Djokovic 2007 could have beaten Djokovic 2011 and 2015 at the US Open

[TMF]

Nole's performance at the US Open in those 3 years drew similar results statistically, the only difference is that he lost to the goat Federer in 2007 final. He was unlucky in 2007, but I think his high level of playing could have beaten Nole 2011/2015 given an opportunity.

Djokovic by the numbers at the US Open:
Ace percentage:
2007 8.9%
2011 5.6%
2015 7.1%

First serve %
2007 60.8%
2011 64%
2015 63.5%

First serve point won
2007 76.9%
2011 72.7%
2015 74.9%

Second serve point won
2007 56.8%
2011 54%
2015 61.3%

Hold percentage
2007 89.3%
2011 83.2%
2015 89.2%

Service point won
2007 69%
2011 66%
2015 69.9%

Return point won
2007 40.2%
2011 48.5%
2015 43.8%



Despite Federer put a dent on Nole's spectacular stats at the 2007 USO final, his overall numbers remains similar to 2011 and 2015.

 

[Standaa]

@BrokenGears

 

[maratha_warrior]

Like him or hate him , @Lew II is a trend-setter on TTW

 

[abmk]

LOL

 

[N01E]

USO17 Novak would wipe floor with all of those. He didn't even lose a set.

 

[Gazelle]

Stats. They always tell the whole story, don't they?

Edit: I suppose this thread is a troll response to some other threads. I'm not keeping track so much nowadays.

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

It's all about the major success freshness factor I've just come up with!

Fedr04, Fedr06 and Fedr07 would beat Fedr03, Fedr05, Fedr08, Fedr09, Fedr10, Fedr11, Fedr12, Fedr13, Fedr14, Fedr15, Fedr16, Fedr17 and Fedr18.
Why? Easy, let's have a look at insightful data and enjoy calculating:

Fedr04, Fedr06 and Fedr07: 3/4 at majors = 0.75 major success freshness factor

Fedr03: 1/4 = 0.25
Fedr05: 2/4 = 0.50
Fedr08: 1/4 = 0.25
Fedr09: 2/4 = 0.50
Fedr10: 1/4 = 0.25
Fedr11: 0/4 = 0
Fedr12: 1/4 = 0.25
Fedr13: 0/4 = 0
Fedr14: 0/4 = 0
Fedr15: 0/4 = 0
Fedr16: 0/4 = 0
Fedr17: 2/4 = 0.50
Fedr18: 1/4 = 0.25

See? You don't? Look closer! See HOW GODDAMN SILLY THIS IS ... no?

We all know Fedr05 was more prime than Fedr07. Love your stats and go home!

 

[KINGROGER]

And Fed wasn’t even trying his very best. He was in cruise control then when he sensed danger (those SP) he decided to play peak tennis and wiped the floor with peak 07 Nole.

 

[SuperSpinner]

This proves peak Nole is no match for peak Federer. Peak Djoko may well be the second best of all time, but he will always be second fiddle to the GOAT.

 

[Enceladus]

Djoker version from USO 2011 or USO 2015 was mentally stronger than Djoker version from USO 2007. In a hypothetical match, Djoker 2011/2015 would be earn big points and win the match. End of discussion.

 

[Lew II]

Peak Djokovic can lose to peak Federer, it's not a surprise.

 

[MeatTornado]

2007 would have the exact same result as 15 Fed. Dangerous enough to hang in there and actually win, but not enough self belief to pull it off during the important points.

But he wouldn't get as close as 2011 Fed got to winning.

 

[Lew II]

Slam finals 3-1
Slam semi 6-4
YEC finals 2-0
Masters finals 5-3

So it's fair to say when both are good enough to reach these important matches, Federer wins 1 time out of 3.

 

[Soothsayer]

Peak Djokovic can lose to peak Federer, it's not a surprise.

Doesn't that mean 2007 was a stronger year than 2015? Your statement above implies Djokovic was peak in 2007, yet he won no slams. He was also peak in 2015 but he won 3 slams, hence 2007 was a much much stronger year. Otherwise you must admit the contradiction that peak does not equal peak.

 

[Luka888]

I will go with my Kia guy here

 

[abmk]

Slam finals 3-1
Slam semi 6-4
YEC finals 2-0
Masters finals 5-3

So it's fair to say when both are good enough to reach these important matches, Federer wins 1 time out of 3.

All it means is that Federer was good enough to reach important far more often, even when well past his prime.
Of course the weaker fields in 2015, early 2016 also helped.

oh and a YEC semi is just as important as a Masters final btw points-wise. Both give 400 points.

 

[Lew II]

Doesn't that mean 2007 was a stronger year than 2015? Your statement above implies Djokovic was peak in 2007, yet he won no slams. He was also peak in 2015 but he won 3 slams, hence 2007 was a much much stronger year. Otherwise you must admit the contradiction that peak does not equal peak.

As you can see in post #13 I was not referring to "peak years".

Anyway yes, Djoko can play very good and lose, as he did some times in 2007-08, and as he did many times in 2012-14. It happens with opponents like Federer.

 

[Lew II]

oh and a YEC semi is just as important as a Masters final btw points-wise. Both give 400 points.

A final gives a title. But we can exclude masters finals, the score would be even worse for Fed: 5-11.

Anyway the YEC semi's points is something I've always thought was wrong.

400 points for a semi and 500 for a final?

Look at the difference in slams and masters between semi and final: 480-800, 240-400.

 

[junior74]

Awesome stats for an embryo!

 

[abmk]

A final gives a title. But we can exclude masters finals, the score would be even worse for Fed: 5-11.

Anyway the YEC semi's points is something I've always thought was wrong.

400 points for a semi and 500 for a final?

Look at the difference in slams and masters between semi and final: 480-800, 240-400.

Yeah, its structured that way to ensure proper distribution for RR, semi and final & for them to combine for a 1500 points. Not that I'd expect you to think&understand.

A slam semi doesn't give a title either.
And winning final of a 500 for instance (gives 200 points) is less valuable than winning semi of the YEC.

All it means is that Federer was good enough to reach important far more often, even when well past his prime.
Of course the weaker fields in 2015, early 2016 also helped.

Djokovic was lucky in the h2h to have majority of their matches when FEderer was past his prime (of course , Djokovic didn't even play a single match vs 04-05 fed).
And even then, the lead is slender for Djokovic. If situation was reversed, it'd be a massive lead for Federer.
prime to prime, of course Federer would have the clear edge.

in 11-12, with Djokovic at his peak and Federer past his prime, the slam h2h was 2-3 Federer and was twice a point away from being 3-2 Federer.

of course Federer was 13-6 vs Djokovic till 2010.

---

11 slams in a best 4 year period for Federer
Djokovic isn't close with only 7 slams

14 slams in a best 6 year period for Federer
Djokovic again trails clearly at 11

and of course Federer at his prime never came close to something like 1/9 slams won (same period nadal won 4/9 slams) like Djokovic did from RG 12-RG 14.
Even with all 3 of them (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) in top 3 for most part, Federer won 7/13 slams from 2007 to AO 2010.

 

[Lew II]

Yeah, its structured that way to ensure proper distribution for RR, semi and final & for them to combine for a 1500 points. Not that I'd expect you to think&understand.

A slam semi doesn't give a title either.
And winning final of a 500 for instance (gives 200 points) is less valuable than winning semi of the YEC.

All it means is that Federer was good enough to reach important far more often, even when well past his prime.
Of course the weaker fields in 2015, early 2016 also helped.

Djokovic was lucky in the h2h to have majority of their matches when FEderer was past his prime (of course , Djokovic didn't even play a single match vs 04-05 fed).
And even then, the lead is slender for Djokovic. If situation was reversed, it'd be a massive lead for Federer.
prime to prime, of course Federer would have the clear edge.

in 11-12, with Djokovic at his peak and Federer past his prime, the slam h2h was 2-3 Federer and was twice a point away from being 3-2 Federer.

of course Federer was 13-6 vs Djokovic till 2010.

---

11 slams in a best 4 year period for Federer
Djokovic isn't close with only 7 slams

14 slams in a best 6 year period for Federer
Djokovic again trails clearly at 11

and of course Federer at his prime never came close to something like 1/9 slams won (same period nadal won 4/9 slams) like Djokovic did from RG 12-RG 14.
Even with all 3 of them (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) in top 3 for most part, Federer won 7/13 slams from 2007 to AO 2010.

You write a lot to confuse people.

Fed is down 5-11 in the most relevant matches, which Fed was good enough to reach, often dropping only 0/1 sets (later I'll give you the right stat).

 

[abmk]

You write a lot to confuse people.e

no, I write what is required to complete my point.
Again, you have no response because it completely blows your agenda away.

Fed is down 5-11 in the most relevant matches, which Fed was good enough to reach, often dropping only 0/1 sets (later I'll give you the right stat).

weak or relatively weak paths to most of them.

Like I said before.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-and-2015-at-the-us-open.632412/post-12932675



Djokovic also reached YEC 16 final (dropping 1 TB set, dominated rest of the match) and getting in quite a few dominant sets, but got thrashed in the final
He was even better in YEC 18 , but again got thrashed in the final.

hey, atleast Federer was in 2 very close sets vs Djokovic in 2012 unlike Djokovic vs Zverev in 2018.

Djokovic got into the USO 2012 final , losing only 1 set, but went down 2 sets to love vs Murray and lost in 5.
His % of games won at the USO is highest in USO 12, but he didn't even win it. (unlike in 11, 15,18).
Maybe you should actually stop looking at these cherry-picked stats and get a clue as to what actually happened by watching, hmm ?

 

[Lew II]

A slam semi doesn't give a title either.
And winning final of a 500 for instance (gives 200 points) is less valuable than winning semi of the YEC.

But the YEC is not a slam and a 500 is not a masters.

You have to consider two things:

- tournament
- round

IMO a Masters final is more important than a YEC semifinal.

 

[abmk]

But the YEC is not a slam and a 500 is not a masters.

You have to consider two things:

- tournament
- round

IMO a Masters final is more important than a YEC semifinal.

and a Masters tournament is not the YEC.
did you happen to miss that ?

 

[Lew II]

@abmk

Federer's path in the 16 big losses to Djokovic (in 24 matches):

2007 Canada: 10 sets to 0
2008 AO: 15-2
2010 UO: 15-0
2011 AO: 15-3
2011 UO: 15-1
2012 RG: 15-5
2012 YEC: 7-2
2014 IW: 10-0
2014 WI: 18-1
2015 IW: 10-0
2015 Ro: 8-0
2015 WI: 18-1
2015 UO: 18-0
2015 YEC: 8-1
2016 AO: 15-1
2018: Ci: 8-1

Total: 205 sets to 18.

 

[Lew II]

and a Masters tournament is not the YEC.
did you happen to miss that ?

I considered it and I still think a Masters final is more important than a YEC semifinal.

 

[Lew II]

2014 IW: 10-0
2014 WI: 18-1
2015 IW: 10-0
2015 Ro: 8-0
2015 WI: 18-1
2015 UO: 18-0
2015 YEC: 8-1
2016 AO: 15-1

2015 Cincinnati: 10-0

In this period Federer reached 10 big matches winning 115 sets out of 119 and he lost 9 times to Djokovic

Djokovic was really a nightmare for him.

@abmk

 

[abmk]

@abmk

Federer's path in the 16 big losses to Djokovic (in 24 matches):

2007 Canada: 10 sets to 0
2008 AO: 15-2
2010 UO: 15-0
2011 AO: 15-3
2011 UO: 15-1
2012 RG: 15-5
2012 YEC: 7-2
2014 IW: 10-0
2014 WI: 18-1
2015 IW: 10-0
2015 Ro: 8-0
2015 WI: 18-1
2015 UO: 18-0
2015 YEC: 8-1
2016 AO: 15-1
2018: Ci: 8-1

Total: 205 sets to 18.

I don't need these stats. I followed tennis and I know what happened in most, if not all of the notable matches.

As I posted before :

Djokovic also reached YEC 16 final (dropping 1 TB set, dominated rest of the match) and getting in quite a few dominant sets, but got thrashed in the final
He was even better in YEC 18 , but again got thrashed in the final.

hey, atleast Federer was in 2 very close sets vs Djokovic in 2012 unlike Djokovic vs Zverev in 2018.

Djokovic got into the USO 2012 final , losing only 1 set, but went down 2 sets to love vs Murray and lost in 5.
His % of games won at the USO is highest in USO 12, but he didn't even win it. (unlike in 11, 15,18).
Maybe you should actually stop looking at these cherry-picked stats and get a clue as to what actually happened by watching, hmm ?

----------

Let me add couple more examples :
Djokovic came into the final of Wimbledon ___ losing 3 sets on the way to the final. (1 set each to 3 players)
Djokovic came into the final of Wimbledon ___ losing 2 sets on the way to the final. (both to the same player who was playing really well).
Djokovic came into the final of Wimbledon ___ losing 4 sets on the way to the final. (very barely escapes losing a 5th set)

result 1--> Djokovic wins final in 4 sets
result 2 --> Djokovic gets thrashed in 3 straight sets
result 3 --> Djokovic wins final in 5 sets

 

[Lew II]

I don't need these stats. I followed tennis and I know what happened in most, if not all of the notable matches.

As I posted before :

Djokovic also reached YEC 16 final (dropping 1 TB set, dominated rest of the match) and getting in quite a few dominant sets, but got thrashed in the final
He was even better in YEC 18 , but again got thrashed in the final.

hey, atleast Federer was in 2 very close sets vs Djokovic in 2012 unlike Djokovic vs Zverev in 2018.

Djokovic got into the USO 2012 final , losing only 1 set, but went down 2 sets to love vs Murray and lost in 5.
His % of games won at the USO is highest in USO 12, but he didn't even win it. (unlike in 11, 15,18).
Maybe you should actually stop looking at these cherry-picked stats and get a clue as to what actually happened by watching, hmm ?

----------

Let me add couple more examples :
Djokovic came into the final of Wimbledon ___ losing 3 sets on the way to the final. (1 set each to 3 players)
Djokovic came into the final of Wimbledon ___ losing 2 sets on the way to the final. (both to the same player who was playing really well).
Djokovic came into the final of Wimbledon ___ losing 4 sets on the way to the final. (very barely escapes losing a 5th set)

result 1--> Djokovic wins final in 4 sets
result 2 --> Djokovic gets thrashed in 3 straight sets
result 3 --> Djokovic wins final in 5 sets

Peak Djoko can lose.

You have to admit peak Fed can lose too.

 

[abmk]

2015 Cincinnati: 10-0

In this period Federer reached 10 big matches winning 115 sets out of 119 and he lost 9 times to Djokovic

Djokovic was really a nightmare for him.

@abmk

33-34 year well past his prime guy loses in slams to peak ATG. shocker.
of course your cherry picked BS ignore Masters semis like Monte Carlo 14, Shanghai 14 where Federer beat Djokovic in straight sets.

Can't win a final if you can't even get to it.

03 YEC- 05 USO : Agassi vs Federer = 0-8
14-15 Federer vs Djokovic = 6-8

 

[Lew II]

Federer lost 11 of the last 12 big matches against Djoko (12/13 with 14YEC)

That's an humiliation as big as not beating Nadal in slams for 9 and a half years.

 

[Lew II]

33-34 year well past his prime guy loses in slams to peak ATG. shocker.
of course your cherry picked BS ignore Masters semis like Monte Carlo 14, Shanghai 14 where Federer beat Djokovic in straight sets.

Can't win a final if you can't even get to it.

03 YEC- 05 USO : Agassi vs Federer = 0-8
14-15 Federer vs Djokovic = 6-8

Agassi has nothing to do with Federer.

wins over top10

2004-08 Agassi: 9
2004-18 Federer 51

2004-05 Agassi: 8
2014-15 Federer: 32

 

[abmk]

Peak Djoko can lose.

You have to admit peak Fed can lose too.

of course peak Fed can lose as well.
But just quite a bit less than Djokovic.
Take any 4 year period for Djokovic. his stats pale in comparision to 2004-07 for Federer.
Actual level of play as well.

its closer over a 6 year prime period for instance, but still Federer's is considerably better.

In any case my point was :
Maybe you should actually stop looking at these cherry-picked stats and get a clue as to what actually happened by watching, hmm ?
Djokovic playing great in 2018 YEC before the final means nothing in the actual final if he puts in a performance like he did in the YEC 18 final vs Zverev. Its called age related inconsistency.

 

[abmk]

Agassi has nothing to do with Federer.

wins over top10

2004-08 Agassi: 9
2004-18 Federer 51

2004-05 Agassi: 8
2014-15 Federer: 32

yes, 2 ATGs past their primes

the 2nd set of stats just goes to show how weak the 2014-2015 period was compared to 2004-05.

 

[abmk]

Federer lost 11 of the last 12 big matches against Djoko (12/13 with 14YEC)

That's an humiliation as big as not beating Nadal in slams for 9 and a half years.

Like I've always said : well past his prime old Federer.
This is conclusive evidence.

otherwise he wouldn't be losing so much vs someone like Djokovic whom even someone like Stan or Murray thrash in slam finals......
oh and not to forget whom someone like Khachanov/Zverev thrash in Masters finals
or someone like Murray/Zverev thrash in YEC finals.

When Federer was only past his prime, but not as old, he went 2-3, 2 times points away from being 3-2 vs peak Djokovic in 11/12 in slams.
How much more conclusive does the evidence need to be ?

 

[Lew II]

yes, 2 ATGs past their primes

the 2nd set of stats just goes to show how weak the 2014-2015 period was compared to 2004-05.

If 2014-15 was weak how did top10 reach the match with Fed so many times?

 

[abmk]

If 2014-15 was weak how did top10 reach the match with Fed so many times?

the players below 10 sucked, so the top 10 guys reached federer by default !

 

[Lew II]

the players below 10 sucked, so the top 10 guys reached federer by default !

Agassi's 2004-05 prize money: $2,803,900
Federer's 2014-15 prize money: $15,796,882

With so much different money in it, which tour could be the more competitive?

 

[abmk]

Agassi's 2004-05 prize money: $2,803,900
Federer's 2014-15 prize money: $15,796,882

With so much different money in it, which tour could be the more competitive?

too much easy money in 14-15, hence tour guys are getting lazier.
tennis far more competitive in 04-05.

Edit : I mean , just look the fragile, glass bodies of Raonic, Nishikori, Goffin etc.
Worst gen ever !

 

[Lew II]

too much easy money in 14-15, hence tour guys are getting lazier.
tennis far more competitive in 04-05.

Edit : I mean , just look the fragile, glass bodies of Raonic, Nishikori, Goffin etc.
Worst gen ever !

Football players must be the laziest athletes in the world then.

First time I heard this theory, interesting.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Nole's performance at the US Open in those 3 years drew similar results statistically, the only difference is that he lost to the goat Federer in 2007 final. He was unlucky in 2007, but I think his high level of playing could have beaten Nole 2011/2015 given an opportunity.

Djokovic by the numbers at the US Open:
Ace percentage:
2007 8.9%
2011 5.6%
2015 7.1%

First serve %
2007 60.8%
2011 64%
2015 63.5%

First serve point won
2007 76.9%
2011 72.7%
2015 74.9%

Second serve point won
2007 56.8%
2011 54%
2015 61.3%

Hold percentage
2007 89.3%
2011 83.2%
2015 89.2%

Service point won
2007 69%
2011 66%
2015 69.9%

Return point won
2007 40.2%
2011 48.5%
2015 43.8%



Despite Federer put a dent on Nole's spectacular stats at the 2007 USO final, his overall numbers remains similar to 2011 and 2015.

No. Djokovic 2011 has something that 2007 didn't have. Supreme clutchness. Djokovic choked several set points in 07, Djokovic 2011 had a much more bigger killer instinct.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Football players must be the laziest athletes in the world then.

First time I heard this theory, interesting.

Messi doesn't even run. He just walks the pitch.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

In 2007 his level wasnt bad at the US open at all so this thread isn't making the point it hopes to. (although I undrstand it is a "response" to a similar thread, I believe in 2007 ND had a chance to win all 3 sets and blew a break lead, maybe twice in the last game of the set? I'm pretty sure he lead by a break in each set or at least went to a tiebreak.

The difference in 2011/early 2012 run (maybe starting with USO 10 SF victory) was winning the tight matches and playing well in the tough moments.

Examples: USO 10/11 saves 2 MPS vs. Federer in each match, the 2nd match on return. Goes on to win each 7-5 in the 5th.

AO 12 SF/F Wins both matches 7-5 in the 5th. Down 15-40 to Murray about to get broken late in 5th and goes on a run flipping script to win. Down a break 4-2 30-15 returning serve vs. Nadal. Goes on again to win 7-5 in the 5th.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

No. Djokovic 2011 has something that 2007 didn't have. Supreme clutchness. Djokovic choked several set points in 07, Djokovic 2011 had a much more bigger killer instinct.

While the reverse is true for Fed

 

[Lew II]

Messi doesn't even run. He just walks the pitch.

It is a joke, right?

 

[abmk]

In 2007 his level wasnt bad at the US open at all so this thread isn't making the point it hopes to. (although I undrstand it is a "response" to a similar thread, I believe in 2007 ND had a chance to win all 3 sets and blew a break lead, maybe twice in the last game of the set? I'm pretty sure he lead by a break in each set or at least went to a tiebreak.

In USO 2007 final,
5 SPs in set1 while serving for it. (federer clutch+djokovic choke)
2 SPs in set 2 (federer saved them both). Djoko was up a break (4-1)

Djokovic didn't have a break lead in the 3rd set.

federer had one UE stretch in that match, 5 all in the 1st to 1-4 in the 2nd set. djoko got both breaks of his match in that. else federer played a pretty good match.
federer was still clutch enough to take set 1 , helped by djoko choking.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

In USO 2007 final,
5 SPs in set1 while serving for it. (federer clutch+djokovic choke)
2 SPs in set 2 (federer saved them both). Djoko was up a break (4-1)

Djokovic didn't have a break lead in the 3rd set.

federer had one UE stretch in that match, 5 all in the 1st to 1-4 in the 2nd set. djoko got both breaks of his match in that. else played a pretty good match.
federer was still clutch enough to take set 1 , helped by djoko choking.

Yes, what are we disagreeing about?

 

[abmk]

Yes, what are we disagreeing about?

not disagreeing. Expanding on what happened in the sets in that match.
Also pointing out that Djoko didn't have a break lead in the 3rd set.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

@Lew II and @abmk ~ a match made in heaven.

Early nomination for best 2019 doubles team.


*assuming they don’t kill each other.

 

[Lew II]

Messi doesn't even run. He just walks the pitch.

Actually you're right, if we compare him to other players. But that doesn't mean footballers are not great athletes who train a lot, including Messi. It's just his game style, his role is not endless running.