i agree, 2006 Federer is the pinnacle of tennis. In fact, Federer 2006 season has the highest win rate in history 92-4 (96.7%) absolutely ridiculous... he played almost 100 matches and just lost 4, all on clay.
The only two players who could have truly possibly challenged this version of Federer was prime pancho Gonzales of early 1960s or peak Pete Sampras of 1994-1997.
@@fejuncor Djokovic 2011 followed by 2020 was also a beast nonetheless. 2020 coronavirus stopped him otherwise he was going for a repeat of his 2011 season. This version of Federer aside, 2011 and early 2020 Djokovic was the scariest thing tennis has ever seen though for the past 20 years.
Davydenko has one of my all time favourite Federer-quotes: "Sometimes he plays so well that you're just losing points while thinking 'how is this possible?'"
@@tennnis498 Ivo Karlovic, Fernando Gonzalez and Marat Safin have a positive h2h against Djoko too. The weak era used to dominate Nadal and Djokovic, very interesting.
@@fejuncor Young Djoko was better than current crop that is trying to challenge veteran Djoko, who is still #1. Doesn't this indicate that these players who could go toe to toe with him back then aren't as weak as you think?
@@kweizi5712I think he was being facetious. 2004-2009 was actually much stronger than anything from 2018 to present. Djokovic is the true weak era vulture
@@initialize21 It's impossible not to fill this up. Federer changed tennis, like Michael Jordan changed basketball. People started to love this sport because of Federer.
Davydenko was a beast.....He used to hit the ball so hard....It was crazy how Federer used to produce such quality against him. Also, I always wanted to watch the 2007 US Open semi-final between these two. Federer was terrific in that match too.
Agree and that's so boring. It's why I don't watch tennis anymore. All the surfaces are the same, making the player who masters this kind of ground the best. Bring back the variety!!
Feds forehand in his prime was something else. For some reason after his prime it was never the same. In his prime you can see in this video virtually every forehand he puts davydenko on the defense. Even on his backfoot fed somehow attacks with his forehand.
A big reason was Fed's decision to move from the Pro Staff Tour 90 to the RF97 -- with the increase in hoop size and beam width, the forehand lost some of its laser-focused power output, but in trade gained forgiveness on the backhand and a larger spin window on both wings. Fed knew this would happen, and IMHO it was a worthwhile trade overall.
Can’t really say that someone get schooled playing against prime Fed. Schooled would imply one learns something. Playing against prime fed all one learns is that life is unfair, that some just get awarded so much talent there’s nothing you can do.
@@SMNtheNightTheim 5-4 Against Fed, Zverev 5-2 against Fed, Rublev 1-0 against Fed. I guess the next gen weak era kicked Papa Fed more than Davydenko beat Djokovic and Nadal😂
@@prempititantipool3075if you're going to say that, don't pretend like he was in his prime against rublev,, zverev and new gen, he was during the period with davydenko because they're part of the same generation.
Pero davydenko era incapaz de generar un juego táctico distinto, no usaba el slice tácticamente, solo cuando estaba en una posición completamente defensiva. Así ni se puede jugar contra todos. Era un jugador con un plan A y nada mas. Sin variantes
I enoyed watching davydenko play, his serve was just too weak and inconsistent. He took everything early, had good footwork, and could beat everyone except the top 4. He and ferrer were similar in that regard. They were good enough to beat everybody else but couldn't handle those 4.
@@divicospower9112 I'm not talking about head to head, I'm talking about winning a slam. They would get to a quarter or semi and get knocked out by one of them. I didn't specifically say Nadal , I just said one of the four top players that were owning the slams during their careers.
Federer in 2006 with his 92-5 record. He won 12 titles and he lost 4 of those 5 games against nadal. 3 of the 4 losses were on clay. So federer only lost to one person all year other than nadal. Safin, roddick, blake, Hewitt, nalbandian couldn't beat federer. Only loss one hard court game all year to nadal and no grass court losses at all. In a stronger era than now aswel. Federer's only problem that year was the best clay court player of all time by miles. Because federer himself is one of the best ever clay court players if nadal wasn't around federer would have won 4 or 5 French opens for sure i think he was 5 French open finals anyway, but only won the one nadal wasn't in. And federer would have won in the rome masters 3-5 times because he also got to plenty of those finals came really close to winning a 5 setter against nadal in rome either 2005 or 2006. Back when the mens masters were 5 setters not 3 like nowerdays.
Fed was over rated and over marketed by big corp to sell watches and running shoes and the armchair tennis players gobbled it up in the 2003-2009 weakest era of tennis and after ..Once nadal /djoki came along fed faded with his fed running shoes buying koolaid drinking fans..his stats are a faliure agaisnt nadal/djoki only winning 33% of their GS matches, 33% in GS finals too..Fed couldn't even beat nadal once at french and lossed to djoki 3 times at wimbledon finals on his supposed BEST SURFACE!! Fed was weak on the backhand return with his squash style of play
and what is the current era where djokovic wins 3 slams at 36 if not weak? "couldn't even beat nadal at the french"? what does this even mean? nadal is the most dominant FO player of all time, the most dominant at any one tournament there.
@@tempesta1229 Novak beat nadal 2 times at french and 8 times in total on clay..Fed only beat nadal 2 times on clay never at french , fed just was weak mentally and weak backhand..fed is not very bright he never evolved his game and didn't have the brain power to make adjustments during play...he did have big corp help sell lot of running shoes at watches..makes fed a phony att least djoki is looking out for the players with ptpa and very articulated when he speaks >>fed just bumbled through is post match interviews..
@@canski5646saying that Federer didnt evolve his game... it's all the proof someone needs to prove that You know nothing about tennis, You sure barely started watching a few highlights on CZcams this year, and i dare to Say that You don't Even played tennis ever
@@celliluciano8024 you must be one of the koolaid drinkers who play hit and giggle tennis.. 50% of fed's titles were on the B circuit 250/500, his game stayed the same through his whole career no style same sqaush game he started with and ended with.. why from 2009 after the easiest era in tennis 2003-2009 he only won 5 slams over 12 yrs!!.. His weak backhand sqaush game doesn't cut against tough 2 handed players like djoki/nadal.....I bet u even have apair of fed running shoes!
This version of Federer is still the greatest level of tennis that’s ever been seen
i agree, 2006 Federer is the pinnacle of tennis. In fact, Federer 2006 season has the highest win rate in history 92-4 (96.7%) absolutely ridiculous... he played almost 100 matches and just lost 4, all on clay.
@@fejuncorincorrect. He lost three times to nadal on clay, one time to nadal on hardcourt and one time to murray on hardcourt
The only two players who could have truly possibly challenged this version of Federer was prime pancho Gonzales of early 1960s or peak Pete Sampras of 1994-1997.
@@syedwaqarahmed5963 I totally agree man.
@@fejuncor Djokovic 2011 followed by 2020 was also a beast nonetheless. 2020 coronavirus stopped him otherwise he was going for a repeat of his 2011 season. This version of Federer aside, 2011 and early 2020 Djokovic was the scariest thing tennis has ever seen though for the past 20 years.
Davydenko has one of my all time favourite Federer-quotes: "Sometimes he plays so well that you're just losing points while thinking 'how is this possible?'"
Federer forehand in this match was just absolutely crunched… every time!
Davydenko... literally Nadal's worst nightmare lmao. He was basically a faster version of Djokovic
Davy retired with winning record against Nadal. Roddick did the same against Djoko.
@@tennnis498 Ivo Karlovic, Fernando Gonzalez and Marat Safin have a positive h2h against Djoko too. The weak era used to dominate Nadal and Djokovic, very interesting.
@@fejuncor Young Djoko was better than current crop that is trying to challenge veteran Djoko, who is still #1. Doesn't this indicate that these players who could go toe to toe with him back then aren't as weak as you think?
@@kweizi5712I think he was being facetious. 2004-2009 was actually much stronger than anything from 2018 to present. Djokovic is the true weak era vulture
@@initialize21 It's impossible not to fill this up. Federer changed tennis, like Michael Jordan changed basketball. People started to love this sport because of Federer.
Just beautiful.
Davydenko was a beast.....He used to hit the ball so hard....It was crazy how Federer used to produce such quality against him.
Also, I always wanted to watch the 2007 US Open semi-final between these two. Federer was terrific in that match too.
He would rape Medvedev, Fritz, Casper Hood, etc... The real 'weak era' is the current era.
We saw the best Davydenko when he won the ATP finals. Respect.
Just Looked up The Meaning For "Aesthetically Pleasing" and it Says "Watching Roger Federer Play Tennis"...True Story
this Federer would destroy any version of Djokovic.
and he did in 2007
Amazing how much faster the hardcourts were back then. Groundstroke winners were so much more common. Now we have regular 30 and 40 shot rallies.
Agree and that's so boring. It's why I don't watch tennis anymore. All the surfaces are the same, making the player who masters this kind of ground the best. Bring back the variety!!
Totally agree, thank you divico.@@divicospower9112
Super impressive level of play; Roger was great no doubt.
Fed the best aways such grace and talent beautiful to watch . 11:13
Back when the USO was a real fast court. Good all time and great matchs.
Feds forehand in his prime was something else. For some reason after his prime it was never the same. In his prime you can see in this video virtually every forehand he puts davydenko on the defense. Even on his backfoot fed somehow attacks with his forehand.
Fed changed his forehand adding spin to try to win the French Open. He got his French, but it likely cost him 3 or 4 hard court majors...
A big reason was Fed's decision to move from the Pro Staff Tour 90 to the RF97 -- with the increase in hoop size and beam width, the forehand lost some of its laser-focused power output, but in trade gained forgiveness on the backhand and a larger spin window on both wings. Fed knew this would happen, and IMHO it was a worthwhile trade overall.
F is truly one of the goats... But I wouldn't say he was completely outclassed? The 2nd and 3rd games were pretty close.
Can’t really say that someone get schooled playing against prime Fed. Schooled would imply one learns something. Playing against prime fed all one learns is that life is unfair, that some just get awarded so much talent there’s nothing you can do.
aka Andy Roddick
Yes poor Andy. He definitely peaked at the wrong time in history.
Ah, yes...Davydenko. One of those "weak era" players that Djokovic stans like to go on about.
6-5 over Nadal, 2-2 against Djokovic, 2-19 against Federer 🤣 Davydenko would absolutely run over the likes of the current gen, I have no doubt.
@@SMNtheNightTheim 5-4 Against Fed, Zverev 5-2 against Fed, Rublev 1-0 against Fed. I guess the next gen weak era kicked Papa Fed more than Davydenko beat Djokovic and Nadal😂
@@prempititantipool3075 Zverev against Federer is 4-3 my friend for Zverev 5-2 for Thiem against Federer
Djokovic stans XD Eminem getting up in it, love it.
@@prempititantipool3075if you're going to say that, don't pretend like he was in his prime against rublev,, zverev and new gen, he was during the period with davydenko because they're part of the same generation.
Pero davydenko era incapaz de generar un juego táctico distinto, no usaba el slice tácticamente, solo cuando estaba en una posición completamente defensiva.
Así ni se puede jugar contra todos.
Era un jugador con un plan A y nada mas.
Sin variantes
8:01 Adjusting the settings on the wand.
Davydenko explosivo y peligroso jugador
Si que lo era
The point a lot of you are probably coming here for - starts at 5:12 😄
Unreal forehand winner
Why not put the year this tournament was?
Like Burdych, clean hard hitters bring the best out of Federer
Fed was the best to watch so talented and such grace .don’t 11:13 . bother with the other s not interested so boring just keep hitting the ball back .
I enoyed watching davydenko play, his serve was just too weak and inconsistent. He took everything early, had good footwork, and could beat everyone except the top 4. He and ferrer were similar in that regard. They were good enough to beat everybody else but couldn't handle those 4.
Davydenko has a positive H2H against Nadal. What are you talking about?
@@divicospower9112 I'm not talking about head to head, I'm talking about winning a slam. They would get to a quarter or semi and get knocked out by one of them. I didn't specifically say Nadal , I just said one of the four top players that were owning the slams during their careers.
Federer was on fire until he met Djokovic at 2019 Wimbledon. Can’t forget that as I am Federer fan
Federer in 2006 with his 92-5 record. He won 12 titles and he lost 4 of those 5 games against nadal. 3 of the 4 losses were on clay. So federer only lost to one person all year other than nadal. Safin, roddick, blake, Hewitt, nalbandian couldn't beat federer. Only loss one hard court game all year to nadal and no grass court losses at all. In a stronger era than now aswel. Federer's only problem that year was the best clay court player of all time by miles. Because federer himself is one of the best ever clay court players if nadal wasn't around federer would have won 4 or 5 French opens for sure i think he was 5 French open finals anyway, but only won the one nadal wasn't in. And federer would have won in the rome masters 3-5 times because he also got to plenty of those finals came really close to winning a 5 setter against nadal in rome either 2005 or 2006. Back when the mens masters were 5 setters not 3 like nowerdays.
He was 1 point away to win Rome in 2006. It would have changed things I think.
1-Djokovic
2-nadal
3- federer
again Nole fan making the goat ranking again instead of appreciating these two stars
@@_jiwi2674No, its just federer fan crying in comments and no one mentioned anything.
Jeez ok they get it😅
@@matija5555lmao wrong. Travisbickle and other trolls are literally butthurt with any video of Federer in it, sad!
For every Federer videos, there's a djoko fanboy telling us his the goat. what a joke lol
Fed was over rated and over marketed by big corp to sell watches and running shoes and the armchair tennis players gobbled it up in the 2003-2009 weakest era of tennis and after ..Once nadal /djoki came along fed faded with his fed running shoes buying koolaid drinking fans..his stats are a faliure agaisnt nadal/djoki only winning 33% of their GS matches, 33% in GS finals too..Fed couldn't even beat nadal once at french and lossed to djoki 3 times at wimbledon finals on his supposed BEST SURFACE!! Fed was weak on the backhand return with his squash style of play
and what is the current era where djokovic wins 3 slams at 36 if not weak? "couldn't even beat nadal at the french"? what does this even mean? nadal is the most dominant FO player of all time, the most dominant at any one tournament there.
@@tempesta1229 Novak beat nadal 2 times at french and 8 times in total on clay..Fed only beat nadal 2 times on clay never at french , fed just was weak mentally and weak backhand..fed is not very bright he never evolved his game and didn't have the brain power to make adjustments during play...he did have big corp help sell lot of running shoes at watches..makes fed a phony att least djoki is looking out for the players with ptpa and very articulated when he speaks >>fed just bumbled through is post match interviews..
@@canski5646saying that Federer didnt evolve his game... it's all the proof someone needs to prove that You know nothing about tennis, You sure barely started watching a few highlights on CZcams this year, and i dare to Say that You don't Even played tennis ever
@@celliluciano8024 you must be one of the koolaid drinkers who play hit and giggle tennis.. 50% of fed's titles were on the B circuit 250/500, his game stayed the same through his whole career no style same sqaush game he started with and ended with.. why from 2009 after the easiest era in tennis 2003-2009 he only won 5 slams over 12 yrs!!.. His weak backhand sqaush game doesn't cut against tough 2 handed players like djoki/nadal.....I bet u even have apair of fed running shoes!