2011-12 is what separates Djokovic from Federer

[MichelaDe]

In 2003-09 and 2015-23 Federer and Djokovic respectively were way better than the field and dominated.

In 2011-12 Federer was only 30 years old, a perfectly fine age for tennis as the results of the last years prove. He was younger than post-RG2018 Djokovic who won 10 Slams.

Yet in this period Djokovic won 3 Slams and got 84 more weeks at #1 and 2 YE #1 more than Federer.

In particular the ability to beat Nadal at 2011 Wimbledon, 2011 US Open and 2012 Australian Open made the difference. In the same period Federer lost both matches he played against Nadal at Slams instead.

 

[mike danny]

Well, sure, but let's not forget how Djokovic then went on to lose slams to Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka and for a while that was what separated Djokovic from Federer. Federer has lost way fewer career slam matches to Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka than Djokovic.

 

[mike danny]

In 2011-12 Federer was only 30 years old, a perfectly fine age for tennis as the results of the last years prove. He was younger than post-RG2018 Djokovic who won 10 Slams.

He was 30-31 years old playing against great players aged 24-26. Quite a difference from playing Thiem and the Next Gen.

And a peak Djokovic doing better than a 30-31 year old Fed was what he was supposed to do.

 

[MichelaDe]

He was 30-31 years old playing against great players aged 24-26. Quite a difference from playing Thiem and the Next Gen.

And a peak Djokovic doing better than a 30-31 year old Fed was what he was supposed to do.

He was 29 at AO 2011, RG 2011 and Wimbledon 2011.

 

[MichelaDe]

Well, sure, but let's not forget how Djokovic then went on to lose slams to Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka and for a while that was what separated Djokovic from Federer. Federer has lost way fewer career slam matches to Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka than Djokovic.

Vs Murray Djokovic is 8-2, Federer is 5-1. Similar score.

 

[MichelaDe]

Well, sure, but let's not forget how Djokovic then went on to lose slams to Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka and for a while that was what separated Djokovic from Federer. Federer has lost way fewer career slam matches to Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka than Djokovic.

Federer had painful losses to Wawrinka-type players too. He just had them to different players rather than one.

SF 2005 AO vs Safin
F 2009 UO vs Del Potro
QF 2010 RG vs Soderling
QF 2011 WI vs Tsonga
QF 2012 USO vs Berdych

 

[mike danny]

Federer had painful losses to Wawrinka-type players too. He just had them to different players rather than one.

SF 2005 AO vs Safin
F 2009 UO vs Del Potro
QF 2010 RG vs Soderling
QF 2011 WI vs Tsonga
QF 2012 USO vs Berdych

He wasn't really in top form in the last 3 and they didn't happen in his best years. Those Djokovic losses literally happened in his best years.

Regardless, if you're gonna penalize Federer for failing to beat Nadal, then let's not hide Djokovic's failures as well.

 

[mike danny]

He was 29 at AO 2011, RG 2011 and Wimbledon 2011.

And 30+ afterwards.

Djokovic was also 29 at USO 2016 and AO 2017 and we know how those turned out. Let's not act like 29 is the peak age of tennis or anything.

 

[Nadal_Django]

Well, sure, but let's not forget how Djokovic then went on to lose slams to Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka and for a while that was what separated Djokovic from Federer. Federer has lost way fewer career slam matches to Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka than Djokovic.

That's because Federer's Andy Murrays and Stan Wawrinkas were being called Marat Safin, Tomas Berdych and Juan Martin Del Potro.

 

[mike danny]

Vs Murray Djokovic is 8-2, Federer is 5-1. Similar score.

Federer never lost slams to Murray. Murray has 3 slams precisely because of Djokovic.

 

[maratha_warrior]

Djokovic beat top form Nadal 7 times on all surfaces during that period .
Federer can't ever do this to Nadal .

 

[mike danny]

In 2011-12 Federer was only 30 years old, a perfectly fine age for tennis as the results of the last years prove. He was younger than post-RG2018 Djokovic who won 10 Slams.

1. Not really a perfect age for tennis as Djokovic's 2017 results and Nadal's 2016 results attest.

2. I'll grant you that 30-31 years old isn't old today, but it is old when you're competing with great 24-26 year olds. Even in today's era, mid 20's is still the peak of a tennis player.

 

[maratha_warrior]

That's because Federer's Andy Murrays and Stan Wawrinkas were being called Marat Safin, Tomas Berdych and Juan Martin Del Potro.

Federer is 0-2 against Del potro at US Opens

 

[mike danny]

Djokovic beat top form Nadal 7 times on all surfaces during that period .
Federer can't ever do this to Nadal .

That's true.

But Djokovic can also lose slams to guys like Murray and Wawrinka, things that would never happen to Federer.

 

[maratha_warrior]

That's true.

But Djokovic can also lose slams to guys like Murray and Wawrinka, things that would never happen to Federer.

Guys like Safin , del potro, Soderling , Berdych says " hello "

 

[MichelaDe]

1. Not really a perfect age for tennis as Djokovic's 2017 results and Nadal's 2016 results attest.

2. I'll grant you that 30-31 years old isn't old today, but it is old when you're competing with great 24-26 year olds. Even in today's era, mid 20's is still the peak of a tennis player.

At an even older age Djokovic won 10 Slams, Nadal won 8. Those results don't count?

 

[mike danny]

Guys like Safin , del potro, Soderling , Berdych says " hello "

Sure, when Federer was out of form and not in his best years anymore.

In their best years, Federer "donated" slams only to Safin and Delpo and there were only 2. Djokovic lost multiple slams to each of Murray and Stan. One time is an accident. Multiple times isn't.

 

[mike danny]

At an even older age Djokovic won 10 Slams, Nadal won 8. Those results don't count?

You said it was the perfect age for a tennis player. What they retroactively do afterwards doesn't change that they struggled at the time they were 30.

And you might wanna tell Murray the news that age 30 is a perfect age for a tennis player because he still hasn't got the memo 6 years later.

 

[maratha_warrior]

At an even older age Djokovic won 10 Slams, Nadal won 8. Those results don't count?

Federer says he sleeps 12 hours a day .
That is the time Nadal spends in the gym

Jokes aside , Nadal n Djokovic will win more slams because they are best Rally players .

Federer's game is Serve based . If Serve doesn't click he is toast .

This is a simple reason why Nadal Djokovic have more slams .

 

[maratha_warrior]

Sure, when Federer was out of form and not in his best years anymore.

In their best years, Federer "donated" slams only to Safin and Delpo and there were only 2. Djokovic lost multiple slams to each of Murray and Stan. One time is an accident. Multiple times isn't.

His best years happened when he faced Hewitt Bagdatis n Roddick .

All losses count.

 

[MichelaDe]

That's true.

But Djokovic can also lose slams to guys like Murray and Wawrinka, things that would never happen to Federer.

And Djokovic can't lose to Del Potro, Soderling, Tsonga, Cilic.

Slam score vs Del Potro, Soderling, Tsonga, Cilic:

Federer 19-6
Djokovic 17-1

They were about equally good against the field. What made the difference are the matches against Nadal.

 

[travlerajm]

Well, sure, but let's not forget how Djokovic then went on to lose slams to Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka and for a while that was what separated Djokovic from Federer. Federer has lost way fewer career slam matches to Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka than Djokovic.

Yes. Stanimal made his name by being the Djoko slayer.

 

[mike danny]

His best years happened when he faced Hewitt Bagdatis n Roddick .

All losses count.

Difference is I literally mentioned Djokovic's losses in their best years.

Sure, Djokovic did a better job against Nadal than Federer.

But are we just gonna ignore his other losses against worse players that are now multiple slam winners because of Djokovic which would never happen to Federer?

You started to gloat about that, not me.

 

[maratha_warrior]

Difference is I literally mentioned Djokovic's losses in their best years.

Sure, Djokovic did a better job against Nadal than Federer.

But are we just gonna ignore his other losses against worse players that are now multiple slam winners because of Djokovic which would never happen to Federer?

You started to gloat about that, not me.

Tsitsipas >>>> Bagdatis

 

[mike danny]

And Djokovic can't lose to Del Potro, Soderling, Tsonga, Cilic.

Slam score vs Del Potro, Soderling, Tsonga, Cilic:

Federer 19-6
Djokovic 17-1

They were about equally good against the field. What made the difference are the matches against Nadal.

But do those guys have multiple slams because of Federer? No. Murray literally owns his career to Djokovic and so does Wawrinka.

You say that what made the difference was the matches against Nadal, but Djokovic failed to win multiple slams in 2012-2014 not because of Nadal.

 

[MichelaDe]

You said it was the perfect age for a tennis player. What they retroactively do afterwards doesn't change that they struggled at the time they were 30.

And you might wanna tell Murray the news that age 30 is a perfect age for a tennis player because he still hasn't got the memo 6 years later.

I'm saying that if they weren't old at 31-35 they couldn't be old at 30. Doesn't matter what happened at the specific age of 30 to them.

 

[mike danny]

Tsitsipas >>>> Bagdatis

Very enlightening, classic Djoko fanboy at play. Pathetic.

 

[mike danny]

I'm saying that if they weren't old at 31-35 they couldn't be old at 30. Doesn't matter what happened at the specific age of 30 to them.

But it does matter. They did nothing at 30, so it's not a perfect age.

 

[maratha_warrior]

Very enlightening, classic Djoko fanboy at play. Pathetic.

Still better than Fed fan boy trying to prove 8> 10 .

 

[mike danny]

Guys like Safin , del potro, Soderling , Berdych says " hello "

I don't remember those guys having multiple slams because of Federer

 

[mike danny]

Still better than Fed fan boy trying to prove 8> 10 .

I just said that Fed would never give guys like Murray and Stan multiple slams, then you went on a fanboy spree that doesn't disprove a single one of my points. Whjo the hell even brought up Tsitsipas and Baghdatis here?

 

[Ovie]

Sure, when Federer was out of form and not in his best years anymore.

In their best years, Federer "donated" slams only to Safin and Delpo and there were only 2. Djokovic lost multiple slams to each of Murray and Stan. One time is an accident. Multiple times isn't.

Funny how the duration of "never" is only when Fed is in form.

 

[mike danny]

Funny how the duration of "never" is only when Fed is in form.

Well, I did mention only Djokovic's best years, so why would I bring up Fed's losses when he was out of form?

 

[Nadal_Django]

Sure, when Federer was out of form and not in his best years anymore.

In their best years, Federer "donated" slams only to Safin and Delpo and there were only 2. Djokovic lost multiple slams to each of Murray and Stan. One time is an accident. Multiple times isn't.

I think Federer's record against the non big 3 opponents is pretty admirable no doubt, but otoh his record against the other Big 3 members is nothing to be screamed about, as well. In my opinion his biggest career legacy stain will always be the Wimbledon 2008, the greatest grass player of all time, the Swiss maestro in his absolute peak, losing a match like that in his own "wohnzimmer", against basically a clay court guy playing with his usual clay court style, moonballing Federer's BH into oblivion on the sacred grass courts of SW19, something very sad about everything that happened that day tbh. Some grass greats of the yesteryears like Sampras, were rolling their eyes that day for sure. But anyway, all I know is that Peak grass Djokovic circa 2015 and later would have never lost a match like that, wouldn't have allowed basically a clay courter to win that day and smell the aroma of the Wimbledon glory, and that's what's more admirable about Djokovic vice versa Federer, in all honesty.

 

[maratha_warrior]

I just said that Fed would never give guys like Murray and Stan multiple slams, then you went on a fanboy spree that doesn't disprove a single one of my points. Whjo the hell even brought up Tsitsipas and Baghdatis here?

" Would never give " is imaginary rhetoric .

Federer has lost to both Murray and Stan in slams and lots of other players like Safin Delpo Berdych Soderling Tsonga Robredo Etc

We only deal with facts.
Djokovic has 22 , and Federer has 20 .
22> 20 - fact .
10> 8 - fact .

 

[maratha_warrior]

I think Federer's record against the non big 3 opponents is pretty admirable no doubt, but otoh his record against the other Big 3 members is nothing to be screamed about, as well. In my opinion his biggest career legacy stain will always be the Wimbledon 2008, the greatest grass player of all time, the Swiss maestro in his absolute peak, losing a match like that in his own "wohnzimmer", against basically a clay court guy playing with his usual clay court style, moonballing Federer's BH into oblivion on the sacred grass courts of SW19, something very sad about everything that happened that day tbh. Some grass greats of the yesteryears like Sampras, were rolling their eyes that day for sure. But anyway, all I know is that Peak grass Djokovic circa 2015 and later would have never lost a match like that, wouldn't have allowed basically a clay courter to win that day and smell the Wimbledon glory, and that's what's more admirable about Djokovic vice versa Federer, in all honesty.

Grass Goat was very close to lose 2007 WB Final to Clay Courter aswell .
Nadal has to play 5 days in a row to reach WB Final .
Still he was close to beat Grass Goat.

 

[Ovie]

Well, I did mention only Djokovic's best years, so why would I bring up Fed's losses when he was out of form?

The post I quoted made no reference to best years or slam final matches at that, it was posted without considering the implications to your fav's legacy, and when someone rightly presented information and evidence to show your fav recorded equivalent losses, you switch the goal post.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Federer's problem was winning one slam from AO 2010 to AO 2017. One slam in only seven years is too little for ATG players.

Especially considering he started winning slams at almost 22 in Wimbledon 2003. For instance, Nadal maybe could afford a bad spell because he started winning very early.

It's true that in that period he was facing younger ATGs like Rafole, but he was still youngish enough in 2010-2012. And he was losing to players outside Rafole too like Berdych, Soderling, Gulbis, Robredo, Stakhovsky, Tsonga, Raonic, Wawrinka, Cilic or Seppi.

He was a bit unlucky as he played great tennis in Wimbledon and USO 2015 but ran into a great Djokovic, while in 2016 he was injured and he would have won those two events with his 2015 form.

 

[Nadal_Django]

Federer's problem was winning one slam from AO 2010 to AO 2017. One slam in only seven years is too little for ATG players.

Especially considering he started winning slams at almost 22 in Wimbledon 2003. For instance, Nadal maybe could afford a bad spell because he started winning very early.

It's true that in that period he was facing younger ATGs like Rafole, but he was still youngish enough in 2010-2012. And he was losing to players outside Rafole too like Berdych, Soderling, Gulbis, Robredo, Stakhovsky, Tsonga, Raonic, Wawrinka, Cilic or Seppi.

He was a bit unlucky as he played great tennis in Wimbledon and USO 2015 but ran into a great Djokovic, while in 2016 he was injured and he would have won those two events with his 2015 form.

Nadal's longevity is like the most underrated, overlooked thing in the whole sport of tennis. The guy started winning Slams in 2005, FGS. He had like 10 Slams advantage over Djokovic at the start of the last decade. And we're in fricking 2023 right now, and the guy just won 2 Slams last year and he is by far the biggest favourite for this year's RG as well. Absolutely insane longevity.

 

[Ovie]

Truth is everyone has got their own kryptonite, for every Murray and Wawrinka in Djokovic's side, there's Muller, Darcis, Brown, Tsonga etc for Nadal, and Del Potro, Soldering Berdych etc for Federer

 

[tennis_pro]

This is the equivalent of 2018-2020 Djokovic facing 2004-2006 Federer. Man I wonder who'd come out on top.

 

[FRV4]

You might wanna change your profile pic to something that isn’t you. Trust me on this one rookie

 

[MichelaDe]

You might wanna change your profile pic to something that isn’t you. Trust me on this one rookie

LOL it's not me

 

[initialize]

Truth is everyone has got their own kryptonite, for every Murray and Wawrinka in Djokovic's side, there's Muller, Darcis, Brown, Tsonga etc for Nadal, and Del Potro, Soldering Berdych etc for Federer

don't forget Davydenko for Nadal

 

[mike danny]

Federer's problem was winning one slam from AO 2010 to AO 2017. One slam in only seven years is too little for ATG players.

Especially considering he started winning slams at almost 22 in Wimbledon 2003. For instance, Nadal maybe could afford a bad spell because he started winning very early.

It's true that in that period he was facing younger ATGs like Rafole, but he was still youngish enough in 2010-2012. And he was losing to players outside Rafole too like Berdych, Soderling, Gulbis, Robredo, Stakhovsky, Tsonga, Raonic, Wawrinka, Cilic or Seppi.

He was a bit unlucky as he played great tennis in Wimbledon and USO 2015 but ran into a great Djokovic, while in 2016 he was injured and he would have won those two events with his 2015 form.

Hey, unless you can prove Rafole would've done better in these circumstances, there's not much to criticize.

Fed played great tennis many times, but didn't walk away with wins while Djokodal have needed much less to win.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Yeah, let’s just ignore what happened in 2012-2014 when Joker was at the peak of his powers and had a negative win loss record in schlem Fs

 

[mike danny]

Yeah, let’s just ignore what happened in 2012-2014 when Joker was at the peak of his powers and had a negative win loss record in schlem Fs

Exactly and when you point that out, those same people who could dish it can't take it.

 

[Third Serve]

I won’t deny, that 2011-2012 period was extremely impressive stuff.

Though I will add that the Federer Djokovic had to deal with back in 2011-2012 was, imo, a better player than anyone on the tour from 2017 to now.

And that Fed was only the third best player of that time period. Really shows what kind of competition existed back then.

 

[Rosstour]

In 2003-09 and 2015-23 Federer and Djokovic respectively were way better than the field and dominated.

In 2011-12 Federer was only 30 years old, a perfectly fine age for tennis as the results of the last years prove. He was younger than post-RG2018 Djokovic who won 10 Slams.

Yet in this period Djokovic won 3 Slams and got 84 more weeks at #1 and 2 YE #1 more than Federer.

In particular the ability to beat Nadal at 2011 Wimbledon, 2011 US Open and 2012 Australian Open made the difference. In the same period Federer lost both matches he played against Nadal at Slams instead.

30 is fine as long as you're not competing against the two best players of all time, who are 5 and 6 years younger than you

Novak would not be dominant if Fedal were 29 and 30 right now. Cut Fed some slack

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

That's true.

But Djokovic can also lose slams to guys like Murray and Wawrinka, things that would never happen to Federer.

Prime/peak Murray/wawrinka was tougher than anything Fed faced in his 2003-2008 period outside baby Nadal, Safin AO 05 and occasionally roddick at Wimbledon.