Roger Federer's EPIC Miami Title Run! | Miami 2017 Highlights 

If you think 2017 was stronger than 2005 and 2007 you’re wrong

He was extremely good in 2015, people tend to forget it because he didn't won any major, but I think he was closer of his 2017 level than most seem to believe.

I’d be interested to see how his 2017 self would stack up against the top players right now.

@@savinaxlefrero6886 Agreed. He made two Major finals and lost only to peak Djokovic, and still put up a fight both times.

@@nateheidengren4412 He would probably reach number 1

It wasn't the AO Final tho was it

actually he mostley counters in attacking way. sampras was way more attacking then federerr

no one stops ur opinion.

@@ilankonikov7249 Are you sure he doesn't attack in a countering way?

Yessir! Well said. Adventurous is just the right word for Fed's tennis...except on BPs and MPs. 😐 But kidding aside, Fed single-handedly created and revealed a new aesthetic for tennis. If a sport (especially an individual sport) is lucky, it gets _one_ incarnation - who embodies the game by being a distillation of an ideal. For tennis, that was the Fed. A never-before-never-again phenomenon.

People always forget this point of how his style of play is so high risk and Djokovic/Nadal basically play the same style of counterpuncher with a little aggression; don’t get me wrong. It takes a massive amount of physical strength to do what they do, but at the end of the day majority of their shots choices are not risky. It’s still amazing what he’s been able to accomplish, and I will always believe his 2017 and 2018 seasons were the best for someone his age.

He's been at the top until 2019 i think. But 2017 was last year of RF's true unstoppable dominance

@@andreacava5512 Roger had a good year in 2019 winning 4 titles including another Miami Masters plus reaching the Wimbledon final in that epic battle against Novak. After 2019 Roger didn’t win another title and his career basically ended in November 2019. In 2017, Rafa finished No. 1 by virtue of winning 2 Grand Slams, a final in another and 2 Masters.

@@RamZar50didn’t he got to semifinals at AO in 2020?

@@Max-yp1iw Yes and it was his only tournament in all of 2020. After 2019, Roger didn’t win another title. Roger won at least one title for 18 years! His rival & friend Rafa, has won at least one title for 19 years and in consecutive years!

@@RamZar50 Makes all the difference not having to compete most of your career against 2 x younger rivals right?

It’s okay we got Novak

@@julius6378 LOL Novak doesn't even come close to Fed. Entertaining tennis vs boring tennis

@@initialize21 novak isnt boring at all. strongest mindset ever and he plays incredibly good

exhibition matches with him are very possible

Don’t worry he’ll do exhibitions

+1

It's not for nothing that this match was voted the best ATP match of the decade.

@@nicolinotaraborrelli9916 I didn't even know that! Who voted it as such?

@@edkiely2712 At the end of 2019 it was the atp itself that chose the best match for each year in the 2010s decade (excluding the slams obv). Later this match was chosen as the best one. I think because besides being a beautiful and exciting match it was extraordinarily balanced from the first to the last point.

@@nicolinotaraborrelli9916 Yes it was! I still vividly remember watching it! Matches like that don't happen too often! That Miami crowd gave Nick the business as well! Not like he doesn't bring a bit on himself though. Thanks for the reply my man!🤟

Federer is a specialist in playing against big servers, it is the result of the monstrous sensitivity he has in those hands. It blocks and accurately returns 200+ km/h serves like no other. Since Roddick's days, he has always been a master in this regard.

Against Rafa surely wasn’t effortless, it was an intense match where he had a bit of luck too on important points on serve (the let courts on 30-40 in the first and on 30-30 in the second) but ultimately won deservedly.

@@JanStront Indian Wells was the effortless win against Nadal

And Indian Wells

people often forget that Roger was always better than Nadal on fast courts. Yes, very disputed matches and some victories for Nadal, but for the most part Federer prevailed. The problem is that they played many times on clay, most of the time, in reality. And of course, on clay Nadal completely dominates. But takes the clay out of that account, and the h2h is in favor of Federer.

​@@fejuncorit's just sad because Roger lost like 3 RG finals from Rafael during his prime. Imagine if rafa never existed, what would Roger's career record in slam look like?

@@w15dumb93 If Roger hadn't had Rafa ahead of him on clay (Federer is an offensive player, not a clay court player) and hadn't contracted mono, he would have had 26 GS's in 2012

@@fejuncor without the mono, 2008 would have been a walk in a park for him and I can agree with 26 slam. Federer can't also be a grass court player because he also excelled in Hard court as well. There's a term that I found for someone like Roger which is "All-Court Attacker" which I think suits him very well since he attacks in any surfaces no matter what.

@@w15dumb93 Grass is the fastest of surfaces, Federer is the player who symbolizes tennis as we would like it to be. But anyone who plays (I play in real life) knows that tennis in 99% of matches consists of whoever makes the fewest mistakes, wins - and not whoever makes more winners. The 1% are players like Federer, David Nalbandian, etc.they win because they make many more winners than their opponents, point builders, from the baseline forward, always looking to finish the point. All others just defend themselves indefinitely as long as their physique can bear it, with the tennis manual under their arm: "return all the balls you can reach, with as much top spin effect as you can, preferably deep, in the middle". And that's it. They all do exactly the same. Medvedev, Alcaraz, Djokovic, etc. It's the "safest" way to win a tennis match. I think boring, but we wouldn't have Roger Federer forever. Tennis is endurance, especially on today's slow courts, on clay there's no need to comment. Pre-mono Federer was so outstanding, that he played on equal terms with the young, fast, healthy Nadal, on the clay in Rome, and managed to have matchpoints in hands to win. Federer has a style of play that is inappropriate for clay. But in 2006 he was so exceptional that he managed, even with his own inadequate style and tactics, to almost beat Nadal, where Nadal is the king, on clay. 2006 Federer is the best tennis player ever 96.7% wr (92-4) the hightest season's win rate in history.

So sad Alcaraz is the new dropshot god, Federer is waaaay behind Carlos in dropshots quality.

Right. '11 should have been the FO, '14 Wimbledon, '15 USO and '19 obvs Wimby again.

@@guillezorro he should have won AO 2014 as well if only he knew how to play Nadal at that time. He would have beaten Wawrinka 100% Also he should have won Uso 2014, he should have beaten Cilic and easily beat Nishikori. Uso 2011 also would have been a possibilty if only he won the match point against Djokovic. Then Wimbledon 2015 as well

Can you blame him tho, the crowd making noise during points.....

🤡🤡🤡🤡

Nadal is the goat on clay, im pretty sure that Sampras and Federer are better players on grass and fast courts than Nadal. I think Nadal is the player who would make the best character for a movie, Djokovic it's a winning machine, and Federer is the god os this sport because of the way he plays

Everybody could beat Djokovic who was dealing with injuries in 2017. Even Benoit Paire and Taro Daniels defeated Novak that season.

The most amazing thing about their rivalry is 2017 onwards was the first time I saw an Nadal uncertain of how to win, because he had depended on Roger Federer, making errors, and for the first time those errors on the backend were not happening. This is a massive reason why I’ve always felt Roger Federer was GOAT, unlike the other two, he absolutely has the shot selection and mental aptitude to win and the others to put it in simplest terms. Just keep getting the ball back until you make an error.

Yes, but Djoker being in a slump would've been part of the context of those wins, so it would've been relevant. H2H is circumstantial, as we all know. Nadal losing his speed also helped change the dynamic of the Fedal match-up.

the views and likes are not quite simultaneous... About you I saw that you were UTR10 💪 you don't compete anymore?

Next gen wouldn’t beat this Federer lol. Wawrinka and nadal were playing at a higher level then any of next generation has and lost to fed. Federer 15 anyways was doing well against Murray, so I don’t know why 17 would struggle. Djokovic Federer would have been fun to watch though. But 2017 Fed in terms of form was way better than the next season. I mean he lost to Millman and Anderson at slams lol. Where as he lost to Del Potro in 2017. Also, you snuck in rublev and tsitsipas like they would have beaten this Fed

@@Divvy21 Lol, you liked your own comment... 🤨 Do I need to remind you Zverev beat Federer in the Montreal 2017 final? Zverev was the first next gen rising star at that time. After 2017, Federer started losing to Zverev, Thiem and Tsitsipas pretty frequently. The Wimbledon 2019 final against Djokovic was the unofficial end of his career, I think many people noticed this. These are actually things that happened, I don't understand why you, fedfans, don't want to accept them, it's unbelievable...

@@tennisradu I actually didn’t like my own comment. Yeah, Federer obviously declined like Nadal is now. He was also 37+ lolol. The only tournaments he played well after 2017 were Paris, Miami, Indian wells, Wimbledon 19, Dubai, some of clay season, atp finals 2019. Federer also beat next some of next gen post 2017 several times. If you think ao 17 Fed is the same as ao 19 Fed In terms of form, then you’re wrong. Next gen got some of their wins when Fed was about to retire. 2015 Fed in fact would also be owning next gen. Fed is also 3/0 against meddy, 2/2 against stefanos despute being almost 2 decades older. If you think next gen would beat this version of Federer, you are wrong. Federer also dealt with a back injury at Montreal which forced him to skip Cincinnati lol

@@Divvy21 Yeah, of course, whenever the discussion becomes a little bit inconvenient to you, his fans, you start using the age factor, of course... Djokovic has 10-2 with Tsitsipas, Nadal has 7-2 against him, are you serious? 🤣 That's a monumental difference between these h2h's and a 2-2 one. Admit it, 2017 is your only argument you can use nowadays... An argument which would've never happened if Rafa had won that fifth set from the AO final or maybe if Federer hadn't taken that medical time out before the deciding set, lol... 🤨

@@tennisradu If Federer played those guys since he was 33 like Nadal and Novak have, the h2h would be similar. He only played those guys when he was mostly 37+ which means he had a much fewer chances to play against them. If you think that 37 is the same as 34 lol, then ur just wrong lol. The fact that you think next gen is better than Federer shows ur bias. I am not even commenting on the goat debate, but I feel ur just not giving credit where it’s due. AO 17 was an earned win. Also, Nadal fans can’t be discrediting ao 17 when djokovic was deported in ao 22. If ao 22 is valid, then ao 5 years ago is valid. The mto was before the 5th set and had no effect on the 5th set.