Djokovic at AO vs Federer at Wimbledon

[GabeT]

Everyone agrees Nadal at RG is the greatest dominance of a slam in the Open Era

The closest to that (yet still far away) is Novak at AO

Fed had all kinds of losses at WB and didn’t quite reach the same level of slam dominance

 

[duaneeo]

Federer made every Wimbledon final from 2003-2009...defending the title four consecutive times, and suffering a lone loss to strong NextGen Nadal (who was making his 3rd consecutive final). Three years after his prime in 2012, Roger beat peak CurrentGens Djokovic and Murray to win #7.

Nothing Nole has done at the AO compares.

 

[Aabye5]

Who was better at their pet slam, the Djoker down under or the Fed at the home of tennis?

In Djokovic's favor:

1. He has more titles (10 >8)
2. He has a winning record vs Federer in Oz (4-1). In contrast Federer has a losing record vs Djokovic on the Lawns (1-3).

In Federer's favor:

1. Higher peak. Federer won once without dropping a set (2017) and 3x dropping only 1 set (2003, 2005, and 2006). In contrast, Djokovic has never had a flawless run at AO and only won 2x dropping a single set (2011 and 2023).
2. Longer winning streak. Federer won 5 in a row from 2003 - 2007. Djokovic's longest streak is 3, albeit he did it twice (2011 - 2013 and 2019 - 2021).
3. More Finals made (12 > 10)

Level of competition is about equal. Federer's opponents in the Finals comprised of Roddick 3x, Nadal 3x, Djokovic 3x, Philippousis, Murray, and Cilic. Djokovic's opponents in the Finals comprised of Murray 4x, Nadal 2x, Tsonga, Thiem, Medvedev, and Tsitsipas.

Kudos for finally giving Djokovic a worthy nickname. Egg and Djoker require too much explanation.

 

[Aabye5]

Federer made every Wimbledon final from 2003-2009...defending the title four consecutive times, and suffering a lone loss to strong NextGen Nadal (who was making his 3rd consecutive final). Three years after his prime in 2012, Roger beat peak CurrentGens Djokovic and Murray to win #7.

Nothing Nole has done at the AO compares.

Well, ten in total is pretty amazing.

Still, I do think Roger's competition averaged a little higher in the finals. Although Roddick really wasn't a threat to him.

 

[Hitman]

Everyone agrees Nadal at RG is the greatest dominance of a slam in the Open Era

The closest to that (yet still far away) is Novak at AO

Fed had all kinds of losses at WB and didn’t quite reach the same level of slam dominance

10 > 8.

That is it really.

 

[Aabye5]

10 > 8.

That is it really.

It's not that simple. Although it is a strong argument.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Have to be fair to Novak here, especially as the AO comes after the off-season when everyone has a more full tank.

 

[Hitman]

It's not that simple. Although it is a strong argument.

It actually is. 10 is greater than 8, the guy who won 10 dominated more. It's a numbers game and Djokovic had more trophies.

 

[TMF]

McDonald sells the most burgers in the world so it has to be the most delicious hamburger.

Sure, it's that simple

 

[Hitman]

McDonald sells the most burgers in the world so it has to be the most delicious hamburger.

Sure, it's that simple

Thank you for completely proving my point. LOL

McDonald's sells the most burgers, so it is the most dominant burger chain in the world. Objective numbers and facts.

Whether it is delicious or not...well, that is based on subjective taste. Or you think everyone thinks it isn't the most delicious hamburger? LOL - Federer may look more pleasing, but in sport, it is about winning and losing, and Djokovic won more than Federer. 10 is greater than 8.

 

[MichaelNadal]

McDonald sells the most burgers in the world so it has to be the most delicious hamburger.

Sure, it's that simple

It's a shame that we don't go off of taste, bc Hardee's CLEARS

 

[TMF]

Thank you for completely proving my point. LOL

McDonald's sells the most burgers, so it is the most dominant burger chain in the world. Objective numbers and facts.

Whether it is delicious or not...well, that is based on subjective taste. Or you think everyone thinks it isn't the most delicious hamburger? LOL - Federer may look more pleasing, but in sport, it is about winning and losing, and Djokovic won more than Federer. 10 is greater than 8.

Quantity doesn't equate to quality. McDonald is a low quality food and cheap

Even an unknown franchise hamburger taste better a Big Mac

10 vs. 10, but again, quantity doesn't equate to quality

 

[TMF]

It's a shame that we don't go off of taste, bc Hardee's CLEARS

Now you're making me hungry.

If given a choice to have McDonald's 10 Happy meal to 1 Hardee's double combo, I chose the later any day

 

[MichaelNadal]

Now you're making me hungry.

If given a choice to have McDonald's 10 Happy meal to 1 Hardee's double combo, I chose the later any day

Yeah Hardees is so underrated and good. Phew. Slay bestie

 

[The Guru]

This is actually quite close despite the two title gap but tie goes to the extra titles.

 

[The Guru]

Please, Djokovic didn't have a tough title win after 2012.

Lmfao in what world is 2013 not a tough title run. You've absolutely lost your marbles.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Lmfao in what world is 2013 not a tough title run. You've absolutely lost your marbles.

Stan was out there as strong as 2007 Undertaker in 2013

 

[The Guru]

Stan was out there as strong as 2007 Undertaker in 2013

Haha it's like if 2013 AO is weak how many strong slams do the Big 3 have like 5 combined? 3 top 5 wins and Stans best ever performance on a hard court what a weak draw.

 

[NatF]

Why should Stan count if Roddick doesn't? As we all know, Fed didn't have to earn his titles.

Roddick obviously counts as well.

 

[Hitman]

Quantity doesn't equate to quality. McDonald is a low quality food and cheap

Even an unknown franchise hamburger taste better a Big Mac

10 vs. 10, but again, quantity doesn't equate to quality

It still dominates and makes more money in the hamburger business than any other burger chain. It seems you are confusing subjective preference over actual factual numbers of dominance. It is not 10 vs 10. It is 10 vs 8. No way a guy who has less titles was more dominant with inferior number of trophies.

 

[zagor]

Fred is the best grasscourter I've seen at his peak (his serve and return numbers on grass were just ridiculous) but I think Novak is even more of a force at AO, also considering that I think HCs are the hardest surface to dominate (especially in the modern era).

Wizard of Oz it is.

 

[JoJoHackshow]

Remember that Novak benefited from an extremely weak era, plus they slowed the AO courts down severely after 2007.

Imma go with Fed, and quite easily at that

 

[SonnyT]

It came down to the challengers: Djokovic much more successful at WB than Federer at AO!

In fact, 2h2 Djokovic had more success than Federer at WB!

 

[NatF]

It still dominates and makes more money in the hamburger business than any other burger chain. It seems you are confusing subjective preference over actual factual numbers of dominance. It is not 10 vs 10. It is 10 vs 8. No way a guy who has less titles was more dominant with inferior number of trophies.

Question is who was better not who was more dominant.

 

[jl809]

idk what Djoker was supposed to do in his late career (2019-now) to convince folks here. Beat people like 2021vedev even more convincingly than he did? Ultimately he just kept winning every final. Yes he had the L to Stan in his prime but Fed had the L in his prime to his own matchup nightmare too

I think Fed fans can reasonably argue that Fed would be on 10 Wimbledons or maybe even more tbh if he’d enjoyed the competition that Djoker did at the AO, but with how things played out IRL, it’s hard to argue that the 10 time winner of one slam was worse, let alone equal

Djoker at the AO doesn’t have those losses like he does at Wimbledon to make you speculate about how good he actually was, and he had a ridiculously high ceiling on multiple occasions

 

[SonnyT]

Yeh, Federer had an empty field 2003-07. Djokovic had Med to spoil his '01 GS season, and suspension to ruin his '02 season. If Carlos wasn't consistent enough to spoil his '03 season, that was his problem!

 

[abmk]

Federer better prime, peak, longevity.

 

[zakopinjo]

Federer better prime, peak, longevity.

Federer's prime, peak and longevity is below Novak.

 

[gamelovergold]

Had fedrer been that good on grass as novak in AO or rafa in FO then certainly history would known fedrer as GOAT .
14 0 FO
10 0 AO
12 8 WB
No way fedrer dominated more than novak or rafa. Only the history of wimbeldon ....tradition ....all white dress....gives an aura of something great but novak is 10 7 in finals so not that far away.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Peak Thiem is no prime Djokovic.

Him winning those editions as easily as he did with an injury actually proves my point.

So, Djokovic can't "win" this argument because...he never had to...face Djokovic?

 

[jl809]

So, Djokovic can't "win" this argument because...he never had to...face Djokovic?

It’s somewhat madness to compare levels across surfaces, but the Fed fans’ point is that if Djoker fans hype up 2014/2015 Djoker at Wimbledon to be among the highest grass levels seen this century (which they routinely do), then to argue that Old Djoker faced as hard competition from guys like Thiem at the AO as Old Fed did at Wim, you’d essentially be hyping up some of 2020 Thiem / 2021 Meddy etc to that same degree

 

[RaulRamirez]

It’s somewhat madness to compare levels across surfaces, but the Fed fans’ point is that if Djoker fans hype up 2014/2015 Djoker at Wimbledon to be among the highest grass levels seen this century (which they routinely do), then to argue that Old Djoker faced as hard competition from guys like Thiem at the AO as Old Fed did at Wim, you’d essentially be hyping up some of 2020 Thiem / 2021 Meddy etc to that same degree

I get it, as silly arguments abound here - from all "sides". If I had the proverbial dollar for every time someone has said something like, " Player X is better than Player Y because Y never had to face Y", I could live and retire with an opulent lifestyle.

Per this question, if Roger (truly great at Wimby), had won 10, and had those additional finals losses, I'd be inclined to vote for him. I suppose there are still cases to be made for him if we only look at, say, a 5 or 7-year stretch, but over the full career, one has to do a whole lot of subjective "contextualizing" to make it work.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

Djokovic wins on accomplishments and peak. 2011 Aussi open Djokovic higher than any peak Fed had at Wimbledon!

 

[MichaelNadal]

Djokovic wins on accomplishments and peak. 2011 Aussi open Djokovic higher than any peak Fed had at Wimbledon!

Let’s not get crazy lol

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

Let’s not get crazy lol

Which Wimbledon of Federer was higher then? You know what a monster djokovic was at that 2011 Aussie open. People can say he dropped a set in early round but in the latter rounds Djokovic level was scary high.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Which Wimbledon of Federer was higher then? You know what a monster djokovic was at that 2011 Aussie open. People can say he dropped a set in early round but in the latter rounds Djokovic level was scary high.

04-07 all clear. At the end of the day Novak beat Murray in the final, I'm not terrified.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

04-07 all clear.

Fair enough. I respect your opinion. I’d say it was extremely close.

I’d say Fed definitely had more higher peak years than Djokovic but 2011 was just something very special from Djokovic in Melbourne.

 

[Third Serve]

Which Wimbledon of Federer was higher then? You know what a monster djokovic was at that 2011 Aussie open. People can say he dropped a set in early round but in the latter rounds Djokovic level was scary high.

2003, 2005, and 2006 (maybe)

 

[jl809]

2013 Djoker was just as good as 2011 or 2008 Djoker at the AO, he just faced harder competition. He got an A+ Stanimal and a confident Lendlray. When he got “easier” competition like Ferrer, he completely annihilated it

 

[MichaelNadal]

2013 Djoker was just as good as 2011 or 2008 Djoker at the AO, he just faced harder competition. He got an A+ Stanimal and a confident Lendlray. When he got “easier” competition like Ferrer, he completely annihilated it

Exactly. Djokovic was SUPERB in 2011 but his level at the AO itself that year is so overrated

 

[NoleFam]

2008, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2016, 2019 and 2023 are Djokovic's top levels overall at the AO. In the 2021 final he was pretty flawless as well. There's a lot to choose from there. I'm one of the few who think 2013 was a great run, but he could have played even better in that 4th round match. He played pretty uninspiring in that 2016 run until that SF when he went into a completely different zone. I still think that is the best match he ever played in Australia.

 

[GabeT]

Can’t comment on peak, it’s unmeasurable and it always ends here on some version of “peak is when my fav player was winning”. But for me Fed had too many losses to players well below him at times when he “should have” won. Sure Novak also had some of these but less so, which is why he won more slams. Ultimately it’s a small difference in any case

 

[Third Serve]

2013 Djoker was just as good as 2011 or 2008 Djoker at the AO, he just faced harder competition. He got an A+ Stanimal and a confident Lendlray. When he got “easier” competition like Ferrer, he completely annihilated it

Maybe pre-final but I dunno about the final itself.

 

[FlyingSaucer]

Yeh, Federer had an empty field 2003-07. Djokovic had Med to spoil his '01 GS season, and suspension to ruin his '02 season. If Carlos wasn't consistent enough to spoil his '03 season, that was his problem!

I think there was only one edition in that period in which Federer advanced to the next round without having to face an opponent.

 

[Pheasant]

It’s a very small difference here. Had Fed pulled out that 5th set vs Nadal in 2008, then I’d give this to Fed. But unfortunately, he lost 9-7 in the 5th. As I said before, that was my most painful Fed loss by far(only Mac’s 1984 FO loss tops this one for pain). That sucked badly.

Anyway, had Fed won, Djoker would still lead 10-9. But Fed could boast of a kick arse 7-year winning streak. However, that didn’t happen. So at the end of the day, the peaks are close, but 10>8. I unfortunately have to give the to Djoker. It’s close, but definitely Djoker’s.

 

[fedfan24]

Federer. Higher peak, more higher level runs cumulatively, better competition.

Give 08, 11, 14, 15, 19 Federer opponents like Murray, Medvedev, Thiem, Tsitsipas and he would cross 10 titles, easily.

 

[fedfan24]

All these counter arguments are funny. The question was simple, who dominated more at their pet slam. The answer should also be simple.

But instead we are getting all those arguments of weak opposition etc while you are strong etc.
The hard fact is.
At AO, Djokovic beat whoever is in other side of the net. That includes Federer, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Thiem. He literally pulled out a win even when facing problems like 2020 and 2021. 10 - 0 final record is super impressive.

In contrast, Fed couldn't beat everyone at Wimbledon. While 2008 final loss was to an ATG Nadal, the 2010-11 and 2013 loss are bad. Then the two double fault in 2016 semi. The Kevin Anderson loss in 2018.
And then the 40-15 loss in 2019. If he can win 200 plus points surely he could have won 1 more point at that age also.
Too many bad losses unfortunately.

Most beautiful play on grass.. definitely. Best result in Wimbledon also (8 wins) but dominance at a slam falls behind Djoker at AO and Nadal at FO.

Federer has
01, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 for high level or deep Wimbledon runs (15)
Djokovic has
08, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 at AO (12)

Federer has him beat for longevity + peak level.

 

[Berrettini_Fan]

So the difference ultimately is that Federer lost a close 5-setter to Nadal in 2008 but Djokovic managed to prevail in a close 5-setter vs Nadal in 2012. Reverse the fortunes of those matches and we are dead even!

 

[fedfan24]

It still dominates and makes more money in the hamburger business than any other burger chain. It seems you are confusing subjective preference over actual factual numbers of dominance. It is not 10 vs 10. It is 10 vs 8. No way a guy who has less titles was more dominant with inferior number of trophies.

Perfect analogy actually. Djokovic has the numbers and sheer dominance, but lower quality wins and level of play. Federer is like an exclusive gourmet restaurant.

 

[Hitman]

Perfect analogy actually. Djokovic has the numbers and sheer dominance, but lower quality wins and level of play. Federer is like an exclusive gourmet restaurant.

Nice to see you agree on basically saying that Djokovic has the objectively factual things on his side, and the eye test subjective stuff is with Federer according to some.