Djokovic-Federer at Wimbledon: a unique case

[Lew II]

Djokovic leads 3-1 Federer at Wimbledon and 3-0 in finals.

What other ATGs were dominated in their favourite Slam?

Nadal at RG (12 time champ): never lost a final
Djokovic at AO (8 time champ): never lost a final
Sampras at WI (7 time champ): never lost a final
Borg at RG (6 time champ): never lost a final
Federer at AO (6 time champ): lost 1 final to Nadal
Borg at WI (5 time champ): lost 1 final to McEnroe
Djokovic at WI (5 time champ): lost 1 final to Murray
Sampras at USO (5 time champ): lost 1 final to three different players (Edberg, Safin and Hewitt)
Connors at USO (5 time champ): lost 1 final to two different players (Orantes and Vilas)
Federer at USO (5 time champ): lost 1 final to two different players (Del Potro and Djokovic)
Agassi at AO (4 time champ): never lost a final
Nadal at UO (4 time champ): lost 1 final to Djokovic
McEnroe at UO (4 time champ): lost 1 final to Lendl

No one won multiple finals over a 4+ time champion, except Djokovic who won 3 at Wimbledon over Federer. A unique case in tennis history.

 

[Lew II]

The three matches that could make Djokovic the GOAT when it's all said and done:

 

[Gazelle]

What other ATG played 5 finals at his favourite slam in his 30's? Answer, none.

Federer playing Wimby 19 final is like Sampras playing Wimby 09 final. I wonder if Sampy would even have gotten to MP.

 

[tennis_crazy]

What other ATG played 5 finals at his favourite slam in his 30's? Answer, none.

Federer playing Wimby 19 final is like Sampras playing Wimby 09 final. I wonder if Sampy would even have gotten to MP.

Sampras would've lost to Y-Lu in the first round (with Federer's draw)

 

[Third Serve]

I don't think it's really fair to say Fed was dominated when two of the matches went to five sets (in both of which the loser had a very good shot at winning) and each player won a four-setter. The 3-1 scoreline doesn't really cover it. And even then, only a few of the other players listed kept going at age 32/33 (when Federer lost his first Wimbledon against Djokovic) and even fewer players actually made it far enough in the tournament to be "dominated" by an ATG. And no, the likes of Thiem and Medvedev aren't ATGs yet.

I don't consider this to be too surprising given how these wins happened in some of Fed's lesser seasons and some of Djokovic's better seasons. IMO the further back you go in the match history, the better Federer plays. I didn't think his 2019 final form was that impressive (neither was Djokovic's), but it was enough to take the match to five, his 2015 form was also not that impressive but still a bit better (the main difference was Djokovic's performance that day), his 2014 form was actually pretty good, and his 2012 form was definitely the best of the lot.

 

[Lew II]

What other ATG played 5 finals at his favourite slam in his 30's? Answer, none.

Federer playing Wimby 19 final is like Sampras playing Wimby 09 final. I wonder if Sampy would even have gotten to MP.

And in what era over31 yo players won 14 slams in a row?

 

[DjokoGOAT]

3-0 over peak Federer at his best slam

Djokovic is the best player of all time. No question.

 

[ForehandCross]

I would have commented here, but I am still warping head around the fact that I just found out Andy Roddick once farted in an actual match at Wimbledon.And it was just before the serve so whole crowd was quiet and everyone heard it

 

[NoleFam]

I don't think it's really fair to say Fed was dominated when two of the matches went to five sets (in both of which the loser had a very good shot at winning) and each player won a four-setter. The 3-1 scoreline doesn't really cover it. And even then, only a few of the other players listed kept going at age 32/33 (when Federer lost his first Wimbledon against Djokovic) and even fewer players actually made it far enough in the tournament to be "dominated" by an ATG. And no, the likes of Thiem and Medvedev aren't ATGs yet.

I don't consider this to be too surprising given how these wins happened in some of Fed's lesser seasons and some of Djokovic's better seasons. IMO the further back you go in the match history, the better Federer plays. I didn't think his 2019 final form was that impressive (neither was Djokovic's), but it was enough to take the match to five, his 2015 form was also not that impressive but still a bit better (the main difference was Djokovic's performance that day), his 2014 form was actually pretty good, and his 2012 form was definitely the best of the lot.

I think Federer's 2015 form was definitely better than his 2014 form. Djokovic should have ended that 2014 match in 4 if he didn't choke so hard when up 5-2, two breaks. 2014 Federer really could not do anything with Djokovic off the ground that year. He had to resort to serve botting to stay with him.

 

[The Guru]

UO GOAT Jimmy Connors was 1-3 vs Mac (a younger ATG). Not a unique circumstance when an older ATG extends their career like Fed/Connors.

 

[ForehandCross]

I think Federer's 2015 form was definitely better than his 2014 form. Djokovic should have ended that 2014 match in 4 if he didn't choke so hard when up 5-2, two breaks. 2014 Federer really could not do anything Djokovic off the ground that year. He had to resort to serve botting to stay with him.

Ehh in 2014 Federer was lucky to not get straight setted. The first set he won, I felt he was being outplayed badly. In 2015, he should have gotten the first set but in next two-three Novak was near unplayable.



Novak is an elite modern grass courter. Federer can play better than he did on those finals, and to beat someone like Novak on grass he really need to.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

And in what era over31 yo players won 14 slams in a row?

The worst one?

 

[junior74]

3-0 over peak Federer at his best slam

Djokovic is the best player of all time. No question.

Federer started peaking at 33. Then he evolved gradually, and hit his absolute beast mode in 2019, but unfortunately Novak toyed with him, LOL.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Federer started peaking at 33. Then he evolved gradually, and hit his absolute beast mode in 2019, but unfortunately Novak toyed with him, LOL.

Absolutely DESTROYED him by 13-12 in a fifth.

 

[Third Serve]

I think Federer's 2015 form was definitely better than his 2014 form. Djokovic should have ended that 2014 match in 4 if he didn't choke so hard when up 5-2, two breaks. 2014 Federer really could not do anything with Djokovic off the ground that year. He had to resort to serve botting to stay with him.

That's true. I guess I just felt more disappointed by Fed's 2015 performance considering how much better he looked in the semifinal (which really was one of Fed's best grass matches).

 

[Lew II]

Federer started peaking at 33. Then he evolved gradually, and hit his absolute beast mode in 2019, but unfortunately Novak toyed with him, LOL.

I think that when a player reaches a slam final he's playing his best tennis.

Djokovic during last YEC said Federer played his best tennis most of the times they played. That's because they met mostly in finals or semifinals IMO.

 

[NatF]

That's true. I guess I just felt more disappointed by Fed's 2015 performance considering how much better he looked in the semifinal (which really was one of Fed's best grass matches).

Fed served better in 2014 and I felt like he competed better physically, not sure his ground game was better enough to cover that in the 2015 final.

 

[DjokoGOAT]

Federer started peaking at 33. Then he evolved gradually, and hit his absolute beast mode in 2019, but unfortunately Novak toyed with him, LOL.

I think fed evolved more in 2019 compared to 2015 but still wasn’t good enough to take on the BOAT!

 

[NoleFam]

Ehh in 2014 Federer was lucky to not get straight setted. The first set he won, I felt he was being outplayed badly. In 2015, he should have gotten the first set but in next two-three Novak was near unplayable.



Novak is an elite modern grass courter. Federer can play better than he did on those finals, and to beat someone like Novak on grass he really need to.

To be honest, he could have been straight setted in both years. Djokovic had set points in every set in 2014 and 2015. He choked the second set hard in 2015 although Federer probably should have closed out the 1st set. But Djokovic wasted like 7 set points in that second set.

 

[DjokoGOAT]

I think that when a player reaches a slam final he's playing his best tennis.

Djokovic during last YEC said Federer played his best tennis most of the times they played. That's because they met mostly in finals or semifinals IMO.

Since 2014 federer only lost to djokovic (BOAT on grass) or had injury. Knee - 2016 or hand - 2018.

Definitely peak Federer, Novak was too good though. Luckily for him he vultured another Wimbledon in 2017 for number 8.

 

[King No1e]

If Djokovic didn't pull off that 40-15 comeback, we'd never hear the end of it from FedFans. "Some champ, huh? Can't even beat a 37 year old grandpa, what a mug"

 

[JaoSousa]

Djokovic leads 3-1 Federer at Wimbledon and 3-0 in finals.

What other ATGs were dominated in their favourite Slam?

Nadal at RG (12 time champ): never lost a final
Djokovic at AO (8 time champ): never lost a final
Sampras at WI (7 time champ): never lost a final
Borg at RG (6 time champ): never lost a final
Federer at AO (6 time champ): lost 1 final to Nadal
Borg at WI (5 time champ): lost 1 final to McEnroe
Sampras at USO (5 time champ): lost 1 final to three different players (Edberg, Safin and Hewitt)
Connors at USO (5 time champ): lost 1 final to two different players (Orantes and Vilas)
Agassi at AO (4 time champ): never lost a final
Nadal at UO (4 time champ): lost 1 final to Djokovic
McEnroe at UO (4 time champ): lost 1 final to Lendl

No one won multiple finals over a 4+ time champion, except Djokovic who won 3 at Wimbledon over Federer. A unique case in tennis history.

You left out Federer at USO and Djokovic at Wimbledon

 

[junior74]

I think that when a player reaches a slam final he's playing his best tennis.

Djokovic during last YEC said Federer played his best tennis most of the times they played. That's because they met mostly in finals or semifinals IMO.

Like Novak did against Murray in 2013?
Like Novak did against Federer in 2012?

 

[octogon]

I guess Connors and Mac at the US Open is the answer you are looking for. So not that unique.

Djokovic's Wimbledon record against Fed exists because he beat Fed well out of his prime on all occasions. And Fed still made it extremely hard most of the time. Beating up on a past prime, "Old" all-time great at his pet slam doesn't make you GOAT. It makes you fortunate.

Djokovic never beat a peak/prime Federer at Wimbledon. The only person to do that was Nadal.

 

[DjokoGOAT]

I guess Connors and Mac at the US Open is the answer you are looking for.

Djokovic's Wimbledon record against Fed exists because he beat Fed well out of his prime on all occasions.

Djokovic never beat a peak/prime Federer at Wimbledon. The only person to do that was Nadal.

From Federer himself:

“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practised for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.”

more practice, experience, better Bh, serve, volley, same fh. Only difference is peak Novak stopping him rather than grosjean, kiefer, philippousis, bagdhatis.

 

[Lew II]

Like Novak did against Murray in 2013?
Like Novak did against Federer in 2012?

Yes.

 

[octogon]

From Federer himself:

“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practised for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.”

more practice, experience, better Bh, serve, volley, same fh. Only difference is peak Novak stopping him rather than grosjean, kiefer, philippousis, bagdhatis.

I've said this before....Fed doesn't get to decide when his peak/prime was. We know that he was long past his best when Djokovic started notching up Wimbledon victories against him.

Old players like to say they are playing their best ever to maintain some locker room aura. Or sometimes to delude themselves. Nothing to see here.

Djokovic at his best on grass probably would have lost comfortably to Federer from 2004-2008.

 

[Breakpointerer]

From Federer himself:

“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practised for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.”

more practice, experience, better Bh, serve, volley, same fh. Only difference is peak Novak stopping him rather than grosjean, kiefer, philippousis, bagdhatis.

This has been debunked so many times it isn't funny.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

If Djokovic didn't pull off that 40-15 comeback, we'd never hear the end of it from FedFans. "Some champ, huh? Can't even beat a 37 year old grandpa, what a mug"

Thankfully said comeback prevented such a level of memeing and trolling.

Or something.

 

[NoleFam]

I guess Connors and Mac at the US Open is the answer you are looking for. So not that unique.

Djokovic's Wimbledon record against Fed exists because he beat Fed well out of his prime on all occasions. And Fed still made it extremely hard most of the time. Beating up on a past prime, "Old" all-time great at his pet slam doesn't make you GOAT. It makes you fortunate.

Djokovic never beat a peak/prime Federer at Wimbledon. The only person to do that was Nadal.

Pretty good for an old geezer to go F, F, SF, Won, QF, F in the last 6 years at Wimbledon with match points in the last one. It's too bad Nadal wasn't so fortunate to take advantage of the easy pickings last year.

 

[junior74]

I've said this before....Fed doesn't get to decide when his peak/prime was. We know that he was long past his best when Djokovic started notching up Wimbledon victories against him.

Old players like to say they are playing their best ever to maintain some locker room aura. Or sometimes to delude themselves. Nothing to see here.

Djokovic at his best on grass probably would have lost comfortably to Federer from 2004-2008.

Agree - but not sure about how they would play each other peak vs peak. Impossible to say, really. Almost different eras, different grass, different racquets etc...

But the "he said so himself" stuff is really as stupid as the "more evolved" business . . .

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

From Federer himself:

“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practised for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.”

more practice, experience, better Bh, serve, volley, same fh. Only difference is peak Novak stopping him rather than grosjean, kiefer, philippousis, bagdhatis.

The longer Fed continues to play, the more ridiculous this credulity becomes. What if he plays until 45 years old? Would he be at his highest peak? What about 75 years old? At what point do we consider it a sufficient reductio ad absurdum?

 

[King No1e]

Thankfully said comeback prevented such a level of memeing and trolling.

Or something.

At this point any epic Fedalovic match will result in memes and insufferable fanbases

 

[octogon]

Pretty good for an old geezer to go F, F, SF, Won, QF, F in the last 6 years at Wimbledon with match points in the last one. It's too bad Nadal wasn't so fortunate to take advantage of the easy pickings last year.

These three guys are all GOAT contenders and are winning past their peaks and primes. They are special players. And only about 4 players really know how to win on grass, which is why Federer can still rely on doing well on that surface even though he has declined badly pretty much everywhere else. The man skips the French Open regularly and has been a non-factor at the US Open for years.

Just because he's still performed exceptionally at Wimbledon long past his prime/peak doesn't mean he isn't long past his prime/peak. The fact that "Old Federer" is still the 2nd best grass court player in the world is a testament to his greatness on the surface, but it does not take away that the younger Djokovic (whose game is also built for fast surfaces) has had an unfair advantage over Federer on grass for several years now.

All things being even at their grass peaks, I expect Federer to win more matches against Djokovic than not.

 

[DjokoGOAT]

The longer Fed continues to play, the more ridiculous this credulity becomes. What if he plays until 45 years old? Would he be at his highest peak? What about 75 years old? At what point do we consider it a sufficient reductio ad absurdum?

He played arguably his best ever Wimbledon SF/F age 38 last year so I would never rule him out.

 

[NoleFam]

These three guys are all GOAT contenders and are winning past their peaks and primes. They are special players. And only about 4 players really know how to win on grass, which is why Federer can still rely on doing well on that surface even though he has declined badly pretty much everywhere else. The man skips the French Open regularly and has been a non-factor at the US Open for years.

Just because he's still performed exceptionally at Wimbledon long past his prime/peak doesn't mean he isn't long past his prime/peak. The fact that "Old Federer" is still the 2nd best grass court player in the world is a testament to his greatness on the surface, but it does not take away that the younger Djokovic (whose game is also built for fast surfaces) has had an unfair advantage over Federer on grass for several years now.

All things being even at their grass peaks, I expect Federer to win more matches against Djokovic than not.

Ok but Djokovic is not the only player who plays the game. If he can take advantage of this "loophole" or opening in the game then why can't Nadal? It should be easier for him since he is the only guy to defeat prime or peak Federer at Wimbledon right? Unfair advantage? The past era was Djokovic's at Wimbledon and is the natural order. In a normal world, Federer would have long retired and left Djokovic to reign over SW19 alone, but we don't live in a normal world anymore do we?

 

[beard]

The longer Fed continues to play, the more ridiculous this credulity becomes. What if he plays until 45 years old? Would he be at his highest peak? What about 75 years old? At what point do we consider it a sufficient reductio ad absurdum?

I think Fed said it once... Or he is repeating that sentence often?

 

[octogon]

Ok but Djokovic is not the only player who plays the game. If he can take advantage of this "loophole" or opening in the game then why can't Nadal? It should be easier for him since he is the only guy to defeat prime or peak Federer at Wimbledon right? Unfair advantage? The past era was Djokovic's at Wimbledon and is the natural order. In a normal world, Federer would have long retired and left Djokovic to reign over SW19 alone, but we don't live in a normal world anymore.

Nadal's game is built for slow or medium surfaces. He's peaked on different surfaces at different points in his career. The fact that he was once consistently the 2nd best (then for a short period, the best) grass court player in the world is a minor miracle. Nadal doesn't take advantage because his game has peaked on grass and it'll never be at that level again on the surface, just like Federer's and Djokovic's peaked on clay, when both were once the 2nd best clay courters in the world. Nadal can still win Wimbledon due to his grass experience and pedigree, but he'd need a lot of good fortune to go his way.

Of the three GOAT contenders in this era, only two are natural fast court players. Djokovic and Federer. While young Nadal peaked for grass to defeat Federer, his game is not naturally meant to excel on faster grass courts like it is for Fed or Djoker.

 

[Djokovic2011]

To this day I still find it mind blowing that Djokovic has beaten Federer in all three Wimbledon finals they've contested. Yes, I accept that Roger's older and not quite the player he once was but the fact remains he's still extremely tough to put away irrespective of age, especially when he's serving well which is nearly always the case when he plays Djokovic. He's obviously the greater grass court player overall(and probably always will be) since 8 is more than 5 but there's no doubt that beating him in three Wimbledon finals will always be a very nice feather for Novak to have in his cap.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

He played arguably his best ever Wimbledon SF/F age 38 last year so I would never rule him out.

I suppose that qualifies as arguable purely because you (alone(ish)) are arguing it.

 

[NoleFam]

Nadal's game is built for slow or medium surfaces. He's peaked on different surfaces at different points in his career. The fact that he was once consistently the 2nd best (then for a short period, the best) grass court player in the world is a minor miracle. Nadal doesn't take advantage because his game has peaked on grass and it'll never be at that level again on the surface, just like Federer's and Djokovic's peaked on clay, when both were once the 2nd best clay courters in the world. Nadal can still win Wimbledon due to his grass experience and pedigree, but he'd need a lot of good fortune to go his way.

Of the three GOAT contenders in this era, only two are natural fast court players. Djokovic and Federer. While young Nadal peaked for grass to defeat Federer, his game is not naturally meant to excel on faster grass courts like it is for Fed or Djoker.

Ok fair enough on the 1st part, however, since Djokovic is a good fast court player and obviously a great grasscourt player, it doesn't make sense to say he is taking advantage of the older player. That older player had his time, had his reign and it's over. That's the natural order like it was for Borg, like it was for Sampras, like it was for Federer and like it will soon be for Djokovic. We can make all the arguments that Djokovic would lose more matches against peak Federer than win them, but at the same time we can flip the script and say the same for Federer in reference to Sampras. The difference is, Sampras reigned and then he left and didn't hang around for another generation of tennis but Federer did. Therefore, Djokovic should have ruled no matter which way you look at it and his wins are completely legitimate from any angle.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

I think Fed said it once... Or he is repeating that sentence often?

Well, he is going senile!

 

[Lew II]

Imagine Thiem beating Nadal in 3 RG finals and Rafa fans going ''oh he's old, it doesn't count''

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Imagine Thiem beating Nadal in 3 RG finals and Rafa fans going ''oh he's old, it doesn't count''

Imagine the Thiem fans saying it was peak Rafa.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Imagine Thiem beating Nadal in 3 RG finals and Rafa fans going ''oh he's old, it doesn't count''

That’s exactly what I’m gonna say whenever he finally loses. But Nadal on clay is the surface GOAT to end all surface GOATs

 

[Lew II]

-

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Ok fair enough on the 1st part, however, since Djokovic is a good fast court player and obviously a great grasscourt player, it doesn't make sense to say he is taking advantage of the older player. That older player had his time, had his reign and it's over. That's the natural order like it was for Borg, like it was for Sampras, like it was for Federer and like it will soon be for Djokovic. We can make all the arguments that Djokovic would lose more matches against peak Federer than win them, but at the same time we can flip the script and say the same for Federer in reference to Sampras. The difference is, Sampras reigned and then he left and didn't hang around for another generation of tennis but Federer did. Therefore, Djokovic should have ruled no matter which way you look at it and his wins are completely legitimate from any angle.

I don’t think anyone thinks his wins aren’t legitimate, I think the problem is when they’re used to diminish Federer’s legacy. By common TTW logic, it would have been better for Federer to retire after 2012 than go on to lose 3 finals in 14 sets to a 6 year younger tier-1 ATG

 

[MeatTornado]

UO GOAT Jimmy Connors was 1-3 vs Mac (a younger ATG). Not a unique circumstance when an older ATG extends their career like Fed/Connors.

Checkmate

 

[Lew II]

UO GOAT Jimmy Connors was 1-3 vs Mac (a younger ATG). Not a unique circumstance when an older ATG extends their career like Fed/Connors.

Not in finals.

 

[junior74]

Imagine Thiem beating Nadal in 3 RG finals and Rafa fans going ''oh he's old, it doesn't count''

Comparing Djokovic to Thiem?

R O F L M A O