2009 Federer vs 2012/2014 Djokovic

Which one is the best in your opinion?

  • Federer 2009

    Votes: 28 75.7%
  • Djokovic 2012

    Votes: 5 13.5%
  • Djokovic 2014

    Votes: 4 10.8%

  • Total voters
    37

vanioMan

Legend
I was recently watching some highlights of Federer from 2009 and I thought it would be interesting to see how you guys compare his achievements from that year against Djokovic's achievements from 2012 and 2014:

Federer in 2009:

- won 2 Slams (RG+W)
- won 2 Masters (Madrid and Cincinnati)
- made all 4 Slam finals
- lost in the SF of WTF
- made 1 ATP 500 final (Basel)
- finished the year ranked #1 with 10 550 points (1345 points ahead of Nadal)

Djokovic in 2012:

- won 1 Slam (AO)
- won WTF
- won 3 Masters (Miami, Canada, Shanghai)
- won 1 ATP 500 (Beijing)
- made 3 Slam finals (AO, RG, USO)
- lost the finals of MC, Rome and Cincinnati
- finished the year ranked #1 with 12 920 pints (2655 points ahead of Federer)

Djokovic in 2014:

- won 1 Slam (W)
- won WTF
- won 4 Masters (IW, Miami, Rome, Paris)
- won 1 ATP 500 (Beijing)
- made 2 Slam finals (RG and W)
- lost in the QF of AO and SF of USO
- finished the year ranked #1 with 11 360 points (1585 points ahead of Federer)

I think Federer's biggest argument over Djokovic could be making 4 GS finals and winning the Channel Slam (very impressive), but Nole was more consistent all year round in 2012/2014, especially during the Masters events.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
If you're all about the slams you'll obviously go with Fed's 2009 but if you think great consistency is also important you might go with Djokovic's 2012/14 seasons. Either answer is valid IMO.
 
I would take Federer of 2009 simply due to the 2 slam titles and 4 slam finals. However year round Djokovic was better, and if he had won a 2nd slam, would easily be ahead. Unfortunately his struggles in slam finals this period are well documented.
 
If you're all about the slams you'll obviously go with Fed's 2009 but if you think great consistency is also important you might go with Djokovic's 2012/14 seasons. Either answer is valid IMO.

Well the ITF went with Djokovic's 2013 (not too dissimilar to his 2012 or 2014, maybe a bit better) over Nadal's, and Nadal's 2013 I would take over Fed's 2009 despite Roger reaching 4 slam finals. So certainly there is an argument based upon that, regardless how many people think the ITF ruling was stupid.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Federer won something which Djokovic lacked: a second major.

His 2009 IMO is more impressive than Djokovic's 2014. Djokovic in 2014 as good as he was still won the same number of slams as guys like Wawrinka and Cilic. A player of his quality should have finished ahead of them in major titles.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Federer won something which Djokovic lacked: a second major.

His 2009 IMO is more impressive than Djokovic's 2014. Djokovic in 2014 as good as he was still won the same number of slams as guys like Wawrinka and Cilic. A player of his quality should have finished ahead of them in major titles.
Can't disagree with that last part. He really let the USO slip through his fingers last year.
 
I agree on the slam wins arent everything concept, but Djokovic2011 seems to really take that to an extreme beyond anyone else. I mean it is not like Federer in 2009 or Nadal in 2013 as another example did nothing beyond their slam wins. Both won multiple Masters (Nadal in 2013 won FIVE for instance, in addition to his 2 slam wins) and Federer reached 2 other slam finals in addition to winning a couple Masters. It would be almost impossible for someone who won only 1 major vs 2 to overcome that for me. However I am not saying Djokovic2011 is wrong either. Everyone has the right to their own visions on things, it is just hard to notice he/she really takes the "slams wins arent everything" motto to an even higher level than anyone I have seen so far.

Then there are others who try and say Wawrinka's career is already better than Roddick's due to 2 slams vs 1, or would be better than Murray's if she wins a 3rd slam first. That is the other extreme, and one which I cant get on board with either.

It is just intersting to see all the different ideas on the subject. Nobody is right or wrong neccessarily.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
It is interesting to note that both Federer and Djokovic could have finished slamless in 2009 and 2014.

Federer played two 5 setters at RG which he could have lost and a 5 setter against Roddick at Wimb which he could have lost. Had Djokovic lost the 3rd set tiebreak or the fifth set he would have lost the Wimb final.

Both pulled through in the end. But Federer managed to do it enough times to win a second major.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
I don't necessarily agree with that. I think it depends what the players' other achievements were throughout the season. Don't forget that tennis isn't just about eight weeks of the year.

Ok, he also lost two 5-set GS finals so was basically 2 sets from a Slam.

Federer knew which tournament to peak for. If he peaked for the MS like Djokovic he'd have far less Slams. Even in 2007 he won 3 Slams and the WTF (so that's 4 out of 5) and only 2 MS titles (so that's 2 out of 9). There were similar cases in 2004 and 2008 (1 GS title, 3 Slam finals and 0 MS).

Tennis isn't just about 4 tournaments in a season, you're right, but with an additional Slam for Fed in 2009 there's nothing to talk about. Only if both had 2 Slams you could look at the rest like Slam finals, MS tournaments, number of tournament wins. Djokovic falls at the first hurdle.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
I agree on the slam wins arent everything concept, but Djokovic2011 seems to really take that to an extreme beyond anyone else. I mean it is not like Federer in 2009 or Nadal in 2013 as another example did nothing beyond their slam wins. Both won multiple Masters (Nadal in 2013 won FIVE for instance, in addition to his 2 slam wins) and Federer reached 2 other slam finals in addition to winning a couple Masters. It would be almost impossible for someone who won only 1 major vs 2 to overcome that for me. However I am not saying Djokovic2011 is wrong either. Everyone has the right to their own visions on things, it is just hard to notice he/she really takes the "slams wins arent everything" motto to an even higher level than anyone I have seen so far.

Then there are others who try and say Wawrinka's career is already better than Roddick's due to 2 slams vs 1, or would be better than Murray's if she wins a 3rd slam first. That is the other extreme, and one which I cant get on board with either.

It is just intersting to see all the different ideas on the subject. Nobody is right or wrong neccessarily.
I'm not necessarily talking about seasons such as 2009 or 2013. But similar to an example I've given before, if player A wins one slam, reaches a couple more finals, wins the WTF and several Masters 1000s and player B wins 2 majors but crashes out early in the other 2, wins no Masters and loses early at the WTF, I'd be hard pressed to say that he had the better season than player A. Believe me, I know a lot of people will disagree with me on that but I value consistency a great deal and I don't think there's anything wrong in doing so.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Ok, he also lost two 5-set GS finals so was basically 2 sets from a Slam.

Federer knew which tournament to peak for. If he peaked for the MS like Djokovic he'd have far less Slams. Even in 2007 he won 3 Slams and the WTF (so that's 4 out of 5) and only 2 MS titles (so that's 2 out of 9). There were similar cases in 2004 and 2008 (1 GS title, 3 Slam finals and 0 MS).

Tennis isn't just about 4 tournaments in a season, you're right, but with an additional Slam for Fed in 2009 there's nothing to talk about. Only if both had 2 Slams you could look at the rest like Slam finals, MS tournaments, number of tournament wins. Djokovic falls at the first hurdle.
Read post #13.
 

TommyA8X

Hall of Fame
2 slams>1 slam
Djokovic didn't have substantially better results outside of the 4 majors to make up for Fed's 2 slams.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
2 slams>1 slam
Djokovic didn't have substantially better results outside of the 4 majors to make up for Fed's 2 slams.
Just wondering mate, what better results do you think Novak would've needed to achieve to make up for Fed's extra slam?
 

BVSlam

Professional
That's really difficult, but I'm going with Fed 2009. I don't think he was great all year, and I don't think he played that much better than he did in 2008 despite the two slams and masters compared to 1 slam and three mickey-mouses, if at all. However, no matter what, he won two slams including the one he couldn't win for many years due to Nadal and broke the record at Wimbledon right after. I'm pretty sure 2009 is a more memorable year for Fed than 2012/2014 are for Djokovic. In terms of overall level of play, both of Djokovic's years were better to me, pretty easily actually, but he'd probably have taken the two slams + two masters instead if he could. Slams may not be everything, but for people who really contest for them like those two do/did (Fed can't count on it anymore of course), it's most likely their main target.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
That's really difficult, but I'm going with Fed 2009. I don't think he was great all year, and I don't think he played that much better than he did in 2008 despite the two slams and masters compared to 1 slam and three mickey-mouses, if at all. However, no matter what, he won two slams including the one he couldn't win for many years due to Nadal and broke the record at Wimbledon right after. I'm pretty sure 2009 is a more memorable year for Fed than 2012/2014 are for Djokovic. In terms of overall level of play, both of Djokovic's years were better to me, pretty easily actually, but he'd probably have taken the two slams + two masters instead if he could. Slams may not be everything, but for people who really contest for them like those two do/did (Fed can't count on it anymore of course), it's most likely their main target.
A very reasoned and objective post. Like I said earlier, either answer is perfectly valid.
 

TommyA8X

Hall of Fame
Just wondering mate, what better results do you think Novak would've needed to achieve to make up for Fed's extra slam?
2 more MS1000.
Something like this: 1 slam title (2 finals, 1 semi), 5 MS1000, WTF title could be argued to be better
(Federer's obviously was: 2 slam titles (all 4 finals), 2 MS1000, WTF semi)
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
That's really difficult, but I'm going with Fed 2009. I don't think he was great all year, and I don't think he played that much better than he did in 2008 despite the two slams and masters compared to 1 slam and three mickey-mouses, if at all. However, no matter what, he won two slams including the one he couldn't win for many years due to Nadal and broke the record at Wimbledon right after. I'm pretty sure 2009 is a more memorable year for Fed than 2012/2014 are for Djokovic. In terms of overall level of play, both of Djokovic's years were better to me, pretty easily actually, but he'd probably have taken the two slams + two masters instead if he could. Slams may not be everything, but for people who really contest for them like those two do/did (Fed can't count on it anymore of course), it's most likely their main target.
I don't think Djokovic's level of play in 2014 was that high in the slams. Outside of the slams sure it was (except the American HC season) but in the slams he wasn't any better than guys like Wawrinka and Cilic.

Federer in 2009 went through tough matches in slams just like Djokovic, but he won enough of them to add a second major. And that's what matters in the end.

Had Djokovic won AO or USO that year, no doubt his 2014 would have been better than Fed's 2009.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I'm not necessarily talking about seasons such as 2009 or 2013. But similar to an example I've given before, if player A wins one slam, reaches a couple more finals, wins the WTF and several Masters 1000s and player B wins 2 majors but crashes out early in the other 2, wins no Masters and loses early at the WTF, I'd be hard pressed to say that he had the better season than player A. Believe me, I know a lot of people will disagree with me on that but I value consistency a great deal and I don't think there's anything wrong in doing so.
It's not like Fed was a complete mug outside the slams in 2009. He won 2 masters to go along with his 2 slams. The WTF is the only place he dissapointed at.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Federer was patchy outside of the slams in 2009 but at the slams his level was a lot higher than Djokovic's in 2012 at virtually every event. He had the record in his sights after all.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
It's not like Fed was a complete mug outside the slams in 2009. He won 2 masters to go along with his 2 slams. The WTF is the only place he dissapointed at.
That's true but I wasn't specifically talking about Fed's 2009 when I said that a 1 slam season could be better than a 2 slam season.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Federer was patchy outside of the slams in 2009 but at the slams his level was a lot higher than Djokovic's in 2012 at virtually every event. He had the record in his sights after all.

If Djokovic had the slam record in sight and was very close to it, he also wouldn't try to exhaust himself in the masters.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Federer was patchy outside of the slams in 2009 but at the slams his level was a lot higher than Djokovic's in 2012 at virtually every event. He had the record in his sights after all.
I recently watched the highlights of his match against Djokovic that year in Miami. Oh dear, I don't think I'll be revisiting them again any time soon!
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I recently watched the highlights of his match against Djokovic that year in Miami. Oh dear, I don't think I'll be revisiting them again any time soon!
It was a match in which they both played bad. The player which made the less errors in the end won.

And I'm not wrong either. The way Djokovic went on to play in the final, I think it is not unreasonable to say that he was nothing extraordinary in the semis. And Federer lost the match more than Djokovic won it.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
If Djokovic had the slam record in sight and was very close to it, he also wouldn't try to exhaust himself in the masters.

Probably not, I think up until around 2011 Federer was focused on mostly slams and the WTF. After he slipped to #3 I feel he realized he would struggle to be a clear #2 seed and had to think about his ranking.

I recently watched the highlights of his match against Djokovic that year in Miami. Oh dear, I don't think I'll be revisiting them again any time soon!

Yeah, Federer was awful around that time and Djokovic was consistent but not they the player he had been the 2 years before. His losses to Nadal had really hurt him. He was still playing close to his best in slams until 2010 but in the smaller events he was all over the place. That's why I don't really take stock of some of his h2h losses in that period - not that they don't count ;)
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
It was a match in which they both played bad. The player which made the less errors in the end won.

And I'm not wrong either. The way Djokovic went on to play in the final, I think it is not unreasonable to say that he was nothing extraordinary in the semis. And Federer lost the match more than Djokovic won it.
It's just a shame he didn't play so poorly when they met a few months later in Cincy! ;)
 

billboard

Rookie
Djoker had among the worst years in 2012-3, but he still beat fed and Rafa on fast and slow courts. Only 2009-10 were worse than these dreadful years.
The fed comparison to him in fed's cakewalk year and lucky Wimbledon against Roddick, his turkey, is unbelievable.
2009 Fed was rafa's rag doll and still is today.
Fed couldn't get by Del po, who was rarely a great slam player, and Novak was mentally and physical gone at the time.
Rafa was absent so much but fed didn't dominate in masters events all year.
Haas tanked and choked at 2009 French open. Fed lost to berdych in 2010-3 and benneteau was injured then choked at Wimbledon '12.
Fed lost the mental edge over Novak in 2011 even though Novak was injured in September-November 2011.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
Haas tanked and choked at 2009 French open.

I've never heard of "tanking" and "choking" in the same sentence. Haas choked away that match, sure, he emphatically did not "tank" the match! Haas was trying as hard as he could even in the fifth, he just ran out of gas. He would have closed it out in straights had Roger not hit the line on that sublime inside-out FH deep in the third set. Haas is way too professional and fit to tank a match in a major, come on.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
For me it's pretty clear that 2>1 slams, and 4>3 finals is a bigger gap than 3>2 masters and a WTF>semi.

Fed was two sets shy (in principle) of winning all four slams for cripes.

I don't mind if some Novak fans feel otherwise, but that's how I see it, and I strongly suspect that Novak would at least trade the 2012 season for Fed's 2009.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
For me it's pretty clear that 2>1 slams, and 4>3 finals is a bigger gap than 3>2 masters and a WTF>semi.

Fed was two sets shy (in principle) of winning all four slams for cripes.

I don't mind if some Novak fans feel otherwise, but that's how I see it, and I strongly suspect that Novak would at least trade the 2012 season for Fed's 2009.
A season in which Novak would win RG? You bet.
 

billboard

Rookie
I've never heard of "tanking" and "choking" in the same sentence. Haas choked away that match, sure, he emphatically did not "tank" the match! Haas was trying as hard as he could even in the fifth, he just ran out of gas. He would have closed it out in straights had Roger not hit the line on that sublime inside-out FH deep in the third set. Haas is way too professional and fit to tank a match in a major, come on.
Haas has not done much other than beat Roddick and fed in small events.
That is not someone who could come to net quickly and fight and play that well.
 
I'm not necessarily talking about seasons such as 2009 or 2013. But similar to an example I've given before, if player A wins one slam, reaches a couple more finals, wins the WTF and several Masters 1000s and player B wins 2 majors but crashes out early in the other 2, wins no Masters and loses early at the WTF, I'd be hard pressed to say that he had the better season than player A. Believe me, I know a lot of people will disagree with me on that but I value consistency a great deal and I don't think there's anything wrong in doing so.

Yes I would agree on that particular scenario for sure.
 
Well to be fair I don't think I've ever heard of a player win 2 majors in a season and nothing else.

Navratilova in 1987 was pretty close. Serena in 2010 too.

However in mens tennis I cant really recall. Edberg in 1990 lost 1st round at the other 2 slams, but he had some strong other performances.
 
Ooops you are right. His #1 ranking was pretty bad then. Only 1 slam and 2 1st round losses at slams. It is hilarious to see wikipedia dub ITF naming Lendl POY over Edberg in 1990 "controversial" but not Djokovic over Nadal in 2013. Nadal atleast won a 2nd slam and 5 Masters, while Edberg didnt even win a 2nd slam, and I atleast prefer a DNP and 1st round loss to two 1st round losses if having to choose.
 

Numero Uno

Semi-Pro
IF Novak finish his career with 16 slams and 32 masters would you consider that better career then Rogers with 17 slams and 24 masters?
 

timnz

Legend
As a Federer fan I am stil frustrated by 2009. He was only 2 sets away from being able to achieve 6 straight slam wins (2008 US Open to 2010 Australian Open). That would have made it the greatest achievement in the open era. As it was he was only 2 points away from winning the US Open - so he would have got the 'Roger Slam' at the 2010 Australian Open - Holding all 4 in a row.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
As a Federer fan I am stil frustrated by 2009. He was only 2 sets away from being able to achieve 6 straight slam wins (2008 US Open to 2010 Australian Open). That would have made it the greatest achievement in the open era. As it was he was only 2 points away from winning the US Open - so he would have got the 'Roger Slam' at the 2010 Australian Open - Holding all 4 in a row.
Hey he got the FO, which is what all his fans wished for in the first place.

These past 2 Wimb finals have been more frustrating than his 2009.
 
As a Federer fan I am stil frustrated by 2009. He was only 2 sets away from being able to achieve 6 straight slam wins (2008 US Open to 2010 Australian Open). That would have made it the greatest achievement in the open era. As it was he was only 2 points away from winning the US Open - so he would have got the 'Roger Slam' at the 2010 Australian Open - Holding all 4 in a row.

As a Federer fan you should be delirously happy. Had Nadal's knee problems AND the miracle that was Soderling not come up (which likely also stripped his confidence to the point he skipped Wimbledon and then proceded to play like crap the rest of the year, in addition to being injured enough to miss Wimbledon), he wouldnt have had a year anywhere near that. The idea of Roger probably ever regaining #1, let alone winning 3 of 4 slams from 2009 RG-AO 2010 would have seemed absolutely ludricious prior to RG 2009. Along with ever winning RG after the 2008 final vs Nadal.
 

timnz

Legend
As a Federer fan you should be delirously happy. Had Nadal's knee problems AND the miracle that was Soderling not come up (which likely also stripped his confidence to the point he skipped Wimbledon and then proceded to play like crap the rest of the year, in addition to being injured enough to miss Wimbledon), he wouldnt have had a year anywhere near that. The idea of Roger probably ever regaining #1, let alone winning 3 of 4 slams from 2009 RG-AO 2010 would have seemed absolutely ludricious prior to RG 2009. Along with ever winning RG after the 2008 final vs Nadal.
And yet Roger was able to not only regain Number 1 in 2009, but also in 2012 also. To start to go down the line of discounting someone's achievements because of what other players were up to - well it ends up in a strange place. So, Federer's FO win in 2009 is discounted because of Nadal's knee injury? (that wasn't revealed until AFTER the french open) . Should the French Open have been stopped the moment Nadal lost to Soderling? After all, was there any point in continuing it because the eventual victor would always have a asterix after their name? Should Nadal be stripped of the 2008 Wimbledon because Federer didn't get the conditioning he needed earlier in the year because of his Mono? As you can see, it leads to a strange place. Simply can't the people who win tournaments be regarded as having won the tournament, without any qualification? They have no control after all on other players injuries or illnesses.
 
Last edited:
My point is the next 9 months for Roger from that point could be summed up as "The Impossible Dream". It was better than any of his even his most ardent fans would dare to dream of. Furthermore he was MUCH closer to losing to Roddick in the Wimbledon final and a whole bunch of times at Roland Garros than he was to winning the Australian or U.S Open finals. To think he was unlucky in anyway that year, and should have won the Grand Slam is a huge ROTFL!!! Also yes he deserved his success, injuries and what not are part of the game, but if you deny he had some good fortune with the unexpected things that happened, particularly Nadal's fall out (for whatever variety of reasons) you are kidding yourself.

Again as a Federer fan you should be deliriously thrilled with 2009. And nothing more. The end.
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
I'd take 2009, because the 2 slams were paired with a YE #1 for Fed. If we're talking the ATP from the 90s onward (when the tour got settled), I can't imagine how a 1-slam season is greater than a 2-slam season without there also being a better finish in the rankings. I suppose that's a roundabout way of saying the same thing a lot of other folks are saying, because you're not gonna get a YE #2 or worse season from a 2 slam winner these days without some serious lulls b/w the majors.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Lets look at the numbers

In 2009 Federer won 10550 points

In 2012 Nole won 12920 points

In 2014 Nole won 11360 points

Facts are clear.
 
Top