Detailed comparison of Federer vs Djokovic at slams in their 30s - win %s, opponents faced, averages per slam etc

So most of the slams won by Djokovic and Nadal are post peak?

All of them are, actually. As we know, younger is always better. It follows that players are in decline from the moment that they are born. Ergo, every tennis match ever played is contested between two post-peak, post-prime, post-retirement, and in fact post-death players.
 

mika1979

Professional
All of them are, actually. As we know, younger is always better. It follows that players are in decline from the moment that they are born. Ergo, every tennis match ever played is contested between two post-peak, post-prime, post-retirement, and in fact post-death players.
Very good, so the goat will come when a junior wins the Juniors GS
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I feel like it's right there for you to see that the sky is blue but you are still arguing that it's green. Lol. It doesn't matter what the reason is. Federer was losing to guys that Djokovic in his 30s wouldn't be losing to, which is the main reason why Djokovic won more Slams in his 30s.
It's not that simple. If you give 2012 USO Fed Sandgren in the quarters instead of Berdych, then he survives his bad day and could win the tournament. Similarly, if you give 2013 Fed a physically diminished Nishikori and Pouille instead of Tsonga and Murray, his chances of winning the tournament, again, increase.

Djokovic didn't play such guys in his 30's, so we'll never know.
 

big ted

Legend
Half of the time in his 30s fedr was only losing to djokovic. djokovic has it easy becuz he doesn't have to play djokovic
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Federer in his 20's would not lose to the guys Djokovic lost, but I'm sure you will not concede to that.
A discussion can be dead and buried and then you resurrect it after a week when everyone has moved on. Lol. You weren't talking about Djokovic/Federer in their 20s though were you? You were talking about Djokovic winning more in his 30s and somehow is refusing to accept the main reason why.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
A discussion can be dead and buried and then you resurrect it after a week when everyone has moved on. Lol. You weren't talking about Djokovic/Federer in their 20s though were you? You were talking about Djokovic winning more in his 30s and somehow is refusing to accept the main reason why.
Federer having some bad losses doesn't mean he still wouldn't have won a dozen majors in his 30's.

And besides, might as well use Djoko's 2017-mid 2018 poor losses as well if you'll ignore 2013/2016.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Federer having some bad losses doesn't mean he still wouldn't have won a dozen majors in his 30's.

And besides, might as well use Djoko's 2017-mid 2018 poor losses as well if you'll ignore 2013/2016.
He obviously wouldn't have when he's losing to Seppi, Stakhovsky, Millman, Robredo, Gulbis, etc.

The difference is Djokovic was in a slump and once he came out of that slump, he made 15/19 Slam finals.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
He obviously wouldn't have when he's losing to Seppi, Stakhovsky, Millman, Robredo, Gulbis, etc.
USO 2011, AO 2012, Wimb 2012, Wimb 2014, Wimb 2015, USO 2015, AO 2016, AO 2017, Wimb 2017, AO 2018 and Wimb 2019. Exactly 12.

Then there are others like AO 2013, AO 2014 and even one FO with a 2023 type draw.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
USO 2011, AO 2012, Wimb 2012, Wimb 2014, Wimb 2015, USO 2015, AO 2016, AO 2017, Wimb 2017, AO 2018 and Wimb 2019. Exactly 12.

Then there are others like AO 2013, AO 2014 and even one FO with a 2023 type draw.
Why can't you accept 30+ Djokovic is better than Federer and stop these mental gymnastics? Lol.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Why can't you accept 30+ Djokovic is better than Federer and stop these mental gymnastics? Lol.
Why can't you accept that Fed would've still won lots of slams even with these bad losses? I just listed them. He doesn't have to be as consistent as Djokovic for that to happen.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Why can't you accept that Fed would've still won lots of slams even with these bad losses? I just listed them. He doesn't have to be as consistent as Djokovic for that to happen.
You're transporting Federer into the future for Slams that haven't even happened yet. Wimbledon 2014 ~ Wimbledon 2020 was canceled so that one is completely off the table. Then you're putting sure Slams win like Wimbledon 2012 in jeopardy when he most likely has to play some combination of Anderson/Nadal/Djokovic in 2018. AO 2013 ~ AO 2019, he's obviously not beating Djokovic; AO 2014 ~ AO 2020, I don't see him beating the combination of Thiem/Djokovic. So no, there is no 12 Slams here.
 

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
And....he might not survive. Lol. Especially if pulls Anderson in the 3rd round, where he scraped past Benneteau.
Lol. Fed is not drawing a defending Slam finalist and the number 8 seed in the third round, cmon man. Full stop. Anderson would have to be seeded in the 20’s at the very highest for that to happen.

(Unless, of course, you think 2012 Fed would be seeded so low as to make that matchup a possibility. Some of your colleagues would happily take such a stance but I doubt you do.)

Fed from QF-on does not struggle a bit against Anderson, regardless of how some might argue 2018 Fed actually didn’t decline from 2012 Fed.

Nadal shouldn’t be a big issue for Fed. By 2018 he’d lost a lot of what gave him his edge in the rivalry against Fed, the movement being chief among those and the spiny FH being second. And Fed already had the edge on grass anyway, even when Nadal had all the tools for the matchup. Four sets tops and it’d be about as competitive as the 2019 match. I think it was actually quite fortunate for Nadal that he kept the 2018 semifinal as close as it was given Novak’s serious advantage in serve and return.

Djokovic would be a tougher nut to crack but I’d favor Fed overall, especially if Djokovic still plays Nadal in the semifinal. In the 2012 SF-F Fed was pretty close to prime level even if he was missing just a bit on the return. Serve was firing, the forehand had not yet suffered the steep decline in 2013, and his backhand was pretty solid too. Plus, you know, it is grass and Fed can actually move around on the court at a level comparable to his opponent. The best situation for Novak would be if Nadal 1.) plays Fed in the semi and 2.) takes Fed to five. The first event is a coin flip; the second is unlikely to happen imo. Certainly, Novak would have his chances and I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of his winning the match but I’d have to go with Fed here.

All of this to show, of course, that the gauntlet of Anderson (lol), Nadal, and Djokovic would not be quite as woeful a situation for the old man as one might think.
 
D

Deleted member 779124

Guest
2012 Fed could lose to a 2018 Nadal/Djokovic combo but he beat 2012 Murray/Djokovic B2B are both were playing at a high level in the matches and there were a lot of rallies as Djokovic and Nadal would provide. I would fancy his chances.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
You're transporting Federer into the future for Slams that haven't even happened yet. Wimbledon 2014 ~ Wimbledon 2020 was canceled so that one is completely off the table. Then you're putting sure Slams win like Wimbledon 2012 in jeopardy when he most likely has to play some combination of Anderson/Nadal/Djokovic in 2018. AO 2013 ~ AO 2019, he's obviously not beating Djokovic; AO 2014 ~ AO 2020, I don't see him beating the combination of Thiem/Djokovic. So no, there is no 12 Slams here.
Obviously I meant if he had to face Djokovic's competition without Djokovic himself.
 
Top