Who do people think has had the better year of the two dominant y/e No. 1's?

The key stats are as follows:

GS

Henin - RG & US, Wimb SF
Fed - Wimb, US & Aus, RG Final

Titles/Losing Finals

Henin - 10/1; Wins inc 2 Tier 1, Y/E Champ
Fed - 8/4; Wins inc 2 MS, Y/E Champ

Matches

Fed - 68-9, 88%
Henin - 63-4, 94%

Henin missed the Aus Open, but given Serena Williams' form at Aus Open and that she defeated Henin at Miami it is difficult to say much about what would have happened there. If they had met early on Henin might have snuffed out the charge, if they had met in the final Serena's self-belief and form was incredible.

Both Henin & Fed repeated past disappointments in the one GS that evades them.

I think it's almost impossible to put one year ahead (or much ahead) of the other - Fed's feels a bit of a let down compared to what he has done in the past, Henin's if anything the opposite. There is, perhaps, more of a perception of an upwards curve with her than with him. She is one year younger than him for what it is worth. Henin's achievement seems all the more incredible given her physical frailty and past ill-health.

Perhaps Fed's 3 GS wins just clinches it, that's what they'll really be remembered for when they have stopped playing, and looking over their whole careers it is beyond doubt that Fed has the better record.

But two fantastic years - any views anyone?

The phrase 'it's all relative' comes to mind.

Fed i would say has had a better year in a technical sense-slams are what counts at the end of the day and he won 3 compared to 2, but as you suggest it doesn't feel as if Fed has had a brilliant year, whereas Henin's year seems a triumph with less slams to show.

It's astonishing that historically very few male players have won three slams in one year, and yet that's just what fed has done, but because he's done it more easily in previous years he's kind of raised the bar in terms of expectation.
Not sure who was the last guy to win three slams in a year before Fed, but Sampras, Agassi and Borg never did.

Women winning 3 slams in a year is more common and of course Serena did it last in 2002, and won 2 sams in 2003.

It's a measure of how astonishing Fed has been over the last few years-8 titles including 3 slams and it doesn't feel as astounding as it should.

It's great to have two such versatile players at the top of the game.

To say Federer's year was a letdown is wrong.

His form winning the AO and up to Dubai was amazing...

He lost a few matches but came good at Hamburg back in amazing form, got the closest he has ever done at the French, won Wimbledon in an amazing final, took the US convincingly as well as Cincy.

He had a bit disaapointing fall if you count winnign Basel and reaching the final of Madrid miserable.

Then whooped Nadal ROddick and Ferrer in quick succession at TMC.

:D started and ended in tremendous form wth some good bits and some glitches in the middle, a great Wimby final, won 3/4 slams reached 4 slam finals.

This is not a letdown at all.

I agree. But if you are implying I said that you are being a little unfair. I said something rather different about Fed's year,

My point was that in relation to our perception of him he is a victim of his own success. This year for him was outstanding by any fair measure.

Hmm sorry I was a bit harsh but IMO only 2006 was a better year.

05 he had 2 slams and no other finals.

04 he had 3 slams but big loss at the French.

03 he won 1 slam.

But yes by his personal standards he probably thought his W/L might have been a bit better i.e. beating Bandy and Djoko in the AMS finals plus beating Canas and going deep into IW and Miami.

Also I think Henin's year is statistically better and I would have said overall better if she hadn't lost to Marion at Wimbledon and lost in the final instead.

It's true it's hard to speculate on Australia as well.

I think you have to put Federer's year ahead due to the GS count. That's what the players get up for and get motivated for. He, yet again, reached 4 GS Finals winning 3 and while Justine won 2 out of 3 her consistency wasn't there against Bartoli.

I know her win/loss ratio was better but I reckon Justine would swap that and her other tournament wins for winning Wimbledon this year. I don't think you'd see Fed wishing he had a better win/loss record at the expense of a slam win...

I don't want to downplay Justine's year though, as she has been magnificent and dominant. But Roger's, for me, was better. :)

:) Yes ..I will whole heartedly say it is highly subjective...... and 'relative is definatively the operative word. FED was there from the start of the season to the end......and that in itself I think negates tthe need for comparisons..... But I like both players so I won't say one is any much better than the other...... however if I'm going by the stats comparisons I will stick my neck out for Federer.... I think winning 3 slams.....edges it.....

I think I will take 2 slam titles as opposed to 10 tier 1 titles....... its the big ones that really stand out...Masters Cup and Grand Slams...

:hug: but they both did great........ :lol: ..if they both invited me for dinner... I'll go with Federer..he'll be more fun...... :) ....but I'll still send a thankyou and sorry card to Justine.....for not showing up.... :D

Agree completely with Suzi's post.. right down to the dinner observation!! :lol: I think that Roger would be quite goofy, a fun sort of guy. Justine might be more serious... but thoughtful company, I would think. Actually, going for dinner with both of them could be fun, brig JH out of her shell a little :)

In terms of their year It is quite a close-run thing though. Roger gets kudos for even getting in the region of his win-loss ratio from last year.. Justine for bouncing back from her personal issues and producing truly dominant displays at RG and USO, esp the latter.. Roger though I feel was under more pressure esp at SW19.. In general, every loss of his is headline news, and he has stronger challengers.. plus, in the men's game, winning 3 slams in a season is a rarity in itself, let alone 2 seasons in a row..

They both have fantastic competitive spirit, the best all-round games of their repective tours, and are both sublime to watch when their games are clicking. Could watch Justines backhand all day, as well as just about any aspect of the Fed's game when it is 'on'..

It's a tougher call than people are making out. Justine missed a slam, and IMO she has appeared more dominant this year in the WTA than maybe Fed has in the ATP. She had that blip at Wimby too, onviously knackered form winnign the French maybe, and she does have a tiring illness whereas Fed doesn't and he never wins Wimby and the FO that are close in timescales. So very hard to call. I think people may be taking Fed's 'great" staus and his past record into consideration too much? In th ecircumstances and base don the past I certainyl fidn Justien more remarakble but it's all relative as said.

I'd go to dinner with both. I bet they'd be realyl nice people and Fed isn;t bad either. :D

deleted as posted on wrogn thread :doh:

After me .......... you'll be first!!! :P

You go to dinner with Fed and I'll go to dinner with my likkle Mighty Mouse B)

It's a tough one. I feel one has to go with Roger, since he won the three slams. However, if you disregard the AO - which Justine missed for non-tennis reasons, but which was Roger's best slam performance - I think one could but her first. She has lost far fewer matches and won more titles, which IMO makes up easily for the somewhat disappointing loss in the SW19 semis.

:bow: :bow: to both!