Djokovic's US Open or Federer's RG

edk1512 · Mar 22, 2014

Which one was/is more impressive?

Both of them are 1-4 in finals, but

Federer proved he can beat anyone at RG except Nadal. His biggest match win was against peak Djokovic in 2011.

Djokovic scored wins over Federer/Nadal/del Potro and it is arguable he would have beaten Murray if they played a few more matches there, but he usually doesn't deliver/chokes in the final.

Tenez101 · Mar 22, 2014

Djokovic in USO 2011 saved 2 MPs against Federer (second year in a row) and thrashed Nadal in the final (who beat him pretty easily in the final the year before). Fed basically took advantage of Nadal's early exit. So Djokovic.

Tony48 · Mar 23, 2014

How was Fed's RG impressive at all?

Start da Game · Mar 23, 2014

lol how is this even a contest? djokovic's us open title is 100 times greater than federer's fluke roland garros......

NatF · Mar 23, 2014

Tony48 said:
How was Fed's RG impressive at all?

The mental strength to come from behind and win tight matches? Beating an on fire Del Potro in the semi's (I assume you haven't seen this match)...

beast of mallorca · Mar 23, 2014

Obviously, Djokokovic's USO is much more impressive. Federer took advantage of Nadal losing early. It was a cakewalk draw for him.

tennis_pro · Mar 23, 2014

What's the question again?

1) Federer at RG or Djokovic at the US - who is better in those particular Slams?
or
2) Federer's 2009 RG or Djokovic's 2011 US?

1) Federer. Take away Nadal and he's on par with Borg with clay achievements. Take away anyone you like and Djokovic adds no more than 2 US Opens.

2) Djokovic. Federer had tough matches because he was out of form, Del Potro and Soderling were very good wins, tho. Djokovic took down Federer and Nadal, takes the cake for me.

LazyNinja19 · Mar 23, 2014

tennis_pro said:
1) Federer. Take away Nadal and he's on par with Borg with clay achievements. Take away anyone you like and Djokovic adds no more than 2 US Opens.

LOL you wish. There's no guarantee that Fed would have won all those RG finals against someone else.

edberg volleys · Mar 23, 2014

NatF said:
The mental strength to come from behind and win tight matches? Beating an on fire Del Potro in the semi's (I assume you haven't seen this match)...

Yes and not to mention Fed's match against Haas. 6-7(4), 5-7, 6-4, 6-0, 6-2 (R16)

Kenshin · Mar 23, 2014

LazyNinja19 said:
LOL you wish. There's no guarantee that Fed would have won all those RG finals against someone else.

Good counter-argument. Yes, you can't just give the title to Federer. He has to earn against some hypothetical in form opponent who possibly beat Nadal on to the final. About 2 or 3 more FO titles seems right.

tennis_pro · Mar 23, 2014

LazyNinja19 said:
LOL you wish. There's no guarantee that Fed would have won all those RG finals against someone else.

Please tell me who beats Federer at the FO in 2005-2009 + 2011 when there's no Nadal in the draw. 2008 I'll give you Djokovic (although I see it as 50/50) but please tell me who takes him down in other editions.

tennis_pro · Mar 23, 2014

Kenshin said:
Good counter-argument. Yes, you can't just give the title to Federer. He has to earn against some hypothetical in form opponent who possibly beat Nadal on to the final. About 2 or 3 more FO titles seems right.

You think Federer would win 2-3 more FO's if there was no Nadal in the draw? That would mean that Federer would lose 2-3 matches at the FO in 2005-2008 and 2011. So who beats him?

uliks · Mar 23, 2014

LOL. This TW Fedboys...

Kenshin · Mar 23, 2014

tennis_pro said:
Please tell me who beats Federer at the FO in 2005-2009 + 2011 when there's no Nadal in the draw. 2008 I'll give you Djokovic (although I see it as 50/50) but please tell me who takes him down in other editions.

Puerta who was playing really well in 2005 could give Federer all sorts of problem. He is a lefty like Nadal too. Other years it could be anyone who could be playing at really, really high level enough to beat Nadal on his way to the final. You should get rid of the notion that Federer wins all those matches in the final. It is not realistic at all. 2 or max 3 titles seems right.

edberg volleys · Mar 23, 2014

Kenshin said:
Puerta who was playing really well in 2005 could give Federer all sorts of problem. He is a lefty like Nadal too. Other years it could be anyone who could be playing at really, really high level enough to beat Nadal on his way to the final. You should get rid of the notion that Federer wins all those matches in the final. It is not realistic at all. 2 or max 3 titles seems right.

Well, now I have seen it all :lol:. Yeah, he was playing very well under the influence.

tennis_pro · Mar 23, 2014

Kenshin said:
Puerta who was playing really well in 2005 could give Federer all sorts of problem. He is a lefty like Nadal too. Other years it could be anyone who could be playing at really, really high level enough to beat Nadal on his way to the final. You should get rid of the notion that Federer wins all those matches in the final. It is not realistic at all. 2 or max 3 titles seems right.

I disagree, the only player who could beat Federer without Nadal in the draw is Djokovic in the 2008 final and even there it would be a 50/50 call. 2005-2007 no chance for anyone, Federer barely lost sets before meeting Nadal in the finals (or SF in 2005). In 2011 Federer took down peakest of peaks Djokovic in the SF so I wonder who could beat him in the final if there was no Nadal.

IMO Federer wins 2005-2007, 2011 and maybe 2008 so that would put him at 5 or 6 FO's. No-one else would beat him, Coria, Moya, Puerta, Nalbandian, Robredo, Davydenko, Ferrer wouldn't stand a chance.

Here's the number of sets Federer lost at the FO before meeting Nadal:
2005 - 0
2006 - 2
2007 - 1
2008 - 3
2011 - 1

Clearly it took an all-time great player to beat him. Even in 2008 when he clearly playing subpar he lost only 3 sets in the entire tournament before the final. You're out of your mind if you think Puerta would beat peak Federer in a Slam final on any surface.

tennis_pro · Mar 23, 2014

edberg volleys said:
Well, now I have seen all :lol:. Yeah, he was playing very well under the influence.

Yeah, pretty close to changing my sig to "Puerta could beat Federer at the FO in 2005 if there was no Nadal".

Kenshin · Mar 23, 2014

tennis_pro said:
I disagree, the only player who could beat Federer without Nadal in the draw is Djokovic in the 2008 final and even there it would be a 50/50 call. 2005-2007 no chance for anyone, Federer barely lost sets before meeting Nadal in the finals (or SF in 2005). In 2011 Federer took down peakest of peaks Djokovic in the SF so I wonder who could beat him in the final if there was no Nadal.

IMO Federer wins 2005-2007, 2011 and maybe 2008 so that would put him at 5 or 6 FO's. No-one else would beat him, Coria, Moya, Puerta, Nalbandian, Robredo, Davydenko, Ferrer wouldn't stand a chance.

Here's the number of sets Federer lost at the FO before meeting Nadal:
2005 - 0
2006 - 2
2007 - 1
2008 - 3
2011 - 1

Clearly it took an all-time great to beat him, you're out of your mind if you think Puerta would beat peak Federer in a Slam final on any surface.

I strongly disagree with your post too. There is nothing to suggest Federer would won all of the finals. Thats too arrogant and dangerous. Consider this is sport and anything can happen. What happened at this years AO final? Nadal was an overwhelming favorite against Wawrinka. I understand Nadal was injured but if he was healthy and could play 100%, it would been incredibly tough match for him because Stan was playing at a really high level. In grandslams finals, regardless of the opponent, I would say it is about 50/50 between players. So my point stands that Federer would win about 2 or 3 FO titles. And I base this amount of titles because Roger is a great clay courter.

LazyNinja19 · Mar 23, 2014

tennis_pro said:
Please tell me who beats Federer at the FO in 2005-2009 + 2011 when there's no Nadal in the draw. 2008 I'll give you Djokovic (although I see it as 50/50) but please tell me who takes him down in other editions.

Keep dreaming, brah!

It doesn't work like that. You change ONE variable in the past, and it alters the future completely. Ever heard of Butterfly Effect?

By removing Nadal, you created a vacuum for a Clay court Legend, which most probably would have been fulfilled by some other player, who would have gotten confidence after winning RG, and gone on to write his own destiny.

Or, any other of the various unknown possibilities could have been realized.

It's completely ridiculous & absurd to say that "remove Nadal & Fed has xx RGs or xy CYGS".

Don't be a fanboy. No one likes a fanboy.

tennis_pro · Mar 23, 2014

Kenshin said:
I strongly disagree with your post too. There is nothing to suggest Federer would won all of the finals. Thats too arrogant and dangerous. Consider this is sport and anything can happen. What happened at this years AO final? Nadal was an overwhelming favorite against Wawrinka. I understand Nadal was injured but if he was healthy and could play 100%, it would been incredibly tough match for him because Stan was playing at a really high level. In grandslams finals, regardless of the opponent, I would say it is about 50/50 between players. So my point stands that Federer would win about 2 or 3 FO titles. And I base this amount of titles because Roger is a great clay courter.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here, then. Out of sheer curiosity - can you say which players had a chance to take down Federer in all those FO finals if it wasn't for Nadal? Sorry, I won't just buy that it's "about 50/50 between players in a Slam final" when at one point Federer was something like 12-0 in Slam finals outside of the FO and lost only 7 sets in all those finals (and was pushed to 5 only once).

Kenshin · Mar 23, 2014

tennis_pro said:
We'll just have to agree to disagree here, then. Out of sheer curiosity - can you say which players had a chance to take down Federer in all those FO finals if it wasn't for Nadal? Sorry, I won't just buy that it's "about 50/50 betwen players in a Slam final" when at one point Federer was something like 12-0 in Slam finals outside of the FO.

What Happened to Federer vs Del potro at USO final in 2009? Not to remind you this years AO? Grandslam final is a completely different match to regular matches on tour.

tennis_pro · Mar 23, 2014

LazyNinja19 said:
Keep dreaming, brah!

It doesn't work like that. You change ONE variable in the past, and it alters the future completely. Ever heard of Butterfly Effect?

By removing Nadal, you created a vacuum for a Clay court Legend, which most probably would have been fulfilled by some other player, who would have gotten confidence after winning RG, and gone on to write his own destiny.

Or, any other of the various unknown possibilities could have been realized.

It's completely ridiculous & absurd to say that "remove Nadal & Fed has xx RGs or xy CYGS".

Don't be a fanboy. No one likes a fanboy.

Whatever, bro. I'm sure Federer would be THE LEAST LIKELY to dominate clay if there was no Nadal when he reached just about every final he entered on clay in 2005-2008. No, it's not Fed. It's some kind of a mystic player who would suddenly start to dominate since 2005 and took down Federer in all those finals.

It's one thing to claim Federer wouldn't dominate clay but another if you think someone else would fill the void. I would assume that player would kinda....exist, you know? If he was good enough to take over the entire surface without Nadal I would assume he's kinda good enough to go deep in tournaments, don't you think? We can go through the top 100 in 2005-2008 if you like and look for your GOAT player who....

NEVER EXISTED!!!!!!!!!!!

tennis_pro · Mar 23, 2014

Kenshin said:
What Happened to Federer vs Del potro? Not to remind you this years AO? Grandslam final is a completely different match to regular matches on tour.

We're discussing peak Federer, not 2009 US Federer when he already lost 2 GS finals on non-clay surfaces at that point. Besides, ironically Federer beat that Del Potro at the French in 2009.

According to your theory, if Federer met Jose Acasuso in the Wimbledon finals in 2006 would it be 50/50?

Kenshin · Mar 23, 2014

We will have to agree to disagree. Nothing against you but you sound like your opinion is a fact. Which is NOT. Keep it that way.

tennis_pro · Mar 23, 2014

Kenshin said:
We will have to agree to disagree. Nothing against you but you sound like your opinion is a fact. It is NOT. Keep that way.

I'm not saying it's a fact. I just can't imagine Federer losing at the FO to anyone other than Nadal since as I already mentioned he blitzed everyone before being beaten by Nadal. If you disagree about 2008 onwards (and I see what you base your opinion on here and I kinda agree), it surely doesn't apply to 2005-2007 when Federer lost a total of 3 sets in the tournament before meeting Nadal (and actually took a set off of him in all 3 tournaments).

I just can't imagine that someone else would suddenly catch fire and beat him in the latter stages when Federer was even harder to beat. It's not a 30-year old Federer we're talking about here who is still very good but inconsistent but peakest of peaks Federer who was never vulnerable and you couldn't just count on him playing subpar. Seriously, I can go through the entire list of top 100 players in 2005-2007 and no-one other than Nadal would beat that Federer at the French. At the time Federer had the aura of invincibility and only Nadal really bothered him.

edberg volleys · Mar 23, 2014

Kenshin said:
What Happened to Federer vs Del potro at USO final in 2009? Not to remind you this years AO? Grandslam final is a completely different match to regular matches on tour.

Just stop. Don't make a completely idiot of yourself. Well, first of all, DelPo was outplaying everyone at the USO 2009 (in the semis, he won Nadal 6-2, 6-2, 6-2)! And secondly, regarding this year's AO, Fed is 32 years old. And Nadal is so bad matchup for Fed that the age would make no difference anyway.

Kenshin · Mar 23, 2014

tennis_pro said:
I'm not saying it's a fact. I just can't imagine Federer losing at the FO to anyone other than Nadal since as I already mentioned he blitzed everyone before being beaten by Nadal. If you disagree about 2008 onwards (and I see what you base your opinion on here and I kinda agree), it surely doesn't apply to 2005-2007 when Federer lost a total of 3 sets in the tournament before meeting Nadal (and actually took a set off of him in all 3 tournaments).

I just can't imagine that someone else would suddenly catch fire and beat him in the latter stages when Federer was even harder to beat. It's not a 30-year old Federer we're talking about here who is still very good but inconsistent but peakest of peaks Federer who was never vulnerable and you couldn't just count on him playing subpar. Seriously, I can go through the entire list of top 100 players in 2005-2007 and no-one other than Nadal would beat that Federer at the French. At the time Federer had the aura of invincibility and only Nadal really bothered him.

Look, Federer have reached 4 FO finals, right? It is not insane to suggest he would have lost one or two finals to the hyphothetical in form opponent. He could very well win all those but at the same time lose couple of them because it is sports and anything can happen. I wrote in my former post that he would likely to win 2 or 3 at max. Why is that so diffucult to understand to you? And to suggest he would win all of them easily? I don't agree.

NatF · Mar 23, 2014

Kenshin said:
Look, Federer have reached 4 FO finals, right? It is not insane to suggest he would have lost one or two finals to the hyphothetical in form opponent. He could very well win all those but at the same time lose couple of them because it is sports and anything can happen. I wrote in my former post that he would likely to win 2 or 3 at max. Why is that so diffucult to understand to you? And to suggest he would win all of them easily? I don't agree.

If you mean 2-3 on top of his current one than yes. Look at his record in slam finals against anyone NOT Nadal. It's nearly blemish free. No way does he lose more than 1-2 of those finals. The ones he might lose are 08 and 05. But he almost definitely wins 2011 the form he was in and he's not going to lose all of 05-08.

tennis_pro · Mar 23, 2014

Kenshin said:
Look, Federer have reached 4 FO finals, right? It is not insane to suggest he would have lost one or two finals to the hyphothetical in form opponent. He could very well win all those but at the same time lose couple of them because it is sports and anything can happen. I wrote in my former post that he would likely to win 2 or 3 at max. Why is that so diffucult to understand to you? And to suggest he would win all of them easily? I don't agree.

All I know is that Federer never lost to journeymen in Slams in 2004-2007. The only losses he had were Safin (former top player, 2 Slams) who barely beat him in Australia, Kuerten (a 3-time FO champ and former top player) who caught fire in 2004 and Nadal himself in 2005-2007. It's easy to say that "someone would catch fire and beat him there for sure" when it just never happened in reality and that wouldn't change without Nadal in the draw. Even if Nalbandian, Coria, Davydenko or whoever else was in the draw in 2005-2007 played the matches of their life against Federer they would still be unlikely to beat him. Federer was said to be virtually unbeatable for a reason.

I already gave up 2008 (which was 50/50 against Djokovic) and 2011 (even tho Federer beat Djokovic who was his only obstacle at the FO other than Nadal himself...again...) but 2005-2007 I don't see anyone beating him at the FO whether it's the finals, semi-finals, 1st rounds or whether they are in-form and paiting the lines. I assume you started watching tennis only recently cause you wouldn't claim that an in-form journeyman would catch fire and beat peak Federer in a Slam if you actually saw him in action at the time.

Steve0904 · Mar 23, 2014

Federer at RG is more impressive. He's doing it on his worst surface. Djokovic's best surface is HC. Sure there is a difference between "slower" HC's and the USO, but it's not really that huge a difference to explain the massive gap in results Djokovic has at the AO and the USO. At the end of the day it's still HC. Djokovic has lost big matches at the USO that have nothing to do with the difference in court speed.

tennis_pro · Mar 23, 2014

NatF said:
If you mean 2-3 on top of his current one than yes. Look at his record in slam finals against anyone NOT Nadal. It's nearly blemish free. No way does he lose more than 1-2 of those finals. The ones he might lose are 08 and 05. But he almost definitely wins 2011 the form he was in and he's not going to lose all of 05-08.

In 2005 Federer straight setted Almagro, Gonzalez, Moya and pushed Nadal hard in their match, took the 2nd set and was up 4-2 (I think) in the 4th set.

In 2006 and 2007 Federer was at his best on clay, he's not losing to anyone other than Nadal unless you take some GOAT clay courters from the past (like Courier or Bruguera) but that's way too hypothetical.

2008 he's 50/50 against Djokovic.

2011 Fed was in GOATmode throughout the tournament, he owned Tipsarevic, Monfils and Wawrinka, took down the best version of Djokovic in the SF losing just 1 set and as always played great against Nadal to a certain point before losing in 4 sets, 3 of which were very close.

Kenshin · Mar 23, 2014

NatF said:
If you mean 2-3 on top of his current one than yes. Look at his record in slam finals against anyone NOT Nadal. It's nearly blemish free. No way does he lose more than 1-2 of those finals. The ones he might lose are 08 and 05. But he almost definitely wins 2011 the form he was in and he's not going to lose all of 05-08.

Thats exatly the way I see it. Always Good to see a resonable Federer fan. The year Fededer might lose the final is in 2005 because it is his first FO and Puerta was playing really well. He nearly pushed Nadal to a 5 set. And in 2008 his performance was shaky all the way to the final. Other years I see Roger winning it in 2006, 2007 and 2011.

tennis_pro · Mar 23, 2014

Kenshin said:
Thats exatly the way I see it. Always Good to see a resonable Federer fan. The year Fededer might lose the final is in 2005 because it is his first FO and Puerta was playing really well. He nearly pushed Nadal to a 5 set. And in 2008 his performance was shaky all the way to the final. Other years I see Roger winning it in 2006, 2007 and 2011.

The problem I see with your post or the way you wrote it is that you think Federer wins in 2006, 2007 and 2011 but surely loses 2005 and 2008 when in reality he would also have a very good chance to win both, therefore to win all the finals he lost. So all in all Federer would be pretty certain to add another 3 FO's but would have a pretty good chance to win all 5 (or all 6 if you include 2009 when he actually won).

Kenshin · Mar 23, 2014

tennis_pro said:
The problem I see with your post or the way you wrote it is that you think Federer wins in 2006, 2007 and 2011 but surely loses 2005 and 2008 when in reality he would also have a very good chance to win both, therefore to win all the finals he lost. So all in all Federer would be pretty certain to add another 3 FO's but would have a pretty good chance to win all 5 (or all 6 if you include 2009 when he actually won).

"Surely loses in 2005 and 2008???" Where did I wrote that? I wrote there is a possibility. Hence Federer is likely to add 2 or 3 more French titles.

NatF · Mar 23, 2014

Kenshin said:
Thats exatly the way I see it. Always Good to see a resonable Federer fan. The year Fededer might lose the final is in 2005 because it is his first FO and Puerta was playing really well. He nearly pushed Nadal to a 5 set. And in 2008 his performance was shaky all the way to the final. Other years I see Roger winning it in 2006, 2007 and 2011.

Federer would have been a heavy favorite in those events but he was more vulnerable on clay than elsewhere. I don't see the point in making blanket statements of fact about winning 5 FO's etc...

He's certainly not the equal of Borg in clay prowess as people sometimes like to say. I personally think he'd be a 4 time FO champ without Nadal. But I think 3-4 is most reasonable so if you think 3 I won't argue with you.

Kenshin · Mar 23, 2014

NatF said:
Federer would have been a heavy favorite in those events but he was more vulnerable on clay than elsewhere. I don't see the point in making blanket statements of fact about winning 5 FO's etc...

He's certainly not the equal of Borg in clay prowess as people sometimes like to say. I personally think he'd be a 4 time FO champ without Nadal. But I think 3-4 is most reasonable so if you think 3 I won't argue with you.

Part of me is a Federer fan so I'm not in any way trying to diminish Federer's potential. I know very well that without Nadal he would be in the top 10, 7 or 5 clay courter in history. He is that good on clay. But I can't stand the posts that claim without Nadal he would certainly have all the FO titles. Thats not right and fair to the other players. I've been watching Tennis for more than 20 years and playing tennis for a lot of years. So I base this on my experience as well.

Steve0904 · Mar 23, 2014

My best guess at Federer's RG total without Nadal is 4. I think Djokovic beats in 2008 especially in the form he was in and what happened in Australia. But (and I gotta be honest here) I don't see anyway on god's green earth he loses to Puerta, which would make his total 4 including 2009.

NatF · Mar 23, 2014

Kenshin said:
Part of me is a Federer fan so I'm not in any way trying to diminish Federer's potential. I know very well that without Nadal he would be in the top 10, 7 or 5 clay courter in history. He is that good on clay. But I can't stand the posts that claim without Nadal he would certainly have all the FO titles. Thats not right and fair to the other players. I've been watching Tennis for more than 20 years and playing tennis for a lot of years. So I base this on my experience as well.

Hypothetical's are something every fan base does. Plenty of people claim Federer's 09 FO was a fluke and like to talk about how Nadal would have the slam record if not for injuries etc...

But yes in sports you never know what might happen. The consistency of the top guys the last decade has probably made people forget that a bit.

mike danny · Mar 23, 2014

Steve0904 said:
My best guess at Federer's RG total without Nadal is 4. I think Djokovic beats in 2008 especially in the form he was in and what happened in Australia. But (and I gotta be honest here) I don't see anyway on god's green earth he loses to Puerta, which would make his total 4 including 2009.

2011? Who beats him there besides Nadal? I say 5 including 2009

Steve0904 · Mar 23, 2014

mike danny said:
2011? Who beats him there besides Nadal? I say 5 including 2009

Actually, I forgot that one, but it would be interesting to see him play the likes of Courier, Brugera, and Kuerten on clay. 5 RG seems a bit high even for Federer.

FreeBird · Mar 23, 2014

Some of the Fedfans here are forgetting that if Federer were not play Nadal at RG, he could have faced Djokovic since it was Nadal who took the honors of ousting Djokovic 5 times at RG. So, giving 5 titles to Federer in absence of Nadal is flawed. Djokovic-Federer on clay is not a foregone conclusion but is a toss-up (even before 2011).

NatF · Mar 23, 2014

Steve0904 said:
Actually, I forgot that one, but it would be interesting to see him play the likes of Courier, Brugera, and Kuerten on clay. 5 RG seems a bit high even for Federer.

I think Federer would have an even or slightly positive h2h against those guys if they played on clay over the course of a career. Kuerten was inconsistent and Courier had a rather short peak.

mike danny · Mar 23, 2014

FreeBird said:
Some of the Fedfans here are forgetting that if Federer were not play Nadal at RG, he could have faced Djokovic since it was Nadal who took the honors of ousting Djokovic 5 times at RG. So, giving 5 titles to Federer in absence of Nadal is flawed. Djokovic-Federer on clay is not a foregone conclusion but is a toss-up (even before 2011).

Yeah i am sure Federer would have been terified to face Djokovic in 2006 instead of Nadal...

abmk · Mar 23, 2014

FreeBird said:
Some of the Fedfans here are forgetting that if Federer were not play Nadal at RG, he could have faced Djokovic since it was Nadal who took the honors of ousting Djokovic 5 times at RG. So, giving 5 titles to Federer in absence of Nadal is flawed. Djokovic-Federer on clay is not a foregone conclusion but is a toss-up (even before 2011).

why on earth would you give serious consideration to djokovic of RG 2006 ?

djokovic of RG 2007 - please , federer would've swept him aside.

2008 - is a tossup

2011 - federer himself took djokovic out .

at max, he loses out one RG to djokovic in absence of nadal - 08

Marcel Granoller Bar · Mar 23, 2014

Has Fed lost to Djok ever on clay other than that 1 mentioned?

Is clearly the dominant player on clay, other than Nadal.

ON clay Nadal beats Fed, Fed beats Djok, Djok is a better matchup for Nadal

FreeBird · Mar 23, 2014

abmk said:
why on earth would you give serious consideration to djokovic of RG 2006 ?

djokovic of RG 2007 - please , federer would've swept him aside.

2008 - is a tossup

2011 - federer himself took djokovic out .

at max, he loses out one RG to djokovic in absence of nadal - 08

Because, he took a set 6-2 in their only battle in 2006 and it was a close one with Federer prevailing in the end.

So, Basically you agree that the conclusion of Federer's 5 titles is flawed. Great! Now, I don't have anything to argue.

mike danny said:
Yeah i am sure Federer would have been terified to face Djokovic in 2006 instead of Nadal...

Mother of logic. 'Just because facing Djokovic would have been an easier path => He wins against Djokovic'. Keep it up.

It's like saying that since for me defeating Florian Mayer is easier than defeating Nadal, I will win against Mayer. :lol:

Marcel Granoller Bar said:
Has Fed lost to Djok ever on clay other than that 1 mentioned?

Is clearly the dominant player on clay, other than Nadal.

ON clay Nadal beats Fed, Fed beats Djok, Djok is a better matchup for Nadal

They are 3-3 on Clay.

tennis_pro · Mar 23, 2014

Steve0904 said:
My best guess at Federer's RG total without Nadal is 4. I think Djokovic beats in 2008 especially in the form he was in and what happened in Australia. But (and I gotta be honest here) I don't see anyway on god's green earth he loses to Puerta, which would make his total 4 including 2009.

What about 2011?

tennis_pro · Mar 23, 2014

FreeBird said:
Some of the Fedfans here are forgetting that if Federer were not play Nadal at RG, he could have faced Djokovic since it was Nadal who took the honors of ousting Djokovic 5 times at RG. So, giving 5 titles to Federer in absence of Nadal is flawed. Djokovic-Federer on clay is not a foregone conclusion but is a toss-up (even before 2011).

We all agreed that Djokovic had a good chance to beat Federer in 2008, what are the other years you thought he could take him down?

2005-2006 - Djokovic was way before his prime
2007 - Djokovic ain't beating Federer
2008 - OK, here's a chance, I'll give it a 50/50
2009-2010 he wasn't even good enough to go deep
2011 - Federer beat Djokovic
2012 - Djokovic beat Federer
2013 onwarads - Djokovic is the heavy favorite

So as I said, other than 2008 I don't see any other eidition he could beat Federer when Fed went deep in the tournament (2005-2007 and 2011).

tennis_pro · Mar 23, 2014

Marcel Granoller Bar said:
Has Fed lost to Djok ever on clay other than that 1 mentioned?

Is clearly the dominant player on clay, other than Nadal.

ON clay Nadal beats Fed, Fed beats Djok, Djok is a better matchup for Nadal

They are 3-3 on clay, Federer won in 2006, 2008 and 2011 (FO) while Djokovic won in 2009, and twice in 2012 (FO), so only 1 match in Federer's prime as opposed to 5 in 2008 or later. This would be a very good match-up if both were in their primes, 2011 was as close as we could get to it, Djokovic was at his best while Federer was in as good of form as he could possibly be in, Federer won in 4 but if Djokovic served out the 4th set it could've gone either way I think.

Steve0904 · Mar 23, 2014

FreeBird said:
Because, he took a set 6-2 in their only battle in 2006 and it was a close one with Federer prevailing in the end.

They are 3-3 on Clay.

Give me a break. Come on now. Djokovic won a set in MC in Federer's first clay match that year. Federer would be a massive favourite if they had played in the RG final in 2006. 1st round match in a non mandatory masters /= Final of a slam. Not even close.

As for the H2H. Yes it is 3-3, but that does not mean Federer wouldn't be a massive favourite at RG 06 and 07 because he would be. As such, it's not much of a debate. Hypothetically, Federer would win both matches.

Djokovic's US Open or Federer's RG

which one is more impressive?

Federer at RG is more impressive

Djokovic at US Open is more impressive

Both are equally impressive

New User

Banned

Legend

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Banned

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Banned

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Semi-Pro

Banned

Bionic Poster

Semi-Pro

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Semi-Pro

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Semi-Pro

Bionic Poster

Semi-Pro

Bionic Poster

Semi-Pro

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

New User

Legend

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Similar threads