Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by chandu612, Nov 12, 2013.
Yes, of course .. Federer could never beat Nadal 7 times in a row.
OP, this is a repetition of yesterday's thread.
We dont need a new one everyday.
2011 Djokovic not only was unable to match the achievements peak-Federer was producing each season, but he had to win key matches he should have lost in order to still come up short (should've lost to Murray in Rome, should've lost to to Federer at the US Open).
No. End of discussion.
nice move from Nadal fans. Djokovic thrashes Nadal and Nadal fans turn the discussion into peak Djokovic v peak Federer.....way to troll.
why are so many UK posters such (you fill in the blank)?
In terms of level of play, I think peak Fed takes the cake.
In terms of winning important/tight matches, Novak 2011 is unrivaled.
I think peak Fed would beat peak Nole. Peak Nole had to save match points against old man Fed at the USO. Also got bageled by 31 year old Fed in cincy. But Djokovic is phenomenal regardless.
Poor OP, must be really butthurt, LOL. Nadal was Djoker's easiest match of the WTF, LOLL.
Peak Federer was also not dealing with prime/peak Nadal like Djokovic.
No. Are you serious? When federer is at is game nole cant match him. It is just that in matchups nole is better against nadal than fed. But thats something else
Now go away.
No, Djokovic is not as good, or no you are not discussing it?
Joker's peak was more impressive to me than Fed's mainly because of who he beat compared to who Fed mostly beat at his.
Fed's peak year was 2006.. ROFLMAO.. Yea 2006.. That says it all. Look at the men's field in 2006.
His 2011 AO form is better than anything Federer has ever produced.
best post of the day.
peak fed had the right game for nole.
the thing with nadal is that he is a very heavy topspin player who has to rely on his ground game and his legs. his timing has to be exceptional at all times for him to win.
roger could win easy points on his serve alone and he could end points at the net that were begging to be ended.
nadal has no such luxury. he does not have a big serve and he is terrified of the damn net.
Lol, is that even a question? Even 32 year old broke back Fed managed to win a set against peak Nole in their last 2 matches. Federer of 04-07 would beat peak Nole 8 times out of 10.
Djokovic wasn't even that good in AO 2011 lol. I felt like he was better in 2008.
I am hearing reports that roger is planning to come back very strong in 2014.
he can record a win over nole on a good day. he has the game for it.
he still has a massive game. what he did not have this year was a healthy back. that affected his consistency and his play.
he just has to get a little stronger and more physically fit.
Peak Federer destroys peak Djokovic.
What do you mean by "hearing reports"?
Do you mean Federer said he was going to train hard for January and it's been paraphrased all over the net shifting further and further from what he actually said?
Absolutely- Fed never destroyed Rafa on indoors as badly as Nole just did
My sentiments EXACTLY! Well said Jeffrey!
...but actually he did 6-3 6-0
Slightly more appropriate though would be to state that Peak Djokovic is DEFINITELY better at dispatching Nadal (in general) than peak Federer ever was.
well quite obviously he is not happy with the way 2013 went.
he did say that he plans to work very hard to make sure he is back much stronger in 2014.
he is a warrior. he is not going away without giving his very best shot at another slam.
I think you will see a different Federer in 2014.
Lololol. 6-3 6-0.
Federer beat peak Djokovic at the French Open. Was an amazing match.
I think you're being sarcastic but on the internet and this site especially, I can't tell.
As amazing as Peak Djokovic could (and can still) be, I'd still give the edge to Peak Fed on any surface except Plexicushion. Shouldn't be a question of who's better on grass, Federer was and is able to trouble Novak on fast hardcourts well into his decline, and has a far better record at the US Open. Clay's a tougher call. Both have had fantastic performances on it (Rome Final of 2006, Roland Garros Semi of 2013), etc, but as of now Federer's accomplished more on the surface. Might have to reevaluate it when they both are retired.
In any case though, I think Federer's greatness on the faster courts outmatches Novak's on the slower ones. Djokovic is definitely a better player against Nadal, but not overall in my opinion.
He beat Berdych, Federer and Murray without dropping a set back-to-back-to-back.
Explain how he wasn't very good?
I don't think anyone in history would beat Djokovic in his prime 2011 performance
Old man Fed managed to.
^ Certainly not at AO 2011. iirc it was a straight set win over Roger.
Fed got the better of Novak at Roland Garros where he was one of the favorites alongside Nadal, breaking his winning streak.
rock paper scissors
Note now, without the 'could'. I will instead use 'will'.
Djokovic will never equal any of Federer's Slam records (obviously this does not include most MTOs and instances of retiring due to heat/exhaustion; except maybe the SF streak, which will be achieved by more and more as the surface homogenization continues).
Anyone thinking a peak Novak is a match for peak Federer just hasn't watched enough tennis. Federer would have breezed through Djokovic in straight set demoralizing fashion.
Is there a doubt as to the peak season of Djokovic's career? 2011? What happened then? Federer taught him a lesson at RG, didn't he? How many years of reaching 4 Slam finals? None?
He may be a superior athlete, whose game is a cookie-cutter pusher's strategy to outlast an opponent. But I reckon never in his wildest dream would Djokovic think he's a superior player to Federer.
Only here, in this cesspool of armchair failures, would this be a debate.
Yes I was, I was simply mocking the clearly knee jerk reaction nature of this thread therein Novak's win against Rafa leads to all sorts of random postulating about how great his peak form is, ignoring the fact that he was defeated pretty comprehensively by Nadal this year in far more important matches that this one or the fact that Rog creamed Rafa on indoors when he was in his pom and even well outside it (2010/2011). But anyway I agree with what you said- I'd take Peakerer over 2.0 on any surface except very slow hc and maybe, maybe clay.
Cool, just checking. Cheers ^^.
Peak Djokovic is a better player than peak Federer. That doesn't mean he can't lose one, but when they would play 10 matches he would win at least 7.
Djokovic has got better groundstrokes FH and BH combined. Forehand is a close call, but (topspin) BH is clearly superior.
Slice BH: Federer and he needs hit badly.
Net game: Federer may be a tad better. Both players aren't Edbergs. Net game is not that important anyway in today's game as long as you're able to end a point at net after having dominated the rally.
Serve: Federer is clearly the beter server.
Return: Djokovic by a mile.
Movement: Djokovic, faster, more agile and more balanced.
Because of that, also better defense.
Maybe. Djokovic at peak is superior to Federer in Melbourne for sure. Did you see his God-mode against Ferrer in the semis this year? It was a ridiculous display off both wings, and he hit screaming backhand winners while sliding to his left on balls that Federer would have to slice.
But on fast hard courts and grass, Federer is obviously better. His slice and reflexes at the net are great in fast conditions.
Clay is hard to tell.
No. But peak Fed vs. peak Djokovic would be a better rivalry than Fedal by any standards, because of how great hard court players they both are. Could have been a 50 match rivalry if they were part of the same gen. But, unfortunately, they aren't.
What does peak vs peak even mean? You chose a few tournaments where Nole was god mode and apply Nole would own Fed?
Doesn't work this way. Peak Nole doesn't own peak Rafa, just because of 2011. What about all other years when Rafa owned Nole and the tour more?
Safin had a peak mode in AO 2005. Doesn't mean he will be able to sustain it for years like Fed and still beat him.
Not to mention, you can't compare 11 nole with 06 Fed, cuz it's a fallacy. Nole has 5 years of evolution, he was able to see previous generation play and learn from them, and the science also improves.
When comparing playing level of guys from different times, why do you forget about EVOLUTION?
Peak Roddick would own peak Laver. That doesn't mean Roddick is better. Give Laver the training of today from the start and technology and the knowledge of fitness and nutrition and Laver owns Roddick.
Why do people ignore this factor when comparing different eras or generations?
Not to mention, conditions are different. In Feds time you needed different skills to win than today. Surfaces were faster and players were aggressive, this means, good backhand didn't help you that much. It was big serve and big forehand that was more important. So, if Nole has some superior skills to Fed that are needed today, those skills won't help you.
Agassi is the example. Compared to Sampras he has superior backhand and return and yet Sampras defeated him. Because in those conditions, Serve and Forehand were superior weapons.
You forget to mention Sampras also had a superior net game and movement. Plus a slice which indeed in fast 90's condtions also was a great asset in his attacking game.
Of course I assumed peak Federer and peak Djokovic wouldn't meet in 90's conditions, because the didn't play then, or better weren't exactly at their peak that period.
Federer at his absolute peak would destroy Novak 5.5 or whatever you'd like to call it in straights on every surface.
End of discussion.
As other have mentioned... except to hand him the most one-sided loss of his career for over a decade at the 2011 WTF.
The other day was the first time Nadal has ever beaten Federer indoors by the way.
Jeff said he was being sarcastic.
But they had different peaks. In different conditions. How can we even compare?
I guess you meant if we have a time machine and send 11 Nole back to 06. Or send 06 Fed to 11.
The problem is it's not fair comparison. Since new generation has the advantage of accumulated knowledge.
If you send any average scientist back in time, he will look of course a genius and advanced. But that is because he has the advantage of evolution.
If you want to compare peak Fed and peak Nole, they both have to grow up and train the same time.
There are two ways. Let's say Fed is now 26-27 years old. That means he has the advantage of evolution from the start of his career. His level from the start will be higher and he would have higher level if he peaked today.
The second way is Nole is 6 years older. Let's say today Nole is 31-32. That means he didn't have the advantage of evolution, seeing peak Fed and peak Rafa play. So his level in 2006 without the benefit of evolution is going to be much lower than today.
I think greats would be great in any era. Because they can do the most with what they have.
So it's not fair to compare the level of any guys from different eras. But we can compare only results.
Also, I don't like when people say Rafa would not be good on ultra fast surfaces. You can't just transfer him. If he was growing up at the time, he would adapt his training. He would base his game less on fitness and more on serve and net. Instead of hitting millions forehands in practice, he would hit millions of volleys. Instead of hitting defensive shots in practice, he would be hitting offensive ones.
Greats are great cuz they solve problems and adapt. Not because of style. They develop any style that wins.
well , fed was the man who beated the invictus nole in RG 2011 , and he had 2 matchpoints to beat him again at us open.......and federer in 2011 was not the best fed , his 2012 level was much much better than his 2011 version for example.
in 2012 he took the nº1 beating djokovic in wimbledon and bagel him in cincinatti too.
this year federer playing his worst tennis since 2002 took a set in both matches and nole needed many chokes of fed too for won both matches.
in australia nole is superior but talking of plexicushion....in rebound ace federer has the advantage for me.
peak fed in clay was a very good player too I remember him bagelling nadal on clay even if he finished with a lost , he always made very hard fights to nadal , and that nadal was the best nadal on clay , a 100% clay court nadal , peak nadal on clay was 2005-2008 , nobody like isner would won 2 sets against that nadal on clay.
I think that fed would win on clay many matches against nole too.
Djokovic's GOD mode peak form was the first half of 2011 when he won the 43 straight matches.
His level of play certainly didn't look incredible at RG, Wimbledon or the USO despite the fact he managed to win 2 of those slams.
Federer won 7 Wimbledons, I think 6 straight. Won 5 straight USO, won 1 French and made semis or better 6 years in a row. Federer also held #1 ranking for roughly 5 years straight and then came back to beat the all time #1 ranking. Fed has 4 AO which is about same as Djoko and this is a slow hard court not suited for Federer's game. He also made SF or better in Grand Slams for over 6 years straight. Sorry, but Djoko is not and will never be as good as prime Federer.
Djoko has never been able to put together the mental toughness to dominate for several years in a row.
Federer way past his peak def peak djokovic in his best year. Something even peak nadal could not do
Separate names with a comma.