As of now, who is the greater AO player between Federer and Djokovic?

[upchuck]

So, according to your opinion:

1. I am as good as Roddick at Wimbledon
2. I am as good as Murray at the Australian Open
3. I am as good as Borg at the US Open
4. I am as good as Soderling at the French Open

Thanks, mate!

Frequently going deep in a tournament shows you are very consistent; that doesn't, in itself, make you a greater champion of that tournament than someone who won the event the same number of times but lost in the semi-finals fewer times. There are other variables.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Fed 6 titles and 1 final
Djoker 6 titles

Fed is in front but Djoker will end up the AO GOAT

 

[merlinpinpin]

So, according to your opinion:

1. I am as good as Roddick at Wimbledon
2. I am as good as Murray at the Australian Open
3. I am as good as Borg at the US Open
4. I am as good as Soderling at the French Open

Thanks, mate!

4. Pretty sure you could also aim at being as good as your avatar at the French Open...

What this thread has established without the shadow of a doubt is that you actually had a superb career on the ATP Tour and you didn't even know it. And I'm pretty sure it's the same with all of us here. We're all champions and multimillionnaires, guys! Isn't life great?

 

[Xavier G]

It's very close if they both have 6 titles, isn't it?!?
Domination in a shorter time period (Novak) or sustained consistency and longevity (Roger). Take your pick.
H2H favours Novak who's younger and has been in his prime years. Other aspects might favour Roger. They both play exceptionally well at the AO.
It was clearly Novak until 2017, then Roger wins the last two AO's.

I think RF looks at this forum.

 

[FHtennisman]

Federer has 6 titles and Djokovic has 6 titles. If my math skills haven't diminished to much in my old age, then I would say they both have an equal number of titles at the AO. So, having said that I think we can all agree that at this moment they are both equal to each other at the AO. Hopefully, the 2019 AO final will feature Roger vs Nole and than we can have a definite answer at the end of that match. That would be EPIC because the faster court will give Roger a much better chance to beat Nole than the court used from 2008-2016.

If Roger and Rafa end up with equal Major totals, would you also say they're equals?

 

[FHtennisman]

Frequently going deep in a tournament shows you are very consistent; that doesn't, in itself, make you a greater champion of that tournament than someone who won the event the same number of times but lost in the semi-finals fewer times. There are other variables.

So according to you, a record where you win the title the same amount of times but reach do not reach another final or semi final is better than the same title count but more finals?

 

[mike danny]

So Djokovic has crushed Fed in their last three meetings at the AO AND reached 6 AO in a much quicker and more dominant way and YET he still loses the poll. Sounds like TTW!

I’m a Fed fan and YET Fed has no business winning the poll!

Picking Djokovic is not a wrong answer.

Saying Fed has no business winning this poll is pure hyperbole, no offense.

 

[Eren]

Very difficult one. I think the difference is too small between the two.

Both have six titles resulting in a tie.

Consistency:
Next best results Fed: One final and 7 SFs
Next best results Djokovic: 3 QF and two 4R
Federer has: 11 consecutive SF (2004-2014) and 14/15 SF (2004-2018) vs. 2 consecutive QFs for Djokovic

Fed wins easily in terms of consistency. Not even up for debate.

Dominance:
Djokovic has: 5/6 titles and three consecutive titles, better winning percentage overall at 88.4%
Federer has: 3/4 titles and two consecutive titles in two far removed periods (2006-2007 and 2017-2018), won once without dropping a set in 2007, more wins overall with 94, more top 10 wins overall with 21

Much closer call than deciding regarding consistency. Djokovic wins in terms of dominance IMO though Federer could stear it his way if he wins AO 2019.

The H2H is too circumstantial for me, baby Djokovic vs. peak Fed and old Fed vs. Peak Djokovic. Age gap too large, not too relevant imo. 2008 Fed was not old but he wasn't playing well. For me, the result of 2008 is as relevant as the result of 2007.

Their opponents in finals:
Fed dealt with Safin (AO champion), Nadal (AO champion), Murray (5 times finalist), Bhagdatis, Gonzalez (won against Nadal) and Cilic.
Djokovic dealt with Nadal, Murray and Tsonga (humiliated Nadal).

Slight edge to Djokovic because Federer had Bhagdatis. Zoning Gonzales = zoning Tsonga and both men beat Nadal to advance to their finals. Futhermore, both men had Nadal and Murray. Additionally, Federer had Safin (very good at the AO, 1 title and 2 additional finals) and Cilic. Bhagdatis gives the slightest of slight edges to Djokovic regarding difficulty in opponents met in the final.

I guess a Djokovic fan will favour Djokovic and Federer fans have more than enough ground to give the edge to Federer. For me, there is no clear cut answer though Djokovic has enough time to end the debate by winning 7. Federer won't win the AO anymore I think (hope I'm wrong). Federer still has 3 titles on rebound ace and 3 titles on plexicushion (nothing against Djokovic just something to behold on Federer's part).

For me at this moment, it's a tie because I value both Djokovic's dominance and Federer's consistency equally.

 

[Subway Tennis]

Very difficult one. I think the difference is too small between the two.

Both have six titles resulting in a tie.

Consistency:
Next best results Fed: One final and 7 SFs
Next best results Djokovic: 3 QF and two 4R
Federer has: 11 consecutive SF (2004-2014) and 14/15 SF (2004-2018) vs. 2 consecutive QFs for Djokovic

Fed wins easily in terms of consistency. Not even up for debate.

Dominance:
Djokovic has: 5/6 titles and three consecutive titles
Federer has: 3/4 titles and two consecutive titles in two far removed periods (2006-2007 and 2017-2018)

Much closer call than deciding regarding consistency. Djokovic wins in terms of dominance IMO though Federer could stear it his way if he wins AO 2019.

The H2H is too circumstantial for me, baby Djokovic vs. peak Fed and old Fed vs. Peak Djokovic. Age gap too large, not too relevant imo. 2008 Fed was not old but he wasn't playing well. For me, the result of 2008 is as relevant as the result of 2007.

Their opponents in finals:
Fed dealt with Safin (AO champion), Nadal (AO champion), Murray (5 times finalist), Bhagdatis, Gonzalez (won against Nadal) and Cilic.
Djokovic dealt with Nadal, Murray and Tsonga (humiliated Nadal).

Slight edge to Djokovic because Federer had Bhagdatis. Zoning Gonzales = zoning Tsonga and both men beat Nadal to advance to their finals. Futhermore, both men had Nadal and Murray. Additionally, Federer had Safin (very good at the AO, 1 title and 2 additional finals) and Cilic. Bhagdatis gives the slightest of slight edges to Djokovic regarding difficulty in opponents met in the final.

I guess a Djokovic fan will favour Djokovic and Federer fans have more than enough ground to give the edge to Federer. For me, there is no clear cut answer though Djokovic has enough time to end the debate by winning 7. Federer won't win the AO anymore I think (hope I'm wrong).

For me at this moment, it's a tie because I value both Djokovic's dominance and Federer's consistency equally.

great analysis

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Fedr has an extra final, no?

Serious question. I don't even remember tbh

 

[KINGROGER]

I wonder how many AO titles Federer would have if they didn’t change to slow plexicushion in 2008? I’m willing to bet 7 at least.

On topic, Djokovic has greater dominance at his peak, Federer greater versatility, consistency and longevity (so far). Pretty even. H2H doesn’t even factor into it for me because Djokovic avoided 09-10 Federer there.

 

[Noleberic123]

Fedr has an extra final, no?

Serious question. I don't even remember tbh

Yes Federer lost in 09 to Nadal

 

[KINGROGER]

Ugh 2011 just criminally slow. No penetration on the shots at all.

 

[Noleberic123]

Ugh 2011 just criminally slow. No penetration on the shots at all.

He beat him 2016 when it was much faster.

 

[KINGROGER]

Because Wrinker Fed is better

At least baby Novak could actually hit from the baseline with power, precision and depth. Grandpa Fed folded like a cheap suit any time he had to hit more than 2 consecutive topspin BHs.

 

[KINGROGER]

I said Djokovic before and I’ll say it again.

Let’s look at Federer's opponents and compare them to Djokovic's:
2004: Safin
2006: Baghdatis
2007: Gonzalez
2010: Murray
2017: Nadal
2018: Cilic

Now onto Djokovic..
2008: Tsonga
2011: Murray
2012: Nadal
2013: Murray
2015: Murray
2016: Murray

Both have faced great opponents including Safin, Murray, and Nadal but Baghdatis and Gonzalez really hurt Fed in this debate for me.

2011, 2015, 2016 Murray is better than 2006 Baghdatis and 2007 González?

 

[KINGROGER]

Federer won 17 and 18 only because Djokovic went downhill and each Fedfan knows it deep down. It's hands down Djokovic. Not even comparison.

Nadal and Djokovic only won any USO titles because Federer went downhill.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Djoko won three in a row.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Could it be possible they are equal in AO?

 

[RS]

Federer has won AO title on -

Rebound ace
Slow Plexicusion
And fast Plexicusion

While Dkokovic has won most of his titles on slow (4) while he had medium fast surface in 2015-16.
Plexicushion was medium when Djokovic won in 2008/2011-2013/2015. medium-fast in 2016.
Plexi isn’t a slow court.

Djokovic is better on slow hard court as we all know but at the AO having wins on variety of conditions, Fed is greater imo.

 

[swordtennis]

That guy is so deep in the cult, it's not even funny.

I know. I like mikes passion. However i really dislike engaging him and the other fed fans. It turns into this infinite loop of evidence of peak prime decline fed invincible. Can not even discuss other players without this mob of fed fans demanding you tow the fed line and that player being discussed stands no chance against the mythical peak prime fed. One needs to be in the right mindset to engage.

 

[swordtennis]

Nadal and Djokovic only won any USO titles because Federer went downhill.

HUH? WUT?

 

[swordtennis]

Could it be possible they are equal in AO?

That is how i see it. Fed fans triggered one two three....

 

[Eren]

I know. I like mikes passion. However i really dislike engaging him and the other fed fans. It turns into this infinite loop of evidence of peak prime decline fed invincible. Can not even discuss other players without this mob of fed fans demanding you tow the fed line and that player being discussed stands no chance against the mythical peak prime fed. One needs to be in the right mindset to engage.

Yeah, on the other hand, morons diminishing Fed's Slam wins and calling him a weak player for winning in a supposedly weak era aren't much better. It does make it sometimes difficult to have a good discussion on topics like these. As I already said in post #158, they're equals in my book as things stand now (Yes, I am a Federer fan).

 

[swordtennis]

Yeah, on the other hand, morons diminishing Fed's Slam wins and calling him a weak player for winning in a supposedly weak era aren't much better. It does make it sometimes difficult to have a good discussion on topics like these. As I already said in post #158, they're equals in my book as things stand now.

I am with you main man. Ditto.

 

[mike danny]

I know. I like mikes passion. However i really dislike engaging him and the other fed fans. It turns into this infinite loop of evidence of peak prime decline fed invincible. Can not even discuss other players without this mob of fed fans demanding you tow the fed line and that player being discussed stands no chance against the mythical peak prime fed. One needs to be in the right mindset to engage.

Ok, I promise I won't say any of that stuff. Express your opinion now

 

[swordtennis]

Ok, I promise I won't say any of that stuff. Express your opinion now

Lol you guys are so good at it i dont stand a chance i am just a simple minded tennis/ djokovic fan. Fedal fans are like the experts on this stuff due to vast experience.
To me feds 2007 and 2017 titles put him firmly equal and if one wants to put him ahead with the extra title i can understand that. Djokovics dominance and that 2012 title really helps him. If he did not have that 2012 there is really no argument for djokovic imo.

 

[mike danny]

Lol you guys are so good at it i dont stand a chance i am just a simple minded tennis/ djokovic fan. Fedal fans are like the experts on this stuff due to vast experience.
To me feds 2007 and 2017 titles put him firmly equal and if one wants to put him ahead with the extra title i can understand that. Djokovics dominance and that 2012 title really helps him. If he did not have that 2012 there is really no argument for djokovic imo.

That 2012 title was his toughest slam title. Overcame all odds.

I remember him dropping to the floor after one long exchange in the final. Don't know how he pulled off the win in the end when outlasting Nadal in a slam final back then was considered mission impossible

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

I know. I like mikes passion. However i really dislike engaging him and the other fed fans. It turns into this infinite loop of evidence of peak prime decline fed invincible. Can not even discuss other players without this mob of fed fans demanding you tow the fed line and that player being discussed stands no chance against the mythical peak prime fed. One needs to be in the right mindset to engage.

The only slam they can't find any arguments that Fed is the best is RG.
So there they just say that clay don't count

 

[swordtennis]

That 2012 title was his toughest slam title. Overcame all odds.

I remember him dropping to the floor after one long exchange in the final. Don't know how he pulled off the win in the end when outlasting Nadal in a slam final back then was considered mission impossible

I think nadal is still strong in the 5 setters. I just think fed a djoker have solved some of nadals puzzles. Djokovic did it sooner. Fed just has a harder time dealing when nadal gets in animal mode. It imperative fed does not get into trench warfare with him.

 

[mike danny]

The only slam they can't find any arguments that Fed is the best is RG.
So there they just say that clay don't count

Never said clay doesn't count.

But others have said grass should be extinct, so that's also bad.

 

[swordtennis]

The only slam they can't find any arguments that Fed is the best is RG.
So there they just say that clay don't count

I have noticed that. I dont agree with it. Nadal is just so clay bloated it tends to be a target on his back.

 

[Mark jd]

I think nadal is still strong in the 5 setters. I just think fed a djoker have solved some of nadals puzzles. Djokovic did it sooner. Fed just has a harder time dealing when nadal gets in animal mode. It imperative fed does not get into trench warfare with him.

Nadal declined a lot in long matches recently. I expect him to lose every fifth set he now plays. Against any opponent.

 

[mike danny]

I think nadal is still strong in the 5 setters. I just think fed a djoker have solved some of nadals puzzles. Djokovic did it sooner. Fed just has a harder time dealing when nadal gets in animal mode. It imperative fed does not get into trench warfare with him.

Nadal is still strong in 5 setters, but not as strong as he used to be.

As long as his opponents don't give up and continue to pounce, they can beat Rafa in a 5th set. Mostly because Rafa works too hard to save BP's and 0-30's, harder than Fedovic IMO.

 

[swordtennis]

Nadal declined a lot in long matches recently. I expect him to lose every fifth set he now plays. Against any opponent.

He could but i do not know about that. He just had two rough 5 setters in a row on grass and did pretty good. Clay and us open i can not agree with you at this time. Lets give credit to djokovic for that wimbledon. Anyone else nadal wins.

 

[hothanded]

Nadal is still strong in 5 setters, but not as strong as he used to be.

As long as his opponents don't give up and continue to pounce, they can beat Rafa in a 5th set. Mostly because Rafa works too hard to save BP's and 0-30's, harder than Fedovic IMO.

Honestly in both the Australian Open loss to Federer and Wimbledon loss to Djokovic he seemed tired and a bit dragged in the 5th set. Maybe for the exact reason you said in your second line. That part kind of always applied to him though, but maybe getting older he no longer has the superhuman endurance and athleticsm to overcome it as easily.

 

[mike danny]

Honestly in both the Australian Open loss to Federer and Wimbledon loss to Djokovic he seemed tired and a bit dragged in the 5th set. Maybe for the exact reason you said in your second line. That part kind of always applied to him though, but maybe getting older he no longer has the superhuman endurance and athleticsm to overcome it as easily.

Watch the 5th set of AO 2017 again and see how many BP's he saved.

Watch the Wimb 2018 match and how many BP's and 0-30's he had to fight off just before the 5th set.

It tires you mentally at one point.

 

[hothanded]

Watch the 5th set of AO 2017 again and see how many BP's he saved.

Watch the Wimb 2018 match and how many BP's and 0-30's he had to fight off just before the 5th set.

It tires you mentally at one point.

Yeah exactly, and mental fatigue probably heightens physical fatigue which already exists even more.

 

[Mark jd]

He could but i do not know about that. He just had two rough 5 setters in a row on grass and did pretty good. Clay and us open i can not agree with you at this time. Lets give credit to djokovic for that wimbledon. Anyone else nadal wins.

I give full credit to Djokovic, he played great tennis. But it doesn't mean Nadal had no chances and couldn't do better than he did. Nadal's record in fifth sets is 3-7 in his last 10 five set matches. I wouldn't call that a good record.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah exactly, and mental fatigue probably heightens physical fatigue which already exists even more.

Mental fatigue is worse IMO.

 

[Mark jd]

Mental fatigue is worse IMO.

Yes, Nadal has to work hard to hold his serve but it's not like he has no chances to break himself. He just doesn't use them. People like to talk how many break points Federer wastes. I wonder why people don't see that Nadal does the same, at least outside of clay.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Nadal and Djokovic only won any USO and Wimbledon titles because Federer went downhill.

FTFY

 

[KINGROGER]

FTFY

True! Nadal needed Monorerer then Backererer (who Berdych took out) to win 2 Wimbledon’s.

 

[Deon Sanders]

Its easy

They have the same number of titles but Roger has far more final friday and beyond runs

 

[TMF]

Murray, Nadal, Federer vs Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Ferrero...wow really tough question ROFLMAO, the delusion of some knows no bounds.

You forgot Safin, Agassi, Nadal, Nole

 

[Phoenix1983]

Roger Federer, the GOAT, gets my vote in this poll.

 

[NatF]

Yeah, on the other hand, morons diminishing Fed's Slam wins and calling him a weak player for winning in a supposedly weak era aren't much better. It does make it sometimes difficult to have a good discussion on topics like these. As I already said in post #158, they're equals in my book as things stand now (Yes, I am a Federer fan).

I think all three options are reasonable depending on what you value e.g. purely titles, dominance or consistency.

 

[Mr Feeny]

If Roger and Rafa end up with equal Major totals, would you also say they're equals?

I think that's a bit of a different comparison. That would be a comparison of who the better player is and weeks at number 1 (the measure of their dominance to the field) would come into play.

If we're discussing records at an individual major, surely most agree that we ought to look at slams win and using tiebreakers if they're level (e.g. number of finals each reached).

 

[FHtennisman]

I think that's a bit of a different comparison. That would be a comparison of who the better player is and weeks at number 1 (the measure of their dominance to the field) would come into play.

If we're discussing records at an individual major, surely most agree that we ought to look at slams win and using tiebreakers if they're level (e.g. number of finals each reached).

Yep I'm fine with having consistent criteria, but some posters tend to push agendas based on their favourite players.

 

[Mr Feeny]

Yep I'm fine with having consistent criteria, but some posters tend to push agendas based on their favourite players.

True. Sports fans in general do that.