Discuss the Peak levels of players And rate their level out of 100 on each surface

[abmk]

Yea I think you are overexaggerating saying not even close to similar. Lol how pathetic is that.

I said not even close to a tossup. Djoko's level on slow HC is high, but Federer's on grass is clearly higher.
Guy went 5 years&11 matches undefeated on grass, 65 matches, FFS.

only guys who didn't watch much of tennis in the 2000s or have a short term memory or with an agenda can put Djoko on slow HC on the equal to fed on grass.
better is just plain laughable.

You go on a rampage and throw a hissy fit but then go on to say Feds highest level on slow HC is equal to that of Djokovic. You are so objective.

here's another way to look at it:

# of times djoko went without going 5-sets at the AO : 08, 11
# of times fed went without going 5-sets at the AO : 04,07,10

I already explained :

Giving more importance to the slams than the other tournaments. (and for indoors to the YEC)
For example :
I think peak Djoko > peak Fed at Miami
peak fed > peak djoko at AO
peak fed ~ peak djoko at IW
distance b/w them is more at Miami than at AO, but AO is more important.

For prime level (over extended period), I'd put Djoko ahead by a bit.

------

Edit : You also put djoko on slow HC as perfect and on par with Nadal on clay.
that's just batsh*t delusional, even by your standards.

Twice indoor HC titles as Djokovic? Sure. At basel yes. When it comes to the major tournaments, we have Djokovic at 4 Paris titles and 5 YECs title vs feds 1 at Paris and 4 at YECs indoors.

yeah, like fed wouldn't have won the YEC if it was indoors in 2003-04.
LOL !

Fed prioritizes Basel over Paris.
also Fed won Madrid 06 indoors.

again, just stuff you don't know because you didn't even watch much tennis before 11.

 

[NatF]

In this context we’re talking about the big 3. Fed’s opinion should matter more yes?

Don't see why Federer's opinion on the speed of a court matters more than anyone elses - assuming both guys have equal experience on it. You have a quote where Federer says RA was fast/medium or not slow?

 

[metsman]

Djokovic's peak level on grass is not particularly impressive

I don't think either of Nadalovic have a natural grass game like Sampras, or even Fed did

That doesn't mean their peak grass game isn't impressive, just because it's not like Sampras or Fed. That's like saying Lendl or Guga's clay peak isn't impressive because it's not Borg or Nadal. Not that I think Nadalovic are on that level on grass, at least faster grass, but they have shown impressive peaks on the slower grass at least.

 

[abmk]

I don't know what you think but all of Djokovic's four wimbledon titles was mighty impressive. 2011 is probably the least impressive but beating defending champion Nadal in that manner in the final was a great performance.

91/100 is impressive.
yes, Djoko was impressive in the SF/F of Wim 11, but struggled vs Baggy/Tomic before that.

The "not particularly" impressive part came from your fellow Djokovic fan.

Djokos highest level on grass is above Nadals. But Nadal isn't too bad either, he has had some high level performances aswell.

never had a problem with anyone rating Djoko above Nadal on grass.
What I was pointing out was the difference you had b/w Djoko/Nadal on grass.

 

[RF-18]

I said not even close to a tossup. Djoko's level on slow HC is high, but Federer's on grass is clearly higher.
Guy went 5 years&11 matches undefeated on grass, 65 matches, FFS.

only guys who didn't watch much of tennis in the 2000s or have a short term memory or with an agenda can put Djoko on slow HC on the equal to fed on grass.
better is just plain laughable.




here's another way to look at it:

# of times djoko went without going 5-sets at the AO : 08, 11
# of times fed went without going 5-sets at the AO : 04,07,10

I already explained :

Giving more importance to the slams than the other tournaments. (and for indoors to the YEC)
For example :
I think peak Djoko > peak Fed at Miami
peak fed > peak djoko at AO
peak fed ~ peak djoko at IW
distance b/w them is more at Miami than at AO, but AO is more important.

For prime level (over extended period), I'd put Djoko ahead by a bit.

------

Edit : You also put djoko on slow HC as perfect and on par with Nadal on clay.
that's just batsh*t delusional, even by your standards.




yeah, like fed wouldn't have won the YEC if it was indoors in 2003-04.
LOL !

Fed prioritizes Basel over Paris.
also Fed won Madrid 06 indoors.

again, just stuff you don't know because you didn't even watch much tennis before 11.

Tell me why his peak is higher at the AO.

Fed can still play Paris after Basel. Remember organizers had to take their sweatpants off, turn around and bend down for Federers needs in order to win the event.

Edit: regarding the points, I'm treating all this seperately. Djokos level on slow HC has nothing to do with Nadals on clay.

 

[NatF]

Edit: regarding the points, I'm treating all this seperately. Djokos level on slow HC has nothing to do with Nadals on clay.

That hardly makes sense...the points should be relative to each other.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Tell me why his peak is higher at the AO.

Fed can still play Paris after Basel. Remember organizers had to take their sweatpants off, turn around and bend down for Federers needs in order to win the event.

Well, to be fair, they also did it for Nadal in 2007 (although he couldn't take advantage). And Wimbledon and USO (actually, most of the Tour) did it for both Nadal and Djokovic, and for basically their whole careers. I'd say that it balances out in the end--only it doesn't, of course. Not when the whole Tour decides it must suddenly cater to a certain type of player to keep the slam race in the 'still exciting' and not 'over and done' range.

 

[Night Slasher]

Djokovic's peak level on grass is not particularly impressive, either

I disagree, Nole's peak on grass is very impressive. Grass is all about athleticism, serve and return and (an in-form) Nole excels on these "skills". Unlike on clay, where his peak is usually overrated.

 

[RF-18]

That hardly makes sense...the points should be relative to each other.

Why? I don't think we should compare like that cause clay and slow HC is very different from each other and takes different set of characteristics to succeed.

 

[abmk]

Tell me why his peak is higher at the AO.

if you want to play around with numbers :

1. # of times djoko went without going 5-sets at the AO : 08, 11
# of times fed went without going 5-sets at the AO : 04,07,10

2. # of times event won without losing a set = 1, Fed at AO 07

anyways to a more serious reply, the eye test :
federer's FH, serve, net play all clearly better than djoko's
djoko's BH+return are clearly better.

movement is on same level , at best very slight edge to djoko, djoko is better defensively, federer better offensively.
djokovic better at defense, federer better at offense.

difference in potency/effectiveness of serve+FH for fed is clearly more than Djokovic's in BH+return.
djoko's at best very slight edge in movement doesn't overcome that.

Federer's game is more imposing at its highest level, along with being great defensively.

take their 3 best years --- 04,05,07 for fed and 08, 11, 16 for djoko. this is what I see.

Edit : have also cross-checked with the stats of their matches. (taking into consideration the conditions as well)

Fed can still play Paris after Basel. Remember organizers had to take their sweatpants off, turn around and bend down for Federers needs in order to win the event.

oh you mean like how much Djoko needed so many HCs to be slowed down to win so many titles ?
and its hilarious btw because Paris was actually medium, on the slower side for an indoor court in 11 when fed won.

fed was injured in 04-05 and had played a lot of matches in 06 coming into Paris.
How would it look for Djoko if he missed 2-3 years of his peak/prime at Paris ?
yeah, that's what I thought.

Edit: regarding the points, I'm treating all this seperately. Djokos level on slow HC has nothing to do with Nadals on clay.

LOL !!!

when you are rating 100/100, that means perfection.
Djoko is not that on slow HC, as much as you'd like to delude yourself.

and you can't treat it seperately.

see below ...

 

[abmk]

Why? I don't think we should compare like that cause clay and slow HC is very different from each other and takes different set of characteristics to succeed.

says the same guy who said this :

It's really a toss up between Djokos highest level on slow HC vs Feds on grass, 1 point here and there doesn't matter too much and something I don't think you should hang up on too much.

so why are you comparing djoko on slow HC to fed on grass then ?


this is what happens when you try to spin BS. you get caught in a web of your own words !

just a pathetic, desperate attempt because you fanboyed yourself into putting djoko at 100 for slow HC, which is utter and plain bollocks.

 

[RF-18]

says the same guy who said this :



so why are you comparing djoko on slow HC to fed on grass then ?


this is what happens when you try to spin BS. you get caught in a web of your own words !

just a pathetic, desperate attempt because you fanboyed yourself into putting djoko at 100 for slow HC, which is utter and plain bollocks.

You did the comparison, not me. I just answered your question from your perspective.

I don't use the numbers in that way you think.

 

[abmk]

You did the comparison, not me. I just answered your question from your perspective.

I don't use the numbers in that way you think.

the way I used the numbers is the way everyone else on this thread used it.
well, apart from your genius* self apparently.

if you are using different 'scales'/'measurements' for each of the surfaces, why did you total them up then ?
yeah, that's what I thought*.

* liar liar , pants on fire !

 

[RF-18]

if you want to play around with numbers :

1. # of times djoko went without going 5-sets at the AO : 08, 11
# of times fed went without going 5-sets at the AO : 04,07,10

2. # of times event won without losing a set = 1, Fed at AO 07

anyways to a more serious reply, the eye test :
federer's FH, serve, net play all clearly better than djoko's
djoko's BH+return are clearly better.

movement is on same level , at best very slight edge to djoko, djoko is better defensively, federer better offensively.
djokovic better at defense, federer better at offense.

difference in potency/effectiveness of serve+FH for fed is clearly more than Djokovic's in BH+return.
djoko's at best very slight edge in movement doesn't overcome that.

Federer's game is more imposing at its highest level, along with being great defensively.

take their 3 best years --- 04,05,07 for fed and 08, 11, 16 for djoko. this is what I see.




oh you mean like how much Djoko needed so many HCs to be slowed down to win so many titles ?
and its hilarious btw because Paris was actually medium, on the slower side for an indoor court in 11 when fed won.

fed was injured in 04-05 and had played a lot of matches in 06 coming into Paris.
How would it look for Djoko if he missed 2-3 years of his peak/prime at Paris ?
yeah, that's what I thought.



LOL !!!

when you are rating 100/100, that means perfection.
Djoko is not that on slow HC, as much as you'd like to delude yourself.

and you can't treat it seperately.

see below ...

It's unnecessary to go about it game for game.

Offense is not as important as defence, ROS and resilience on a slow HC. You don't get awarded for going for winners.

Djokovics defence, ROS, baselining, movement, no holes in his game, resilicence stands out. Of course you still need to be aggressive, but you need controlled aggression. Djokovic Is more patient and he is strategically better from the baseline aswell, he knows what spots to hit. Perfect match for slow HC and clearly stronger than Fed, give me a break. You can't even concede this it's a joke.

 

[abmk]

It's unnecessary to go about it game for game.

Offense is not as important as defence, ROS and resilience on a slow HC. You don't get awarded for going for winners.

Djokovics defence, ROS, baselining, movement, no holes in his game, resilicence stands out. Of course you still need to be aggressive, but you need controlled aggression. Djokovic Is more patient and he is strategically better from the baseline aswell, he knows what spots to hit. Perfect match for slow HC and clearly stronger than Fed, give me a break. You can't even concede this it's a joke.

yeah, you do get rewarded for aggression/going for winners at the AO (unless its sh*thole slow like 11-12 for example).
you think Agassi relied on defence for winning his 4 AOs ? Sampras for his 2 AOs ? Becker for his 2 AOs ?
Safin while making 3 AO finals (including winning 1 , with an epic semi win over fed) ?
or Stan while challenging Djokovic at the AO in 13-14 ?

Federer's defence at his peak was phenomenal, so was baseline game and RoS was pretty good..
the serve is more important than the return on a slow HC as well.

Miami is a different case -- describes what you are talking about. and there djokovic is clearly better.

Edit : I already said this,
For prime level (over extended period), I'd put Djoko ahead by a bit.

But this thread is about peak level. So, yeah, I stick by what I said.

 

[jonnyhomeboy9851]

Nadal also had the weakest draws ever in his USO wins, coming fresh off both his semis against tired Novak in 2010 and 2014

The AO's surface speed was drastically changed in the last couple of years, it's practically a different event

lol at last sentence my friend. So novak cant handle a speed change but a 37 year old does and your trying to say Novak is an ATG on hard courts?

 

[jonnyhomeboy9851]

It's unnecessary to go about it game for game.

Offense is not as important as defence, ROS and resilience on a slow HC. You don't get awarded for going for winners.

Djokovics defence, ROS, baselining, movement, no holes in his game, resilicence stands out. Of course you still need to be aggressive, but you need controlled aggression. Djokovic Is more patient and he is strategically better from the baseline aswell, he knows what spots to hit. Perfect match for slow HC and clearly stronger than Fed, give me a break. You can't even concede this it's a joke.

Djokovics pushing and defense are great versus murray. With non weak era competition he would be crushed. I mean even Zverev would crush him at AO

 

[RF-18]

Djokovics pushing and defense are great versus murray. With non weak era competition he would be crushed. I mean even Zverev would crush him at AO

Yea lots of pushing against Nadal at Wimbledon this year LOL 73 winners

Also pushed pretty hard vs Fed in 14 and 15 wimby when he put him on the back foot for majority of the match with his groundies.

 

[jonnyhomeboy9851]

Yea lots of pushing against Nadal at Wimbledon this year LOL 73 winners

Also pushed pretty hard vs Fed in 14 and 15 wimby

tbf I would say he 2018 he isn;t a pusher at all, he is mercilessly redirecting the ball. Prior to this yeah huge pusher. Why offended? Pusher is not offensive. It is his bread and butter style of play - take 6 hours in mataches. Lol take 4 hours to beat a random mug. Its his style of play

And what do you mean like fed in 15 etc. Firstly weak era, secondly you miss the point, im not saying pushing isn;t effective particularly versus old players or players with no weapons or error prone or nervous players

nadal cant even play 3 slams this year of course pushing gonna be effective against him. Fed is 37 of course pushing is a good idea

 

[RF-18]

tbf I would say he 2018 he isn;t a pusher at all, he is mercilessly redirecting the ball. Prior to this yeah huge pusher. Why offended? Pusher is not offensive. It is his bread and butter style of play - take 6 hours in mataches. Lol take 4 hours to beat a random mug. Its his style of play

And what do you mean like fed in 15 etc. Firstly weak era, secondly you miss the point, im not saying pushing isn;t effective particularly versus old players or players with no weapons or error prone or nervous players

nadal cant even play 3 slams this year of course pushing gonna be effective against him. Fed is 37 of course pushing is a good idea

Ok

 

[jonnyhomeboy9851]

Yea lots of pushing against Nadal at Wimbledon this year LOL 73 winners

Also pushed pretty hard vs Fed in 14 and 15 wimby when he put him on the back foot for majority of the match with his groundies.

you having a laugh Zverev wouldn't crush Novak at AO? Of course he would. Baby Zverev out BOATS peak in form world no 1 novak obviously peaked out at age 27 he gonna crush novak 6-1, 6-1,7-6 or similar if Novak is playing peak Zverev while novak is 35 expect 6-1, 6-2, 6-0

 

[jm1980]

lol at last sentence my friend. So novak cant handle a speed change but a 37 year old does and your trying to say Novak is an ATG on hard courts?

Oh right, Novak only has the second most HC Slams ever, just behind Fed. What a scrub!

 

[jonnyhomeboy9851]

Oh right, Novak only has the second most HC Slams ever, only behind Fed. What a scrub!

Indeed. As @RF-18 has correctly pointed out slam count is not a measure of greatness. Novak could even be no 1 all time of HC slam titles won and he is still outside top 10 all time on HC as rf-18 rightly recognises.

His peak play is also inferior to the likes of mugs like baby zverev, wawrinka etc as these guys have crushed no 1 in form peak nadal on multiple occassions and in finals and most importantly while novak was in form. Being beaten by baby nadal or old fed i.e. other ATGs is one thing but these crushings by mugs is a whole another level of mugness

His clutchness is very poor with 33 percent conversion for first three slam finals on preferred surface vs 100 percent for fed, nadal and wawrinka

 

[axlrose]

Hilarious that anyone gives Fed 99/100 on grass and gives Novak 97/100. Nothing illustrates blind fanboyizm than this. Federer has 8 Wimbledon's and 18 total grass titles. Djokovic isn't remotely close to that, but he's only two points behind the grass GOAT?

Oh.... kay...

I would say giving Claydal 99 and Grassderer 100 is more fanboyizm

 

[RF-18]

Hilarious that anyone gives Fed 99/100 on grass and gives Novak 97/100. Nothing illustrates blind fanboyizm than this. Federer has 8 Wimbledon's and 18 total grass titles. Djokovic isn't remotely close to that, but he's only two points behind the grass GOAT?

Oh.... kay...

95-97, somewhere around there. 97 might be too high but Djokovic has 4 Wimbledon titles and is one of few who has defended the title, against the grass goat himself.

 

[Bender]

Djokovic / Nadal / Federer

Slow HC: 96 / 94 / 92
Fast HC: 90 / 91 / 95
Clay: 91 / 100 / 92
Grass: 92 / 95 / 98
Indoor: 95 / 91 / 96
Overall: 464 / 471 / 473

The issue with this breakdown is that it can't take into account for the bounce of a HC, only how slow / fast it is.

Djokovic is far better than Nadal when the bounce is low regardless of how slow or fast the court is (eg Shanghai v WTF), whereas Nadal fares much better where the bounce is high regardless of how slow or fast the court is (IW v Canada v USO).

So the above ranking would suggest that somehow Nadal does better than Djokovic does on a fast surface like in Shanghai (which is obviously wrong), but I think that has more to do with the bounce (or lack thereof) rather than the speed itself. My ratings therefore assume that the fast HC is lively and that the slow HC is dead.

Note that I am also taking peak performance rather than their overall records on their respective surfaces. If I had to take overall records into account, those numbers would look much different.

Overall figures seem to fit in roughly with what I think, which is that if they are all playing at their highest possible levels, Fed would edge out the other two on most surfaces, Nadal would have a commanding lead on clay and play the other two close on most other surfaces, and Djokovic would take the lead on slow hards, and set the standard for which the other two will have to meet just about everywhere else.

These numbers change when we take consistency in levels into account. Fed's would drop significantly on clay, Nadal would drop significantly on grass and indoors, and Djokovic would largely be the same.

That sounds about right.

 

[Zhilady]

Yea I think you are overexaggerating saying not even close to similar. Lol how pathetic is that.

Nope. Prime Federer lost literally one match on grass. That’s it. One. What was prime Djokovic’s record on slow hardcourts?

You go on a rampage and throw a hissy fit but then go on to say Feds highest level on slow HC is equal to that of Djokovic. You are so objective.

What’s the problem? Peak Federer won a slow hardcourt Slam without dropping a set. No version of Djokovic ever managed that.

 

[Zhilady]

Nadal:

Slow HC - 89/100
Fast HC - 89/100
Clay - 100/100
Grass - 93/100
Indoor HC - 80/100

Federer
slow HC - 94/100
Fast HC - 97/100
Clay - 93/100
Grass - 99/100
Indoor HC - 98/100

Djokovic - Slow HC 100/100
Fast HC - 95/100
Clay - 95/100
Grass - 97/100
Indoor HC 99/100

Total:

Djokovic: 486/500
Federer: 481/500
Nadal: 451/500

So Peak Djokovic on slow hardcourts is as good as Peak Nadal on clay? What an idiot

 

[RF-18]

Nope. Prime Federer lost literally one match on grass. That’s it. One. What was prime Djokovic’s record on slow hardcourts?

What’s the problem? Peak Federer won a slow hardcourt Slam without dropping a set. No version of Djokovic ever managed that.

There is one big tournament on grass. So if we check AO, djoko has also just 1 loss coming against Wawrinka in 2014. That's it.

How many sets you drop is not something I'd have as a determining factor regarding the second thing you wrote.

 

[Zhilady]

There is one big tournament on grass. So if we check AO, djoko has also just 1 loss coming against Wawrinka in 2014. That's it.

From 2003-2009, Federer was 47-1 at Wimbledon. From 2011-2016, Djokovic was 39-1 at the Australian Open. 47-1 > 39-1.

How many sets you drop is not something I'd have as a determining factor regarding the second thing you wrote.

So, what is the determining factor for who had the higher peak at a tournament, then? Give me something objective, please. I don't trust your eye or your ass.

 

[RF-18]

From 2003-2009, Federer was 47-1 at Wimbledon. From 2011-2016, Djokovic was 39-1 at the Australian Open. 47-1 > 39-1.

So, what is the determining factor for who had the higher peak at a tournament, then? Give me something objective, please. I don't trust your eye or your ass.

First you mentioned losses in their prime, now that I owned you , you go with wins cause Fed played for one more year.

Still as I said, pretty similar eh. Only one loss. Over.

 

[falstaff78]

It's the off season , so before we see a millions of threads on the same topic and variations of it , let us just keep it all in here.

Let us rate the big 3 at their Peak on each surface.



I will start :

Nadal :
Slow HC 93/100
Fast HC 88/100
Clay 110/100
(The scale doesn't do him justice)
Grass 93/100
Indoor HC 85/100

Federer

Slow HC 95/100
Fast HC 97/100
Clay. 92/100
Grass. 98/100
Indoor HC. 97/100

Djokovic

Slow. HC. 98/100
Fast HC 92/100
Clay 93/100
Grass. 95/100
Indoor HC 97/100

In other words you are asking us to rate ppl out of 110.

Why not just do 100 and downgrade everyone else?

 

[KINGROGER]

I’ve never understood where this notion of Djokovic having a higher level than Fed on clay came from.

They’ve played twice at RG. 2011 is the definitive match. Nole did win in 2012 but he didn’t play amazing, he simply kept the ball in play. Whenever Fed could string together some good groundstrokes he dictated and dominated the match. He lost because of his UFE. Nole watched him implode.

As usual the match is on Fed’s racket when these 2 play anywhere except slow HC. If his FH is firing Nole can’t do much about it unless they play on a sticky surface like Miami or 08-16 plexicushion.

 

[jonnyhomeboy9851]

95-97, somewhere around there. 97 might be too high but Djokovic has 4 Wimbledon titles and is one of few who has defended the title, against the grass goat himself.

But I thought federer wasnt the grass GOAT and won in a weak era so djokovic bwating fed isnt impressive. More so djokovic beat the weak era version of weak era fed.

Furthermore Djokovic did 2008 and went bye bye 2011 then bye bye lol 2017 and 2018 who knows what happened while fed had a smooth 18/19 slam finals and 11 slams won in 4 years. He is huhe form drop which novak capitilased but due to chokovic and the weak era of 2014-2019 couldnt even properly capitalise. Djokovic should have won minimum 12 slams 2014-2019 and racked up 4 ye no 1s. Chokovic

 

[abmk]

First you mentioned losses in their prime, now that I owned you , you go with wins cause Fed played for one more year.

Still as I said, pretty similar eh. Only one loss. Over.

lol, after getting caught in your own web of lies&BS and owned big time, you are under such fancy delusions .
you can't even see the difference b/w 1 loss in 6 years and 1 loss in 7 years ?
federer didn't just 'play' for 1 more year, he won it one more time.

 

[BrokenGears]

I’ve never understood where this notion of Djokovic having a higher level than Fed on clay came from.

They’ve played twice at RG. 2011 is the definitive match. Nole did win in 2012 but he didn’t play amazing, he simply kept the ball in play. Whenever Fed could string together some good groundstrokes he dictated and dominated the match. He lost because of his UFE. Nole watched him implode.

As usual the match is on Fed’s racket when these 2 play anywhere except slow HC. If his FH is firing Nole can’t do much about it unless they play on a sticky surface like Miami or 08-16 plexicushion.

Doesn’t matter. A win is a win.

Furthermore, Djokovic has many more clay masters than Federer.

Finally, Djokovic plays Nadal better than Federer does on clay. And that is a huge factor in deterring clay prowess

 

[BrokenGears]

I’d also like to point out that Djokovic is the grass player of this decade as he as 4 Wimby and Roger only managed 2

 

[jonnyhomeboy9851]

Doesn’t matter. A win is a win.

Furthermore, Djokovic has many more clay masters than Federer.

Finally, Djokovic plays Nadal better than Federer does on clay. And that is a huge factor in deterring clay prowess

Yes but he faced a lesser nadal. And at RG he was equally as woeful. Yes at masters he did a little better although he didnt have bo5 and madters are now more money and relevant

 

[jonnyhomeboy9851]

I’d also like to point out that Djokovic is the grass player of this decade as he as 4 Wimby and Roger only managed 2

Djokovic should have more wimbeldons. He has had a decade of mugs and has had as his biggest competition a fed with 2 wimbledons a decade past his best. No way djokovic should have lost wimby to fed and to murray. Unacceptable

 

[BrokenGears]

Yes but he faced a lesser nadal. And at RG he was equally as woeful. Yes at masters he did a little better although he didnt have bo5 and madters are now more money and relevant

Lmao 2011, 2003, and 2009 were not “ lesser “ Nadals.

He’s only the second person ever to take Rafa to 5 on RG, Roger only managed 4 and got destroyed in 3 sets one time

 

[abmk]

I’d also like to point out in 2007, when the surface was RA, Federer destroyed Djokovic.

When the surface changed, Djokovic crushed Federer. Mono excuse is ********. Federer played fine, Djoko just ate him for breakfast

Federer only won 1 AO tournament ever again. Anyone thinking surface change and having competent opponents wasn’t a big factor is kidding themselves

djokovic was ranked ~15 at the time of AO 07.
federer played much better in 09 and 10 on the same plexi than in 08.
Of course mono affected federer in AO 08. He lost 9/10 games from 5-3 up in the 1st set to 1-5 down in the 2nd set vs djoko.
that just doesn't happen to a healthy prime fed on HC.

Just watching, his movement was a tad slower and he was sweating buckets (which was unusual for him and the commentators pointed that out repeatedly)

Fed skipped Kooyong because he was sick (which was later detected as mono). then lost to Murray early on in Dubai, lost to Fish who was serving at 35% at IW and then Roddick at Miami.
Basically the early HC season was a bust by his standards.

 

[jonnyhomeboy9851]

Lmao 2011, 2003, and 2009 were not “ lesser “ Nadals.

He’s only the second person ever to take Rafa to 5 on RG, Roger only managed 4 and got destroyed in 3 sets one time

Yeah but once again a red hot in form djokovic got destroyed by someone he shouldnt have lost to 2011 fed. So whats your point? Djokovic beats nadal. Nadal beats fed. But fed beats djokovic. Zverev owned by nadal but crushes peak djokovic

 

[BrokenGears]

djokovic was ranked ~15 at the time of AO 07.
federer played much better in 09 and 10 on the same plexi than in 08.
Of course mono affected federer in AO 08. He lost 9/10 games from 5-3 up in the 1st set to 1-5 down in the 2nd set vs djoko.
that just doesn't happen to a healthy prime fed on HC.

Just watching, his movement was a tad slower and he was sweating buckets (which was unusual for him and the commentators pointed that out repeatedly)

Fed skipped Kooyong because he was sick (which was later detected as mono). then lost to Murray early on in Dubai, lost to Fish who was serving at 35% at IW and then Roddick at Miami.
Basically the early HC season was a bust by his standards.

Was mono an issue? Yes. Was it as big as you claim it to be? No

 

[KINGROGER]

Doesn’t matter. A win is a win.

Furthermore, Djokovic has many more clay masters than Federer.

Finally, Djokovic plays Nadal better than Federer does on clay. And that is a huge factor in deterring clay prowess

How they did vs Nadal isn’t a factor in how they match up vs one another...

And he has 2 more clay masters not many.

He’s slightly more accomplished than Fed with 2 extra clay masters + 1 extra unique title (Rome + MC vs Hamburg) vs 1 extra RG final.

For peak level I have to go with Fed. He didn’t get the luxury of the mug 2014-2016 field to boost his clay resume.

 

[abmk]

Was mono an issue? Yes. Was it as big as you claim it to be? No

oh hell yeah.
It was significant enough/damaging enough vs Djokovic playing well. (not saying it was bad enough that he couldn't play at a half-decent level)

Djoko may have won even without that, but he'd be a slight underdog if fed was well&playing at prime level (i.e. continuing his form from where he left off the 2007 season at the YEC)

Like I said, federer played much better in 09 and 10 on the same plexi than in 08.

 

[BrokenGears]

How they did vs Nadal isn’t a factor in how they match up vs one another...

And he has 2 more clay masters not many.

He’s slightly more accomplished than Fed with 2 extra clay masters + 1 extra unique title (Rome + MC vs Hamburg) vs 1 extra RG final.

For peak level I have to go with Fed. He didn’t get the luxury of the mug 2014-2016 field to boost his clay resume.

Yes it is. H2H against Nadal on clay and general competence at playing Ned on clay is vitally important because he’s the GOAT on clay, and playing the GOAT on clay play well is important at determining clay level

 

[Nadal_Django]

Mono Fed is like this Yeti Snowman identity. Many claim that he really exists, but no one has ever seen him in reality.

 

[KINGROGER]

Yes it is. H2H against Nadal on clay and general competence at playing Ned on clay is vitally important because he’s the GOAT on clay, and playing the GOAT on clay play well is important at determining clay level

That only determines accomplishments since he was a major roadblock.

Due to match ups, it isn’t accurate to compare how Fed and Djokovic did vs Nadal. Fed has the higher clay peak.

 

[BrokenGears]

That only determines accomplishments since he was a major roadblock.

Due to match ups, it isn’t accurate to compare how Fed and Djokovic did vs Nadal. Fed has the higher clay peak.

It’s Fed’s fault for being a terrible match up for Ned on clay

How in the world does he have a higher clay peak?

 

[jm1980]

How they did vs Nadal isn’t a factor in how they match up vs one another...

And he has 2 more clay masters not many.

He’s slightly more accomplished than Fed with 2 extra clay masters + 1 extra unique title (Rome + MC vs Hamburg) vs 1 extra RG final.

For peak level I have to go with Fed. He didn’t get the luxury of the mug 2014-2016 field to boost his clay resume.

Djokovic's won every clay Masters twice, while Fed is missing both MC and Rome

Unique Masters is bogus since Madrid is in the same slot as Hamburg, an event Djokovic never got to play at his peak