Djokovic and Nadal are just bad matchups versus Federer!

[mike danny]

Way to early to write Djoker off. Fed had his own lil swoon around the same time when he swapped rackets. Lets see if ND can bounce back

I'm not writing him off. I'm just saying that Novak's decline has been way more severe than Roger's after 2010 AO. I do expect Novak to bounce back eventually, but admiting the severity of his decline is not writing him off.

 

[mike danny]

Djoker hasn't had any problems with fed when he's healthy. If he gets healthy he'll drop Fed like a sack of potatoes just like in 2015

One question: why do you assume Djoker will return to 2015 form when he gets healthy?

That year of his was only possible because he was at his absolute peak. A 31 year old Djoker will never be at his absolute peak and if tries to play like 2015 again, he will re-injure himself.

At best he can come back to something resembling his 2013-2014 form. IMO 2011/2015 is not happening to Djoker ever again, just like 2004-2007 has not happened to Fed again and 2008/2010/2013 has not hapened to Nadal again.

 

[Pouet156]

Djoker hasn't had any problems with fed when he's healthy. If he gets healthy he'll drop Fed like a sack of potatoes just like in 2015

5-3 isn't what I'd call "drop him like a sack of potatoe"
I agree Novak won the 3 matches that mattered the most, but still.

Anyway, we'll see what Novak does at 34 if any ATG is peaking at that time. I mean, if Novak still matters by then.

There were no champions in Federer era, that's the point.

Fed era, from 2003 to 2018 ?
Yeah, I agree. No champions.

 

[JackGates]

Let's exclude Wawrinka, who some could say isn't by far better than Hewitt, Safin and Roddick (to me he is).

1) Djokovic 55
2) Nadal 46
3) Federer 37

Djokovic and Nadal beat many more champions than Federer.

Ok, if they are so good, why can't they win 20 majors then? Surely if they can beat all those champions they shouldn't be losing to Chung, Cilic, NIshikori, Wawrinka, Rosol and easily win 20 majors and 306 weeks number 1.

 

[BeatlesFan]

At best he can come back to something resembling his 2013-2014 form. IMO 2011/2015 is not happening to Djoker ever again, just like 2004-2007 has not happened to Fed again and 2008/2010/2013 has not hapened to Nadal again.

I agree completely and can't understand why people don't get this. Djoker is never playing at his 2011 level again, that ship has sailed.

Also excluded from this is the possibility of some new player absolutely exploding upon the scene and dominating the tour. This happened with Sampras at the USO, coming out of nowhere to beat Lendl, Mac and Agassi (8 USO titles between those guys). I realize this is a pathetic next Gen, but maybe Tiafoe or someone like Coric will suddenly start winning majors. It's laughable on one hand, but not at all unusual in tennis history. Some new powerhouse player might beat Djoker easily.

 

[JackGates]

I agree completely and can't understand why people don't get this. Djoker is never playing at his 2011 level again, that ship has sailed.

Also excluded from this is the possibility of some new player absolutely exploding upon the scene and dominating the tour. This happened with Sampras at the USO, coming out of nowhere to beat Lendl, Mac and Agassi (8 USO titles between those guys). I realize this is a pathetic next Gen, but maybe Tiafoe or someone like Coric will suddenly start winning majors. It's laughable on one hand, but not at all unusual in tennis history. Some new powerhouse player might beat Djoker easily.

Ok, next gen are really close, might not be that far away. Without Fedal Thiem, Dimitrov and Anderson would now be slam winners, maybe even Chung would defeat Cilic at the AO. And Rafa is injured now, so there is only Fed and even Fed is ancient.

Plus, there are so many of the young guns, so by the law of averages they will make upsets even if they aren't so good.

Sometimes playing 10 different players one time is much harder than playing just one guy 10 times even if those guys are not as good.

 

[JMR]

Sometimes playing 10 different players one time is much harder than playing just one guy 10 times even if those guys are not as good.

This is true, and it's the main reason that the purported "pro slams" of the 1960s cannot possibly be equated to the majors of the Open Era. Sure, they had the handful of very best players, but they didn't have enough players.

 

[abmk]

One question: why do you assume Djoker will return to 2015 form when he gets healthy?

That year of his was only possible because he was at his absolute peak. A 31 year old Djoker will never be at his absolute peak and if tries to play like 2015 again, he will re-injure himself.

At best he can come back to something resembling his 2013-2014 form. IMO 2011/2015 is not happening to Djoker ever again, just like 2004-2007 has not happened to Fed again and 2008/2010/2013 has not hapened to Nadal again.

agree. People are being delusional if they think djoker can return to 11/15 form.
They should be thrilled if he returned to anything near 13-14 form, happy if he returned to 07-08 form.

 

[JackGates]

This is true, and it's the main reason that the purported "pro slams" of the 1960s cannot possibly be equated to the majors of the Open Era. Sure, they had the handful of very best players, but they didn't have enough players.

I disagree. Great players will be great in any era. Let me tell you from my experience. I played computer strategy game online. At the beginning I was among the best in the world, because competition was low, just maybe 100k people were playing and I could practice for 2 hours a day and still compete.

But later the game became more professional. People started to practice for 5-10 hours per day and millions of people were playing and all the strategies were known. And replays were introduced when you could replay every game and check what we were doing.

Guess what? I still owned the same people even when they trained more and had this info. Why? Because I also had this info. The only difference was that I needed more time, that's it. The creativity, talent and mindset that let me win in weaker era also let me win in stronger era. Nothing was different really, the only difference was that you needed a lot more time to practice.

Winning is problem solving and nothing else and those skills remain with you no matter what.

Look it doesn't matter how many are playing. If 100k are playing and nobody is dominating you are ok. But there could be 10 people playing and if they are geniuses you will be in trouble.

 

[JackGates]

agree. People are being delusional if they think djoker can return to 11/15 form.
They should be thrilled if he returned to anything near 13-14 form, happy if he returned to 07-08 form.

Also even if he could they are delusional to think that form would even be enough. Surely in 3 years the field learned some new things, didn't they? Fed for sure improved.

 

[JMR]

I disagree. Great players will be great in any era.

That's not the point at all. The comparison I'm drawing is not between players -- it's between kinds of tournaments. Players like Laver, Rosewall, and others were unquestionably great. That does mean that certain events in which they participated should be deemed the rough equivalent of Open Era slams, in large part because of the small, thin fields in which the same few guys appeared again and again. As you pointed out previously, coping with a large, ever-changing cast of opponents is a significant challenge.

 

[vex]

Let's not talk about IF here. Now is 2018 and not 2015. 3 years have passed and the guy himself is in his 30s now. We should see maybe in 5 years time if a younger healthy new player have no problems with djoker?

I thought one thing you guys must learned from those bumped threads where you guys bragged exactly like the above quote (talked big and so surely about your djoker) and see what happened? Obviously, still not learning from those bump threads

Kinda like how u didn't learn from those Wimby '14, '15 and USO '15 threads where very Fed fan on TTW circle-J'd for 20+ pages the day before the final match about how Fed was gonna trounce Djoker? Is it like that?

 

[vex]

no resistance at AO 17 huh

Its all comparative. Beating 30 year old Rafa was nice for excising Fed's personal demons but its not like beating 25 y/o Rafa

We're in the freaking Marin Cilic Era for godsakes, cmon now... We need Djoker back healthy so we can get some good matches. Until then, if Fed is healthy he should win everything. Including RG if Rafa isn't back healthy by then.

 

[vex]

Why shouldn't Nole bounce back? You are saying he is better than Federer, so he should do it easily, he is only 31.

I never said he's better than Fed. I think you can point to years where he played at a higher level than Fed reached but Fed has proven the test of time which is more important and solidified himself as the GOAT. Djoker has not and his opportunities to catch Fed have passed. That said, if Djoker can bounce back from this injury mess I expect him to get back to a level where he win 60-70% of his matches against 37 y/o Fed.

 

[Sasuke]

Kinda like how u didn't learn from those Wimby '14, '15 and USO '15 threads where very Fed fan on TTW circle-J'd for 20+ pages the day before the final match about how Fed was gonna trounce Djoker? Is it like that?

Yes. Including those threads .

No point to make the same mistake as tons of people did here..don't you think? Or maybe you enjoy being laughed at by making over the top predictions that goes wildly wrong and being laughed at when proved wrong? For me personally, I wouldn't do that as none of us know what will happen in the future. And that goes to any kind of wild predictions

 

[JackGates]

That's not the point at all. The comparison I'm drawing is not between players -- it's between kinds of tournaments. Players like Laver, Rosewall, and others were unquestionably great. That does mean that certain events in which they participated should be deemed the rough equivalent of Open Era slams, in large part because of the small, thin fields in which the same few guys appeared again and again. As you pointed out previously, coping with a large, ever-changing cast of opponents is a significant challenge.

Well, we don't know if it's harder. It's statistically more probable that more talents will emerge with bigger field, but that doesn't mean it actually happened.

Besides you can remove 1000 players from the clay field, but if Nadal stays, doesn't really matter. Or you can add 10.000 guys who aren't clay goats and take Nadal out and Fed still dominates clay.

So, it's possible to have larger field with weaker competition or smaller field with stronger competition.

 

[JackGates]

I never said he's better than Fed. I think you can point to years where he played at a higher level than Fed reached but Fed has proven the test of time which is more important and solidified himself as the GOAT. Djoker has not and his opportunities to catch Fed have passed. That said, if Djoker can bounce back from this injury mess I expect him to get back to a level where he win 60-70% of his matches against 37 y/o Fed.

What level, do you mean statistically or the level of play? Statistically he didn't, Fed 2003-2007 was higher.

But, yeah possibly he did reach higher level of play, but that is evolution, nothing to do with Djokovic. Greats in every era were better than greats in previous era.

That's why the level of play doesn't really matter. Roddick reached higher level than Laver, means nothing.

Also we can't even be sure if Djokovic reached higher level, because the conditions are different. Yes on plexi sure, I give you that, but you needed different skills to win in 2003-2007.

Hey if conditions were the same, I would agree that Djokovic reached higher level. Doesn't really matter though.

 

[JMR]

Besides you can remove 1000 players from the clay field, but if Nadal stays, doesn't really matter.

The first man to beat Nadal at Roland Garros was seeded No. 23 at the time. Had the French Open been a typical micro-field "pro slam," Soderling wouldn't even have been playing!

 

[JackGates]

The first man to beat Nadal at Roland Garros was seeded No. 23 at the time. Had the French Open been a typical micro-field "pro slam," Soderling wouldn't even have been playing!

Well, you assume that Federer also wouldn't beat Nadal in 2009. Maybe Federer in his form would beat Nadal too if Soderling was able to. Djokovic beat subpar Nadal once, so maybe Fed could do it once in 2009 anyway.

Sure, if you can prove that Fed wouldn't beat Nadal, then I see your point, but you can't.

 

[JMR]

Well, you assume that Federer also wouldn't beat Nadal in 2009. Maybe Federer in his form would beat Nadal too if Soderling was able to. Djokovic beat subpar Nadal once, so maybe Fed could do it once in 2009 anyway.

Sure, if you can prove that Fed wouldn't beat Nadal, then I see your point, but you can't.

No, it's not necessary to prove that any particular final result would have ensued with a much smaller field. It's only necessary to show that a particular LOSS could not have occurred with a much smaller field, which I have done. Soderling out of the tournament because the field has been reduced to 16 or 8 players means that Nadal can't lose to Soderling. In other words, the larger field of the full-fledged slam worked to Nadal's disadvantage in this instance. And there have been plenty of similar instances throughout the Open Era.

 

[JackGates]

No, it's not necessary to prove that any particular final result would have ensued with a much smaller field. It's only necessary to show that a particular LOSS could not have occurred with a much smaller field, which I have done. Soderling out of the tournament because the field has been reduced to 16 or 8 players means that Nadal can't lose to Soderling. In other words, the larger field of the full-fledged slam worked to Nadal's disadvantage in this instance. And there have been plenty of similar instances throughout the Open Era.

But that's the problem, you have only proven probability and not that it actually happened. Maybe by pure chance Soderling stays in the reduced field.

That's the problem, this is a one time event. You don't know how the luck played out. If you flip a coin you can have 10 heads in a row. So, maybe Laver had to play versus 10 Federers.

Same thing with our life in the Universe. Yes probability is high that there is intelligent life there, but you can't prove it for sure and how many.

Sample size is too small.

 

[abmk]

Also even if he could they are delusional to think that form would even be enough. Surely in 3 years the field learned some new things, didn't they? Fed for sure improved.

its not necessary. Some of them would've retired. Some of them would've declined due to age and other factors. Some of them could be injured more than before.
15 form djokovic is more than enough for current field (except fed) and even vs fed, he'd have the edge.

 

[JackGates]

its not necessary. Some of them would've retired. Some of them would've declined due to age and other factors. Some of them could be injured more than before.
15 form djokovic is more than enough for current field (except fed) and even vs fed, he'd have the edge.

Yes, but that is only your opinion, let's not pretend like this is a fact, there is no way to know this.

Ok can you tell me how you can measure the level of play?

 

[JMR]

But that's the problem, you have only proven probability and not that it actually happened. Maybe by pure chance Soderling stays in the reduced field.

Huh? It has nothing to do with chance. It's a matter of rankings. By definition, a field that consists of only the top 8 or the top 12 or the top 16 players in the world -- i.e. the kind of "cream-skimmed" fields typical of 1960s "pro slams" -- will exclude the No. 23 player. The fact is that low-ranked players sometimes upset highly ranked players, or even great players, in genuine slams with full fields. That simply can't happen in events with tiny fields.

 

[JackGates]

Huh? It has nothing to do with chance. It's a matter of rankings. By definition, a field that consists of only the top 8 or the top 12 or the top 16 players in the world -- i.e. the kind of "cream-skimmed" fields typical of 1960s "pro slams" -- will exclude the No. 23 player. The fact is that low-ranked players sometimes upset highly ranked players, or even great players, in genuine slams with full fields. That simply can't happen in events with tiny fields.

I think it evens itself out. Yes those lower ranked players can upset you, but they also upset your competition too.

Soderling also defeated Federer at the French open, so he helped him win 1 major but he stopped him from 1 major, so it evens itself out.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Ok, if they are so good, why can't they win 20 majors then? Surely if they can beat all those champions they shouldn't be losing to Chung, Cilic, NIshikori, Wawrinka, Rosol and easily win 20 majors and 306 weeks number 1.

Because they faced better players. Djokovic is almost the same age as Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic, Berdych, Tsonga, Nishikori, Monfils, Gasquet... It's one of the greatest generations ever.

 

[JackGates]

Because they faced better players. Djokovic is almost the same age as Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic, Berdych, Tsonga, Nishikori, Monfils, Gasquet... It's one of the greatest generations ever.

Yeah, I agree, they faced 20 GS champions. Federer never faced a 20 GS champion. Weak era.

 

[vex]

What level, do you mean statistically or the level of play? Statistically he didn't, Fed 2003-2007 was higher.

But, yeah possibly he did reach higher level of play, but that is evolution, nothing to do with Djokovic. Greats in every era were better than greats in previous era.

That's why the level of play doesn't really matter. Roddick reached higher level than Laver, means nothing.

Also we can't even be sure if Djokovic reached higher level, because the conditions are different. Yes on plexi sure, I give you that, but you needed different skills to win in 2003-2007.

Hey if conditions were the same, I would agree that Djokovic reached higher level. Doesn't really matter though.

I agree with pretty much every point u made

In the end its accomplishments that matter. Fed has pretty much got that locked up for the next half century. That's why I'm always so befuddled by insecure Fed Fans (not referring to u, just in general) who are constantly posting nonsense ("moonballs", "pusher") trying to run down Rafa and Novak. Just makes no sense.

People can't just enjoy a great Fed v Djoker match? They're seriously worried that Djoker is a threat to his legacy like he's gonna rattle off 9 (NINE!?!?) more slams? Insanity.

 

[I am the Greatest!]

hahahha cryboys. Federer aint the goat because of Nadal and Djokovic. End of story.

20 Grand Slams.

I don't know if you're trolling or not, but that number reflects his stature in Tennis history.

 

[I am the Greatest!]

Fed didn’t even become Fed until age 22/23. But Djoker and Rafa entering the tour between 16-18 should have just started instantly dominating peak Fed? He had years to run up the H2H before they hit thier true primes. And sure enough, putting Rafa aside, that’s exactly how the 50/50 Djokovic- Fed rivalry played out. Early dominance by Fed, late dominance by Novak

Dude, do you know how many times Novak and Federer played before Novak reached his prime/peak? Novak played Federer fewer times before Novak hit his peak. Federer played peak Novak more when Federer reached his decline.

 

[abmk]

Yes, but that is only your opinion, let's not pretend like this is a fact, there is no way to know this.

Ok can you tell me how you can measure the level of play?

Watch the matches, cross-check with the stats, read about matches. Much tougher than going by assumption that things always improve in tennis ,I know !

The game changes, but it doesn't always improve. The 2hbh for instance is more solid in general , but less adept at dealing with the slice. Guys in the modern era don't volley well. The young gen (minus shapo & maybe Kyrgios) are allergic to the net.

How many guys do you see SnVing, chip and charging , even once in a while to mix it up ?

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Dude, do you know how many times Novak and Federer played before Novak reached his prime/peak? Novak played Federer fewer times before Novak hit his peak. Federer played peak Novak more when Federer reached his decline.

Federer at 36 wins 3 slams out of 5 beating Nadal 4 times on a row, 7 sets in a row without even letting him at 5 games.

A player peaks at 30, after years of training, not at 20. But at 30 he usually wins less because the opponents have improved, the rackets have changed (that's not the case of the last 15 years) and the player has lost confidence and motivation (that's not the case of Federer).

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Fed didn’t even become Fed until age 22/23. But Djoker and Rafa entering the tour between 16-18 should have just started instantly dominating peak Fed? He had years to run up the H2H before they hit thier true primes. And sure enough, putting Rafa aside, that’s exactly how the 50/50 Djokovic- Fed rivalry played out. Early dominance by Fed, late dominance by Novak

Federer-Djokovic is not a 50/50 rivalry at all. Djokovic dominated the most important matches, on Federer's favourite surfaces.

3-1 in slam finals (2 grass, 2 fast hardcourt)
3-0 in wtf finals (indoor hardcourt)
6-4 in slam semifinals (4 fast hardcourt, 3 slow hardcourt, 2 clay, 1 grass, 2 clay)
4-3 in 1000 finals (4 fast hardcourt, 2 slow hardcourt, 1 clay)

 

[I am the Greatest!]

Federer at 36 wins 3 slams out of 5 beating Nadal 4 times on a row, 7 sets in a row without even letting him at 5 games.

A player peaks at 30, after years of training, not at 20. But at 30 he usually wins less because the opponents have improved, the rackets have changed (that's not the case of the last 15 years) and the player has lost confidence and motivation (that's not the case of Federer).

Anyone saying that Federer peaked at 30 is a complete fool and should never be taken seriously.

 

[mike danny]

Anyone saying that Federer peaked at 30 is a complete fool and should never be taken seriously.

Except he didn't peak at 30, he peaked at 35