Admit it...Nole is not as dominant and consistent as Federer

CYGS said:
Going by Fed fans' logic, two words- weak era. At least in Djokovic's era, there have been more people who are capable of knocking Djokovic out, relatively speaking. :D
Click to expand...
Gramps and Sub Par Wawrinka who shows up in 2 events a year.

LOL....
 
The Fedfather said:
Oh, see there. When you add up some facts and numbers you start to make more rational conclusions. As for clay, the H2H is 4-4 as of now. Masters, let's see. We have Monte-Carlo (Djokovic 2- Federer 0), Madrid Open (Djokovic 1 - Federer 3) and Rome (Djokovic 4 - Federer 0). A 4 Masters titles lead for Djokovic is a very strong argument in his favor. The variety... I'm not sure what variety has to do with anything when talking about clay. Anyway, Roger has a RG title to his name and a famous victory over Djokovic in 2011 RG SF which I believe to be peak Roger vs peak Novak on clay. Having watched this match, it's difficult for me to see how Roger is inferior to Novak on clay when both are at their best.
Click to expand...

Well I don't evaluate who is better by just one match. Federer fans of all people should know that as many still try to insist he is better on clay than Kuerten, a guy with triple the RG titles, despite a way past his prime hip butchered Kuerten obliterating peak Federer at RG. The RG 2011 semifinal was unquestionably Federer's best ever match played at RG IMO (if you disagree feel free to suggest one better), and one of his best clay matches ever anywhere. No I do not think he is better than Djokovic on clay just based on that. That would be like thinking Wawrinka is better than Djokovic on clay just based on the 2015 RG final.

If anything that everyone has expected Djokovic to win the French each year since 2011, and there isn't really a single year people expected Federer to win the French is most telling to me. That along with how Djokovic handled a still prime (2011-2013) Nadal on clay so well, which peak Federer never did anywhere close to the same extent. As long as he gets a RG title to have his achievements compare somewhat favorably that is.

The head to head on clay is 4-4 which is probably a barometer they are evenly matched, but I wouldn't use this to indicate who is better either. After all Nadal has a winning record vs Nadal on hard courts, including 3-0 in slams.
 
Fed fans worried Djok gonna pass him? Djok is t even near passing Nadal and Sampras yet lol. If that happens, the you can start worrying.
 
TommyA8X said:
Djokovic is at the same position Federer was at the AO 2010 (same age). Fed had an impressive AO performance, schooling Tsonga and Murray in SF/F, after some early struggles with Andreev and Davydenko, similar to Djokovic with Simon. Everyone thought Fed was a lock for 20 slams after that tournament, and then, out of nowhere, he did nothing till Wimbledon 2012. Similar thing happened to Nadal prior to AO 2014. Same could happen with Djokovic. I don't think he'll win one more slam only, but who knows. (People EXPECTING 6-7 more slams should really come back down to earth. It could happen, but to expect it to happen is a bit much...).
Click to expand...

No i didnt think fed will get 20 at that time, a fit nadal was already the better player.

Feds on 20 slams now if novak didnt exist.

You are basically predicting somebody of noles calibre will turn up to take the slams, when virtually this person doesnt exist.

Noles already won 3 slams since turning 28. Fed only won 2 slams since 28. Nole will win a few more and at least triple what feds won since 28.
 
torpantennis said:
LMAO, Nolefam crying out loud about the raw numerical facts. Further facts, 34yo Federer constantly beats this "highest peak" Djokovic on fastest HCs. ROFLMAO pls more cry :cool:
Click to expand...


I'm crying? Ha! It sounds like Fed fans are in here crying because they are scared and threatened of Djokovic. Federer has been playing 6 years longer than Djokovic so of course his numbers are higher, so why so serious? You mean Federer beats Djokovic at meaningless tournaments like Dubai while Djokovic consistently beats him in the Slams.
 
TommyA8X said:
Djokovic is at the same position Federer was at the AO 2010 (same age). Fed had an impressive AO performance, schooling Tsonga and Murray in SF/F, after some early struggles with Andreev and Davydenko, similar to Djokovic with Simon. Everyone thought Fed was a lock for 20 slams after that tournament, and then, out of nowhere, he did nothing till Wimbledon 2012. Similar thing happened to Nadal prior to AO 2014. Same could happen with Djokovic. I don't think he'll win one more slam only, but who knows. (People EXPECTING 6-7 more slams should really come back down to earth. It could happen, but to expect it to happen is a bit much...).
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying but there are some huge differences. Djokovic has been the worlds best player quite awhile now, and seems dominant now. Federer didn't feel that way after the 2010 Australian Open at all. He had already lost his place on top of the game to Nadal in 2008 and the first half of 2009, and got back mostly due to injury to Nadal. Even then despite that he had won 3 of the last 5 slams and being back on top he didn't feel dominant, barely winning any Masters or events outside the slams, and you felt like Nadal would return to the top sooner than later (which happened). I would not have predicted 20 slams for Federer after the 2010 Australian Open. I predicted 18 (and he still could end up at 18 although 17 looks more likely).

While it made sense to think Nadal might have a shot at reaching Federer's slam record before the 2014 Australian Open final, and who knows if he had won that one and not ended 2014 early with injury maybe he would still have had a shot at atleast tieing, in reality he had been in slow decline for a good 3 years. He benefited from Chokeovic in big matches in 2013. He certainly wasn't dominant at that point.
 
The Fedfather said:
That's one giant IF though. On the contrary, I think that when Djokovic is 31 or 32 we'll truly get to appreciate the way Federer was able to transcend his age so seamlessly, some people think he's still in his prime.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, perhaps not. As it is now Djokovic is already starting to make a mockery of some of the frequently layed out age related myths applied to Federer. For instance ironically the match you referenced at Roland Garros 2011, which Federer fans rather than just celebrating as an excellent win and moment for Federer use to parlay how much better Federer supposably is than Djokovic, or how he is clearly better on clay, since old 29 year old Federer beat peak Djokovic in one match. Well Djokovic is turning 29 himself soon and is playing some of his best tennis ever. This despite that Djokovic was more precocious, atleast at first, than Federer. Winning a slam title and multiple slam finals at only age 20 vs Federer who began his ascent to the top just before turning 22. So clearly this "old man Federer at 29" goes down the pipes completely now. How many more such false reasoning with age Federer fans have trumpeted in past years will Djokovic lay waste to? Stay tuned.
 
At 28-29 tennis players (who haven't suffered injuries, like Nadal) are usually at their peak.

At 29, Federer was NOT past his prime. He simply had a tough time wining slams post 2008, because Nadal, Djokovic, AND MURRAY started to make inroads. Nadal became more than a clay court player. Djokovic/Murray started beating him systematically. The field of players generally got better.

It's not hard to see that people.
 
joekapa said:
At 28-29 tennis players (who haven't suffered injuries, like Nadal) are usually at their peak.

At 29, Federer was NOT past his prime. He simply had a tough time wining slams post 2008, because Nadal, Djokovic, AND MURRAY started to make inroads. Nadal became more than a clay court player. Djokovic/Murray started beating him systematically. The field of players generally got better.

It's not hard to see that people.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Fed was not as consistent as before but if you take out Nadalovic,(Murray beat him at AO 2013 only IIRC and 2013 was an injury year for Fed) he would still win slams every year.
 
Fedeonic said:
Slam wise, Nole isn't as dominant as it was Roger, but Nole's closing on he 36 straight Q in GS, he needs to reach until Wimbledon 2018 to equal that number. But overall wise, I think they're level, maybe Nole is more dominant overall than Roger.
Click to expand...
Who are you kidding? Look at matches won and titles won. Outside of majors the disparity is still noticeable. No need to get involved but I couldn't resist this one.
 
mattosgrant said:
Perhaps, perhaps not. As it is now Djokovic is already starting to make a mockery of some of the frequently layed out age related myths applied to Federer. For instance ironically the match you referenced at Roland Garros 2011, which Federer fans rather than just celebrating as an excellent win and moment for Federer use to parlay how much better Federer supposably is than Djokovic, or how he is clearly better on clay, since old 29 year old Federer beat peak Djokovic in one match. Well Djokovic is turning 29 himself soon and is playing some of his best tennis ever. This despite that Djokovic was more precocious, atleast at first, than Federer. Winning a slam title and multiple slam finals at only age 20 vs Federer who began his ascent to the top just before turning 22. So clearly this "old man Federer at 29" goes down the pipes completely now. How many more such false reasoning with age Federer fans have trumpeted in past years will Djokovic lay waste to? Stay tuned.
Click to expand...
As @jm1980 said, "We'll see in 3-4 years..."
 
mattosgrant said:
Well I don't evaluate who is better by just one match. Federer fans of all people should know that as many still try to insist he is better on clay than Kuerten, a guy with triple the RG titles, despite a way past his prime hip butchered Kuerten obliterating peak Federer at RG. The RG 2011 semifinal was unquestionably Federer's best ever match played at RG IMO (if you disagree feel free to suggest one better), and one of his best clay matches ever anywhere. No I do not think he is better than Djokovic on clay just based on that. That would be like thinking Wawrinka is better than Djokovic on clay just based on the 2015 RG final.

If anything that everyone has expected Djokovic to win the French each year since 2011, and there isn't really a single year people expected Federer to win the French is most telling to me. That along with how Djokovic handled a still prime (2011-2013) Nadal on clay so well, which peak Federer never did anywhere close to the same extent. As long as he gets a RG title to have his achievements compare somewhat favorably that is.

The head to head on clay is 4-4 which is probably a barometer they are evenly matched, but I wouldn't use this to indicate who is better either. After all Nadal has a winning record vs Nadal on hard courts, including 3-0 in slams.
Click to expand...
I agree that RG 2011 SF was one of Federer's best clay matches ever but the same applies to Djokovic (feel free to suggest otherwise). So as I said, it was peak Federer vs peak Djokovic and we know the result. However, I agree that evaluating who is better by just one match isn't justified. That's why I mentioned that Federer has a RG title and the same amount of wins over Djokovic as Djokovic has over him.Djokovic is still coming on strong and has a chance to shock everyone and show some unbelievable level on clay. As it stands, I don't see Federer being an inferior player on clay.
 
PeterHo said:
No i didnt think fed will get 20 at that time, a fit nadal was already the better player.

Feds on 20 slams now if novak didnt exist.

You are basically predicting somebody of noles calibre will turn up to take the slams, when virtually this person doesnt exist.

Noles already won 3 slams since turning 28. Fed only won 2 slams since 28. Nole will win a few more and at least triple what feds won since 28.
Click to expand...

That's only a function of their birthdays. (Three slams are played after Djokovic's birthday, and only one after Fed's).

I'm not predicting anything, and there doesn't have to be anyone of Nole's caliber to win slams. Remember AO 2014 and FO 2015? Djokovic can have a bad day. He nearly lost in WImbledon 2015 to Anderson and Australian open this year. Murray also pushed him to 5 on clay, so...
 
mattosgrant said:
Perhaps, perhaps not. As it is now Djokovic is already starting to make a mockery of some of the frequently layed out age related myths applied to Federer. For instance ironically the match you referenced at Roland Garros 2011, which Federer fans rather than just celebrating as an excellent win and moment for Federer use to parlay how much better Federer supposably is than Djokovic, or how he is clearly better on clay, since old 29 year old Federer beat peak Djokovic in one match. Well Djokovic is turning 29 himself soon and is playing some of his best tennis ever. This despite that Djokovic was more precocious, atleast at first, than Federer. Winning a slam title and multiple slam finals at only age 20 vs Federer who began his ascent to the top just before turning 22. So clearly this "old man Federer at 29" goes down the pipes completely now. How many more such false reasoning with age Federer fans have trumpeted in past years will Djokovic lay waste to? Stay tuned.
Click to expand...
Fed wasn't as good at 28-29 as he was at 24-25, period. He wasn't losing to Berdychs and Soderlings in slams from 04 to 07. Every player is different. Fed was much better than Djokovic at the age of 22/23, so does that make Djokovic playing worse in 2009 compared to today a myth as well?? Maybe the field is soo much weaker today compared to 2009 or 2010? :rolleyes:
 
mattosgrant said:
I see what you are saying but there are some huge differences. Djokovic has been the worlds best player quite awhile now, and seems dominant now. Federer didn't feel that way after the 2010 Australian Open at all. He had already lost his place on top of the game to Nadal in 2008 and the first half of 2009, and got back mostly due to injury to Nadal. Even then despite that he had won 3 of the last 5 slams and being back on top he didn't feel dominant, barely winning any Masters or events outside the slams, and you felt like Nadal would return to the top sooner than later (which happened). I would not have predicted 20 slams for Federer after the 2010 Australian Open. I predicted 18 (and he still could end up at 18 although 17 looks more likely).

While it made sense to think Nadal might have a shot at reaching Federer's slam record before the 2014 Australian Open final, and who knows if he had won that one and not ended 2014 early with injury maybe he would still have had a shot at atleast tieing, in reality he had been in slow decline for a good 3 years. He benefited from Chokeovic in big matches in 2013. He certainly wasn't dominant at that point.
Click to expand...
He won 2 slams and 2 masters 1000 (and reached another slam final) in a span of 3 months, and then proceeded to school Tsonga and Murray (even more so than Djokovic did last week) in AO 2010. He wasn't dominating at all.

Also, if you wanna use the injury/sickness excuse for Nadal, you can sure use it for Federer as well.
 
joekapa said:
Federer's first ten slams were won against :

Safin
Philippousis
grandpa Agassi
Hewitt
baby Nadal
Bhagdatis
Roddick

I mean come on !!!!!
Click to expand...

As opposed to Djokovic:
won 3 against grandpa Federer
won 4 against ball-boy Murray
won 1 against Tsonga (no GS title)
won 1 against Rafa on grass (his worst surface)

His only precious wins were: 2011 USO and 2012 AO against prime Rafa.

Winner 2008 Australian Open Hard Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 4–6, 6–4, 6–3, 7–6(7–2)
Winner 2011 Australian Open (2) Hard Andy Murray 6–4, 6–2, 6–3
Winner 2011 Wimbledon Grass Rafael Nadal 6–4, 6–1, 1–6, 6–3
Winner 2011 US Open Hard Rafael Nadal 6–2, 6–4, 6–7(3–7), 6–1
Winner 2012 Australian Open (3) Hard Rafael Nadal 5–7, 6–4, 6–2, 6–7(5–7), 7–5
Winner 2013 Australian Open (4) Hard Andy Murray 6–7(2–7), 7–6(7–3), 6–3, 6–2
Winner 2014 Wimbledon (2) Grass Roger Federer 6–7(7–9), 6–4, 7–6(7–4), 5–7, 6–4
Winner 2015 Australian Open (5) Hard Andy Murray 7–6(7–5), 6–7(4–7), 6–3, 6–0
Winner 2015 Wimbledon (3) Grass Roger Federer 7–6(7–1), 6–7(10–12), 6–4, 6–3
Winner 2015 US Open (2) Hard Roger Federer 6–4, 5–7, 6–4, 6–4
Winner 2016 Australian Open (6) Hard Andy Murray 6-1, 7-5, 7-6(7–3)
 
joekapa said:
At 28-29 tennis players (who haven't suffered injuries, like Nadal) are usually at their peak.
Click to expand...
As they say: is that a fact or an opinion?
Please do a chart featuring all Open Era Slam winners and their peak periods, then you will see that it isn't a fact at all.
In Federer's case, the observation that helps establish that Fed was past his peak since 2008 is that he started continuously struggling against lesser players, which hadn't happened during his peak period apart from occasional freak losses.
 
TommyA8X said:
He won 2 slams and 2 masters 1000 (and reached another slam final) in a span of 3 months, and then proceeded to school Tsonga and Murray (even more so than Djokovic did last week) in AO 2010. He wasn't dominating at all.

Also, if you wanna use the injury/sickness excuse for Nadal, you can sure use it for Federer as well.
Click to expand...

I am not downplaying Federer's achievements, injuries are part of the game, and I am one of those who believes any event you win you win. However if we think in practical terms of what was likely moving forward Nadal had already taken over as best in the world for good 18 months or so over Federer already (start of 2008 to mid 2009) and Federer was back on top due to Nadal struggling badly with injuries. To me it already felt like we were already in the Nadal era and Nadal would return to the top soon which happened. That all said I would have only predicted 18 slams for Federer at that point, not 20. Many others would have too. I am sure Federer fans believed he would win 20 at that point. Regardless to compare him at that point to Djokovic's current dominance is pretty laughable, it is nowhere close.

The same is true of Nadal at the time of the 2014 Australian Open to an even larger extent.

Basically after the 2010 Australian Open I predicted Federer to win 18 slams (he still might end with exactly that). Before the 2014 Australian Open final I might have predicted Nadal to tie or break Federer's slam record through pure determination if he got close, but after he lost that final I knew 100% he wouldn't do it anymore. Just as I predict 15-19 slams for Djokovic now, with my final guess at 18. As I am usually good with predictions in the long term, that is what will probably happen, just as I was right on the others.
 
TommyA8X said:
Fed wasn't as good at 28-29 as he was at 24-25, period. He wasn't losing to Berdychs and Soderlings in slams from 04 to 07. Every player is different.
Click to expand...

Every player is different but the 2011 RG semifinal is Federer's best ever performance at RG and one of his best matches on clay period. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that has an agenda. To somehow parlay that into evidence Federer > Djokovic on clay forever for certain, and old Federer handing peak Djokovic a humiliating loss is purely pathetic, even without what Djokovic is making obvious now at the same age. Also Federer fans like to trumpet him as having the best longevity, but now are making him out to be an old grandpa at the same age Djokovic is still peaking, when Djokovic was more precocious and winning younger than Federer. Isnt that all cute. Sorry this all doesnt work, something has to give.

As for your other point Federer lost to Berdych at the 2004 Olympics, a quite big loss considering he left the court crying despite Federer fans poo pooing the relevance of the event. He only played Berdych on clay and grass in those years other than that, and those surfaces Berdych will never be competitive with Roger (unless he is playing awful like Wimbledon 2010) since he doesn't have the movement or flexability or athleticsm. On hard courts who knows if they played more often, Roger would usually win but I suspect there would be more of a battle. Soderling sucked in those years, of course he wasn't beating Roger or anyone who mattered. If you can beat peak Nadal at RG, you can beat anyone on a given day, as there is nothing tougher in the sport than that.
 
e
The Fedfather said:
I agree that RG 2011 SF was one of Federer's best clay matches ever but the same applies to Djokovic (feel free to suggest otherwise). So as I said, it was peak Federer vs peak Djokovic and we know the result. However, I agree that evaluating who is better by just one match isn't justified. That's why I mentioned that Federer has a RG title and the same amount of wins over Djokovic as Djokovic has over him.Djokovic is still coming on strong and has a chance to shock everyone and show some unbelievable level on clay. As it stands, I don't see Federer being an inferior player on clay.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. This is reasonable, and your own reasons for still ranking Federer higher on clay than Djokovic are certainly merited. I think Djokovic hasn't really peaked at RG ever though, in that his best ever matches on clay are outside of RG. RG 2011 was one of his better performances there (along with 2013 and 2008). However he was better at events than Rome 2011, Monte Carlo 2013, maybe Madrid 2009 than he was ever at RG thus far IMO. Which I guess is a mark against him on clay of sorts too, as RG is the biggest clay event and you need to really shine there. Federer has done that a bit better, although I would argue 2002 Hamburg and 2006 Rome is better than he ever played at RG (apart from maybe the 2011 semis) too.

The biggest thing of all though is I tend to pick who is better mainly by achievements (some do it differently which is fine) as subjective views on level of play, competition, are too complicated. Even less just the head to head match up between two players. For an example prime to prime Nadal probably beats Federer more often than not at the Australian Open (3-0 there overall and beat him in 2009 when both were in their primes) but I don't consider him a better player on those courts at all despite this. Despite that Djokovic will now end with a career winning record vs Federer (due to a longer period of Djokovic being the player more in his prime) it is commonly accepted Federer is a bad match up for Djokovic more than vice versa. Ultimately if Djokovic wins RG this year I will find his career on clay slightly more impressive for the reasons I stated and for that reason I would rank him slightly higher on clay since that is how I typically rank players. I also definitely don't rank players on how they compare "playing their best". By that logic Safin could be the GOAT on hard courts, and needless to say I have him nowhere near that.
 
Last edited:
mattosgrant said:
Every player is different but the 2011 RG semifinal is Federer's best ever performance at RG and one of his best matches on clay period. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that has an agenda. To somehow parlay that into evidence Federer > Djokovic on clay forever for certain, and old Federer handing peak Djokovic a humiliating loss is purely pathetic, even without what Djokovic is making obvious now at the same age. Also Federer fans like to trumpet him as having the best longevity, but now are making him out to be an old grandpa at the same age Djokovic is still peaking, when Djokovic was more precocious and winning younger than Federer. Isnt that all cute. Sorry this all doesnt work, something has to give.

As for your other point Federer lost to Berdych at the 2004 Olympics, a quite big loss considering he left the court crying despite Federer fans poo pooing the relevance of the event. He only played Berdych on clay and grass in those years other than that, and those surfaces Berdych will never be competitive with Roger (unless he is playing awful like Wimbledon 2010) since he doesn't have the movement or flexability or athleticsm. On hard courts who knows if they played more often, Roger would usually win but I suspect there would be more of a battle. Soderling sucked in those years, of course he wasn't beating Roger or anyone who mattered. If you can beat peak Nadal at RG, you can beat anyone on a given day, as there is nothing tougher in the sport than that.
Click to expand...
One match means nothing in terms of greatness on clay, I agree.
Just because Fed was crying at the Olympics doesn't make that event even remotely close to a slam in importance (or even WTF). Fed cried when he lost the Basel final. So what.
 
Last edited:
mattosgrant said:
I am not downplaying Federer's achievements, injuries are part of the game, and I am one of those who believes any event you win you win. However if we think in practical terms of what was likely moving forward Nadal had already taken over as best in the world for good 18 months or so over Federer already (start of 2008 to mid 2009) and Federer was back on top due to Nadal struggling badly with injuries. To me it already felt like we were already in the Nadal era and Nadal would return to the top soon which happened. That all said I would have only predicted 18 slams for Federer at that point, not 20. Many others would have too. I am sure Federer fans believed he would win 20 at that point. Regardless to compare him at that point to Djokovic's current dominance is pretty laughable, it is nowhere close.

The same is true of Nadal at the time of the 2014 Australian Open to an even larger extent.

Basically after the 2010 Australian Open I predicted Federer to win 18 slams (he still might end with exactly that). Before the 2014 Australian Open final I might have predicted Nadal to tie or break Federer's slam record through pure determination if he got close, but after he lost that final I knew 100% he wouldn't do it anymore. Just as I predict 15-19 slams for Djokovic now, with my final guess at 18. As I am usually good with predictions in the long term, that is what will probably happen, just as I was right on the others.
Click to expand...

Prepare yourself for massive crow eating if this prediction doesn't come true. That's all.
Ancient threads/quotes get resurrected daily, just ask @sureshs @90's Clay ... :p
 
TMF said:

Federer reached 23 consecutive slam semifinals(Nole 14)
Federer reached 10 consecutive slam finals(Nole 5)
Federer reached 18 out of 19 slam finals(Nole 7 out of 8)
Federer holds 237 consecutive weeks at #1(Nole 83)
Federer won 3 slams/year 3 times(Nole 2)
Federer reached all 4 slam finals/year 3 times(Nole 1)
Federer has 3 seasons with at least 90% win/loss record(Nole 2)
Click to expand...
federers career has been 6 years longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
The most dominant tennis player in his era is Roger Federer.
2 3 4
Replies
192
Views
8K
skaj
skaj
GabeT
  • Poll Poll
Novak’s third dominant run
Replies
34
Views
2K
Red Rick
Red Rick
M
Grand Slam Records Held by Federer that Nadal Will Break?
Replies
7
Views
1K
West Coast Ace
West Coast Ace
P
Myth : Federer is consistent only because of homogenization
Replies
39
Views
5K
nereis
N
cluckcluck
RF Stand Alone Records
2 3 4
Replies
184
Views
10K
GoatNo1
GoatNo1
Back
Top