There no doubt Nole is the best ever in Australia now

Originally Posted by kishnabe

Federer destroyed Novak...and would have done the same to today's Novak.

Prime Federer couldnt even destroy young Novak, in their first ever meeting that Novak was a top 3 player, at the 2007 U.S Open on a much faster hard court; and in fact Djokovic should have won the first 2 sets, blowing tons of set points. Yet you think prime Federer would destroy a much much better Djokovic on a much slower hard court, LOL!

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Prime Federer couldnt even destroy young Novak, in their first ever meeting that Novak was a top 3 player, at the 2007 U.S Open on a much faster hard court; and in fact Djokovic should have won the first 2 sets, blowing tons of set points. Yet you think prime Federer would destroy a much much better Djokovic on a much slower hard court, LOL!

Past his prime Fed, beat God mode Djoker on clay, much slower than any hard court.

[kragster]

Originally Posted by jokinla

Past his prime Fed, beat God mode Djoker on clay, much slower than any hard court.

True , which is why you can't say either way what would happen conclusively. If you combine existing H2H with overall credentials, of course in general you would favor prime fed over prime Nole on any surface outside of slow hard courts.But at the AO , I think it would be really close. Depending on whether Nole wins an FO or not, I'd say clay could be quite close too. Grass , prime fed would be a huge favorite and fast HC I'd give fed a 60-40 lead.

[NamRanger]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Prime Federer couldnt even destroy young Novak, in their first ever meeting that Novak was a top 3 player, at the 2007 U.S Open on a much faster hard court; and in fact Djokovic should have won the first 2 sets, blowing tons of set points. Yet you think prime Federer would destroy a much much better Djokovic on a much slower hard court, LOL!

And Federer proceeded to practically own Djokovic at the US Open making him look like a total clown until Djokovic stepped his game up and Federer's game dropped abit. Either way, there's no doubt you could not favor Djokovic against Federer on a HC with both at their best; at best you could make the argument it is an even match-up.

Originally Posted by jokinla

Past his prime Fed, beat God mode Djoker on clay, much slower than any hard court.

Djokovic was in no God mode that day, and that also means nothing. First off clay has nothing to do with slow hard courts, otherwise Nadal would dominate slow hard courts which he doesnt. They are totally different surfaces.

Second off that is only one match. ****s dispute that 3 time Roland Garros winner is a better clay courter than 1 time Roland Garros winner Federer despite that crippled semi retired Kuerten crushed prime Federer at the 2004 French, so they more than anything already set the standard 1 match alone proves nothing conclusively (despite their inconsistencies trying to use 1 match examples favoring Federer while any that go against him).

Third off both prime and pre prime Djokovic has generally dominated post prime Federer on clay or any slower court. Federer has what, only one win over Djokovic in about 7 matches on slow courts (slower hard courts and clay) since 2009 now. Even in 2008-2010 Djokovic was winning most of their slow court meetings.

Lastly by your logic if post prime Federer had beaten prime Nadal at the 2011 French, which he actually had chances to do, and it was probably their most competitive match there, it would prove prime Federer is obviously better than prime Nadal at the French and on clay, which of course we all know and was proven numerous times over is far from the case.

Originally Posted by NamRanger

And Federer proceeded to practically own Djokovic at the US Open making him look like a total clown until Djokovic stepped his game up and Federer's game dropped abit. Either way, there's no doubt you could not favor Djokovic against Federer on a HC with both at their best; at best you could make the argument it is an even match-up.

Not all HCs are the same. Overall on hard courts Federer is better of course since he is way better on faster hard courts, and they are still close (although IMO Djokovic better) on slower hard courts. There is a World of difference for outstanding defensive players who are also offensively capable facing Federer on a slower hard court vs a faster one though. Just look at Nadals record vs Federer on slow hard courts (he is up something like 4-1) vs faster ones (something like 1-5), and Nadal is nowhere near as good a hard courter on any speed as Novak.

[NatF]

He's the best plexicushion player ever obviously, but I'm not sure I can rate his 3 in a row over Federer's longevity when considering the rebound ace era. 10 semi finals in a row, an extra final appearence and the same number of titles is an impressive record. Agassi also would have won more if he played at the AO more as well. I feel like part of the reason some are eager to anoint Nole as the AO GOAT is because they expect him to rack up a few more titles there. Which no doubt he will.

I'd say with respect to Agassi and Federer, Djokovic is only on their level. He will surpass them by leaps and bounds though IMO.

[dysonlu]

There no doubt Nole is the best ever in Slowstralia now.

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

If Federer had beaten Safin in the 2005 SF, he'd have won 4 in a row.

Let's see Djokovic against in-form Safin. Wait, we've seen that before...and it wasn't pretty from Djokovic's end.

Just saying.

I'll agree that accomplishment-wise, Djokovic is probably going to be the greatest ever at the Australian Open. Who knows how it would've played out if they stayed on rebound ace, though.

Federer with wouldve won Aussie 2009, 2010, 2011 for sure. I dunno about the rest

[kiki]

he has the same number of titles than Rosewall.2 less than emerson.

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

Federer with wouldve won Aussie 2009, 2010, 2011 for sure. I dunno about the rest

2011, no way. Djokovic was way too good at that event, and spanked Federer in the semis. The result wouldnt have been different on any slower hard court, in fact had it been a very fast hard court that day Djokovic likely would have even won given the form of both players.

2009 is doubtful at best as well. Federer hasnt beaten Nadal in a best of 5 match since 2007 now, and even that one (on grass) he won barely.

I also fail to see the logic rebound ace greatly benefits Federer compared to plexicushion or plexicushion greatly favors Djokovic. Rebound ace was most certainly not a fast surface either, and it was higher bouncing than plexicushion.

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

2011, no way. Djokovic was way too good at that event, and spanked Federer in the semis. The result wouldnt have been different on any slower hard court, in fact had it been a very fast hard court that day Djokovic likely would have even won given the form of both players.

2009 is doubtful at best as well. Federer hasnt beaten Nadal in a best of 5 match since 2007 now, and even that one (on grass) he won barely.

I also fail to see the logic rebound ace greatly benefits Federer compared to plexicushion or plexicushion greatly favors Djokovic. Rebound ace was most certainly not a fast surface either, and it was higher bouncing than plexicushion.

Not sure I agree; while I think Djokovic would've won that on Rebound Ace.. both men peaking on fast hardcourts= edge Federer. He's just too good on faster surfaces for Djokovic, though it would've been a spectacular match, no doubt.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

2011, no way. Djokovic was way too good at that event, and spanked Federer in the semis. The result wouldnt have been different on any slower hard court, in fact had it been a very fast hard court that day Djokovic likely would have even won given the form of both players.

2009 is doubtful at best as well. Federer hasnt beaten Nadal in a best of 5 match since 2007 now, and even that one (on grass) he won barely.

Djokovic didn't spank Federer at the AO in 11 any worse than Federer spanked Djokovic at the US open in 07. Both were tightly contested straight set matches for the most part. Let's leave the hyperbole out.

A 6-2 final set isn't barely winning, Federer beat Nadal in a tough fought match but the end wasn't really close. Federer lost the mental battle with Nadal at the AO 09 but for the most part Federer played very well off the ground versus Nadal there. Perhaps if the conditions were a bit faster the match may not have gone to five and Federer wouldn't have collapsed.

That being said I don't think Federer would have won 3 straight titles on rebound ace from 09 to 2011. I feel 09 he might have got it but 11 it was Djokovic's time probably would have been a 5 setter IMO though.

[MTF07]

We should differentiate between the two surfaces. Agassi and Fed were the best on rebound ace. Djokovic has owned Plexicushion.

And yes, while Djokovic may have the more dominant run (of course and insane level Safin that would have beaten any version of Djokovic prevented Federer from 4 peating in Australia), Federer has been in 5 finals and 10 straight semis. His consistency cannot be overlooked. Novak will likely end up with more titles, but right now to say he's easily the best.... well that's just BS.

[The_Order]

Federer has only ever won ONE AO title by getting through a top 4 opponent. Oh and relax guys, it wasn't Novak or Rafa that he beat, it was only JC Ferrero.

I find it funny that people **** on Andre for his weak 2001 and 2003 draws but never mention Fed's easy runs, esp 2006.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Federer has only ever won ONE AO title by getting through a top 4 opponent. Oh and relax guys, it wasn't Novak or Rafa that he beat, it was only JC Ferrero.

I find it funny that people **** on Andre for his weak 2001 and 2003 draws but never mention Fed's easy runs, esp 2006.

Federer beat Murray in 2010 who was ranked 4th at the time. Don't get me going on the "seeded lower so ranked lower!" thing again. He was ranked 4th at the time.

I guess had he played Soderling who was seeded 4th (but ranked 5th) it would be a tougher match, anyway, LOL.

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

2011, no way. Djokovic was way too good at that event, and spanked Federer in the semis. The result wouldnt have been different on any slower hard court, in fact had it been a very fast hard court that day Djokovic likely would have even won given the form of both players.

2009 is doubtful at best as well. Federer hasnt beaten Nadal in a best of 5 match since 2007 now, and even that one (on grass) he won barely.

I also fail to see the logic rebound ace greatly benefits Federer compared to plexicushion or plexicushion greatly favors Djokovic. Rebound ace was most certainly not a fast surface either, and it was higher bouncing than plexicushion.

No he wouldve won 2011. Rebound Ace is slow and low. It allowed fed to take side steps and hit a huge forehand on and off whenever he wanted. Plus that surface took slices wonderfully so it was right into fed's repertoire. Djokovic would really have to bend down to pick up those slices and it would be a sitter for fed. Nadal's topspin would not have kicked up as high allowed fed to be more offensive

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by MTF07

We should differentiate between the two surfaces. Agassi and Fed were the best on rebound ace. Djokovic has owned Plexicushion.

And yes, while Djokovic may have the more dominant run (of course and insane level Safin that would have beaten any version of Djokovic prevented Federer from 4 peating in Australia), Federer has been in 5 finals and 10 straight semis. His consistency cannot be overlooked. Novak will likely end up with more titles, but right now to say he's easily the best.... well that's just BS.

Ah yes, lets not forget Mystic Safin. He played the highest possible level of tennis in the history of the sport because that is the only possible way Roger could lose.

No version of any player could ever had a chance against Safin in that semi and this is evidenced by the fact that he beat peak Roger.

Back to reality, 2011 Novak would've beat him in 4 sets.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by The_Order

I find it funny that people **** on Andre for his weak 2001 and 2003 draws but never mention Fed's easy runs, esp 2006.

It's a tad deceptive though because the draws are much tougher than the ranking of the players would indicate. 2004 was a very daunting draw. Prime Ferrero, prime Hewitt (albeit recovering from a bit of a low), Nalbandian, and then Safin, who made 3 finals down under, winning one. And he mowed through them all.

2006 was pretty soft I'll grant you, but 2007 featured a resurgent Roddick who got shellacked by Fed, and an on-fire Gonzo who destroyed Nadal and disemboweled Haas, and then played quite well in the final.

In 2010 he beat Davydenko, who was playing the best tennis of his life by far, and was seen as a legitimate contender, Tsonga who is a perennial top 8 player, and Murray, who was ranked 5 but lets be honest, he was a top 4 player at the time and would surpass Soderling in the rankings shortly thereafter.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

No he wouldve won 2011. Rebound Ace is slow and low. It allowed fed to take side steps and hit a huge forehand on and off whenever he wanted. Plus that surface took slices wonderfully so it was right into fed's repertoire. Djokovic would really have to bend down to pick up those slices and it would be a sitter for fed. Nadal's topspin would not have kicked up as high allowed fed to be more offensive

How is this possible? The reason plexicushion is slower is because of the high bounce, allowing players more time to retrieve balls.

If a ball is bouncing low, players have less time to get them back, s I can't understand how slow and low is possible by way of physics. Unless you think rebound ace absorbed the energy of the balls as they bounced, but for that to be true it would need to be a very sticky surface.