Peak Federer Vs. Peak Djokovic

Federer or Djokovic

  • Total voters
    137
K

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
GabeT said:
Some facts:

  • Federer accomplished more (Slams, time at # 1) than Nole.
  • But Nole had periods of peak dominance relative to his peers that was greater than anything Federer accomplished (ELO ratings)
  • Nole also has accomplishments Fed never reached, like holding all four slams or winning the most M1000s. Nole was also a greater threat to Nadal then Fed ever was, meaning he beat Nadal much more, even on Nadal's best surface.
  • Nole leads the H2H but the 6 year age difference means they never met at their peak levels.
  • But Fed couldn't totally dominate even Baby Nole. Fed won the first four matches but never repeated that. Nole began beating Fed in 2007, when Nole was barely 20 years old. And Nole's first win came at a M1000 final.
The rest is all opinion

Of the Big 3 rivalries this one may be the closest of all?
Click to expand...

"Baby Nole" what you refer to it is actually prime Nole. He peaked in 2011-2016 RG.

Al Stoley said:
Roger won 12 of his slams between 03 and 07 and 16 of 18 between 03 and '10.

Djoko, Nadal and Murray were just starting their careers as teenagers between 03 and 07.

In that time Federer was defeating the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, way past prime Agassi, etc. In other words, Roger had his way in a depleted field before Djoko/Nadal/Murray had reached their primes.

Had their been a closer overlap, Roger would have ranked below Nadal and Djoko in overall slams and overall legacy ranking. Probably third behind Djoko and Nadal, but far ahead of Murray obviously.

Bill Russell won 13 titles in a far earlier era than Jordan who won six but no one believes Russell is the better player.

If their primes had overlapped more or less identically Nadal and Djokovic would have won the most slams and Rger would have been third.
Click to expand...

LOL ROFLMAO Djokovic literally won HALF his slams vs bad back Mauresmo Murray and grandad Fed. If they were the same age Nole would have 0 Wimbledons or USOs, and 0 RG too since Nadal would own him there lol. He should thank his lucky stars he avoided prime Fed.

Alien said:
Djokovic 2011 and 2015/6 is the highest level of tennis ever seen. Apart from what can be seen to the eye, it is obvious that after years from what beginners call Prime Fed time tennis evolves and is at a higher absolute level. Irrelevant if Federer is the GOAT in term of achievements (he is no doubt) or if his game is the most aesthetically ever (it is).
Click to expand...

LOL that's why he was OWNED by post prime 30 year old Fed at RG, and lost to Wawrinka at RG 2015 to cost him CYGS LOL
 
K

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
In fact had the big 3 been the same age, Fed would have about 25 slams by now. His prime Wimbledon / USOs would be unaffected. Heck he might even win a RG if Nole can somehow take Nadal out for him. Might lose 1 AO to Djokovic.

Later career? Wins about 4-5 AO, 4-5 Wimbledons, 1-2 RG, 3-4 USOs etc.


Fed's actually been hugely unfortunate to have 2 peak ATG's both 5-6 years younger than him with one hitting his prime at 19 (Rafa in 05) the other aged 20 (Nole in 07).
 
uliks

uliks

Banned
KINGROGER said:
Well post prime Federer went 2-3 at slams vs peak Nole. 1-1 at RG (Fed's 1 being the one where they were closer in level) 1-0 Wimbledon (ownage) 0-1 at AO (ownage by Nole) 0-1 at USO (Fed was better player but choked).

Prime for prime (07USO - 09) 3-1 to Fed. 1 loss at AO thanks to mono, 3 easy USO wins for Fed.

Peak Nole vs grampa fed 4-0. Can't really analyse anything rom this as Fed had next to zero ground game to compete with peak ATG.

That leads me to believe over 10 matches:

AO: 6-4 to Nole plexicushion, 6-4 Fed rebound ace
RG: 6-4 Federer
Wimbledon: 10-0 Federer
USO: 9-1 Federer
Click to expand...
Why plexicushion to Nole? :(
 
Tennisanity

Tennisanity

Legend
GabeT said:
That's what the ELO is designed to measure.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but that those calculations actually reflect 'dominance' is a matter of debate. Example: Djokovic in 2008 has a higher ELO rating than Sampras ever had. Are you telling me Djokovic dominated more in 2008 than Sampras did in the mid 90s? No, hence ELO is actually quite meaningless.
 
Tennisanity

Tennisanity

Legend
LOL another example of ELO foolishness:

Rod Laver who won the CYGS in 1969 had a peak ELO rating of 2294 in 1970.
Andy Murray who has slam results of 4R, QF, SF, 4R in 2008 had an ELO rating of 2383 in early 2009.

LOLLLLLL, ELO debunked. So yes Djoko may have had a higher ELO rating than Federer, but that that equates to more domination is entirely an opinion, and a foolish one at that! :)
 
P

prosealster

Professional
Tennisanity said:
Not really, the guys that Fed was dominating between 04-07 were beating peak Nadal in 2010 when those players were way past their primes. Scary to think what they would do to Nadal if they were peak. And Roddick who was Fed's pigeon, leads the H2H against Djoko, so no Nadal and Djoko would not be getting as phenomenal results. Matchups are a part of tennis believe it or not.
Click to expand...
I was going to say the same thing... but u beat me to it... old Hewitt Roddick safin et al were still giving djokdal fits late in their careers, imagine what prime 21-24 yr old will do (look at historical data on the players reaching No1, and check out what age they reach No1.. u get an idea at what age people play their absolute best) .. those guys fed faced in 04-07 were classy players... it's just fed made them look average
 
6

6-3 6-0

Guest
KINGROGER said:
Well post prime Federer went 2-3 at slams vs peak Nole. 1-1 at RG (Fed's 1 being the one where they were closer in level) 1-0 Wimbledon (ownage) 0-1 at AO (ownage by Nole) 0-1 at USO (Fed was better player but choked).

Prime for prime (07USO - 09) 3-1 to Fed. 1 loss at AO thanks to mono, 3 easy USO wins for Fed.

Peak Nole vs grampa fed 4-0. Can't really analyse anything rom this as Fed had next to zero ground game to compete with peak ATG.

That leads me to believe over 10 matches:

AO: 6-4 to Nole plexicushion, 6-4 Fed rebound ace
RG: 6-4 Federer
Wimbledon: 10-0 Federer
USO: 9-1 Federer
Click to expand...
8-2 or 9-1 for Novak would be my guess on Plexi.
RG: Prolly 50%-50%
USO: 7-3 in favor of Fed, not 9-1 lol

Wimbledon is where I think the young Fed would absolutely demolish Djokovic despite the lead 2-1 in favor of Djokovic. It took an absolute peaking Nadal, who was in Fed's head at the time and his worst matchup, to beat him 9-7 in the 5th. Too bad, they never met before 2012 on grass... :(
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
GabeT said:
That's what the ELO is designed to measure.
Click to expand...

I think ELO has a problem of stacking and inflation over time. I think it's good for ranking players based on form in a small period of time but as far as all time comparisons go the exact numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt.
 
GabeT

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
I think ELO has a problem of stacking and inflation over time. I think it's good for ranking players based on form in a small period of time but as far as all time comparisons go the exact numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
Yes, no perfect indicator exists. There are other indicators that I didn't include in my post, such as the ATP ranking points.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
GabeT said:
Yes, no perfect indicator exists. There are other indicators that I didn't include in my post, such as the ATP ranking points.
Click to expand...

Sure there are of course other indicators like win/loss record, various streaks etc...which might favour Federer. I have no problem admitting that Djokovic has some things in his favour - namely that 18 month period where he was nigh unstoppable.
 
guitarra

guitarra

Professional
To my mind it depends on the surface:

Clay: Fed 60/40 Djok
Hard USO: Fed 70/30 Djok
Hard AUS (rebound ace): Fed 70/30 Djok
Hard AUS (plexicusion): Fed 40/60 Djok
Grass: Fed 90/10 Djok
 
DreddyTennis45

DreddyTennis45

Hall of Fame
AO- Rebound Ace: 70-30 Fed
AO Plexicushion: 75-25 Nole

Indian Wells: 55-45 Fed
Miami: 75-25 Nole

Rome: 60-40 Nole
Monte Carlo: 52-48 Fed
Madrid/Hamburg 60-40 Fed

RG: 53-47 Nole

Wimbledon: 80-20 Fed

Canada: 60-40 Nole
Cinci: 90-10 Fed

USO: 55-45 Fed

Shanghai: 60-40 Nole
Paris 80-20 Nole

WTF: 50-50 Tie

I think this is fair.
 
acintya

acintya

Legend
how can you even compare those two? ;) federer is a league of his own. no stroke from djokovic is interesting. every stroke from federer is interesting. i dont care about the stats
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Alien said:
Djokovic 2011 and 2015/6 is the highest level of tennis ever seen. Apart from what can be seen to the eye, it is obvious that after years from what beginners call Prime Fed time tennis evolves and is at a higher absolute level. Irrelevant if Federer is the GOAT in term of achievements (he is no doubt) or if his game is the most aesthetically ever (it is).
Click to expand...
I don't think tennis today is at an absolute higher level. All of a sudden some guys like Cuevas and Lopez are reaching their career high rankings whereas they were unable to do this beforehand. Raonic was no.3 without winning any titles for 52 weeks. Nishikori is still a top 5 player without winning any titles for 52 weeks.

I don't buy the idea tennis today is tougher.
 
GabeT

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
Sure there are of course other indicators like win/loss record, various streaks etc...which might favour Federer. I have no problem admitting that Djokovic has some things in his favour - namely that 18 month period where he was nigh unstoppable.
Click to expand...
yeah, that's the period I had in mind.
 
GabeT

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
DreddyTennis45 said:
AO- Rebound Ace: 70-30 Fed
AO Plexicushion: 75-25 Nole

Indian Wells: 55-45 Fed
Miami: 75-25 Nole

Rome: 60-40 Nole
Monte Carlo: 52-48 Fed
Madrid/Hamburg 60-40 Fed

RG: 53-47 Nole

Wimbledon: 80-20 Fed

Canada: 60-40 Nole
Cinci: 90-10 Fed

USO: 55-45 Fed

Shanghai: 60-40 Nole
Paris 80-20 Nole

WTF: 50-50 Tie

I think this is fair.
Click to expand...
Rome 60-40 Nole? really?

Nole won it 4 times, and Fed never. Nole beat Nadal at Rome three times, including twice in the final.

And Nole beat Fed at Rome the three times they played.
 
Tennisanity

Tennisanity

Legend
GabeT said:
Yes, no perfect indicator exists. There are other indicators that I didn't include in my post, such as the ATP ranking points.
Click to expand...

Yeah but that you said Djokovic dominated more based on ELO is totally misguided. Else Murray dominated more than Laver during his CYGS.
 
GabeT

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Tennisanity said:
Yeah but that you said Djokovic dominated more based on ELO is totally misguided. Else Murray dominated more than Laver during his CYGS.
Click to expand...
ELO is a measure of how good you are vs the competition, ie how much you dominate.

There are other indicators. Nole has the highest ever ATP points (under the new system of course) as I recall.
 
Tennisanity

Tennisanity

Legend
GabeT said:
ELO is a measure of how good you are vs the competition, ie how much you dominate.

There are other indicators. Nole has the highest ever ATP points (under the new system of course) as I recall.
Click to expand...

Right and Andy Murray had more points than Laver ever did. So what you're saying is that Murray dominated his competition more than Laver did. It's absurd.

ATP points is not a good indicator either. Else you're saying the player who won all 9 Master's during the year dominated more than the player who won the CYGS.
 
K

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
6-3 6-0 said:
8-2 or 9-1 for Novak would be my guess on Plexi.
RG: Prolly 50%-50%
USO: 7-3 in favor of Fed, not 9-1 lol

Wimbledon is where I think the young Fed would absolutely demolish Djokovic despite the lead 2-1 in favor of Djokovic. It took an absolute peaking Nadal, who was in Fed's head at the time and his worst matchup, to beat him 9-7 in the 5th. Too bad, they never met before 2012 on grass... :(
Click to expand...

Put it this way if Nole is 8-2 or 9-1 on plexi then the same applies to Fed at the USO.

2011 post prime Fed led absolute peak 2-0 on slower USO HC (than 04-08) and blew double MP.

04 peak Fed would absolutely win 9/10 encounters there.

It's a shame 09 or 10erer never showed up at the 2011 AO too as that would've been an epic SF.
 
GabeT

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Tennisanity said:
Right and Andy Murray had more points than Laver ever did. So what you're saying is that Murray dominated his competition more than Laver did. It's absurd.

ATP points is not a good indicator either. Else you're saying the player who won all 9 Master's during the year dominated more than the player who won the CYGS.
Click to expand...
Actually, no he didn't. Just from the Slams Laver had 8000 points (under the current scoring system). I'm sure he won something else, no?

Hard to compare with Laver's time due to a different structure of the tour.

As for the 9 masters vs CYGS that's a good question. Clearly the 9 masters is much, much, much more difficult. No one has come even close. heck, no one has even won the 9 masters throughout their whole career. Yet laver won the CYGS and Nole won all four slams at the same time. And chances are one would face more top ten players winning 9 masters than winning 4 slams (have to check that).
 
Tennisanity

Tennisanity

Legend
GabeT said:
Actually, no he didn't. Just from the Slams Laver had 8000 points (under the current scoring system). I'm sure he won something else, no?

Hard to compare with Laver's time due to a different structure of the tour.
Click to expand...

No you miss the point. The point is in theory it's possible to get the most ATP points and have in second place the guy who won a CYGS. Therefore ATP points are a rather flawed indication of domination.

This is separate from the Laver-Murray point you keep avoiding. Murray had more ELO points than Laver ever did. Laver won the CYGS - this is the definition of domination.

The point of all of this is that you cannot say it's a fact the ELO determines domination, because it clearly does not based on the Laver/Murray example.

And now you're getting caught up with the laver specific example. I gave you another example. Djokovic in 2008-2009 had more ELO points than Sampras ever did. The structure of the ATP was not really different from those two times.
 
GabeT

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Tennisanity said:
No you miss the point. The point is in theory it's possible to get the most ATP points and have in second place the guy who won a CYGS. Therefore ATP points are a rather flawed indication of domination.

This is separate from the Laver-Murray point you keep avoiding. Murray had more ELO points than Laver ever did. Laver won the CYGS - this is the definition of domination.

The point of all of this is that you cannot say it's a fact the ELO determines domination, because it clearly does not based on the Laver/Murray example.

And now you're getting caught up with the laver specific example. I gave you another example. Djokovic in 2008-2009 had more ELO points than Sampras ever did. The structure of the ATP was not really different from those two times.
Click to expand...

No, that's not the definition. It used to be, maybe.
 
Tennisanity

Tennisanity

Legend
GabeT said:
No, that's not the definition. It used to be, maybe.
Click to expand...

Can you show me where the official definition of domination with regards to tennis is published? Because if you can't come up with one, then you cannot say that it's a fact that ELO points reflects domination.
 
GabeT

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
DreddyTennis45 said:
Probably yeah. But his clay peak/prime probably started in 05
Click to expand...
Between 2004 and 2007 Fed barely made a single Rome final and lost in the 2R and 3R. He lost the final to Nadal.

Nole, in his peak years, regularly reached the finals and beat Nadal three times, twice in finals.
 
DreddyTennis45

DreddyTennis45

Hall of Fame
GabeT said:
Between 2004 and 2007 Fed barely made a single Rome final and lost in the 2R and 3R. He lost the final to Nadal.

Nole, in his peak years, regularly reached the finals and beat Nadal three times, twice in finals.
Click to expand...

I said Nole had better chances of winning so what's your point?
 
DreddyTennis45

DreddyTennis45

Hall of Fame
GabeT said:
my point is that 60/40 seems very low for Nole, based on the historical evidence. Just my opinion but it's probably closer to 90/10, maybe 80/20.
Click to expand...

06 Fed was better than 14 and 15 Djokovic at Rome and at least on par with 11 Nole too. Djokovic has done better there historically and beat Fed thrice but didn't face 06 Fed.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
GabeT said:
ELO is a measure of how good you are vs the competition, ie how much you dominate.

There are other indicators. Nole has the highest ever ATP points (under the new system of course) as I recall.
Click to expand...

Another indicator is the annual winning percentage. Peak Nole falls below Peak Federer.

Highest Season Winning Percentage:

Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
Novak Djokovic(2015) .932 82-6
Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6
 
GabeT

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
TMF said:
Another indicator is the annual winning percentage. Peak Nole falls below Peak Federer.

Highest Season Winning Percentage:

Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
Novak Djokovic(2015) .932 82-6
Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6
Click to expand...


Good point. I still prefer ELO, for all its shortcomings, because it takes into account directly who you play against.
 
C

Charlie

Guest
acintya said:
Walls dont have peak levels
Click to expand...
You can call Djokovic however you like and even prefer Lorenzi's strokes but everyone has a peak level, and the two we are talking about here are both extremely high.
 
Tennisanity

Tennisanity

Legend
GabeT said:
Good point. I still prefer ELO, for all its shortcomings, because it takes into account directly who you play against.
Click to expand...

Right but that would be a personal preference or opinion. Not a fact that ELO is definitive with regards to domination. Especially since you fail to address not just shortcomings, but outright failings of ELO with regards to Djokovic ELO in late 2000s vs Sampras at his peak. Nor do you provide a rigorous definition for dominance which everyone can agree to. In short, you really have no facts on your side.
 
GabeT

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Tennisanity said:
Right but that would be a personal preference or opinion. Not a fact that ELO is definitive with regards to domination. Especially since you fail to address not just shortcomings, but outright failings of ELO with regards to Djokovic ELO in late 2000s vs Sampras at his peak. Nor do you provide a rigorous definition for dominance which everyone can agree to. In short, you really have no facts on your side.
Click to expand...
Sure honey. I'll have an essay for you later today. :cool::cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DjokovicForTheWin
  • Poll
Was Nadal as his peak for the AO final?
2
Replies
79
Views
6K
FlamEnemY
FlamEnemY
Raining hopes
Peak Fraudery
2
Replies
50
Views
3K
Raining hopes
Raining hopes
Standaa
  • Poll
Federer vs Anderson - Higher peak?
Replies
37
Views
1K
KINGROGER
K
D
  • Poll
When was Federer's peak?
Replies
20
Views
2K
Deleted member 3771
D
billnepill
Novak's peak level
Replies
0
Views
237
billnepill
billnepill
Top