AO 2012 Fed vs AO 2012 Djokovic ?

Who would have won?


  • Total voters
    43

ADuck

Hall of Fame
Say if Federer beats Nadal in 4 sets in the AO 2012 SF and goes on to play Djokovic in place of Nadal in the final. What would have happened?
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
Djoker in four tight sets. I could see the match going similarly to the SF vs. Nadal, where Fed puts up a pretty good fight but still eventually loses.

AO 2010 Djokovic vs AO 2010 Fed would be a better question
Fed possibly takes this one in straight sets. Fraud put up a really good match in the SF (not peak stuff, but nice enough) and I doubt Djokovic would have been able to keep up that level given he lost in five to Tsonga. Having said that, I doubt Djoker goes down easily so he may keep it competitive for a while.
 

Oceans

Rookie
Djokovic in 3 or comfortable 4 if Federer redlines for a set. Djokovic has dominated Federer at AO since 2008 losing only the 1 set in 4 matches. Their matches have been spaced out (2008, 2011, 2016, 2020) so surely one of them involved peak Federer which IMO is the 2016 version. ;)
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
I loved how peak djokovic got ramapaged in RG F and against a LL, after proclaiming he is playing his best tennis ever.

peak Djokovic which imo is current version , is losing against peak sonego winning 3 games only ;)
Don't forget peak Thiem, Monfils, Raonic, and RBA who could almost beat him. Crazy to think how close those guys are to peak Djokovic. Shows how truly evolved the field is now. ;)
 

Oceans

Rookie
I loved how peak djokovic got ramapaged in RG F and against a LL, after proclaiming he is playing his best tennis ever.

peak Djokovic which imo is current version , is losing against peak sonego winning 3 games only ;)
A player at their peak can lose the occasional match, no one is unbeatable. When one loses to a particular player multiple times on different surfaces, that is when they were eclipsed by a better player. ;)
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
A player at their peak can lose the occasional match, no one is unbeatable. When one loses to a particular player multiple times on different surfaces, that is when they were eclipsed by a better player. ;)
They lose more of those occasional matches when they aren't at their peak. Therefore, the seasons with the fewest such losses might be peak seasons. Thus... ;)
 

clout

Hall of Fame
It'd be a similar result to the Fedal semifinal the round before or the Fedovic matchup from 2011. I'm more curious about Nadal/Murray in the finals as they've never met in a slam final before and this one would've been the perfect one to meet at with both playing at such a high level. Realistically, Rafa should take it in 4 since it just isn't a good match-up for Murray, but that year was the best Murray ever played down under imo
 

Oceans

Rookie
They lose more of those occasional matches when they aren't at their peak. Therefore, the seasons with the fewest such losses might be peak seasons. Thus... ;)
See losses/win percentages vs non big 3/4, etc. A couple more losses is nothing. Competition also needs to be taken into account. I'll give you that 2013 Federer is not peak Federer.
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
See losses vs non big 3/4. A couple more losses is nothing. Competition also needs to be taken into account. I'll give you that 2013 Federer is not peak Federer.
Losses vs. non-Big 4? Fed had none of those in 2006 and only three in 2005. Additionally, just five in 2004 and six in 2007. Even though Fed only played seven tournaments in 2016, he racked up as many of those losses as he did in 2007. That's 6/7 losses to non-Big 4 in tournaments, which is not good at all. In 2015, he had.

But I don't really like that metric too much anyway. I was just trolling there. Even a declined Fed is still good versus the vast majority of the field. The difference in level is just wide enough that it firmly overrides any age advantage or disadvantage. It's when you play someone of a similar caliber that age begins to take effect. 2015 Djokovic is one such player. That's how it usually works.

2016 (the year you brought up) competition was nothing special. Arguably worse than any of Fed's dominant 2003-2007 years given how the Big 3 was basically AWOL for parts of the season. Fed got injured, Ned got injured (and his form was pretty sub-par as well), Djokovic was injured starting from Wimbledon, and the rest of the tour was in shambles.
 

ForehandCross

Hall of Fame
A player at their peak can lose the occasional match, no one is unbeatable. When one loses to a particular player multiple times on different surfaces, that is when they were eclipsed by a better player. ;)
Which means highest Elo Djokovic of 2016 had been eclipsed by like 90% of the entire tour from half of the year afterwards? Even when he kept saying there was nothing wrong with him and his game?

Ok good.;)
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Djokovic in 3 or comfortable 4 if Federer redlines for a set. Djokovic has dominated Federer at AO since 2008 losing only the 1 set in 4 matches. Their matches have been spaced out (2008, 2011, 2016, 2020) so surely one of them involved peak Federer which IMO is the 2016 version. ;)
Djoko didn't show up to play Fed in 2009 and 2010 when Fed was the favorite, while even injured Fed in 2020 showed up to play Djoko ;)
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
Djoker in four tight sets. I could see the match going similarly to the SF vs. Nadal, where Fed puts up a pretty good fight but still eventually loses.



Fed possibly takes this one in straight sets. Fraud put up a really good match in the SF (not peak stuff, but nice enough) and I doubt Djokovic would have been able to keep up that level given he lost in five to Tsonga. Having said that, I doubt Djoker goes down easily so he may keep it competitive for a while.
Djokovic was sick during that match vs Tsonga. He left the court to throw up in the middle. That match wasn't really a great indicator of playing level (although both players were at top level for the first 2 1/2 sets)
 

Oceans

Rookie
Losses vs. non-Big 4? Fed had none of those in 2006 and only three in 2005. Additionally, just five in 2004 and six in 2007. Even though Fed only played seven tournaments in 2016, he racked up as many of those losses as he did in 2007. That's 6/7 losses to non-Big 4 in tournaments, which is not good at all. In 2015, he had.

But I don't really like that metric too much anyway. I was just trolling there. Even a declined Fed is still good versus the vast majority of the field. The difference in level is just wide enough that it firmly overrides any age advantage or disadvantage. It's when you play someone of a similar caliber that age begins to take effect. 2015 Djokovic is one such player. That's how it usually works.

2016 (the year you brought up) competition was nothing special. Arguably worse than any of Fed's dominant 2003-2007 years given how the Big 3 was basically AWOL for parts of the season. Fed got injured, Ned got injured (and his form was pretty sub-par as well), Djokovic was injured starting from Wimbledon, and the rest of the tour was in shambles.
I was more alluding to 2015 and early 2016 before the injury. Regarding 2016, it still had peak/prime Murray, Wawrinka plus a
solid, stable cast of 8 grand slam semi finalists (which is relatively low) in Djokovic, Federer, Murray, Berdych, Raonic, Nishikori, Thiem and Monfils.

How do you explain "declined" and "age disadvantaged" Federer dramatically improving his h2h against Nadal and Murray?
 

Oceans

Rookie
Djoko didn't show up to play Fed in 2009 and 2010 when Fed was the favorite, while even injured Fed in 2020 showed up to play Djoko ;)
Hypothetical not real matches with real results. I can say Federer didn't show up in 2013. 2015 and 2019. Mind you, Federer has lost many matches (AO08, W14, W15, etc) when he was or somewhat considered the favourite. ;)
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Hypothetical not real matches with real results. I can say Federer didn't show up in 2013. 2015 and 2019. Mind you, Federer has lost many matches (AO08, W14, W15, etc) when he was or somewhat considered the favourite. ;)
Just saying that their AO H2H does not tell the whole story at all ;)
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
I was more alluding to 2015 and early 2016 before the injury. Regarding 2016, it still had peak/prime Murray, Wawrinka plus a
solid, stable cast of 8 grand slam semi finalists (which is relatively low) in Djokovic, Federer, Murray, Berdych, Raonic, Nishikori, Thiem and Monfils.

How do you explain "declined" and "age disadvantaged" Federer dramatically improving his h2h against Nadal and Murray?
For that, you need knowledge of matchup dynamics.

Fed was troubled a bit by Murray’s aggressive play, and it didn’t help that many of their early matches were on Bo3 in the period of 2008-2010 when Fed relatively underperformed to remain at a high level in the Slams (where he’s always owned Murray). Then Murray became much more defensive after his surgery in 2014, and Fed capitalized as he did to Ferrer. It also helps that they played no matches in 2016.

For Nadal, it has to do with three factors. The first is Fed’s change of tactics to take the ball early which partially fixed up the match up dynamic. The second is Nadal’s switch to slightly flatter ground strokes which don’t trouble Fed as much at all. The third is that their rivalry was very clay-skewed in their first few years on the tour but they’ve only played one clay match since Fed turned the tide in 2017. Naturally, Nadal won that one. A possible fourth factor is that Nadal just hasn’t been as good on HC vs. Fed and Djokovic as he used to be, for factors unknown.

In a sense, it’s matchups that make up a lot of the issues with the Fed-Murray and Fed-Nadal matches. I see these types of arguments getting thrown around all over the place but nobody who’s asked the questions has actually tried watching the matches themselves to see what kind of internal factors caused these changes in the dynamic.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
For that, you need knowledge of matchup dynamics.

Fed was troubled a bit by Murray’s aggressive play, and it didn’t help that many of their early matches were on Bo3 in the period of 2008-2010 when Fed relatively underperformed to remain at a high level in the Slams (where he’s always owned Murray). Then Murray became much more defensive after his surgery in 2014, and Fed capitalized as he did to Ferrer. It also helps that they played no matches in 2016.

For Nadal, it has to do with three factors. The first is Fed’s change of tactics to take the ball early which partially fixed up the match up dynamic. The second is Nadal’s switch to slightly flatter ground strokes which don’t trouble Fed as much at all. The third is that their rivalry was very clay-skewed in their first few years on the tour but they’ve only played one clay match since Fed turned the tide in 2017. Naturally, Nadal won that one. A possible fourth factor is that Nadal just hasn’t been as good on HC vs. Fed and Djokovic as he used to be, for factors unknown.

In a sense, it’s matchups that make up a lot of the issues with the Fed-Murray and Fed-Nadal matches. I see these types of arguments getting thrown around all over the place but nobody who’s asked the questions has actually tried watching the matches themselves to see what kind of internal factors caused these changes in the dynamic.
No, it's simply Fedr peak and Djok too good, ergo BOAT and GOAT.
 

DSH

Legend
Djoker in four tight sets. I could see the match going similarly to the SF vs. Nadal, where Fed puts up a pretty good fight but still eventually loses.



Fed possibly takes this one in straight sets. Fraud put up a really good match in the SF (not peak stuff, but nice enough) and I doubt Djokovic would have been able to keep up that level given he lost in five to Tsonga. Having said that, I doubt Djoker goes down easily so he may keep it competitive for a while.
Wrong!
It would have been in 2 sets.
I was too hot for Nole to handle it!
:giggle:
 
Top