Comparing Federer - 2004-2008, Djokovic - 2011-2015

[McEnroeisanartist]

Comparing Federer from 2004-2008 to Djokovic - 2011-2015

Grand Slams Won
Federer - 12
Djokovic - 9

Grand Slams Won or Lost to the Eventual Champion
Federer - 19
Djokovic - 18

Grand Slam Finals
Federer - 16
Djokovic - 15

Grand Slam finals won in straight sets
Federer - 6
Djokovic - 1

Grand Slam Match Wins
Federer - 123
Djokovic - 122

Top 10 Players Defeated
Djokovic - 31
Federer - 30

Pushed to 5 Sets
Federer 5-2
Djokovic - 13-3

 

[mattosgrant]

Interesting stats. Thanks for posting those. After next year they can be redone with 2004-2009 vs 2011-2016, as 2009 was Federer's last really great year in slams.

It looks like quite close, except Federer was a bit more dominant (obviously the straight sets wins, and losing only 3 non RG slams), and a bit better at converting in finals which was a problem for the Djoker from 2012-2014.

 

[BrooklynNY]

Cool stats, not to be a troll, but the Grand slam finals won in straight sets in finals, and conversion wins naturally warrants a look at the opposition, or at least some consideration for the level of the opponent, before an an outright claim of greater dominance can be made.

Granted I'm getting into semantics sort of, but there just isn't anyway to avoid that discussion.


I don't expect Fed to convert as easily against Djokovic as vs F. Gonzalez. Also, you would expect Nole to convert against Wawrinka vs Nadal. Just points for debate.

I saw a tweet by someone saying they think when all is said and done. Federer and Djokovic will have the best resumes in tennis history. Not impossible

 

[Russeljones]

Cool stats, not to be a troll

And then you started trolling.

 

[HoyaPride]

I don't think it's necessarily trolling. If Murray in his could play against Hewitt, Safin, Blake, Roddick, Ljubicic, and all of those other guys from that 2002(3)-2006(7) period, he'd probably be the No. 1 player in the world.

Most of those guys are comparable to Stan Wawrinka; they can give you trouble if they bother to show up.

 

[Algo]

He most probably wouldn't though.
Such underrating can only be deemed as trolling.

These two are so close

 

[xFedal]

Cool stats, not to be a troll, but the Grand slam finals won in straight sets in finals, and conversion wins naturally warrants a look at the opposition, or at least some consideration for the level of the opponent, before an an outright claim of greater dominance can be made.

Granted I'm getting into semantics sort of, but there just isn't anyway to avoid that discussion.


I don't expect Fed to convert as easily against Djokovic as vs F. Gonzalez. Also, you would expect Nole to convert against Wawrinka vs Nadal. Just points for debate.

I saw a tweet by someone saying they think when all is said and done. Federer and Djokovic will have the best resumes in tennis history. Not impossible

For your information, Novak is at 60% with catching up to Feds weeks at No.1.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I don't expect Fed to convert as easily against Djokovic as vs F. Gonzalez. Also, you would expect Nole to convert against Wawrinka vs Nadal. Just points for debate.

I agree with you in general. You expect a challenger like Gonzalez to be a much easier opponent in a final than a household name like Djokovic.

But because Gonzalez is one of my favorite tennis player ever, I need to remind that he went successively through Del Potro (although very young), Hewitt, Blake, Nadal (straight sets) and Haas, whom he defeated by hitting 42 winners for 3 unforced errors. 42 winners for 3 unforced errors. In a slam semi-final. He was touched by the god this day. Federer nor Djokovic could hit 42 winners for 3 unforced errors against a top 300 player.

Gonzalez was no fluke in this tournament.

Edit: And if you remember Gonzalez style, 42 winners isn't strange at all, but less than 60 unforced errors is mindbogling.

 

[Druss]

I don't think it's necessarily trolling. If Murray in his could play against Hewitt, Safin, Blake, Roddick, Ljubicic, and all of those other guys from that 2002(3)-2006(7) period, he'd probably be the No. 1 player in the world.

Most of those guys are comparable to Stan Wawrinka; they can give you trouble if they bother to show up.

I don't know why you even mentioned Blake and Ljubicic for starters, that'll be like mentioning Gasquet and Monfils for nowadays. It's interesting to note you failed to mention Agassi who was a force in 2003-04 and even 2005 had his moments. Surprisingly you also failed to mention Nadal for 2006-07 who was No 2 for quite some time, multiple slam winner, multiple slam finalists on 2 different surfaces, and multiple Masters winner on clay and HC.
Now if you're the troll that I suspect you are, you will come back to me and say that Agassi was too old.....but of course Federer at same age is not (in your biased eyes). Also you will bring up the Nadal was still a baby crap....funny that he is old enough to win multiple slams and Masters, but too young to be counted in. If I stand corrected Nadal hasn't gone past the 3rd round at Wimby since 2011! What's the excuse for that? He's too old? Yet he was a finalist there in 2006 & '07.
Bravo!!

 

[GabeT]

If you look at the overall measure of success against other players, both Nole and Fed ended up as YE1 in four of the five years described above.

But Fed had 237 consecutive weeks as number 1. Nole has 167 weeks today and will end the comparable period with 178, or so.

All three of Nadal, Federer, and Djokovik lost their number 1 but recovered it twice after having lost it.