Can Djokovic become the greatest HC player of all time?

[user]

AO 14 was very much in djokovic's peak years at the AO.

Peak year =/= peak level at particular tournament

AO 10 was very much peaking murray in the QF. Nadal was playing very well.

Playing very well =/= peak level. And Murray was not peaking at all.

Because he played better in AO 04, AO 05 ( even though he lost ), AO 07, AO 10 .......

Can you prove that he wouldn't have lost in each of those years had he played '09 Nadal?

 

[user]

So why are you dismissing that federer's peak level>djoker's? We are not dismissing the reverse, we are just arguing our side.

You're arguing with zero facts, just pure speculation. That's what bothers me.

 

[metsman]

AO 14 was very much in djokovic's peak years at the AO.

AO 10 was very much peaking murray in the QF. Nadal was playing very well.



Because he played better in AO 04, AO 05 ( even though he lost ), AO 07, AO 10 and arguably in AO 06 as well ...

07 and 04 are clearly the best, 09 is in a bucket with 10, 06, 05. For me it is 5th or 6th now tha ti think about it again

 

[metsman]

You're arguing with zero facts, just pure speculation. That's what bothers me.

what? we are posting stats and results of matches...that's the best we can do. Better than what the djoker fans are doing, just automatically dismissing it because 5 AO titles>4 AO titles

 

[abmk]

Peak year =/= peak level at particular tournament

I said peak years at the AO ...

Playing very well =/= peak level. And Murray was not peaking at all.

yes, I didn't say that was the very best of nadal, did I ? But it was still a very good version.

At least much closer to his very best than federer was in his loses to djokovic in AO 08 and AO 11

Of course Murray was peaking in that QF and the SF of that AO. You'd know if you actually watched those matches ...

Can you prove that he wouldn't have lost in each of those years had he played '09 Nadal?

can you prove otherwise ?

I think he'd have won.

 

[metsman]

Peak year =/= peak level at particular tournament



Playing very well =/= peak level. And Murray was not peaking at all.



Can you prove that he wouldn't have lost in each of those years had he played '09 Nadal?

you can't prove any of this that's the point, but it's still worth considering.

Better version of Federer who is younger and can sustain play for longer and not a mental snowflake against Nadal at that stage would beat '09 nadal yes...pretty straightforward. That would be 04, 05, 07, probably 06 but it would be close. Probably 5 sets. The rest would get it done in 4. Again my central assumption is that 2008 had happened yet for those versions of Federer so mentally he was still confident.

 

[abmk]

he was sick in the 07 4R match against Djoker. 51 winners, 26 errors, 12 aces 1 double, served extremely well. Won 29 more points. It was a thrashing and Djoker was inexperienced then and not at his best but he did also got to the final of IW and won Miami a month later....

well , tbh, djokovic was seeded what #15 at that time.

Federer did play very well in that match, but I am not going to use that match for an argument unless the trolling from djokovic fans turns bad, LOL !

 

[user]

what? we are posting stats and results of matches...that's the best we can do. Better than what the djoker fans are doing, just automatically dismissing it because 5 AO titles>4 AO titles

Post all you want, it's a lost cause.

can you prove otherwise ?

If you haven't noticed already, I'm not the one trying to prove anything. I'm saying that it can not be proven. All those data you posted here is useless in proving who's peak is higher.

 

[abmk]

If you haven't noticed already, I'm not the one trying to prove anything. I'm saying that it can not be proven. All those data you posted here is useless in proving who's peak is higher.

point was indicating or showing why Federer's peak level is higher at the AO.

Pray tell, what data is useful in proving whose peak is higher then !

Does winning the AO without losing a set not matter !?

 

[metsman]

well , tbh, djokovic was seeded what #15 at that time.

He did play very well in that match, but I am not going to use that match for an argument unless the trolling from djokovic fans turns bad, LOL !

I'm not using it as anything besides one of Fed's best matches at the AO, but when Djoker fans are using finals from the last two years it gets awful tempting....

 

[metsman]

Post all you want, it's a lost cause.



If you haven't noticed already, I'm not the one trying to prove anything. I'm saying that it can not be proven. All those data you posted here is useless in proving who's peak is higher.

so if I say Djoker's peak is higher you will dismiss that too I take it.

 

[abmk]

I'm not using it as anything besides one of Fed's best matches at the AO, but when Djoker fans are using finals from the last two years it gets awful tempting....

I'm waiting for another year or so ...when we'll start hearing how heroically djokovic bagelled wawrinka in the AO 15 SF after 4 intense sets !

 

[user]

point was indicating or showing why Federer's peak level is higher at the AO.

Pray tell, what data is useful in proving whose peak is higher then !

Does winning the AO without losing a set not matter !?

No reliable data to compare, especially if the two players haven't met during their most successful seasons. Winning without losing a set depends on the draw.

 

[metsman]

I'm waiting for another year or so ...when we'll start hearing how heroically djokovic bagelled wawrinka in the AO 15 SF after 4 intense sets !

You think that is bad? Wait till the bards start singing about Nole's straight sets triump over peak King of Clay at RG around 2020.

 

[user]

so if I say Djoker's peak is higher you will dismiss that too I take it.

Again, it can not be proven. Therefore = just an opinion. A biased one probably in both cases.

 

[abmk]

You think that is bad? Wait till the bards start singing about Nole's straight sets triump over peak King of Clay at RG around 2020.

I think we already have some of that here ....... ...would've been horrific had he actually gone on to win vs Stan !

We also have guys saying no version of Nadal beats Novak 2011 on clay ...

 

[user]

You think that is bad? Wait till the bards start singing about Nole's straight sets triump over peak King of Clay at RG around 2020.

Nah, nothing as bad as hearing about Feds glorious days at AO beating peak Kiefer and peakest of peaks Baghdatis in succession.

 

[abmk]

No reliable data to compare, especially if the two players haven't met during their most successful seasons. Winning without losing a set depends on the draw.

Even if they met, woudn't necessarily show whose peak level is higher as matchup would also come into play.

So you could whine about that as well .

Instead we see what happened when they played at their best at the AO and compare ....Its subjective , but it is what it is ...

 

[abmk]

Nah, nothing as bad as hearing about Feds glorious days at AO beating peak Kiefer and peakest of peaks Baghdatis in succession.

yeah, I'd like to see posts crowning those victories as Mt.Everests of tennis.

fans (including me) talk a lot more about AO 05 SF for instance -- which he actually lost, because the level of tennis was that high !

 

[mike danny]

No reliable data to compare, especially if the two players haven't met during their most successful seasons. Winning without losing a set depends on the draw.

Djokovic lost a set to Dodig in AO 2011. So it wasn't tough competition stopping him from not dropping a set.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

so 2007 USO and 2009 USO and 2012 WTF were domination?

Also Federer played some great points to come back against Gonzo in the first. He did not just give it away. Guys like Haas/Davydenko/Nalbandian were peaking, Federer still beat em. Those guys all played better than Stan 2015 did and worse than Stan 2013 but Fed beat them far easier. The other peaking opponents he played, Not Fed's fault that Safin 05 and Nadal 09 were better than Stan 13 and Nadal 12. And if Fed was at his best he wins both those matches in 4 anyways. Djoker below his peak level would have lost both those matches too judging how close Stan 13 and Nadal 12 (and Murray 12) came to beating him anyways.

And regarding your other points, Ferrero played a hell of a lot better in the 04 semi than freakin ferrer did in 13 and ferrero by default is far better than ferrer anyways. Ferrero served 58%, 6 aces no doubles, 66% first serve won, 53% second, positive winners to errors. Yet federer still thrashed him. Show me a thrashing by Djokovic where the opponent played that well...

Novak might have been close to taking a set, but in the end, it was 3-0 = domination.
GOATing Stan, Murray and Nadal were harder than any GOATin opponent Federer faced. Nobody would trash them. Haas, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Gonzo are NOBODIES compared to Stan, Murray and Nadal. Spare me the hypotheticals where Djokovic would lose. Those types are the only ones you guys ever create, and it is not rare that you use them to prove something.
Also I did not bring up Stan 2014 as a response to Safin 2005, because we were so far discussing the matches these two players actually won. Stan 2014 played an incredibly high level.

I wrote this : "Federer played decent, but not great tennis." to sum it up for both the matches.

those who say federer was at a very good level in 2011 are in denial. He was good, but nowhere near very good.

Like I already mentioned, he played well to junkball djokovic to get up 5-2, but then resorted to dumb ballbashing and lost it 5-7 ...

you say federer could not have done those sets close without playing very well ...there were patches where he played well, but not the matches as a whole ...

I'd like to know how the hell could a federer playing very well lose 9 out of 10 games ( AO 08 ) ...



^^ I already mentioned about AO 12 final ...lets see you talking about the other matches I mentioned ...

yes, the AO 13 match is one of the best, because it was .....it was more offense vs defense.




I call TOTAL and I repeat TOTAL BS on the bold part. Federer saved those SPs and clinched that set on his own. Gonzo did not give it away.





its not just about the names , nalbandian AO 04 and davydenko AO 06 were wins against GOATing opponents. But federer finished them off in 4 .....
and gonzo match in AO 07 - finished off in straights ...

why does it have to be an epic long match to win, if he can finish it off in 4 sets or even in 3 sets ....



Precisely, I didn't have to review any of the matches of Nole you mentioned. Because I've seen them and I know what Nole is capable of.

I've also seen those peaking matches of federer and I know what he is capable of.

Peak to peak, federer trumps him IMO.

So don't give me that BS that how the hell could federer's peak be better than Nole's at the AO .

Why do you keep insisting that only Federer controls the scoreline with his junkballing and ballbashing? If Djokovic plays well, Federer is not in full control. And when it comes to Melbourne, the place where I think Djokovic is the best player, he is the one with more control than anyone else.
Then I guess Djokovic won those USO semis on his own, considering the way he saved those match points. But you are probably blaming that on choking.
Again, Nalbandian, Davydenko and Gonzo are nowhere near as hard as GOATing Stan, Andy and Nadal. There is the reason why Djokovic did not finish his opponents in straights but had to go to distance.
I said his match vs Roddick at AO was the best Federer ever. That includes all the matches that I need to review a bit. But still, Djokovic's peak is higher (edit: IMO).
Federer would win on RA, Djokovic would win on Plexi. Can you agree on that?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Nah, nothing as bad as hearing about Feds glorious days at AO beating peak Kiefer and peakest of peaks Baghdatis in succession.

At least they weren't old, broken down, past-prime players.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Rafa at his best isn't all about defense though. How often we used to see him rallying from the baseline, getting to the balls that were seemingly impossible to retrieve, and then blasting a forehand or backhand down the line with no chance for the opponent to even put their racket on the ball. This way he was turning defense into lethal attack. Somewhat similar to what Djokovic is doing now.

Well of course he is not all about defense. I am just saying that he is known more for his amazing defending and counters, not for offensive approach in general. He is a contrast to Federer, who is the best example of a true aggressive player.

 

[Krish872007]

RAFA leads Djokovic 2-1 at the US Open, including winning one of their most lopsided Slam meetings with a 6-1 4th set in 2013.
And RAFA swept the American Summer Hardcourt Season that year
Federer and Djokovic both match up badly against RAFA at the AO too
And RAFA's anointment as GOAT (once he completes the Double Career Slam) will end arguments for ever.

 

[user]

Instead we see what happened when they played at their best at the AO and compare ....

All we have is Federer - Djokovic '07, '08, '11, Nadal - Federer '09, '12, '14.

Federer '07 vs Djokovic '11 is a ridiculous comparison if you are to prove anything, unless you have a time traveling machine.

At least they weren't old, broken down, past-prime players.

Kiefer was 28. Federer was a grandfather at 28. And Federer is the standard measurement unit for old age and senility...

...................................

Goodbye now. Have to go. See ya tomorrow.

 

[uliks]

Novak might have been close to taking a set, but in the end, it was 3-0 = domination.
GOATing Stan, Murray and Nadal were harder than any GOATin opponent Federer faced. Nobody would trash them. Haas, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Gonzo are NOBODIES compared to Stan, Murray and Nadal. Spare me the hypotheticals where Djokovic would lose. Those types are the only ones you guys ever create, and it is not rare that you use them to prove something.
Also I did not bring up Stan 2014 as a response to Safin 2005, because we were so far discussing the matches these two players actually won. Stan 2014 played an incredibly high level.

Why do you keep insisting that only Federer controls the scoreline with his junkballing and ballbashing? If Djokovic plays well, Federer is not in full control. And when it comes to Melbourne, the place where I think Djokovic is the best player, he is the one with more control than anyone else.
Then I guess Djokovic won those USO semis on his own, considering the way he saved those match points. But you are probably blaming that on choking.
Again, Nalbandian, Davydenko and Gonzo are nowhere near as hard as GOATing Stan, Andy and Nadal. There is the reason why Djokovic did not finish his opponents in straights but had to go to distance.
I said his match vs Roddick at AO was the best Federer ever. That includes all the matches that I need to review a bit. But still, Djokovic's peak is higher.
Federer would win on RA, Djokovic would win on Plexi. Can you agree on that?

RA is pretty simillar surface to Plexy. Djokovic will own Federer there whatever the surface...

 

[NatF]

You Nole fans are so defensive

Djokovic is greater on slow HC but I think Federer's best level is higher. Not that big a deal. Obviously it's subjective. For the record that's far less controversial than saying Federer is playing peak tennis at his age like some of you say...

 

[abmk]

Why do you keep insisting that only Federer controls the scoreline with his junkballing and ballbashing? If Djokovic plays well, Federer is not in full control. And when it comes to Melbourne, the place where I think Djokovic is the best player, he is the one with more control than anyone else.

Its not about just controlling the score, its about going to a losing strategy from a winning one.also federer's BH just didn't hold up in that match. he was leaking errors from it.

Federer played better at the AO in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 and even 2012 than he did in 08, 11.

Then I guess Djokovic won those USO semis on his own, considering the way he saved those match points. But you are probably blaming that on choking.

USO 10, djokovic saved both those MPs with brave play ..I don't blame that on choking ..

2011 was both djokovic throwing caution to the winds and federer choking ..

Again, Nalbandian, Davydenko and Gonzo are nowhere near as hard as GOATing Stan, Andy and Nadal. There is the reason why Djokovic did not finish his opponents in straights but had to go to distance.

Again, djokovic could've finished off nadal in 4, he didn't..
Again, vs GOATing stan, djokovic was rendered ineffective for a set and half. That's similar to what a GOATing federer would also do to him at the AO, if he slips up even a bit.

all of the 3 are only about half a step lesser than than the versions of stan, andy, nadal that djokovic faced. You are vastly under-estimating them.

I said his match vs Roddick at AO was the best Federer ever. That includes all the matches that I need to review a bit. But still, Djokovic's peak is higher.
Federer would win on RA, Djokovic would win on Plexi. Can you agree on that?

I could live with that

 

[nolefam_2024]

If you always want excuses you will always find them. Sad pathetic life some must leave

 

[swordtennis]

At least they weren't old, broken down, past-prime players.

Agreed. They were far worse. #ZEROATG

 

[metsman]

Novak might have been close to taking a set, but in the end, it was 3-0 = domination.
GOATing Stan, Murray and Nadal were harder than any GOATin opponent Federer faced. Nobody would trash them. Haas, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Gonzo are NOBODIES compared to Stan, Murray and Nadal. Spare me the hypotheticals where Djokovic would lose. Those types are the only ones you guys ever create, and it is not rare that you use them to prove something.

Nadal sure. But he was better in 09 than 12...surely you can't deny this.
But you're seriously gonna pretend that those guys peaking don't hold a candle to Stan and Murray? I'm not saying that they are better, but it's way way closer than you make it out to be. Stan AO 13 level is only a tiny bit above Gonzo 07, and you can even argue it the other way given Gonzo's fireworks against nadal and haas. Gonzo 07 is clearly better than Stan 15. Davydenko and Nalbandian are pretty freakin incredible when they peak...see 2007 Madrid/Paris and 2009 Shanghai-2010 AO and they are nobodies next to the mythical beast peak Murray who hit EIGHTY SIX unforced errors and hit more doubles than aces in that match?? Murray's level in that match is so overrated...it took some poor play from Djoker to even make that a close match. Should have been over in 4 or a routine 5th set instead of 7-5.

Haas too is a fantastic player with 3 wins on Novak and I can elaborate but I'm getting really f-in tired repeating to everyone who think people before 2011 were weak era clowns just because they don't have slams.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

RA is pretty simillar surface to Plexy. Djokovic will own Federer there whatever the surface...

I did not see prime Djokovic at RA so I will not assume how would he do there. However, I saw him and prime Federer on plexi, where their duels and results undoubtedly show who is better.

 

[metsman]

nadal was better in 07 AO QF than the 14 AO final(he played bad both times with UFE and was supposedly hurt both times although that was far more noticeable in 14) and Stan still drops a set where Nadal can't serve while Gonzo absolutely takes him to the cleaners like 3 2 and 4. And Gonzo's peak level is nothing compared to stan (guess how many AO finals they both got to..one guy ran into peak Fed and another ran into garbage injured Nadal)....yeah that's not a clown argument.

 

[metsman]

I did not see prime Djokovic at RA so I will not assume how would he do there. However, I saw him and prime Federer on plexi, where their duels and results undoubtedly show who is better.

wrong again with the last line but I do agree that Djoker has edge on plexi.

 

[metsman]

Nah, nothing as bad as hearing about Feds glorious days at AO beating peak Kiefer and peakest of peaks Baghdatis in succession.

if you're gonna resort to trolling you can do better considering no one is even talking about Fed's 06 AO or those guys to argue this point.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Nadal sure. But he was better in 09 than 12...surely you can't deny this.
But you're seriously gonna pretend that those guys peaking don't hold a candle to Stan and Murray? I'm not saying that they are better, but it's way way closer than you make it out to be. Stan AO 13 level is only a tiny bit above Gonzo 07, and you can even argue it the other way given Gonzo's fireworks against nadal and haas. Gonzo 07 is clearly better than Stan 15. Davydenko and Nalbandian are pretty freakin incredible when they peak...see 2007 Madrid/Paris and 2009 Shanghai-2010 AO and they are nobodies next to the mythical beast peak Murray who hit EIGHTY SIX unforced errors and hit more doubles than aces in that match?? Murray's level in that match is so overrated...it took some poor play from Djoker to even make that a close match. Should have been over in 4 or a routine 5th set instead of 7-5.

Haas too is a fantastic player with 3 wins on Novak and I can elaborate but I'm getting really f-in tired repeating to everyone who think people before 2011 were weak era clowns just because they don't have slams.

Yes, he was better in 2009, but not by much.
I did exaggerate with the nobodies remark, sorry about that. But I still think that peaking opponents Djoko had to deal with were harder. Stan 2015 was not even mentioned by me before, his level was not something to talk about. The one from the previous two years though definitely was. All those guys you listed were really impressive on a good day, but apart from the subjective opinion when comparing peaks, their inferior career achievements to the ones Stan and Andy have (at AO and in general) are making it tough for them to be considered difficult opponents at times.

wrong again with the last line but I do agree that Djoker has edge on plexi.

Where was I wrong? Prime Fed or undoubtedly?

 

[metsman]

Yes, he was better in 2009, but not by much.
I did exaggerate with the nobodies remark, sorry about that. But I still think that peaking opponents Djoko had to deal with were harder. Stan 2015 was not even mentioned by me before, his level was not something to talk about. The one from the previous two years though definitely was. All those guys you listed were really impressive on a good day, but apart from the subjective opinion when comparing peaks, their inferior career achievements to the ones Stan and Andy have (at AO and in general) are making it tough for them to be considered difficult opponents at times.

Obviously Stan/Murray have achieved more(although pretty much most/all of it came after their respective matches against djoker) but you can't talk about that comparing the peak versions that Federer and Djoker respectively faced. I mean Stan had just about nothing to his name in the way of big titles when he faced djoker in 13 and 14. Sure Murray was more accomplished but I don't get how 2 extra finals at the AO that he had before the 2012 match where he both **** the bed in make him a tougher opponent in 2012 than Davydenko in 06 or Nalby in 04. Imo if we are talking about the difficulty of facing players who aren't ATG (that makes things different because ATG have aura that can change things) then really nothing matters other than their form in that match and the tournament.

 

[abmk]

I did exaggerate with the nobodies remark, sorry about that. But I still think that peaking opponents Djoko had to deal with were harder. Stan 2015 was not even mentioned by me before, his level was not something to talk about. The one from the previous two years though definitely was. All those guys you listed were really impressive on a good day, but apart from the subjective opinion when comparing peaks, their inferior career achievements to the ones Stan and Andy have (at AO and in general) are making it tough for them to be considered difficult opponents at times.

it isn't tough at all for a somewhat neutral observer ..to see how well they were playing. I don't need Rosol's career achievements either to see how well he was playing in the 5th set vs nadal in wim 12 ...

I did not see prime Djokovic at RA so I will not assume how would he do there. However, I saw him and prime Federer on plexi, where their duels and results undoubtedly show who is better.

yeah, if 2008 AO and 2011 federer was prime federer on plexi, then 2014 USO was prime Djokovic that undoubtedly shows that prime Nishikori was better.

federer had two prime years on plexi : AO 09, AO 10 ( would've been 3 if not for sickness in 08 ) ...

 

[metsman]

it isn't tough at all for a somewhat neutral observer ..to see how well they were playing. I don't need Rosol's career achievements either to see how well he was playing in the 5th set vs nadal in wim 12 ...



yeah, if 2008 AO and 2011 federer was prime federer on plexi, then 2014 USO was prime Djokovic .........

federer had two prime years on plexi : AO 09, AO 10 ( would've been 3 if not for sickness in 08 ) ...

well you gotta make the distinction. 08 Federer was still in his prime, but likely not at a prime level in that match. Same as 14 USO Djoker. 11 AO was neither(and the final points tally was still very close). 08 and 11 AO are not garbage data points like 14 and 15 wimby say, fed was in his late 20's and still could play well off the baseline, so they can be looked at to make conclusions, but they are far from the end all be all and other data points are probably more relevant.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

it isn't tough at all for a somewhat neutral observer ..to see how well they were playing. I don't need Rosol's career achievements either to see how well he was playing in the 5th set vs nadal in wim 12 ...



yeah, if 2008 AO and 2011 federer was prime federer on plexi, then 2014 USO was prime Djokovic .........

federer had two prime years on plexi : AO 09, AO 10 ( would've been 3 if not for sickness in 08 ) ...

Fed lost to another ATG (and AO GOAT), while Djoko lost to Nishikori who will not be even remembered in ten years time.
Not a great comparison.
He wouldn't have won even if he was 100% healthy. He got to the GS semi after all. I really find it irritating how people blame a GS semi loss on a sickness while there is another player who just recently retired from tennis completely because of that same sickness. Think about that for a moment.

 

[The Fedfather]

He wouldn't have won even if he was 100% healthy. He got to the GS semi after all. I really find it irritating how people blame a GS semi loss on a sickness while there is another player who just recently retired from tennis completely because of that same sickness. Think about that for a moment.

With all due respect, that's a bit too harsh, given it's Roger Federer (who was arguably still in his prime) we're talking about. While he did get to the SF, it doesn't change the fact that he didn't play his best tennis against Novak in that match. I mean it was baby Novak and though his level in 2008 AO was very impressive I don't think he could beat Roger that easily if the latter weren't sick.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I really find it irritating how people blame a GS semi loss on a sickness while there is another player who just recently retired from tennis completely because of that same sickness. Think about that for a moment.

I understand that, but not everyone is hit by it equally seriously.

I've had colds that don't slow me down at all, and others that put me in bed.
For some people a cold is a life-threatening condition.

We can't devalue/invalidate someone else's experience of an illness just because it doesn't necessarily fit with what we think that illness should look like.

 

[abmk]

Fed lost to another ATG (and AO GOAT), while Djoko lost to Nishikori who will not be even remembered in ten years time. Not a great comparison.

so what ? if nadal, stan, murray can take djokovic to 5 on plexi ( with stan beating him ), do you think frickin' prime federer can't do the same ? at least make it a close 4 sets like RG 11 SF for instance ?

that was not prime form federer ...

He wouldn't have won even if he was 100% healthy.

yes, he would have. He'd have been the favorite. 11 of the 12 previous non-clay slams ( with the only loss being a match where he had a matchpoint ) , including beating djokovic at the last one and ending the year 2007 with a bang, crushing roddick, nadal and ferrer in succession. Previous year's AO ( 2007 ) his best AO ever ...

He got to the GS semi after all. I really find it irritating how people blame a GS semi loss on a sickness while there is another player who just recently retired from tennis completely because of that same sickness. Think about that for a moment.

there are various levels of sickness. A 99.6 degree fever is not the same as a 102 degree fever , but both are called as fever.

Federer had a very mild case of mono, Soderling a very serious one.

I am still waiting from that day for an explanation how djokovic could take 9 games out of 10 vs federer that day when he couldn't do the same in AO 11 when he was better or in RG 12 ( which is the worst federer has played in a slam vs him ) ....

 

[abmk]

well you gotta make the distinction. 08 Federer was still in his prime, but likely not at a prime level in that match. Same as 14 USO Djoker. 11 AO was neither(and the final points tally was still very close). 08 and 11 AO are not garbage data points like 14 and 15 wimby say, fed was in his late 20's and still could play well off the baseline, so they can be looked at to make conclusions, but they are far from the end all be all and other data points are probably more relevant.

I agree with regard to differentiating them.

I wouldn't look at 08 AO or 11 AO to make conclusions about federer at all. Djokovic, sure, he was playing really well.

 

[veroniquem]

If Novak wins 11 or 12 more titles this year he can overtake Nadal in overall titles. Overtaking Feds HC titles is not so important, Fed has played 6 years more, so will have to wait many more years in order to do justice with Novak. Novak already has 60 titles, 7 less than Nadal. Another season like 11 or 15 and he may catch Nadal by the end of the year.

Yeah but this thread is about becoming the greatest hard court player and Nadal is completely irrelevant in that regard (Djoko already has many more hard court titles than Nadal and it's not like Nadal would have a chance in hell to catch up), so I don't really understand your point.

 

[Fiero425]

Yeah but this thread is about becoming the greatest hard court player and Nadal is completely irrelevant in that regard (Djoko already has many more hard court titles than Nadal and it's not like Nadal would a chance in hell to catch up), so I don't really understand your point.

I never tire of looking at the record books seeing Nole's name take over some categories while inching up the ladder of others only because of longevity of Roger and earlier success of Rafa! In 2 years it'll be all about Nole and Roger with Rafa way back; esp. being #1! ;-)

 

[veroniquem]

I pretty much agree vero except for the overall titles part. It would be very difficult for Novak to overtake Fed in that department simply because he plays so few 250/500 events.

Of course. Obviously if Novak surpassed Fed in all the tier 1 stats, then overall titles by itself would not weigh much in the balance.
I gave it because I didn't want to leave anything out. I also think it is very possible (even likely) for Novak to win 14 titles or so on hard before he retires- big or small (bar sudden injury). He may not play many minor events atm but as he gets older and his chances in the big ones diminish, he will probably enter more of them (Look at Nadal, didn't win any tier 1 last year but won 3 minor events)

 

[veroniquem]

I never tire of looking at the record books seeing Nole's name take over some categories while inching up the ladder of others only because of longevity of Roger and earlier success of Rafa! In 2 years it'll be all about Nole and Roger with Rafa way back; esp. being #1! ;-)

Nadal will remain the gold standard on clay with a lead that Fed and Djoko could only dream of on any surface. The reason why Nadal lags behind for #1 is because clay is a minority surface. All #1 juggernauts were hard court specialists (Fed, Sampras, Connors...)

 

[NoleFam]

I can't believe it is 2016 and Fed fans are still talking about the mysterious "mono" that Federer supposedly had. Djokovic has had that title tucked away for 8 years now and any theoretical scenario that keeps playing around in your little head is not gonna change that. Time to move on.

 

[tennisaddict]

I can't believe it is 2016 and Fed fans are still talking about the mysterious "mono" that Federer supposedly had. Djokovic has had that title tucked away for 8 years now and any theoretical scenario that keeps playing around in your little head is not gonna change that. Time to move on.

It is 5 years since the gluten cover up, yet we hear the excuse of baby Novak for all the losses he had between 2008-2010.