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

[mike danny]

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.

Point is he was reaching slam finals, right? That was your argument. Don't use overall seasons now as a counter when this wasn't good enough anymore.

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.

And got straight setted by Cilic and Nadal in HC slam semis and beaten by Seppi in a slam. Such prime form.

 

[alexio]

Past his prime?

that could be too haa, but actually not, GFY is..

 

[mike danny]

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

No, I'm not. Agassi is still mocked to this day and he went deep in slams, didn't he? Why should Fed be any different just because Djokovic beat him?

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

And Fed hadn't yet matured. Using equivalent ages for both players is a bad argument, period.

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

Well, for 2 years after RG 2016 he wasn't reaching a single slam semi.

 

[Biotic]

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.

There's no way 11-16 Djokovic goes slamless in 09-10. Everything bar 2010 RG is doable.

 

[NoleFam]

Point is he was reaching slam finals, right? That was your argument. Don't use overall seasons now as a counter when this wasn't good enough anymore.

And got straight setted by Cilic and Nadal in HC slam semis and beaten by Seppi in a slam. Such prime form.

You're twisting my words. Sampras was barely winning matches in 2002 unlike Federer in any of those years. Sampras also took his level way up to win that title and call it a career, so it's not like he played badly in those tournaments. The USO was just the only tournament he played well in in both years, unlike Federer who was a top 3 player. Sampras wasn't even in the top 15 when he won the 2002 USO.

 

[mike danny]

There's no way 11-16 Djokovic goes slamless in 09-10. Everything bar 2010 RG is doable.

Just like I don't believe 2004-2005 Fed wins just 1 slam in 2011-2012.

 

[mike danny]

You're twisting my words. Sampras was barely winning matches in 2002 unlike Federer in any of those years. Sampras also took his level way up to win that title and call it a career, so it's not like he played badly in those tournaments. The USO was just the only tournament he played well in in both years, unlike Federer who was a top 3 player. Sampras wasn't even in the top 15 when he won the 2002 USO.

Your argument started with reaching slam finals. A player can't reach a final and be past his prime, right?

Pete was decent at 2001 Wimb too, so tired of Fed getting no credit for getting that win as a rookie.

 

[NoleFam]

that could be too haa, but actually not, GFY is..

Lol, what is that?

Edit...nevermind. It just came to me. I better not type out what I think it is.

 

[Biotic]

Just like I don't believe 2004-2005 Fed wins just 1 slam in 2011-2012.

Except we were talking about Novak in his own timeline and you're putting Federer out of place to prove what exactly? That I'm probably right?

 

[NoleFam]

No, I'm not. Agassi is still mocked to this day and he went deep in slams, didn't he? Why should Fed be any different just because Djokovic beat him?

And Fed hadn't yet matured. Using equivalent ages for both players is a bad argument, period.

Well, for 2 years after RG 2016 he wasn't reaching a single slam semi.

Agassi mocked for what exactly? He didn't even reach but one Slam final after 2003.

Point is, don't expect 21 year old Djokovic to be making it to rounds your favorite player wasn't even making it to at that age. He hadn't done anything at that age.

 

[NoleFam]

Your argument started with reaching slam finals. A player can't reach a final and be past his prime, right?

Pete was decent at 2001 Wimb too, so tired of Fed getting no credit for getting that win as a rookie.

I don't care about past his prime arguments. You do. If you reach a Slam final, you are one on the two best players in the tournament. That even holds true for 2002 Sampras, and he won that title anyway so your point falls flat.

 

[fedfan24]

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.

Good opponent but not on same tier as prime Federer. Nadal’s 08 victory is above anything Djokovic has done there since 2014 onward.

2nd part is nonsense. Players mature at different ages sometimes. Slam H2H between the pair isn’t relevant because they didn’t meet once at a slam in 04/05/06 and Djokovic couldn’t scrape his way to almost certain defeat at 4/5 slams between 09AO-10AO. 15- Federer showed up to take his beatings.

 

[fedfan24]

There's no way 11-16 Djokovic goes slamless in 09-10. Everything bar 2010 RG is doable.

09-10 AO on table but don’t think he wins both. Might be able to grab 1 W or USO too but not both. Very slim chance of RG in 09.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

I see that a lot of Fedfans these days complain about how Federer in his 30s faced overly strong competition, and that Djokovic and Nadal in their 30s had significantly weaker competition. They use this to claim that Djokodal "inflated" their numbers in their 30s.
However, the problem with this argument is that as it turns out, Federer lost 9 of his GS matches after turning 30 to lesser players who were not even the eventual champions, let alone any of the Big 3 members or Murray. And this excludes his 2013 season (because Fed was obviously in a slump that year, so I can understand) and I have also excluded the 1st three Slams in 2011, because until the 2011 US Open, Federer was still 29 years old. And here are the results:

2012 USO - loses to Berdych
2014 RG - loses to Gulbis
2015 AO - loses to Seppi
2016 WB - loses to Raonic
2017 USO - loses to Del Potro
2018 WB - loses to Anderson
2018 USO - loses to Milman
2019 AO - loses to Tsitsipas
2019 USO - loses to Dimitrov

Compare that to Djokovic after turning 30 (excluding 2017):
2018 AO - loses to Chung
2018 RG - loses to Cecchinato
2019 RG - loses to Thiem
2019 USO - loses to Wawrinka
(2020 does not count, because he was defaulted at USO, so we don't know what could have happened. He only lost a GS match to an unstoppable Nadal at RG that year)

Djokovic only had 4 losses to non-big 3 members or non-eventual-champions after turning 30. Djokovic is currently 36 years old, so even if we discard Federer's 2019 season, in which he was 37-38 years old, 4 is still smaller than 7. And Wimbledon 2018 happened while he was still 36.
This proves that Djokovic in his 30s was better than Federer in his 30s. It doesn't matter if Federer faced prime Djokodal or lesser players in his 30s.

 

[RS]

The Djokovic avoided Fed arguement in 04-06 and 09-early 10 is a newer line I have seen Fed fans take.

 

[fedfan24]

I see that a lot of Fedfans these days complain about how Federer in his 30s faced overly strong competition, and that Djokovic and Nadal in their 30s had significantly weaker competition. They use this to claim that Djokodal "inflated" their numbers in their 30s.
However, the problem with this argument is that as it turns out, Federer lost 9 of his GS matches after turning 30 to lesser players who were not even the eventual champions, let alone any of the Big 3 members or Murray. And this excludes his 2013 season (because Fed was obviously in a slump that year, so I can understand) and I have also excluded the 1st three Slams in 2011, because until the 2011 US Open, Federer was still 29 years old. And here are the results:

2012 USO - loses to Berdych
2014 RG - loses to Gulbis
2015 AO - loses to Seppi
2016 WB - loses to Raonic
2017 USO - loses to Del Potro
2018 WB - loses to Anderson
2018 USO - loses to Milman
2019 AO - loses to Tsitsipas
2019 USO - loses to Dimitrov

Compare that to Djokovic after turning 30 (excluding 2017):
2018 AO - loses to Chung
2018 RG - loses to Cecchinato
2019 RG - loses to Thiem
2019 USO - loses to Wawrinka
(2020 does not count, because he was defaulted at USO, so we don't know what could have happened. He only lost a GS match to an unstoppable Nadal at RG that year)

Djokovic only had 4 losses to non-big 3 members or non-eventual-champions after turning 30. Djokovic is currently 36 years old, so even if we discard Federer's 2019 season, in which he was 37-38 years old, 4 is still smaller than 7. And Wimbledon 2018 happened while he was still 36.
This proves that Djokovic in his 30s was better than Federer in his 30s. It doesn't matter if Federer faced prime Djokodal or lesser players in his 30s.

2012 USO - loses to Berdych. Good chance to win this.
2014 RG - loses to Gulbis. 0 chance.
2015 AO - loses to Seppi. 0 chance.
2016 WB - loses to Raonic. Favourite vs Murray if healthy.
2017 USO - loses to Del Potro. Slight favourite if healthy.
2018 WB - loses to Anderson. Good chance vs Djokovic if healthy. Maybe 50/50 like 2019.
2018 USO - loses to Milman. 0 chance.
2019 AO - loses to Tsitsipas. 0 chance.
2019 USO - loses to Dimitrov. 50/50 vs Nadal if healthy.

Quite a few of these he would’ve lost anyway.
I think the main point is, the difference between 30s Fed vs Djokovic isn’t 4 slams to 12. It’s a ridiculous gap that doesn’t reflect their difference in level accurately. W14/15/19, USO 15, AO 16 forms won’t be losing to anyone except a peak Djokovic. That takes him to 9 slams in his 30s.

 

[fedfan24]

I see that a lot of Fedfans these days complain about how Federer in his 30s faced overly strong competition, and that Djokovic and Nadal in their 30s had significantly weaker competition. They use this to claim that Djokodal "inflated" their numbers in their 30s.
However, the problem with this argument is that as it turns out, Federer lost 9 of his GS matches after turning 30 to lesser players who were not even the eventual champions, let alone any of the Big 3 members or Murray. And this excludes his 2013 season (because Fed was obviously in a slump that year, so I can understand) and I have also excluded the 1st three Slams in 2011, because until the 2011 US Open, Federer was still 29 years old. And here are the results:

2012 USO - loses to Berdych
2014 RG - loses to Gulbis
2015 AO - loses to Seppi
2016 WB - loses to Raonic
2017 USO - loses to Del Potro
2018 WB - loses to Anderson
2018 USO - loses to Milman
2019 AO - loses to Tsitsipas
2019 USO - loses to Dimitrov

Compare that to Djokovic after turning 30 (excluding 2017):
2018 AO - loses to Chung
2018 RG - loses to Cecchinato
2019 RG - loses to Thiem
2019 USO - loses to Wawrinka
(2020 does not count, because he was defaulted at USO, so we don't know what could have happened. He only lost a GS match to an unstoppable Nadal at RG that year)

Djokovic only had 4 losses to non-big 3 members or non-eventual-champions after turning 30. Djokovic is currently 36 years old, so even if we discard Federer's 2019 season, in which he was 37-38 years old, 4 is still smaller than 7. And Wimbledon 2018 happened while he was still 36.
This proves that Djokovic in his 30s was better than Federer in his 30s. It doesn't matter if Federer faced prime Djokodal or lesser players in his 30s.

Out of those defeats he wasn’t really in good form for any of them except for 2012 USO. He should’ve been favourite to win after the summer he’d had, perhaps a bit of burnout after long and busy season.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I see that a lot of Fedfans these days complain about how Federer in his 30s faced overly strong competition, and that Djokovic and Nadal in their 30s had significantly weaker competition. They use this to claim that Djokodal "inflated" their numbers in their 30s.
However, the problem with this argument is that as it turns out, Federer lost 9 of his GS matches after turning 30 to lesser players who were not even the eventual champions, let alone any of the Big 3 members or Murray. And this excludes his 2013 season (because Fed was obviously in a slump that year, so I can understand) and I have also excluded the 1st three Slams in 2011, because until the 2011 US Open, Federer was still 29 years old. And here are the results:

2012 USO - loses to Berdych
2014 RG - loses to Gulbis
2015 AO - loses to Seppi
2016 WB - loses to Raonic
2017 USO - loses to Del Potro
2018 WB - loses to Anderson
2018 USO - loses to Milman
2019 AO - loses to Tsitsipas
2019 USO - loses to Dimitrov

Compare that to Djokovic after turning 30 (excluding 2017):
2018 AO - loses to Chung
2018 RG - loses to Cecchinato
2019 RG - loses to Thiem
2019 USO - loses to Wawrinka
(2020 does not count, because he was defaulted at USO, so we don't know what could have happened. He only lost a GS match to an unstoppable Nadal at RG that year)

Djokovic only had 4 losses to non-big 3 members or non-eventual-champions after turning 30. Djokovic is currently 36 years old, so even if we discard Federer's 2019 season, in which he was 37-38 years old, 4 is still smaller than 7. And Wimbledon 2018 happened while he was still 36.
This proves that Djokovic in his 30s was better than Federer in his 30s. It doesn't matter if Federer faced prime Djokodal or lesser players in his 30s.

Post-2018 AO losses are quite poor but Djokovic isn't even at that age yet (though I'm sure he's not gonna lose like that, unfortunately).

Where's the loss to Alcaraz for Djoko, lol. It's not like he's better than Raonic on grass, 2016 Murray would have dispatched this year's finalists comfortably enough.

No player capable of what peak Berdych could do either these days. Given the ultra-sucky match that was the QF between Djokovic and Fritz, I'd sure have liked to see 2012 Birdie go at it.

 

[NoleFam]

Good opponent but not on same tier as prime Federer. Nadal’s 08 victory is above anything Djokovic has done there since 2014 onward.

2nd part is nonsense. Players mature at different ages sometimes. Slam H2H between the pair isn’t relevant because they didn’t meet once at a slam in 04/05/06 and Djokovic couldn’t scrape his way to almost certain defeat at 4/5 slams between 09AO-10AO. 15- Federer showed up to take his beatings.

And Nadal has 2 while Djokovic has 7. They're not even in the same tier at that tournament. Djokovic is among top 4 to have won it at least 7 times is its 146 year history and Nadal is not, so this isn't relevant.

Who cares about Slam h2h? Djokovic leads the overall head to head, and unlike the Nadal one they met pretty much everywhere and it's not crazily skewed by surface. Point is, it's hypocritical to expect Djokovic to take beatings from ATGs when Federer was at that age, he was losing to Nalbandian and Max Mirnyi.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Post-2018 AO losses are quite poor but Djokovic isn't even at that age yet (though I'm sure he's not gonna lose like that, unfortunately).

Where's the loss to Alcaraz for Djoko, lol. It's not like he's better than Raonic on grass, 2016 Murray would have dispatched this year's finalists comfortably enough.

No player capable of what peak Berdych could do either these days. Given the ultra-sucky match that was the QF between Djokovic and Fritz, I'd sure have liked to see 2012 Birdie go at it.

He is. Raonic can't even move well. His only formidable weapon is his serve and he is basically this generation's downgraded version of Roddick.

The only formidable performance by Raonic was in the 1st two sets of the 2019 AO 4th round against Zverev, which I recently rewatched carefully and gosh, I admit that it was perhaps some of the highest level of tennis I have ever seen. Imo no one, not even 2007 Federer, 2009 Nadal, or 2011 Djokovic could have stopped Raonic that day. Raonic would have obliterated those Big Three and the only way he would lose is if he suffered the same fate as Monica Seles did back in Hamburg in the middle f the match. And even then, I am not too sure. He was playing at the highest AO peak ever that day against Zverev.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sarcasm is a wonderful thing

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

He is. Raonic can't even move well. His only formidable weapon is his serve and he is basically this generation's downgraded version of Roddick.

The only formidable performance by Raonic was in the 1st two sets of the 2019 AO 4th round against Zverev, which I recently rewatched carefully and gosh, I admit that it was perhaps some of the highest level of tennis I have ever seen. Imo no one, not even 2007 Federer, 2009 Nadal, or 2011 Djokovic could have stopped Raonic that day. Raonic would have obliterated those Big Three and the only way he would lose is if he suffered the same fate as Monica Seles did back in Hamburg in the middle f the match. And even then, I am not too sure. He was playing at the highest AO peak ever that day against Zverev.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sarcasm is a wonderful thing

Kyrgios pushed Djokovic to a fourth set tiebreaker in the final and he's worse than Raonic in every facet except the serve. It's not like Meelosh is this stronk guy but he's above these mugs handily.

The Zverev match comment is just boring trolling on your part.

 

[Silentchimera]

All fed slams pre 2006 were also **** poor.

Irrelevant considering Federer's winning level. This was the greatest display of sustained peak level performance and concentrated dominance ever seen in tennis history.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

Irrelevant considering Federer's winning level. This was the greatest display of sustained peak level performance and concentrated dominance ever seen in tennis history.

Yeah because there was no peak/prime djokodal apart from baby Rafa on clay. Easy to look better against weaker opponents. I admit that’s helping Djokovic look better now and it was the same for Federer then. Both were weak eras but you Fed fans have no shame and can’t admit it.

 

[Rosstour]

All fed slams were also **** poor.

We're on TTW so I fixed it for you

 

[mike danny]

All fed slams pre 2006 were also **** poor.

Not even close.

 

[Silentchimera]

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.

Fair picks considering you are a Djokovic fan. I think Stan might have the edge over Thiem.

 

[Silentchimera]

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

Only delusional Djokovic fans and people with no integrity could argue Federer aged 33-38 = Federer aged 22-27. If someone wants to argue 5+5=8 they have no credibility and their opinion has no value.

Federer faced a significant handicap because of the 6 year age gap during the sum total of his rivalry with Djokovic. Even moreso at Wimbledon.

The facts are that Djokovic's Wimbledon title count was achieved by defeating a declined Federer and the worst competition from younger players we have ever seen.

1987-2003 born players have only won 4 slams! Del Potro has retired, Cilic is 35 and nearing retirement, Medvedev and Thiem are both hopeless on grass. Thiem has been injured or badly out of form for 3 years and he is 30 years old.

I don't mind the Djokovic fans showing off the flashy numbers. The truth is many who do this are insecure. Djokovic is one of the greatest grass court players ever but his title count does not reflect his true prowess on the surface.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

We're on TTW so I fixed it for you

Sorry, but aren't the majority of TTW users Federer fans? So shouldn't they say something like "All of Federer's Slams were very hard-earned"?

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Irrelevant considering Federer's winning level. This was the greatest display of sustained peak level performance and concentrated dominance ever seen in tennis history.

One of the greatest? Absolutely. But THE greatest? It really is debatable.
What about 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2017 versions of Nadal at Roland Garros, and 2010 and 2013 at USO?
Or 2011, 2016 and 2019 versions of Djokovic at AO, 2014-15 at Wimbledon and 2011 and 2015 at USO?

 

[Silentchimera]

One of the greatest? Absolutely. But THE greatest? It really is debatable.
What about 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2017 versions of Nadal at Roland Garros, and 2010 and 2013 at USO?
Or 2011, 2016 and 2019 versions of Djokovic at AO, 2014-15 at Wimbledon and 2011 and 2015 at USO?

Sustained peak level performance. The context was across all slams.

 

[Sport]

No such thing as "inflated" titles. They earned those thanks to their versatility, dominance, technique, talent and brutal hard work during years of training to reach that level that made them the legends they are.

 

[Hitman]

No such thing as "inflated" titles. They earned those thanks to their versatility, dominance, technique, talent and brutal hard work during years of training to reach that level that made them the legends they are.

Well said.

The discrediting of everyone's wins here is just crazy. The real world doesn't see it that way at all.

 

[jackson vile]

Long answer; Yes!

 

[Silentchimera]

Yeah because there was no peak/prime djokodal apart from baby Rafa on clay. Easy to look better against weaker opponents. I admit that’s helping Djokovic look better now and it was the same for Federer then. Both were weak eras but you Fed fans have no shame and can’t admit it.

It was easy for 03-07 Federer to look good because he was a Peak Age Tier 1 ATG. He won the slams playing top level Peak Age Tier 1 ATG tennis.

ATG's have won 71% of slams in the Open Era. ATG's have the vast majority of their best seasons during their Peak Age (21-26). If a Peak Age Tier 1 ATG wins a slam it's pretty hard to argue their level was unworthy.

I rate the strength of a year mostly by the presence of ATG's. Then I consider the age ATG's have historically produced their best tennis. If they are not making finals I mostly dont consider them to have ATG presence. Older ATG's are usually still good enough to beat the field but struggle against younger ATG's. Without younger ATG's the older ones can hang around and keep winning slams without being truly tested.

I consider 03-04 to be slightly weak. Slams were mostly won by a peaking ATG. Post Prime Age (31-35) Agassi ran rampant at AO03 but was mostly contained by Federer and his generation elsewhere.

05-06 was average and 07 was strong. Nadal was Peak Age in 07, Prime Age from 05-06. Djokovic was Prime Age in 07 and was only losing to Peak Age Federer and Nadal at the slams. 19-20 is Prime Age for ATG's. Most ATG's were already winning slams at this age.

Slams won by ATG's in Early Prime

Borg: 3
Mcenroe: 1
Wilander: 3
Becker: 2
Edberg: 1
Sampras: 1
Nadal: 2
Djokovic: 1
*Alcaraz*: 2

Early Prime ATG's (19-20) have also historically done better than Late Prime ATG's (27-30) against Peak Age ATG's (21-26) in H2H. The baby talk is nonsense not based in fact. Peak Age ATG's have historically won 2/3 matches against Late Prime ATG's. Nadal and Djokovic were both Peak Age in 08, Federer Late Prime Age in 08.

The weakest years are 1971-1973, 1998-2002 and 2014-2023 where you have Late Prime Age and Post Prime Age ATG's running amok because of a lack of competition from younger players. 2014-2016 is the best of this sorry bunch. By my measure 2002 and 2021 are the weakest of this sorry bunch. What did we get? 2021 almost had Djokovic winning a calendar slam at 34. 2002 had 4 different slam winners. Johansson at AO, Costa at RG, Hewitt at Wimbledon (sorry Lleyton, big fan i promise) and a Post Prime Age Sampras won USO after performing terribly by his standards for 2 years.

By my measure some of the strongest years were 81,85,88,90-93. Look how fierce the competition was. Packed with Peak and Prime Age ATG's. Djokovic's astronomical numbers are heavily influenced by circumstances that have never been seen before. That is the total lack of younger ATG competition to put him to the test.

The links below are a good starting place to be found on the forum.

Overall peak/prime age?

There has been long and probably neverending discusions about "What is A's peak/prime". Some (looking at you @Lew ) even claím that Federer is in his peak at 35. However this thread should not be about (or at least not only) Federer, I have higher ambitions. I would like to discuss and idealy...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Age distribution of all Open Era major finalists

[edit: updated through AO 2019] Folks I have plotted below the age distribution of all the finalists of Majors and Season-Finales (i.e. TMC, WTF etc) in the Open Era. There have been 251 such finals since the 1968 French Open, (plus 2 season finales decided by round robin.) That gives us a...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Age H2H between ATGs

In my previous thread (https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/overall-peak-prime-age.618956/#post-12379583) I split players career into 6 period (junior age (

tt.tennis-warehouse.com