is not the shotmaker he used to be. He doesn't quite have the freak level of stamina he used to (still by far and away the best on tour though), and he is prone to losing outside of slams, and even in slam finals slightly more than he used to. But I also think that aging old man Federer has become the most consistant tennis player of all time, and if it wasn't for the Mono Nuclear Osis of 2008, we would be looking at a conescutive GS finals record to rival his semi streak.

But at the end of the day, whos better, peak Fed, or old man Fed?

I'll go with old man Fed :)

rocketassist
03-23-2010, 05:54 AM
Difference is peak Fed would give one-dimensional players like Del Mugtro an absolute crucifixion if they met in a US Open final.

Big deal, Haas took a couple of sets. He was in the zone that tournament and played some great tennis, as did Davydenko.

Too many matches even in GSs Fed's groundies have been off, not had the same timing and his winning mentality has got him through, such as Andreev, PMK etc, whilst the Murray final was the best he's played post-peak. He was lucky to beat a pushing Roddick at Wimbledon and to lose to that one dimensional down-the-middle basher in New York summed up his decline.

Federer at his peak would NEVER, ever lose to Del Potro.

2003
03-23-2010, 06:05 AM
Difference is peak Fed would give one-dimensional players like Del Mugtro an absolute crucifixion if they met in a US Open final.

Federer at his peak would NEVER, ever lose to Del Potro.

Well he lost to Safin in 2005 AO in a similar kind of match, one he was ahead in and probably should have won. Safin at his peak was somewhat of a similar kind of player, albiet much more talented, but I think Del Po at his peak has the mental fortitude that Safin lacked.

Peak Fed won many gs finals in straight sets or 4, old man Fed has needed 5 sets a lot of the time. But old man Fed has some crushing clincal victories, 2008 USO final, 2009 FO final, 2010 AO final. Peak Fed struggled against ageing broken back Agassi in 2005 USO, and struggled before putting Roddick away in 2006 US Open final, Stuttered for a while against Burgerdartis in 2006 AO final etc.

To me in GS matches, in terms of victories, the two versions are similar, and as far as we can tell, old man Federer will have more slams.

A good poll option which I regret I didn't include was;

"The demise of Nadal has more to do with Old man Fed sucess than anything"

I think most would have voted that way.

tea
03-23-2010, 06:07 AM
2003 do a thread about someone else please.:awww:

Federer is class. We don't rate class.

Haelfix
03-23-2010, 11:42 AM
Peak Fed obviously, just b/c it was so effortless for the most part. He was dropping bagels left and right, and his shotmaking never seemed to miss.

You rarely saw him shank balls, and he often would go <10 UEs per game.

I've never seen anything quite like it to be honest, it reminded me of Wayne Gretzky when he was a kid. There is something decidedly cool about watching a player play perfect all around tennis, without necessarily being the fastest or the strongest.

Particularly the period 2003-2004, where he still didn't quite have his point construction ironed away and was quite creative in his game. It was sort of an unholy mix between baseline agression, icey defense, and serve and volley tactics all wrapped into one, you never really knew what to expect.

I started to lose interest in his game around 2007 (after the AO)when it became somewhat same old same old. Still effective, but it lost a bit of the magic and became a little mechanical. The baseline lost some pep and consistency, the movement wasn't quite as impressive (only in spurts), the serve became a little more dominant and relied upon etc etc. 09 was kind of cool for a bit, b/c he added the dropshot to his arsenal and used it to nab the french but still not the same thing.

Corey Feldman
03-23-2010, 01:01 PM
put it this way

2006 Fed would beat 2010 Fed 6-1 6-1 on any surface

marcRD
03-23-2010, 01:32 PM
2005-2006 is the absolute peak of Federer, he only lost in matches his opponent was playing out of his mind in these 2 years (his worst defeat was Murray in Cincinatti). I think he declined slowly 2007 and then 2008 even more and add Nadal peaking exactly that year and it makes a disastrous year for Federer. I think he played just as good as he used to in tournaments like USOPEN 2008 and Australian Open 2010.

LEGENDOFTENNIS
03-23-2010, 02:35 PM
The Federer of Wimbledon06-AO07 was a MACHINE that was his absolute prime. He lost like 1 match in that timeframe, thats pretty special.

buzz
03-23-2010, 02:44 PM
in 2004-2007 he was more clearly better than the rest of the tour bar nadal on clay than he was in 2008-2010.

I think that Federer wasn't as good in 2008, but his 2009 and 2010 form is about the same as in 2004-2007 in effectiveness but his contemporaries are better(new young guns) and studied his game longer for weaknesses.

federersforehand
03-23-2010, 04:28 PM
in 2006 federer won 96 percent of his games, he won 12 titles and lost 4 times ALL YEAR.

this was the greatest year of tennis of the greatest players career, the tennis he played in 06 turned him from a great player into a living legend.

Persimmon
03-23-2010, 04:31 PM
No question, prime Fed was better and much more effective at winning slams.

rocketassist
03-23-2010, 04:55 PM
Well he lost to Safin in 2005 AO in a similar kind of match, one he was ahead in and probably should have won. Safin at his peak was somewhat of a similar kind of player, albiet much more talented, but I think Del Po at his peak has the mental fortitude that Safin lacked.

Peak Fed won many gs finals in straight sets or 4, old man Fed has needed 5 sets a lot of the time. But old man Fed has some crushing clincal victories, 2008 USO final, 2009 FO final, 2010 AO final. Peak Fed struggled against ageing broken back Agassi in 2005 USO, and struggled before putting Roddick away in 2006 US Open final, Stuttered for a while against Burgerdartis in 2006 AO final etc.

To me in GS matches, in terms of victories, the two versions are similar, and as far as we can tell, old man Federer will have more slams.

A good poll option which I regret I didn't include was;

"The demise of Nadal has more to do with Old man Fed sucess than anything"

I think most would have voted that way.

Safin is a much, much, better all-round player than Del Potro. Much, much better.

What was more impressive about Fed's 04-07 dominance is the players competing with him are better than the ones he's competing with now.

Corey Feldman
03-23-2010, 06:02 PM
in 2006 federer won 96 percent of his games, he won 12 titles and lost 4 times ALL YEAR.

lost 5 times, his record was 92-5 ... those 5 losses were down to 2 players.. Nadal & Murray.

in 2005 he went 81-4 and in 3 of the 4 losses he had match point/served for the match and blew it. the only "clean" beating was 4 set loss to Nadal in Roland Garros semi.

Sjengster
03-23-2010, 06:12 PM
Safin is a much, much, better all-round player than Del Potro. Much, much better.

What was more impressive about Fed's 04-07 dominance is the players competing with him are better than the ones he's competing with now.

Last week's result certainly helps back up your theory, although I don't think it's a coincidence that 2006, Federer's most dominant year by far, was the one time when there wasn't a serious challenger for Slams below him and Nadal. I absolutely agree with the general consensus, though, that Federer's game was at its peak during this time; he was fast, sharp from the baseline, made the right tactical decisions, and was never outrallied by the likes of Benneteau (who is a good baseliner, it's just that Federer had the measure of those decent retrievers back then).

rocketassist
03-23-2010, 06:15 PM
Well I suppose his rivals then (Roddick, Safin, Hewitt) were at their best in 04-05 rather than 06-07, but Nadal emerged in 05 and adds to this tough opposition.

Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro aren't quite in the same league as these guys IMO.

MalwareDie
03-23-2010, 06:39 PM
It's ridiculous that choice #1 doesn't have all of the votes.

2003
03-24-2010, 12:12 AM
My dad reckons Federer is betterer now than then.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
03-24-2010, 12:38 AM
Some aspects of his game are better. Serve is better and obviously he's more experienced.

On the downside, his ability to return fast first serves has gone downhill (as is the case with all players as they get older). He used to be awesomely good at making the big first serves look ineffective. You also sometimes feel that the "X factor" has gone from his game.

I also agree that several of his matches outside Slams have been deliberate tanks.

Har-Tru
03-24-2010, 12:46 AM
What was more impressive about Fed's 04-07 dominance is the players competing with him are better than the ones he's competing with now.

And that is why he's winning so much now with such relative ease.

Corey Feldman
03-24-2010, 12:49 AM
And that is why he's winning so much now with such relative ease.its clear he is not near his old self since Dubai 2007, ok lazy english

Har-Tru
03-24-2010, 12:49 AM
Last week's result certainly helps back up your theory, although I don't think it's a coincidence that 2006, Federer's most dominant year by far, was the one time when there wasn't a serious challenger for Slams below him and Nadal. I absolutely agree with the general consensus, though, that Federer's game was at its peak during this time; he was fast, sharp from the baseline, made the right tactical decisions, and was never outrallied by the likes of Benneteau (who is a good baseliner, it's just that Federer had the measure of those decent retrievers back then).

Certainly.

juninhOH
03-24-2010, 03:56 AM
Since winning his first grand scam in 2003 Wimbledon, Federer has failed to reach the finals of a grand slam tournament 5 times. Only one of those losses came during the 2008-2010 period. The remaining 4 times were during his so called prime years 2003-2007.


You know that you are comparing 18 slams to 9 slams, right?

Sander.
03-24-2010, 03:41 PM
I voted wrong, but it's of course the first one. :)

duong
03-24-2010, 05:02 PM
Some people claim Federer peak was to 2006, and the aging process started in 2007.

that's my opinion, he was esp faster in that time.

But on slow surfaces, he has really earnt experience and tactical elements with time, and that is an acquisition. He showed it in RG, also I think in Australian Open. But indoors for instance you can see that he has lost much speed.

2007 looks great if you only look at the results, but the game was not what it was in 2006. I remember that he won Cinci 2007 after playing like crap for most of the tournament.

Anyway, I like very much the one I've seen for nearly one year, the game first (ah these dropshots in RG ! :hearts: ), also the way he's happy and relaxed.

His two defeats against Benneteau and Baghdatis well these two players were on fire, I don't think they're shameful at all. His defeats against Canas in spring 2007, or Simon and Karlovic in summer 2008 were more shameful imo.

I rather think they're representative of the fact that players don't fear him anymore, and on the opposite consider him like "history" (which also means "old") and want to make the match of their life against him.

It's like Murray in Masters Cup 2008 : it's become more important to beat Federer than to go far in the tournament ! :eek:

matches like Wawrinka 2009, I just can't accept that he tried very hard or that he bought his A game.

you mean Monte-Carlo ? he had just married, and I think he had only come because of his sponsor's pressure. it's not representative.

I really think that this story about "neglecting MS1000 tournaments" is highly exaggerated.

A little bit less preparation than for slams I think yes, a little bit less motivation sometimes, but he's still really motivated for most of those. And more this year if you heard his interview saying that this year he would try to win more tournaments, not only slams.

Old man Roger reaches more slam finals, but peak Federer won slightly more slams.

Old man Roger is a little bit lucky in slams if you want my opinion, to always reach these finals.

But he was not as lucky in a few finals.

But I also think that aging old man Federer has become the most consistant tennis player of all time

this part, also with the stamina, is bullshit.



But at the end of the day, whos better, peak Fed, or old man Fed?

I'll go with old man Fed :)

no : Fed 2006