2011-15 Federer vs 2017-21 Djokovic in slams by level of play

Performances worth considering:

AO: Federer 2011, 12, 13; Djokovic 2019, 20, 21

RG: Federer 2011, 12, 15; Djokovic 2019, 20, 21

WB: Federer 2012, 14, 15; Djokovic 2018, 19, 21

USO: Federer 2011, 15; Djokovic 2018, 21

Ordering by level:

AO: Djo 19 > Fed 11/12 = Djo 21 > Djo 20 > Fed 13

RG: Fed 11 > Djo 21 > Djo 19 > Fed 15 > Fed 12 = Djo 20

WB: Fed 12 > Djo 18 > Fed 14/15 >= Djo 19/21

USO: Fed 11 > Djo 18 > Fed 15 > Djo 21

Verdict: Fed 3-1 Djo per slam

Titles: Djo soon-to-be 9 > Fed 1

Losses to prime Big 3: Fed 8 > Djo 1 (generously accepting 2020dal as quasi-prime)

Oh, what it tells us...
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
It tells us it’s all hypothetical, all made up

and if you (or anyone else) actually could tell who would win hypothetical matches you’d be winning at the betting sites


Sad!
 
It tells us it’s all hypothetical, all made up

and if you (or anyone else) actually could tell who would win hypothetical matches you’d be winning at the betting sites


Sad!
Gaslightovic fan wilfilly conflating analytical and predictive power.

Example: Djokovic was dominating Zverev at the Olympics playing at an obviously significantly higher level than Z, then the trend suddenly reversed. There was no way to predict it, yet the simplest analysis of the match makes that much of what happened obvious.

Can't expect any better from Gaslightovic fans though, too bad.
 

reef58

Semi-Pro
No tennistical argument can be found I see.
Arguing about hypothetical outcomes of non existent sporting events doesn't make a lot of sense. In fantasy land anyone you want can be the winner. But the winners of actual matches which are played are objective. Your nonsense well I refer you back to my first post.
 
Arguing about hypothetical outcomes of non existent sporting events doesn't make a lot of sense. In fantasy land anyone you want can be the winner. But the winners of actual matches which are played are objective. Your nonsense well I refer you back to my first post.
Do you consider Thomas Johansson to be the better AO player than Andy Murray? Unbearably insulting if so.
 

Tiki-Taka

Rookie
Can anyone envision Djokovic losing to Berdych, Cilic, Seppi, Gulbis and the likes in best of five nowadays, and I mean all of them? No "verdict" and some bonus points for losing to a fellow Big 3 member will make the gap in their titles won during these time frames insignificant. Novak has been doing incredible things, why is it such a problem acknowledging that...
 
Can anyone envision Djokovic losing to Berdych, Cilic, Seppi, Gulbis and the likes in best of five nowadays, and I mean all of them? No "verdict" and some bonus points for losing to a fellow Big 3 member will make the gap in their titles won during these time frames insignificant. Novak has been doing incredible things, why is it such a problem acknowledging that...
He had his days losing to Berdych-Chung-Cecchinato, and he did lose to PCB however unusually. I am considering the whole period here, and simply pointing out Federer very probably displayed a higher level, which was however badly obscured by him running into prime Djokodal (and, in one case, a zoning Wawrinka) so many times. Not like today's gens are capable of coming close to 2011 Tsonga at Wimbledon (grass mugs they are) or 2014 USO Cilic, a flash-in-the-pan zone performance brutally overpowering his opponents.
 

ibbi

Legend
Arguing about hypothetical outcomes of non existent sporting events doesn't make a lot of sense. In fantasy land anyone you want can be the winner. But the winners of actual matches which are played are objective. Your nonsense well I refer you back to my first post.
I don't think he's asking about the hypothetical outcomes of imaginary events, but asking who do you think was better - one guy in this time period, or a second guy in a different time period.

If the answers to these questions are going to be reduced to - well this guy won more than that guy, then arguments about weak eras and all that stuff can go out the window too, right?

That stuff only matters when the numbers are not in the favour of a persons favourite player. As soon as they no longer are, it suddenly becomes about maths. What a comically endless cycle.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
2011-2015 Federer had ATG's Djokovic and Nadal to contend with, as well as Andy Murray. 2017-2021 Djokovic has had competition from an ancient and injured Fed, a declining Rafa and a bunch of no-name, choking mental midget mugs. Massive difference.
 

Tiki-Taka

Rookie
He had his days losing to Berdych-Chung-Cecchinato, and he did lose to PCB however unusually. I am considering the whole period here, and simply pointing out Federer very probably displayed a higher level, which was however badly obscured by him running into prime Djokodal (and, in one case, a zoning Wawrinka) so many times. Not like today's gens are capable of coming close to 2011 Tsonga at Wimbledon (grass mugs they are) or 2014 USO Cilic, a flash-in-the-pan zone performance brutally overpowering his opponents.
Surely you can't just blame difficult opponents for Federer winning one Slam in this particular period and seven years in total, if you hold him in such a high regard? It's not like he didn't have his chances.
 
I don't think he's asking about the hypothetical outcomes of imaginary events, but asking who do you think was better - one guy in this time period, or a second guy in a different time period.

If the answers to these questions are going to be reduced to - well this guy won more than that guy, then arguments about weak eras and all that stuff can go out the window too, right?

That stuff only matters when the numbers are not in the favour of a persons favourite player. As soon as they no longer are, it suddenly becomes about maths. What a comically endless cycle.
There's always the historical precedent concerning the Old Three, namely that Rosewall technically has more combined majors than either Laver or Gonzales, but the latter are traditionally considered superior due to their greater peak/prime periods, even if Rosewall has the better longevity too.
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
2011-2015 Federer had ATG's Djokovic and Nadal to contend with, as well as Andy Murray. 2017-2021 Djokovic has had competition from an ancient and injured Fed, a declining Rafa and a bunch of no-name, choking mental midget mugs. Massive difference.
Oh look Murray is now a tough opponent when we talk about Federer having to contend with him. The very same guy guilty of Djokovic inflating in pre-inflation era. Gorgeous.
 
Surely you can't just blame difficult opponents for Federer winning one Slam in this particular period and seven years in total, if you hold him in such a high regard? It's not like he didn't have his chances.
Surely I can. I doubt Djokovic would fare any better against the younger and fitter version of himself.
 

reef58

Semi-Pro
I don't think he's asking about the hypothetical outcomes of imaginary events, but asking who do you think was better - one guy in this time period, or a second guy in a different time period.

If the answers to these questions are going to be reduced to - well this guy won more than that guy, then arguments about weak eras and all that stuff can go out the window too, right?

That stuff only matters when the numbers are not in the favour of a persons favourite player. As soon as they no longer are, it suddenly becomes about maths. What a comically endless cycle.
But at the core that is what it is. Unfortunately there is not a definitive answer just conjecture. It can make a good discussion, but when someone declares they have proved their opinion with conjecture then it is not worth much discussion.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
The reality: Djokovic won 8 slams during this period (USO final PENDING), Federer 1.

Djokovic has dealt with both Federer and Nadal during this period aswell, pluss next gen.
 

ibbi

Legend
For some reason though I don't think we will ever be able to find out how Djokovic vs Djokovic would look like.
You don't need Djokovic vs. Djokovic. You can look at the two years where Dominic Thiem kind of got his game a little bit together. Same age difference between him and Novak as between Novak and Federer. They were 1 and 1 at the majors, played two five setters. Compare Thiem at 25-26 to Djokovic at 27-28, and that should give you a pretty good idea of the difference in levels.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Why start at 2011 when he's 29 for most of the year versus 2019 when Djokovic was 31/32? If you're going to compare why not compare when they're the same age?
 

ibbi

Legend
But at the core that is what it is. Unfortunately there is not a definitive answer just conjecture. It can make a good discussion, but when someone declares they have proved their opinion with conjecture then it is not worth much discussion.
I agree. But numbers by themselves do not determine greatness either. Context does. And here discussion is all we have, so why not speculate on the whys, and hows, and what ifs? :-D It'd be pretty boring otherwise.
 

toth

Professional
Performances worth considering:

AO: Federer 2011, 12, 13; Djokovic 2019, 20, 21

RG: Federer 2011, 12, 15; Djokovic 2019, 20, 21

WB: Federer 2012, 14, 15; Djokovic 2018, 19, 21

USO: Federer 2011, 15; Djokovic 2018, 21

Ordering by level:

AO: Djo 19 > Fed 11/12 = Djo 21 > Djo 20 > Fed 13

RG: Fed 11 > Djo 21 > Djo 19 > Fed 15 > Fed 12 = Djo 20

WB: Fed 12 > Djo 18 > Fed 14/15 >= Djo 19/21

USO: Fed 11 > Djo 18 > Fed 15 > Djo 21

Verdict: Fed 3-1 Djo per slam

Titles: Djo soon-to-be 9 > Fed 1

Losses to prime Big 3: Fed 8 > Djo 1 (generously accepting 2020dal as quasi-prime)

Oh, what it tells us...
For me it tells Federer had younger multislam winner big rivals and Djokovic not...
 
Why start at 2011 when he's 29 for most of the year versus 2019 when Djokovic was 31/32? If you're going to compare why not compare when they're the same age?
Age by end of season for ease of reference. The stints then correspond to their 30s. This makes it easy to differentiate between 98-03 v 04-09 for pre-prime, 04-10 v 10-16 for prime (with 2010 the immediately preceding/succeeding year respectively) and 11+ v 17+ for oldness.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Age by end of season for ease of reference. The stints then correspond to their 30s. This makes it easy to differentiate between 98-03 v 04-09 for pre-prime, 04-10 v 10-16 for prime (with 2010 the immediately preceding/succeeding year respectively) and 11+ v 17+ for oldness.
It stilll doesn't make sense the way you broke it down though. I think you just came up with the best scenario where you think Federer comes out ahead. :D It should be 2011 versus 2017, 2012 versus 2018, etc. then you can at least say it's a somewhat fair comparison.
 

6august

Hall of Fame
Federer had much tougher competition, but it's a compensation for the soft competition he had during his peak years. Nobody has nothing, nobody has everything.

I'd say both are very impressive, they're GOAT shortlist members for a reason.

But I'm afraid after tonight it's Djoko who stands alone as the best player (at least in the Open Era).
 
It stilll doesn't make sense the way you broke it down though. I think you just came up with the best scenario where you think Federer comes out ahead. :D It should be 2011 versus 2017, 2012 versus 2018, etc. then you can at least say it's a somewhat fair comparison.
Well if you look into 04-10 vs 10-16 Federer is ahead by slam level as well. Djokovic only gets the pre-prime comparison, because of his strong 07-08 stint.
 
Federer had much tougher competition, but it's a compensation for the soft competition he had during his peak years. Nobody has nothing, nobody has everything.

I'd say both are very impressive, they're GOAT shortlist members for a reason.

But I'm afraid after tonight it's Djoko who stands alone as the best player (at least in the Open Era).
The peak competition thing is way overplayed, give Federer Joe's prime comp and he's likely to win more than Djokovic still via not losing to Murray, Wawrinka, Nishikori and little to non-peak Nadal (not afraid of 2011dal if even 2011 Federer could push him harder than before at RG...).
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Well if you look into 04-10 vs 10-16 Federer is ahead by slam level as well. Djokovic only gets the pre-prime comparison, because of his strong 07-08 stint.
Well Federer is ahead by Slam count but would he really be considered overall better? Then I just could do what you did in this thread and come up with an angle that would make Djokovic seem to be the better player. He definitely was in 2014-2016 compared to 2008-2010 Federer.
 

Kralingen

Legend
Can't disagree with the 'highest peak' part of this.

I do think Federer suffered a bit more physically in his early-mid 30s than Djokovic has so far, and was not able to bring his best level for 7 matches anywhere near as much.

Have you looked into doing it on aggregate? I.e. averaging levels from ‘17-21 and ‘11-15?
I don’t really know how that would work considering injuries play a large role there. Djokovic comes out on top at AO and Fed at Wimby but other than that, not too sure.
 
Well Federer is ahead by Slam count but would he really be considered overall better? Then I just could do what you did in this thread and come up with an angle that would make Djokovic seem to be the better player. He definitely was in 2015-2016 compared to 2009-2010 Federer.
My take is they split slams by peak (AO & RG to Djokovic, WB & USO to Federer) but Federer has the bigger margins at his preferred majors. Of course it's modest enough that they are in the same category anyway. The unending weakness tennis has plunged into though is making Djokovic look absurdly better, and that's bollocks.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
My take is they split slams by peak (AO & RG to Djokovic, WB & USO to Federer) but Federer has the bigger margins at his preferred majors. Of course it's modest enough that they are in the same category anyway. The unending weakness tennis has plunged into though is making Djokovic look absurdly better, and that's bollocks.
I don't think it's as black and white as that. 2010 Djokovic is not winning the AO over 2004 Federer, for example, and I don't think 2009 Federer is winning Wimbledon over 2015 Djokovic. So they might split Slams but it would be more or less across the board.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Gaslightovic fan wilfilly conflating analytical and predictive power.

Example: Djokovic was dominating Zverev at the Olympics playing at an obviously significantly higher level than Z, then the trend suddenly reversed. There was no way to predict it, yet the simplest analysis of the match makes that much of what happened obvious.

Can't expect any better from Gaslightovic fans though, too bad.
Let us know when you great analytical powers allow you to predict an actual match, not just hypothetical ones. We’ll be waiting ;)
 
Lol at poster that thinks his “analysis“ is worth anything when it can‘t predict anything ;)
Players aren't robots and their level fluctuates. Convenient to believe analysing must have predictive power as then no analysis is logically possible as the best predictive systems barely yield a 70% success rate, which is hella weak on the surface. No wonder it takes a gaslightovic fan to espouse such a belief.
 

ND-13

Hall of Fame
I do think Federer displayed better peaks but Djokovic was more consistent. Obviously the competition in 2011-15 is way better than 2017-21.

Djokovic played great at 2018 Wimb SF and 2021 FO SF and comparable with Fed's 2011-15 peak at 2015 Wimb and 2015 USO
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
i dream of one day finding that special person who gives me as much hypothetical goodwill as federer fans give roger
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Players aren't robots and their level fluctuates. Convenient to believe analysing must have predictive power as then no analysis is logically possible as the best predictive systems barely yield a 70% success rate, which is hella weak on the surface. No wonder it takes a gaslightovic fan to espouse such a belief.
I’ll take 70% success rate over your made up analysis.

enjoy your hypothetical wins, I’ll enjoy the actual ones ;)
 
I don't think it's as black and white as that. 2010 Djokovic is not winning the AO over 2004 Federer, for example, and I don't think 2009 Federer is winning Wimbledon over 2015 Djokovic. So they might split Slams but it would be more or less across the board.
Well if you want to put it like that...
AO:
04 v 10 Federer, 05 v 11 Djokovic, 05 v 12 Djokovic, 07 v 13 Federer, 08 v 14 Djokovic, 09 v 15 even, 10 v 16 Djokovic. Total 4-2 Djokovic.
RG:
04 v 10 too weak to consider, 05 v 11 even, 06 v 12 Federer, 07 v 13 Djokovic, 08 v 14 Djokovic, 09 v 15 lean Federer but let's play nice and call it even, 10 v 16 Djokovic. Total 3-1 Djokovic.
WB:
04 v 10 Federer, 05 v 11 Federer, 06 v 12 Federer, 07 v 13 Federer, 08 v 14 Federer, 09 v 15 Djokovic, 10 v 16 too weak to consider. Total 5-1 Federer.
USO:
04 v 10 Federer, 05 v 11 playing nice to call it even, 06 v 12 Federer, 07 v 13 Federer, 08 v 14 Federer, 09 v 15 Djokovic, 10 v 16 even. Total 4-1 Federer.

Grand Total 12-9 Federer. Modest edge as I said.

Actually I've never done this before so let's try it for the whole careers:

01-03 v 07-09:

AO:
01 v 07 too weak to consider, 02 v 08 Djokovic, 03 v 09 too weak to consider
RG:
01 v 07 Djokovic, 02 v 08 Djokovic, 03 v 09 too weak to consider
WB:
01 v 07 unclear / too weak, 02 v 08 too weak to consider LOL, 03 v 09 Federer
USO:
01 v 07 Djokovic, 02 v 08 Djokovic, 03 v 09 Djokovic

Grand Total 6-1; I think RG 07 & USO 09 could be argued below slam-winning level for Djokovic against a medium level opponent though, he lost to Fedal but not that close (09 looks closeish score-wise but Federer strongly controlled play in the last two sets, kind of lazy not to break earlier). So it could be penciled as 4-1 too. Let's shave off 07 RG and put it at 5-1 then. After all, Ljubicic technically played a closer semi vs Nadal in 06 and no one half-sane would consider him relevant at the highest level.

11-15 vs 17-21:

AO:
11 v 17 Federer, 12 v 18 Federer, 13 v 19 Djokovic, 14 v 20 Djokovic, 15 v 21 Djokovic. Total 3-2 Djokovic.
RG:
11 v 17 Federer, 12 v 18 too weak to consider (see, Federer did reach SF but I'm ignoring it because his level wasn't up there), 13 v 19 Djokovic, 14 v 20 too weak (not rating this abomination of a final performance same as Federer's 08 clownery), 15 v 21 Djokovic. Total 2-1 Djokovic.
WB:
11 v 17 not considering (obviously Federer but not even creating a BP in 4.5 sets is plain sukk however good your opponent is), 12 v 18 Federer, 13 v 19 Djokovic, 14/15 vs 21 edge Federer (counting both against 21 due to the absence of 20 WB and I say Federer looked better against an equal or better non-Djokovic field than Djokovic in 21). Total 3-1 Federer.
USO:
11 v 17 Federer, 12 v 18 Djokovic, 13 v 19 too weak to consider, 14 v 20 N/A, 15 v 21 Federer (much more dominant against the non-Djokovic field uincluding Wawrinka and pushed Peakovic close). Total 2-1 Federer.

Grand Total 8-7 Federer.

The full total is then 1-5 + 12-9 + 8-7 which yields an even 21-21, somewhat unexpectedly. Federer with the better peak/prime still but going into the sub-levels, assuming they are still good enough to win against average competition at that stage and thus relevant in the dicussion of slam-winning levels, brings them close. Djokovic timed his levels somewhat better regarding the competition as Federer's losing levels are generally higher than Djokovic's (all those close five-setters and four-setters, yeesh).
 
Top