2008-10 Federer vs 2012-14 Djokovic
- Thread starter The Sinner
- Start date
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
It's not that deep lmao, everyone knows it happens.
Yeah, you expect Djokovic trend, but nothing like a shutout. Like against Nadal, Federer finally turned the trend around, at AO & WB.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
The points are the proof
Sure if you leave out context like competition, surface homogenous courts, etc..If you say 24>22>20, those same fans suddenly not so Slamism
I'm sure you rate Magaret Court is the best/greatest simply because 24>23>22>18. LOL
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
There is no argument anymore. Surfaces homogenized. Fed won a lot because of that. Nole won more.
It's same field for big 3.
It's same field for big 3.
Pheasant
Legend
This is a good thread. It's tough, because it comes down to slam peak vs total value. Djoker wins in total value; since there's more to tennis than slams. But Fed makes it quite interesting by going to 8 straight slam finals immediately after losing the AO semi to Djoker. That is one heck of a streak. Not many players have gone to 8 straight slam finals. However, Fed was very bad by his standards before and after that streak, besides beating peak Nadal in the WTF final in 2010. Fed had a lot of bad losses outside of that streak as well. Djoker was far more consistent across the 3 year period in question. I see a valid argument for each player; I really do.
I've said it in the past and I'll say it again, even though this works against my guy. I've always valued weeks at #1 as perhaps the top metric. I also think that it's a much better measuring stick across eras than slam title count. It goes back to the 1980s when I read numerous articles and heard it spoken about a lot. In 1988, Sport Illustrated did a 3 page article about how and why Lendl just missed beating Connor's record 160-week streak at #1. They listed all of his injuries, his surgery, how they affected his performance at various events, and time missed, along with the historical importance of that metric.
Djoker won weeks at #1 by a margin of 101-81. And the reason he did that is because he won 20 titles to Fed's 13. So although I love streaks, which are proof of dominance in my book, Djoker was lot more consistent.
I'm giving this one to Djoker by a very slim margin.
I've said it in the past and I'll say it again, even though this works against my guy. I've always valued weeks at #1 as perhaps the top metric. I also think that it's a much better measuring stick across eras than slam title count. It goes back to the 1980s when I read numerous articles and heard it spoken about a lot. In 1988, Sport Illustrated did a 3 page article about how and why Lendl just missed beating Connor's record 160-week streak at #1. They listed all of his injuries, his surgery, how they affected his performance at various events, and time missed, along with the historical importance of that metric.
Djoker won weeks at #1 by a margin of 101-81. And the reason he did that is because he won 20 titles to Fed's 13. So although I love streaks, which are proof of dominance in my book, Djoker was lot more consistent.
I'm giving this one to Djoker by a very slim margin.
Sure, Federer won a lot during homogenized courts, that's because he managed to adjust/adapt. But Federer's game is aggressive and has more variety of shots, which he thrives more on fast, low bounce courts that was taken away from him. However Djokovic thrives on homogenized courts. Big difference
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Exactly the surface homogenization should be used only vs mid 80s to 2000 period.
The Sinner
Semi-Pro
Wawrinka has 3 slams to Medvedev’s 1. However the lanky Russian is overwhelmingly better in numbers everywhere else: Masters, YEC, weeks at No1, win % etc.
Most sane people would rather take Waw’s career over Meddy’s. Wawa >>> Medv. Slams are the ultimate indicator for greatness.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
When it's 1 vs 3 yes
When it's 3 vs 4 then context matters. Nole had everything else better.
Neptune
Hall of Fame
Don't derail your own thread.
At least the vote so far shows more fans with some sense.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
RG final 2013, I believe, is equally historically significant.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Murray would have been better than Courier if he had been a number 1 in big 3 era even for a year. He had to be number 1 after fedal injury and Djokovic injury. It's pretty poor.
Otherwise Murray resume is better than Courier on paper.
Otherwise Murray resume is better than Courier on paper.
The Sinner
Semi-Pro
You are wrong. Djokovic is GOAT mainly because of his slams (24). All the other numbers come into play when say there is a tie like when he and Nadal were tied at one stage, but most pundits put Djoko ahead because he excelled in the other stats. Why do you think Nole mostly only shows up for slams these last few years? Slams is what matters MOST. Go argue with your Djokovic if you can’t handle it.If you say 24>22>20, those same fans suddenly not so Slamism
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
Mmm...you must be talknig about semi-final not the final?...
Neptune
Hall of Fame
Anyone can check the quality of post#1 vs post#14.
I am not interested in wasting more time arguing with you.
JoelSandwich
Hall of Fame
If they played each other
2008/2012
AO- Djokovic
FO- Djokovic
W- Fed
USO- Fed
2009/2013
Fed wins all four
2010/2014
AO- Fed
FO- Djokovic
W- Djokovic
USO- Fed lol
2008/2012
AO- Djokovic
FO- Djokovic
W- Fed
USO- Fed
2009/2013
Fed wins all four
2010/2014
AO- Fed
FO- Djokovic
W- Djokovic
USO- Fed lol
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Quite an amazing accomplishment for Djokovic fanatics to have created the ELO system, really. It shows time-traveling abilities of which few are capable. Well, it's good that they can achieve something remarkable, considering the mediocrity of their favorite. He ought to become their fan, rather than the other way around, really, given that their achievements outstrip his!
The Sinner
Semi-Pro
Slamism indeed! It’s what makes The Djokovic GOAT. Weeks at No1, YE No1, YEC are all distant secondary. Masters …are not looked at as markers for greatness.
The Sinner
Semi-Pro
Fair enough, but either way it’s close. Just don’t get why Uranus carries on as though it’s Djokovic by a long shot. Like suddenly, slams are insignificant, lol.
Last edited:
Subway Tennis
G.O.A.T.
Comparing the two periods, I would say Fedr was the better player and probably had more important achievements in that time, but Djokovic has more achievements.
2008-2010 was pretty momentous for Fed. One of his biggest ever wins was achieved in the period and another of his biggest ever matches was played within that time.
2012-2014 was junk time for Djokovic but he still did rack up the titles. He is such an impressive maximiser in that way.
2008-2010 was pretty momentous for Fed. One of his biggest ever wins was achieved in the period and another of his biggest ever matches was played within that time.
2012-2014 was junk time for Djokovic but he still did rack up the titles. He is such an impressive maximiser in that way.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
They are, but where the slam record is very close, those other factors are important, too. I think Murray's career is clearly better than Wawrinka's and that's only partly because he's been to the later rounds of slams much more often (*), and also because he's done much better in other events.
* Note: as well as the question of slams v everything else, there's also the question of winning alone versus getting to later rounds. Perhaps for Djokovic and Federer, there's a case that being runner-up doesn't matter much, but at the level of Wawrinka, Murray, and Medvedev, I think that getting to semis and finals adds something. And I think that's one reason Medvedev seems closer to Wawrinka than the 3-1 slam title count suggests: Medvedev leads 5-4 in slam finals reached. It doesn't overhaul the 3-1 title deficit, but it does narrow it a bit.
Neptune
Hall of Fame
Not sure if Rafa a maximiser or some mystery beyond, so that he could rack up 5 more big titles than Fed with a whopping 37 LESS top10 wins
Fed : 223-123 (64.45%)
Rafa: 186-102 (64.58%)
The Sinner
Semi-Pro
Totally agree!
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
Federer wouldn't beat 2012-2014 Djokovic in ANY of the AO finals on plexicushion, don't kid yourself! LOL 2013 version of Novak still demolishes Federer as in any other season, he did that in 2008 semis in straight sets and he would suddenly lose to 2009 version of Federer in what looks like probably one of his most dominant runs ever at the AO in 2013?! Do you understand how tiny sense that makes?! At remaining 3 slams ok i agree maybe...but AO? No...just no, stop it! And he had to run into PEAK mode Wawrinka in 2014 AO to lose the match if only by hair and you are telling me 2010 would defeat 2014 Djokovic at the AO?? Like i said stop it!...
So the real picture looks like this:
2008/2012
AO - Djokovic
FO - Djokovic
W - Federer
USO - Federer
2009/2013
AO - Djokovic
FO - Federer
W - Federer
USO - Federer
2010/2014
AO - Djokovic
FO - Djokovic
W - Djokovic
USO - Federer
And...it's perfect 6-6 and all is balanced in this world, like it should be...
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I wouldn't exactly say YE #1 and weeks at #1 are a distant second. Imo, it goes like this: Slams > YE #1 > Weeks at #1 > ATP Finals > Masters. So I would consider Masters a distant second to a Slam but not a YE #1 or weeks at #1. It's the same reason why Wawrinka would never be considered greater than Murray or Kuerten, and why many probably wouldn't put him above Alcaraz right now.
The Sinner
Semi-Pro
Not sure I agree. I consider Djokovic the GOAT because of his success at the slams, first and foremost. Like someone else pointed out before, the YE No1 and weeks at No1 come into play when there is a tie, or it’s super close. Like when Djoko was 1 slam behind Nadal, then there was a legit debate on who is greater, based on the Serb‘s far superior stats in YEC, Weeks at No1 etc. The guys you mentioned are tied at slams, then yes, other factors come into play as you stated. Before Djokovic you had Federer, Sampras and Borg (in that order) who were considered by most to be the GOATs at the time, based on their success at the slams, full stop.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I think Slams matter the most but other things matter as well. Sampras, for example, highly valued #1 and YE #1 and talked about that. Same for Djokovic. Being #1 and ending the year #1 is highly important so I can't agree that we only look at these things if they're tied or close in Slam count.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
You are right. I think of it as the final because it should have been the final. Weirdly Roland Garros, does not seed according to clay. I forget how many times Nadal has been seeded below number one when logic tells us he was far and away the favorite. That year he was the third seed. By the time that slam began I don't think there was a person on the planet that didn't figure he was the favor to win.
So that match for me was the true final. I felt very sorry for Djokovic in that match. Both players played so well that it's a shame either had to lose.
The Sinner
Semi-Pro
I almost agree with all this, except AO 2009 vs 2013, and AO 2010 vs 2014 are debatable. Not sure you realise how good Fed actually was at the ‘09 edition. He only lost to Nadal’s best version ever at the event, when on paper everyone was saying it’s Fed’s to lose, but we all know about his mental block vs Bull during those years. 2010, as with ’09, were both better versions than Mono-Fedr ‘08. Do you recall the SF in 2010? Same masterclass performance, on par with Djoko’s 2013 SF total wasting of Ferrer, difference being Tsonga is a superior player. In any case we are comparing with 2014, and 2010 Fed was in no way gonna lose to Wawa. In Tsonga’s words after the match, when asked if there is anyone who could beat Federer. He replies, “if Roger plays like that in the final, NOBODY can beat him”.
IMO, 2009 vs 2013 is 50/50, could go either way. But, 2010 vs 2014 …it‘s gotta be Fed.
PS: RG 2009 vs 2013 is also 50/50, could go either way.
Similar threads
- Poll
