Roger Federer is the most overrated No.1 of all time. Discuss.

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
I think that peak Djokovic could even beat Federer on Rebound Ace every year bar 2007. His level at the Australian Open is one of the highest I've seen since Agassi dominated there. At Roland Garros he also has a chance, but at Wimbledon and the USO, Federer would always win at his peak.

I think at RG they'd be 5-5 and at Wimbledon Fed would lead either 9-1 or 8-2. USO would be something like 6-4 in Fed's favour. At AO I think Nole would lead 7-3.
 

Magnetite

Professional
Not really. He deserves it.

However, his fans do get annoying. Always yelling, "Go Roger", even when his opponent double faults or hits the ball into the net.

I think he's great, but some people really do lose their minds when watching him.

I guess that's why they are called 'fanatics'.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
That's because the comp is tougher these last few years than it was during the transitional period of '00-'03 so how on earth was Nole supposed to dominate for more than a year?
The competition was probably at it's toughest in 2011-2012, which is the time period Djokovic did dominate the game; but since then (especially 2014) I believe the game has come to another transitional phase. Wawrinka winning the AO, old Federer making a Wimbledon final, top players losing early at HC Masters. Yes, I don't think the competition right now is too great.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
If they're both at their peaks, and playing well, then yes - as long as the AO is on Rebound Ace.

If you disagree - where do you think peak Djokovic would beat peak Federer?

WOW, I used to think you were a pretty level headed poster up until now. How much have you been drinking tonight? :shock:
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I think at RG they'd be 5-5 and at Wimbledon Fed would lead either 9-1 or 8-2. USO would be something like 6-4 in Fed's favour. At AO I think Nole would lead 7-3.
I can agree with Roland Garros (maybe 4-6 in Federer's favor there) and at the AO, I believe Djokovic would lead Federer by a considerable margin. At Wimbledon, Federer would dominate Djokovic (as you pointed out) and at the USO I'd probably make it something like 8-2 in Federer's favor (this was his best slam behind Wimbledon). But yes, Djokovic would not be dominated by Federer the same way Hewitt, Safin and Roddick were because he is the better player.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Nadal is a master at taking Federer down and is right behind him as an All Time Great; obviously it's expected he'd beat Federer a lot of the time, yes?

Agassi knows the game in and out, and he played before Pete and after Pete; when he was against the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Federer, Safin, Coria and the like he felt that the competition was just as good (if not better) than Pete's. That is his opinion, but he has since said that Nadal's generation is stronger yet than Federer's (or alluded to it) and once again, he is an All Time Great of the game and entitled to his opinion.




Evidently not with comments like "Theres nowhere to go vs. Fed" when Nadal and now Nole prove thats FALSE.

Also, Agassi said Pete had nothing but a serve and didn't know how to play tennis. (As he has said toward Pete in recent interviews). So either:

A. Agassi is still bitter is all hell
B. A complete MORON Saying Pete was "nothing but a serve" since only having a serve isn't going to get you far. If that was the case why aren't Roddick, Karlovic, Isner all time greats.


Agassi is a bitter old man full of ****. (as you can tell with his constant subtle jabs at Sampras) You can only take what he says with a grain of salt since he CLEARLY has a hidden agenda.

And a field of Hewitt, Roddick, Coria, Safin, Nalbandian etc... Better than Edberg, Becker, Courier, Rafter, Goran, Muster, Chang, Kafelnikov? On what planet exactly? :shock: That has to be the DUMBEST comment in tennis history. Compare the trophies, talent, slams counts etc.


Agassi knows the game inside with comment like that? I don't think so
 
Last edited:

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
I can agree with Roland Garros (maybe 4-6 in Federer's favor there) and at the AO, I believe Djokovic would lead Federer by a considerable margin. At Wimbledon, Federer would dominate Djokovic (as you pointed out) and at the USO I'd probably make it something like 8-2 in Federer's favor (this was his best slam behind Wimbledon). But yes, Djokovic would not be dominated by Federer the same way Hewitt, Safin and Roddick were because he is the better player.

Try telling that to Logic!!!
 

Logic

Semi-Pro
I think at RG they'd be 5-5 and at Wimbledon Fed would lead either 9-1 or 8-2. USO would be something like 6-4 in Fed's favour. At AO I think Nole would lead 7-3.

AO: If it is played on Plexicushion, then I agree. But how do you come to that conclusion for Rebound Ace? Federer won their only match on that surface in striaght sets (2007).
RG: Peak Djokovic lost to 29 year old Federer in 4 sets in 2011. How is he going to beat Federer at his peak (25)?
W: Prime Djokovic lost to an almost-31 year old Federer in 4 sets at Wimbledon in 2012. How is he going to beat Federer at his peak (25)?
USO: Djokovic was thrashed at the USO for four straight years 2007-09 by 26-28 year old Federer, and Peak Djokovic was MP down in 2010-11 against 29-30 year-old Federer. How is he going to beat Federer at his peak (25)?
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Evidently not with comments like "Theres nowhere to go vs. Fed" when Nadal and now Nole prove thats FALSE.

Also, Agassi said Pete had nothing but a serve and didn't know how to play tennis. (As he has said toward Pete in recent interviews). So either:

A. Agassi is still bitter is all hell
B. A complete MORON Saying Pete was "nothing but a serve" since only having a serve isn't going to get you far. If that was the case why aren't Roddick, Karlovic, Isner all time greats.


Agassi is a bitter old man full of ****. (as you can tell with his constant subtle jabs at Sampras) You can only take what he says with a grain of salt since he CLEARLY has a hidden agenda.

And a field of Hewitt, Roddick, Coria, Safin, Nalbandian etc... Better than Edberg, Becker, Courier, Rafter, Goran, Muster, Chang, Kafelnikov? On what planet exactly? :shock: That has to be the DUMBEST comment in tennis history


Agassi knows the game inside with comment like that? I don't think so
Edberg, Becker and Courier weren't there for most of Pete's peak. His competition was mainly Rafter, Agassi, Chang, Goran and Kafelnikov. Muster was a clay orientated player so he didn't get to meet Pete as often, but he was also one of his lesser rivals.

I can easily say that Hewitt > Rafter (he has way, waaaaaay more titles than him, 2 slams at different venues and surfaces, a leading H2H against him and overall, a greater legacy), Roddick and Goran are most likely equal at Wimbledon (Roddick was SO close to winning in 2009, that just cannot be ignored), Chang is also a lesser version of Hewitt; his groundstrokes, serve and most of his game is below Hewitt besides the speed aspect (where they are equals), and lastly, Kafelnikov is below the likes of Hewitt, Roddick and Safin too. Most of the players you've mentioned are, besides the trio of Edberg, Becker and Courier; but as I've said, they were not there for most of Pete's domination.
 

Logic

Semi-Pro
WOW, I used to think you were a pretty level headed poster up until now. How much have you been drinking tonight? :shock:

Read my edit of that post. I didn't read the 10-0 properly; I meant peak Federer would be 1-0 against Peak Djokovic at each major (AO on Rebound Ace) in a hypothetical one-off match.
 
Last edited:

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
AO: If it is played on Plexicushion, then I agree. But how do you come to that conclusion for Rebound Ace? Federer won their only match on that surface in striaght sets (2007).
RG: Peak Djokovic lost to 29 year old Federer in 4 sets in 2011. How is he going to beat Federer at his peak (25)?
W: Prime Djokovic lost to an almost-31 year old Federer in 4 sets at Wimbledon in 2012. How is he going to beat Federer at his peak (25)?
USO: Djokovic was thrashed at the USO for four straight years 2007-09 by 26-28 year old Federer, and Peak Djokovic was MP down in 2010-11 against 29-30 year-old Federer. How is he going to beat Federer at his peak (25)?

Just because Nole lost to 'past his prime' Federer doesn't mean he wouldn't be able to beat the peak version. You're going by sample sizes that are just too small when it's really the bigger picture you should be looking at.
 

Logic

Semi-Pro
Just because Nole lost to 'past his prime' Federer doesn't mean he wouldn't be able to beat the peak version. You're going by sample sizes that are just too small when it's really the bigger picture you should be looking at.

If Djokovic, playing at his very best, can't beat Federer not playing at his very best, then how can he beat Federer playing at his very best?
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Tennis isn't math.

When two legendary players produce top stuff, either man is capable of winning, though surface type may give one increased or decreased chances.
 

Logic

Semi-Pro
Because he's a great champion and that's what great champions are capable of?

WTF? This is a complete non-answer. No matter how great a champion is, he can't play better than his best: that's impossible by definition.

To put it more clearly, if a 100% Djokovic loses to a 90% Federer, then surely he also loses to a 100% Federer. That's just logic. It doesn't matter how great a champion Djokovic is - he can't defy logic.
 
Last edited:

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
WTF? This is a complete non-answer. No matter how great a champion is, he can't play better than his best: that's impossible by definition.

How do you know for sure it was his very best though? Look, Federer is a better player than Djokovic and he's a greater one, I have no problem whatsoever in admitting that but it seems to me that you're doing a total number on Novak by saying that he'd not be able to beat peak Federer at least once in a possible 40 Slam matches!!! That's just ludicrous and I wanna know straight away who your dealer is.
 

Logic

Semi-Pro
How do you know for sure it was his very best though? Look, Federer is a better player than Djokovic and he's a greater one, I have no problem whatsoever in admitting that but it seems to me that you're doing a total number on Novak by saying that he'd not be able to beat peak Federer at least once in a possible 40 Slam matches!!! That's just ludicrous and I wanna know straight away who your dealer is.

I didn't say that.

As I said in the edit of my post, and in a subsequent post: I meant that Federer would win 1-0 at each major (in a hypothetical one-off match at each, AO on Rebound Ace, peak for peak), NOT 10-0.

I misread your original post when replying to it, so apologies for the misunderstanding.
 
Last edited:

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
I didn't say that.

As I said in the edit of my post, and in a subsequent post: I mean't that Federer would win 1-0 at each major (in a hypothetical one-off match), NOT 10-0.

I misread your original post when replying to it, so apologies for the misunderstanding.

OK so out of 10 matches at all 4 Slams what do you think the H2H would be, peak for peak?
 

Logic

Semi-Pro
OK so out of 10 matches at all 4 Slams what do you think the H2H would be, peak for peak?

AO (Plexicushion): Djokovic 8-2 Federer
AO (Rebound-Ace): Djokovic 4-6 Federer
FO: Djokovic 2-8 Federer
W: Djokovic 0-10 Federer
USO: 2-8 Federer
 
Last edited:

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
This can also be explained by stronger depth of the field. Either way, we don't know.

Federer was much above Djokovic and Nadal in that period (in terms of performance against the field). He didn't lose to Rafa (off clay) nor Djokovic at a major until 2008, after his prime. Also, as I said, after Djokovic's win at the AO, Federer didn't lose to Djokovic until well after his prime (USO 2010 - aged 29).

I was saying peak Federer vs peak Nadal/Djok not pre prime. What is more logical that the 2nd tier 04-07 was all much stronger, the depth beyond that was all much stronger and that peak Fed was way above peak Nadal/Nole or that simply peak Fed was a little above peak Nadal/Nole and the over-all competition was weaker?


Actually, Fed was 29 at USO 2010, which is three years after his prime (I consider his prime to be 22-26, like most other all time greats). Djokovic at 29 (2 years time), I will also consider well past his prime (think about it - it would be 5 years after his 2011 season).

No, Federer won the AO and WTF despite being out of his prime. Being out of his prime has nothing to do with winning or losing against Djokovic, but rather age.

You seem to be under the impression that being out of your prime means your levels are markedly diminished consistently. This is not the case, it simply means you are not able to reach your top levels at the same amount of consistency. 2010-2012 Federer was reaching the same levels at his best on hard courts as 07-09 Fed was, he simply was not doing it at the same consistency. However, at majors on hard courts in the big matches he was usually able to bring out those levels on hard courts (and to a lesser degree occasionally on clay or grass).

This is just false. From 04-07 he won 7 HC majors and 3 WTF, whereas from 08-12 he won 2 HC majors and 2 WTF. I would consider Federer losing to Djokovic at a major/WTF in Federer's prime (when AO was Rebound Ace) just as much an upset as Federer losing to Safin or Nalbandian.

I said BESIDES Djokovic and Nadal his results were similar:

AO:
08-Djok
09-Nadal
10-Win
11-Djok
12-Nadal

USO:
08-win
09-Del Po
10-Djok
11-Djok

in 04-07 he took one 1 loss to a GOATing opponent (Safin) just as he did in 08-12 (Del Po). Besides that he beat inferior guys in 04-07 and lost to Nadal/Djok in 08-12 consistently. No other lower tier guys managed to upset him until Berdych got him in USO 12 (when his true decline began).


Why does Fed have a 5-year long prime post-peak? That's ridiculous.

The fact that you think Fed in '07 is at the same level as Fed in '11 says it all.
Fed isn't immune to aging, although I know you'd like to think that.

He isn't immune to aging but his levels did not drop off markedly until 2013. Fed's level throughout 07 were not equal to 11, but his level in the matches vs Nole in both years at USO was pretty similar.

In reality, given Djokovic's struggles against an old Federer (and thrashings by younger Federer) at majors, I don't see him beating Federer in his prime ('04-'07, AO on Rebound Ace, except perhaps '04 FO), so Federer "weak era" arguments are moot to me.

lol so 19 year old Djokovic losing to absolute peak Federer at AO 07 indicates how a peak vs peak (which Nole was 4 years away from) match would have gone.

Also since Agassi at 34 took Federer to 5 sets at USO 04 that must mean peak Agassi would destroy Fed at USO right? If you don't believe that why does Fed at 30 taking peak Djok to 5 sets mean peak Fed would destroy peak Nole?

You keep acting like just because Fed's over-all levels were lower in 08-12, that must mean his level in each isolated match HAS to be lower than it was in the 04-07 window.

I would say Fed over-all on clay in 06>>Fed on clay in 11, but his RG matches vs Nadal and Nole in 2011 was probably better than any individual RG he ever played in 04-07 and only his Rome 06 match vs Nadal was he playing better.

Similarly his levels at USO 11 vs Nole were fairly similar to his levels against Nole at 07. Young pre prime Djokovic held set points vs that Fed, the difference in 2011 was he was able to mentally tough it out and he was also able to endure more punishing rallies, there is not some vast difference like you want to make it out to be.

Peak for Peak I think their clay levels are equal and Djokovic is about as far above Fed on slow hards as Fed is on fast hards.

2011-2014 Djokovic vs 04-07 Fed:
Australian Open:
11 Djok vs 04 Fed - 11 Djok
12 Djok vs 05 Fed - 12 Djok
13 Djok vs 06 Fed - 13 Djok
14 Djok vs 07 Fed - 07 Fed

Djok: 3-1

French Open:
They would split 2-2 I think, 11 Djok beats 04 Fed and Fed probably wins 2 of the other 3.

Tied: 2-2


USO:
Remains to be seen what form 2014 Djok is in, but with the mental focus if hes playing at a high level he could possibly beat 07 Fed. 11 Djok probably beats 04 Fed. Fed 05/06 wins

Either: Fed 3-1 or tied 2-2

Wimbledon:
Fed likely wins at least 3 times. 11 Djok vs 04 Fed and 14 Djok vs 07 Fed would be the only close matches and possibly Djok could eek one out.

Either: Fed 4-0 or 3-1
 
Last edited:

Zoid

Hall of Fame
I can't be bothered to read all the threads but in summary i would say this. Fed took the game to a new level, he is probably the most complete player of all time. To say he is over-rated because of his record against younger rivals (namely murray, nadal and dj) is not really a clear indication. If you put djokovic, rafa, or murray in fed's shoes i don't think any of them would have won the slams federer did, heck, they probably wouldn't have gotten as good as they are today without someone like fed to chase and measure against. I absolutely cannot see roddick losing to rafa on the quick US courts in his prime. He would have demolished him - watch the 2004 match - it's murder. People forget how good roddick was on a quick court in his prime. Prime hewitt and even old agassi - these guys aren't push overs. The young guys have nothing to lose playing fed - something that favours an up-and-comer. Would have been interesting if fed was the young player coming thru and got to have 10+ chances at rafa on his best surface (grass) rather than how it played out today )(rafa getting +13 shots at fed on clay). H2H is too misleading to look at.
 

stringertom

Bionic Poster
'14Federer not betterer than '04-'07Federer but smarterer!

'13Federer was dumb, stale and stubborn. Paul AnnaGOAT got all he could in '12...#17 and #302. Then $$$ in Latin America took precedence over CampDubai and malaise set in. Hard work yields high performance. Rogi forgot that and paid the price. Bye bye PS 90, bye bye AnnaGOAT. Change is good! Take on Edberg, tweak the racquet setup, return to Dubai...Rogi redefined! Sure, he's not primeGOAT but you betterer bring your "A" game if you want to win!

Overrated? Hardly!

Undervalued? Most definitely by mostly haters.

Candide has it right...rules 42 & 43.
 

Logic

Semi-Pro
I was saying peak Federer vs peak Nadal/Djok not pre prime. What is more logical that the 2nd tier 04-07 was all much stronger, the depth beyond that was all much stronger and that peak Fed was way above peak Nadal/Nole or that simply peak Fed was a little above peak Nadal/Nole and the over-all competition was weaker?

I never said that peak Fed was way above peak Nadal/Nole, but rather that peak Fed was above them by enough that he would still win the majors which he won in '04-'07 even with peak Nadal/Nole present.

You seem to be under the impression that being out of your prime means your levels are markedly diminished consistently. This is not the case, it simply means you are not able to reach your top levels at the same amount of consistency. 2010-2012 Federer was reaching the same levels at his best on hard courts as 07-09 Fed was, he simply was not doing it at the same consistency. However, at majors on hard courts in the big matches he was usually able to bring out those levels on hard courts (and to a lesser degree occasionally on clay or grass).

This is false. When you are past your prime, not only are you less consistent, but the top level you can reach on any given day is also lower. It's simple biology - you are slower, have slower reaction speed, less power, worse co-ordination etc. - so how can your top level be the same as before? Hence, if you actually watch '04-'07 Federer (who could defend like a beast and hit winners at will) you'll see a marked difference to '10-12 Federer in terms of his level of play, especially in the big matches you note.

in 04-07 he took one 1 loss to a GOATing opponent (Safin) just as he did in 08-12 (Del Po). Besides that he beat inferior guys in 04-07 and lost to Nadal/Djok in 08-12 consistently. No other lower tier guys managed to upset him until Berdych got him in USO 12 (when his true decline began). He isn't immune to aging but his levels did not drop off markedly until 2013.

So what? This just proves that even declined Federer can beat the lower guys - it doesn't mean his '08-'12 isn't declined, it just means that '12-'14 is even more declined. To say Fed's decline started at the end of 2012 is a joke - it means you're saying he had a 10 year prime!

Fed's level throughout 07 were not equal to 11, but his level in the matches vs Nole in both years at USO was pretty similar.

Again, this is false - watch the matches. Federer is slower, has slower reactions etc, has less power etc.: all of which have nothing to do with Djokovic.

lol so 19 year old Djokovic losing to absolute peak Federer at AO 07 indicates how a peak vs peak (which Nole was 4 years away from) match would have gone.

No - but we have only one sample on Rebound Ace, so I have to go with that.

Also since Agassi at 34 took Federer to 5 sets at USO 04 that must mean peak Agassi would destroy Fed at USO right? If you don't believe that why does Fed at 30 taking peak Djok to 5 sets mean peak Fed would destroy peak Nole?

Past-prime Agassi never beat Federer.
Federer beat Djokovic several times during his prime and past his prime, and had MP twice way past his prime.

You keep acting like just because Fed's over-all levels were lower in 08-12, that must mean his level in each isolated match HAS to be lower than it was in the 04-07 window.

See above. It's simple biology.

I would say Fed over-all on clay in 06>>Fed on clay in 11, but his RG matches vs Nadal and Nole in 2011 was probably better than any individual RG he ever played in 04-07 and only his Rome 06 match vs Nadal was he playing better.

I completely disagree. Federer at the FO was better '05-'07 than in '11 - just look at the difference in speed between the two versions of Federer for one thing.

Similarly his levels at USO 11 vs Nole were fairly similar to his levels against Nole at 07. Young pre prime Djokovic held set points vs that Fed, the difference in 2011 was he was able to mentally tough it out and he was also able to endure more punishing rallies, there is not some vast difference like you want to make it out to be.

Again - complete rubbish. Watch the two matches and see that Federer is slower, has slower reactions, less power etc. in '11 (as you would expect due to age): all things which are independent of his opponent.

Peak for Peak I think their clay levels are equal and Djokovic is about as far above Fed on slow hards as Fed is on fast hards.

Given that peak Djokovic lost to way-past-prime Federer on clay convincingly, this is clearly false. I can perhaps agree with your point on hard courts though.

2011-2014 Djokovic vs 04-07 Fed:
Australian Open:
11 Djok vs 04 Fed - 11 Djok
12 Djok vs 05 Fed - 12 Djok
13 Djok vs 06 Fed - 13 Djok
14 Djok vs 07 Fed - 07 Fed

Djok: 3-1

I agree on Plexicushion, but probably 2-2 or possibly even 3-1 to Federer on Rebound Ace.

French Open:
They would split 2-2 I think, 11 Djok beats 04 Fed and Fed probably wins 2 of the other 3.

Tied: 2-2

'11 Djokovic beats '04 Fed, I agree; but '05-'07 Fed is better than '11 Fed, which even '11 Djokovic couldn't beat - so '05-'07 Fed wins the rest. 3-1 to Federer.

USO:
Remains to be seen what form 2014 Djok is in, but with the mental focus if hes playing at a high level he could possibly beat 07 Fed. 11 Djok probably beats 04 Fed. Fed 05/06 wins

Either: Fed 3-1 or tied 2-2

This one I strongly disagree with. '11 Djokovic could barely beat '11 Federer, let alone '04 Federer, which is probably the highest level ever seen at the USO (double bagelling Hewitt - he was playing out of his mind in that match).
I agree that we should wait to see '14 Djokovic's level, so I will say 3-1 or 4-0 to Federer.

Wimbledon:
Fed likely wins at least 3 times. 11 Djok vs 04 Fed and 14 Djok vs 07 Fed would be the only close matches and possibly Djok could eek one out.

Either: Fed 4-0 or 3-1

I don't see Djokovic beating prime Federer at Wimbledon (he couldn't even beat him when he was almost 31). 4-0 to Federer.
 
Last edited:
I was saying peak Federer vs peak Nadal/Djok not pre prime. What is more logical that the 2nd tier 04-07 was all much stronger, the depth beyond that was all much stronger and that peak Fed was way above peak Nadal/Nole or that simply peak Fed was a little above peak Nadal/Nole and the over-all competition was weaker?




You seem to be under the impression that being out of your prime means your levels are markedly diminished consistently. This is not the case, it simply means you are not able to reach your top levels at the same amount of consistency. 2010-2012 Federer was reaching the same levels at his best on hard courts as 07-09 Fed was, he simply was not doing it at the same consistency. However, at majors on hard courts in the big matches he was usually able to bring out those levels on hard courts (and to a lesser degree occasionally on clay or grass).



I said BESIDES Djokovic and Nadal his results were similar:

AO:
08-Djok
09-Nadal
10-Win
11-Djok
12-Nadal

USO:
08-win
09-Del Po
10-Djok
11-Djok

in 04-07 he took one 1 loss to a GOATing opponent (Safin) just as he did in 08-12 (Del Po). Besides that he beat inferior guys in 04-07 and lost to Nadal/Djok in 08-12 consistently. No other lower tier guys managed to upset him until Berdych got him in USO 12 (when his true decline began).




He isn't immune to aging but his levels did not drop off markedly until 2013. Fed's level throughout 07 were not equal to 11, but his level in the matches vs Nole in both years at USO was pretty similar.



lol so 19 year old Djokovic losing to absolute peak Federer at AO 07 indicates how a peak vs peak (which Nole was 4 years away from) match would have gone.

Also since Agassi at 34 took Federer to 5 sets at USO 04 that must mean peak Agassi would destroy Fed at USO right? If you don't believe that why does Fed at 30 taking peak Djok to 5 sets mean peak Fed would destroy peak Nole?

You keep acting like just because Fed's over-all levels were lower in 08-12, that must mean his level in each isolated match HAS to be lower than it was in the 04-07 window.

I would say Fed over-all on clay in 06>>Fed on clay in 11, but his RG matches vs Nadal and Nole in 2011 was probably better than any individual RG he ever played in 04-07 and only his Rome 06 match vs Nadal was he playing better.

Similarly his levels at USO 11 vs Nole were fairly similar to his levels against Nole at 07. Young pre prime Djokovic held set points vs that Fed, the difference in 2011 was he was able to mentally tough it out and he was also able to endure more punishing rallies, there is not some vast difference like you want to make it out to be.

Peak for Peak I think their clay levels are equal and Djokovic is about as far above Fed on slow hards as Fed is on fast hards.

2011-2014 Djokovic vs 04-07 Fed:
Australian Open:
11 Djok vs 04 Fed - 11 Djok
12 Djok vs 05 Fed - 12 Djok
13 Djok vs 06 Fed - 13 Djok
14 Djok vs 07 Fed - 07 Fed

Djok: 3-1

French Open:
They would split 2-2 I think, 11 Djok beats 04 Fed and Fed probably wins 2 of the other 3.

Tied: 2-2


USO:
Remains to be seen what form 2014 Djok is in, but with the mental focus if hes playing at a high level he could possibly beat 07 Fed. 11 Djok probably beats 04 Fed. Fed 05/06 wins

Either: Fed 3-1 or tied 2-2

Wimbledon:
Fed likely wins at least 3 times. 11 Djok vs 04 Fed and 14 Djok vs 07 Fed would be the only close matches and possibly Djok could eek one out.

Either: Fed 4-0 or 3-1

It's just impossible to know any of this because peak Fed vs peak Djokovic never really happened. Novak hit his peak (2011), after Fed left his prime, and long after Fed left his peak. Still, in 2011, Fed beat Novak at RG, and served for their match at the USO. That to me means that peak Federer performs even better.

I love people using the Agassi 2004 match as a knock against Fed. One of the windiest matches I've ever seen, and Agassi playing very well. Agassi was a bit older then than Fed is now, but had far less mileage on his body. Yet Agassi at that time was half dead old grandpa and the fact that he pushed Fed means Fed is a joke. Soooooo Fed pushing Djokovic to five sets at Wimby must mean Djokovic is a joke? It's easy to make false equivalencies that don't hold any water. Just for comparisons sake, Agassi played 1,144 matches in his career, Fed has 1,196 matches so far, so he has more mileage on him at 33 than Agassi had at 36.

I still think this is impossible because these peak v peak matches will never happen, so we don't know. I do think Fed gets a hard time because he hasn't been able to dominate two eras worth of players, which no one has ever done, nor been asked to do. The fact that he leads the h2h with Djokovic and is tied with Murray and has continued to compete for and win big titles is a testament to how great he actually is. Far from overrated.
 

Steve132

Professional
Is this "weak era" nonsense back again? I'm still waiting for someone to provide a set of testable criteria for assessing the comparative strength of various periods. Note: it's not enough to rattle off a list of Great Names who were active at any given point in time without considering where these players were in their careers. I have seen McEnroe and even Connors listed as part of Sampras's "great competition."

Anyone who claims that the Federer of 2008-2012 was equal to peak Federer (2004 to 2007) needs to watch the 2004 U.S. Open final (Federer versus Hewitt) or the 2007 Federer-Roddick Australian Open semi-final. If you can identify a match in which the 2008-2012 version of Federer played as well as he did on those occasions please let me know. I would love to see it.
 

above bored

Semi-Pro
AO (Plexicushion): Djokovic 8-2 Federer
AO (Rebound-Ace): Djokovic 4-6 Federer
FO: Djokovic 2-8 Federer
W: Djokovic 0-10 Federer
USO: 2-8 Federer
I think peak Federer dominates on Plexicushion as well. Any type of hardcourt, Federer dominates. Maybe 7-3 in his favour. Certainly not 8-2 in Djokovic's favour.

They introduced the surface in 2008, the year he got mono and outside the window when he was playing his best tennis. Despite this, he has still done reasonably well in Australia. Up to the present day and over a period of 7 years from that time, he has done no worse than a semi-final. That's one win, one final and 5 semi-finals. At his peak, he would be dominating this event too (Djokovic or no Djokovic).
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
AO (Plexicushion): Djokovic 8-2 Federer
AO (Rebound-Ace): Djokovic 4-6 Federer
FO: Djokovic 2-8 Federer
W: Djokovic 0-10 Federer
USO: 2-8 Federer

Looking at what it took for Djokovic to beat Federer at 2010 and 2011 USO, I'd have to give Novak zero chance vs peak Federer on rebound-ace.
As far as USO is concerned, also zero chance peak-vs-peak.

In 10 hypothetical peak meetings per Slam, that would come to a 38-2 record in Federer's favour.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Looking at what it took for Djokovic to beat Federer at 2010 and 2011 USO, I'd have to give Novak zero chance vs peak Federer on rebound-ace.
As far as USO is concerned, also zero chance peak-vs-peak.

In 10 hypothetical peak meetings per Slam, that would come to a 38-2 record in Federer's favour.

That's because you are less objective than Mirka. Just do us all a favor and stop posting.
 
Classic logic fail.

How is evident that the players he beat were mediocre? Maybe they were really good, but Federer was just so good that he made them look bad. Either way, we will never know, because we can't test the fields from different eras against each other.

Bear in mind that Federer didn't lose at a major to Djokovic until 2008, and then again until late 2010 - well past his prime. He didn't lose to Murray at a major until 2013 - past the age at which Sampras had already retired!

I don't think they were bad. IMO Peak roddick and Hewitt were better than ferrer and probably almost as good as murray.

of course they don't compare to nadal and djokovic but I would say they were easily better than berdych, Tsonga or whoever is behind the top4 now.
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
That's because you are less objective than Mirka. Just do us all a favor and stop posting.

How is this not objective? If a player in his peak is struggling in 5 sets, saving match points vs a declining player, logic follows that the latter, in his peak, would obliterate the former.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
I think at RG they'd be 5-5 and at Wimbledon Fed would lead either 9-1 or 8-2. USO would be something like 6-4 in Fed's favour. At AO I think Nole would lead 7-3.

See post 513, I think you would find it worth a read. Generally speaking, as with any match, you need to take account of the match-up. Given how well a non-peak Fed has played Djoko at the majors the last few years - think US Open 2010-2011, FO 2011, Wimbledon 2012, Wimbledon 2014, heck even AO 2011 (in which Novak just won 8 more points and had to hit his first serve 20 more times) was close) - I would imagine peak Fed would come out on top in quite a few of the close ones.
He matches up pretty well with Nole even way past his peak (Fed's peakest peak is 7-10 years back now.) Hence I think he would win more often than not.

@SpiceCurry - I hope you get the time to reply to it even though it's fairly similar to what we discussed last month.

One thing is this though - aside from Delpo and Birdman (where you rank him out of his prime), he didn't lose any HC majors to other than Rafole. Implying his level didn't drop that much.
But aside from US Open 2008-09 vs pre-prime Novak or whatever you prefer to call him, he didn't win any HC slam matches vs. Rafole - that would certainly not have happened in his peak.
Anyhow - read the more lengthy reply in post 513 and get back to me if you have the time.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Just because Nole lost to 'past his prime' Federer doesn't mean he wouldn't be able to beat the peak version. You're going by sample sizes that are just too small when it's really the bigger picture you should be looking at.

In a hypothetical (and totally improbable) scenario in which both players are at their peak and playing at 100% each and every time, as you seem to be implying, I'm afraid I have to ask the question: how is Djokovic ever going to get one win out of Federer, whatever the surface? I suppose you *might* make an exception for Plexicushion, but even that would be stretching it in my mind, sorry if that offends you. Of course, if you just mean peak for peak, but with some fluctuations in their respective levels from day to day, of course Djokovic gets some, but probably only a few. But if they are at 100% each and every time, I just don't see it, sorry.

Considering that Federer's peak level is higher than Djokovic's and that their match-up troubles Djokovic much more than it does Federer, I really don't see how you can make the assumption that Djokovic would win so many matches, especially since everything in their rivalry so far screams the opposite
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I was saying peak Federer vs peak Nadal/Djok not pre prime. What is more logical that the 2nd tier 04-07 was all much stronger, the depth beyond that was all much stronger and that peak Fed was way above peak Nadal/Nole or that simply peak Fed was a little above peak Nadal/Nole and the over-all competition was weaker?




You seem to be under the impression that being out of your prime means your levels are markedly diminished consistently. This is not the case, it simply means you are not able to reach your top levels at the same amount of consistency. 2010-2012 Federer was reaching the same levels at his best on hard courts as 07-09 Fed was, he simply was not doing it at the same consistency. However, at majors on hard courts in the big matches he was usually able to bring out those levels on hard courts (and to a lesser degree occasionally on clay or grass).



I said BESIDES Djokovic and Nadal his results were similar:

AO:
08-Djok
09-Nadal
10-Win
11-Djok
12-Nadal

USO:
08-win
09-Del Po
10-Djok
11-Djok

in 04-07 he took one 1 loss to a GOATing opponent (Safin) just as he did in 08-12 (Del Po). Besides that he beat inferior guys in 04-07 and lost to Nadal/Djok in 08-12 consistently. No other lower tier guys managed to upset him until Berdych got him in USO 12 (when his true decline began).




He isn't immune to aging but his levels did not drop off markedly until 2013. Fed's level throughout 07 were not equal to 11, but his level in the matches vs Nole in both years at USO was pretty similar.



lol so 19 year old Djokovic losing to absolute peak Federer at AO 07 indicates how a peak vs peak (which Nole was 4 years away from) match would have gone.

Also since Agassi at 34 took Federer to 5 sets at USO 04 that must mean peak Agassi would destroy Fed at USO right? If you don't believe that why does Fed at 30 taking peak Djok to 5 sets mean peak Fed would destroy peak Nole?

You keep acting like just because Fed's over-all levels were lower in 08-12, that must mean his level in each isolated match HAS to be lower than it was in the 04-07 window.

I would say Fed over-all on clay in 06>>Fed on clay in 11, but his RG matches vs Nadal and Nole in 2011 was probably better than any individual RG he ever played in 04-07 and only his Rome 06 match vs Nadal was he playing better.

Similarly his levels at USO 11 vs Nole were fairly similar to his levels against Nole at 07. Young pre prime Djokovic held set points vs that Fed, the difference in 2011 was he was able to mentally tough it out and he was also able to endure more punishing rallies, there is not some vast difference like you want to make it out to be.

Peak for Peak I think their clay levels are equal and Djokovic is about as far above Fed on slow hards as Fed is on fast hards.

2011-2014 Djokovic vs 04-07 Fed:
Australian Open:
11 Djok vs 04 Fed - 11 Djok
12 Djok vs 05 Fed - 12 Djok
13 Djok vs 06 Fed - 13 Djok
14 Djok vs 07 Fed - 07 Fed

Djok: 3-1

French Open:
They would split 2-2 I think, 11 Djok beats 04 Fed and Fed probably wins 2 of the other 3.

Tied: 2-2


USO:
Remains to be seen what form 2014 Djok is in, but with the mental focus if hes playing at a high level he could possibly beat 07 Fed. 11 Djok probably beats 04 Fed. Fed 05/06 wins

Either: Fed 3-1 or tied 2-2

Wimbledon:
Fed likely wins at least 3 times. 11 Djok vs 04 Fed and 14 Djok vs 07 Fed would be the only close matches and possibly Djok could eek one out.

Either: Fed 4-0 or 3-1
Listen, just look at how Federer went away in those 5th sets vs Nadal at AO 2009 and Delpo at USO 2009. I don't see 2004-2007 Fed just giving up like that in a 5th set. Here's another difference between 2004-2007 Fed and 2008-2012 Fed
 
Irrelevant comparison. Their tennis eras were so different they practically played two different sports. You might as well compare Federer to Maureen Connolly. (In case you are tempted to do that, I would say: Do not let your user name continue to lead you astray.)

It's enough for Federer to be "GOAT" of the open era.
Comparison was made purely on technical bases. Roger, Pancho and the great Pete all posess classical single handed backhands with fluid strokes off both wings. I would never have made the comparison with Nadal or Djokovic in the picture for Nadal can generate more topspin with his forehand with a little flick of the wrist than Bjorn Borg could with full swing. Basically players like Djokovic and Nadal whould have to have changed their whole stroke production to compete with best of the 60's & 70's and even the early 80's. As for Roger, Pancho and Pete abd co. (read : Stich, Newcombe, Edberg, Pioline, Becker, Korda, Henman, Cash, McEnroe, Lendl etc) the differential is low enough for the comparison to have merit. Remember folks, Pancho with modern raquet would serve bigger than ever, and consequently, Pete's serve would be as devestating in the olden days of wooden raquets, as would Rogers fluid one hander.
 

conway

Banned
Losing sometimes (unless it is most of the time) to a past their prime player means nothing. When you have two all time greats, the player past their prime will always win some matches. I believe an old Djokovic would win some matches vs a prime Federer too if the scenarios were reversed. Some of you have such a warped view you seem to view Djokovic as if he were Murray, not beating Federer in a slam until Federer was 31. Steffi Graf had a loss to 34 and 36 year old Navratilova, does that mean she would never beat a prime Navratilova, lol! (meanwhile peak Navratilova lost a match 6-2, 6-2 to 15 year old Graf).

Federer might have the edge prime to prime vs Djokovic, but it would be no blowout. Djokovic has been a tough opponent for him since late 2007 now. In 2008-2009 when Federer was closer to his prime than Djokovic they were 4-4.

And I would for sure favor Djokovic on Plexicushion. Their 2008 and 2011 matches were so emphatic in Djokovic's favor that even considering Federer's illness in 2008 and being past his best a bit in 2011, I would give Djokovic the edge.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Losing sometimes (unless it is most of the time) to a past their prime player means nothing. When you have two all time greats, the player past their prime will always win some matches. I believe an old Djokovic would win some matches vs a prime Federer too if the scenarios were reversed. Some of you have such a warped view you seem to view Djokovic as if he were Murray, not beating Federer in a slam until Federer was 31. Steffi Graf had a loss to 34 and 36 year old Navratilova, does that mean she would never beat a prime Navratilova, lol! (meanwhile peak Navratilova lost a match 6-2, 6-2 to 15 year old Graf).

Federer might have the edge prime to prime vs Djokovic, but it would be no blowout. Djokovic has been a tough opponent for him since late 2007 now. In 2008-2009 when Federer was closer to his prime than Djokovic they were 4-4.

And I would for sure favor Djokovic on Plexicushion. Their 2008 and 2011 matches were so emphatic in Djokovic's favor that even considering Federer's illness in 2008 and being past his best a bit in 2011, I would give Djokovic the edge.
I don't always agree with you conway but this post is absolute 18 carat gold. Bravo! :smile:
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Losing sometimes (unless it is most of the time) to a past their prime player means nothing. When you have two all time greats, the player past their prime will always win some matches. I believe an old Djokovic would win some matches vs a prime Federer too if the scenarios were reversed. Some of you have such a warped view you seem to view Djokovic as if he were Murray, not beating Federer in a slam until Federer was 31. Steffi Graf had a loss to 34 and 36 year old Navratilova, does that mean she would never beat a prime Navratilova, lol! (meanwhile peak Navratilova lost a match 6-2, 6-2 to 15 year old Graf).

Federer might have the edge prime to prime vs Djokovic, but it would be no blowout. Djokovic has been a tough opponent for him since late 2007 now. In 2008-2009 when Federer was closer to his prime than Djokovic they were 4-4.

And I would for sure favor Djokovic on Plexicushion. Their 2008 and 2011 matches were so emphatic in Djokovic's favor that even considering Federer's illness in 2008 and being past his best a bit in 2011, I would give Djokovic the edge.

Valiant effort. As a Manchester United fan, I have successfully erased (mostly) some painful Champions League memories. I suspect you've done the same with the 2004-2007 period in tennis.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
And I would for sure favor Djokovic on Plexicushion. Their 2008 and 2011 matches were so emphatic in Djokovic's favor that even considering Federer's illness in 2008 and being past his best a bit in 2011, I would give Djokovic the edge.

@Djoko2011

So emphatic? Both were as close a straight set defeat as they come more or less - especially the 2011 one. In that one, Djoko won 8 more points, but had to hit his first serve 20 more times, indicating that Fed had a foot in Djoko's service games more often than the other way around (they played the same number of games behind serve).
The 2008 one was less close, but even here Djoko had to hit a first serve more times.
I won't necessarily give either to Fed, but I would imagine that even a US Open 2008 Fed would have taken the AO 2008 to 5 at the very least.

Overall, I think Fed has the slightly higher peak and combined with him matching up a bit better with Djoko than the other way around, I lean towards him in most matches - even to make it even at the AO and a Fed lead everywhere else (but pretty even at the FO).

AO 2008: 7-5, 6-3, 7-6(5), http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Match-Facts-Pop-Up.aspx?t=580&y=2008&r=6&p=F324
AO 2011: 7-6(3), 7-5, 6-4 http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Match-Facts-Pop-Up.aspx?t=580&y=2011&r=6&p=F324
 

TennisCJC

Legend
Roger Federer is the most underrated #1 of all time. If court speeds were fast as they were when he grew up and more tournaments were on his best surface grass instead of so many clay court tournaments, he would have 20+ majors and another 20 or so ATP titles and probably 2 years more with #1 ranking.

Racket technology, string technology and slowing courts have played into the hands of his main rivals - Nadal, Djoko and Murray - who all depend on a defensive baseline style. None of his rivals are competent attacking the net and their main skills are defensive. Without these factors helping his rivals, Federer would have won much more.

Remember, he grew up playing an 85" thin beam racket with all gut strings on courts that were fast. Murray has stated that Roger would have been more dominate if the courts were all fast as the few fast court tournaments still out there.
 
Last edited:

conway

Banned
Valiant effort. As a Manchester United fan, I have successfully erased (mostly) some painful Champions League memories. I suspect you've done the same with the 2004-2007 period in tennis.

Nice try but 2007 was one of my favorite years, and I also liked 2004 and 2005 a lot. 2006 was super weak and utterly forgettable, but that has nothing to do with Federer being on top, but just reality. Try harder next time, and maybe you will have a clue.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Nice try but 2007 was one of my favorite years, and I also liked 2004 and 2005 a lot. 2006 was super weak and utterly forgettable, but that has nothing to do with Federer being on top, but just reality. Try harder next time, and maybe you will have a clue.

I think he's starting to get obsessed with projecting his own insecurities onto others and trying to speak for them. It's so last-ditch :lol:
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Nice try but 2007 was one of my favorite years, and I also liked 2004 and 2005 a lot. 2006 was super weak and utterly forgettable, but that has nothing to do with Federer being on top, but just reality. Try harder next time, and maybe you will have a clue.
This is exactly the way I think as well ;) If everybdoy thought like this, this place would be much better
 
People act like Federer never faced certain styles of players when he was dominating..."ohhhhh, Federer can't handle da great Berdych and Tsonga," like he didn't face and dominate Safin (aside from one nail-biting classic slam loss) and pre-pusher Roddick. They act like he never faced excellent baseliners such as Djokovic, when he dominated Davydenko.

The proof that Federer could handle these guys in his prime is in watching him handle certain styles when he was dominating. Federer used to have the answers. As time went on, the wrist flicks disappeared...the around-the-netposts shots disappeared...the liquid whip forehand disappeared...the confidence in the backhand down the line disappeared...the probe slice and routine passing shots off said probe slice disappeared. Federer doesn't play the same as he used to.
 

Smasher08

Legend
It's just impossible to know any of this because peak Fed vs peak Djokovic never really happened. Novak hit his peak (2011), after Fed left his prime, and long after Fed left his peak. Still, in 2011, Fed beat Novak at RG, and served for their match at the USO. That to me means that peak Federer performs even better.

I love people using the Agassi 2004 match as a knock against Fed. One of the windiest matches I've ever seen, and Agassi playing very well. Agassi was a bit older then than Fed is now, but had far less mileage on his body. Yet Agassi at that time was half dead old grandpa and the fact that he pushed Fed means Fed is a joke. Soooooo Fed pushing Djokovic to five sets at Wimby must mean Djokovic is a joke? It's easy to make false equivalencies that don't hold any water. Just for comparisons sake, Agassi played 1,144 matches in his career, Fed has 1,196 matches so far, so he has more mileage on him at 33 than Agassi had at 36.

I still think this is impossible because these peak v peak matches will never happen, so we don't know. I do think Fed gets a hard time because he hasn't been able to dominate two eras worth of players, which no one has ever done, nor been asked to do. The fact that he leads the h2h with Djokovic and is tied with Murray and has continued to compete for and win big titles is a testament to how great he actually is. Far from overrated.

People (i.e., kids and Nadochists) keep conveniently forgetting that Peak Agassi was 29-33.

And even then, they conveniently forget that "Old" Agassi was among the very most fit on the tour and he didn't so much age but that his back finally went.
 
Last edited:
2006 was super weak and utterly forgettable, but that has nothing to do with Federer being on top, but just reality. Try harder next time, and maybe you will have a clue.

No, you're just a complete idiot who has no clue how to interpret results in tennis.

Somehow, 2005 is cool but 2006 is sooooo weak, and then 2007 is strong again. Because, like, Safin had one great tournament to start 2005 before disappearing and Pusher Roddick went deeper at the AO and Wimbledon in 05, rather than being punished for his lesser form by on-fire Baghdatis and baby Murray.
 
Top