When did he say that lol?😅

He did say that

@@tennisfan599 he said that in the post-match interview after this final, that he hoped that next year he wouldn't have to play Roger again

The monoculeose issue was at AO 2008, it require only one month of rest to get fully recover from this virus . Winbeldon played 6 months after AO, so it's clearly Roger was in his top lvl in Winbeldon 2008, otherwise the match will never be picked as the greatest in tennis.

@ВиталийЦаль-ч7я federer didnt drop a set that wimbledon. He was playing at a higher level than 2007. The reason he lost is simple. He simply didn't understand nadal exploited his pathetically weak one handed backhand on a 90 inch frame. He wasted his prime and several majors before he listened to reason and upgraded his racket.

Because we want these days back once more.

​@@andyroo9381True...very true

Thats true but expecting too much from the guy who had come from completely different era and technique of tennis altogether. By the next 5 years, everyone who were truly from Federer's generation had retired. The fact that Federer was Champion in 2019 just shows how immense of a talent Federer truly was and in my opinion the greatest ever. I would have loved to see him paly alcaraz.

2006

2006

No this was 2006. 2007 was five sets.

Novak Djokovic 2011 maybe

@@marcelocolle1002 no way

@@fejuncor Novak's 2015 was statistically better than any other season in the open era, and although Federer's 2006 was statistically slightly better than Novak's 2011, Novak faced much tougher competition

​@@viksinha5410 As a tennis player, i cant disagree more, man. But it's how you see, alrignt? have to respect, just saying is total nonsense consider your statement even close to reality, or at least been honest MY REALITY I assume u are talking about ELO Rating Peak in detriment of other types of ranks. its the only way to simulate an argument where Djokovic's 2015 season would be above his 2011 season. I also assume u can be talking about that Combined Ranking's systems we are everyday being published more and more frequently at the midia supposedly built with all the different metrics included assigning weights to each of them, which would theoretically obtain a result that took everything into account. I can also assume with relative safety that for you the numbers explain more than almost everything else and in general speak for themselves. And finally, I can assume, not as an absolute certainty, but just as something a little more likely, that around 99.9% probability, you started following tennis around 10 or 15 years ago, your favorite player is Djokovic an in your opinion he is the gost. Are any of my guesses above wrong? Well, maybe so. It's rare, thats the point, not to get it right (to be honest, I don't remember wrong at least once to date) because it's so repetitive, predictable and I so sick of seeing the (supid) "logical" about the best season ever and about the best of all "proved", before I finish reading the comment already know that it's another one with the profile I described. They always are. And I can easily explain exactly why they are. I will not detail this again, in a few words: the notion ends up limited and biased because it is restricted to what was seen, and to the factors that the majority - especially those who have never played tennis - would need to know in order to understand. I dont watch tennis since last decade, i watch since prime Sampras era. To me, for example, a similar or equal wr at a season around 100 matches played is not the same then a season where u played around 70. Think about that. You played thirty more matches, and still incredibly managed to not let drop your level of performance. Man, 30 matches is a massive significant difference, equivalent to 8 or 10 tournaments. Only posting the list of all times highest win rates: - Jimmy Connors (1974) - 95.89% (93-4) - Roger Federer (2005) - 95.74% (81-4) - Rod Laver (1969) - 94.64% (106-6) - Roger Federer (2006) - 94.88% (95-5) - Novak Djokovic (2015) - 93.82% (82-6) - Björn Borg (1979) - 93.75% (84-6) - Novak Djokovic (2011) - 92.98% (70-6) - Ivan Lendl (1986) - 92.90% (74-6) - Björn Borg (1980) - 92.82% (70-5) - Pete Sampras (1994) - 92.84% (77-6) - Rafael Nadal (2013) - 92.85% (75-7) - Roger Federer (2007) - 89.78% (70-9) I'm not posting these statistics because I think they are the most important element for judgment. The way of playing, for example, for me is more important and does not appear in the numbers. If Medvedev is listed in quantitative terms, he is among the best tennis players in history, he won GS's, he was the former no.1 in the world, he won a number of masters 1000 that cannot fit in one hand. Now if you ask me what I think of Medvedev? A great player, but he would be crushed by his compatriot, Davydenko. Medvedev was dominated (1-5) by a Nadal deteriorated after so numerous serious injuries, old and at fast courts, the worst surface for Nadal in the final stretch of his career because it is the one that hurts the most. Davydenko faced Nadal on dozens of occasions throughout the first phase of the spaniard's career, when he had not undergone any serious surgery yet, was flying, young, at his peak, always no2 or no1 (taking turns with Federer at the top ATP rank after the swiss contracted mono in 2008) and Davydenko showed that he was better than Nadal on fast courts, the final balance after Davydenko retired was a positive h2h record over Nadal. What does this mean for you? 1) of course Davydenko is superior, and by a large margin, then Medvedev; 2) but the coldness of the numbers suggests that Medvedev is infinitely superior, here why u dont find the truth at numbers; Hope u have undesrstand. With one fast example I refuted your tougher competition foolish opinion. It's strictly the opposite.

Nope, he was 2-4 in 2006 against a young Nadal. He even lost in Dubai, which is the fastest court on tour, so before you start with the "it was on clay" excuse

He lost to 20 yo Rafa 4 times in that season, but other than Rafa yeah nobody on tour could beat him

​@theobecquet8477 well in some sense it was the best shape of Rafa, he was the fastest during these years for sure

@@theobecquet8477 most of those losses were on clay.

@@theobecquet8477 on clay lmao.

He also lost that year in Dubai, the fastest court of all to Nadal.

Yeah, I thought it looked on the line

It's the angle.

Wow you're absolutely correct, nice eye

Ya but he is dominant over Loserer and even his career is better than this Loserer. Loserer will always be known as a cheap copy of the great Pete Sampras.

@@lalasingh3443the only loser is you, cope more

@@lalasingh3443 Just vile hatred towards Federer.

Both Federer and Nadal are legends

@@saratchandradeevi like TXXK FANS

Yes. Hewitt was the weakest World number 1 and then roddick.

I don't either. His groundstrokes are so ugly.

In that time all the previous top players were on the decline or retiring. It left an opening for players to win titles and majors as no one was dominating anymore e.g. Sampras. How Hewitt did it - was with sheer tenacity, grit and relentless hitting. He was like an obsessed rabid dog continually trying to break players down. Kept getting every ball back - never made mistakes and was just an all around nuisance - an irritant to all of the other players at the time who didn't really have the mentality nor shots to hit past Hewitt. During this period it was predominantly serve and volley players - Hewitt was a rarity then - as he played from the back. He would get plenty of time to hit passing shots or lobs as the courts started to also slow down which favoured Hewitt's style. Essentially Hewitt was there at the right time and place to make the most of the chance. Which he did - before the new crop of players started taking over and putting him in his place.

Maybe he has a medical condition, like Prince Andrew?

@@archstanton1733 Not Andy Murray you mean!

Both Federer and Nadal are legends

What? This is crystal clear for 2005

Not official channel.

I think that Roger prime ( technique level) was in 2017-2018 he was a lot of agressive with his backhand than any time before, obiously he was more slow for his age

@@teoma1918 nah mate you're wrong. ...watch him effortlessly sweep roddick aside in wimby 03 sf, whilst roddick plays out of his skin

Terrible