"Was 2014 Wimbledon Final Roger Federer's Greatest Match at All England Club?"

[tented]

Another fun read:

"Was 2014 Wimbledon Final Roger Federer's Greatest Match at All England Club?"

 

[DarthFed]

Of course not, just like 2008 wasn't. Greatness can only be achieved in victory...

 

[Moxie]

Of course not, just like 2008 wasn't. Greatness can only be achieved in victory...

I have to agree here. It doesn't even seem fair to Roger to consider his two defeats amongst his greatest matches at Wimbledon. Which would you say is, Darth? I've always thought that the combination of 07 and 09 is amazing, because they were long, tough matches, and he had to beat opponents with two really different styles of play.

 

[Front242]

I'd go with 2009. Roddick played out of his mind and if ever there was a time when 2 guys deserved the title it was then.

 

[DarthFed]

2007 and 2009 are decent choices but neither would necessarily rank among his best performances on grass. Most of 2006 and the 2005 final would be higher than that IMO. In a way 2012 might be his greatest (not best) in the sense he really turned back the clock and needed to in order to get past Murray especially after dropping the 1st and being outplayed most of the 2nd

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Federer's biggest weapon has always been his forehand. No match where that has gone awol can be considered a good match, let alone best...

 

[Moxie]

I'd go with 2009. Roddick played out of his mind and if ever there was a time when 2 guys deserved the title it was then.

For sure that was a heart-breaker for Roddick. Only got broken at the last second.

2007 and 2009 are decent choices but neither would necessarily rank among his best performances on grass. Most of 2006 and the 2005 final would be higher than that IMO. In a way 2012 might be his greatest (not best) in the sense he really turned back the clock and needed to in order to get past Murray especially after dropping the 1st and being outplayed most of the 2nd

I can see why you'd choose those, being more prime Roger, but if you had to choose between them? At least 06 features Nadal, who became more of a rival, though I know that's not your favorite thing. But Fed did mostly own Roddick. 2005 was rather a "display." You can see why history wants to prefer the bigger fights, in 07 and 09. And you mentioned 2012. I wonder if you could land on one. (Fair if you can't.)

 

[crystalfire]

imo i would say we cant say for sure until he retires. i feel like he can still go deep and just maybe pull out another win there. with rafa struggling there and no real young contenders he only has to deal with djoker and murray neither of which are a lock for finals.

but if i had to pick a past one i would probably say 2009. i think i had multiple heart attacks in that match before fed won and put them to rest

 

[DarthFed]

I'd go with 2009. Roddick played out of his mind and if ever there was a time when 2 guys deserved the title it was then.

For sure that was a heart-breaker for Roddick. Only got broken at the last second.

2007 and 2009 are decent choices but neither would necessarily rank among his best performances on grass. Most of 2006 and the 2005 final would be higher than that IMO. In a way 2012 might be his greatest (not best) in the sense he really turned back the clock and needed to in order to get past Murray especially after dropping the 1st and being outplayed most of the 2nd

I can see why you'd choose those, being more prime Roger, but if you had to choose between them? At least 06 features Nadal, who became more of a rival, though I know that's not your favorite thing. But Fed did mostly own Roddick. 2005 was rather a "display." You can see why history wants to prefer the bigger fights, in 07 and 09. And you mentioned 2012. I wonder if you could land on one. (Fair if you can't.)

I don't think Roger's play in 2007 final was much better than 2008 and his play in 2009 was probably the worst of all 3. By then his baseline game and ROS were already on the downside but his serve was great in all 3 matches. Similar in the match last weekend his serve was absolutely phenomenal but he was rather harmless aside from that.

For best performance in the final I guess you'd have to say 2005 and 2006. I know Roddick is viewed as a weakling of sorts on this board but his game on grass was no joke in the early to mid 00's and 09 was a resurrection of sorts. Roger just took him apart in 05. The 2012 performance was not his best by any means but given his age and the circumstances he faced, it was an awesome performance to win the match in that fashion.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The article simply poses the question "Was Federer’s 2014 Wimbledon final his greatest performance at the All England Club?". It does not ask "Was Federer's 2014 Wimbledon final his greatest performance
in a final at the All England Club?


If we are not obsessed with the match being a final, how about Roger's win over
four time defending champion (and seven time champion) Pete in 2001 over five sets
in R16?

As Darth pointed out there cannot be glory in defeat and we should eliminate 2008 and 2014
finals on those grounds. The 2009 final suffers from being a slug fest and also from simply winning
over a "known personal punching bag". As Nadal is not considered a great grass player, any
victory over him cannot be considered a great one such as in 2007, even though it was not
easy by any means.

On the other hand, a five set victory over a seven time champion and former grass king
surely should be rated as his greatest victory, no?

 

[Moxie]

The article simply poses the question "Was Federer’s 2014 Wimbledon final his greatest performance at the All England Club?". It does not ask "Was Federer's 2014 Wimbledon final his greatest performance
in a final at the All England Club?


If we are not obsessed with the match being a final, how about Roger's win over
four time defending champion (and seven time champion) Pete in 2001 over five sets
in R16?

As Darth pointed out there cannot be glory in defeat and we should eliminate 2008 and 2014
finals on those grounds. The 2009 final suffers from being a slug fest and also from simply winning
over a "known personal punching bag". As Nadal is not considered a great grass player, any
victory over him cannot be considered a great one such as in 2007, even though it was not
easy by any means.

On the other hand, a five set victory over a seven time champion and former grass king
surely should be rated as his greatest victory, no?

Who is it that doesn't consider Nadal to be a great grass player? Surely he's "above average" overall. And matching him with another of the legends of this era at their prime would be better than the compelling, but rather "novelty act" of Old Sampras and Young Gun Fed, no?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The article simply poses the question "Was Federer’s 2014 Wimbledon final his greatest performance at the All England Club?". It does not ask "Was Federer's 2014 Wimbledon final his greatest performance
in a final at the All England Club?


If we are not obsessed with the match being a final, how about Roger's win over
four time defending champion (and seven time champion) Pete in 2001 over five sets
in R16?

As Darth pointed out there cannot be glory in defeat and we should eliminate 2008 and 2014
finals on those grounds. The 2009 final suffers from being a slug fest and also from simply winning
over a "known personal punching bag". As Nadal is not considered a great grass player, any
victory over him cannot be considered a great one such as in 2007, even though it was not
easy by any means.

On the other hand, a five set victory over a seven time champion and former grass king
surely should be rated as his greatest victory, no?

Who is it that doesn't consider Nadal to be a great grass player? Surely he's "above average" overall. And matching him with another of the legends of this era at their prime would be better than the compelling, but rather "novelty act" of Old Sampras and Young Gun Fed, no?

He is certainly "above average". There is no doubt about that. But, I don't think many
would call him a great grass player in general, despite his two Wimbledon victories.

I should have expected one of the Nadalites to take offense over a perceived
slight when there is none.

Rafa winning over Roger (as in 2008) surely is a great victory for Rafa as Roger is
Grass King and he conquered him over that ground. The five year age gap does not
diminish it in any way. However, the converse (Roger beating Rafa on Grass) cannot
be considered a great victory. If Roger has defeated Rafa (which of course he did not)
in RG, that can be considered a great victory for Roger.

Anyway, getting back to the point, we are talking about greatest performance
of Roger @ Wimbledon.

Sure there is a 10 year age gap between Pete and Roger. However, Roger did not
beat Pete when he has already become a spent force. Roger beat him when Pete was
at the top (need I repeat again, four time defending champion) of his game on grass
and not when he was a spent force. Pete might have declined on hard courts at that
time, but he was still the king of grass.

It is the debut of Fed on centre court. Also, it was the first time Pete ever lost
a five set match in Wimbledon.

 

[Moxie]

The article simply poses the question "Was Federer’s 2014 Wimbledon final his greatest performance at the All England Club?". It does not ask "Was Federer's 2014 Wimbledon final his greatest performance
in a final at the All England Club?


If we are not obsessed with the match being a final, how about Roger's win over
four time defending champion (and seven time champion) Pete in 2001 over five sets
in R16?

As Darth pointed out there cannot be glory in defeat and we should eliminate 2008 and 2014
finals on those grounds. The 2009 final suffers from being a slug fest and also from simply winning
over a "known personal punching bag". As Nadal is not considered a great grass player, any
victory over him cannot be considered a great one such as in 2007, even though it was not
easy by any means.

On the other hand, a five set victory over a seven time champion and former grass king
surely should be rated as his greatest victory, no?

Who is it that doesn't consider Nadal to be a great grass player? Surely he's "above average" overall. And matching him with another of the legends of this era at their prime would be better than the compelling, but rather "novelty act" of Old Sampras and Young Gun Fed, no?

He is certainly "above average". There is no doubt about that. But, I don't think many
would call him a great grass player in general, despite his two Wimbledon victories.

I should have expected one of the Nadalites to take offense over a perceived
slight when there is none.

Rafa winning over Roger (as in 2008) surely is a great victory for Rafa as Roger is
Grass King and he conquered him over that ground. The five year age gap does not
diminish it in any way. However, the converse (Roger beating Rafa on Grass) cannot
be considered a great victory. If Roger has defeated Rafa (which of course he did not)
in RG, that can be considered a great victory for Roger.

Anyway, getting back to the point, we are talking about greatest performance
of Roger @ Wimbledon.

Sure there is a 10 year age gap between Pete and Roger. However, Roger did not
beat Pete when he has already become a spent force. Roger beat him when Pete was
at the top (need I repeat again, four time defending champion) of his game on grass
and not when he was a spent force. Pete might have declined on hard courts at that
time, but he was still the king of grass.

I didn't take any offense, GSM, just merely discussing the same thing you are: Federer's Greatest Match at SW19. Of course, Pete was still the King of Grass, at that point, but he WAS declining. He had one foot out the door in 2001, and Roger was still only beginning to be fully formed, at 19. To say that was his greatest match at Wimbledon would be to discount the player he was yet to become. Certainly, it wasn't the Clash of Titans that 07 and 08 were, as they were mismatched in terms of eras. At peak powers, Nadal had become a real force on grass, and they were the top guys squaring off. It's not beside the point to argue for those matches.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I agree that Pete was kind of declining at that time (but, nonetheless Pete was
#1 seed at Wimby in 2001 also (thanks to the seeding formula in part)
and not just the defending champion). But, I think 2001 match at least
deserves to be put into the pool, even if it cannot be anointed as the best
performance of Fed at Wimbledon.

I guess there is merit to calling 2007 final as his best performance. But, I would not
call his 2009 performance as his best. Also, I would not call any losing performance
as his best at Wimby.

Interestingly, in terms of history, there is some similarity between Fed's 2001 victory
and 2007 victory. In 2001, Fed stopped Pete from match Borg's consecutive Wimby record.
In 2007, Fed prevented Rafa from stopping him matching Borg's consecutive Wimby record.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/3132044015_3a5f72068b_o.jpg

 

[Moxie]

^ You're right to call out the match against Pete, for it's poetic resonance. The future King of Grass takes out the then-King of Grass in a 5-setter…in the only ATP match they'd ever play. You can't even invent better copy than that. Also nice historical symmetry about the 2001 and the 2007…well spotted.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

 

[GameSetAndMath]

[img=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/3132044015_3a5f72068b_o.jpg] [/img]

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The score line of the match is 7-6 (7), 5-7, 6-4, 6-7 (2), 7-5. Fed won
after losing the 4th set TB miserably. Note how close each set is.
There no 6-2 or 2-6 sets unlike in 2007 final.

Judging from Winners to UFE ratio, it is a clean match by both. To be honest,
don't remember much of this match and need to rewatch it sometime. I believe the
winners in the above stats do not include aces, but include unreturned serves.

Fed was 19 and Sampras was 29. Fed was ranked 15th and Pete was
ranked 6th (but seeded 1st).

 

[Front242]

Hadn't seen those stats before but Sampras' average 2nd serve speed is nuts!