@@daviddunwoody2588 You need to think about the opponents aswell, its incredible how amazing he played in 2017 against Novak Nadal Thiem Del Potro and all the amazing players. Sure 2005 had great players aswell but i think 2017 had better
Go check out Yoeri Tennis II’s channel if you’re too fucking picky to see footage of vintage Federer. This is a real-life example of that one kid who would watch Citizen Kane but complain that it’s in black and white.
06 Fed and it's not close. Fed's movement was absolutely sick back then, so effortless, so quick. he did not have to use his backhand as much as 17 simply bcz he was fast enough to get to his forehand side, and when the ball was on his forehand, it was game over back then, i remember they called Fed's forehand simply the forehand. as the best tennis shot in history, it was unreal at what he could with it consistently.
@@NamTran-xc2ip His backhand wasn't even weak back then, he was hitting much more powerful backhand shots in those days. Its just that the courts slowly changed and became slower, allowing balls to bounce higher and that is when it becomes easier to attack his backhand weakness.
@@NamTran-xc2ip his backhand wasn't weak at all (for instance, he always had great passing shots). He was just used to rely mainly on his absolutely deadly forehand, because he just could do like that and kill everybody.
@@pierdomenicosommati443 well ofc you can't have a 'weak' backhand with 237 weeks consecutive as #1. But it is a weakness that is exploitable, some players, mainly Djokovic and ESPECIALLY Nadal. Those guys in the same generation werent good enough to exploit it. Fed's bh is even better than hewitts's fh 🤣
I think 2006 he was super. He lost only 3 matches all season. But 2017 the way he came back from 6 months break and play like this will always be in my heart forever. I love 2017!
@@panneetantinukul5658 2005 he actually had a better winning percentage, with something like 83-4. Losses were: 1 to Safin (AO) 1 to Gasquet (Monte Carlo) 1 to Nadal (FO) 1 to Nalbandian (Master's Cup) You can look up his win/loss record from 2004-2006, it was unreal. Lost a total of like 10-12 matches or something in 3 full seasons.
I'm not too sure. His serve got better but at times it's very inconsistent. His backhand is better but he lost a bit of touch on the dropshots so he gained an aspect but lost one as well. His forehand was better in 2006 for sure. Now he basically copied nadal's forehand with a twist but that also prevents him from finishing points. Before he had the ability to slam away a flat forehand and get the point but now it's all spin. His net game was better before then it is now. He has his moments but he misses alot more then before. Overall he gained some and lost some. They did all get better tho so i think 2017 Federer is better
I don't think one needs a degree for that man 😂. 2017 Roger played freely and with massive amount of confidence which was to some extent surprising. Hey, if anyone is interested in joining an international tennis WhatsApp group (ATP/WTA), please ping me up on this number ~ +91 8638525631. Since there is no tennis atm, we are open to other group activities related to Tennis and discuss various other topics.
Serve - 2017 Forehand - 2006 Backhand - 2017 Volley - 2017 Movement - 2006 Stamina - 2006 Experience - 2017 So they are pretty even versions, but 2017 is slightly better for me because of more tactical play.
You nailed it! But maybe... maybe in 2005/2006 even Federer said he sometimes felt unbeatable. So maybe he could beat 2017 Federer which in my opinion (at least till Wimbledon) was the best player we have ever seen.
@@Josh-vu1vp Fed 2006 was playing for 8 years as pro and won 9 Slams and was playing against Roddick, Safin and Nalbandian Fed 2017 for 19 years and won 19 Slams and had already played against prime Nadal and Djokovic Do you know what is Experience? 😂
James Walker The obvious argument against that is: “2017 Federer would know that 2006 Federer is 24 and less experienced. So 2017 Federer wins.” You have to take other things into account!! 2017 Federer could perform at least SOME shots that were literally impossible for 2006 Roger to replicate. He would just be incapable and would have to put in a lot more effort to stay in the match. ...In my opinion.
And I ve never seen Nadal, the most competitive player, gave it up and didnt challenge that final point. Was really shocking, Fed was so impressive that day.
ebuyukakincak It was so similar to how their match finished in Melbourne, and Nadal thought “Well Roger usually hits his spots and finds the line with these close shots, so unless I’m very sure it’s out it’s most likely in”
@@SourRocker77 The thing is, though, you might as well challenge. You have nothing to lose if the alternative is losing the match. Maybe he didn't want to challenge on match point two matches in a row against Roger.
Federer had a great backhand always. Difference between today is superior speed in 2006. He was way better in defence. Most of the GS won are in 2003 - 2009 period. In hes prime he was great in defence and in atack at the same time. After 2013 he just got better in atack trying to short the points to cope with the effort having less stamina and speed as before. In a direct mach 2006 Roger would demolish 2017 version.
@@SuperOrbion I can not agree with the fact that he had a great backhand then. Yes I agree that he was great in defence only because he was young then. But the placement, strength, precision and confidence in backhand side came during the 2017 Aus Open.
Durlav Biswas he always was precisse. He just played with a smaller racket back in the day. So the margin for error was higher, backhand or forhand. what you saw in 2017 is more a change of tactics. All out agressive . In the highlights you don't see the unforced errors. And to be fare Nadal isn't what he was in 2005-2010 ether ,except on clay. If you think Federer's backhand was anything less in his prime ceck the highlights from matches against Blake , Nadal , Roddick, Davidenko or anyone for that matter. I am a Federer fan since 2004 and watch all hes important matches. For some reason under presure against Rafa in 2008 -2009 the backhand miss fired badly, but not just the backhand. Serve forhand and allround game in general. Rafa beat him on clay earlyer in their rivalry manny times and that affected Roger mentally, starting to lose on other surfaces allso. In 2008 Wimbledon final Roger had so much to cope with mentally , exept Nadal . High stakes like winning Wimbledon 6th in a row , making history , added more presure. Roger Federer came in 2017 AO with nothing to lose after 6 months out , ranked 17 atp. So he played like nothing to lose, hitting through the balls , risking it all.
@@SuperOrbionthat is what I mentioned that he was lack in confidence going big with backhand specifically against Nadal. It affected his backhand. Blake, Roddick were not even close as Djoker, Murray...
I had to shorten this; I've split it in 3 parts in another thread. I feel like in 2OO6 Roger’s rallies were a lot longer and tactical rather than clinical/short like they are more now. He was used to playing in a way that forced himself to win, rather than today where he sort of forces his opponent to lose. However, they do actually perform similar shots occasionally to win points, especially off of the backhand side (surprising considering his racquet change and difference in court speeds). I also feel like in 2OO6 Roger was physically faster but in 2OI7 he is more efficient with his movement so he doesn’t necessarily NEED to be very fast. I do think 2OO7 Roger would win in a not-too-close but still very competitive match (probably 4 sets all ending with the loser having 3, maybe 2 or 4 games); simply because he can hit a few shots that he was literally incapable of doing in 2OO6. Neo Federer is the exact sort of player Prime Roger would have NEVER encountered anything like before and it would take more effort for young Fed to stay in the game. He would probably get frustrated and 2OI7 Federer would notice that. He would really have to try harder than his older self. But it does heavily depend on the exact dates each Federer is from, because besides Basel/Stuttgart, etc. Federer’s 2OI7 season was only good before Flushing Meadows, whereas in 2OO6 he was best at the END of the year (the ATP Masters Series Shanghai and the ATP World Finals). And it would have to be arranged so that both Fedsies were well-rested and actually PREPARED to play against one another! I imagine 2OO6 Federer would try to gather up some info on his counterpart! Of course it would matter what court they were on. On clay it would be better to have mid-May 2OI9 Roger rather than 2OI7erer. Probably would be best if they completed on Wimbledon 2OI2 grass or a fast hard court like 2OI2 Barclays World Tour Finals as a sort of compromise between their two worlds. A battle of the surfaces would be SICK though! 2OO6 AO court on one side and 2OI7 AO court on the other! AWESOME! But 2OO6 Federer would have to study future courts as well. And I wonder if he’d want to wear 2OI7 attire? Or try out future racquets? How would his shoes compare? And what balls would they use? They’d probably exchange advice and all sorts of stuff. But the changing of 2OO6 Federer’s career, at least if for the worse, would have to be prevented somehow. My goodness, so many things to think about! But remember that here I am only talking about who would win in a match between 2OO6 Federer and 2OI7 Federer. Never did I mention *WHAT YEAR HE WAS THE BEST.* That is an entirely different discussion that I can have. But I suppose that if I don't include everything in one comment then you guys will overlook it, so here: Some only consider results. I'm trying to take everything into account. So overall, I would say that 2OI5 was maybe his best year actually. 2OO5 was his best statistically and perhaps performance-wise, but that was before the challenge of being old, hard courts majorly slowing down, as well as Djokovic of course. That said 2OO5 is my favorite Federer and the one I like watching the most in general. To be honest you can’t talk about 2OI7 when he didn’t even play a single match on clay and was sort of garbage in New York. In fact with the exception of Shanghai his results weren’t very good at all after Wimbledon. He lost to freaking GOFFIN in the ATP Finals, goddamn ZVEREV in the Canadian Open. He also lost to a pretty-much-retired-at-that-point Haas in Stuttgart. And again he didn’t play against Djokovic ANY time that year! (I wish he had though because he would have beaten him and one-upped his baseline game hella humiliatingly). I know it sounds critical, but seriously, he was incredible that year but only like half the time. 2OI5 in my opinion has the best of every world and nothing is missing, unlike other good years. He dismembered Djokovic with his new technique throughout the year (embarrassing him with SABR multiple times) and did very well on clay, being surpassed only by Wawrinka who was a MONSTER. In fact, here’s some info: this was the year he got 1OOO career wins and 9OOO career aces. He defended his Dubai title by beating Djokovic in straight sets for an eighth title. He then won his first red clay title since the 2OO9 French Open! Speaking of which, in 2OI5 he made it to his quarterfinal match against Wawrinka losing only one set, against Monfils. And remember, that’s Federer. On. Clay! And in Wimbledon he was great, can’t you recall that flawless straight-set semifinal win against Murray with that flick? Then he won Cincinnati by beating Murray AND Djokovic IN STRAIGHT SETS BACK TO BACK for a seventh title! This was the first time EVER he had beaten the top two players in the world at the same tournament, and he did it in the most amazing fashion (remember the disguised punch slice against Andy and SABRing twice versus Novak in the same set!). As well, he gave us his most recent US Open performance that was actually GOOD. In fact, it was astounding! He got to his first final there since 2OO9, all WITHOUT DROPPING A SET! Even against Wawrinka! He combined doing really well in ALL FOUR Slams with outplaying his major opponents (e.g. continuing his new win streak against Nadal) and I would say that 2OI5 is the only year he did that. He surpassed both of his rivals like in 2OI7 AND did very well in every Slam like 2OO5/2OO6. Combine the two and you get 2OI5. Yes, his W/L ratio maybe doesn’t look as good, but consider who the wins and losses were actually AGAINST. He played more matches than in 2OI7 and against tougher opponents than 2OO5/2OO6 so obviously his ratio won’t be as good but taking into account the situation, it is equally/more impressive. “But oh, Aviator, he lost in the third round in Melbourne! Yeah, to Seppi, who was everyone’s poison back then and after hitting AN AROUND THE NET POST SHOT two inches above the ground against Lu! *And for my final argument: FEDERER HIMSELF SAID THAT HE WAS BETTER IN 2OI5 THAN 2OO5. UPDATE:* It really depends on what time of the year they are from and what type of court they play on. In fact, randomly select bunches of 2006 Federers and 2OI7 Federers, put them together on random courts and 2OO6 Federer will probably win most of the time. But I still think that if you put the best Federer of each year (ATP Finals 2OO6 Federer VS AO/IW 2OI7 Federer) and put them on a medium-speed hard court (one that's halfway between the speeds of those two events) like, I dunno, 2OII US Open, that 2OI7 Federer would win. But I still do think that 2OO6 Federer's ATP Masters match against Blake was probably his best match performance ever, only challenged by his Wimbledon finals against Nadal (2OO6-2OO8). I think that if they matched them up with time in the year, though, 2OO6 Federer would actually win more: [Note: These matches would be played on neutral ground e.g. 2OO6 AO Federer VS 2OI7 AO Federer is on a 2OI2 AO court. This may or may not give 2OI7 Federer advantages, though, since he would have already played on these courts and he actually likes faster courts, so older ones would benefit him wheras they might be too slow for 2OO6 Federer.] *AO:* 2OI7 Federer wins; 2OO6 AO Federer didn't really do anything special, he only had to play Baghdatis and obviously not Nadal like 2OI7 Federer did. *FO:* 2OO6 Federer probably wins but 2OI7 Federer certainly could; it's tough to know though whether 2OI7 Roger would have been as good as 2OI5 or 2OI9 (although he probably would have) and 2OO6 Federer wasn't nearly as good as he was in 2OO5, wasn't as fit either, so 2OI7 Federer would maybe win for sure *Wimby:* 2OO6 Federer wins, I say. 2OI7 Federer didn't even have to play anyone particularly good, whereas Federer was impeccable in London in 2OO6 just like the previous year. He beat Gasquet, Henman, Mahut, Berdych, Ancic, and Bjorkman all back-to-back without dropping a set and then BAGELED Nadal in the final! 2OI7 Roger would be lucky to win a set without a tiebreak unless 2OO6 Fedsy was mentally out of sorts. 2OI7 Roger was good at Halle though so that's something *USO*: 2OO6 Federer wins this one. He bageled Blake, beat Davydenko in straight sets with insanely-good groundstrokes, then breadsticked Roddick, although he wasn't quite as good as in 2OO5. 2OI7 Federer was beaten by Del Potro which shows that he could be beaten just with good groundstrokes even on a slower court. His movement was also a lot lazier than it was earlier in the year and his serve was pretty bad. *WTF:* 2OO6 Federer gets a big dub here, obviously. Just his match against Blake shows that. 2OI7 Federer lost to freaking Goffin so he would have a laughably-close-to-zero chance of beating a prime GOAT. [Excluded in this but a match at the Swiss Indoors/Basel would be interesting] Like I said in my 2OI5 argument, 2OI7 Federer was only super good like 45% of the time whereas 2OO6 was very good but all the time, so 2OI7 Federer would win just 45% of the time. But I still do think that a 2OI7 Miami Federer beats a 2OO6 Shanghai Federer on a 2OI2-speed hard court, even if 2OO6 Federer is still better, he will get countered by the way Neo Federer plays. Will be caught off guard by the efficiency, SABR at least a couple times, and obviously the fact that his opponent is older than freaking Agassi. We can't assume that 2OO6 Federer would be mentally unaffected by having to play a future version of himself. In fact, both players would have their reasons to both be confident and/or worried. 2OI7 Federer knows exactly how good he was in 2OO6 and knows he probably can't replicate that type of performance but can definitely get inside his younger self's head. But 2OO6 Federer would be thinking along the 'okay come on I'm a strong fast young gun I gotta beat this guy' route.
I respectfully disagree with your general statement. 2004-7 Federer is the strongest tennis player of all time in my opinion, exhibiting continuously the best shot ever, his forehand, at his finest, and in 2006 he delivered many games with a backhand on 2017 level. I know UA-cam doesn't cover all of that Federer (in my opinion it would destroy the claims of "weak era"), but look for example at the game against Blake in the Masters Cup. 2017 Federer is probably more beautiful to watch but a bit more human and surely less fit. I think it would be super funny, and not so one sided... But the best Federer of all time (and probably the best player of all time) also encompasses 2006, so the younger Roger wins
2006 is the best in terms of winning record. However, in some tournaments, you are right; he plays a lot of long rallies. It is so obvious when he was playing Srichaphan in Basel. I think he used a more loopy spin, which resulted in longer rallies, but still wins.
The Dragon Tactic Yeah. Now he hits it flatter but still with similar placement, but that might make it easier for 2006 Federer to pass him when he tries to approach (just like Nadal did all those years), since he doesn’t hit wider angles anymore.
Ur comment is like writing a full answer n conclusion is wrong. 2004,5,6 is his best. His footwork, his aggressiveness, his inside out forehead. Also magical shots from him made whole world his fans. After from his victories over nadal, 2006 is his best. U know what if at all there is djoker in 2017, our rf wouldn't have won 2 GrandSlams. But for sure 2006 Federer would blast out djoker easily. So the major difference is his gameplay against nadal.
@@masters.1000 dude, he was 24 back then😂 He himself said that he works to improve his game year by year, and usualy the "peak age" is around 28-31. In 2017 fed had better fh, bh, serve, volley, higher tennis iq etc. Probably the only thing he was better at in 2006 was his movement.
explosive first step? Fuck are you talking about, this isnt basketball. This dude actually said he had more firepower on the backhand in 2006. Lol. What an idiot.
@@TheRafaelBond his movement towards FH and 1+2 shots is what explosive first step means. And nope, power on BH was more in 2006, but nadal in 2006 could run and defend a lot better than 2017 nadal, that's why the shots which would've been put back into play by nadal of 2006 were winners against 2017 nadal
@@lecturerhetshah4345 Nadal can still run like he did in 2006, that's why he still wins French open till this day. In 2017, Fed takes the ball standing on the baseline, forehand and backhand. He was more aggressive against Nadal. That is the difference
@@janos6644 why is so hard to accept sth obvious. Novak ELO rating is the highest ever. Roger and Rafa are at 4th and 5th position after Borg and McEnroe
@@janos6644 not only racquet, his favorites surface fast courts, and ball was totally change, they change the courts fast to slower courts, favors to Nadal and Djokovic. You can see the difference from US open 06' compare to nowadays, it was very fast back then.
@@milanvesovic1703 I respectfully disagree. Nadal dominated the circuit only in 2013, he was the best in many other years but pure domination was achieved just there. The same could be said for Nole in 2011 and 2015. The guy In this video was the ABSOLUTE owner of the ATP circuit in 4 straight years (when Nadal was already competitive) including 2006, and in 2017 he won basically every big tournament he went into without injuries except the Finals (and in fact he won many prizes as the Best player of the season, including the Laureus awards, despite Rafa ending the year as no.1). And he consistently beat Nadal for the whole season. Last, let's not forget that he did it at the right bold age of 36. I sincerely think this is an achievement that Rafa and Nole have yet to equalize. Either regarding the age in 2017 or the span in which he delivered dominating seasons
2017 version has better serve, backhand and volleys, 2006 version better forehand, movement and speed as well as reflexes. Would be very interesting to watch though, I think 2017 Federer would have a fair shot in a best of 3 match
2017-the year Federer figures out Nadal’s game. Eventually Djokovic became Federer’s Achilles heel..😔 *Man would I like to see (2017)Federer against Djokovic.
@@Mrfix-iz4di Why? He was just as good at WIM 2014, WIM 2015, USO 2015 where he demolished everyone on the road to the finals where Nole won. You'rr the one kidding yourself...
Yoyo gondouin: I don’t think that’s quite right. He didn’t just slice all of the time early on, he just didn’t seem to flatten out his top spin backhand like he did in the 2017 season.
This is nonsense. If you watch any footage of 2006 or 2007 Roger, you know instantly he would've crushed, not only 2017 Roger, but any possible player. That forehand was powerfull as a cannon and accurate as swiss watch.
For sure, the 2006 Fed had the more fearsome and consistent forehand: that fluid whip-like motion and racquet-head acceleration allied with the fabulous footwork and effortless movement. But ultimately my vote goes to the 2017 Federer...that backhand he unveiled at the Aussie Open just added another dimension to his game altogether, even as his forehand was relatively not as lethal as before. However, if it was also a question of which version would I choose for hardcourts/ grass-courts, then probably 2006 Fed for hardcourts and 2017 Fed for grass-courts. Just my humble opinion :-D Let's not forget the 2004 and 2012 Fed as well...very fine vintage indeed.
Federer opponents in 2006-Nalbandian,Safin,Roddick,Young Nadal who hadnt won any majors on hc Djokovic' opponents in 2011- Federer,Nadal,Murray all in their prime , Tsonga,Berdych. Huge difference
when for a while you have seen only other players bc fed is inactive and then you watch something like this again by accident, I'm always like "yes this guy is the only guy i ever want to watch" i really love Roger Federer. I can never get enough of his Tennis.
August 25th I guess Rafa didn’t actually change very much game-wise from 2006 to now. Plays very similarly, serve is a tiny bit flatter, he’s adapted well to the hard courts getting slow. But he’s pretty much identical in terms of skill and technique.
2017 Federer is technically a MUCH better player. The game evolved through the years and he kept on improving. However, 2006 Federer was a mental fortress and doesn’t have the years of psychological damage of losing so many heartbreaking matches. My point being that while I think 2017 has a great chance of winning, 2006 Federer was hardly used to losing and if 2017 Federer overthought at all... 2006 Federer would make him pay. Answer: 2006 Federer
17 Federer was actually more steady mentally than 06 imo. I'd also argue against the technical aspects. For example Roger's current FH has a more abbreviated takeback and more topspin than 06. But that doesn't make it better on a technical level than the flatter shot he used to hit.
@@RandomGuy285 Prime Federer from 2006 could also hit loopy forehands when he wanted to. What that Federer can do is finish points from almost anywhere on the court with the forehand. He changed his form significantly which reduced his racket acceleration and his accuracy as well. Federer from 2017 improved most other aspects of his game but that forehand loss is a big disadvantage.
What if they just mention the fucking year of 2017 outside of this particular context? Seems like anyone in that year who ever said the DATE aloud is suddenly unstable now? What the hell??
Federer from 2017 is undoubtedly a more complete player, and I say this as a Fed fan. Forget the fanboys and clowns out there who haven't got a clue about tennis, this is just a fact. I've been playing and watching tennis for nearly 20 years and 2017 Federer has the better serve, the better backhand, he's more experienced, and is a much more competent player at the net. He also incorporates serve & volleying more often so he can just end points any way he wants to while still being very good from the baseline, meaning he is practically unbeatable on fast courts these days. 2006 Fed was almost exclusively a baseline player whose style worked against pretty much everyone except Nadal on clay. However, despite 2017 Fed being a more well-rounded player, there are a few things that 2006 Fed had that current Fed typically doesn't. 1) The forehand. Federer still has more or less the same forehand and when it's on, it's unplayable, but 2006 Fed played with the smaller racket (smaller head), which gave him more feel and allowed him to dominate pretty much everything from that side, especially when he was tuned in mentally. He just didn't miss his forehand, which is why Nadal always played those vicious, looping topspin forehands to his backhand side. 2) Confidence. This kind of ties in with number 1, since his forehand depends a lot on how he is feeling. 2006 was Fed's most successful season to date, and it shows. He was playing out of his mind and pretty much only lost six times all year (four of those against Nadal on clay, I think). When Fed plays with the confidence that he had throughout the '06 season, he is unbeatable. 3) The final thing is probably the most obvious one, and it's age. Current Fed is insanely fit and athletic for being in his late 30s (40 now), but no matter how well prepared you are at that age, you're not 25 anymore. He can no longer last an entire year on the tour playing every single tournament. He can't go through 2, 3 or 4-hour baseline slugfests every match and his body can't recover like it used to when he was in his 20s and early 30s. Plus, don't even get me started with injuries, the older he gets the more his knee and back bother him. That means he has to be very selective with regards to which tournaments he does or doesn't play so he can't gain any momentum or consistency throughout the season. If you look at the numbers from these two seasons ('06 and '17), including no. of titles and win/loss record, it tells you everything: 2006 Federer: 12 titles, including 3 Grand Slams, 4 Masters titles and the World Tour Finals. Season win/loss record: 92-5 2017 Federer: 7 titles, including 2 Grand Slams and 3 Masters titles. Season win/loss record: 54-5. So, in summary, 2017 Fed is a better player overall (for the most part, the exception being the forehand), but 2006 Federer had the confidence, the youth and the body to be consistently at his best for the entire season. Combine '06 Fed's body and forehand with everything else from '17 Fed and you have the perfect tennis player.
Overall, I would say that 2015 was maybe his best year, actually. 2005 was his best statistically and perhaps performance-wise, but that was before the challenge of being old, hard courts majorly slowing down, as well as Djokovic of course. That said 2005 is my favorite Federer and the one I like watching the most in general. To be honest you can’t talk about 2017 when he didn’t even play a single match on clay and was sort of garbage in New York. In fact, with the exception of Shanghai, his results weren’t very good at all after Wimbledon. He lost to freaking GOFFIN in the ATP Finals, goddamn ZVEREV in the Canadian Open. He also lost to a pretty-much-retired-at-that-point Haas in Stuttgart. And again, he didn’t play against Djokovic ANY time that year! (I wish he had though because he would have beaten him and one-upped his baseline game hella humiliatingly). I know it sounds critical, but seriously, he was incredible that year but only like half the time. 2015 in my opinion has the best of every world and nothing is missing, unlike other good years. He dismembered Djokovic with his new technique throughout the year (embarrassing him with SABR *multiple* times) and did very well on clay, being surpassed only by Wawrinka who was a MONSTER. In fact, here’s some facts: this was the year he got 1,000 career wins and 9,000 career aces. He defended his Dubai title by beating Djokovic in straight sets for an eighth title. He then won his first red clay title since the 2009 French Open!! Speaking of which, in 2015 he made it to his quarterfinal match against Wawrinka losing only one set, against Monfils. And remember, that’s Federer. On. Clay! And in Wimbledon he was great, can’t you recall that flawless straight-set semifinal win against Murray with that flick? Then he won Cincinnati by beating Murray AND Djokovic IN STRAIGHT SETS BACK TO BACK for a seventh title!! This was the first time EVER he had beaten the top two players in the world at the same tournament, and he did it in the most amazing fashion (remember the disguised punch slice against Andy and SABRing twice versus Novak in the same set!). As well, he gave us his most recent US Open performance that was actually GOOD. In fact, it was astounding! He got to his first final there since 2009, all WITHOUT DROPPING A SET! Even against Wawrinka!!! He combined doing really well in ALL FOUR Slams with outplaying his major opponents (e.g. continuing his new win streak against Nadal) and I would say that 2015 is the only year he did that. He surpassed both of his rivals like in 2017 AND did very well in every Slam like 2005/2006. Combine the two and you get 2015. Yes, his W/L ratio maybe doesn’t look as good, but consider who the wins and losses were actually AGAINST. He played more matches than in 2017 and against tougher opponents than 2005/2006 so obviously his ratio won’t be as good but taking into account the situation, it is equally/more impressive. “But oh, Aviator, he lost in the third round in Melbourne! Yeah, to Seppi, who was everyone’s poison back then and after hitting AN AROUND THE NET POST SHOT two inches above the ground against Lu! I rest my case. Unless you open it again and wake it up...
@@pokalorentz9363 OH, I'm sorry, did I somehow NOT mention that and say EXACTLY why that doesn't matter? Read my entire comment, please. And if you want me to dish out more commentary, here's some the responds to the video: *WHICH FEDERER WOULD WIN:* [Note: This is considering their playstyles, mentalities, and the circumstances in which they play each other.] I feel like in 2OO6, Roger’s rallies were a lot longer, and tactical rather than clinical/short, like they are more so now. He was used to playing in a way that forced himself to win, rather than today where he sort of forces his opponent to lose. However, they do actually perform similar shots occasionally to win points, especially off of the backhand side (surprising considering his racquet change and difference in court speeds). I also feel like in 2OO6 Roger was physically faster but in 2OI7 he is more efficient with his movement, so he doesn’t necessarily NEED to be very fast. I do think 2OO7 Roger would win in a not-too-close but still very competitive match (probably 4 sets all ending with the loser having 3, maybe 2 or 4 games); simply because he can hit a few shots that he was literally incapable of doing in 2OO6. Neo Federer is the exact sort of player Prime Roger would have NEVER encountered anything like before, and it would take more effort for the young Fed to stay in the game. He would probably get frustrated and 2OI7 Federer would notice that. He would really have to try harder than his older self. But it does heavily depend on the exact dates each Federer is from, because besides Basel/Stuttgart, etc. Federer’s 2OI7 season was only good before Flushing Meadows, whereas in 2OO6 he was best at the END of the year, as in the ATP Masters Series Shanghai and the ATP World Finals. And of course, it would have to be arranged so that both Fedsies were well-rested and actually PREPARED to play against one another! I imagine 2OO6 Federer would try to gather up some info on his counterpart!! XP Oh yeah and of course it would matter what court they were on. On clay it would be better to have mid-May 2OI9 Roger rather than 2OI7erer. Probably would be best if they completed on Wimbledon 2OI2 grass or a fast hard court like 2OI2 Barclays World Tour Finals as a sort of compromise between their two worlds. A battle of the surfaces would be SICK though!!! 2OO6 AO court on one side and 2OI7 AO court on the other!!!! AWESOME! But 2OO6 Federer would have to study future courts as well...And I wonder if he’d want to wear 2OI7 attire? Or try out future racquets? How would his shoes compare? And what balls would they use? They’d probably exchange advice and all sorts of stuff. But the changing of 2OO6 Federer’s career, at least if for the worse, would have to be prevented somehow. My goodness, so many things to think about!! *UPDATE - WHICH FEDERER WOULD BEAT WHICH FEDERER AT WHAT TIME ON WHAT COURT:* I mean it really depends on what time of the year they are from and what type of court they play on. In fact, randomly select a bunch of 2006 Federers and a bunch of 2OI7 Federers and put them together on random courts and 2OO6 Federer will probably win most of the time. But I still think that if you put the best Federer of each year (ATP Finals 2OO6 Federer VS AO/IW 2OI7 Federer) and put them on a medium-speed hard court (one that's halfway between the speeds of those two events) like, I dunno, 2OII US Open, that 2OI7 Federer would win. But I still do think that 2OO6 Federer's ATP Masters match against Blake was probably his best match performance ever, only challenged by his Wimbledon finals against Nadal (2OO6-2OO8). I think that if they matched them up with time in the year, though, 2OO6 Federer would actually win more (often): [Note: These matches would be played on neutral ground e.g. 2OO6 AO Federer VS 2OI7 AO Federer is on a 2OI2 AO court. This may or may not give 2OI7 Federer advantages, though, since he would have already played on these courts and he actually likes faster courts, so older ones would benefit him wheras they might be too slow for 2OO6 Federer.] *AO:* 2OI7 Federer wins; 2OO6 AO Federer didn't really do anything special, he only had to play Baghdatis and obviously not Nadal like 2OI7 Federer did. *RG/FO:* 2OO6 Federer probably wins but 2OI7 Federer certainly could; it's tough to know though whether 2OI7 Roger would have been as good as 2OI5 or 2OI9 (although he probably would have) and 2OO6 Federer wasn't nearly as good as he was in 2OO5, wasn't as fit either, so 2OI7 Federer would maybe win for sure *AETC/Wimby:* 2OO6 Federer wins, I say. 2OI7 Federer didn't even have to play anyone particularly good, whereas Federer was impeccable in London in 2OO6 just like the previous year. He beat Gasquet, Henman, Mahut, Berdych, Ancic, and Bjorkman all back-to-back without dropping a set and then BAGELED Nadal in the final! 2OI7 Roger would be lucky to win a set without a tiebreak unless 2OO6 Fedsy was mentally out of sorts. 2OI7 Roger was good at Halle though so that's something *USO*: 2OO6 Federer wins this one. He bageled Blake, beat Davydenko in straight sets with insanely-good groundstrokes, then breadsticked Roddick, although he wasn't quite as good as in 2OO5. 2OI7 Federer was beaten by Del Potro which shows that he could be beaten just with good groundstrokes even on a slower court. His movement was also a lot lazier than it was earlier in the year and his serve was pretty bad. *ATP/WTF:* 2OO6 Federer gets a big dub here, obviously. Just his match against Blake shows that. 2OI7 Federer lost to freaking Goffin so he would have a laughably-close-to-zero chance of beating a prime GOAT. [Excluded in this list but a match at the Swiss Indoors/Basel would be interesting] Like I said in my 2OI5 argument, 2OI7 Federer was only super good like 45% of the time whereas 2OO6 was very good but all the time, so 2OI7 Federer would win just 45% of the time. But I still do think that a 2OI7 Miami Federer beats a 2OO6 Shanghai Federer on a 2OI2-speed hard court, even if 2OO6 Federer is still better, he will get countered by the way Neo Federer plays. Will be caught off guard by the efficiency, SABR at least a couple times, and obviously the fact that his opponent is older than freaking Agassi. We can't assume that 2OO6 Federer would be mentally unaffected by having to play a future version of himself. In fact, both players would have their reasons to both be confident and/or worried. 2OI7 Federer knows exactly how good he was in 2OO6 and knows he probably can't replicate that type of performance but can definitely get inside his younger self's head. But 2OO6 Federer would be thinking along the 'okay come on I'm a strong fast young gun I gotta beat this guy' route. Maybe you can try reading all of this one. Look, pal, if I write a comment with 5,000 words explaining an opinion, anything you say will already be covered. So quit pointing out things that I've literally already responded to. It's really annoying and makes me feel like I've wasted my time. HOW do you not understand that it doesn't fucking mean anything if 2OI7 Federer won two Slams!? I already told you, in the Australian Open there were no other good hard court players (like Djokovic), and in Wimbledon he didn't play a single person in the top 5!? The only person in the Top 10 he played was goddamn Raonic! Even as a Canadian I will say that Raonic sucks ass. Other than that, Roger played Dolgopolov, Lajovic, Zverev, Dimitrov, Berdych, and Cilic! No wonder he didn't lose a set because they're all horseshit! Compare that to 2OI5 where he beat Dzumhur, Querrey (with the tweener lob I ALREADY mentioned), Bautista Agut, Simon, and Murray ALL in straight sets (and the backhand flick I previously talked about!), as well as beating Groth in four sets (showing off incredible reflex and fitness). For God's sake don't make me repeat myself!! Read! My! Comments! In their entirety! Please!!
2017 he finally dominated and humiliated Nadal after Nadal having the upper hand for years. At age 35/36 2017 was truly magnificent because it exorcised lots of ghosts and made up for painful defeats. In the context of his career, 2017 is huge. So it comes down to experience and knowledge vs youth and exuberance. He had the bigger racket in 2017 and all that experience...but 2006 Federer was supremely confident and hadn’t been damaged by Nadal. 2017 Federer is the underdog battling his demons and coming back from injury and it brought tears of joy to my face watching his success and rejuvenation. But 2006 Federer or 2004-6 Federer etc was a young man at the height of his powers and belief. Id say 2006 Federer. But he has more strings to his bow now really. He’s still beautiful to watch. There is no one better at the net.
Comparison of a tennis players level of play 10 years apart in itself defines the 🐐 quality from the man. At his peak, no one can come even near. Variety of shots, ease of doing the business on the court, aesthetics, can we compare him to any other player ?
I take the Roger 2017 any day. To be more specific, his performance in AO 2017 was his very best because many opponents were in top-form in that event. Nishikori, Warinka and Nadal were extremely good. While being a little bit slower and less powerful than his counterpart in 2006, his decision making, mental toughness, backhands, forehands and volleys were better. The backhand was simply in another level. Federer in AO 2017 would destroy his young self in 2006 in 4 sets.
*PART ONE -- WHICH FEDERER WOULD WIN:* [Note: This is considering their playstyles, mentalities, and the circumstances in which they play each other.] I feel that in 2OO6, Roger’s rallies were a lot longer, and tactical rather than clinical and short, like they are more so now. He was used to playing in a way that forced himself to win, rather than today, where he sort of forces his opponent to lose. However, they do actually perform similar shots occasionally to win points, especially off of the backhand side (which is surprising to me considering his racquet change and the difference in the respective court speeds). I also feel like in 2OO6, Roger was physically faster, but in 2OI7, he is more efficient with his movement, so he doesn’t necessarily *need* to be very fast. This is partially why he has so much stamina nowadays, even though he is nearly 40; he conserves energy by not moving frantically or erratically. I do think that 2OI7 Federer would win in a not-too-close-but-still-very-competitive match (probably 4 sets, all ending with the loser having 2-4 games), simply because he can hit a few shots that he was literally incapable of doing in 2OO6. Neo Federer is the exact sort of player that Prime Roger would have NEVER encountered anything like before, and it would take more effort for the young Fed to stay in the game. He would probably get frustrated and 2OI7 Federer would notice that. He would really have to try harder than his older self. But it does heavily depend on the exact dates each Federer is from, because besides Basel, Stuttgart, and a couple of other smaller tournaments, Federer’s 2OI7 season was only good before Flushing Meadows, whereas in 2OO6, he was best at the *end* of the year (the ATP Masters Series Shanghai and the ATP World Finals). And, of course, it would have to be arranged so that both Federers were well-rested and actually *prepared* to play against one another. I imagine that 2OO6 Federer would try to gather up some info on his counterpart. It would obviously matter what court they were playing on, as well. On clay, it would be better to have mid-May 2OI9 Roger rather than 2OI7 Spring Federer for obvious reasons. It probably would be best if they competed on Wimbledon 2OI2 grass or a fast hard court, such as 2OI2 Barclays World Tour Finals’ as a sort of compromise between their two eras' respective court speeds. A battle of the surfaces would be very cool though, for example having a 2OO6 AO court on one side and 2OI7 AO court on the other. *Awesome.* But 2OO6 Federer would likely have to study future courts as well, and I wonder if he’d want to wear 2OI7 attire. Or try out future racquets? How would his shoes compare? And what balls would they use? They’d probably exchange advice and all sorts of things. But the changing of 2OO6 Federer’s career, at least for the worse, would have to be prevented somehow. My goodness, there are so many things to think about. But *remember that here I am only talking about who would win in a match between 2OO6 Federer and 2OI7 Federer. Never in this comment did I mention what year Federer was actually the best. That is an entirely different discussion that I can have in this thread. But I suppose that if I don't include everything, then you guys will overlook it or misunderstand me, so I will post it in Part Two.*
*PART TWO -- WHICH YEAR SO FAR WAS THE BEST OVERALL IN FEDERER'S CAREER/WHICH FEDERER IS "BETTER":* [Note: Some only consider results or playing quality. I'm trying to take everything into account.] Overall, I would say that 2OI5 was maybe his best year, actually. 2OO5 was his best statistically and perhaps performance-wise, but that was before the challenge of being old, hard courts majorly slowing down, as well as Djokovic of course. That said, 2OO5 is my favorite Federer and the one I like watching the most in general. To be honest you can’t talk about 2OI7 when he didn’t even play a single match on clay and was sort of garbage in New York. In fact, with the exception of Shanghai, his results weren’t very good at all after Wimbledon. He lost to freaking *Goffin* in the ATP Finals and an inconsistent *Zverev* in the Canadian Open. He also lost to a pretty-much-retired-at-that-point Haas in Stuttgart. And, just like in 2OO6, he didn’t play against Djokovic *any* time that year. (I wish he had though because he would have beaten him and one-upped his baseline game hella humiliatingly). I know it sounds critical, but seriously, he was incredible that year but only like half the time and there are too many attributes missing. 2OI5 in my opinion has the best of every world and nothing is missing, unlike other good years. He dismembered Djokovic with his new technique throughout the year (embarrassing him with SABR multiple times) and did very well on clay, being surpassed only by Wawrinka who was a MONSTER at that time. In fact, here’s some info: this was the year he got 1,OOO career wins and 9,OOO career aces. He defended his Dubai title by beating Djokovic in straight sets for an eighth title. Then he again had an astounding performance in the Indian Wells BNP Paribas Open, showing off his new-and-improved movement technique with spectacular defense, one-upping Novak again. He then won his first red clay title since the 2OO9 French Open, at Istanbul. Speaking of Roland Garros, in 2OI5 he made it to his quarterfinal match against Wawrinka losing *only one set* (against Monfils). And remember, that’s Roger Federer *on clay.* And in Wimbledon, he was great, it was where he won that flawless straight-set semifinal win against Murray with that backhand flick crosscourt passing shot. He was actually still extremely fit as evidenced by his 360 twist backhand flicking smash against Raonic. He also hit that tweener lob against Querrey, who is six-foot-six for goodness' sake. As if that wasn’t enough, he showed off amazing reflexes, hitting those quick swinging backhand volleys against Groth and returning multiple 145-mph serves throughout the entire tournament. Then he won Cincinnati by beating Murray *and* Djokovic *back to back,* BOTH IN STRAIGHT SETS for a seventh title. This was the first time EVER that he had beaten the top two players in the world in the same tournament, and he did it in the most amazing fashion possible (remember the disguised punch slice against Andy and SABRing twice versus Novak in the same set!). As well, he gave us his most recent US Open performance that was actually *good.* In fact, it was astounding! He got to his first final there since 2OO9, all WITHOUT DROPPING A SET, not even against Wawrinka! Then, at Basel, he beat Nadal for the first time since the 2012 Indian Wells BNP Paribas Open. At the ATP World Tour Finals, he beat Berdych, Djokovic, *and* Wawrinka *all in straight sets* as well as disemboweling Nishikori in an hour and a half. He remained No. 2 for most of the year and, besides Djokovic (who was having one of the greatest seasons of all time), *won the most singles titles of any professional player that calendar year.* He combined doing really well in *all four Slams* with outplaying his major opponents (e.g. beginning his huge win streak against Nadal, getting leads in the head-to-head against Djokovic, and preventing Wawrinka from taking his World No. 3 position, and winning more tournaments than over 99% of the other players) and I would say that 2OI5 is the only year he did all of that. He surpassed both of his rivals like in 2OI7 AND did very well in every Slam, like in 2OO5/2OO6. Combine the two and you get 2OI5, when he checked the "all of the above" box. Yes, his W/L ratio maybe doesn’t seem to be as outstanding, but consider who the wins and losses were actually AGAINST. He played more matches than in 2OI7 and against tougher opponents than in 2OO5/2OO6 so obviously his ratio won’t be as good-looking, but taking into account the situation, it is equally/more impressive. “But oh, Aviator dude, he lost in the third round in Melbourne! Yeah, to Seppi, who was everyone’s poison back then and after hitting *a backhand around-the-net-post winner two inches above the ground* against Lu, who was actually quite a skilled player. *And for my final argument...FEDERER HIMSELF SAID THAT HE WAS BETTER IN 2OI5 THAN 2OO5.* I rest my case. Part Three will follow suit.
*PART THREE (UPDATE) -- WHICH FEDERER WOULD BEAT WHICH FEDERER AT WHAT TIME ON WHAT COURT:* It does certainly depend on what time of the year they are from and what type of court they play on. In fact, randomly select a bunch of 2OO6 Federers and a bunch of 2OI7 Federers and put them together on random courts and 2OO6 Federer will probably win most of the time. But I still think that if you put the best Federer of each year (ATP Finals 2OO6 Federer VS AO/IW 2OI7 Federer) and put them on a medium-speed hard court (one that's halfway between the speeds of those two events) like, I dunno, 2OII US Open, that 2OI7 Federer would win. But I still do think that 2OO6 Federer's ATP Masters match against Blake was probably his best match performance ever, only challenged by his Wimbledon finals against Nadal (2OO6-2OO8). I think that if they matched them up with time in the year, though, 2OO6 Federer would actually win more often: [Note: These matches would be played on neutral ground, e.g. 2OO6 AO Federer VS 2OI7 AO Federer is on a 2OI2 AO court. This may or may not give 2OI7 Federer advantages, though, since he would have already played on these courts and he actually likes faster courts, so older ones would benefit him wheras they might be too slow for 2OO6 Federer.] *AO:* 2OI7 Federer wins; 2OO6 AO Federer didn't really do anything special, he only had to play Baghdatis and obviously not Nadal like 2OI7 Federer did. *RG/FO:* 2OO6 Federer probably wins but 2OI7 Federer certainly could; it's tough to know though whether 2OI7 Roger would have been as good as 2OI5 or 2OI9 (although he probably would have been) and 2OO6 Federer was neither as good nor as fit as he was in 2OO5, so 2OI7 Federer for sure would have a chance of victory. *AETC/Wimby:* 2OO6 Federer wins, I say. 2OI7 Federer didn't even have to play anyone particularly good, whereas Federer was impeccable in London in 2OO6 just like the previous year. He beat Gasquet, Henman, Mahut, Berdych, Ancic, and Bjorkman all back-to-back without dropping a set and then BAGELED Nadal in the final! 2OI7 Roger would be lucky to win a set without a tiebreak unless 2OO6 Fedsy was mentally out of sorts. Remember that 2OI7 Roger also lost to like a 42-year-old Haas at Stuttgart as well and almost was knocked out of Halle... *USO*: 2OO6 Federer wins this one. He bageled Blake, beat Davydenko in straight sets with insanely-good groundstrokes, then breadsticked Roddick, although he wasn't quite as good as in 2OO5. 2OI7 Federer was beaten by Del Potro which shows that he could be beaten just with good groundstrokes, even on a slower court (so on a fast one we really don’t know if he could win). His movement was also a lot lazier than it was earlier in the year and his serve was pretty bad. *ATP/WTF:* 2OO6 Federer gets a big dub here, obviously. Just his match against Blake shows that. 2OI7 Federer lost to freaking Goffin so he would have a laughably-close-to-zero chance of beating his young self. [Excluded in this list, but a match at the Swiss Indoors/Basel would be interesting] As I said in my 2OI5 argument, 2OI7 Federer was only super good 45% of the time, whereas 2OO6 was very good but all of the time, so 2OI7 Federer would win just 45% of the time. But I still do think that a 2OI7 Miami Federer beats a 2OO6 Shanghai Federer on a 2OI2-speed hard court; even if 2OO6 Federer is still better; he'd get countered by the way Neo Federer plays. I repeat, he would be caught off guard by the efficiency of his elder’s play and movement, SABR at least a couple of times, and obviously the fact that his opponent is older than freaking Agassi. We can't assume that 2OO6 Federer would be mentally unaffected by having to play a future version of himself. In fact, both players would have their reasons to both be confident and/or worried. 2OI7 Federer knows exactly how good he was in 2OO6 and knows he probably can't replicate that type of performance, but can definitely get inside his younger self's head. But 2OO6 Federer would be thinking along the, ‘okay, come on, I'm a strong, fast, young gun, I gotta beat this guy' route.
Without a shadow of a doubt 2017!! So sick of people saying Federer peaked in 2006, he might've won more in circa 2006? But he was playing against washed up players, shit top 10 players. Competition got alot better and so did Federer. A player's peak is not defined by how many trophies they won at a certain time, it's how they play! Federer is definitely a better player in 2017 compared to 2006.
Thanks for the video. 2006 was faster for sure. But it's hard to compare backhands for example, when in 2006 highlight reels look good, but the reality is that federer was so inconsistent when hitting over on that side (relying mostly on slice). 2017 is a whole other animal with the new-backhand imo
mostlikely the artistry of the great roger federer is over, but in the years o2002 till 2018 he is and was the goat. now others have learned from him and showing it. roger has earned the admiration of all tennis friends around the world and accept him as the best in his years. we are greatfull having seen him play a great sport.
23 times werent enough for u? i firmly belive Fed who is 6-7 years older than Djoko pushed him to the limit and even beat him when Djoko was on his prime.
@@ertugrulkorpinar51 hadi gözün aydin sana...Federer wird wohl alle seine rekorde behalten. So wie es aussieht gibt es kein profi sport mehr in den nächsten paar jahren . Gratulation sana und gecmis olsun sana ve hepimize.
2017 federer had to skip clay season, took some time off. Played limited tournaments. I think physically he had to manage the whole year by his selective approach. 2006 version went for all... The quality of 2017 was excellent but physically 2006 version was something else. So in a whole season if they had to face on different surfaces all year, 2006 version would have won matches on clay and may be during year end. 2017 would have won Wimbledon and oz open swing. But H2H would be in favour of 2006 version. Note: Why I am considering age? 2017 version is the result of many years of experience. It is upping the ante when it was required. Cannot do it without immense experience. All said, still be it 2006 or 2017, peak federer is something else. JUST CAN'T TOUCH HIM.
2006 might be the greatest season ever by a tennis player, And by the way, he lost 3 times very close (of 5 losses for the year) to Nadal, on clay, who basically had the best season in clay ever that year lol
2017 Federer mixes up his use of spins a lot more on the forehand instead of consistently hitting a flat forehand and a more top spin backhand. His backhand in 2017 is more flat, being able to cover more of the ball with his bigger racquet. He also has a way better approach shot in 2017 allow him to be more efficient especially coming to the net to finish points. In My opinion 2017 Federer is better than 2006 Federer
Would love to see 2017 federer play Djokovic from the first half of 2016. Would be a great match, i think Novak would take it though, he reached a level of unprecedented brilliance in that period of his career (beginning of 2016 to RG2016) which i feel like is constantly overlooked
2017 Federer was able to defeat Nadal 4 times in a row. 2006 Federer wasnt. So I pick 2017 Federer. And it was really cool to watch him play so brilliantly at the age of 35.
2017 Federer would not win a single match vs 2006 Federer 2006 - better and more uncomplicated service motion - flatter more attacking shots with the k factor 90, the best frame for his game period - better net game and more approach shots - obviously better movement but that's a mute point since we are talking about 11 years of added miles on the body. We don't expect a car to run the same after 11 years of driving do we? However, 2017 was his best year of the late year's. There was more of an attempt to go full agressive which is close to his natural instinct, but the RF 97 no matter what the so called pundits on tennis chanel say, does not suit his agressive game. It was designed to handle baselines because of the deliberate move to slow the game down ( courts and balls) to produce longer rallies/ matches. Thank you ATP for homogenizing all surfaces to play similar and destroy the artistry of the games variety ! Good job by the pencil pushers!
Best of 3, 2006 Fed, although 2017 Fed could maybe squeeze out a surprise on a fast court, not because he was better in fast court in 2017 than in 2006, but because there's just no way he wins against his 2006 self on a slower court. Best of 5, 2006 Fed, by murder. 2017 Roger vs Rafa: 6-0 (all on hardcourt). 2006: 2-4 (3 of those loses in clay). He took Rafa to 5 sets in the Rome final. There's no way a 2017 takes any version of Rafa to 5 sets on clay. What he did in 2017 was amazing, he was the best player of the season, and his best self in years, but people forget just how much of a beast Roger used to be back in 04-09, and he was basically untouchable (except in clay against Rafa only, or a couple occasions against Nalbandian) in 04-07.
2006 hands down beats old 2017 fed with his movement, serve and forehand alone . His backhand was good back then , it was good against everyone except nadal on clay .
@Enterfly Nah, he won majors because Novak wasnt intopform to stop him! But if we were to compare 06 vs 17 RF, 06 RF will annihilate 17 RF in straight set! The only improvement he made on '17 is his BH..
@Enterfly He only lost to those 2 players on a masters tournaments.. 06-07 was his best form period Losing to Murray was only one of his 5 losses that year, n he captured 12 titles that year.. You dont know how to observes RF shots, if you see his FH shots from 06, its way more damaging than 17 n he can shoot it from anywhere.. Alot of his 17 FH winners are from inside the baseline..
2006 (assuming they have access to the same racket technology). Movement was just so much better, he'd be able to take control of more of the points. Only thing that 2017 improved on was the backhand.
In my opinion Federer 2006 was better in every facet of the game than Federer 2017. Not only that, but his shots back in his 2005-07 prime just looked nicer than they do now. I think his youth meant he could generate power more easily and was out of position less often. Sadly age has caught up with Federer - I just hope he's able to fit in one final hurrah before retirement and that Covid hasn't scuppered a proper send off!
PRIME Federer vs. NEO Federer!?!? Dammit!!! I don't know what to say. 2017 Fed was simply something out of dreams, man: completely unexpected, inexplicable, miraculous, out of NOTHING (coming back from injury, old age, etc.)... It just won't ever happen again in the history of the sport.... Ugh! Just talk about that Neo Backhand! Not even Federer can make it happen again jajaja. On the other hand, 2006 Fed was the GOAT in his GOAT level display, nothing else to say. Roger himself once confessed that 2006 (give or take 1-2 years) was a time where it was all about "Will he EVER lose? Will he EVER give up No.1?" and stuff like that. Of course, we all know what happened. And even though he closely missed on having Calendar Year Grand Slams, Golden Slams and Super Slams, his stats of 2006 are obviously superior to those of 2017 (where he actually had some disappointing losses). I like the way "The AViator" puts it. In 2006, he forced HIMSELF more to WIN, whereas in 2017, he forced his OPPONENTS to lose!
2006 Federer forehand is the best forehand i have ever seen in my life. I actually started watching tennis in 2006. I have been a Federer fan since the first match that i saw in AO 2006. After following Federer for so many years, i can say without a doubt that 2006 Federer would win. That was peak Federer. 2017 Federer was incredible but 2006 was on a whole different level. He had a 92-5 win loss record in 2006. The only player to come close to that record was Djokovic in 2015. What i would really like to see tho is 2006 Federer vs 2015 Djokovic. Now that would be an amazing match.
WoW that fist pump on the move that Roger used to do in 2006 is memorable, that’s almost like “I’m outrageously good but I’m too Federer to show that” so he does that little classy fist pump when turning around. 2006 best year in term of perf. (5 losses, 4 vs Nadal in finals, 1 vs Murray in 1R) 2017 best year in term of fame (AO17 best of the decade, W17 so classy, but weird losses vs Donskoy and Hass ^^)
Which year do you think was the best of Federer's career?
2005, at least that was the year he was the furthest ahead of the rest of the tour
According to accomplishments 2006, according to level of tennis maybe 2017
2017 because of his remarkable comeback after surgery and he played amazingly good.
2017
@@daviddunwoody2588 You need to think about the opponents aswell, its incredible how amazing he played in 2017 against Novak Nadal Thiem Del Potro and all the amazing players. Sure 2005 had great players aswell but i think 2017 had better
No matter which federer wins, but video quality of 2017 certainly beats the video quality of 2006
Khan: Depending on the source.
Go check out Yoeri Tennis II’s channel if you’re too fucking picky to see footage of vintage Federer.
This is a real-life example of that one kid who would watch Citizen Kane but complain that it’s in black and white.
@@theaviator1152 you gotta chill dude, it was just a joke.
@@SheenylHassan WhAt, LiKe YoUr LiFe?/?!1
@@theaviator1152 hmm yes, comedy.
06 Fed and it's not close. Fed's movement was absolutely sick back then, so effortless, so quick. he did not have to use his backhand as much as 17 simply bcz he was fast enough to get to his forehand side, and when the ball was on his forehand, it was game over back then, i remember they called Fed's forehand simply the forehand. as the best tennis shot in history, it was unreal at what he could with it consistently.
Yeah young federer and faster courts made up for his weak bh
i would say he changed the sport just like tiger, his forehand was massive the returns vs blake unreal.
@@NamTran-xc2ip His backhand wasn't even weak back then, he was hitting much more powerful backhand shots in those days. Its just that the courts slowly changed and became slower, allowing balls to bounce higher and that is when it becomes easier to attack his backhand weakness.
@@NamTran-xc2ip his backhand wasn't weak at all (for instance, he always had great passing shots). He was just used to rely mainly on his absolutely deadly forehand, because he just could do like that and kill everybody.
@@pierdomenicosommati443 well ofc you can't have a 'weak' backhand with 237 weeks consecutive as #1.
But it is a weakness that is exploitable, some players, mainly Djokovic and ESPECIALLY Nadal.
Those guys in the same generation werent good enough to exploit it. Fed's bh is even better than hewitts's fh 🤣
I think 2006 he was super. He lost only 3 matches all season. But 2017 the way he came back from 6 months break and play like this will always be in my heart forever. I love 2017!
It was actually 5 losses in 2006, I believe
4 to Nadal (Dubai, Monte Carlo, Rome, French Open)
1 to Murray (Cincinnati)
@@doctornov7 Yeah. You're correct. I searched google. Well. Thanks
@@panneetantinukul5658 2005 he actually had a better winning percentage, with something like 83-4. Losses were:
1 to Safin (AO)
1 to Gasquet (Monte Carlo)
1 to Nadal (FO)
1 to Nalbandian (Master's Cup)
You can look up his win/loss record from 2004-2006, it was unreal. Lost a total of like 10-12 matches or something in 3 full seasons.
@@doctornov7 like I said before he was super back then. Thanks for you info. Very great.
he lost 5 matches ya dummie
After spending 25 years for a degree in Federerogy, I can say with confidence that 2006 was better
I'm not too sure. His serve got better but at times it's very inconsistent. His backhand is better but he lost a bit of touch on the dropshots so he gained an aspect but lost one as well. His forehand was better in 2006 for sure. Now he basically copied nadal's forehand with a twist but that also prevents him from finishing points. Before he had the ability to slam away a flat forehand and get the point but now it's all spin. His net game was better before then it is now. He has his moments but he misses alot more then before. Overall he gained some and lost some. They did all get better tho so i think 2017 Federer is better
Not so sure, in 2017 he had a better backhand and a higher % a first serves. It's quite hard to tell
I don't think one needs a degree for that man 😂.
2017 Roger played freely and with massive amount of confidence which was to some extent surprising.
Hey, if anyone is interested in joining an international tennis WhatsApp group (ATP/WTA), please ping me up on this number ~
+91 8638525631.
Since there is no tennis atm, we are open to other group activities related to Tennis and discuss various other topics.
Against Nadal 2017
Against everyone else 2006
aland nadal was already here in 2006
@@acecolorsred6543 he meant that against Nadal, Federer 2017 is better since in 2006 he was losing against him more often.
@@sergiosarmiento4371 Because of the racket and they barely played outside clay.
@@masters.1000 "because of the racket". That's why I just cant stand Federers fans🙄
@@bowiththeflow7123 Right, he didn't played with an inferior racket in frame, materials and strings.
Serve - 2017
Forehand - 2006
Backhand - 2017
Volley - 2017
Movement - 2006
Stamina - 2006
Experience - 2017
So they are pretty even versions, but 2017 is slightly better for me because of more tactical play.
Serve 2017?
No way!
Nah dude experience should definitely be 2006
You nailed it! But maybe... maybe in 2005/2006 even Federer said he sometimes felt unbeatable. So maybe he could beat 2017 Federer which in my opinion (at least till Wimbledon) was the best player we have ever seen.
@@Josh-vu1vp Fed 2006 was playing for 8 years as pro and won 9 Slams and was playing against Roddick, Safin and Nalbandian
Fed 2017 for 19 years and won 19 Slams and had already played against prime Nadal and Djokovic
Do you know what is Experience? 😂
2006 has a way better slice too.
Great question. 2017 Federer. Because he knows 2006 Federer. But 2006 Federer has no idea who 2017 Federer is.
Gunius!
What a Genius
Indeed he knows how Federer 2006 played but he can’t become the talented Federer of 2006 again
2006 Federer would know that his rival is 35 years old and slower than him. So 2006 Federer wins.
James Walker The obvious argument against that is: “2017 Federer would know that 2006 Federer is 24 and less experienced. So 2017 Federer wins.”
You have to take other things into account!! 2017 Federer could perform at least SOME shots that were literally impossible for 2006 Roger to replicate. He would just be incapable and would have to put in a lot more effort to stay in the match.
...In my opinion.
4:00 never heard a crowd so quiet and confused after a federer straight set win on his rival
Because they didn't know whether the last point was in.
And I ve never seen Nadal, the most competitive player, gave it up and didnt challenge that final point. Was really shocking, Fed was so impressive that day.
ebuyukakincak It was so similar to how their match finished in Melbourne, and Nadal thought “Well Roger usually hits his spots and finds the line with these close shots, so unless I’m very sure it’s out it’s most likely in”
@@SourRocker77 The thing is, though, you might as well challenge. You have nothing to lose if the alternative is losing the match. Maybe he didn't want to challenge on match point two matches in a row against Roger.
That was hilarious. The crowd was like, "WTF? Did we really just see Roger roll Rafa like Rafa was a bum off the street? REFUND!" LOL!
If Federer had that backhand in 2006 then he would have won 25+ slams
More specifically against Rafa.
Federer had a great backhand always. Difference between today is superior speed in 2006. He was way better in defence. Most of the GS won are in 2003 - 2009 period. In hes prime he was great in defence and in atack at the same time. After 2013 he just got better in atack trying to short the points to cope with the effort having less stamina and speed as before. In a direct mach 2006 Roger would demolish 2017 version.
@@SuperOrbion I can not agree with the fact that he had a great backhand then. Yes I agree that he was great in defence only because he was young then. But the placement, strength, precision and confidence in backhand side came during the 2017 Aus Open.
Durlav Biswas he always was precisse. He just played with a smaller racket back in the day. So the margin for error was higher, backhand or forhand. what you saw in 2017 is more a change of tactics. All out agressive . In the highlights you don't see the unforced errors. And to be fare Nadal isn't what he was in 2005-2010 ether ,except on clay. If you think Federer's backhand was anything less in his prime ceck the highlights from matches against Blake , Nadal , Roddick, Davidenko or anyone for that matter. I am a Federer fan since 2004 and watch all hes important matches. For some reason under presure against Rafa in 2008 -2009 the backhand miss fired badly, but not just the backhand. Serve forhand and allround game in general. Rafa beat him on clay earlyer in their rivalry manny times and that affected Roger mentally, starting to lose on other surfaces allso. In 2008 Wimbledon final Roger had so much to cope with mentally , exept Nadal . High stakes like winning Wimbledon 6th in a row , making history , added more presure. Roger Federer came in 2017 AO with nothing to lose after 6 months out , ranked 17 atp. So he played like nothing to lose, hitting through the balls , risking it all.
@@SuperOrbionthat is what I mentioned that he was lack in confidence going big with backhand specifically against Nadal. It affected his backhand. Blake, Roddick were not even close as Djoker, Murray...
I had to shorten this; I've split it in 3 parts in another thread. I feel like in 2OO6 Roger’s rallies were a lot longer and tactical rather than clinical/short like they are more now. He was used to playing in a way that forced himself to win, rather than today where he sort of forces his opponent to lose. However, they do actually perform similar shots occasionally to win points, especially off of the backhand side (surprising considering his racquet change and difference in court speeds). I also feel like in 2OO6 Roger was physically faster but in 2OI7 he is more efficient with his movement so he doesn’t necessarily NEED to be very fast. I do think 2OO7 Roger would win in a not-too-close but still very competitive match (probably 4 sets all ending with the loser having 3, maybe 2 or 4 games); simply because he can hit a few shots that he was literally incapable of doing in 2OO6. Neo Federer is the exact sort of player Prime Roger would have NEVER encountered anything like before and it would take more effort for young Fed to stay in the game. He would probably get frustrated and 2OI7 Federer would notice that. He would really have to try harder than his older self. But it does heavily depend on the exact dates each Federer is from, because besides Basel/Stuttgart, etc. Federer’s 2OI7 season was only good before Flushing Meadows, whereas in 2OO6 he was best at the END of the year (the ATP Masters Series Shanghai and the ATP World Finals). And it would have to be arranged so that both Fedsies were well-rested and actually PREPARED to play against one another! I imagine 2OO6 Federer would try to gather up some info on his counterpart! Of course it would matter what court they were on. On clay it would be better to have mid-May 2OI9 Roger rather than 2OI7erer. Probably would be best if they completed on Wimbledon 2OI2 grass or a fast hard court like 2OI2 Barclays World Tour Finals as a sort of compromise between their two worlds. A battle of the surfaces would be SICK though! 2OO6 AO court on one side and 2OI7 AO court on the other! AWESOME! But 2OO6 Federer would have to study future courts as well. And I wonder if he’d want to wear 2OI7 attire? Or try out future racquets? How would his shoes compare? And what balls would they use? They’d probably exchange advice and all sorts of stuff. But the changing of 2OO6 Federer’s career, at least if for the worse, would have to be prevented somehow. My goodness, so many things to think about! But remember that here I am only talking about who would win in a match between 2OO6 Federer and 2OI7 Federer. Never did I mention *WHAT YEAR HE WAS THE BEST.* That is an entirely different discussion that I can have. But I suppose that if I don't include everything in one comment then you guys will overlook it, so here: Some only consider results. I'm trying to take everything into account. So overall, I would say that 2OI5 was maybe his best year actually. 2OO5 was his best statistically and perhaps performance-wise, but that was before the challenge of being old, hard courts majorly slowing down, as well as Djokovic of course. That said 2OO5 is my favorite Federer and the one I like watching the most in general. To be honest you can’t talk about 2OI7 when he didn’t even play a single match on clay and was sort of garbage in New York. In fact with the exception of Shanghai his results weren’t very good at all after Wimbledon. He lost to freaking GOFFIN in the ATP Finals, goddamn ZVEREV in the Canadian Open. He also lost to a pretty-much-retired-at-that-point Haas in Stuttgart. And again he didn’t play against Djokovic ANY time that year! (I wish he had though because he would have beaten him and one-upped his baseline game hella humiliatingly). I know it sounds critical, but seriously, he was incredible that year but only like half the time. 2OI5 in my opinion has the best of every world and nothing is missing, unlike other good years. He dismembered Djokovic with his new technique throughout the year (embarrassing him with SABR multiple times) and did very well on clay, being surpassed only by Wawrinka who was a MONSTER. In fact, here’s some info: this was the year he got 1OOO career wins and 9OOO career aces. He defended his Dubai title by beating Djokovic in straight sets for an eighth title. He then won his first red clay title since the 2OO9 French Open! Speaking of which, in 2OI5 he made it to his quarterfinal match against Wawrinka losing only one set, against Monfils. And remember, that’s Federer. On. Clay! And in Wimbledon he was great, can’t you recall that flawless straight-set semifinal win against Murray with that flick? Then he won Cincinnati by beating Murray AND Djokovic IN STRAIGHT SETS BACK TO BACK for a seventh title! This was the first time EVER he had beaten the top two players in the world at the same tournament, and he did it in the most amazing fashion (remember the disguised punch slice against Andy and SABRing twice versus Novak in the same set!). As well, he gave us his most recent US Open performance that was actually GOOD. In fact, it was astounding! He got to his first final there since 2OO9, all WITHOUT DROPPING A SET! Even against Wawrinka! He combined doing really well in ALL FOUR Slams with outplaying his major opponents (e.g. continuing his new win streak against Nadal) and I would say that 2OI5 is the only year he did that. He surpassed both of his rivals like in 2OI7 AND did very well in every Slam like 2OO5/2OO6. Combine the two and you get 2OI5. Yes, his W/L ratio maybe doesn’t look as good, but consider who the wins and losses were actually AGAINST. He played more matches than in 2OI7 and against tougher opponents than 2OO5/2OO6 so obviously his ratio won’t be as good but taking into account the situation, it is equally/more impressive. “But oh, Aviator, he lost in the third round in Melbourne! Yeah, to Seppi, who was everyone’s poison back then and after hitting AN AROUND THE NET POST SHOT two inches above the ground against Lu! *And for my final argument: FEDERER HIMSELF SAID THAT HE WAS BETTER IN 2OI5 THAN 2OO5. UPDATE:* It really depends on what time of the year they are from and what type of court they play on. In fact, randomly select bunches of 2006 Federers and 2OI7 Federers, put them together on random courts and 2OO6 Federer will probably win most of the time. But I still think that if you put the best Federer of each year (ATP Finals 2OO6 Federer VS AO/IW 2OI7 Federer) and put them on a medium-speed hard court (one that's halfway between the speeds of those two events) like, I dunno, 2OII US Open, that 2OI7 Federer would win. But I still do think that 2OO6 Federer's ATP Masters match against Blake was probably his best match performance ever, only challenged by his Wimbledon finals against Nadal (2OO6-2OO8). I think that if they matched them up with time in the year, though, 2OO6 Federer would actually win more: [Note: These matches would be played on neutral ground e.g. 2OO6 AO Federer VS 2OI7 AO Federer is on a 2OI2 AO court. This may or may not give 2OI7 Federer advantages, though, since he would have already played on these courts and he actually likes faster courts, so older ones would benefit him wheras they might be too slow for 2OO6 Federer.]
*AO:* 2OI7 Federer wins; 2OO6 AO Federer didn't really do anything special, he only had to play Baghdatis and obviously not Nadal like 2OI7 Federer did.
*FO:* 2OO6 Federer probably wins but 2OI7 Federer certainly could; it's tough to know though whether 2OI7 Roger would have been as good as 2OI5 or 2OI9 (although he probably would have) and 2OO6 Federer wasn't nearly as good as he was in 2OO5, wasn't as fit either, so 2OI7 Federer would maybe win for sure
*Wimby:* 2OO6 Federer wins, I say. 2OI7 Federer didn't even have to play anyone particularly good, whereas Federer was impeccable in London in 2OO6 just like the previous year. He beat Gasquet, Henman, Mahut, Berdych, Ancic, and Bjorkman all back-to-back without dropping a set and then BAGELED Nadal in the final! 2OI7 Roger would be lucky to win a set without a tiebreak unless 2OO6 Fedsy was mentally out of sorts. 2OI7 Roger was good at Halle though so that's something
*USO*: 2OO6 Federer wins this one. He bageled Blake, beat Davydenko in straight sets with insanely-good groundstrokes, then breadsticked Roddick, although he wasn't quite as good as in 2OO5. 2OI7 Federer was beaten by Del Potro which shows that he could be beaten just with good groundstrokes even on a slower court. His movement was also a lot lazier than it was earlier in the year and his serve was pretty bad.
*WTF:* 2OO6 Federer gets a big dub here, obviously. Just his match against Blake shows that. 2OI7 Federer lost to freaking Goffin so he would have a laughably-close-to-zero chance of beating a prime GOAT.
[Excluded in this but a match at the Swiss Indoors/Basel would be interesting]
Like I said in my 2OI5 argument, 2OI7 Federer was only super good like 45% of the time whereas 2OO6 was very good but all the time, so 2OI7 Federer would win just 45% of the time. But I still do think that a 2OI7 Miami Federer beats a 2OO6 Shanghai Federer on a 2OI2-speed hard court, even if 2OO6 Federer is still better, he will get countered by the way Neo Federer plays. Will be caught off guard by the efficiency, SABR at least a couple times, and obviously the fact that his opponent is older than freaking Agassi. We can't assume that 2OO6 Federer would be mentally unaffected by having to play a future version of himself. In fact, both players would have their reasons to both be confident and/or worried. 2OI7 Federer knows exactly how good he was in 2OO6 and knows he probably can't replicate that type of performance but can definitely get inside his younger self's head. But 2OO6 Federer would be thinking along the 'okay come on I'm a strong fast young gun I gotta beat this guy' route.
I respectfully disagree with your general statement. 2004-7 Federer is the strongest tennis player of all time in my opinion, exhibiting continuously the best shot ever, his forehand, at his finest, and in 2006 he delivered many games with a backhand on 2017 level. I know UA-cam doesn't cover all of that Federer (in my opinion it would destroy the claims of "weak era"), but look for example at the game against Blake in the Masters Cup. 2017 Federer is probably more beautiful to watch but a bit more human and surely less fit. I think it would be super funny, and not so one sided... But the best Federer of all time (and probably the best player of all time) also encompasses 2006, so the younger Roger wins
Though your analysis is very complete, I just don't agree with the result and I respect the way you put it out, simply fascinating
2006 is the best in terms of winning record. However, in some tournaments, you are right; he plays a lot of long rallies. It is so obvious when he was playing Srichaphan in Basel. I think he used a more loopy spin, which resulted in longer rallies, but still wins.
The Dragon Tactic Yeah. Now he hits it flatter but still with similar placement, but that might make it easier for 2006 Federer to pass him when he tries to approach (just like Nadal did all those years), since he doesn’t hit wider angles anymore.
Ur comment is like writing a full answer n conclusion is wrong. 2004,5,6 is his best. His footwork, his aggressiveness, his inside out forehead. Also magical shots from him made whole world his fans. After from his victories over nadal, 2006 is his best. U know what if at all there is djoker in 2017, our rf wouldn't have won 2 GrandSlams. But for sure 2006 Federer would blast out djoker easily. So the major difference is his gameplay against nadal.
The real question is, how the hell can he still play this good 11 years after his peak? Just ridiculous...
And he still plays top level tennis, just amazing. But his peak wasnt in 2006, he was still developing his game
@@alexfratelli8936 Yes, it was 2006.
He is GOAT.
Legend
@@masters.1000 dude, he was 24 back then😂
He himself said that he works to improve his game year by year, and usualy the "peak age" is around 28-31. In 2017 fed had better fh, bh, serve, volley, higher tennis iq etc. Probably the only thing he was better at in 2006 was his movement.
2006 without a shadow of doubt. Explosive first step, incredible movement, much better firepower especially off the forehand wing.
True that>>>>
explosive first step? Fuck are you talking about, this isnt basketball. This dude actually said he had more firepower on the backhand in 2006. Lol. What an idiot.
@@TheRafaelBond his movement towards FH and 1+2 shots is what explosive first step means. And nope, power on BH was more in 2006, but nadal in 2006 could run and defend a lot better than 2017 nadal, that's why the shots which would've been put back into play by nadal of 2006 were winners against 2017 nadal
@@lecturerhetshah4345 Nadal can still run like he did in 2006, that's why he still wins French open till this day. In 2017, Fed takes the ball standing on the baseline, forehand and backhand. He was more aggressive against Nadal. That is the difference
Alot of you guys dont know what it means to be an athlete of the game if you think explosiveness isnt apart of tennis
2017 was 🔥🔥🔥 but in 2006 he got like 91 match wins which no player has come close to 🐐🐐🐐
Edit: 92 matches won with 12 titles 🤯🤯🤯🐐🐐🐐
@@matthewthompson6033 he would've won Dubai too if the court had been fast like it should've been.
It is just amazing to see that we are comparing 2 years of Federer's career more than a decade apart !!!!
GOAT for a reason !!
You could say same for Novak and Nadal
@@janos6644 why is so hard to accept sth obvious. Novak ELO rating is the highest ever. Roger and Rafa are at 4th and 5th position after Borg and McEnroe
@@janos6644 not only racquet, his favorites surface fast courts, and ball was totally change, they change the courts fast to slower courts, favors to Nadal and Djokovic.
You can see the difference from US open 06' compare to nowadays, it was very fast back then.
@@milanvesovic1703 I respectfully disagree. Nadal dominated the circuit only in 2013, he was the best in many other years but pure domination was achieved just there. The same could be said for Nole in 2011 and 2015. The guy In this video was the ABSOLUTE owner of the ATP circuit in 4 straight years (when Nadal was already competitive) including 2006, and in 2017 he won basically every big tournament he went into without injuries except the Finals (and in fact he won many prizes as the Best player of the season, including the Laureus awards, despite Rafa ending the year as no.1). And he consistently beat Nadal for the whole season. Last, let's not forget that he did it at the right bold age of 36. I sincerely think this is an achievement that Rafa and Nole have yet to equalize. Either regarding the age in 2017 or the span in which he delivered dominating seasons
@@tonymontana3265 In 2017 there werent Djokovic around just like in 2005 2006.
2011 Tomic v 2018 Tomic
Winner: No one
Winner: chair umpire
Tomicoronavirus.
2017 version has better serve, backhand and volleys, 2006 version better forehand, movement and speed as well as reflexes.
Would be very interesting to watch though, I think 2017 Federer would have a fair shot in a best of 3 match
I agree, the only thing that he lost was a little bit of legs and the serve power.
@@wstew He has not lost serve power, His serve is better than ever.
@@TheRedc0met his back hand in 2006 was op
01:32 what an amazing pick up at such a crucial stage. GOAT
1:20 : Player v Coach
Shane Bond i was gonna write
2017's maturity with 2006's agility that's deadly combo
Was too young to see 2006 Federer play
But mature enough to marvel 2017 Federer
Didn't regret anything.
2017-the year Federer figures out Nadal’s game.
Eventually Djokovic became Federer’s Achilles heel..😔
*Man would I like to see (2017)Federer against Djokovic.
I think every Federer fan would.
It would be the same as in 2014, 2015 an 2016. Nole is just better
Vuchina Vook sure, keep lying to yourself kid
@@Mrfix-iz4di Why? He was just as good at WIM 2014, WIM 2015, USO 2015 where he demolished everyone on the road to the finals where Nole won. You'rr the one kidding yourself...
Vuchina Vook novak was terrible that year tho
2017 is the Federer best year of because simply of his backhand, it was the first time that Roger use more his backhand than his slice backhand !!
Yoyo gondouin: I don’t think that’s quite right. He didn’t just slice all of the time early on, he just didn’t seem to flatten out his top spin backhand like he did in the 2017 season.
Federer 2004 - 2007 is the greatest tennis player of all times. In 2017 he rediscovered some of this form.
He is but watch out your Djoker people are coming for your comment.
This is nonsense. If you watch any footage of 2006 or 2007 Roger, you know instantly he would've crushed, not only 2017 Roger, but any possible player. That forehand was powerfull as a cannon and accurate as swiss watch.
Yeah but 2017 has like the second best backhand there was out there if not the best
2013 nadal wouldve crushed him, if already undeveloped 2007 nadal brought him so many difficulties...
Alex Fratelli Nadal barely beat a shit Fed Cincy 13 you clown lmao
This is bullshit,federer in 2006 dont have good oponet and this is whay you think he good.
NOLE 2011,2015 easily can
Federer in 2006 was simply insane. I don't think anyone could beat Federer on a good day back then. Except Nadal on clay.
For sure, the 2006 Fed had the more fearsome and consistent forehand: that fluid whip-like motion and racquet-head acceleration allied with the fabulous footwork and effortless movement. But ultimately my vote goes to the 2017 Federer...that backhand he unveiled at the Aussie Open just added another dimension to his game altogether, even as his forehand was relatively not as lethal as before. However, if it was also a question of which version would I choose for hardcourts/ grass-courts, then probably 2006 Fed for hardcourts and 2017 Fed for grass-courts. Just my humble opinion :-D
Let's not forget the 2004 and 2012 Fed as well...very fine vintage indeed.
People saying 2017 weren't watching tennis is 2006 I'm pretty sure
Yeah,Federer 2006 shouldn't be in any discussion,not even with Nadal 2008,2010 or Djokovic 2011,2016.
Federer opponents in 2006-Nalbandian,Safin,Roddick,Young Nadal who hadnt won any majors on hc
Djokovic' opponents in 2011- Federer,Nadal,Murray all in their prime , Tsonga,Berdych.
Huge difference
roger federer was the reason many people came to enjoy a tennis match he elevated the game with his ability as a player
06 version is the GOAT so that's a pretty defining answer.
GOAT 2020-2021 will be the best!!!!!
when for a while you have seen only other players bc fed is inactive and then you watch something like this again by accident, I'm always like "yes this guy is the only guy i ever want to watch" i really love Roger Federer. I can never get enough of his Tennis.
2017 Fed was good. 2006 Fed had a magic wand for a racquet and was the best player in history. No comparison.
It would be the greatest match of all time
skankhunt42 No, it wouldn’t. 2010 Nadal and 2015 Novak would.
I love how all the points are pretty much against his great rival rafa
August 25th I guess Rafa didn’t actually change very much game-wise from 2006 to now. Plays very similarly, serve is a tiny bit flatter, he’s adapted well to the hard courts getting slow. But he’s pretty much identical in terms of skill and technique.
@@theaviator1152 his backhand is alot better and his first serve is far better but yeah his style hasnt changed thats why he's one of the 🐐
The AViator he is more aggressive for sure though
2017 was really Federer's peak skill. He may not have the endurance of 2006, but he sliced down his opponents like hot knife and butter.
2017 Federer is technically a MUCH better player. The game evolved through the years and he kept on improving. However, 2006 Federer was a mental fortress and doesn’t have the years of psychological damage of losing so many heartbreaking matches. My point being that while I think 2017 has a great chance of winning, 2006 Federer was hardly used to losing and if 2017 Federer overthought at all... 2006 Federer would make him pay. Answer: 2006 Federer
17 Federer was actually more steady mentally than 06 imo. I'd also argue against the technical aspects. For example Roger's current FH has a more abbreviated takeback and more topspin than 06. But that doesn't make it better on a technical level than the flatter shot he used to hit.
@@RandomGuy285 Prime Federer from 2006 could also hit loopy forehands when he wanted to. What that Federer can do is finish points from almost anywhere on the court with the forehand. He changed his form significantly which reduced his racket acceleration and his accuracy as well. Federer from 2017 improved most other aspects of his game but that forehand loss is a big disadvantage.
If anyone says 2017, they are delusional
How dare they have a different opinion than you
Nadal might disagree
@@sergiosarmiento4371 how dare you be a fuckin idiot
Olly Paton, you’re delusional if u don’t know what a fuckin opinion is😂
What if they just mention the fucking year of 2017 outside of this particular context? Seems like anyone in that year who ever said the DATE aloud is suddenly unstable now? What the hell??
Forehand:2006
Backhand:2017
Serve:2017
Return:2006
Defence:2006
Volley:2017
Movement:2006
Tactics:2017
Federer from 2017 is undoubtedly a more complete player, and I say this as a Fed fan. Forget the fanboys and clowns out there who haven't got a clue about tennis, this is just a fact. I've been playing and watching tennis for nearly 20 years and 2017 Federer has the better serve, the better backhand, he's more experienced, and is a much more competent player at the net. He also incorporates serve & volleying more often so he can just end points any way he wants to while still being very good from the baseline, meaning he is practically unbeatable on fast courts these days. 2006 Fed was almost exclusively a baseline player whose style worked against pretty much everyone except Nadal on clay. However, despite 2017 Fed being a more well-rounded player, there are a few things that 2006 Fed had that current Fed typically doesn't. 1) The forehand. Federer still has more or less the same forehand and when it's on, it's unplayable, but 2006 Fed played with the smaller racket (smaller head), which gave him more feel and allowed him to dominate pretty much everything from that side, especially when he was tuned in mentally. He just didn't miss his forehand, which is why Nadal always played those vicious, looping topspin forehands to his backhand side. 2) Confidence. This kind of ties in with number 1, since his forehand depends a lot on how he is feeling. 2006 was Fed's most successful season to date, and it shows. He was playing out of his mind and pretty much only lost six times all year (four of those against Nadal on clay, I think). When Fed plays with the confidence that he had throughout the '06 season, he is unbeatable. 3) The final thing is probably the most obvious one, and it's age. Current Fed is insanely fit and athletic for being in his late 30s (40 now), but no matter how well prepared you are at that age, you're not 25 anymore. He can no longer last an entire year on the tour playing every single tournament. He can't go through 2, 3 or 4-hour baseline slugfests every match and his body can't recover like it used to when he was in his 20s and early 30s. Plus, don't even get me started with injuries, the older he gets the more his knee and back bother him. That means he has to be very selective with regards to which tournaments he does or doesn't play so he can't gain any momentum or consistency throughout the season. If you look at the numbers from these two seasons ('06 and '17), including no. of titles and win/loss record, it tells you everything:
2006 Federer: 12 titles, including 3 Grand Slams, 4 Masters titles and the World Tour Finals. Season win/loss record: 92-5
2017 Federer: 7 titles, including 2 Grand Slams and 3 Masters titles. Season win/loss record: 54-5.
So, in summary, 2017 Fed is a better player overall (for the most part, the exception being the forehand), but 2006 Federer had the confidence, the youth and the body to be consistently at his best for the entire season. Combine '06 Fed's body and forehand with everything else from '17 Fed and you have the perfect tennis player.
Sick points! 2006 Fed is faster and more explosive, 2017 Fed is more creative, enhanced and experienced. I enjoy watching either of them.
2006 Federer was the definitive tennis player.
2006 younger faster and he went to the net more.>>>>
Overall, I would say that 2015 was maybe his best year, actually. 2005 was his best statistically and perhaps performance-wise, but that was before the challenge of being old, hard courts majorly slowing down, as well as Djokovic of course. That said 2005 is my favorite Federer and the one I like watching the most in general. To be honest you can’t talk about 2017 when he didn’t even play a single match on clay and was sort of garbage in New York. In fact, with the exception of Shanghai, his results weren’t very good at all after Wimbledon. He lost to freaking GOFFIN in the ATP Finals, goddamn ZVEREV in the Canadian Open. He also lost to a pretty-much-retired-at-that-point Haas in Stuttgart. And again, he didn’t play against Djokovic ANY time that year! (I wish he had though because he would have beaten him and one-upped his baseline game hella humiliatingly). I know it sounds critical, but seriously, he was incredible that year but only like half the time. 2015 in my opinion has the best of every world and nothing is missing, unlike other good years. He dismembered Djokovic with his new technique throughout the year (embarrassing him with SABR *multiple* times) and did very well on clay, being surpassed only by Wawrinka who was a MONSTER. In fact, here’s some facts: this was the year he got 1,000 career wins and 9,000 career aces. He defended his Dubai title by beating Djokovic in straight sets for an eighth title. He then won his first red clay title since the 2009 French Open!! Speaking of which, in 2015 he made it to his quarterfinal match against Wawrinka losing only one set, against Monfils. And remember, that’s Federer. On. Clay! And in Wimbledon he was great, can’t you recall that flawless straight-set semifinal win against Murray with that flick? Then he won Cincinnati by beating Murray AND Djokovic IN STRAIGHT SETS BACK TO BACK for a seventh title!! This was the first time EVER he had beaten the top two players in the world at the same tournament, and he did it in the most amazing fashion (remember the disguised punch slice against Andy and SABRing twice versus Novak in the same set!). As well, he gave us his most recent US Open performance that was actually GOOD. In fact, it was astounding! He got to his first final there since 2009, all WITHOUT DROPPING A SET! Even against Wawrinka!!!
He combined doing really well in ALL FOUR Slams with outplaying his major opponents (e.g. continuing his new win streak against Nadal) and I would say that 2015 is the only year he did that. He surpassed both of his rivals like in 2017 AND did very well in every Slam like 2005/2006. Combine the two and you get 2015. Yes, his W/L ratio maybe doesn’t look as good, but consider who the wins and losses were actually AGAINST. He played more matches than in 2017 and against tougher opponents than 2005/2006 so obviously his ratio won’t be as good but taking into account the situation, it is equally/more impressive. “But oh, Aviator, he lost in the third round in Melbourne! Yeah, to Seppi, who was everyone’s poison back then and after hitting AN AROUND THE NET POST SHOT two inches above the ground against Lu!
I rest my case. Unless you open it again and wake it up...
Umm... He lost in 3rd round at Australia open 2015 and made it to 2 slam finals in 2015. In 2017 he WON 2 slams
@@pokalorentz9363 OH, I'm sorry, did I somehow NOT mention that and say EXACTLY why that doesn't matter? Read my entire comment, please.
And if you want me to dish out more commentary, here's some the responds to the video:
*WHICH FEDERER WOULD WIN:* [Note: This is considering their playstyles, mentalities, and the circumstances in which they play each other.] I feel like in 2OO6, Roger’s rallies were a lot longer, and tactical rather than clinical/short, like they are more so now. He was used to playing in a way that forced himself to win, rather than today where he sort of forces his opponent to lose. However, they do actually perform similar shots occasionally to win points, especially off of the backhand side (surprising considering his racquet change and difference in court speeds). I also feel like in 2OO6 Roger was physically faster but in 2OI7 he is more efficient with his movement, so he doesn’t necessarily NEED to be very fast.
I do think 2OO7 Roger would win in a not-too-close but still very competitive match (probably 4 sets all ending with the loser having 3, maybe 2 or 4 games); simply because he can hit a few shots that he was literally incapable of doing in 2OO6. Neo Federer is the exact sort of player Prime Roger would have NEVER encountered anything like before, and it would take more effort for the young Fed to stay in the game. He would probably get frustrated and 2OI7 Federer would notice that. He would really have to try harder than his older self.
But it does heavily depend on the exact dates each Federer is from, because besides Basel/Stuttgart, etc. Federer’s 2OI7 season was only good before Flushing Meadows, whereas in 2OO6 he was best at the END of the year, as in the ATP Masters Series Shanghai and the ATP World Finals.
And of course, it would have to be arranged so that both Fedsies were well-rested and actually PREPARED to play against one another! I imagine 2OO6 Federer would try to gather up some info on his counterpart!! XP
Oh yeah and of course it would matter what court they were on. On clay it would be better to have mid-May 2OI9 Roger rather than 2OI7erer. Probably would be best if they completed on Wimbledon 2OI2 grass or a fast hard court like 2OI2 Barclays World Tour Finals as a sort of compromise between their two worlds. A battle of the surfaces would be SICK though!!! 2OO6 AO court on one side and 2OI7 AO court on the other!!!! AWESOME! But 2OO6 Federer would have to study future courts as well...And I wonder if he’d want to wear 2OI7 attire? Or try out future racquets? How would his shoes compare? And what balls would they use?
They’d probably exchange advice and all sorts of stuff. But the changing of 2OO6 Federer’s career, at least if for the worse, would have to be prevented somehow.
My goodness, so many things to think about!!
*UPDATE - WHICH FEDERER WOULD BEAT WHICH FEDERER AT WHAT TIME ON WHAT COURT:*
I mean it really depends on what time of the year they are from and what type of court they play on. In fact, randomly select a bunch of 2006 Federers and a bunch of 2OI7 Federers and put them together on random courts and 2OO6 Federer will probably win most of the time. But I still think that if you put the best Federer of each year (ATP Finals 2OO6 Federer VS AO/IW 2OI7 Federer) and put them on a medium-speed hard court (one that's halfway between the speeds of those two events) like, I dunno, 2OII US Open, that 2OI7 Federer would win. But I still do think that 2OO6 Federer's ATP Masters match against Blake was probably his best match performance ever, only challenged by his Wimbledon finals against Nadal (2OO6-2OO8).
I think that if they matched them up with time in the year, though, 2OO6 Federer would actually win more (often):
[Note: These matches would be played on neutral ground e.g. 2OO6 AO Federer VS 2OI7 AO Federer is on a 2OI2 AO court. This may or may not give 2OI7 Federer advantages, though, since he would have already played on these courts and he actually likes faster courts, so older ones would benefit him wheras they might be too slow for 2OO6 Federer.]
*AO:* 2OI7 Federer wins; 2OO6 AO Federer didn't really do anything special, he only had to play Baghdatis and obviously not Nadal like 2OI7 Federer did.
*RG/FO:* 2OO6 Federer probably wins but 2OI7 Federer certainly could; it's tough to know though whether 2OI7 Roger would have been as good as 2OI5 or 2OI9 (although he probably would have) and 2OO6 Federer wasn't nearly as good as he was in 2OO5, wasn't as fit either, so 2OI7 Federer would maybe win for sure
*AETC/Wimby:* 2OO6 Federer wins, I say. 2OI7 Federer didn't even have to play anyone particularly good, whereas Federer was impeccable in London in 2OO6 just like the previous year. He beat Gasquet, Henman, Mahut, Berdych, Ancic, and Bjorkman all back-to-back without dropping a set and then BAGELED Nadal in the final! 2OI7 Roger would be lucky to win a set without a tiebreak unless 2OO6 Fedsy was mentally out of sorts. 2OI7 Roger was good at Halle though so that's something
*USO*: 2OO6 Federer wins this one. He bageled Blake, beat Davydenko in straight sets with insanely-good groundstrokes, then breadsticked Roddick, although he wasn't quite as good as in 2OO5. 2OI7 Federer was beaten by Del Potro which shows that he could be beaten just with good groundstrokes even on a slower court. His movement was also a lot lazier than it was earlier in the year and his serve was pretty bad.
*ATP/WTF:* 2OO6 Federer gets a big dub here, obviously. Just his match against Blake shows that. 2OI7 Federer lost to freaking Goffin so he would have a laughably-close-to-zero chance of beating a prime GOAT.
[Excluded in this list but a match at the Swiss Indoors/Basel would be interesting]
Like I said in my 2OI5 argument, 2OI7 Federer was only super good like 45% of the time whereas 2OO6 was very good but all the time, so 2OI7 Federer would win just 45% of the time. But I still do think that a 2OI7 Miami Federer beats a 2OO6 Shanghai Federer on a 2OI2-speed hard court, even if 2OO6 Federer is still better, he will get countered by the way Neo Federer plays. Will be caught off guard by the efficiency, SABR at least a couple times, and obviously the fact that his opponent is older than freaking Agassi. We can't assume that 2OO6 Federer would be mentally unaffected by having to play a future version of himself. In fact, both players would have their reasons to both be confident and/or worried. 2OI7 Federer knows exactly how good he was in 2OO6 and knows he probably can't replicate that type of performance but can definitely get inside his younger self's head. But 2OO6 Federer would be thinking along the 'okay come on I'm a strong fast young gun I gotta beat this guy' route.
Maybe you can try reading all of this one. Look, pal, if I write a comment with 5,000 words explaining an opinion, anything you say will already be covered. So quit pointing out things that I've literally already responded to. It's really annoying and makes me feel like I've wasted my time. HOW do you not understand that it doesn't fucking mean anything if 2OI7 Federer won two Slams!? I already told you, in the Australian Open there were no other good hard court players (like Djokovic), and in Wimbledon he didn't play a single person in the top 5!? The only person in the Top 10 he played was goddamn Raonic! Even as a Canadian I will say that Raonic sucks ass. Other than that, Roger played Dolgopolov, Lajovic, Zverev, Dimitrov, Berdych, and Cilic! No wonder he didn't lose a set because they're all horseshit! Compare that to 2OI5 where he beat Dzumhur, Querrey (with the tweener lob I ALREADY mentioned), Bautista Agut, Simon, and Murray ALL in straight sets (and the backhand flick I previously talked about!), as well as beating Groth in four sets (showing off incredible reflex and fitness). For God's sake don't make me repeat myself!!
Read! My! Comments! In their entirety! Please!!
@@theaviator1152 jesus christ, you so stan federer
@@theaviator1152 You should really make some UA-cam video essays, would be neat to hear this take as a vid.
Federer's backhand in full flow is a treat to the eyes.
Vishal: True, but I like Wawrinka's a bit more.
NotSoHandyTim Gasquet has the hottest looking backhand ever
@@user-oz2ws8dh9s: His is good. I keep wondering when his hand is going to go flying off of his wrist though.
2017 he finally dominated and humiliated Nadal after Nadal having the upper hand for years. At age 35/36 2017 was truly magnificent because it exorcised lots of ghosts and made up for painful defeats. In the context of his career, 2017 is huge. So it comes down to experience and knowledge vs youth and exuberance. He had the bigger racket in 2017 and all that experience...but 2006 Federer was supremely confident and hadn’t been damaged by Nadal. 2017 Federer is the underdog battling his demons and coming back from injury and it brought tears of joy to my face watching his success and rejuvenation. But 2006 Federer or 2004-6 Federer etc was a young man at the height of his powers and belief. Id say 2006 Federer. But he has more strings to his bow now really. He’s still beautiful to watch. There is no one better at the net.
Comparison of a tennis players level of play 10 years apart in itself defines the 🐐 quality from the man. At his peak, no one can come even near. Variety of shots, ease of doing the business on the court, aesthetics, can we compare him to any other player ?
I take the Roger 2017 any day. To be more specific, his performance in AO 2017 was his very best because many opponents were in top-form in that event. Nishikori, Warinka and Nadal were extremely good. While being a little bit slower and less powerful than his counterpart in 2006, his decision making, mental toughness, backhands, forehands and volleys were better. The backhand was simply in another level. Federer in AO 2017 would destroy his young self in 2006 in 4 sets.
*PART ONE -- WHICH FEDERER WOULD WIN:* [Note: This is considering their playstyles, mentalities, and the circumstances in which they play each other.] I feel that in 2OO6, Roger’s rallies were a lot longer, and tactical rather than clinical and short, like they are more so now. He was used to playing in a way that forced himself to win, rather than today, where he sort of forces his opponent to lose. However, they do actually perform similar shots occasionally to win points, especially off of the backhand side (which is surprising to me considering his racquet change and the difference in the respective court speeds). I also feel like in 2OO6, Roger was physically faster, but in 2OI7, he is more efficient with his movement, so he doesn’t necessarily *need* to be very fast. This is partially why he has so much stamina nowadays, even though he is nearly 40; he conserves energy by not moving frantically or erratically.
I do think that 2OI7 Federer would win in a not-too-close-but-still-very-competitive match (probably 4 sets, all ending with the loser having 2-4 games), simply because he can hit a few shots that he was literally incapable of doing in 2OO6. Neo Federer is the exact sort of player that Prime Roger would have NEVER encountered anything like before, and it would take more effort for the young Fed to stay in the game. He would probably get frustrated and 2OI7 Federer would notice that. He would really have to try harder than his older self.
But it does heavily depend on the exact dates each Federer is from, because besides Basel, Stuttgart, and a couple of other smaller tournaments, Federer’s 2OI7 season was only good before Flushing Meadows, whereas in 2OO6, he was best at the *end* of the year (the ATP Masters Series Shanghai and the ATP World Finals).
And, of course, it would have to be arranged so that both Federers were well-rested and actually *prepared* to play against one another. I imagine that 2OO6 Federer would try to gather up some info on his counterpart.
It would obviously matter what court they were playing on, as well. On clay, it would be better to have mid-May 2OI9 Roger rather than 2OI7 Spring Federer for obvious reasons. It probably would be best if they competed on Wimbledon 2OI2 grass or a fast hard court, such as 2OI2 Barclays World Tour Finals’ as a sort of compromise between their two eras' respective court speeds. A battle of the surfaces would be very cool though, for example having a 2OO6 AO court on one side and 2OI7 AO court on the other. *Awesome.* But 2OO6 Federer would likely have to study future courts as well, and I wonder if he’d want to wear 2OI7 attire. Or try out future racquets? How would his shoes compare? And what balls would they use?
They’d probably exchange advice and all sorts of things. But the changing of 2OO6 Federer’s career, at least for the worse, would have to be prevented somehow.
My goodness, there are so many things to think about. But *remember that here I am only talking about who would win in a match between 2OO6 Federer and 2OI7 Federer. Never in this comment did I mention what year Federer was actually the best. That is an entirely different discussion that I can have in this thread. But I suppose that if I don't include everything, then you guys will overlook it or misunderstand me, so I will post it in Part Two.*
*PART TWO -- WHICH YEAR SO FAR WAS THE BEST OVERALL IN FEDERER'S CAREER/WHICH FEDERER IS "BETTER":* [Note: Some only consider results or playing quality. I'm trying to take everything into account.] Overall, I would say that 2OI5 was maybe his best year, actually. 2OO5 was his best statistically and perhaps performance-wise, but that was before the challenge of being old, hard courts majorly slowing down, as well as Djokovic of course. That said, 2OO5 is my favorite Federer and the one I like watching the most in general. To be honest you can’t talk about 2OI7 when he didn’t even play a single match on clay and was sort of garbage in New York. In fact, with the exception of Shanghai, his results weren’t very good at all after Wimbledon. He lost to freaking *Goffin* in the ATP Finals and an inconsistent *Zverev* in the Canadian Open. He also lost to a pretty-much-retired-at-that-point Haas in Stuttgart. And, just like in 2OO6, he didn’t play against Djokovic *any* time that year. (I wish he had though because he would have beaten him and one-upped his baseline game hella humiliatingly). I know it sounds critical, but seriously, he was incredible that year but only like half the time and there are too many attributes missing. 2OI5 in my opinion has the best of every world and nothing is missing, unlike other good years. He dismembered Djokovic with his new technique throughout the year (embarrassing him with SABR multiple times) and did very well on clay, being surpassed only by Wawrinka who was a MONSTER at that time. In fact, here’s some info: this was the year he got 1,OOO career wins and 9,OOO career aces. He defended his Dubai title by beating Djokovic in straight sets for an eighth title. Then he again had an astounding performance in the Indian Wells BNP Paribas Open, showing off his new-and-improved movement technique with spectacular defense, one-upping Novak again. He then won his first red clay title since the 2OO9 French Open, at Istanbul. Speaking of Roland Garros, in 2OI5 he made it to his quarterfinal match against Wawrinka losing *only one set* (against Monfils). And remember, that’s Roger Federer *on clay.* And in Wimbledon, he was great, it was where he won that flawless straight-set semifinal win against Murray with that backhand flick crosscourt passing shot. He was actually still extremely fit as evidenced by his 360 twist backhand flicking smash against Raonic. He also hit that tweener lob against Querrey, who is six-foot-six for goodness' sake. As if that wasn’t enough, he showed off amazing reflexes, hitting those quick swinging backhand volleys against Groth and returning multiple 145-mph serves throughout the entire tournament. Then he won Cincinnati by beating Murray *and* Djokovic *back to back,* BOTH IN STRAIGHT SETS for a seventh title. This was the first time EVER that he had beaten the top two players in the world in the same tournament, and he did it in the most amazing fashion possible (remember the disguised punch slice against Andy and SABRing twice versus Novak in the same set!). As well, he gave us his most recent US Open performance that was actually *good.* In fact, it was astounding! He got to his first final there since 2OO9, all WITHOUT DROPPING A SET, not even against Wawrinka! Then, at Basel, he beat Nadal for the first time since the 2012 Indian Wells BNP Paribas Open. At the ATP World Tour Finals, he beat Berdych, Djokovic, *and* Wawrinka *all in straight sets* as well as disemboweling Nishikori in an hour and a half. He remained No. 2 for most of the year and, besides Djokovic (who was having one of the greatest seasons of all time), *won the most singles titles of any professional player that calendar year.*
He combined doing really well in *all four Slams* with outplaying his major opponents (e.g. beginning his huge win streak against Nadal, getting leads in the head-to-head against Djokovic, and preventing Wawrinka from taking his World No. 3 position, and winning more tournaments than over 99% of the other players) and I would say that 2OI5 is the only year he did all of that. He surpassed both of his rivals like in 2OI7 AND did very well in every Slam, like in 2OO5/2OO6. Combine the two and you get 2OI5, when he checked the "all of the above" box. Yes, his W/L ratio maybe doesn’t seem to be as outstanding, but consider who the wins and losses were actually AGAINST. He played more matches than in 2OI7 and against tougher opponents than in 2OO5/2OO6 so obviously his ratio won’t be as good-looking, but taking into account the situation, it is equally/more impressive. “But oh, Aviator dude, he lost in the third round in Melbourne! Yeah, to Seppi, who was everyone’s poison back then and after hitting *a backhand around-the-net-post winner two inches above the ground* against Lu, who was actually quite a skilled player.
*And for my final argument...FEDERER HIMSELF SAID THAT HE WAS BETTER IN 2OI5 THAN 2OO5.*
I rest my case. Part Three will follow suit.
*PART THREE (UPDATE) -- WHICH FEDERER WOULD BEAT WHICH FEDERER AT WHAT TIME ON WHAT COURT:* It does certainly depend on what time of the year they are from and what type of court they play on. In fact, randomly select a bunch of 2OO6 Federers and a bunch of 2OI7 Federers and put them together on random courts and 2OO6 Federer will probably win most of the time. But I still think that if you put the best Federer of each year (ATP Finals 2OO6 Federer VS AO/IW 2OI7 Federer) and put them on a medium-speed hard court (one that's halfway between the speeds of those two events) like, I dunno, 2OII US Open, that 2OI7 Federer would win. But I still do think that 2OO6 Federer's ATP Masters match against Blake was probably his best match performance ever, only challenged by his Wimbledon finals against Nadal (2OO6-2OO8).
I think that if they matched them up with time in the year, though, 2OO6 Federer would actually win more often:
[Note: These matches would be played on neutral ground, e.g. 2OO6 AO Federer VS 2OI7 AO Federer is on a 2OI2 AO court. This may or may not give 2OI7 Federer advantages, though, since he would have already played on these courts and he actually likes faster courts, so older ones would benefit him wheras they might be too slow for 2OO6 Federer.]
*AO:* 2OI7 Federer wins; 2OO6 AO Federer didn't really do anything special, he only had to play Baghdatis and obviously not Nadal like 2OI7 Federer did.
*RG/FO:* 2OO6 Federer probably wins but 2OI7 Federer certainly could; it's tough to know though whether 2OI7 Roger would have been as good as 2OI5 or 2OI9 (although he probably would have been) and 2OO6 Federer was neither as good nor as fit as he was in 2OO5, so 2OI7 Federer for sure would have a chance of victory.
*AETC/Wimby:* 2OO6 Federer wins, I say. 2OI7 Federer didn't even have to play anyone particularly good, whereas Federer was impeccable in London in 2OO6 just like the previous year. He beat Gasquet, Henman, Mahut, Berdych, Ancic, and Bjorkman all back-to-back without dropping a set and then BAGELED Nadal in the final! 2OI7 Roger would be lucky to win a set without a tiebreak unless 2OO6 Fedsy was mentally out of sorts. Remember that 2OI7 Roger also lost to like a 42-year-old Haas at Stuttgart as well and almost was knocked out of Halle...
*USO*: 2OO6 Federer wins this one. He bageled Blake, beat Davydenko in straight sets with insanely-good groundstrokes, then breadsticked Roddick, although he wasn't quite as good as in 2OO5. 2OI7 Federer was beaten by Del Potro which shows that he could be beaten just with good groundstrokes, even on a slower court (so on a fast one we really don’t know if he could win). His movement was also a lot lazier than it was earlier in the year and his serve was pretty bad.
*ATP/WTF:* 2OO6 Federer gets a big dub here, obviously. Just his match against Blake shows that. 2OI7 Federer lost to freaking Goffin so he would have a laughably-close-to-zero chance of beating his young self.
[Excluded in this list, but a match at the Swiss Indoors/Basel would be interesting]
As I said in my 2OI5 argument, 2OI7 Federer was only super good 45% of the time, whereas 2OO6 was very good but all of the time, so 2OI7 Federer would win just 45% of the time. But I still do think that a 2OI7 Miami Federer beats a 2OO6 Shanghai Federer on a 2OI2-speed hard court; even if 2OO6 Federer is still better; he'd get countered by the way Neo Federer plays. I repeat, he would be caught off guard by the efficiency of his elder’s play and movement, SABR at least a couple of times, and obviously the fact that his opponent is older than freaking Agassi. We can't assume that 2OO6 Federer would be mentally unaffected by having to play a future version of himself. In fact, both players would have their reasons to both be confident and/or worried. 2OI7 Federer knows exactly how good he was in 2OO6 and knows he probably can't replicate that type of performance, but can definitely get inside his younger self's head. But 2OO6 Federer would be thinking along the, ‘okay, come on, I'm a strong, fast, young gun, I gotta beat this guy' route.
2017- the year of kicking nadal's butt
@Tano27 who wouldn't be
Great video! Keep it up!!
Forehand - 2006
Backhand - 2017
Serve - 2017
Return - 2017
Speed - 2006
Aggression - 2006
Defense - 2006
Net Play/Volleyk - 2017
Half Volley - 2017
Baseline Play - 2006
Pretty even. I'd say 2017 was just incredible considering his age and form.
Without a shadow of a doubt 2017!! So sick of people saying Federer peaked in 2006, he might've won more in circa 2006? But he was playing against washed up players, shit top 10 players. Competition got alot better and so did Federer.
A player's peak is not defined by how many trophies they won at a certain time, it's how they play! Federer is definitely a better player in 2017 compared to 2006.
Thanks for the video. 2006 was faster for sure. But it's hard to compare backhands for example, when in 2006 highlight reels look good, but the reality is that federer was so inconsistent when hitting over on that side (relying mostly on slice). 2017 is a whole other animal with the new-backhand imo
2006 was expected and amazing because he was great in the previous years but 2017 was a golden year to be honest.
2006 and it's not even close.
mostlikely the artistry of the great roger federer is over, but in the years o2002 till 2018 he is and was the goat. now others have learned from him and showing it. roger has earned the admiration of all tennis friends around the world and accept him as the best in his years. we are greatfull having seen him play a great sport.
To me he looks much more aggressive and his shots look stronger and faster in 2006
2017 Fed is much more effective.
2006 Fed was very dominant, but would now be beaten by the 2017 version.
Prime Federer was the only player, man or woman in the history of tennis , to be the best at both offense and defense simultaneously .
From what I've just seen: That would be one hell-of-a match!
The winner against manarrino was identical to the one he hit against James Blake at 2006 World tour finals in Shanghai.
roger federer el mejor!! que placer verlo jugar.. ojala que pueda maravillarnos mucho mas con su juego
Problem with Federer is he has no confidence against Djokovic he has the ability to beat him
He has no confidence but won against him 23 times? 😂
23 times werent enough for u? i firmly belive Fed who is 6-7 years older than Djoko pushed him to the limit and even beat him when Djoko was on his prime.
Last year he demolished him in London and was 1 point away in a slam final. That hardly qualifies as having no confidence to beat him.
He also choked 3 times in slams one point from winning
VANGALA: Problem is no one has the confidence against Djokovic.
Federer 2017 is playfully better then 2006..
but 2006 federer would more win matches in a season because of the age factor
2006 is a better player
John Smith so it was a big off match from Federer . Djokovic lost to vesely in 2016
@@ertugrulkorpinar51 hadi gözün aydin sana...Federer wird wohl alle seine rekorde behalten. So wie es aussieht gibt es kein profi sport mehr in den nächsten paar jahren . Gratulation sana und gecmis olsun sana ve hepimize.
Travis Bickle abwarten und schauen was kommt sanada
2017 federer had to skip clay season, took some time off. Played limited tournaments. I think physically he had to manage the whole year by his selective approach. 2006 version went for all... The quality of 2017 was excellent but physically 2006 version was something else. So in a whole season if they had to face on different surfaces all year, 2006 version would have won matches on clay and may be during year end. 2017 would have won Wimbledon and oz open swing. But H2H would be in favour of 2006 version.
Note: Why I am considering age?
2017 version is the result of many years of experience. It is upping the ante when it was required. Cannot do it without immense experience.
All said, still be it 2006 or 2017, peak federer is something else. JUST CAN'T TOUCH HIM.
2006 might be the greatest season ever by a tennis player,
And by the way, he lost 3 times very close (of 5 losses for the year) to Nadal, on clay, who basically had the best season in clay ever that year lol
Nope Novak 2015 was the greatest season
Djokovic has consistency but doesn't posess godlike domination it seems
@@animevo7793 I wont say so, he won the Aussie final basically by acting, loose to Stan in the French after being crushed, it wasnt as dominant
@@vincentgasparri Dominated in the Winbly final, wtf are you talking about??
@@kelvinkamau6852 I guess some sentence framing problems.
The 2017 version is better matched against Nadal than the 2006 version. However, the 2006 version is a tougher matchup for the rest of the ATP tour.
2017 Federer mixes up his use of spins a lot more on the forehand instead of consistently hitting a flat forehand and a more top spin backhand. His backhand in 2017 is more flat, being able to cover more of the ball with his bigger racquet. He also has a way better approach shot in 2017 allow him to be more efficient especially coming to the net to finish points. In My opinion 2017 Federer is better than 2006 Federer
2006 Federer, but Djoker fans don't like to hear it.
Would love to see 2017 federer play Djokovic from the first half of 2016. Would be a great match, i think Novak would take it though, he reached a level of unprecedented brilliance in that period of his career (beginning of 2016 to RG2016) which i feel like is constantly overlooked
hotchicus smith novak sucks
2017 Federer was able to defeat Nadal 4 times in a row. 2006 Federer wasnt. So I pick 2017 Federer. And it was really cool to watch him play so brilliantly at the age of 35.
Federer of all years, without any doubts the greatest of all time the swiss GOAT
2017 Federer would not win a single match vs 2006 Federer
2006 - better and more uncomplicated service motion
- flatter more attacking shots with the k factor 90, the best frame for his game period
- better net game and more approach shots
- obviously better movement but that's a mute point since we are talking about 11 years of added miles on the body. We don't expect a car to run the same after 11 years of driving do we?
However, 2017 was his best year of the late year's. There was more of an attempt to go full agressive which is close to his natural instinct, but the RF 97 no matter what the so called pundits on tennis chanel say, does not suit his agressive game. It was designed to handle baselines because of the deliberate move to slow the game down ( courts and balls) to produce longer rallies/ matches.
Thank you ATP for homogenizing all surfaces to play similar and destroy the artistry of the games variety ! Good job by the pencil pushers!
2006 Fed has about 2 steps of speed on his older counterpart, it'd be a beatdown.
2017 isn't even Federer's second best year.
06 Federer is better than any player I have ever seen at their peak including Nadal and Djoker
Best of 3, 2006 Fed, although 2017 Fed could maybe squeeze out a surprise on a fast court, not because he was better in fast court in 2017 than in 2006, but because there's just no way he wins against his 2006 self on a slower court.
Best of 5, 2006 Fed, by murder.
2017 Roger vs Rafa: 6-0 (all on hardcourt).
2006: 2-4 (3 of those loses in clay). He took Rafa to 5 sets in the Rome final. There's no way a 2017 takes any version of Rafa to 5 sets on clay.
What he did in 2017 was amazing, he was the best player of the season, and his best self in years, but people forget just how much of a beast Roger used to be back in 04-09, and he was basically untouchable (except in clay against Rafa only, or a couple occasions against Nalbandian) in 04-07.
2006 hands down beats old 2017 fed with his movement, serve and forehand alone . His backhand was good back then , it was good against everyone except nadal on clay .
And how he pushed Nadal on clay back then. Monte carlo and Rome matches say it all. He should of won Rome though. Best clay court match for me.
2006 for the mind... 2017 for the heart...
2007 his movement was great plus it was his prime
Enterfly 2007 fed didn’t lose in the finals 🌚
2006 federer with 2017 backhand would literally be unbeatable
robochimp143 he was unbeatable in 2006 with the old backhand may be expect nadal on clay
The real winner after 10 years: video quality.
2006 no doubt, his shots were way more accurate and damaging to the opponent.
Nowadays he makes way more error with that short swings
@Enterfly Nah, he won majors because Novak wasnt intopform to stop him! But if we were to compare 06 vs 17 RF, 06 RF will annihilate 17 RF in straight set!
The only improvement he made on '17 is his BH..
@Enterfly He only lost to those 2 players on a masters tournaments.. 06-07 was his best form period
Losing to Murray was only one of his 5 losses that year, n he captured 12 titles that year..
You dont know how to observes RF shots, if you see his FH shots from 06, its way more damaging than 17 n he can shoot it from anywhere..
Alot of his 17 FH winners are from inside the baseline..
@Enterfly dude Fed's backhand 06' was solid, not weak. But i agree if his Neo backhand 17' was far more complete than 06'.
Off course its 2017 as Federer was 36 yrs old, not 25-26 , still outplayed his opponents.
2006 (assuming they have access to the same racket technology). Movement was just so much better, he'd be able to take control of more of the points. Only thing that 2017 improved on was the backhand.
In my opinion Federer 2006 was better in every facet of the game than Federer 2017. Not only that, but his shots back in his 2005-07 prime just looked nicer than they do now. I think his youth meant he could generate power more easily and was out of position less often. Sadly age has caught up with Federer - I just hope he's able to fit in one final hurrah before retirement and that Covid hasn't scuppered a proper send off!
PRIME Federer vs. NEO Federer!?!? Dammit!!!
I don't know what to say. 2017 Fed was simply something out of dreams, man: completely unexpected, inexplicable, miraculous, out of NOTHING (coming back from injury, old age, etc.)... It just won't ever happen again in the history of the sport.... Ugh! Just talk about that Neo Backhand! Not even Federer can make it happen again jajaja.
On the other hand, 2006 Fed was the GOAT in his GOAT level display, nothing else to say. Roger himself once confessed that 2006 (give or take 1-2 years) was a time where it was all about "Will he EVER lose? Will he EVER give up No.1?" and stuff like that. Of course, we all know what happened. And even though he closely missed on having Calendar Year Grand Slams, Golden Slams and Super Slams, his stats of 2006 are obviously superior to those of 2017 (where he actually had some disappointing losses).
I like the way "The AViator" puts it. In 2006, he forced HIMSELF more to WIN, whereas in 2017, he forced his OPPONENTS to lose!
Kinda crazy the fact that both years can be compared to eachother like they’re 11 years apart 😂😂you actually can never ever count federer out 😂
The drop shot vs Berdych was verry funny 😂😂😂
2006 Federer forehand is the best forehand i have ever seen in my life. I actually started watching tennis in 2006. I have been a Federer fan since the first match that i saw in AO 2006. After following Federer for so many years, i can say without a doubt that 2006 Federer would win. That was peak Federer. 2017 Federer was incredible but 2006 was on a whole different level. He had a 92-5 win loss record in 2006. The only player to come close to that record was Djokovic in 2015. What i would really like to see tho is 2006 Federer vs 2015 Djokovic. Now that would be an amazing match.
Both seasons federer achieved god mode.. man djokovic is sooooo lucky to avoid him in these two years
2017 was the best fed has ever hit his backhand. why the hell doesn't he hit the ball hard and flat like that now?!?
01:07 is magical
I just saw the improvement of photography tech during the decade lol
WoW that fist pump on the move that Roger used to do in 2006 is memorable, that’s almost like “I’m outrageously good but I’m too Federer to show that” so he does that little classy fist pump when turning around. 2006 best year in term of perf. (5 losses, 4 vs Nadal in finals, 1 vs Murray in 1R) 2017 best year in term of fame (AO17 best of the decade, W17 so classy, but weird losses vs Donskoy and Hass ^^)
2006 would definitely win if he uses the same racquet he uses now , RF97. And he wouldve won more titles if he switched his racquet earlier
2006 Federer has a god like confidence and mentality, but 2017 has superior efficiency
Excluding forehand 2017
I will say 2017 coz he was able to continuously beat rafa with ease. Also in 2017 he had more experience, ultra aggressiveness.
Haajir Yabre Yeah, I mean Rafa didn’t change very much over 11 years but it certainly shows that Roger did!
Why did you delete the miami video?