Are Federer's AO titles as inflated as Djokovic's Wimbledon titles?

[TheAssassin]

This is a textbook name over form argument that glosses over additional context, like how Raonic was very underwhelming and how Fed was injured.

As I mentioned above, four of those players are completely negligible. The strength of those wins rests on Thiem and Cilic, the only two remotely decent players both guys faced.

Additional context only speaks further in favor of 2020 as Raonic actually wasn't "very underwhelming" while one of rare things that look worse than injured botting Federer for three sets is a blistering Chung retiring after one set. The two runs aren't actually close.

 

[Biotic]

Things would be even if Djokovic bothered to show up to face Fed in 2009-2010 at the AO.

If Djokovic followed the normal trajectory starting 2008 instead of 09-10 discontinuation, things would be uglier for Federer.

 

[RS]

My threads are put to shame.

 

[Third Serve]

Whether some people think he was in his prime or not isn't relevant which is the point. Didn't he win 2 Wimbledons in his 30s and made a total of 5 finals? So saying "bUt He wAsN't In HiS pRiMe" is basically a crutch to lean on because he lost. They were the two best players at Wimbledon in 2014, 2015 and 2019 and he had two match points in 2019. Did he suddenly become old again once he reached that point?

I mean Fed in those finals was still pretty good (except 2019 which I think was just not a well played match from either player) by a general standard. But the other guy’s post was correct: facing Federer at over age 30 is simply not the same as facing Djokovic basically in the middle of his prime.

Federer and Djokovic were the two best players in those tournaments… but this tells us nothing. Obviously, if you look at a given field, you’re gonna find two players that will be the best. Like if you banned the top 50 players from the AO, the two best players in the AO might well be the world #51 and #52. Tells us absolutely zero about how they compare to previous finalists… which is the whole point of this discussion.

Fed was already “old” when he reached the finals of those tournaments. But past-prime Fed is good enough that he would still be favored over most of the field. Fed playing in his B game is enough to topple peak Murray at Wimbledon, for instance. The only difference is when he has to face a player of roughly similar ability but younger and closer to his physical best, like Djokovic in those three Wimbledon finals. And that’s the difference I’m talking about here.

Djokovic is simply much more equipped to take advantage of Federer’s decline than the rest of the field, because the rest of the field is still so far behind Federer on grass that they aren’t a match for him… like how Nadal kept winning RG in recent years despite being a few notches off his peak.

Again, I don’t think Fed was bad in those finals. He was good—even great—but it’s silly to think that Djokovic was not benefited by a decline from Fed compared to his 2003-2007 years.

 

[Third Serve]

Additional context only speaks further in favor of 2020 as Raonic actually wasn't "very underwhelming" while one of rare things that look worse than injured botting Federer for three sets is a blistering Chung retiring after one set. The two runs aren't actually close.

Fair enough on Chung but I’m not sold on Raonic. Maybe I’m thinking of the 2021 match but Raonic has never impressed me in a Slam match since 2016 with the exception of the beatdown he dealt to Zverev in 2019.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Maybe because he faced post-prime versions of Fed, while Fed faced the best Djokovic nearly every time?

And how would you necessarily guarantee that best Federer would defeat best Djokovic at Wimbledon? Both 2005-2006 Federer and 2014-2015 Federer had different strengths and weaknesses. I used to over-rate 2005-2006 Federer, but now, looking back at his matches repeatedly and comparing them to his 2014-2015 matches at Wimbledon, perhaps the decline is not as astronomical as some people make it out to be.
Let's compare their strengths:
Forehand - 2005-2006
Backhand - 2014-2015
Serve - 2014-2015
Net game - 2014-2015
Movement/Speed - 2005-2006
Slice - 2005-2006
3-3 in terms of skill set. Now, the extent of the advantage that 2005-2006 Federer has over his 2014-2015 self in some of those categories is obviously greater than vice versa, but 2014-2015 surely had more experience. Prime Federer, while he had all the power and potential in the world, was just a ballbasher who thrived against relatively weak competition. He had subpar problem solving ability, just relying on bashing winners past inferior opponents.
30s Federer, while he did not have as much power or youthful athleticism, is much more experienced, tactically wiser and excelled at constructing smart gameplan that got him out of vulnerable situations.
After all, as Master Wu from Ninjago once said "You assume your youth is a greater weapon than my experience."

Also, if we learned anything from watching Djokovic's matches, we as tennis fans should know by now that the Serb is capable of raising his level at moments when it really matters. This happened many times in his career. For example, it would be silly to think that he played at the same level against Federer as he did against Anderson in 2015 Wimbledon, or that he played at the same level against Federer as he did against Simon in AO 2016. Over the years, Djokovic has surprised many of us fans who have often underestimated him before big matches, only to witness flabbergastingly good performances the next day. Examples, 2019 AO final, 2016 AO semi-final, 2015 Wimbledon final, 2015 USO final, 2021 AO final etc.

If, in a hypothetical match, Djokovic were aware that he was facing a mid-20s peak Roger Federer and if he really sensed that he was under serious threat, how can we be so sure that Djokovic would just stand there and let himself get destroyed, instead of doing everything he can to elevate his level further to keep up with prime Roger? And we know how notoriously badly Federer struggles when he finds himself in clutch situations against his equals or even slightly inferior players.
Examples, 2005 AO semi-final - Fed had a match point in the 4th set against Safin, but blew it with some silly tweener. 2008 Wimbledon final - Fed had break points at 4-3 in the fifth set against Nadal, but couldn't convert any of them. 2006 Rome final - another 40-15 drama. 2011 USO semi-final - double match point on his own serve, but ended up losing 4 consecutive games after that.

So even if 2005-2006 Federer were to defeat peak Djokovic on grass, he would really have to close out the match in 4 or else, if they go to 5, his chances of winning become slim.

 

[RS]

Djokovic fans are killing it ngl. Djokovic winning more is making them more tense and defensive rather than less.

 

[Red Rick]

Lol @ this when the so-called world number 3 (at the time) let Metal Hip Murray win 68% of his 2nd serve points in their 5 setter at Wimbledon this year. I’m sure Fed would have lost to whatever the equivalent of 2023 Sinner on grass was back in the day. The top players outside of the big 4 have been famously good on grass now for years!

You can cherry pick whatever result you want, it doesnt change overall trends.

The beauty of p values is that of you have enkugh variables you fond enough significant ******** when it means nothing

 

[Third Serve]

After all, as Master Wu from Ninjago once said "You assume your youth is a greater weapon than my experience."

lol

 

[Red Rick]

When you’re as good as Federer is, reaching the final of a Slam is not necessarily indicative of being in prime. The guy has reached over 30 Slam finals lol. It stands to reason that some will be clearly better than others when you have a sample size of that many.

A Slam final for Fed can mean anything from the US Open 2004 final to the RG 2008 final. Merely stating “BuT hE reAcHeD ThE fInAl” isn’t quite the own people think it is.

Prime Fed has never meant anything othet than "he won by default cause he was the fastest to adjust to modern game in mid 2000s" when all his opponents were physically or technically lacking

I keep being baffled by people who think 2004 holds up in eye test

 

[StrongRule]

So Djokovic's Wimbledons are inflated because he beat Federer when he was over 30? Then what was he doing in the finals if he wasn't one of the two best players in the tournament? Post prime is your definition and is not some official measurement.

Because the field was already getting very weak in 2014-2015. Federer didn't face anyone significant to reach the final, at least in 2015. 2015 Murray was a punching bag.

 

[RS]

Prime Fed has never meant anything othet than "he won by default cause he was the fastest to adjust to modern game in mid 2000s" when all his opponents were physically or technically lacking

I keep being baffled by people who think 2004 holds up in eye test

Your old posts seemed friendlier on past tennis (not 90s obviously but more 2000s and even 2010s) and Roddick who is one your favourites.

Sure it's very possible and fine to change opinion though.

 

[Third Serve]

Prime Fed has never meant anything othet than "he won by default cause he was the fastest to adjust to modern game in mid 2000s" when all his opponents were physically or technically lacking

I keep being baffled by people who think 2004 holds up in eye test

most reasonable rick take

 

[ChrisJR3264]

winning the amount of Gs these guys have - none are inflated. To be honest - on grass I feel like it’s so common for top guys to get upset due to the surface.

 

[Kralingen]

Djokovic fans are killing it ngl. Djokovic winning more is making them more tense and defensive rather than less.

Tennis discourse is really dead

I can’t wait to never discuss the big 3 again and have Rune Sinner Alcaraz arguments tbh

 

[alexio]

a boxer in rs avi resembles somewhat ruud, especialy by his smile

 

[RS]

Golovkin can't be compared to Ruud.

 

[Mivic]

Prime Fed has never meant anything othet than "he won by default cause he was the fastest to adjust to modern game in mid 2000s" when all his opponents were physically or technically lacking

I keep being baffled by people who think 2004 holds up in eye test

Honestly I think 07 Fed holds up absolute level wise, he had an extremely polished baseline game by pretty much any standard, but the idea that 04 Fed for example would be getting the better of peak Djokovic at AO (particularly on plexi) also seems pretty insane to me.

 

[RS]

Honestly I think 07 Fed holds up absolute level wise, he had an extremely polished baseline game by any standard, but the idea that 04 Fed would be getting the better of peak Djokovic at AO also seems pretty insane to me.

You probably wouldn't extend this to Wim and USO though were as Red Rick might.

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Both titles are not inflated. Both won and dominated these tournaments.


Who in their right mind thinks anyone else should have dominated these tournaments than fedkovic. These two are the co GOATs level wise. No one else come close. Not Murray not Delpo not Safin no body.

I wish we could see prime Agassi and Sampras take them on

 

[RS]

Tennis discourse is really dead

I can’t wait to never discuss the big 3 again and have Rune Sinner Alcaraz arguments tbh

It would be something different I get the feeling it won't be same as big 3 discussions. But it's too early to say for sure.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I wish we could see prime Agassi and Sampras take them on

Definitely Agassi fits very well in this era.

But I would be very interested to see how Sampras game works vs fedkovic on slower surfaces and fedkovic vs Sampras on faster.

 

[NoleFam]

I mean Fed in those finals was still pretty good (except 2019 which I think was just not a well played match from either player) by a general standard. But the other guy’s post was correct: facing Federer at over age 30 is simply not the same as facing Djokovic basically in the middle of his prime.

Federer and Djokovic were the two best players in those tournaments… but this tells us nothing. Obviously, if you look at a given field, you’re gonna find two players that will be the best. Like if you banned the top 50 players from the AO, the two best players in the AO might well be the world #51 and #52. Tells us absolutely zero about how they compare to previous finalists… which is the whole point of this discussion.

Fed was already “old” when he reached the finals of those tournaments. But past-prime Fed is good enough that he would still be favored over most of the field. Fed playing in his B game is enough to topple peak Murray at Wimbledon, for instance. The only difference is when he has to face a player of roughly similar ability but younger and closer to his physical best, like Djokovic in those three Wimbledon finals. And that’s the difference I’m talking about here.

Djokovic is simply much more equipped to take advantage of Federer’s decline than the rest of the field, because the rest of the field is still so far behind Federer on grass that they aren’t a match for him… like how Nadal kept winning RG in recent years despite being a few notches off his peak.

Again, I don’t think Fed was bad in those finals. He was good—even great—but it’s silly to think that Djokovic was not benefited by a decline from Fed compared to his 2003-2007 years.

Either Federer is the GOAT on grass or he isn't. Too much straddling the fence, moving goal posts, leaning on crutches and making excuses. Of course the GOAT on grass will be better than pretty much everyone even in his 30s. At least he's supposed to be. He just ran into a future legend on grass who was too tough for him. No one else was, at least at his best. He was one of the two best players on grass in the world at that time which fell in the 2012-2016 grass era, when there multiple good players on grass and definitely better than what we saw in the late 90s and early 2000s.

How they compare to previous finalists? Like who? Philippoussis, 2005 Roddick, or 2006 Nadal? I'll take 2015 Federer over them any day of the week. They have no chance against multiple versions of Djokovic.

It's about saying Djokovic has inflated his Wimbledon count when he at least beat two of the best players on grass, and one of the best ever, to win 5 of them. How can he have inflated his count in that scenario? Whether Federer was better before is your point but not that relevant because he was still better than everyone except one man and won Wimbledon in 2012, in one of the strongest overall years. Did Sampras inflate his Wimbledon count by winning in a weak grass field in 1997 and 2000?

Nadal is farther above the field on clay than Federer is on grass, and even Djokovic can't beat him but once in a blue moon. No one else can get close unless we're talking about 2022 Nadal. Not really the same thing.

 

[Mivic]

You probably wouldn't extend this to Wim and USO though were as Red Rick might.

Wim is trickier but honestly I might well favour Djokovic over the earlier versions of peak Fed at USO too. It’s simply a more favourable match-up for him compared to Fed from 2006 onwards. Just my opinion though.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Federer is the goat on grass no questions.

19 titles next closest is Connors st 10. This was before in Connors time when majors were on grass primarily. For him to win 19 post 2000s when he was in 6 Roland Garros finals, it's bizarre. I don't think anyone is breaking that in future.

Grass title streak Federer 10. It's as good as the most titles won after Federer. He won every grass title between 2003 and 2008 Wimby that he entered.

Most grass match wins 192 - unbreakable. You don't see anyone ever doing that in current schedule

Most Wimbledons 8 - almost unbreakable, Nole might match it but mostly won't surpass

Most Wimbledon finals 12 - next closest is Djokovic at 9, unbreakable

I don't think just because Sampras won 7 on fast courts in 8 years I can put him ahead. Federer won 6/7 himself and then won 2 more slams here. He had another grass great Djokovic in 3 finals and almost won another at age 37.11

I don't think there is any case for anyone ahead of fed in grass. If nole wins 9 then the situation would be like Nadal 22 vs fed 20 slams but fed having more records.

At that point I would accept Nole as number 1 or number 2 on grass. Right now he is behind fed.

And oh yes fed beat Sampras at Wimbledon when he was on 4 Wimbledon winning streak.

Fed also beat Nadal who won 2 Wimbledons 3-1

Fed also beat Murray who won 2 Wimbledons 2-0 at Wimbledon.

Fed also beat Djokovic who won 7 Wimbledons in his first ever encounter and almost made it 2-2 vs Djokovic despite age gap.

I think Federer is far and above ahead of the rest on grass. Next is Djokovic even though we will never know how he will perform in 90s and then we have Pete.

 

[alexio]

Golovkin can't be compared to Ruud.

he has btw an interesting and a bit funny last name, golovka in russian has two meanings..first is a diminutive of a head and second its a glans

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Federer is the goat on grass no questions.

19 titles next closest is Connors st 10. This was before in Connors time when majors were on grass primarily. For him to win 19 post 2000s when he was in 6 Roland Garros finals, it's bizarre. I don't think anyone is breaking that in future.

Grass title streak Federer 10. It's as good as the most titles won after Federer. He won every grass title between 2003 and 2008 Wimby that he entered.

Most grass match wins 192 - unbreakable. You don't see anyone ever doing that in current schedule

Most Wimbledons 8 - almost unbreakable, Nole might match it but mostly won't surpass

Most Wimbledon finals 12 - next closest is Djokovic at 9, unbreakable

I don't think just because Sampras won 7 on fast courts in 8 years I can put him ahead. Federer won 6/7 himself and then won 2 more slams here. He had another grass great Djokovic in 3 finals and almost won another at age 37.11

I don't think there is any case for anyone ahead of fed in grass. If nole wins 9 then the situation would be like Nadal 22 vs fed 20 slams but fed having more records.

At that point I would accept Nole as number 1 or number 2 on grass. Right now he is behind fed.

And oh yes fed beat Sampras at Wimbledon when he was on 4 Wimbledon winning streak.

Fed also beat Nadal who won 2 Wimbledons 3-1

Fed also beat Murray who won 2 Wimbledons 2-0 at Wimbledon.

Fed also beat Djokovic who won 7 Wimbledons in his first ever encounter and almost made it 2-2 vs Djokovic despite age gap.

I think Federer is far and above ahead of the rest on grass. Next is Djokovic even though we will never know how he will perform in 90s and then we have Pete.

I doubt Djokovic agrees most wimbledons or even most finals are unbreakable in current field

 

[nolefam_2024]

I doubt Djokovic agrees most wimbledons or even most finals are unbreakable in current field

But I doubt myself.

 

[Mivic]

Tennis discourse is really dead

I can’t wait to never discuss the big 3 again and have Rune Sinner Alcaraz arguments tbh

Thing is no one’s really gonna care about those if the players in question don’t supplant Djokovic extremely soon.

 

[RS]

I guess social media will be even bigger by then.

 

[RS]

Roddick > Federer?

 

[Red Rick]

most reasonable rick take

i've stated plenty osf tvimes that fed deserpves credit for being ahead oof teh pakc bfy sucah ua margin iat that poinst in time, and that djokovic deserves none qfor being a better player now kthan hfed 20 years ago. but dto act like overall tenntis hasn't gotten better is just batshit crazy yet it's tolretaeud because fruavd fayns sand s90 ****s setlf phellating on therir orwn mythos.



the xera is both weak and strong at the same time. ot deny ttha is to deny qugantum mechanics. and dogn't ask mwe vif i'm drunk. yuou kinow the answer

 

[RS]

i've stated plenty osf tvimes that fed deserpves credit for being ahead oof teh pakc bfy sucah ua margin iat that poinst in time, and that djokovic deserves none qfor being a better player now kthan hfed 20 years ago. but dto act like overall tenntis hasn't gotten better is just batshit crazy yet it's tolretaeud because fruavd fayns sand s90 ****s setlf phellating on therir orwn mythos.



the xera is both weak and strong at the same time. ot deny ttha is to deny qugantum mechanics. and dogn't ask mwe vif i'm drunk. yuou kinow the answer

Amazing.

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

i've stated plenty osf tvimes that fed deserpves credit for being ahead oof teh pakc bfy sucah ua margin iat that poinst in time, and that djokovic deserves none qfor being a better player now kthan hfed 20 years ago. but dto act like overall tenntis hasn't gotten better is just batshit crazy yet it's tolretaeud because fruavd fayns sand s90 ****s setlf phellating on therir orwn mythos.



the xera is both weak and strong at the same time. ot deny ttha is to deny qugantum mechanics. and dogn't ask mwe vif i'm drunk. yuou kinow the answer

Buh wah abou' rubweh, if tha era be not soh weahk whyh heh top tehn w/ suuch wun dimenshional gaem???

 

[RS]

Like something like this chosen match in early 2000s or mid 2000s or late 2000s vs chosen match in 2010s and 2020s or whenever and some sort of point by point analysis were we say what we see could help us with these level of play discussions. Like just a few games of each set to get a brief breakdown.

Would help see if some sort of middle ground could be met on both sides.

 

[RS]

Rather than just saying X match was great and Y match was bad.

 

[Third Serve]

i've stated plenty osf tvimes that fed deserpves credit for being ahead oof teh pakc bfy sucah ua margin iat that poinst in time, and that djokovic deserves none qfor being a better player now kthan hfed 20 years ago. but dto act like overall tenntis hasn't gotten better is just batshit crazy yet it's tolretaeud because fruavd fayns sand s90 ****s setlf phellating on therir orwn mythos.



the xera is both weak and strong at the same time. ot deny ttha is to deny qugantum mechanics. and dogn't ask mwe vif i'm drunk. yuou kinow the answer

I agree

 

[SonnyT]

Djokovic's Wimbledon titles weren't inflated: he beat Federer x3, Nadal x2. Federer's WB titles included victory over Nadal x2 (1st time Nadal hadn't known how to play grass yet), Djokovic and Murray once.

Djokovic's AO titles included victories over Federer x3, Nadal x2, and Murray x3. Federer's AO titles included Safin, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray once each; but the last two were infants struggling on tour when Federer beat them.

 

[Deleted member 779124]

Prime Fed has never meant anything othet than "he won by default cause he was the fastest to adjust to modern game in mid 2000s" when all his opponents were physically or technically lacking

I keep being baffled by people who think 2004 holds up in eye test

Whatever you think of the other players it's very clear that Fed at the least would compete as he has proven many times.

 

[DSH]

Wow, I'm positively surprised you don't consider his 2004 run to be weak, Fed bashers usually mock Hewitts, Nalbandians and Ferreros on a daily basis. Kudos.

I think the 2004 run was his best AO competition and being-under-pressure-wise, he was playing for #1 in the world and came out victorious through a very tough draw.

Safin was gassed, come on!

 

[Martin J]

Safin was gassed, come on!

It was impressive to beat all these players in a row regardless. He beat Nalbandian, who was his nemesis and who beat him twice in HC Majors just the year before.
Hewitt was another opponent who had a decisive record vs Federer up to that point (7-2), and won their last BO5 match on hard court at the end of 2003. He also reached the AO final next year.
Ferrero played the USO final and took some huge scalps on the way (Hewitt and Agassi) and was playing some of his best tennis.
Just because Safin was a bit flat doesn't really take away from Fed's achievements, Safin is a high quality opponent who actually dethroned Fed the following year.

So Federer going through all these players and overcoming the demons from the past, especially when you consider that the #1 was on the line for the very first time in his career, is incredible. I still believe he played his best tennis at the AO in 2004 and 2005, was never as convincing after.

 

[Hitman]

It was impressive to beat all these players in a row regardless. He beat Nalbandian, who was his nemesis and who beat him twice in HC Majors just the year before.
Hewitt was another opponent who had a decisive record vs Federer up to that point (7-2), and won their last BO5 match on hard court at the end of 2003. He also reached the AO final next year.
Ferrero played the USO final and took some huge scalps on the way (Hewitt and Agassi) and was playing some of his best tennis.
Just because Safin was a bit flat doesn't really take away from Fed's achievements, Safin is a high quality opponent who actually dethroned Fed the following year.

So Federer going through all these players and overcome the demons from the past, especially when you consider what the #1 was on the line for the very first time in his career, is incredible. I still believe he played his best tennis at the AO in 2004 and 2005, was never as convincing after.

Federer's AO 2004 was a fantastic run, one of his best.

 

[SonnyT]

Winning in straight sets in semi and final? What the excitement about!

 

[NeutralFan]

Djokovic fans are killing it ngl. Djokovic winning more is making them more tense and defensive rather than less.

That happens when you have a tiny fanbase and you want to get validation from entire sports community . It reminds me a lot of city fans. They make noises and want to be heard and feel they're not getting credit ( btw is Etihad still emptihad?) Lol

 

[Devin]

Hey, haven't seen you posting in like years! Hope you're doing well.

Yep. Hope you are too.

 

[RS]

That happens when you have a tiny fanbase and you want to get validation from entire sports community . It reminds me a lot of city fans. They make noises and want to be heard and feel they're not getting credit ( btw is Etihad still emptihad?) Lol

Don't really read too much of City but sure they are riding high

 

[NeutralFan]

Don't really read too much of City but sure they are riding high

Yeah and they crave attention and recognition like Djokovic fans do.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Equally.
Neither is "inflated".

 

[RS]

Yeah and they crave attention and recognition like Djokovic fans do.

Might have to look. I mean just watch the games or highlights don't really venture into the comment sections too much.

 

[NeutralFan]

Might have to look. I mean just watch the games or highlights don't really venture into the comment sections too much.

I have been to emptihad to support my club In away CL fixture and away fans were louder than the local fans and seats were empty , Clubs like city are a joke.