D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
I said he was. Despite 2012-2014 not being his most accomplished years.
Djokovic h2h vs Fedalray since he peaked on all surfaces and conditions
- Thread starter RF-18
- Start date
Nadal_Django
Legend
RS
Bionic Poster
Good points. I also think Federer is the most consistent and successful player.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
absolutely he was so old at 28 that he needed a wheelchair to get to the matches. His talent was so enormous that despite being on crutches he still racked up the slams. Pretty clear that in tennis it is easier to maintain success than to break through. The money is huge at the top these days and that is a massive advantage. The peaks of high level play of the top players are much bigger due to their large payrolls
you dont belong on this form you seem like you have common sense
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
Too young until 22, too old at 26 LOL
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
Soon Djokovic will join the club of players who have been in their best ranking position after their 30th birthday:
Federer, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Ferrer, Anderson, Isner, Fognini, Bautista Agut, Monfils, Ebden, Benneteau, Querrey, Cuevas, Jaziri, Lopez, Lorenzi, Muller, Polansky, Estrella Burgos, Robert, Mahut, Brown, Darcis...
Federer, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Ferrer, Anderson, Isner, Fognini, Bautista Agut, Monfils, Ebden, Benneteau, Querrey, Cuevas, Jaziri, Lopez, Lorenzi, Muller, Polansky, Estrella Burgos, Robert, Mahut, Brown, Darcis...
RaulRamirez
Legend
You missed the obvious point, while making a very subjective one. Fed has had a longer time in which to compile his record. (We don't yet know how "deplorable" the seemingly not-ready-for-prime-time players today will compare to Fed's competition before the emergence of Rafa/Novak, which wasn't really my point, anyway.)
RaulRamirez
Legend
Ha ha - thanks!
Even though my real name is not here, I refuse to make points/arguments here that I wouldn't make in person. I enjoy passionate replies about sports (and movies, books, politics, etc.) but don't like irrational ones.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
No, I didn't miss it. Fed was lucky to be born earlier, I heard that argument before.
Djokodal were and still are lucky too to not have any great young talent. 1991-1997 is 6 years with no great young talent. And don't give me the yet to be prime excuse. Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Delpo were all relevant by the time they were 21.
All 3 have benefitted one way or another. Singling out just Fed is getting tiresome already.
RaulRamirez
Legend
Thanks - he could be, but he has had 5/6 extra years to compile those achievements.
If he is the most consistent, I think a lot of has to do with Roger: a. being relatively injury-free (esp. as compared to Nadal) and b. having the best serve, by a large margin
(By the way, I don't begrudge him either "a" or "b")
Think about it.
That's kind of twisted logic.
Djokovic is a lot younger than Fed. You are going to have 3 stages of their H2H
Fed is prime, Novak is not, Fed has the edge
They are both prime (actually quite short, given the age difference)
Fed is past his prime, Novak is in his prime, Novak has the edge
If you cut out category one altogether, you are basically ONLY using the stages in Novak's career where you would *expect* him to have the H2H over Federer, then being amazed that he has the H2H edge over Federer
Even Nadal vs Djokovic suffers from the same problem *IF* you accept (I do, others don't) that "prime" is more a function of how long one has been at the top, not calendar age. Nadal came up before Djokovic and his prime ended earlier.
RaulRamirez
Legend
No - you don't get the obvious, so I'll hit you over the head (rhetorically) to the point of being Captain Obvious.
My point:
Fed has had an extra 5 or 6 years to compile those 20 majors and 5 YE#1s, x weeks at #1, etc.
I don't know that Fed's list of accomplishments is that much better (5 or 6 years worth) than either Rafa's or Noles.
It's debatable, anyway. On the other hand, I also don't know if Rafa or Nole will be at, or close, to the top when they hit age 36/37/
One of the reasons I have posted repeatedly about having a definition of prime that is consistent for all players (I have talked about an 8 year peak window, based on the past 40 years of men's greats) is that otherwise, you get unintentional biases creeping into comparisons. Even if you just take one player, their average play in their peak and their averages/rates/percentages in their prime will get worse and worse if you start extending their definition of prime. And by extension, comparing one player's 13 year long prime to another player's 8 year long prime is an unfair comparison: the former player should have more totals (more tournament wins, more majors, more wins over top 10 opponents, etc) and the latter player should have better averages (better win%, better H2H, better win% against top 10, better average major performance, etc).
When we start talking about Federer being "prime" in 2015, we are extending his prime so far that it is actually *punishing* him on measures like H2H
Also, in other posts (in this thread and at other times) you see arguments like "you can't call his poor performance against Tsonga in the finals of whatever 'peak performance'. That was obviously not his best"
That can't be relevant, because it leads to a massive selection bias. "If he lost, he was not at his best. Therefore, it does not count as a loss when he was at his best."
RaulRamirez
Legend
I agree with a lot of your post, but I just don't know if you can pinpoint a player's prime. What I think we have to accept is that there is always going to be some subjectivity in these discussions, but we have to try to be as objective as we can. Number of majors won is objective, but does it tell the whole story? So is number of "Big Titles", but does that sufficient? ...
Agreed. I don't think you can pinpoint it. I think it helps to throw a consistent definition around all the primes, then subjectively consider why someone may be better (but almost never worse) than those numbers suggest.
For example, when I posted a comparison of 11 or 12 greats of my lifetime, I posted a lot of "averages" , and used a consistent "prime" definition for those. But then I also posted career totals. So you get a balance, and some guys need to be elevated above what their prime shows (Connors is the best example) and some are very well captured just by what they did in their prime (McEnroe, for example).
NBP
Hall of Fame
No I’m just showing you can look at it both ways
Isn’t it 9-5 overall to a Nadal including 2-1 at Us Open?
After AO 2012 didn’t Nadal go on a bit of a tear major wise V Djokovic? 4-0 at one point I think.
Outside of Roland Garros Their H2h is as close as can be.
Nah.
Past his very best from 2008... as proven by his abysmal results vs the field and lower peak level at slams.
Past his prime from 2010 post AO as evidence by his multiple losses at slams to guys he never lost to in 2004-2009... Berdych, Tsonga etc.
Injured 2013.
Very clearly old and past his physical best from 2014. New racket. Slower, weak FH no longer a feared weapon. More of a servebot.
Last time we saw Fed play at a similar style to his prime was 2012 at Cincy.
Last edited:
B
BrokenGears
Guest
Uh, but if Fed had played 2011+ Nole from 2004-2010, he wouldn’t have nearly as much slams as well
NatF
Bionic Poster
uh, works both ways right? Eventual slam count would depend on how good Novak is at 33-36.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Federer was 30 or close to 30 when Djokovic peaked in 2011, how is this fair
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
But it's 1-0 at AO and 2-1 at Wimbledon. Don't just mention the USO. H2H now at the USO doesn't matter much when Djokovic just won his 3rd USO.
Since 2011 in majors, it's 5-4 Djole. Since 2012, it's 4-3 Nedl.
My point on the topic is this, I think Djokovic had it tougher having to go through rafa and roger to get to the top. All things being equal and if the three started together Fed would be worse off. I think tennis is a game now where it is much harder for younger guys to break through as the established players have the benefit of a bigger bank roll to support them. I dont buy the arguement about lhe young guys having less talent now
AlexanderTheGreat08
Hall of Fame
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
wimby h2h with fred matters though?
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
I've never used that to say Djoko is better there due to the h2h. It's just a cool stat.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
I just wish we got to see Djok 15 vs Fred 17, a true peak for peak meeting. Would have been epic.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Atleast we saw 15 vs 15
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
Wow. Actual match wins are great. It is cool to break down and analyze individual match wins. Takes out the hypotheticals and removes most excuses. Djokovic has been really sticking in the craw of fedalray for awhile now. Good on him. Have a feeling he is going to add to the tally. Also feel Stanimal might be showing up one of these days to test him. I think now that djoker is healthy he can win the 5 setter against him again now. Not sure wawrinka and murray are ever going to be back fully tho.
All tings being equal and if the three started together, they ALL would be worse off (statistically).
I disagree. Fed benefited the most, their levels of play at the same age, especially early on would have seen him suffer the most
You can't just extend Novaks peak by 7 years. If he peaked In 2004 instead of 2011 his prime would end in 2009 instead of 2016. Then Federers competition would have been a lot easier from 2010 and on. It evens out. If Djokovic has Federers longevity he should be able to win the slam race playing todays field.
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
Sorry I didn't read it.
2015-16 Nadal was much fitter than 2017-18 Djokovic, especially on clay.
Look at the rankings: Djokovic dropped at no.22, Nadal at no.10.
I mention US Open as I think it’s the most interesting of their match ups real proper 50 50 call. Australia is Djokovic French nadal and Wimbledon most likely Djokovic although if it’s baking hot and roof is open Nadal probably better at Wimbledon than US and Australia. If it’s cool and damp though he is very ordinary there.
The +21 against fedal is huge. As is 7-7 against Nadal on clayVS Nadal
Outdoor HC: 9-2 Djokovic
Indoor HC: 2-0 Djokovic
Grass: 2-0 Djokovic
Clay: 7-7
VS Federer
Outdoor HC: 9-4 Djokovic
Indoor HC: 4-1 Djokovic
Grass: 2-1 Djokovic
Clay: 3-2 Djokovic
VS Murray
Outdoor HC 14-4 Djokovic
Indoor HC 3-1 Djokovic
Grass 2-0 Murray
Clay 3-1 Djokovic
Unbelieveable.
maupp
Semi-Pro
Huh? In 2011 alone up to AO 2012 Djokovic beat Nadal 3 times in a row in finals. I think since 2011 they are 5-4 in favor of Djokovic.
You said you disagree, then didn't disagee
I said they ALL would have suffered. Do you not agree with that?
It's basically this simple. Because their primes collectively cover almost 15 years, they have ~60 majors to divvy up between them. They captured (so far) 50 of them. If their primes overlapped perfectly and we only had 10 years of those 3 in their primes, they'd have had 40 to divvy up, not 60, and each would have lost out.
Do you not agree that if Novak had to deal with prime Federer and prime Nadal during his entire prime that would have been harder than dealing with post-prime Federer and (to a lesser extent) post-prime Nadal?
These arguments always cut both ways.
You can look at how Djokovic did against Federer/Nadal in Djokovic's prime and say "Wow, Federer and Nadal were lucky to rack up majors before Djokovic got to that level."
But you could look at how Djokovic did against Federer/Nadal in Federer & Nadal's primes and say "Wow, Djokovic was lucky to have years in his prime left after Federer & Nadal started to decline."
Last edited:
I think the 9-5 Major H2h in favour of Nadal is significant given their closeness in age. Given Djokovic superiority over 3 sets it’s quite a role reversal.
TheFifthSet
Legend
Djokovic is 20-9 overall, 5-4 in majors, 2-0 at the WTF, 10-5 in M1000s.
But Fed’s peak is higher than both on HC and grass and he was way better at 29-31 in level of play than either has been so far (apart from Nadal on clay).
Imo it’s the other way round. Djokodal would have to sneak in the Wimbledon / USO wins before Fed hit age 22-23.
maupp
Semi-Pro
Federer having 4 years to himself(with a young Nadal only good on clay) is much better than Djokovic or Nadal cases which is while not having talented youngsters to perturb them, they have to share the spoils(Federer is also feasting on these spoils by the way).
4 years that's 20 slams(minus 3 or 4 Clay ones due to Nadal. Still 16 slams to feaSt on almost unchallenged). That's far better than a longer period which has 3 to 4 guys(if not more.Stanimal) to share the spoils.
Imagine a Djokovic or Nadal from 2011 to 2015 not having each other around nor Federer to share the goods with and just perpetually win most slams unchallenged beside 1 per year. I'd want to be in Federer's shoes.
Eren
Professional
Yup I know you think like that.
Imo, you underestimate how difficult it is for a 32-34 year old to compete against peak 26-28 year old ATG. His losing record against Djokovic came after 30s and he could compete with Novak in Slams up to and including 31. After that, it was game over.
Nadal is a different story though. He always had his number (mostly those clay wins translated into wins on other surfaces because he build momentum in the clay season. Another reason is Federer's relatively weak mental state). So Nadal owns Federer. Djokovic not so much in my book.
I guess we all have our own thoughts. In the end, we could argue about how weak 2014-2016 was, especially if your main competitor is a 32-34 year old guy. It would be like Agassi reaching Wimbledon 2004 final and Wimbledon 2005 and USO 2005 and losing to peak Fed. (I know Agassi reached USO 2005).
Federer has that losing record because of his consistency in Slams and reaching SF very often. F.e. what would Djokovic's H2H be if he reached Nadal and Federer in 2017? He only reached Nadal once in a M1000 and Federer zero times.
Btw, I agree with you that 2014 Djokovic was at least prime (never said he wasn't).
Also, I wouldn't consider reaching a final equivalent to playing close to peak level. E.g. Djokovic Rome 2017 up to and including SF. That F though, damn, that was pathetic showdown. Idem, WTF 2016.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Nadal was good on clay AND grass. But as any other Fed hater you choose to omit that.
Nah, I'd rather be in Djokodal's shoes. I'm in my prime and perfectly equipped to deal with anyone because I am at my best physically and after that I have a group of deplorable youngsters to feast on as I get older.
I don't understand why you bring up 2015. Djokovic WAS unchallenged that year. His closest rival was a 34 year old who was useless against Novak in BO5. At least Nadal wasn't useless in 2005-2007.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Bolded 1: Shocking
Bolded 2. Utter BS. Unless you believe 35 year old Kohlschreiber is such a tough wall to break.
Similar threads
