Djokovic vs Federer - hard court summary

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Djokovic fans are getting defensive just because other fans have different opinion about his placement in all time great on hard court.

And you guys never get massively triggered when someone in this place decides not to kiss Federer's @SS for a change.

 

[Red Rick]

Even if those smaller titles were won against great competition? Dubai 2012, 2014, 2015, Basel 2010 just to name a few?

That's arbitrary.

And I hate arbitrary.

 

[mike danny]

That's arbitrary.

And I hate arbitrary.

So Sock's Paris title is more valuable than Fed's Dubai 2012 title?

 

[Mr Feeny]

You can't be the hc GOAT with two USO titles, no matter how many AO titles you have. The USO was and still is today, more historically significant. Djokovic has severely underperformed at the most important hc slam. It is what it is. But, as long as he's still active and motivated, he may be able to change that. Personally, I'd take peak Sampras on hc over peak Djokovic on hc.

Agree with this, but Djokovic is still only 30. He can still win another US open (and perhaps another AO as well.)

 

[KINGROGER]

So Sock's Paris title is more valuable than Fed's Dubai 2012 title?

Or 2008 Queens.

 

[Red Rick]

So Sock's Paris title is more valuable than Fed's Dubai 2012 title?

Federer's title was probably tougher.

Sock's title bigger, more important, and more valuable

Dimitrov won Brisbane this year beating Thiem, Raonic and Nishikori, 3 top 10 players. Great, tough achievement. And sometimes great achievements happen in 250s. It works both ways.

 

[zagor]

Sampras (and Agassi for that matter) do suffer in these kind of comparison because even in the 90s AO wasn't really on equal terms with other slams (Agassi didn't even play it until 1995 and Sampras skipped it in 1999 to play golf) and of course there's the 16 seed system which allows for more upsets (in general 90s had more of these "big hitter blows you off court" type upsets). However that just doesn't hold water today when AO is clearly a legit slam, able to stand on its own, you have to take the current era into consideration as well if you're making a comparison.

Also keeping in mind that Novak regularly goes deep in nearly every big CC tourney in the season (unlike Sampras and even Agassi barely has had any prep for FO) which means his season is generally busier. One of the reasons I feel he's often so beat up and listless when USO rolls around. Novak is just not that good at scheduling around and peaking for slams, picking his battles.

Personally, while his consistency on HC is very impressive, the main reason I put Novak above Sampras and about on par with Fed is some of his peak runs at AO which were downright scary in terms of level of play. Especially 2008 AO comes to mind as a complete performance balanced between great defense, offense and serving (where that 2008 serve went will always be a mistery to me when it comes to Novak, it only somewhat re-appeared 7 years later in 2015) though his 2011 and even 2016 (aside from that weird match with Simon) are amazing as well.

 

[mike danny]

Federer's title was probably tougher.

Sock's title bigger, more important, and more valuable

Dimitrov won Brisbane this year beating Thiem, Raonic and Nishikori, 3 top 10 players. Great, tough achievement. And sometimes great achievements happen in 250s. It works both ways.

Exactly. I was more impressed with Dimitrov's Brisbane than I was with his Cincy title.

Maybe not disparage all smaller events, just be more selective. Select the smaller events that had tough fields and group them with the bigger titles.

 

[Red Rick]

Exactly. I was more impressed with Dimitrov's Brisbane than I was with his Cincy title.

Maybe not disparage all smaller events, just be more selective. Select the smaller events that had tough fields and group them with the bigger titles.

If you use hard criteria. Maybe like 250s and 500s count if the player beats two top 10 players along the way?

 

[mike danny]

If you use hard criteria. Maybe like 250s and 500s count if the player beats two top 10 players along the way?

Something like that. Or if it's just 1 top 10 player, that has to be a super high quality opponent.

 

[metsman]

Exactly. I was more impressed with Dimitrov's Brisbane than I was with his Cincy title.

Maybe not disparage all smaller events, just be more selective. Select the smaller events that had tough fields and group them with the bigger titles.

Masters 1000 or a 250 is an arbitrary distinction. They have the exact same format, especially now with no more B05 finals and byes, if the 250/500 has a better field/tougher slate of opponents I have no problem calling it a more impressive title. Slams and WTF are different because they have a different format which make them inherently tougher to win (B05, 7 matches and having to beat at least 4 top players to win).

 

[NatF]

Masters 1000 or a 250 is an arbitrary distinction. They have the exact same format, especially now with no more B05 finals and byes, if the 250/500 has a better field/tougher slate of opponents I have no problem calling it a more impressive title. Slams and WTF are different because they have a different format which make them inherently tougher to win (B05, 7 matches and having to beat at least 4 top players to win).

I agree with this totally. The difference is the field is better at a Masters but if in practice the draw opens up I don't see why it should have more value than event where the is tougher draw.

Unfortunately discussing titles in this manner requires more thought than most on here can muster. For many the draw is inconsequential you just need to look at the year of the event to ascertain it's value.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

Djokovic fans are getting defensive just because

other fans have different opinion about his placement in all time great on hard court.

The .'singular'. irony in a pluralistic world....​

 

[Nadal_Django]

Djokovic