Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by chandu612, Nov 12, 2013.
Q: Is peak Djokovic better than peak Federer?
I don't think so. Peak Djokovic has been from 2011-2013, and he has lost about half the slam finals he has played, and some big semis. Granted many of those were to Nadal, who at his best would be an extremely tough foe for even peak Federer (and not just on clay), but no way peak Federer loses 2 slam finals in less than a year to Andy Murray like peak Djokovic has done. That isn't taking anything away from Murray who is an excellent player who will probably end up with 4 or more slam victories at careers end, but Federer didn't lose to Murray in a slam until this year.
I think in a head to head though slow surfaces (Australian Open, Miami/Indian wells, clay) would be a virtual toss up, but on all somewhat fast surfaces (or what even count as those today) Federer would dominate, so combining the two Federer with the clear edge both in the head to head matchup and overall. The only thing is peak Djokovic probably fares better vs peak Nadal than peak Federer would have, which is important given what a huge factor Nadal is in any era, but even with that still not enough.
I wouldn't say Nole is at his peak. He hit the downside of his peak Post 2011 USO. If we want to get technical about it. Certainly he is in his prime, but his peak ended in late 2011. Nadal's peak ended somewhere around late 2010. Fed's ended somewhere in late '06
Allow me to just copy what I said on the previous page:
"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."
Well if Djokovic only had a mere 8 month peak and Federer had like a 4-6 year one, it really is irrelevant whose peak is better then.
Even then I would take Federer:
Australian Open- toss up
French Open- about a toss up, although as it was a non peak Federer upset peak Djokovic at RG that year.
Wimbledon- Federer easily
U.S Open- Federer, not without a fight though.
YEC- Federer easily
If you mean vs the field, not just vs each other, well Djokovic would do better vs Nadal, but Federer would do better against most everyone else.
Generally player's level peaks for 8-12 month period though their primes last for a few years
Could a player have multiple peaks? I always felt that Sampras had that!
Just delusional. If he was better in his peak than Federer was in his, why did past-his-peak Federer give him so much trouble at the FO and USO in his peak?
And you think the guy who really should have lost 2 of the 3 slam matches they played that year is going to win 7 out of 10 matches against peak-Federer? Yeesh...that's just fantardism to taken to the extreme.
Also, forehand is not a close call. Djokovic's forehand can't even hold a candle to 2004-2006 Federer's. If 04-06 Federer got the ball on his forehand side, he was in the driver's seat every single time.
Djokovic more balanced movement? :lol: :lol: :lol: What, is it opposite day? Djokovic has some of the ugliest movement ever. He's a great athlete, but he's off-balance and sliding awkwardly all over the place.
Djokovic's return is overrated. Struggles with the big servers. He's better at punishing second serves than Federer, though. But prime-Federer was the master of defusing the big serve.
Peak-Djokovic could give Peak-Federer some good matches in best of 3...probably win some of them. In a slam, he wouldn't have much of a chance of actually winning unless they played on plexicushion at the AO.
Peak Federer would eat Peak Djokovic alive.
Djokovic's defense would be rendered useless under Federer's offense.
Peak Nadal is the only man capable of neutralising Peak Fed's offense.
Djokovic of today is not even close to Nadal's defense of yesteryears.
I don't know about this peak Fed eating Peak Nole alive.
Nole is still superior in every way on slow hard courts IMO.. All day every day. Peak for Peak.
Nole's best on clay could also Trump Fed's (Yea yea. 2011 French.. But Nole didn't exactly play like he was CAPABLE of playing either that day)
The USO really could go either way.. Though I would give Fed edge of course but who knows. Nole is no joke in Flushing though he isn't as great.
Indoors would depend on the surface speed IMO
Grass.. Obviously Fed there
Really?? I mean Djokovic fought off 2 match points against a 30 year old Fed. I can only imagine what a younger Fed would do (2004-2006). I would give think Federer would win everywhere peak for peak in slams. Back then Federer was a totally different monster in slams.
That was on fast courts. The consensus seems to be that Federer would regularly win on fast courts (although not easily, except for grass), but slow courts would be a real battle and close to 50/50. Anyone who isn't blinded by tardism for one player or the other (which would already eliminated 95% of the posters) would agree with that assessment.
Djokovic would be the favorite in lets say Miami or IW and the early hardcourts. But USO isn't that far away from these courts. It is faster no doubt but not that fast. But I could see Fed losing to Djokovic on a slow court.
Well under todays court conditions I am counting USO, Wimbledon, Cincinnati, Paris, Dubai, and YEC all as fast courts. In reality there are only slow courts and medium courts today, so when I say fast court I really mean medium court which are the fastest today, lol!
LOL true that! WTF court is pretty slow! but Dubai is pretty quick I think. At least thats what I've heard.
It is surprising Nadal still hasn't won the WTF since as you said it isn't even that fast these days. I think one misconception about Nadal is that it is mostly the speed of the court tough. I think it is more the bounce than the speed which determines how much he likes a surface, and how comfortable he is with his footing as well. That is why he seems to like North American hard courts best, and better even than Australian which logic would dictate him liking better.
Nadal looked so out of whack in the final. It seemed like he was late on every shot and was mis timing everything.
The bounce must have something to do with it
he was mentally spent.
it is not easy what he did this season.
Wondering if these Fred vs Noel threads are an attempt by the brigade to start a Fed-Nole fan fight, lol , esp considering that the fan-bases do overlap.
Isn't Nadal the most mentally strong player around ? Even that mental midget Fed could win WTF at the end of the year after doing better than what Nadal did during this season. What am I missing here :-?
I meant "no" as is Djokovic is not as good as peak Fed.
No knock on Novak but c'mon already....how many GS does Djoko have?
Hey I need all the support I can get.
Yes, the answer is pretty obvious, but good threads are not really the norm around here, as I'm sure you know.
6? I think 3 against Nadal , 1 against Federer , 1 against Murray ....who else?
Ya think they are better than Bagdatis?
Baghdatis of the AO 06 >> Murray of AO 11
How many slams did Bag win? Or take your pic....Philopusis ....Agassi at 35????? How about gonzo?
They didn't win because they had to face PEAK FED. Take out Federer and all those guys would have won slams. Djokovic only started winning majority of his slams after Fed started declining. Nadal was the only one able to handle peak Fed and that was mainly on clay. 2004-2007 was sheer dominance.
Nadal fans are feeling lonely
EDIT: more like just 2.
Irrelevent. What matters is how well you're playing. But you haven't seen many tennis matches not involving Nadal so you wouldn't be able to judge.
Nadal fans are feeling awesome. We just won two slams ....closed to 13 slams over all.....being considered now as a goat.....AO on the way for 14 and an end to federer s claim to goat hood once and for all
"We" won?? Thats surprising when Nadal does not know of your existence . But Nadal has a phenomenal year and his fans should be feeling great. Dunno why your getting all mad based on what a few posters have said!
Is it a fact or an opinion?
You think I'm mad? .....go ahead and attack Fed .....the you'll
See what mad truly is.
Pat cash has and he's been in a couple himself . His opinion is as valid if not more valid than anyone else's.
I guess Djokovic vs Nadal are boring and not as skilled as Sampras and Becker.
According to young fans and clueless ones (like TMF and some others) each generation is "obviously" much better than previous ones, therefore peak Nadal must be miles better than peak Federer, and peak Djokovic must be miles better than peak Nadal, and of course light-years better than peak Federer.
And of course in few years, peak Raonic and peak Tomic will be light-years better than peak Nadal, peak Djokovic, and obviously light-years^2 better than peak Federer.
And the stupidity goes on and on and on....
That is true. If you take that flawed line of logic (each generation is better than the next point blank, no questions asked) that is what you have to believe.
Federer in 2005 was better than any incarnation of Djokovic IMO on all surfaces.
That is a hard question to answer. Obviously Federer is greater. Djokovic does some things better than Federer. Competing against Nadal's style, return of service games, 2 fisted BH, as examples.
But all in all prime to prime they play 10 times across all surfaces Fed wins 6, Novak wins 4.
in clay , talking of the years 2007 and 2006 , federer played great matches on clay.
I remember rome 2006 for example , that nadal was much better on clay than the actual nadal , nadal`s defense on clay in the period 2005-2008 was a real real wall.
and federer force to the limits that nadal , even in some matches he won sets 6-0.
for me , that nadal on clay was much better than the actual nadal on clay.
federer in that years would can beat peak nole on clay perfectly.
on US open in that fast surface , federer would win , I mean federer beated nole in us open in 2007 , 2008 and 2009 , in 2010 he choked 2 matchpoints and in 2011 when the surface was slowed down he choked 2 matchpoints again and that was very peak nole.
nole only won 1 final of 4 in us open.
That's his opinion and he is entitled to it. He is a serve and volleyer so it makes sense.
I find today's tennis extremely exciting.
Exactly! So in a lot of other people's opinion Peak Fed >Peak Nole. Cash's opinion does not make it fact. And we have stats to back up that claim.
Evolution does happen. This is a fact. And eventually new guys will be better.
It's just very unpredictable and non-linear. Depends on a lot of factors.
You don't think eventually new generations will be better?
Not necessarily. They play different, with different racquets, different strings and on different courts with different balls. Is that better?
I think any great tennis players from any era (a really all-time great, like Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras....) would have been great had he been born in any other era (would have he played differently? Of course, because they way they play is product of the era and materials used, but would have been great no doubt).
Evolution can happen, but it's not a fact that it does. There are no immutable laws that cause it to occur. So it doesn't necessarily happen whatsoever. Someone may come along in the near future and totally raise the bar much higher, or perhaps Federer raised it as high as it can humanly be. Maybe that's why these guys who turned pro in the late 90s and early 2000s are the best in the world still. Who knows. Hell, nobody has been able to set many new running records in a decade and a half. But it's laughably ignorant and illogical to think a newer crop of players are better simply because they're more recent and therefore more evolved.
No it does not make it a fact....it is an opinion.
Part of formimb an opinion is ones credibility .
Who's opinion you give more weight to is a personal choice.
In the case at bar we have Pat Cash's opinion vs. Emil's cat........I'm going with Pat.
As far as your stats.....just throw them out the window now. We already know about Feds slams.,,.....but we are talking quality tennis . If you read Pats argument he says Joker had a much tougher field to deal with .
Looking at the form of both players, the velocity and speed of their strokes Pat Cash thinks Joker was better.
I give that a lot of weight.
Since ones credibility is an important factor in an opinion that means...
...that in all of your posts you have yet to say anything worthy of reading.
Dedicated to your opinion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ9yAV8uQ7g
Let's look at a quick sampling of Cash's track-record.
In 2007 Cash said about Serena > "Williams is lost cause. For all her talk, Serena Williams will never return to the top again...
"Now she does not appear to have the fortitude to stick at what she is trying to do....
"They [others] are the new winning breed. They are tall and hit the ball just as hard as the Williams sisters, if not harder. Coming through are Jelena Jankovic, Nicole Vaidisova and Ana Ivanovic, who possess similar firepower and just need a little more experience."
Even then, few people agreed with Cash on this. Tracy Austin seemed to be the only notable me-too person out there with Cash.
Before the 2010 Australian Open after months of claiming Federer wouldn't win any more now that his peers were peaking (which Federer won) > "Because it was a bit of a one-horse race, then a two-horse race for so long. But now I think this [the Aussie Open] is a legitimate challenge there for Federer."
Cash also touted Marat Safin as the next dominant force in tennis on many occasions which, as most could see, was never going to happen given his proclivity for brain explosions.
Cash is about as trustworthy in his tennis opinions as a fire-guard made out of chocolate.
Separate names with a comma.