The years 2004-2007 will be remembered in years to come as The Reign of Fed. In each of those years, Roger Federer won at least two, but usually three majors and was an uncontested No. 1 in the world.
His domination, plus his quiet personality and seeming effortless style have led many to compare him to the time of Pete Sampras, whose most dominant years were 1993-1995, and then again in 1997.
There’s just one problem with comparing the results of the two players, however. Every single one of the Fed’s years during The Reign was better than any year Sampras’ produced.
Take 2007, for instance: By the middle of that year, after Fed had been upset early at the Italian Open by Filipo Volandri, the buzz was that Fed was in a “slump,” seeing as how he’d also lost at the Master’s Series events of Miami and Indian Wells.
Like Sampras at the same point in 1997, Federer had won the Australian Open, but not won any all of the year’s Master Series events. Sampras had won two second tier events on faster surfaces and Federer one, but unlike Sampras, Fed had reached the finals of a clay-court Master’s Series event in Monte Carlo.
Both would win Wimbledon, an assorted pair of Master’s titles and the year-end championships. A key difference is that, unlike Sampras, Federer reached the finals of Roland Garros and won the U.S. Open. He won three majors to Sampras’ two, and yet ’97 is considered one of the Pistol’s best seasons, whereas ’07 was a slightly off year for the Fed.
Sampras, for all his greatness, never created a standard that high. Sampras never won three majors in a season. Even in 2005, when Federer “only” won two, he still put up a win-loss record of 81-4, which was the best winning percentage of anyone since John McEnroe in 1984.
At the time, calling Fed the best player in the world didn’t seem to be enough: It was simply ludicrous to believe that there was anyone better than him. Only on clay, and only against Rafael Nadal was it reasonable to expect Federer to lose, and even then the polls at Tennis.com put them at about even.
A couple of things changed in 2008. Mainly, he was beaten by Novak Djokovic in Australia and Rafael Nadal at Wimbledon. One can hardly blame him for falling to a rapidly rising star like Djokovic, especially after an illness as severe as mono, or for losing an epic 9-7 final against Nadal, who finished the year No. 1.
However, those results seemed to put Fed in freefall, hitting many of the rungs he scaled over earlier in his career. After Miami, Andy Roddick could say that nobody, nobody beats him 16 out of 17 times.
After Indian Wells, Mardy Fish got some revenge for all the “Federer reels in Fish” headlines published at Yahoo Sports in the last five years. At the Olympics, James Blake improved his batting average against Fed from .000 to .111.
50 comments Last one added 6 months ago — Leave a Comment
Gil 7 months ago
'Roger Federer is now first among equals'
It has been some time now that I have been searching for a diplomatic way of discussing the GOAT race between Sampras and Federer.
Never felt that the 'They are both legends' and 'greats with their own mertit' stuff sounded great in a debate. Nothing but confusion written over it.
But You have found me one Rob. Thanks for this one.
By the way..
"The Spaniard will stand in his way again, but look for Federer to reclaim it in their fourth-consecutive final, and their third to go five sets."
Not another Federer vs Nadal and definitely ont 5 sets again..If the fateful final becomes unavoidable, either player will know better than to let the match go to set Number 5. Nadal knows he won this year's final and the distance between gim and Federer in that match was the skin of his teeth. Federer on the other hand knows that Wimbledon still remains the only place where he can still control his destiny.
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 7 months ago
Well, thanks. Whether or not it'll be five sets is debatable, I'll give you that (maybe just a tight four) but these are clearly the best two grass court players in the world and neither one will surrender an inch against the other. It's hard to picture anyone getting in their way in London.
We'll see.
Edit Comment Cancel
Gil 7 months ago
Yes thats right, here we do the permutations and combinations and busy ourselves predicting, the futue may hold a different narrative.
That said, I do agree that it will take a Miracle for the others on tour or a divine intevention in the form of a, god Forbid, injury to either fEderer or Nadal if we are to see a final between two different men at The Championships. Should the ranking, going into Wimbledon, remain intact, mY Money too will be on Federer vs Nadal, though I would say maybe a crazy Fourth set tie Break to settle things!
By the way, Its incredible that Sampras' best season had 12 losses, Federer worst 15...
Its just mind boggling and utterly mystifying the standards this Swiss Genius has set.
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 7 months ago
I almost hate to make predictions since so there are so many variables, but everyone else is doing it, and these are my best guesses.
Federer's 2006 season was the most dominant we may ever see. The winning percentage wasn't quite as high as McEnroe's in '84, but 80 percent of Fed's losses that year were to one guy!
Edit Comment Cancel
Gil 7 months ago
I think 2005 was as good as 2006. Yeah he won "only" two slams in 2005 as opposed to 3 in 2006 but in a way, it is from 2005 that Federer started becoming a real force on Clay too, not to forget how he was injured during the end of the season becoz of which he had to miss most of the indoor season and then the miraculous comeback match...almost against Nalbandian in Shanghai TMC Final. It was the year which was the spring board for Federer's rise to 'Greatest of All time discussion' which started doing the rounds from the following year.
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 7 months ago
Yeah, he won more slams in '04, but it was in '05 that he started winning practically every week, and all in the latter rounds.
So Gil, how many majors do you think he'll win in the new year? I'm glad I've finally made a poll people are really responding to.
Edit Comment Cancel
Gil 7 months ago
I am a FedFan and in the current crop, I am yet to see a guy who gives me the kind of 'pleasure' that Federer does while watching their play..and I wouldnt mind a little bit if Federer can do a 4 but the trouble is, some other wicked guys in the circuit may have a few problems...hmmm so I should think, He will win 2 Slams...If he gets Number 14 early on in the year, he will want to be done and dusted with the Sampras Record which will be playing in his mind more than ever now
Edit Comment Cancel
Jack Sparrow 7 months ago
Federer's 2009 will be interesting ... I don't like to make predictions but, I have a feeling it's the year that will completely decide the whole 'Greatest Ever" debate. While I do think he is better than Sampras, if he's able to fight off this new batch of talent (as he has done over the years), and make a 'comeback' then that will settle it. More than that, it's also that I can't see him being dominant come 2010.
And, just for Wimbledon, I think he's still favourite going in, because he'll probably have the same fight in him that Nadal had this year, because that's what I believe won it - they were equal to each other the whole, but it just looked like Nadal wanted it more.
Edit Comment Cancel
Rock 7 months ago
Jack,
>they were equal to each other the whole, but it just looked like Nadal wanted it more
Nadal wanted it more yes but more than that he played better tennis than Roger to win his first Wimbledon. After losing like what 4 match points in the fourth set he still kept his composure and played amazing tennis in the fifth to bring down the King from his throne. That's mind boggling.
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 7 months ago
Nadal certainly played the important points better in that match, coming back from down a break in set 2 and holding on in set 5. Truly gripping stuff.
Edit Comment Cancel
Gil 7 months ago
yes, I completely agree. Nadal has been looking rather 'desperate' to win at Wimbledon these last two years...
"After losing like what 4 match points in the fourth set he still kept his composure and played amazing tennis in the fifth to bring down the King from his throne. That's mind boggling."
and to do that against FEDERER at Wimbledon is simply out of the world. I frankly didnt fancy Nadal's chances after Federer pulled off an mind numbing comeback in the 4th set tie break, when the Swiss had looked well and truly dead and beaten...
But the way Nadal held his nerve and Serve is amazing. And Federer agreed that Nadal was the deserving Champion, But well King Fed will be back next year, if not 6 straight, 6 overall wont go down bad with him...
Edit Comment Cancel
hobbs hobbs 7 months ago
Roger Federer has a strange effect on people that others don't.
Tennis wouldn't be the same if Roger is not around. And I believe not so many fans will follow tennis with the same intensity. For that reason (and more), I hope Roger has many good years to come.
Edit Comment Cancel
J.A. Allen 7 months ago
Hobbs - he does indeed! very strange...and let us all hope there are many years to come! jaa
Edit Comment Cancel
J.A. Allen 7 months ago
Hi Rob - I like this very much. Your premise is grounded with fact and detailed analysis. Nothing ethereal here! From your mouth to God's ear! jaa
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 7 months ago
Thanks, that's why I'm in newspapers. I appreciate it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 7 months ago
I wish Federer many good years but this game was great before he came on the scene. Fans who can't bring themselves to root for anyone else will not be missed.
Edit Comment Cancel
J.A. Allen 7 months ago
I think in the midst of a fascination, you tend to lose perspective. Having loved and lost many heros along the way, we all find our way back to the center, the essence - in this case tennis. So do not despair about the perceived overload of Fed fans...it is not all that unusual. It has passion and fervor but it is not forever...nothing is . Just relax and accept the fates...jaa
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 7 months ago
When people ask about changing the scoring system to make them more accessible, my response was always that I didn't think it was worth changing the game's essence to bring in fan's less devoted to the sport.
I appreciate what Fed has done; before him, it seemed like every year there were four different GS champions, hence no continuity.
But I hope that new fans learn to appreciate the game itself while they watch him, even if he is the best representation of it they've ever seen.
Edit Comment Cancel
Long John Silver 7 months ago
i think RY - rodge fans are extremely sensitive and protectionists ... hence I always tread super carefully
Edit Comment Cancel
Long John Silver 7 months ago
i agree
Edit Comment Cancel
Long John Silver 7 months ago
but it wud not be the same without them ....
am torn
Edit Comment Cancel
Gil 7 months ago
Long. U hit the nail. It wont be the same without Federer or Federer Fans, without those suicidial peaks of crazy admiration and excitement they feel about this man. Not that supporters of other guys dont feel the same, But Fed Fans - There is such a vast Multitude of 'em!
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 7 months ago
Yes, Federer fans make their contribution, but we hope they'll continue contributing after Fed is gone because they've grown to love the game. That would be the best case scenario.
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 7 months ago
You're the domain leader, so you may feel obligated to be diplomatic. I don't see it that way, but hopefully fans like JAA who value the game itself rather than Federer alone will understand what I mean.
Edit Comment Cancel
marybell xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 7 months ago
I think that Murray is not hotter than Nole this time, so, appart from Fed, i would give the Serb a chance for the Aussie.
Still believe that if healthy, Roger won't let the first Major of his potential "big come back year", get away.He will do a super effort to take it home..
If Nadal starts with lightnings and thunders the clay season, the chances are 60-40 for the Spaniard to take the 5th..If a knee injury is more serious than we all think and the decline if the "monster's body", is already a fact, Rog will make the miracle happen in Paris.
Rest, will be the missing parts of the great puzzle called the "golden grand slam", that can appear in the sport's stats after 40 years, which is a long time, longer than the one i am a resident of this planet ...
First among equals?In my humble opinion, this year Roger was "unlucky among luckiers"....
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 7 months ago
An in-form Nadal is a 60-40 chance to win in Paris? How about 80-20?
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 7 months ago
I recognize that Federer had an unlucky start to the year with illness, but that happens to pretty much everyone sooner or later. And Nadal and Djokovic didn't win majors because they were luckier than Fed, they earned them.
Edit Comment Cancel
Gil 7 months ago
rather 99.9999 - 0.00001%
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 7 months ago
Gil, 99.9999 - 0.00001% would be Rafa's chances of beating one of us :)
Edit Comment Cancel
Gil 7 months ago
I bet I had great chances of winning at least 5 games against Nadal in RG Finals this yearN More than Fed's miserable 4!
Lolz, On a serious note, to give the rest of the field 20% chance may be too much, we all know the kind of beast Nadal is on Clay.
The Closer you come to beating him, the farther u seem...
The man is not a recognised species on the red Dirt...and alarmingly, he seems to be getting better even on clay with each passing season!
But that said, I hope Federer continues give his all and try optimistically next year too, If he wins, It will once and for all end the debate of GOAT and Its only fair right? I mean, the man deserves to win that elusive title at least once.
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 7 months ago
Were it not for Nadal, Federer would have won it three or four times over, but as Clint Eastwood said, "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."
It shouldn't matter too much if he doesn't win, though. I think he's proven by this point that he's the Greatest.
Edit Comment Cancel
Gil 7 months ago
"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."
Ha ha, I know, But it was just the fan in me, who so wants to see him win that silverware, who has seen and felt sad watching him come so close yet so far, speaking....
Edit Comment Cancel
marybell xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 7 months ago
The dreamers are a strong community, here, in B/R, according to the poll...That is quite an indication, isn't it Long??
Edit Comment Cancel
Gil 7 months ago
yeah, how amusing that 30% voters have gone for Option E (I take it that Rob meant 'Calender Slam' by that)
But well, Dream because it costs nothing at the end of the day...
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 7 months ago
Yes, "Grand Slam" means all four in one year in this case.
Edit Comment Cancel
marybell xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 7 months ago
No, no 80-20...Those days are over Rob!!!As they are over in London,too, both players know each other well and the way to overcome their opponent's weapons...
It is like the teams in football, take Real-Barcelona...Real might be 8th in Spain's championship but could win 3-0 Barca, because the opponent has the power to raise you to the occassion, even when your chances are poor...
Edit Comment Cancel
Rock 7 months ago
>No, no 80-20...Those days are over Rob!!!As they are over in London,too, both players know each other >well and the way to overcome their opponent's weapons...
Every player on the circuit knows that Nadal pounds Roger's backhand with his high looping shots over the net, more so on clay. Even Roger is aware of that strategy, but unfortunately he has been trying to negate it for three years now and I only see Rafa improving in this duel, if this year's French Open score is any indication to go by.
Best chance for Roger to win FO? Ask someone to defeat Rafa before he reaches the finals or add a 'loose motion' tablet in all of Rafa's drinks before he sets those bottles on the ground at that perfect angle.
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 7 months ago
Nadal's lost only 2 of the last 100+ matches he's played on clay, he's 28-0 in Paris, and has lost exactly one set in the last two years there. Like Rock says, none of the trends have been going away from Nadal.
Edit Comment Cancel
Gil 7 months ago
Federer's best chance to win RG came and went in 2006. Even though he had lost to Nadal thrice that year (twice on clay) coming in RG, Federer still was the man to beat in Slams and his intimidating 100% record in Slam finals (7 without a single loss) surely was an advantage for him and it showed in the way he screamed past Nadal in the first set. But then things just went bad for the man...
I wonder how different things would have been had Federer won that thrilling Five set match against Nadal at Rome Masters in 2006. Things could have been so much more different and Federer would surely have won that silverware which he so richly deserves, at least once.
But that is past now, and 2009 is far from his best chance to win RG. Federer has chances of beating the guy who has beaten Nadal in the previous Rds of RG But not so much of beating the Spaniard in the final.
He has a very very slim chance, But he can surely live with it and Its a world in which miracles can happen, He just, Just may pull one next year...but mind, it is only and frankly 'may'.
Edit Comment Cancel
marybell xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 7 months ago
Reading your comments here, i visited rf.com to make sure that the French is still part of Roger's schedule!!You must think he is a fool participating there, while he has no chance to beat the invincible clay monster...But the man has a heart, and i was happy to see again that his schedule says "Rolland Garros"..In my mind this means he has thought of de-backhand story, of the Spaniard's clay empire story, and he decided he still has chances...And since Rodge believes so, i will take his decision as a serious potential to celebrate the first trophy in France.
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 7 months ago
I have more respect for Federer than to think he'd give up. But just because he's going doesn't mean his chances are better. Rafa was exhausted when he lost that Hamburg final. This past year, when he was in form, he won.
Edit Comment Cancel
Gil 7 months ago
I dont agree a lot with the 'exhaustion' theory mainly because that ALWAYS props up whn Nadal loses badly. Just because his game is so physical, Its an easy excuse.
It happened in Chennai against Mikhail Younzhny this year, against Federer at Hamburg Last year. One must remember Nadal took the first set 62. It took brilliance from Federer to return the favour the same way in set 2. After that, yes Nadal did took a bit tired and Federer was like winning almost every big rally, which is very unusual against Nadal on clay. But still he lost the set 6-0 and exhaustion cannot be used as a way to explain away one losing a set sic to nothing on his favourite and the oponent's worst surface.
That said, I think Nadal always has a bit of trouble in the Clay at Hamburg, though I dont exactly know the difference between the clay at Germany and that at Paris or Monte Carlo.
For me the 2008 Hamburg was what smarted most. It was a Match Federer simply couldnt have lost! How it the world did he manage to lose this match, I was left asking myself...
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 7 months ago
Well, last year Nadal won in Rome and immediately went to Hamburg, nearly lost to Hewitt in the semis and then had nothing left against Fed. Not that I begrudge Federer anything; exhaustion happens and it's not his fault if he's in better shape than Rafa. This year Rafa lost early in Rome and had a lot in the tank for Hamburg. It's not an excuse, but if you're going to use that as evidence that Rafa can lose on clay it's got a big asterisk next to it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 7 months ago
The clay on Hamburg is ultra-slow, and it doesn't bounce up as high as in Paris, Rome or Monte Carlo. That tends to make Rafa's forehand less effective.
Edit Comment Cancel
marybell xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 7 months ago
For the story, i watched the Hamburg 2007 final,live, and can say that Nadal is beatable in clay, by Roger...
Edit Comment Cancel
Gil 7 months ago
Nadal is beatable by anyone, Its just that No one is insane (or is it sane rather?0 to believe that can even hurt his finger on clay...
Edit Comment Cancel
marybell xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 7 months ago
Roger was unlucky not just because of the mono...He lost Wimbly for points!!!And some of them, were really unlucky ones...
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 7 months ago
And I'm sure there wasn't a single, solitary unlucky point for Rafa the entire match. No, bad luck only happens to Roger.
Edit Comment Cancel
Gil 7 months ago
talking about luck...
lets remember that good old saying..."Luck is what happens when fate gets tired of waiting"
Edit Comment Cancel
aisha yue 6 months ago
I came to love tennis after watching Federer play... it's painful to see him fall, but I know he will raise his head and stand up again with the grace of a king and the strength of a god.
Hope him many more years of success... because without him, Tennis wouldn't be this fascinating.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.