Can Djokovic become the greatest HC player of all time?

[user]

Interesting stat:

Federer 2010: 65-13 record; 2/13 losses to Nadal or Djokovic; W, QF, QF, SF;
Federer 2011: 64-12 record; 7/12 losses to Nadal or Djokovic; SF, F, QF, SF;

IMO, Nadal and improved Djokovic were the main reasons why he underachieved result-wise in 2011. It was not the case in 2010. I've said it once, Federer's level was probably not worse on average in 2011 compared to 2010, maybe even better. He had more bad losses in 2010 obviously. He won 2010 AO, but he was much closer to winning RG and USO in 2011.

Had Djokovic stayed on his 2010 level it would mean 3 x Slam final for Federer. Not a prime year by Federer's standards ofc, but still...

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

I think 2018 is a good bet for when there is a real noticeable decline. I think he will be less consistent in 2017 but probably still the best player on the tour but a significant degree.

We will have a better view at the end of 2016 I think, when we will see how much he has changed compared to 2015.

 

[jm1980]

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.

That was not baby Novak, just Slumpovic, who was at times worse than baby Novak.

 

[The Fedfather]

Not a prime year by Federer's standards ofc, but still...

Going back to the AO 2008 and 2011 comparison. Roger wasn't playing badly at the AO 2011 but by his standarts he wasn't playing great, Novak, on the other hand, had the time of his life with the level of play he produced that year. Result: Novak wins in straight fair and square. Now, for 2008 , when Roger was, let's say, still in his peak, coming off a great season and Novak was just entering his prime, his level clearly worse than in 2011. Result: Novak wins in straight because, as it turned out, Roger had mononucleosis (google it), which really affected his performance in that SF. We don't know what the outcome of that match would be if Roger was 100% healthy. Novak obviously could still win it, but Roger's chances would be very good (>50%) if he weren't sick.

 

[user]

Going back to the AO 2008 and 2011 comparison. Roger wasn't playing badly at the AO 2011 but by his standarts he wasn't playing great, Novak, on the other hand, had the time of his life with the level of play he produced that year. Result: Novak wins in straight fair and square. Now, for 2008 , when Roger was, let's say, still in his peak, coming off a great season and Novak was just entering his prime, his level clearly worse than in 2011. Result: Novak wins in straight because, as it turned out, Roger had mononucleosis (google it), which really affected his performance in that SF. We don't know what the outcome of that match would be if Roger was 100% healthy. Novak obviously could still win it, but Roger's chances would be very good (>50%) if he weren't sick.

I know what mononucleosis is, Soderling had one. Career ender.
Djokovic won that match, that's all that matters. Everything else is just speculation.

I wonder, if by any chance we had a bit more experienced Djokovic in that USO 2007 final, and he converts some of those set points he had, would this mononucleosis thing start to work retroactively or what?

 

[metsman]

Interesting stat:

Federer 2010: 65-13 record; 2/13 losses to Nadal or Djokovic; W, QF, QF, SF;
Federer 2011: 64-12 record; 7/12 losses to Nadal or Djokovic; SF, F, QF, SF;

IMO, Nadal and improved Djokovic were the main reasons why he underachieved result-wise in 2011. It was not the case in 2010. I've said it once, Federer's level was probably not worse on average in 2011 compared to 2010, maybe even better. He had more bad losses in 2010 obviously. He won 2010 AO, but he was much closer to winning RG and USO in 2011.

Had Djokovic stayed on his 2010 level it would mean 3 x Slam final for Federer. Not a prime year by Federer's standards ofc, but still...

federer was better in 2011 compared to 2010 everywhere besides AO, YEC, and Cincy. No one is arguing that. People forget how god damn bad Federer was after the AO and before indoors in 2010. Even when he was going deep into tournaments his form seemed so underwhelming.

 

[metsman]

I know what mononucleosis is, Soderling had one. Career ender.
Djokovic won that match, that's all that matters. Everything else is just speculation.

I wonder, if by any chance we had a bit more experienced Djokovic in that USO 2007 final, and he converts some of those set points he had, would this mononucleosis thing start to work retroactively or what?

it's foolish to think Djoker would have won the 07 USO final or even gotten it to 5 sets no matter how many set points he had. Points wise, both the 08 and 11 AO match were closer and if Djoker were to win a set Federer would raise his level and make it a formality. Look at the 06 Wimbledon final...Nadal chokes a set, but then wins one, and then Federer torches him in the 4th. Similar deal here and given matchups, it would have been easier to do that to Djoker than Nadal.

And are you trolling right now with the Soderling example?

 

[The Fedfather]

I know what mononucleosis is, Soderling had one. Career ender.
Djokovic won that match, that's all that matters. Everything else is just speculation.

I wonder, if by any chance we had a bit more experienced Djokovic in that USO 2007 final, and he converts some of those set points he had, would this mononucleosis thing start to work retroactively or what?

Good that you know. It means you understand that Soderling was very unlucky to have his career ended because of the desease that, and I quote, " generally resolves without medical help, though it may last from weeks to months", also "serious complications only rarely occur".
By the way, the answer to you question is what because "this mononucleosis thing" doesn't work retroactively.

 

[abmk]

federer was better in 2011 compared to 2010 everywhere besides AO, YEC, and Cincy. No one is arguing that. People forget how god damn bad Federer was after the AO and before indoors in 2010. Even when he was going deep into tournaments his form seemed so underwhelming.

This is true. He was more consistent in 2011 clearly. But his highest highs were higher in 10 -- AO and the YEC especially. He blitzed tsonga and murray ..

Took out everyone in straights at the YEC, except nadal and even in that match, nadal was no match in sets 1 and sets 3 for him.

in 2011, his highest highs were lesser from a tournament PoV , isolated matches yes, but not 2 or more matches ...RG 2011 SF and YEC 11 RR vs nadal and Paris 11 vs berdych were isolated matches ..

 

[abmk]

it's foolish to think Djoker would have won the 07 USO final or even gotten it to 5 sets no matter how many set points he had. Points wise, both the 08 and 11 AO match were closer and if Djoker were to win a set Federer would raise his level and make it a formality. Look at the 06 Wimbledon final...Nadal chokes a set, but then wins one, and then Federer torches him in the 4th. Similar deal here and given matchups, it would have been easier to do that to Djoker than Nadal.

And are you trolling right now with the Soderling example?

pretty much this ....

 

[user]

it's foolish to think Djoker would have won the 07 USO final or even gotten it to 5 sets no matter how many set points he had. Points wise, both the 08 and 11 AO match were closer and if Djoker were to win a set Federer would raise his level and make it a formality. Look at the 06 Wimbledon final...Nadal chokes a set, but then wins one, and then Federer torches him in the 4th. Similar deal here and given matchups, it would have been easier to do that to Djoker than Nadal.

I don't think it's foolish at all. You're underestimating the power of experience + mentality combo. Total points stat is irrelevant here, since Federer is always the guy with better serve (vs Nadal, Djokovic, Murray etc.), and usually wins servis games more easily. Look at Wimbledon 2007: Would Federer still be able to "raise his level and make it a formality" in the fifth set if Nadal wasn't forced to play for 8 consecutive days? I'm not so sure really.

And are you trolling right now with the Soderling example?

No, mononucleosis is real, not to be taken lightly.

 

[metsman]

I don't think it's foolish at all. You're underestimating the power of experience + mentality combo. Total points stat is irrelevant here, since Federer is always the guy with better serve (vs Nadal, Djokovic, Murray etc.), and usually wins servis games more easily. Look at Wimbledon 2007: Would Federer still be able to "raise his level and make it a formality" in the fifth set if Nadal wasn't forced to play for 8 consecutive days? I'm not so sure really.

Oh you think Nadal played poorly in the 5th set of 07 or was tired or something? That's cute. Got 4 break points early in the set, Fed saved them with clutch serving, Nadal made like 1 or 2 errors and at least 1 was forced. Then Fed breaks Nadal with 3 forehand winners and then holds serve with 3 aces. Goes from 2-2 15-40 to 5-2 Federer in a hurry 95% because Federer went into god mode and found the range on his forehand. That's called raising your game and has nothing to do with Nadal being tired, he wasn't tired. Watch the match. The 5th set was about the closest 6-2 set you will see.

You just refuse to understand that there can maybe be different severity of mono? That even a mild case can hurt you just enough to make you play worse in a grand slam semifinal where being even a little below your best physically has big consequences? Tennis is a game of very small margin. This has been told to you many times with examples and yet you still refuse to understand it so I wonder if you were trolling.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Why did this thread became peak Novak vs peak Roger on hard courts? LOL.

''peak this peak that peak onion peak carrot''
funny how this peak thing is used in every thread but H2H (a more relevant metric) is said to be irrelevant...

for example peak Anderson is probably higher than peak Ferrer, but that does not mean Anderson is greater or better than Ferrer, not at all.

 

[user]

Oh you think Nadal played poorly in the 5th set of 07 or was tired or something? That's cute. Got 4 break points early in the set, Fed saved them with clutch serving, Nadal made like 1 or 2 errors and at least 1 was forced. Then Fed breaks Nadal with 3 forehand winners and then holds serve with 3 aces. Goes from 2-2 15-40 to 5-2 Federer in a hurry 95% because Federer went into god mode and found the range on his forehand. That's called raising your game and has nothing to do with Nadal being tired, he wasn't tired. Watch the match. The 5th set was about the closest 6-2 set you will see.

Federer won 1st and 3rd in a TB. Nadal won 2nd and 4th easier. Maybe it wouldn't go to the 5th at all.

You just refuse to understand that there can maybe be different severity of mono? That even a mild case can hurt you just enough to make you play worse in a grand slam semifinal where being even a little below your best physically has big consequences? Tennis is a game of very small margin. This has been told to you many times with examples and yet you still refuse to understand it so I wonder if you were trolling.

"A mild case of mono" is not the only condition that can hurt you "just enough to make you play worse in a grand slam semifinal where being even a little below your best physically has big consequences". A common cold can do that, too. And a number of other conditions that happen all the time, that tennis players are not immune from, as the rest of us. Is it wrong to say that Djokovic's breathing problems untill 2011 had similar effects on his level of play, holding him back? Is it any different to say that he was sick during RG 2014 SF and F, so he couldn't be at his best?
It's just that you guys are so persistent with labeling mono as the only factor responsible for Federer's loss, that it's hard not to find it irritating.

 

[NatF]

''peak this peak that peak onion peak carrot''
funny how this peak thing is used in every thread but H2H (a more relevant metric) is said to be irrelevant...

for example peak Anderson is probably higher than peak Ferrer, but that does not mean Anderson is greater or better than Ferrer, not at all.

That would depend on achievements and how often we saw 'peak' Anderson. In this case we're talking about someone with 4 AO, 4 IW and 2 Miami and a ton of great matches. So while Djokovic has won more to say "IMO Federer at his best was a little better but he lacks the consistency and longevity" is not so unreasonable. Of course if you shy away from discussions of peak/prime etc...altogether then that's fair enough.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

That would depend on achievements and how often we saw 'peak' Anderson. In this case we're talking about someone with 4 AO, 4 IW and 2 Miami and a ton of great matches. So while Djokovic has won more to say "IMO Federer at his best was a little better but he lacks the consistency and longevity" is not so unreasonable. Of course if you shy away from discussions of peak/prime etc...altogether then that's fair enough.

I think great champions like Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Sampras etc are as good as their ability to win big matches when they are not at their best: Djokovic vs Tsonga at the FO 2012, Federer vs Tipsarevic at the AO 2008, Nadal vs Dimitrov AO 2014. Sampras vs Corretja etc.

 

[NatF]

I think great champions like Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Sampras etc are as good as their ability to win big matches when they are not at their best: Djokovic vs Tsonga at the FO 2012, Federer vs Tipsarevic at the AO 2008, Nadal vs Dimitrov AO 2014. Sampras vs Corretja etc.

I can't disagree with this. Winning when not at your best is what separates great players from all time greats.

 

[nmanimaran15]

Oh you think Nadal played poorly in the 5th set of 07 or was tired or something? That's cute. Got 4 break points early in the set, Fed saved them with clutch serving, Nadal made like 1 or 2 errors and at least 1 was forced. Then Fed breaks Nadal with 3 forehand winners and then holds serve with 3 aces. Goes from 2-2 15-40 to 5-2 Federer in a hurry 95% because Federer went into god mode and found the range on his forehand. That's called raising your game and has nothing to do with Nadal being tired, he wasn't tired. Watch the match. The 5th set was about the closest 6-2 set you will see.

You just refuse to understand that there can maybe be different severity of mono? That even a mild case can hurt you just enough to make you play worse in a grand slam semifinal where being even a little below your best physically has big consequences? Tennis is a game of very small margin. This has been told to you many times with examples and yet you still refuse to understand it so I wonder if you were trolling.

Don't care about nadal fans. They are like kids. Whenever nadal loses, they have told that nadal injured or nadal was tired. That gives some consolation to them. Leave it.

 

[kandamrgam]

Bump.. As of now,

Majors:
Federer - 9
Djokovic - 8

Finals:
Federer - 6
Djokovic - 5

1 more Major (preferrably UO) + WTF will do it for me.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Bump.. As of now,

Majors:
Federer - 9
Djokovic - 8

Finals:
Federer - 6
Djokovic - 5

1 more Major (preferrably UO) + WTF will do it for me.

Don't forget about hardcourt match wins...

Majors:

Federer: 158
Djokovic: 114

YECs:

Federer: 52
Djokovic: 27

 

[kandamrgam]

Don't forget about hardcourt match wins...

Majors:

Federer: 158
Djokovic: 114

YECs:

Federer: 52
Djokovic: 27

Record: MOST MATCHES WON HARD

# Player Nationality Matches Won

1 CONNORS, JIMMY

USA 861

2 FEDERER, ROGER

SUI 714

3 AGASSI, ANDRE

USA 668

Federer can match Connor's, difficult but doable.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Record: MOST MATCHES WON HARD

# Player Nationality Matches Won

1 CONNORS, JIMMY

USA 861

2 FEDERER, ROGER

SUI 714

3 AGASSI, ANDRE

USA 668

Federer can match Connor's, difficult but doable.

What's your source for that? A couple of Connors' stats are out of reach, IMO. But I do question these figures, at least for Fed. Think they're less.

Believe Fed has 668 hard court wins, and Djok has 479. Not sure about HC match wins for Connors.

 

[Djokovic2011]

What's your source for that? A couple of Connors' stats are out of reach, IMO. But I do question these figures, at least for Fed. Think they're less.

Believe Fed has 668 hard court wins, and Djok has 479. Not sure about HC match wins for Connors.

Perhaps Federer's wins on carpet were included?

 

[Deleted member 743561]

.

 

[RF-18]

Seems like Djokovic may very well become better/greater on 2 surfaces than fed.. HC and Clay. Not much seperates them on hard now. Federer has to start defending himself.

 

[kandamrgam]

What's your source for that? A couple of Connors' stats are out of reach, IMO. But I do question these figures, at least for Fed. Think they're less.

Believe Fed has 668 hard court wins, and Djok has 479. Not sure about HC match wins for Connors.

https://app.thetennisbase.com/?enlace=records&id=QKPWODFDSN Perhaps they include challengers, qualies and futures?

 

[tennisaddict]

But why? Cilic does not even need to score 1 win against Djokovic to make you think that he has a case beating Djokovic. #hypocritecaught

Is the fact that Cilic being a Croatian bugging you ? if Novak can lose to Karlovic and Isner, he can lose to Cilic as well.

Is Cilic = Karlovic and Isner? No. You're repeating yourself, but no that ain't going to save you from the embarrassment.

And LMAO at the "Croatian/"Racist" card. Is that what you do when you lose an argument? That's pathetic. Ask anyone.

(FYI, I'm not even an European, so why do I care?)

He has their game and something more as well. There is no embarassment whatsoever. I was not the one go into hiding after Basel'15. The forum knows and laughed at you for all those silly comments.

The one who got embarassed is you for saying Rafa will beat Fed to pulp at Basel.

Ask any reasonable person here if Cilic can be a threat to Djokovic and they would agree. Infact , Cilic took 5 sets at Wimb 14 and yet you seem to ignore that totally.

There are already other people laughing at your baseless prediction. No need to ask any more. So what if I got 1 prediction wrong (FYI, even that was based on REAL H2H Stats and their history)? I've got almost all other predictions right. Why don't you go and expose me of being so awesome in making those?

Oh wait, I forgot. You're a hypocrite and will definitely not have the guts to do that.

That's obviously not what we said. We are just laughing at you thinking a pigeon like Cilic is a threat to his master Djokovic. Basically, everyone still playing MAY, in theory, have a chance beating him, but that is just stating the obvious (not even worth mentioning).

And what about 13 other times when Cilic was not injured? What's your EXCUSE then?

Listen, I don't make stupid statements like Rafa will beat Fed to pulp and hide for 2 days when it did not turn out so.

I consider Cilic a threat still . I am backing up the statement by showing he took Djokovic to 5 sets. Not sure what more you need to hear. It is not that i said Schwartzman or Lorenzi will beat Novak. Cilic is a grand slam champion. have some respect.

At this point, I am going to not respond to you on this. I will bump it up the time when Cilic or some other pigeon of Novak record their first win against him .

@CYGS Sorry , but had to bump this. Your bubble burst within the year

Your 2015 epic fail was your prediction about Nadal beating Fed to pulp at Basel

Your 2016 epic fail is thinking Cilic will never beat Djokovic or saying it is stupid to think Cilic can be a threat to Djoker.

 

[xFedal]

Djokovic is still very close... He is better than Federer on Clay.... And Federer is ahead on Hard courts not because he is better but because he is couple of years older....

 

[mike danny]

Djokovic is still very close... He is better than Federer on Clay.... And Federer is ahead on Hard courts not because he is better but because he is couple of years older....

At the same age as Djokovic he still had 1 more HC slam.

 

[xFedal]

At the same age as Djokovic he still had 1 more HC slam.

Yes I know he is ahead by 1.... Federer at the same stage as Novak never a hard court slam again.... Novak needs to do what Federer couldn't and thats win a hard court slam 1 year later.... Which shows longer longevity between 1st and last hard court slam won...

 

[timnz]

Djokovic is still very close... He is better than Federer on Clay.... And Federer is ahead on Hard courts not because he is better but because he is couple of years older....

On what basis do you put Djokovic ahead on clay? 1 French open each but Federer has reached one more final. Djokovic slightly ahead on clay Masters 1000 wins but Federer has made more clay masters 1000 finals - I would say it is very close

 

[xFedal]

On what basis do you put Djokovic ahead on clay? 1 French open each but Federer has reached one more final. Djokovic slightly ahead on clay Masters 1000 wins but Federer has made more clay masters 1000 finals - I would say it is very close

4 Rome titles... 2 Monte Carlo Titles and 2 time Madrid Open Champion.... Fed has not won Italian Open or Monte Carlo... Djokovic has more titles on clay as well with less time spent on tour....

 

[EdSWright]

Part of his vegan approach is that he now has a strict aversion towards non-natural surfaces.

 

[ImmorTAL Big 3]

He is now

 

[uscwang]

On what basis do you put Djokovic ahead on clay? 1 French open each but Federer has reached one more final. Djokovic slightly ahead on clay Masters 1000 wins but Federer has made more clay masters 1000 finals - I would say it is very close

This is settled now too.

 

[Unseeded Player]

It's done, he is best HC player.

 

[fedfan24]

prime to prime
Ao
6>4 djokovic
Uso 5>2 federer

 

[Unseeded Player]

prime to prime
Ao
6>4 djokovic
Uso 5>2 federer

Compare the opponenst and there you have the answer. Fed won title last time in 2008.

 

[timnz]

This is settled now too.

Yes, I wrote my comment years ago.

 

[Hitman]

14 HC slams, 6 YEC, 28 HC Masters = Yes he is now.