Prime Federer versus 20 year old Djokovic

[dimeaxe]

Originally Posted by axel89

I agree completely

Sorry, 2010 not 2011 I meant, just fixed this.

[axel89]

Originally Posted by dimeaxe

Sorry, 2010 not 2011 I meant, just fixed this.

yeah wasn't djokovic's record in 2011 4-1? and Federer may not be in his prime but he is still playing pretty darn well and winning titles and grandslams in harder competition i.e. nadal murray djokovic

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by Gonzo_style

Federer destroyed Djokovic in US Open finals.

Noit was a close 3 setter, and Djokovic could have won the first 2 sets. Federer won 2 tiebreak sets and one 6-4

In fact look at this Canada 2007 match here in the opening post. Federer took a set 6-2 and Djokovic needed 2 tiebreaks. In a way Djokovic played better at the US open, he just failed in the tiebreakers, but he didn't get beat 6-2 in any set, so the difference was marginal. Obviously takes skill to win a tiebreak but still it can be a very thin line between winning and losing.

[dimeaxe]

Originally Posted by axel89

yeah wasn't djokovic's record in 2011 4-1? and Federer may not be in his prime but he is still playing pretty darn well and winning titles and grandslams in harder competition i.e. nadal murray djokovic

Yeah, it was. But 2010 was Federer who dominated the rivalry.My argument was that "old and "grandpa" Fed had the most wins in a single season against Djoker just year before Novak had this crazy run.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by Towser83

Noit was a close 3 setter, and Djokovic could have won the first 2 sets. Federer won 2 tiebreak sets and one 6-4

In fact look at this Canada 2007 match here in the opening post. Federer took a set 6-2 and Djokovic needed 2 tiebreaks. In a way Djokovic played better at the US open, he just failed in the tiebreakers, but he didn't get beat 6-2 in any set, so the difference was marginal. Obviously takes skill to win a tiebreak but still it can be a very thin line between winning and losing.

If people want to see Federer destroying somebody in a major final, they should take a look at his 2004 match against Hewitt in the final of the US Open. Federer's match against Djokovic was a close, three set win. It could have easily gone the other way.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

If people want to see Federer destroying somebody in a major final, they should take a look at his 2004 match against Hewitt in the final of the US Open. Federer's match against Djokovic was a close, three set win. It could have easily gone the other way.

yeah i agree with you there.

[DropShotArtist]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

If people want to see Federer destroying somebody in a major final, they should take a look at his 2004 match against Hewitt in the final of the US Open. Federer's match against Djokovic was a close, three set win. It could have easily gone the other way.

Your opposition to the use of the word 'destroy' in Fed-Djoker 2007 is deflated by your subsequent use of the word 'easily'.

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by dimeaxe

Obvious trolling, I think it was Djokovic who choked US open finals.Multiple set points in first and second set.If it was the other way it would something like 3 wins in a row, and maybe more in future.Federer was lucky, but also much more experienced player, he knew that's his opponent will be overwhelmed by the moment itself.Playing first GS final against 11 time champion is not the same like playing someone like Phillipussies.And the most amount of wins that Federer accumulated against Novak in single season were in 2010, it was 4-1.Also, Federer was in great form before last years AO, he was playing in Doha like never before, crushing opponents along the way, so this type of arguments about post prime and old Fed are really cheap way to belittle Djokovic accomplishments.

Of course it might have been the other way around, but by the same token, if Federer had not choked the first and third sets away in Montreal, he could have won all meetings in 2007. It can go either way; Federer won, IIRC, 2 of 3 meetings in 2008 as well. Split the meetings 3-3 in 2009, won 4-1 in 2010 as you said, 1-4 in 2011, and 2-3 in 2012.

It's always been a close rivalry, but at that time in the rivalry, Federer had never lost to Djokovic, and was absolutely capable of having won that match. That's just the way it is, no excuses.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

Your opposition to the use of the word 'destroy' in Fed-Djoker 2007 is deflated by your subsequent use of the word 'easily'.

How so? All I said was it could have gone either way, using "easily" to emphasize my point.

[hidude2009]

In OP's video... holy 8:23

[President]

Federer was already declining by 2007, Djokovic would get owned on a medium-fast hard court by a Prime Federer (2004-2006). And besides, look what happened in a MAJOR when they met like a month later. It's insulting to Federer to compare him to Cvac..

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by President

Federer was already declining by 2007, Djokovic would get owned on a medium-fast hard court by a Prime Federer (2004-2006). And besides, look what happened in a MAJOR when they met like a month later. It's insulting to Federer to compare him to Cvac..

Wouldn't get owned as hard as some people Federer owned in that time period. Let's face it, Djokovic is a better player than Hewitt, Roddick and the like. He would be able to front up against Federer and claim a few wins, just not to the extent Nadal has.

[Tony48]

Originally Posted by President

Federer was already declining by 2007, Djokovic would get owned on a medium-fast hard court by a Prime Federer (2004-2006). And besides, look what happened in a MAJOR when they met like a month later. It's insulting to Federer to compare him to Cvac..

LOL, good one.

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by Tony48

LOL, good one.

It's true.. those losses to Canas, Volandri and the like wouldn't have happened in 2006 or 2005.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

It's true.. those losses to Canas, Volandri and the like wouldn't have happened in 2006 or 2005.

No, he just lost to Gasquet and pre-prime Murray.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

No, he just lost to Gasquet and pre-prime Murray.

To be fair they were pretty one off losses in those seasons (I mean in terms of surprising losses), to players better than the ones he lost to in 2007. Plus the one vs Murray was after Federer had played 11 consecutive finals in a row form the beginning of the season..

I would say he was still prime in 2007 for sure but he was starting to drop a little bit, mainly outside the slams.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

No, he just lost to Gasquet and pre-prime Murray.

gasquet was on-fire in that match , it was an excellent performance from him ....

As far as the murray match goes,federer had just come to cincy from Canada playing 4 back to back 3-setters in Canada masters ( there were no byes at that time ) ...

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

No, he just lost to Gasquet and pre-prime Murray.

Fed's match record in:

2005- 81-4 (95%)

2006- 92-5 (95%)

2007- 68-9 (88%)


So yes he indeed had more "bad" losses/upsets in 2007 compared to 2005 and 2006 combined (with more wins in each year also).

However I wouldn't call 2007 a decline from his peak, it wasn't his best year ever like 2006 (when he reached his record # of finals in a row, like Nadal did in 2011) but was still a great (peak) year.

[Tony48]

Originally Posted by abmk

gasquet was on-fire in that match , it was an excellent performance from him ....

As far as the murray match goes,federer had just come to cincy from Canada playing 4 back to back 3-setters in Canada masters ( there were no byes at that time ) ...

But he loses to a future 5-time Slam winner (who already had a Masters title at the time, unlike Gasquet and Murray) and it's the signal of a decline.

Fed fan logic is weird.

[dimeaxe]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

Of course it might have been the other way around, but by the same token, if Federer had not choked the first and third sets away in Montreal, he could have won all meetings in 2007. It can go either way; Federer won, IIRC, 2 of 3 meetings in 2008 as well. Split the meetings 3-3 in 2009, won 4-1 in 2010 as you said, 1-4 in 2011, and 2-3 in 2012.

It's always been a close rivalry, but at that time in the rivalry, Federer had never lost to Djokovic, and was absolutely capable of having won that match. That's just the way it is, no excuses.

Not true, it was 3-2 in Djokovic's favor.In this I might say even rivalry, Federer had winning record in four seasons(2006,2007,2008 & 2010), and Djokovic in three seasons(2009,2011 and 2012).After four consecutive Fed wins , Djokovic is leading 13-12.