Can Djokovic become the greatest HC player of all time?

Can Djokovic become the greatest HC player of all time?


  • Total voters
    90

Fiero425

Legend
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.

We demand perfection from our ATG's so excuses abound; heaven knows Rafa had enough of them! One moment he's running like a deer, but hit a few winners and he's flexing his legs in some way! ;-(
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Who are the trolls arguing Fed is better than Novak at AO??? Or had a highest peak? Most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

- Novak won more titles than anyone else at AO
- Novak won more consecutive titles than anyone else at AO
- Novak never lost an AO final (and would probably not whine it is killing him if he did...)
- Bar their very first encounter, when Novak was a teenager (and ranked only # 15), Fed has never even taken a set from Novak at AO (even though he did from his other nemesis Nadal or multiple finalist Murray)
- Novak won AO with some of the toughest slam draws of open era. For AO 2015, he had to beat 3 top 8, AO 2013: 3 top 6, AO 2012: 3 top 5 (including Murray and Nadal back to back), AO 2011: 3 top 6 (including previous year finalists Fed and Murray back to back). While Fed won 1 of his AOs with one of the biggest joke draws ever seen (2006) where he played only 1 top 10 (Davydenko, notoriously subpar in best of 5) and then semi against # 25 and final against # 54 (you must be kidding? Oh no I'm not)

And then who is the mega troll who seems to be claiming that Roddick (of all people) should be considered the golden standard against whom all and every AO perf should be measured? Is he clinically insane???
 
This question smartly try to dilute Djokovic's skill and success in all surfaces.He can win a title at any surface. But this thread try to seal him as 'king of hard courts'.Nadal also can win at any surface but he was sealed as 'king of clay'.In my opinion Federer, djokovic and nadal are greatest in all surfaces.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
This question smartly try to dilute Djokovic's skill and success in all surfaces.He can win a title at any surface. But this thread try to seal him as 'king of hard courts'.Nadal also can win at any surface but he was sealed as 'king of clay'.In my opinion Federer, djokovic and nadal are greatest in all surfaces.
Oh come on. Both Nadal and Djoko are polyvalent but Nadal is far away from any record on hard and Djoko is far away from any record on clay whereas Nadal has pulverized all existing records on clay and Fed/Djoko are vying to do it on hard. That should not be talked about? Hell yeah. I don't see why it should be taboo. (one - surface domination- doesn't exclude the other- domination overall)
 

I am the Greatest!

Professional
Fed has no claim on slow courts. Whenever he met Novak, be it Aussie, IW, Miami he got beat. And Novak has at least equal if not more titles everywhere when he is not even in line for Finland's passport.
Rafa is waiting for his chances, revealing his big weapon vs Novak which is why he is no participating in USO12 and USO14. He is Hardcourt GOAT. Anyone who disaggress, should watch RG2008.

Are you stating that Nadal is the hardcourt GOAT?
 

I am the Greatest!

Professional
Sure, he beat Novak 2 times so why not. Not to mention he was in 3 finals. 3, no one is in 3 finals at USOpen.

Stop it. Don't be delusional and ridiculous at the same time.

Roger Federer has been on 3 straight finals at the US Open. ***** THREE ***** STRAIGHT ***** FINALS. And you'll tell me no one has been on 3 finals at the US Open?

Let's stop steering away from the topic of this thread and just stop posting embarrassing comments.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Stop it. Don't be delusional and ridiculous at the same time.

Roger Federer has been on 3 straight finals at the US Open. ***** THREE ***** STRAIGHT ***** FINALS. And you'll tell me no one has been on 3 finals at the US Open?

Let's stop steering away from the topic of this thread and just stop posting embarrassing comments.

Ok. Lol.
 

user

Professional
Yes. 4 more HC Slams. 2 AO + 2 USO and he'll be.

Classic peak level trolling. He needs 11 HC Slams now. Not 9, not 10, but 11. ;)

I guess with 10 he would be equal to Federer, or maybe not? One needs to surpass the great Roger to be considered equal.
 

6august

Hall of Fame
Classic peak level trolling. He needs 11 HC Slams now. Not 9, not 10, but 11. ;)

I guess with 10 he would be equal to Federer, or maybe not? One needs to surpass the great Roger to be considered equal.

Actually my answer contains 2 parts.

1. Can he? Yes. He can and he will.

2. What more will he achieve on HC? 2 AO and 2 USO - I guess.

:D

Is that OK?

He'll also take 2 more Wimby and 2 FO to become the One Who must not be Named :rolleyes:
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
I am not saying the scoreline would have been the same. If Djokovic defeated sick Federer in tight 5 sets, then there we would definitely have a case of claiming that a healthy Fed would win. But it finished in straights. Also, the same outcome happened 3 years after that, when Fed was fully fit.
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. :)
I agree that there are different levels of sickness and that not everyone reacts the same.
However, one guy stopped playing the sport, while the other lost a GS semi. I understand that for a player like Federer (especially Fed of that time) a GS semi is not a great achievement, especially considering it was the only time in a certain 19 Slam span that he failed to reach the final. But these two are such big contrasts. As said above, if Djokovic barely won in 2008 or if Federer registered a win in a rematch, then ok, mono was most probably the cause of 2008 loss. But it finished in straight sets, so did 2011 (you said you watched the 2011 match yourself ;)).
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 ...



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 ...



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 ) ....
Looking at plexi, Stan and Rafa have accomplished as much as Federer did over the years (and have shown just as high quality tennis as he has). I do think peak Federer would make it a tight 4 or 5 setter, but the truth stands that of all big players, he challenged Novak the least. Murray and Nadal pushed him more, but they never won either. Stan is the only guy who registered a win over prime Djokovic at AO, and it took him an amazing performance and 9-7 in the 5th to do it. That is how good Novak is in Melbourne.
Federer was not the underdog in his 2008 match. Anyway, why mentioning the previous AO year? That is more of an advantage to Djokovic, who defeated Fed when he was the defending champ both times. Again, as said above, it was a straight sets win, both times. You don't get away with a straight sets win, you don't get away with a bagel or a breadstick (as you once said for some of them that Novak delivered to Rafa and Stan). All of those represent domination. You saying in the end that it was a very mild mono case just confirms it - it was not the cause of his loss.
 
I am not saying the scoreline would have been the same. If Djokovic defeated sick Federer in tight 5 sets, then there we would definitely have a case of claiming that a healthy Fed would win. But it finished in straights. Also, the same outcome happened 3 years after that, when Fed was fully fit.
2011 was very different from 2008 for both Roger and Novak. Yes, Roger was fully fit but he was also past his prime which wasn't the case in 2008. For Novak I'm sure no explanation needed. 41-match winning streak, record 5 Masters 1000, 70 matches won and only 4 lost (excluding two where he had to retire due to injury). So it's not fair to compare AO 2008 and 2011
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
2011 was very different from 2008 for both Roger and Novak. Yes, Roger was fully fit but he was also past his prime which wasn't the case in 2008. For Novak I'm sure no explanation needed. 41-match winning streak, record 5 Masters 1000, 70 matches won and only 4 lost (excluding two where he had to retire due to injury). So it's not fair to compare AO 2008 and 2011
Fed did win another Slam and was a world number 1 a year after that, so I don't think it is fair to say he was already past his prime in 2011. Djokovic's best year was 2015, but at AO only it was most probably 2011 though I agree.
What can we compare then if not 2008 and 2011 AO? :)
 
Fed did win another Slam and was a world number 1 a year after that, so I don't think it is fair to say he was already past his prime in 2011. Djokovic's best year was 2015, but at AO only it was most probably 2011 though I agree.
What can we compare then if not 2008 and 2011 AO? :)
Prime by definition is the most flourishing stage or state. Roger won Wimbledon in 2012 and was number 1 for 17 weeks that year. But it is not comparable to his 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 years in all of which (except for 2005) he won 3 GS and registered a record 237 consecutive weeks as a world number 1 (continuing into 2008). In 2005 he set a record of 81–4 (95.2%) which remains the second- best winning percentage in the Open Era behind only McEnroe's 1984. So I think it's fair to say he was already past his prime in 2011.:)
 
Last edited:

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
Prime by definition is the most flourishing stage or state. Roger won Wimbledon in 2012 and was number 1 for 17 weeks that year. But it is not comparable to his 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 years in all of which (except for 2005) he won 3 GS and registered a record 237 consecutive weeks as a world number 1 (continuing into 2008). In 2005 he set a record of 81–4 (95.2%) which remains the second- best winning percentage in the Open Era behind only McEnroe's 1984. So I think it's fair to say he was already past his prime in 2011.:)
Or maybe we can say he was no longer at his peak?
For example, none of other Novak's years can compare with his 2011 and 2015, but nobody can deny that 2012-14 was his prime as well. Fed and Djoko set incredibly high standards during their peaks that everything they achieve below it seems like they are not in their prime. :)
 

xFedal

Legend
Oh come on. Both Nadal and Djoko are polyvalent but Nadal is far away from any record on hard and Djoko is far away from any record on clay whereas Nadal has pulverized all existing records on clay and Fed/Djoko are vying to do it on hard. That should not be talked about? Hell yeah. I don't see why it should be taboo. (one - surface domination- doesn't exclude the other- domination overall)
Explain now I have never seen this word before polyvalent, what does it mean? active against several toxins?
 
Or maybe we can say he was no longer at his peak?
For example, none of other Novak's years can compare with his 2011 and 2015, but nobody can deny that 2012-14 was his prime as well. Fed and Djoko set incredibly high standards during their peaks that everything they achieve below it seems like they are not in their prime. :)
We can say that but I think it won't be correct. While I'm not sure what caused the 2012-2014 slump for Novak (there's a thread on that), Roger's level dropped because he got older and his physical form started deteriorating. Not to take anything away from the (formidable) competition he had to face past-2008. Especially Rafa and Novak whose level rose significantly. Roger, being as great as he is, still could somewhat keep up with these two but his prime had nothing to do with it. Obviously it's my opinion and therefore it's subjective. I mean some people say that Federer played his VERY best tennis these past 2 years:rolleyes:
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
We can say that but I think it won't be correct. While I'm not sure what caused the 2012-2014 slump for Novak (there's a thread on that), Roger's level dropped because he got older and his physical form started deteriorating. Not to take anything away from the (formidable) competition he had to face past-2008. Especially Rafa and Novak whose level rose significantly. Roger, being as great as he is, still could somewhat keep up with these two but his prime had nothing to do with it. Obviously it's my opinion and therefore it's subjective. I mean some people say that Federer played his VERY best tennis these past 2 years:rolleyes:
It really is an exaggeration to claim he played his best tennis in the past 2 years.
Being able to be so competitive even at this stage of his career is one of the reasons I think it is harsh to claim he was past his prime in 2011 already though. Not saying he is still in his prime of course. But IMO he is not that much greater than players like Nadal and Djokovic to be still so competitive with them, even 5-6 years since his prime ended (I guess you think it ended in 2010). IMO, the end of 2012 was the end of his.
 

PeterHo

Hall of Fame
It really is an exaggeration to claim he played his best tennis in the past 2 years.
Being able to be so competitive even at this stage of his career is one of the reasons I think it is harsh to claim he was past his prime in 2011 already though. Not saying he is still in his prime of course. But IMO he is not that much greater than players like Nadal and Djokovic to be still so competitive with them, even 5-6 years since his prime ended (I guess you think it ended in 2010). IMO, the end of 2012 was the end of his.

let me subjectively rate his years...

2004-07 peak, 100%
08 mono, 1 slam, 90%
09, another peak year, 95%
10, 1 slam, 90%
2011, some great wins, 90%
2012, 1 slam, 90%
2013, 80%
2014, 85%
2015, 90%

forecast
2016, 85%
2017, 80%
2018, 70%

90% is when he's capable of winning slams. prime or not doesn't matter, we're looking at level of play, compared to the rest of the tour.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
It really is an exaggeration to claim he played his best tennis in the past 2 years.
Being able to be so competitive even at this stage of his career is one of the reasons I think it is harsh to claim he was past his prime in 2011 already though. Not saying he is still in his prime of course. But IMO he is not that much greater than players like Nadal and Djokovic to be still so competitive with them, even 5-6 years since his prime ended (I guess you think it ended in 2010). IMO, the end of 2012 was the end of his.

I agree with 2012 being the end of his prime. But I would say he had slumps in 08 and 10 where his consistency was quite a bit lesser than it generally was during his prime - likewise Nadal was in his prime in 2009 but suffering a slump from the second half. I also think Nadal's prime began as early as 2005 and Djokovic's at least in 2008.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I agree with 2012 being the end of his prime. But I would say he had slumps in 08 and 10 where his consistency was quite a bit lesser than it generally was during his prime - likewise Nadal was in his prime in 2009 but suffering a slump from the second half. I also think Nadal's prime began as early as 2005 and Djokovic's at least in 2008.
Djokovic was better in 2007 than in 2010.
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
let me subjectively rate his years...

2004-07 peak, 100%
08 mono, 1 slam, 90%
09, another peak year, 95%
10, 1 slam, 90%
2011, some great wins, 90%
2012, 1 slam, 90%
2013, 80%
2014, 85%
2015, 90%

forecast
2016, 85%
2017, 80%
2018, 70%

90% is when he's capable of winning slams. prime or not doesn't matter, we're looking at level of play, compared to the rest of the tour.
I wouldn't rate 2008 and 2012 the same as 2011 and 2015. The latter two were a bit lower.
I agree with 2012 being the end of his prime. But I would say he had slumps in 08 and 10 where his consistency was quite a bit lesser than it generally was during his prime - likewise Nadal was in his prime in 2009 but suffering a slump from the second half. I also think Nadal's prime began as early as 2005 and Djokovic's at least in 2008.
Agreed on Federer and Nadal.
Djokovic was quite impressive in 2007 and 2008 (when not looking at the standards he set in 2011 and onwards). 2009 and 2010 until the US Open was quite a slump.
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
Which only shows you how lousy he was in 2009-2010.



Not a slump, rather a free fall. What Federer produced in any of his recent years (bar 2013) is better (level and result-wise, maybe even consistency), than what we saw from Djokovic in 2009-2010.
Iit wasn't easy to watch him in that period at all. If only he kept the 2007 and 2008 level it would have been quite enjoyable.
However the surprise in 2011 was much bigger because of that slump or a free fall as you call it. ;)
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Agreed on Federer and Nadal.
Djokovic was quite impressive in 2007 and 2008 (when not looking at the standards he set in 2011 and onwards). 2009 and 2010 until the US Open was quite a slump.

I think 2008 was certainly a prime year, considering say 12-14 IMO. I think 2007 is arguable, his level on HC wasn't far off 2008 but he had yet to become a great clay courter. But yeah 2009 was a step down and then 2010 was terrible. I think he was at a stage in his career and at an age where it circumstances had been difference he would have been playing prime tennis though. Obviously 2007 and 2008 show that. So for me...

Federer: 2003-2012
Nadal: 2005-2014
Djokovic: 2008-???
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I think 2008 was certainly a prime year, considering say 12-14 IMO. I think 2007 is arguable, his level on HC wasn't far off 2008 but he had yet to become a great clay courter. But yeah 2009 was a step down and then 2010 was terrible. I think he was at a stage in his career and at an age where it circumstances had been difference he would have been playing prime tennis though. Obviously 2007 and 2008 show that. So for me...

Federer: 2003-2012
Nadal: 2005-2014
Djokovic: 2008-???
I know I have said this before but IMO he was better on grass in 2007 than in 2008. At least he defeated a better grass player in Hewitt in 2007(past his prime but still), while he lost to Safin who was also past his prime and was terrible on grass in 2008. I judge his grass level by how he did at Wimb, not at the smaller events. And a Wimb SF >>>a Wimb 2R. So Djokovic was a better grass player in 2007, while in 2008 he was a better clay courter.
 
I think 2008 was certainly a prime year, considering say 12-14 IMO. I think 2007 is arguable, his level on HC wasn't far off 2008 but he had yet to become a great clay courter. But yeah 2009 was a step down and then 2010 was terrible. I think he was at a stage in his career and at an age where it circumstances had been difference he would have been playing prime tennis though. Obviously 2007 and 2008 show that. So for me...

Federer: 2003-2012
Nadal: 2005-2014
Djokovic: 2008-???
Well, how interesting that you defined the end of Rafa's prime there as 2014. You made that conclusion based on his very poor 2015 performance, that much is understandable. But don't you think it could be a slump year for him (or a free fall as user called it) just like 2010 was for Novak? Rafa's 29 and looks to be in a good physical shape. Mentally he is not in the best place right now, that's for sure, BUT. You might want to wait for the 2016 season to end before drawing conclusions.:)
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Well, how interesting that you defined the end of Rafa's prime there as 2014. You made that conclusion based on his very poor 2015 performance, that much is understandable. But don't you think it could be a slump year for him (or a free fall as user called it) just like 2010 was for Novak? Rafa's 29 and looks to be in a good physical shape. Mentally he is not in the best place right now, that's for sure, BUT. You might want to wait for the 2016 season to end before drawing conclusions.:)
Of course it is the end of his prime. After 10 straight of playing at a high level that was bound to happen.
 
Of course it is the end of his prime. After 10 straight of playing at a high level that was bound to happen.
Rafa is in many ways a unique player. 2014 could very well be the end of his prime but you can't be 100% sure given how sometimes, after what seemed to be the end, great players would find their way back (the most recent example that comes to mind would be Lionel Messi). It might be a very slim chance but a chance nonetheless.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Well, how interesting that you defined the end of Rafa's prime there as 2014. You made that conclusion based on his very poor 2015 performance, that much is understandable. But don't you think it could be a slump year for him (or a free fall as user called it) just like 2010 was for Novak? Rafa's 29 and looks to be in a good physical shape. Mentally he is not in the best place right now, that's for sure, BUT. You might want to wait for the 2016 season to end before drawing conclusions.:)

As of right now that's what I feel. We'll see how things develop. 2015 might just end up being a slump you're right.
 

Luka888

Professional
If you want to find an answer who is better on H.C go no further but look at 'winning %' on H.C. Before you do that wait until both Djokovic and Federer retire to be completely fair.

Right now it's very close. both players can go up and down depending when they retire etc.


1. Novak Djokovic 83.82%
2. Roger Federer 82.77%
 

xFedal

Legend
If you want to find an answer who is better on H.C go no further but look at 'winning %' on H.C. Before you do that wait until both Djokovic and Federer retire to be completely fair.

Right now it's very close. both players can go up and down depending when they retire etc.


1. Novak Djokovic 83.82%
2. Roger Federer 82.77%

Look at age wise. Take away feds wins and losses for the last six years to see what his win loss is
 

Luka888

Professional
Look at age wise. Take away feds wins and losses for the last six years to see what his win loss is
Well, I am. That's why I said 'wait till they both retire' ... Djokovic will slow down at some point, he'll get older, he'll start losing more matches on H.C. etc. That was my point ;).
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Looking at plexi, Stan and Rafa have accomplished as much as Federer did over the years (and have shown just as high quality tennis as he has). I do think peak Federer would make it a tight 4 or 5 setter, but the truth stands that of all big players, he challenged Novak the least.

yes, precisely, because of sickness in AO 08 and being past his prime in 11 .......

federer had 4 years of great tennis before plexi on rebound ace( 2004-07 ), so its understandable he wouldn't have that many on plexi. You are basically missing this or not giving this much importance.

Murray and Nadal pushed him more, but they never won either. Stan is the only guy who registered a win over prime Djokovic at AO, and it took him an amazing performance and 9-7 in the 5th to do it. That is how good Novak is in Melbourne.

and I happen to think federer's peak level at the AO is better than that of murray, nadal and stan and he's more troublesome for djokovic when on.

However good Djokovic is at Melbourne, he sure as hell is not good enough to get 9 out of 10 games vs a federer playing well/being healthy ( see AO 08 ).

Federer was not the underdog in his 2008 match. Anyway, why mentioning the previous AO year? That is more of an advantage to Djokovic, who defeated Fed when he was the defending champ both times. Again, as said above, it was a straight sets win, both times. You don't get away with a straight sets win, you don't get away with a bagel or a breadstick (as you once said for some of them that Novak delivered to Rafa and Stan). All of those represent domination. You saying in the end that it was a very mild mono case just confirms it - it was not the cause of his loss.

the very mild mono is still more than enough to knock a player off the top of the game - that was a major reason for the loss
I mentioned the previous AO year to show how good federer was at his peak at the AO. A player who won the entire tournament without losing a set and still in his prime physically does not go down in straights , unless off form or not healthy. Its as simple as that. Even casting aside the logic, it was obvious from watching federer at that AO that he was sweating a lot more than usual and seemed off.

I don't think djokovic got away w.r.t to the federer matches. He was brilliant in both the matches. But IMO, there's no denying that mild case of mono affected federer in 08 and he'd be the favorite had he been fully healthy.

2011 of course, federer was past his prime, especially on slow HC and djokovic playing that well defeated him.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Fed did win another Slam and was a world number 1 a year after that, so I don't think it is fair to say he was already past his prime in 2011. Djokovic's best year was 2015, but at AO only it was most probably 2011 though I agree.
What can we compare then if not 2008 and 2011 AO? :)

yes, federer was pretty much past his prime after AO 10 --- though he did have a resurgence after USO 11 till cincy 12 ..
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
I think 2008 was certainly a prime year, considering say 12-14 IMO. I think 2007 is arguable, his level on HC wasn't far off 2008 but he had yet to become a great clay courter. But yeah 2009 was a step down and then 2010 was terrible. I think he was at a stage in his career and at an age where it circumstances had been difference he would have been playing prime tennis though. Obviously 2007 and 2008 show that. So for me...

Federer: 2003-2012
Nadal: 2005-2014
Djokovic: 2008-???
???=2017, according to that pattern.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
A point on Federer's prime. I think if you really wanted to extend it then you would include 2011-2012, but really his best tennis stopped after AO 2010. 2012 was a resurgence of sorts, but I've always seen it as a bit of an anomaly because of the mileage and age Federer was at then. Federer had a great 2012 because he's Federer and all the superlatives that includes, but if I was to give a strict time frame for his prime it wouldn't include 2012.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
I agree with 2012 being the end of his prime. But I would say he had slumps in 08 and 10 where his consistency was quite a bit lesser than it generally was during his prime - likewise Nadal was in his prime in 2009 but suffering a slump from the second half. I also think Nadal's prime began as early as 2005 and Djokovic's at least in 2008.
Federer was garbage for a whole 6 months from March 10-Sept. 10. He wasn't anything special all of 2011 before indoors season besides 1 match at the french. His prime ended at the 2010 AO. By Federer's standards, there is no way that such long slumps (which resulted from decline of form and loss of focus) can be considered prime. He had an awful slump Iw-Rome in 09 but he then bounced back with slam winning form and nearly won 3 in a row so you can call that a slump and then a return to prime form. But a 6 month slump like that followed by good play, then meh play for another 8 months? Can't be his prime.

Federer was in late prime form on everything besides clay from 11 Fall to 12 Cincy but I'm hesitant to say his prime lasted until 2012 because that would include tons of patchy play. In the same way Djoker's prime started in 07 with a slump in 10, his peak started in 11 but he did play some peak tennis in certain events in 08. Nadal's clay peak started in 05, I'd say his prime on hard started then too, but his peak on hard started late 08. His prime on grass started 06 and ended in 11(although he did play some peak level tennis that year too) and his peak started in 07 and ended in 10
 
Top