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

[RS]

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.

Unless it's racial abuse or fighting then loud fans don't really bother me. But point taken lol.

 

[fedfan24]

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?

33 year old Federer is still damn good on grass, 7-8/10 guy but the prime version was anything from 8.5/10-10/10. None of his 2014- versions are as good as the 2012 one even.

 

[NeutralFan]

Unless it's racial abuse or fighting then loud fans don't really bother me. But point taken lol.

What you talking about? Louder as in atmosphere, something emptihad lacks . Football is not football without atmosphere. ln England only Liverpool has great atmosphere in cl matches , city has the worst .

 

[RS]

What you talking about? Louder as in atmosphere, something emptihad lacks . Football is not football without atmosphere. ln England only Liverpool has great atmosphere in cl matches , city has the worst .

Misread that bit. Got you.

 

[NeutralFan]

Misread that bit. Got you.

What's your fav club in England ?son!

 

[fedfan24]

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.

He won 2012 because he played close to his best grass tennis, never to be seen again with the new racket and his loss of a step post 2013. 2012 Federer most certainly is favourite for 2014 and close to even for 2015. Djokovic beat a good but lesser version of Federer for his Wimbledon titles.

 

[NoleFam]

33 year old Federer is still damn good on grass, 7-8/10 guy but the prime version was anything from 8.5/10-10/10. None of his 2014- versions are as good as the 2012 one even.

And the game nor Wimbledon cares.

Spoiler

 

[fedfan24]

And the game nor Wimbledon cares.

Spoiler

Why even post on this forum then? Just exchange stats from Wikipedia and be done with it.

Quite sick that such a lower level on grass is enough to vulture 4 titles, with 2 close escapes in 2018/2019. He truly is the luckiest of all time.

 

[NoleFam]

He won 2012 because he played close to his best grass tennis, never to be seen again with the new racket and his loss of a step post 2013. 2012 Federer most certainly is favourite for 2014 and close to even for 2015. Djokovic beat a good but lesser version of Federer for his Wimbledon titles.

Was he close to his best grass tennis when Benneateau was inches from KO'ing him? Djokovic from 2011-2012 on grass is much lesser than Djokovic after 2014 and after Becker.

 

[fedfan24]

Yea close to his best grass tennis when Benneateau was inches from KO'ing him. Djokovic from 2011-2012 on grass is much lesser than Djokovic after 2014 and after Becker.

How is an early round scare relevant to his SF/F level?

He’s closer to his 14/15 level than 14/15 fed was to his prime level. Any prime or better Fed routines Djokovic in 4 sets max. Be grateful your guy got to vulture easy slams vs garbage nextgen opponents to inflate his stats and legacy.

 

[NoleFam]

Why even post on this forum then? Just exchange stats from Wikipedia and be done with it.

Quite sick that such a lower level on grass is enough to vulture 4 titles, with 2 close escapes in 2018/2019. He truly is the luckiest of all time.

Because only winning and beating who is in front of you matters. Federer got beaten in finals, not the 4th round or QF like Becker did in '97 by Sampras when he was truly declined and done.

 

[NoleFam]

How is an early round scare relevant to his SF/F level?

He’s closer to his 14/15 level than 14/15 fed was to his prime level. Any prime or better Fed routines Djokovic in 4 sets max. Be grateful your guy got to vulture easy slams vs garbage nextgen opponents to inflate his stats and legacy.

So console yourself with hypotheticals but Djokovic is a 7 time Wimbledon champ and is 5-2 against Fedal there.

 

[fedfan24]

Because only winning and beating who is in front of you matters. Federer got beaten in finals, not the 4th round like Becker did in '97 by Sampras when he was truly declined and done.

Djokovic can win 10 W titles playing at his 2021-2022 level and it doesn’t mean a thing in the eyes of most observers. We’re human beings , not here to count numbers we can actually see and feel what’s really happening.

 

[TheFifthSet]

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

Easily your most coherent post this week.

 

[RS]

What's your fav club in England ?son!

Would say I like Man Utd the most. Not just because of the history

In a weird way they are shell of there former self which is sad but seeing smaller teams play more amped up and motivated football against them is good.

 

[NoleFam]

Djokovic can win 10 W titles playing at his 2021-2022 level and it doesn’t mean a thing in the eyes of most observers. We’re human beings , not here to count numbers we can actually see and feel what’s really happening.

Ok.

 

[fedfan24]

So console yourself with hypotheticals but Djokovic is a 7 time Wimbledon champ and is 5-2 against Fedal there.

Lucky to escape both 18/19 then 2 vultured titles in his 30s vs nextgen clowns. Not as impressive as 5 in a row during your peak displaying one of the highest levels of all time.

Djokovic AO dominance from 11-16 is very
Impressive and noteworthy , not vulturing easy slams vs Tstosipas and Berretini in your 30s.

 

[NeutralFan]

Would say I like Man Utd the most. Not just because of the history

I see. Do you visit old Trafford regularly? Smaller teams playing fearless football is always great.

 

[NoleFam]

Lucky to escape both 18/19 then 2 vultured titles in his 30s vs nextgen clowns. Not as impressive as 5 in a row during your peak displaying one of the highest levels of all time.

Djokovic AO dominance from 11-16 is very
Impressive and noteworthy , not vulturing easy slams vs Tstosipas and Berretini in your 30s.

It's time to accept reality.

Spoiler

 

[fedfan24]

It's time to accept reality.

Spoiler

Asterisk era. Crazy how low level has to be to win these freebie slams he’s been hoovering up since 2021.

 

[RS]

I see. Do you visit old Trafford regularly? Smaller teams playing fearless football is always great.

Been a couple of times. I need to get more football games live in hopefully one day the WC/CL/Euro's even if it will be very pricey.

Would like to do boxing as well on a separate topic.

 

[NeutralFan]

Been a couple of times. I need to get more football games live in hopefully one day the WC/CL/Euro's even if it will be very pricey.

Would like to do boxing as well on a separate topic.

Imo, it's stupid to buy super expensive boxing matches tickets so that two overrated boxers can get paid upto 70-80 million USD. Unless you're rich it's sheer stupidity to spend your money on a big boxing match. Even their PPV are super expensive. I am a retired man so I am not gonna spend a penny on let alone spending 1000s of dollars for a boxing match.

 

[RS]

Imo, it's stupid to buy super expensive boxing matches tickets so that two overrated boxers can get paid upto 70-80 million USD. Unless you're rich it's sheer stupidity to spend your money on a big boxing match. Even their PPV are super expensive. I am a retired man so I am not gonna spend a penny on let alone spending 1000s of dollars for a boxing match.

Depends on where you seated can range from hundreds to thousands. I feel contempt in watching sports events at home but if you talking just a rare experience it's different to doing to regularly. I would rather get a decent seat and pay say a few hundreds for something I won't be doing often rather than paying up to 10K and being at the front seat for sure though when it comes to a top tier boxing fight.

 

[NeutralFan]

Depends on where you seated can range from hundreds to thousands. I feel contempt in watching sports events at home but if you talking just a rare experience it's different to doing to regularly. I would rather get a decent seat and pay say a few hundreds for something I won't be doing often than paying up to 10K and being at the front for sure though when it comes to a top tier boxing fight.

I don't think you can get a match ticket in 100s of USD for a big hw matches or a big match. Even PPV are around 100 USD . You can get for MMA though.

 

[RS]

I don't think you can get a match ticket in 100s of USD for a big hw matches or a big match. Even PPV are around 100 USD . You can get for MMA though.

Meant a few hundreds. Checked Fury Uysk prices for the upcoming fight nothing really cheaper than 400-500 dollars.

 

[RS]

Floyd and Pac in 2015 the average ticket was around 11,000 dollars.

Some of the tickets were sold in excess of 100k.

 

[NeutralFan]

Floyd and Pac in 2015 the average ticket was around 11,000.

That's what I told you. Btw don't think Fury vs Usyk is happening

 

[RS]

That's what I told you. Btw don't think Fury vs Usyk is happening

Not got a lot of hope till we get within at least week and it's still standing with no pull out's.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Lucky to escape both 18/19 then 2 vultured titles in his 30s vs nextgen clowns. Not as impressive as 5 in a row during your peak displaying one of the highest levels of all time.

Djokovic AO dominance from 11-16 is very
Impressive and noteworthy , not vulturing easy slams vs Tstosipas and Berretini in your 30s.

I respect your opinions, because unlike many Fedfans out there, you make sure to give credit to Djokodal where it is due. I appreciate it when fans can have their favourite player, but remain unbiased with their reasoning.

With that being said, Federer was also lucky to escape 07 and 09. In the 2007 Wimbledon final. Nadal held 4 break points against Federer in the 5th set (which is even more than he did against Djokovic in 2018), and in the 2009 Wimbledon final, Roddick had 4 set points to go 2-0 in sets. And as for the AO, Federer was lucky to escape Nadal in the 2017 final. Nadal was leading 3-1 in the 5th set and had the momentum to win the match.
Also, Djoker had his unlucky moments at Wimbledon as well. Look at this year's Wimbledon final. Djokovic was leading 3-0 in the 2nd set tiebreak and had a set point at 6-5. He was also one forehand drive volley away from converting at 1-0, 30-40.

And don't forget Federer's AO draws at 2006 and 2018. They weren't any better than the 2021 and 2022 draws that Djokovic got at Wimbledon.
I think that at the end of the day, they both achieved more than they should at each other's home Slams, but of course, that does not change the fact that they are both legendary champions of tennis.

 

[RS]

Who played at a higher level?

1. Thiem AO 20 QF or Wawrinka RG 16 SF
2. Djokovic AO 20 final or Djokovic RG 08 SF
3. Djokovic Wim 22 final or Federer USO 15 final
4. Djokovic USO 18 final or Federer Wim 15 final
5. Cilic USO 14 final or Federer Wim 14 final

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Who played at a higher level?

1. Thiem AO 20 QF or Wawrinka RG 16 SF
2. Djokovic AO 20 final or Djokovic RG 08 SF
3. Djokovic Wim 22 final or Federer USO 15 final
4. Djokovic USO 18 final or Federer Wim 15 final
5. Cilic USO 14 final or Federer Wim 14 final

1. 50/50. Honestly, this is a tough call. Thiem did beat Nadal, but it was a close match and he did struggle, even though Nadal was far past his prime. Wawrinka only lost to peak Andy Murray, who would go on to win a set against one of the best ever versions of Djokovic at RG.
2. Djokovic RG 08 SF without a doubt - he almost took a set off the legendary 2008 Nadal at RG!! This Djokovic would have crushed Thiem in the 2019 RG semi-final.
3. Federer - he pushed absolute peak Djokovic to a very close 4-setter. This is a monumentally greater feat than struggling against the likes of Nick Kyrgios in the finals lol.
4. 50/50 - In terms of shotmaking and power, definitely Federer, but in terms of physicality and stamina, Djokovic without a doubt. But overall, I would give a slight edge to Federer.
5. Federer - he pushed prime Djokovic to 5 at Wimbledon. Nuff said.

 

[RS]

1. 50/50. Honestly, this is a tough call. Thiem did beat Nadal, but it was a close match and he did struggle, even though Nadal was far past his prime. Wawrinka only lost to peak Andy Murray, who would go on to win a set against one of the best ever versions of Djokovic at RG.
2. Djokovic RG 08 SF without a doubt - he almost took a set off the legendary 2008 Nadal at RG!! This Djokovic would have crushed Thiem in the 2019 RG semi-final.
3. Federer - he pushed absolute peak Djokovic to a very close 4-setter. This is a monumentally greater feat than struggling against the likes of Nick Kyrgios in the finals lol.
4. 50/50 - In terms of shotmaking and power, definitely Federer, but in terms of physicality and stamina, Djokovic without a doubt. But overall, I would give a slight edge to Federer.
5. Federer - he pushed prime Djokovic to 5 at Wimbledon. Nuff said.

That was a good set I thought of there in particular the last 2.

 

[fedfan24]

I respect your opinions, because unlike many Fedfans out there, you make sure to give credit to Djokodal where it is due. I appreciate it when fans can have their favourite player, but remain unbiased with their reasoning.

With that being said, Federer was also lucky to escape 07 and 09. In the 2007 Wimbledon final. Nadal held 4 break points against Federer in the 5th set (which is even more than he did against Djokovic in 2018), and in the 2009 Wimbledon final, Roddick had 4 set points to go 2-0 in sets. And as for the AO, Federer was lucky to escape Nadal in the 2017 final. Nadal was leading 3-1 in the 5th set and had the momentum to win the match.
Also, Djoker had his unlucky moments at Wimbledon as well. Look at this year's Wimbledon final. Djokovic was leading 3-0 in the 2nd set tiebreak and had a set point at 6-5. He was also one forehand drive volley away from converting at 1-0, 30-40.

And don't forget Federer's AO draws at 2006 and 2018. They weren't any better than the 2021 and 2022 draws that Djokovic got at Wimbledon.
I think that at the end of the day, they both achieved more than they should at each other's home Slams, but of course, that does not change the fact that they are both legendary champions of tennis.

Fair post. I think if fed had won 2019 w final would’ve balanced out his earlier defeats there then everything from then on would be right. That match has changed tennis history, for the worse imo would’ve been a better end for fed to overcome both rivals b2b but wasn’t to be.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Fair post. I think if fed had won 2019 w final would’ve balanced out his earlier defeats there then everything from then on would be right. That match has changed tennis history, for the worse imo would’ve been a better end for fed to overcome both rivals b2b but wasn’t to be.

Same can be said about this year's Wimbledon final.
Had Djokovic not choked at Wimbledon, he could have completed the Calendar Slam this season.

 

[mike danny]

It is your definition. He was one of the top 3 players in the world at the time and made it to the finals to meet Djokovic. These weren't 4th round matches. If you make it to the finals, aren't you one of the two best players in the tournament, especially when you're barely losing serve?

You can be a top 3 player in the world even while being past your prime. You can even reach slam finals while being past your prime too and Fed isn't the only one to have done so. You act like this is a foreign concept or something.

Djokovic was 21 and 8 months at 2009 AO. Federer at that age hadn't even made a Slam SF yet.

But he was the defending champion. So he was good enough to win a slam one year before and suddenly too young one year after? That wasn't my point anyway. Federer didn't get more chances against out of prime Djokovic at the AO like Djokovic with Fed at Wimb, hence the "Djokovic beat Fedal 5 times at Wimb".

 

[mike danny]

Djokovic was 21 and 8 months at 2009 AO. Federer at that age hadn't even made a Slam SF yet.

And Djokovic at 29-30 in 2017 didn't reach a slam semi either, while Fed is still being punished even today for 40-15 in 2011.

 

[mike danny]

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.

All this wall of text with no proof to back it up since Djokovic never played prime Fed on grass anyway.

 

[mike danny]

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

We don't know that. Even in 2011 he was close to being down 1-2 in slams.

I'm just going by form at those times.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

And Djokovic at 29-30 in 2017 didn't reach a slam semi either, while Fed is still being punished even today for 40-15 in 2011.

Lol, he was injured and in a slump. Nothing to do with age. He was reaching ALL slam semis years later.

 

[mike danny]

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?

Well, you keep saying how Pete was past his prime in 2001-2002 even though he was reaching slam finals and winning slams. Can't have it both ways.

You WANT Fed to be in his prime to bolster Djokovic's wins, which you wouldn't have to do if you were actually secure about them.

 

[mike danny]

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

What do today's players do better than 2004 Fed?

And he didn't adjust as fast as you think. He switched to poly in 2002 Rome and still underperformed for another year+. Heck, Hewitt won their next 3 matches after Fed switched to poly.

 

[NoleFam]

You can be a top 3 player in the world even while being past your prime. You can even reach slam finals while being past your prime too and Fed isn't the only one to have done so. You act like this is a foreign concept or something.

But he was the defending champion. So he was good enough to win a slam one year before and suddenly too young one year after? That wasn't my point anyway. Federer didn't get more chances against out of prime Djokovic at the AO like Djokovic with Fed at Wimb, hence the "Djokovic beat Fedal 5 times at Wimb".

Only you will come back a week later and want to revive a discussion. Prime, past your prime, old, etc. doesn't matter. Was he not in the finals and was he not one of the two best players in the world on grass? Yes, so he was a worthy opponent. Don't come after the fact and after he gets beaten and try to make him seem so decrepit because he lost.

So you want to criticize Djokovic for not reaching rounds and taking beatings when Federer at his age wasn't good enough to reach them? Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Safin was gassed, come on!

Yep, but played a pretty good first set and Federer was clutch to take it (from TMC 2003 to IW 2004 was probably Federer's peak in terms of clutchness). 2nd one was decent quality too and then he just gave up and knew he had no chance of winning another 5-setter.

Federer-Safin played some great matches at the time, Dubai 2004, TMC 2004, Halle 2005, and of course, AO 2005.

 

[mike danny]

Only you will come back a week later and want to revive a discussion. Prime, past your prime, old, etc. doesn't matter. Was he not in the finals and was he not one of the two best players in the world on grass? Yes, so he was a worthy opponent. Don't come after the fact and after he gets beaten and try to make him seem so decrepit because he lost.

He was still much easier to beat than in his best years. Sampras was also reaching slam finals in 2001 and 2002 and you still call him over the hill. Agassi was still going deep in slams in 2004-2005 yet he is still mocked through names such as RAmun-Agassi.

Djokovic reached the 2016 USO F through defaults and retirements. Just reaching slam finals isn't the gotcha you think it is.

So you want to criticize Djokovic for not reaching rounds and taking beatings when Federer at his age wasn't good enough to reach them? Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Fed was taking beatings at 29-31 when Djokovic wasn't even reaching slam semis. So?

 

[mike danny]

Lol, he was injured and in a slump. Nothing to do with age. He was reaching ALL slam semis years later.

Just pointing out that using the equivalent ages for both players isn't the best argument one could make.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

mike danny recent gem, consisted of three magical words, unlikely will be forgotten in the near future lol

 

[NoleFam]

Well, you keep saying how Pete was past his prime in 2001-2002 even though he was reaching slam finals and winning slams. Can't have it both ways.

You WANT Fed to be in his prime to bolster Djokovic's wins, which you wouldn't have to do if you were actually secure about them.

Sampras won 1 title in 2001 and 2002 combined, with 68.7% and 61.4% win percentages in 2001 and 2002 respectively, and gave everything for one last hurrah at the USO in 2002 and retired. He was very much way past his best and at the end of his career, unlike Federer who was still in the top 3 and winning 5, 6 and 7 titles in 2014, 2015 and 2017 with 85.8%, 85.1% and 91.2% win percentages. Bad example.

 

[RS]

 

[NoleFam]

He was still much easier to beat than in his best years. Sampras was also reaching slam finals in 2001 and 2002 and you still call him over the hill. Agassi was still going deep in slams in 2004-2005 yet he is still mocked through names such as RAmun-Agassi.

Djokovic reached the 2016 USO F through defaults and retirements. Just reaching slam finals isn't the gotcha you think it is.

Fed was taking beatings at 29-31 when Djokovic wasn't even reaching slam semis. So?

You're trying to compare apples to oranges and you know it.

Another bad example since Djokovic was on the verge of a falling way off form, and falling out of the top 20.

Djokovic wasn't reaching Slam semi's at 29-31? He won one Slam at 29 and three at 31, so no.

 

[NoleFam]

mike danny recent gem, consisted of three magical words, unlikely will be forgotten in the near future lol

Past his prime?