Man, Roger let that one slip through his fingers. At any rate, Tsonga was one of those players of whom I had high hopes. I thought he might break through and win a few grand slams. Same goes for Berdych, Haas, Baghdatis, Gasquet, and a handful of others. Also I said to myself: "Maybe Dimitrov". Yet as talented as those players were, something was missing - maybe the necessary drive and discipline. Or mental strength. Who knows.
Interesting year for Federer 2009, first year out of prime but very special, won his first Roland Garros after being 4x in a row in the final by beating the man who beat Nadal, won Wimbledon and broken Sampras record of total number of grandslams.
Jo had serious weapons, great serve, powerful groundstrokes and good volleys..unfortunate that he couldn't win one grand slam..he had the weapons for it..what a comeback here in the 3rd set!
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 Berdych beat Nole and Fed in Wimby 10. But facing Nadal in 2010, 3 GOATs in a row is quite an impossible task, especially in GS. Tough luck for this guy
I didn't watch this back then. Something is off. Especially on the serve. Perhaps a shoulder or a back problem. Federer didn't look happy at all. The slow court didn't help as well.
Even with a black problem, he showed even when injured he was way better than Tsonga: an insane amount of winners and games until something really weird happened in the 7th game of the decisive set
You could see the slip of form from Federer from 2006 onwards....in 2007 his gameplay had reduced when you look at his racket head speed...his shot making, especially from ridiculous positions now some turning into forced errors...the speed of his shots had lost that extra strength...and his retrieval prowess with outright winners from unthinkable positions had almost dried up completely that was there in 2006...but he was soo significantly superior to the rest of the field that he still ended up winning 3 grand slams in 2007 and dominate for the season In 2008 his game dipped even more and he ended up with only 1 grand slam. That year he lost to a newbie at the time Djokovic in the Australian open who didnt win a single slam from there on till 2011..so despite what people think Djokovic in 2008 wasnt at grand slam winning level in 2008 but what happened was that Federer was fizzing out..and fizzing out fast. What compounded his downfall is that the ATP made the courts slower so the shot making of Federer that was already spiraling down had even less purchase from the court with his backhand taking the brunt of tht slowness....he eventually over the years stopped hitting over the ball from his backhand side completely and his backhand was reduced to slices and drop shots. Also, he should have traded his smaller rackets to the bigger ones that became available..the rest of the field took those bigger rackets with a bigger sweet spot but federer didnt for years which in my opinion was a terrible decision. I have never seen the dominance and the level of gameplay that federer showed between 2004-2006...No djokovic No nadal ever came close..now the djokovic and nadal fans may claim season points ect..but i saw what i saw...That level was unreal and i think on those courts with those rackets a federer in seasons 2004-2006 would have wiped the floor with peak djokovic and nadal (on hard and grass only) and since 2008 federer had been playing out of his element for 15 years (fast courts with good purchase of shots from courts) and yet the h2h with djokovic is 23-27..and 16-24 against nadal which included 6-0 at french open.... and that is why for me Federer will be the Greatest Player Of All Times
A pretty long comment full of excuses. If he actually expired at 28, the age when Djokovic, Murray, Cilic, Wawrinka peaked, he's not the best. Federer is your goat, just not cuz the reasons I mentioned
@@NamTran-xc2ip He didnt expire at 28..the courts got slower the rackets got bigger...on faster courts and smaller rackets Djokovic wont have been able to retrieve half the shots he did and they would have been mid courts. Its all about conditions....Federer was unplayable on faster courts and his shot making with smaller rackets was unparalleled. It was a paradise for first strike makers like Federer. When courts got slower his style of play was inefficient for the slower courts and retrievals became easier with larger rackets..hence Djokovic and Nadal started dominating Look at Dubai open..a faster court....4 times Federer and Djokovic played and the only time Federer lost was 2011 when Djokovic was at the peak of his powers and Federer was having the worst season of his career..score line in dubai 3-1
@@RehmanAli-bl8tn courts are also faster in the 90s, shall I say Federer can only win when the courts slowed as well? Djokovic has a gluten allergy, Nadal has a chronic foot problem and you use the rackets excuse for Fed? That's his own fault for not switching. Btw, 2011 is far from the worst, 2013 and prior to 2003 are much worse
@@NamTran-xc2ip Yes you can say Federer only won when the courts slowed from the 90s..it was a serve and volley paradise in the 90s and Federer has one of the best serves and net game he may have thrived but dont think he would have dominated..would have less slams and less weeks as world no 1...and i can say exactly the same thing for djokovic...But Sampras had a decade of courts remaining relatively fast...They really slowed the courts from 2001-2010
@@RehmanAli-bl8tn Well, I don't agree. You play tennis as it is, you don't get to choose the court speed, your age and your opponents. All the 'if' are purely speculations and shouldn't be made as actual excuses. Federer is better than Sampras because he has achieved much more, just like Djokovic and Nadal are a bit better for the same reason.
Very requested match!
why did roger lose?
2009 was such an awesome year for tennis
It was the best, up there with 2005. Terminal lucidity.
Agreed
So many think 2012 is best year of the Open Era, for me is 2009. Then 2012 and 2005.
I remember vividly this match. So annoying, he should have won the tournament easily and blew it.
He blew so many matches between 2009-11.
True! Most of them at M1000 level.
Roger 'would have could have should have' Federer 🤣🤣
probably had back issues. he didn't talk about it then, but did in later years. he was never one to quit or make excuses.
@@tomscott3 yet his fans come up with some ridiculous ones
It happens when you decline, man was prior to that invincible Godzilla 5 years streight
Man, Roger let that one slip through his fingers. At any rate, Tsonga was one of those players of whom I had high hopes. I thought he might break through and win a few grand slams. Same goes for Berdych, Haas, Baghdatis, Gasquet, and a handful of others. Also I said to myself: "Maybe Dimitrov". Yet as talented as those players were, something was missing - maybe the necessary drive and discipline. Or mental strength. Who knows.
They lived in the era of big 3; so it was a big ask for anyone. Only 4 players achieved slams in this period : Murray, wawrinka, Cilic, Del potro
@@oceanwaves657thiem
Wow didn't know he was up 5-1 in the third
This Roger was in absolute god
Mode,
He just choked
@@Luchon20082010 then he's not on god mode then 🤣
Fed had a serie of 21 unbeaten Matches from Madrid to Wimbledon. He might could finish this match in the decider set.
Isn't that the story for his career though. If, might have, could have, should have,... But in reality he didn't.
Can’t still believe Roger lost this match, he should have won this one really easily
Finally some highlights of this match. Thank you my man
You're welcome Thomas. ;)
Interesting year for Federer 2009, first year out of prime but very special, won his first Roland Garros after being 4x in a row in the final by beating the man who beat Nadal, won Wimbledon and broken Sampras record of total number of grandslams.
Jo had serious weapons, great serve, powerful groundstrokes and good volleys..unfortunate that he couldn't win one grand slam..he had the weapons for it..what a comeback here in the 3rd set!
He had to win at least 2 matches agaist Top3 greatest tennis players all time
Extremely tough..
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 Berdych beat Nole and Fed in Wimby 10.
But facing Nadal in 2010, 3 GOATs in a row is quite an impossible task, especially in GS. Tough luck for this guy
@@NamTran-xc2ip yes.Sampras for example won 4 GSs in 97-2000 but played only 1 time against Top10 player
Beautiful.
I didn't watch this back then. Something is off. Especially on the serve. Perhaps a shoulder or a back problem. Federer didn't look happy at all. The slow court didn't help as well.
Even with a black problem, he showed even when injured he was way better than Tsonga: an insane amount of winners and games until something really weird happened in the 7th game of the decisive set
The better clown won
Ur a clown
You could see the slip of form from Federer from 2006 onwards....in 2007 his gameplay had reduced when you look at his racket head speed...his shot making, especially from ridiculous positions now some turning into forced errors...the speed of his shots had lost that extra strength...and his retrieval prowess with outright winners from unthinkable positions had almost dried up completely that was there in 2006...but he was soo significantly superior to the rest of the field that he still ended up winning 3 grand slams in 2007 and dominate for the season
In 2008 his game dipped even more and he ended up with only 1 grand slam. That year he lost to a newbie at the time Djokovic in the Australian open who didnt win a single slam from there on till 2011..so despite what people think Djokovic in 2008 wasnt at grand slam winning level in 2008 but what happened was that Federer was fizzing out..and fizzing out fast.
What compounded his downfall is that the ATP made the courts slower so the shot making of Federer that was already spiraling down had even less purchase from the court with his backhand taking the brunt of tht slowness....he eventually over the years stopped hitting over the ball from his backhand side completely and his backhand was reduced to slices and drop shots.
Also, he should have traded his smaller rackets to the bigger ones that became available..the rest of the field took those bigger rackets with a bigger sweet spot but federer didnt for years which in my opinion was a terrible decision. I have never seen the dominance and the level of gameplay that federer showed between 2004-2006...No djokovic No nadal ever came close..now the djokovic and nadal fans may claim season points ect..but i saw what i saw...That level was unreal and i think on those courts with those rackets a federer in seasons 2004-2006 would have wiped the floor with peak djokovic and nadal (on hard and grass only) and since 2008 federer had been playing out of his element for 15 years (fast courts with good purchase of shots from courts) and yet the h2h with djokovic is 23-27..and 16-24 against nadal which included 6-0 at french open.... and that is why for me Federer will be the Greatest Player Of All Times
A pretty long comment full of excuses. If he actually expired at 28, the age when Djokovic, Murray, Cilic, Wawrinka peaked, he's not the best.
Federer is your goat, just not cuz the reasons I mentioned
@@NamTran-xc2ip He didnt expire at 28..the courts got slower the rackets got bigger...on faster courts and smaller rackets Djokovic wont have been able to retrieve half the shots he did and they would have been mid courts.
Its all about conditions....Federer was unplayable on faster courts and his shot making with smaller rackets was unparalleled. It was a paradise for first strike makers like Federer. When courts got slower his style of play was inefficient for the slower courts and retrievals became easier with larger rackets..hence Djokovic and Nadal started dominating
Look at Dubai open..a faster court....4 times Federer and Djokovic played and the only time Federer lost was 2011 when Djokovic was at the peak of his powers and Federer was having the worst season of his career..score line in dubai 3-1
@@RehmanAli-bl8tn courts are also faster in the 90s, shall I say Federer can only win when the courts slowed as well?
Djokovic has a gluten allergy, Nadal has a chronic foot problem and you use the rackets excuse for Fed? That's his own fault for not switching.
Btw, 2011 is far from the worst, 2013 and prior to 2003 are much worse
@@NamTran-xc2ip Yes you can say Federer only won when the courts slowed from the 90s..it was a serve and volley paradise in the 90s and Federer has one of the best serves and net game he may have thrived but dont think he would have dominated..would have less slams and less weeks as world no 1...and i can say exactly the same thing for djokovic...But Sampras had a decade of courts remaining relatively fast...They really slowed the courts from 2001-2010
@@RehmanAli-bl8tn Well, I don't agree. You play tennis as it is, you don't get to choose the court speed, your age and your opponents. All the 'if' are purely speculations and shouldn't be made as actual excuses.
Federer is better than Sampras because he has achieved much more, just like Djokovic and Nadal are a bit better for the same reason.