TheNachoMan
Legend
Incredible numbers.
Djokovic 11 slams W18-RG23 vs Federer 11 slams AO04-USO07
- Thread starter Oceans II
- Start date
jl809
Legend
But he didn’t even “abuse” postprime Fed’s BH
Peakovic loses at RG, is 2 MPs down at the USO, loses at Wimbledon, goes 5 sets at 2014 Wimbledon and concedes 23 BPs (and wins fewer points in the match) than 34 year old Fed at the USO. This is not “abuse”…AND he loses every match they play on fast HC except 2018 Cincy. Even against old Fed! Want to give him more shots at Fed on the mid 00s AO or USO surface?
Djokovic_is_the_best#1
Bionic Poster
You do realise Fed back in the 2000’s looked better than he was? You all go on an about peak Fed as being unbeatable. He had no one who could rival him back then apart from Nadal on clay.But he didn’t even “abuse” postprime Fed’s BH
AND he loses every match they play on fast HC except 2018 Cincy. Even against old Fed! Want to give him more shots at Fed on the mid 00s AO or USO surface?
As soon as Nadal and Djokovic stepped up, got more experience, improved their games for all surfaces and their physicality (especially Novak) then Fed was brought back to Earth and his slams and big titles dried up. You can be made to look better when your opposition can’t lay a glove on you. Fed was amazing in the 2000’s but none of the players could even test him or exploit his weaknesses.
jl809
Legend
Never said he was unbeatable, in fact I regularly war with Fed fans over how prime Nadal would beat prime Fed on hard court (which I believe). I totally agree that he wasn't tested hard enough, but that does not mean he wouldn't have been significantly tougher as a challenge than a much older version of himself or guys like Thiem, Shapovalov etc. There is no-one on the tour remotely close to his level at the moment and no evidence from what we've seen of Current Djoker against lesser opponents that he would be fine against prime Fed
Djokovic_is_the_best#1
Bionic Poster
Fair enough. I agree with this. Well good on you for warning them from the start that prime Nadal would be a problem for Fed on all surfaces.
I get it. Look I agree that this era is weaker right now. I’m not going to argue with you there. It just what it is. However, in life you can’t rely on other players to help you out. You got to do it yourself. I agree Fed was obviously at the disadvantage age wise that he’d likely retire first and wouldn’t be left to try feast on the field now.
Although on the flip side to this he lead Djokovic by 16 to 1 at one point. He had a massive lead and had it in his own hands to keep Djokovic at bay had he beat him in maybe 2 more slam matches or if he beat Nadal in 1-2 more. All I’m saying is, yes the next generations haven’t helped Fed out at all and a lot been disappointments but Fed could have did better in some of the bigger matches. For example the del Potro 2009 us open final was a costly loss to in the final analysis. Then losing a few tough 5 setters to djokodal or the loss to cilic in us open 14 SF or raonic in Wimbledon 16 SF were out his path.
Last edited:
Silverbullet96
Hall of Fame
I wonder if you'd call Federer's Philippousis win "decent", since Philippousis has achieved even more than Kyrgios.
D
Deleted member 629564
Guest
Several tiers above in every way.
jl809
Legend
Totally agree with this. One difference between Fedal and Djoker is the lack of “close matches” that Djoker has lost really in comparison to the other 2. When he only has himself to blame, it’s generally for stuff like USO 20, not losing a load of BPs or important TBs like the other 2
RS
Bionic Poster
It was 14-4 at one point not 16-1.
Djokovic_is_the_best#1
Bionic Poster
RS
Bionic Poster
Ah I thought you meant H2H with Nadal. My bad lazy today with reading.
.
Djokovic_is_the_best#1
Bionic Poster
SummerBreeze
Rookie
Agassi was 34. By the same analogy Old (and absolutely ancient) Federer did the same to prime djokovic in all those wimby finals
Agassi is over 9 years and 11 months older. Only then does age difference matter.
SummerBreeze
Rookie
Haha.. this come out of the goatkovic manual?
ActualTennisPlayer
Professional
And what’s your conclusion of this in terms of GOAT debate?
ActualTennisPlayer
Professional
Thanks.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Phillippoussis was a better player than anyone Djokovic has beaten on grass in his last 2 Wimb's.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yea they are. He has almost 50 more wins than Nadal against the top 10 in his title runs although he only has 2 more titles than Nadal. That shows the difference between being dominant on hardcourt, where so many top players are in the later rounds, versus being dominant on clay.
Dominic & Andrey
Legend
Peak Fed would win multiple CYGS in this crap era.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
34 in mid 2000s was like 38-39 in 2020+, the great age shift creates this gap in years which athletes enjoy. So Agassi was very old at 34, and of course he was 11 years older to Federer, this age gap is now same as 15 courtesy the great age shift. Federer when he was 34 was in much better shape than Agassi at 34. A proper comparison of 34yr old Fed would be a 29 yr old Agassi
xFedal
Legend
Did Philip have 2-0 H2H over Fed ? Did he serve as well as Nick did in the final ? Did he play Fed close in all 4 sets ?
Silverbullet96
Hall of Fame
You're very blatantly clutching at straws here. I've never read criteria dumber than this for determining the strength of an opponent, I'm baffled.
How does a 2-0 H2H even matter, what even is this ? And I thought we don't count those matches since Djokovic was injured ?
The H2H between Federer & Philippousis was 1-1 before, so were supposed to diminish Federer's win because he was good enough to beat his opponent before ?
We're also supposed to dimish Federer's win since he was good enough to not let the match go to 4 close sets ?
Might as well add this criteria in your comment:
"Did Philippousis ever make a sexual jibe about his opponent's GF during a match ?"
I swear to God I expect too much sense from this forum, I think that might be the problem.
Last edited:
Similar threads
