Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by YellowBall77, Aug 1, 2012.
Who wins? I say Djoker in 4.
Federer in four tight sets.
Federer. That was probably the best grand slam Federer ever played, start to finish.
It's worth asking though, is this match played on rebound ace or plexicushion? I think Federer wins more comfortably on rebound ace, but on plexi, it'd be very tight.
AO07 was the last slam of Fed's peakiest peak. Fed wins easily against any version of Djokovic, perhaps in 4, but probably in 3 sets.
Djokovic probably would have won.
He showed he could do it only one year later, in 2008 AO.
2011 AO, on the other hand, was even a greater milestone for Djokovic in terms of the quality of his game, compared to 2008 AO.
Anyway, Federer didn't have very strong competition in 2007 AO, as Nadal and Djokovic were still finding their way in that tournament, and other big players like Safin had faded away already.
Yes I know it was Fed at his absolute peak. The SF win over Roddick was very impressive. But think about it, Djoker beat Fed 08 in straights...and in '11...now obviously Fed was better in 07 than 08 or 11...but not enough to win the match against '11 Djoker IMO. That was an incredible performance in the final against Murray as well. Compare that to Fed vs Gonzo. And compare Murray to Gonzo LOL.
This surface argument used to boost Fed is unfair IMO. Rebound Ace was somewhat faster, yes. But it also had an equal to higher bounce to plexicushion. Why do you think Agassi was so good on it? Plexicushion vs 07 Rebound Ace is like the difference between Rome and Madrid. It's there, but they're still in the same category.
Both tournaments were held on different courts, so the thread and the current responses seem misinformed. I take a peak Nole on the current surface over 2007 AO Fed and I'd take Fed on the rebound ace. Also, the difference between the two surfaces is rather profound, actually. As hard courts, their behaviour is vastly different. Rebound ace was volatile, inconsistent, and incredibly active and often extremely jumpy, where as the plexicushion is extremely consistent, gritty and whether it's a combo of just the court or the court and the balls they use, heavy.
Nole in 3 or 4........
I love the discrediting of Gonzo. He played like the second best player in the world in that tournament, and anyone that saw him play that tournament can attest to that. He destroyed Nadal and Haas en route to the finals, and I think in that Haas match he hit 40 winners and like 4 unforced errors. His level was unreal, and he played Federer very competitively in the final (had set points in the first set).
The answer is and always will be Federer in 2.
People are forgetting that Fed destroyed Nole 6-2, 7-5, 6-3 in 2007 AO.
2007 Australian Open Federer had the confidence of several years of dominance behind him. 2011 Australian Open Djokovic was in the early stages of what would become a dominant year.
I go for 2007 AO Federer, because of the confidence aspect.
I take it you watched the Hewitt Nole match yesterday. You must have been proud of Hewitt's effort but at the same time disappointed at how his intensity did seem to diminish and how he didn't try to go out and win the match with attacking and aggressive plays at the end of the 2nd set. He was rather hoping Nole would miss and was overall less positive than he was in set 1. It makes me wonder how a match on grass would look between the 2 when Hewitt was at his best.
Yes, I had hope that Hewitt would do it after the first set, but it wasn't to be, unfortunately. Hewitt's strong will, his anticipation and his shotmaking ability is what enabled him to beat Cilic and take a set from Djokovic. It's amazing that Hewitt can still do this given all the injury problems he's had.
What about the surface? Admit that Rebound Ace would be awesome for Djoker as well. It certainly was for Agassi who was like a smaller, less athletic Djokovic clone. It isn't this major advantage you are pretending it to be for Fed. (Although to be completely fair we could stage a hypothetical match on a blend of the 2 surfaces, I still like Djoker on Rebound Ace.)
Im on the fence on this one. It could go either way. Tough one OP. Would Federer have gone 6 plus hours? Nole just REFUSED to lose that final. I want to say Federer but idk.
That was AO '12, I think Nole played better in '11 actually. But yeah, No way Fed wins in a battle of attrition like that vs Nole or Rafa.
He's talking about 2011 not this year. Nole wasn't really pushed in the 2011 final lol.
Federer's win over Djokovic at AO 07 was more convincing this Djokovic's win over Federer. I mean Djokovic was only able to generate 2 break points throughout their whole entire match. But I admit that mono Federer in 08 and past prime Federer in 11 is a better player than Djokovic back in 07.
I think Federer will edge Djokovic on Rebound Ace whereas Djokovic will edge Federer on Plexicushion. Not much separates these two here.
Rebound ace is significantly faster, and this favors the more aggressive player which is Federer.
And stop comparing Agassi and Djokovic. Agassi was far more aggressive off the ground then Nole, took the ball earlier and hit the ball flatter. Djokovic, while he can be aggressive off the ground, is much more of a counterpuncher than Agassi.
What are you talking about LOL. Get a clue.
That was a typo. It was OBVIOUS I meant Federer.
Agassi and Djoker are very, very similar players. Agassi has said so himself. Djoker is kind of a blend between Agassi and Hewitt. Hewitt also did well on fast surfaces. Djoker has tailored his game to do well on slower surfaces due to extreme athleticism..but he can do damn well on surfaces as fast as USO/WIMBY... rebound ace which is close to plexicushion than USO would be no problem.
Good lord what am I talking about lol. Yeah Fed would be 2011 Nole for sure.
Speed wise, rebound ace is much closer to USO than plexicushion. Plexicushion is slower than some clay courts.
Lleyton Hewitt constantly complained about how slow Rebound Ace was. It only seemed fast in 2000.
Yup. Fantasyland for some people.
Thing is, it isn't as simple as speeds; WTF courts aren't quick really but they are low bouncing. The two surfaces had very different characteristics that made them very different to play on, and in various ways.
Gonzalez player better in his only major final than Murray in his first 3.
Rebound Ace was already slow but Plexicushion is just a joke.
Plexicushion wasn't a problem for Fed in 2010 vs Murray, I guess its only 'too slow' when he loses to Djokovic or Nadal?
Once again, Murray wasn't necessarily a tough opponent to beat in a major final at that time. Federer would've beaten him on any surface.
Wow rebound ace is a surface that suits aggressive base liners. It is high bouncing, but relatively quick. The balls used there were light. Federer is the best rebound ace player ever. Even in his younger days he almost won the bronze in Sydney and in 02 he was playing well enough to win the tournament, before losing a tight match to Haas.
That said the Australian Open 07 was Federer at his absolute best. Hitting big and deep of both wings, great defense, serving well and brilliant at the net. This was the most complete performance I have ever seen. It is not a question of Federer having no weaknesses at this point, everything was a weapon. Nobody in the last 20 odd years is going to defeat Federer playing like that off clay. Let alone one of his favourite surfaces.
The match they played in 07 was even more dominant than the score suggest. Federer was literally crushing with consummate ease till he went a break up in the 2nd and switched off a bit.
On rebound ace Federer would win this match most likely in straights. On Plexicushion he would struggle more and probably in 4. In the unlikelihood it went 5, then Djokovic would win.
Fed would win in 4 on plexicushion? Just No.
You realise that Federer always plays to win a big match and not just to make it close? Federer cannot afford to try and grind it out now. It would be suicide. He may split the first couple of sets, but would be dead soon after. Federer simply does not have the stamina to grind with Djokovic from the back of the court for 5 hours now. Not that he every had stamina close to Djokovic, but it was much better than it is now. In 07 he would grind it out on Plexichusion if he had to. People here are so quick to forget past players. Also some people think to believe he managed to constantly beat power players constantly without speed. Dismissing Hewitt, Roddick's serve, Sampras' serve, Sampras's forehand, Agassi's groundstrokers, Agassi's volleys etc.
Lets take their 2011 match as an example.
1st set: Federer and Djokovic was pretty much dead even up till the tiebreak. We are talking about post prime Federer vs Peak Djokovic. Peak Federer could have easily won this tb or even won it more convincingly.
2nd set: Post Prime Federer was leading 5 - 2 in this set before losing the set to Peak Djokovic. Peak Federer could have closed and won this set as well.
Peak Federer could have easily gone up 2-0 sets against Peak Djokovic here and it is unlikely Djokovic would have came back in this situation. Peak Djokovic also won the 3rd set by one break so it isn't too silly to think Peak Federer could have pushed it to a tb or even win it in straights.
While I do think Peak Djokovic might edge Peak Federer here, it could easily be the other way around considering a post prime Federer was pushing a peak Djokovic here back in 2011.
2008 AO Fed lost in straights to a not as good as '11 Nole. Yes, I know you will claim Fed had mono, but he had a damn fine tournament, and downed a playing great Blake in straights int he quarters before running into Nole.
It is ridiculous to try to claim Peak Fed could have won these sets. He is 0-6 vs Djoker at AO currently in sets. Being 'peak' would not make up for that.
Federer almost lost to Tipsarevic... But we aren't talking about 2008, We are talking about 2007 Federer against 2011 Djokovic.
So a more explosive and stronger Federer would not have made a difference?
Federer had Mono. 2008 was his worst year since 2002. He did not recover until 09 Australian Open where he was back to a good level again. To use that as an example says it all. Federer was on a hospital bed a couple of days before the tournament. Federer was older and Djokovic was better in 011, but the match was much closer. Why do you think that is?
Quite frankly I would bet a large sum of money you did not watch the 07 Australian Open. Compared to 011: Fedeerer was faster, fittter, had better forehand, better backhand, better serve, better footwork, better volles and much more confidence. Not to mention the mental pressure of facing a player, where you literally had no where to go. Everything was dangerous.
You make good points and I hope you have the same assessment of the USO 2007 final between the two where a pre prime Djokovic had set points in the first set and was up a break in the 2nd.
Basically I would say any Djoker Fed match on HC would be close (at peaks) unless it's super fast conditions. In super fast conditions, Fed would have a big edge.
Hard to compare because AO changed surface in 2008.
It doesn't work as simple as that, too many variables go into any match, especially between two top players to simplify it like that.
Otherwise, what would be your analysis of Fed's 2004 and 2005 USO meetings with Agassi? Heck, old Agassi pushed Fed even more than Fed did Novak in their AO meetings (on plexicushion).
Exactly. He was stunning that tournament. I think he hit more forehand winners that Murray in his entire life.
I think Djokovic wins in 5.
Federer 07, he bullied people.
Separate names with a comma.