ThiemPlayer
Rookie
In 2011, Djokovic was a point away from losing 2/3 slams to post peak Federer.
Djokovic 2011 vs Federer 2006
- Thread starter beltsman
- Start date
ForehandCross
G.O.A.T.
Irony is strong with this oneI find it very funny, I have to admit, that you sounds very sure that Federer would win those two hypothetical matches in the midst of his 10 year Slam drought against Nadal, and yet in the same post you're talking about logic.
What's even funnier is that you posted this and yet you yourself were the one to go around proclaiming that Federer won't win these matches.
The burden of proving rests with you too.
If you can't prove it then stop arguing for against it.
Nadal_Django
Legend
What to prove? That i believe that Nadal would win in 2011, at the time when his Slam record against Federer was something like 367:2?
beltsman
G.O.A.T.
Unfortunately for you, your argument rests on the merit of a player's ATP ranking. ATP ranking is not a good measure of level.
TennisFan3
Talk Tennis Guru
Not sure about that. Djokovic HAS beaten Nadal at the French Open which Federer hasn't ever. Djokovic also took Nadal to 5 sets, which Federer also hasn't done.
Novak has generally played well at the French Open. He's been stopped either by Nadal (duh), Stan (kryptonite for Novak) or Thiem (the 2nd best clay courter).
Djokovic IMO has a better shot at another French Open title than Federer. He is always been the favorite after Nadal. Federer IMO never played great in the French Open after 2009. Except that 1 match in 2011 F.O S.F.
If Novak wins another French Open, he will be, justifiably so, the 2nd best clay courter of this era.
ForehandCross
G.O.A.T.
No sir the slam record then wasWhat to prove? That i believe that Nadal would win in 2011, at the time when his Slam record against Federer was something like 367:2?
1-2 down on grass
1-0 on HC(And Federer led in every criteria going to 5th in AO)
And 5-0 up On clay.
Tell me how does 2-2 off clay in any way scream certainty when even the two wins were very very hard earned ?
And What hypothetical and empty logic?
Even on clay in real 2011 , Federer took 3 sets off of a man that Rafael could not take even one off in entire clay season?
FACT.
On actual Clay in 2011 Fedal had a very close match in Madrid and a close match for three sets in FO.
FACT.
Grass is the surface where the match up issue is least pronounced after indoors.
Federer led 2-1 at the time and handily won the last Grass match between the two.
FACT.
If real 2011 Federer wasn't really scared of Nadal on CLAY , why would he even be hampered on grass?
Mind you I Never said Nadal will definitely lose 2011 WB to Roger. He will fight. And will have his chances.
But to say Roger won't be able to anything against Rafa on grass is laughable.
RS
Bionic Poster
Yeah 2011 Djokovic played Federer a bit to agressively at times.
ForehandRF
Legend
So, a match up decides the better season and nothing else matters ? Federer was 3-2 vs Nadal in 2007, was he better overall than in 2006 ?
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
Statistically 06erer was better. But for playing level....if Peak Nadal (who was clearly better in 11 than 06) can't touch you, you know you're doing something special.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Not in the final he wasn't.
It’s an objective, accepted, and reliable measurement of a player’s level. Otherwise, a person could claim that right now, Dimitrov ranked 22nd is playing at a higher level than Djokovic ranked 1st.
You can’t claim that ranking doesn’t matter just because it’s not convenient. You certainly wouldn’t agree with the claim that Federer’s weeks at No. 1 mean nothing about his level of tennis.
lud
Hall of Fame
Wrong on so many levels.
1. Fed was more constant
2. Nadal was much better on clay in 2006(not on HC and same level on grass)
3. Djokor never faced Nadal in BO5 on clay during 2011
4. Djoker didn't even reach final of RG that year
5. Fed won WTF,Djoker didn't
6. Djoker post Us Open season was disaster
7. Fed was never bageled in 2006
8. Fed bageled his toughest rival 2x
9. Fed won more matches
10. Fed lost to only 2 players
beltsman
G.O.A.T.
No, it's a measure of ATP points accumulated over the previous 12 months. That's it.
Yes, someone could claim Dimitrov is better than Djokovic. So what?
Going by ranking, I guess you are saying that in August 2018, Dimitrov (ranked 5) was better than Djokovic (ranked 10). Even though Djokovic just won Wimbledon. After all, that's what the rankings say!
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well, same goes for 2006 Fed in 2015, really.
Take out the other Big 3 and one of them would win the CYGS in weaker seasons.
Don't be obtuse. You understand that a person who shoots up the rankings (or plummets) in just a few weeks demonstrates that his ranking at the time was not a true reflection of his form. Common sense would dictate that ranking is not a snapshot of form and that you have to take fluctuations into account as well. Being ranked No. 1 for 20 weeks vs. being No. 1 for 1 one week and then No. 15 the next week are two completely different things. Again, please use your common sense.
beltsman
G.O.A.T.
But you just told me that ranking is an "objective, accepted, and reliable measurement of a player’s level."
You made my argument for me, nothing else needs to be said
But you just told me that ranking is an "objective, accepted, and reliable measurement of a player’s level."
You made my argument for me, nothing else needs to be said
It is. Again, you're being obtuse.
A credit card is an accepted and reliable method for spending money. A power outrage or a malfunction rendering the credit card useless that one time doesn't undercut it's reliable just because sometimes it doesn't work. Sorry.
Last edited:
Out of big 3, 2015-2016 are definitely the weakest years any one of them had.
I exclude 2018-2019 because as bad as some of those slams were, Nadal and Thiem had clay on lockdown.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Sure, he beat Nadal in 2015 but the latter was in pretty bad form and struggling whole year basically. 2013 is a fair point, he took an inform Nadal to 5 sets.
That said, take a lot at his history at the FO:
2009 - he was going toe - to - toe with Nadal during CC season, got straight-setted by Kohlschreiber.
2011 - he was utterly demolishing the field until FO where he went down to Fed in 4. Yes, the latter played a great match (and FO used lighter balls that year) but it was still under-performing considering everything, he was a joint favourite for the FO with Nadal that year.
2012 - ***** Tsonga had MPs against him, c'mon.
2014 - Starts throwing up in the final against Nadal.
2015 - the best season of his career, allows the match with Murray to go 5 sets and then goes down to Stan in 4. Even with Stan being his kryptonite in slam matches he still went down relatively meekly and had no business letting Murray push him to 5 on clay.
Fed was done as a contender at the FO after 2012 (or 2011 arguably) but from 2005-2011 he usually brought a very good level at the FO and was only stopped by Nadal basically (lone loss to Soderling aside). There wasn't this discrepancy in level between CC masters and FO that is present with Novak.
TennisFan3
Talk Tennis Guru
Great post. I don't disagree with anything. It gets so tricky comparing Fed and Novak peak to peak on clay.
One issue is that Novak and Fed's primes do not coincide. In fact they are not even close. The fact that Grandpa Fed can make it competitive against Novak sometimes is confounding sometimes.
The other bigger issue is Novak's matchup advantage vs Nadal. That is pretty obvious on hards and grass, but even on clay it translates somewhat. That enables Novak to play at a higher level vs Nadal (even on clay), than he would against the field.
So on clay - Novak is better vs Nadal than Federer is, but Federer is better than Novak vs the rest of the field. To me, Federer was desperately unlucky in that he had to face Nadal from 2005-2008 and lost 4 times to the same player, when he obviously could have beaten everyone else. I thought Fed had a good chance in 2004/2005. 2004 was tame loss to Kuerten and 2005 SF he could have maybe beaten a cub Nadal in the Spaniard's first grand slam SF. Djokovic OTOH got 2 shots in 2015-2016 when Nadal was in a funk.
If Nadal were not there, Fed would possibly have won more French Opens than Novak did. Still, with all that if Novak wins another French Open and/or beats Nadal in Paris then the Serb would indubitably go down as the greater clay court player vs Fed.
Last edited:
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Agree with a lot of this but Tsonga would have beaten about anybody in the world that day, excluding Nadal. He was on fire in that match and that was a phenomenal effort from Novak. 2012 was actually one of his beat RG runs but he ran into a wrecking ball in the final.
Similar threads
- Poll
