Djokovic h2h vs Fedalray since he peaked on all surfaces and conditions
- Thread starter RF-18
- Start date
Djokovic and Nadal have faced each other twice at slams since 2015... your argument is not based on any statistic.
Druss
Hall of Fame
Peak Stanimal will always be Federer’s pigeon (perhaps not clay, but even then, I’d still fancy peak Fed {06-09} on the red dirt).
Mainad
Bionic Poster
VS 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.
Murray is the only one with a positive H2H v Djokovic on any surface.
maupp
Semi-Pro
04,05,06 Nadal wasn't much anywhere else beside clay. It's only in 2007 that he started becoming a threat on grass(at least to Federer).
You talked about Djokovic 2015 being unchallenged which is quite true but Federer had those type of years 4 in a row which is what makes his situation much more enviable.
None of Nadal or Djokovic have had the fortune to have such bulk of unchallenged years. They might have had a year somewhere but generally they've been challenged by either each other or even more players.
Again 4 years of unperturbed slam picking is vastly more favorable than Nole or Nadal's situation.
Also just to put it out there, I'm not a Federer hater. Due to the incredible bias this forum tend to have for Federer, one usually read one sided arguments and I feel that it's right to challenge some of the absurdities that get written on these boards. So I do so when I get a chance.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Mugray.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
But he made a Wimbledon final in 2006 and took a set off Roger... You don't make Wimbledon finals if you aren't at your best.
He also did well at Queens until he had to retire against Lleyton Hewitt.
Djokovic had barely any challengers in late 2014 and early 2016 either. Actually the whole of 2016 was a throwback to the early 2000s with his only competition really being Andy Murray, much like Federer's only competition around that time was Roddick/Hewitt.maupp said:
I don't think either had it harder than the other. But I don't think Novak had the rough end of the stick either. Nothing to be envious of, Federer racked up more due to his superior consistency. That's what separates Novak and Federer.
Um, both Djokovic and Nadal have had multiple years like this. It was a running trend on here that Novak was winning in a weak era for God sake.maupp said:
Like I said I believe Novak and Roger have more in common than him and Nadal in terms of careers.
Um... 2014-2018. Not Federer's fault Novak got injured and he didn't, not his fault he lost motivation and Federer didn't.maupp said:
He still had a crud period to win in and he didn't do as much. Not his fault.
[/QUOTE]maupp said:
I'm not a Novak hater. I predicted he'd win 2 slams this year even last year when he was going downhill. But you're incredibly biased towards Novak and cannot see he had a period just like Roger's but couldn't capitalize.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Ridiculous how you ignore Novak had literally nobody around to challenge him from 2014-2016... unless you think old man Fed and Andy Murray are otherworldly compared to old Agassi and Roddick/Hewitt.. which they aren't.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Or Nadal being injured since he was 15. Or how about Novak only entering his "prime" when he was 25. Lol..
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Fed 2014-15 and Murray is better competition for sure. How can you say he had no competition?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
How can people say Fed had no competition? Roddick, Hewitt and especially Safin aren't chopped liver. Two of these three guys hammered Sampras in a Grand Slam final and all 3 were #1 at some point.
Murray really isn't that much better than they are/were in terms of level of play. Like the difference between Novak and Federer, it comes down to consistency.
I don't think Federer of 2014 was better on hardcourt than '04 Agassi for example..
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
but you said Djokovic had no one around to challenge him when he had to compete with in form federer on grass and HC and had to put up great performances to beat him. Especially at Wimbledon. USO, he fought both Federer and 25000 people.
Then you had Murray, Wawrinka aswell challenging him especially the latter.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Actually, Novak had 2014-2016 in which he had easy competition. So that's 3 years.
Nadal has been unchallenged on clay for 14 years.
Fed was challenenged in 2007, but he was still successful. As it's usual among the Fed haters that became a weak era year because of that.
Again, all 3 benefitted one way or another. Djokodal had it easy, just like Fed had it easy at some point.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic 2014 titles won
Indian Wells: Beats Federer in the final
Miami: Beats Nadal in the final
Rome: Beats Nadal in the final
Wimbledon: Beats Federer in the final
Beijing: Beats Berdych in the final
Paris: Beats Raonic in the final
YECs: Beats Federer in the final
2015 titles won
AO: Beats Murray in the final
Indian Wells: Beats Federer in the final
Miami: Beats Murray in the final
MC: Beats Berdych in the final, but on his way to the final, he beat Nadal
Rome: Beats Federer in the final
Wimbledon: Beats Federer in the final
USO: Beats Federer in the final
Beijing: Beats Nadal in the final
Shanghai: Beats Tsonga in the final
Paris: Beats Murray in the final
YECs: Beats Federer in the final
2016 titles won
Qatar: Beats Nadal in the final
AO: Beats Murray in the final, but also beats federer in the SF
Indian Wells: Beats Raonic in the final
Miami: Beats Nishikori in the final
Madrid: Beats Murray in the final
RG: Beats Murray in the final
Canada: Beats Nishikori in the final
How on earth is that easy? He had to compete with Federer, Nadal and Murray all the time to win. Then you had guys like Wawrinka, Tsonga, Nishikori.
In no way is this easy. Djokovic has had it tough his whole career having to beat both Federer and Nadal all the time but also Murray.
You’re talking about 32-34 year old past his best Federer who can barely trade groundstrokes and who no longer has his FH as a weapon.
Neither Fed or Djokovic had a prime ATG on HC in those years. Federer at least had Nadal on clay from 2005-2007 and Nadal on grass in 2007. Djokovic had Nadal at 2014 RG that was it.
Saying he “beat Federer, Nadal” in 2015 is like me saying Federer beat Agassi at 2004/5 USO, Djokovic at 2007 AO.
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
Huh? Just at this past AO you all were like djokovic would get beat by this version of Fed. Now he is an invalid. You can not make this up lol. You can not be serious!
Huh? Just at this past AO you all were like djokovic would get beat by this version of Fed. Now he is an invalid. You can not make this up lol. You can not be serious!
2017/2018 AO versions of Djokovic would lose to 2017 Fed yeah. And 2017 Fed is better than 14-16 Fed because he could actually compete from the baseline.
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
Ok fair enough. But to say 30 something fed and nadal are not strong competition is patently false and is disrespectful to fed nadal djokovic and the great game of tennis.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
If you reach final after final then you are playing pretty good. Hilarious you say ''32-34 year old fed who can barely compete from the baseline'' and then say 2017 AO could compete from the baseline.
Federer is still a tough opponent especially if he reaches the final obliterating the field. This was no Djokovic form of early 2018 who couldn't reach QFs even in 500s.
For an elite ATG peak baseliner like Djokovic his best competition in those years was Wawrinka. Fed’s high risk style couldn’t be sustained over 5 sets and Nadal was washed up following 2014 RG until his comeback year.
It’s false to say Fed beat up a bunch of mugs too. Back in 2003 it looked like a really balanced strong field by Fed came on top. Not to say he hasn’t choked his fair share of matches as he’s gotten older.
I made a post earlier that referenced this but here is a breakdown, using my subjective (but I believe consistent) definitions of prime. I'm not re-debating those here
Any rivalry has these phases, older player vs younger player (or more accurately, earlier emerger vs later emerger).
Pre-Prime vs Pre-Prime: even? (slight edge to earlier player)
Prime vs Pre-Prime: edge to earlier player
Prime vs Prime: even
Post-Prime vs Prime: edge to later player
Post-Prime vs Post-Prime: even? (slight edge to later player)
Often, the later emerger winds up with the career H2H edge because the Post-Prime phase is longer than the Pre-Prime phase, giving them more of a prolonged "dinosaur beating" phase to rack up wins. A good example of this is Lendl vs McEnroe, which was dead even when Mac entered his "post-prime" phase, and Lendl won 6/7.
Federer vs Djokovic
Prime vs Pre-Prime: 7-2 (7 HC, 2 clay)
Prime vs Prime: 7-7 (12 HC, 2 clay)
Post-Prime vs Prime: 8-14 (15 HC, 4 clay, 3 grass)
Post-Prime vs Post-Prime: 0-1 (1 HC)
Nadal vs Djokovic
Prime vs Pre-Prime: 10-4 (7 HC, 5 clay, 2 grass)
Prime vs Prime: 12-14 (14 HC, 11 clay, 1 grass)
Post-Prime vs Prime: 1-8 (4 HC, 5 clay)
Post-Prime vs Post-Prime: 2-1 (2 clay, 1 grass)
--- both of those basically go as you would expect
The player who emerged first had a decided edge before the other player hit their prime
When both were in their prime, it was essentially 50/50
When the earlier emerging player started to decline, the later emerging player had a decided edge.
Federer vs Nadal
Prime vs Pre-Prime: 1-3 (3 HC, 1 clay)
Prime vs Prime: 7-14 (5 HC, 13 clay, 3 grass)
Post-Prime vs Prime: 2-6 (5 HC, 1 clay)
Post-Prime vs Post-Prime: 5-0 (5 HC)
8 year primes
Fed Prime: mid-2003 to mid-2011
Nadal Prime: summer 2006 to summer 2014
Djokovic Prime: late 2008 to late 2016
Any rivalry has these phases, older player vs younger player (or more accurately, earlier emerger vs later emerger).
Pre-Prime vs Pre-Prime: even? (slight edge to earlier player)
Prime vs Pre-Prime: edge to earlier player
Prime vs Prime: even
Post-Prime vs Prime: edge to later player
Post-Prime vs Post-Prime: even? (slight edge to later player)
Often, the later emerger winds up with the career H2H edge because the Post-Prime phase is longer than the Pre-Prime phase, giving them more of a prolonged "dinosaur beating" phase to rack up wins. A good example of this is Lendl vs McEnroe, which was dead even when Mac entered his "post-prime" phase, and Lendl won 6/7.
Federer vs Djokovic
Prime vs Pre-Prime: 7-2 (7 HC, 2 clay)
Prime vs Prime: 7-7 (12 HC, 2 clay)
Post-Prime vs Prime: 8-14 (15 HC, 4 clay, 3 grass)
Post-Prime vs Post-Prime: 0-1 (1 HC)
Nadal vs Djokovic
Prime vs Pre-Prime: 10-4 (7 HC, 5 clay, 2 grass)
Prime vs Prime: 12-14 (14 HC, 11 clay, 1 grass)
Post-Prime vs Prime: 1-8 (4 HC, 5 clay)
Post-Prime vs Post-Prime: 2-1 (2 clay, 1 grass)
--- both of those basically go as you would expect
The player who emerged first had a decided edge before the other player hit their prime
When both were in their prime, it was essentially 50/50
When the earlier emerging player started to decline, the later emerging player had a decided edge.
Federer vs Nadal
Prime vs Pre-Prime: 1-3 (3 HC, 1 clay)
Prime vs Prime: 7-14 (5 HC, 13 clay, 3 grass)
Post-Prime vs Prime: 2-6 (5 HC, 1 clay)
Post-Prime vs Post-Prime: 5-0 (5 HC)
8 year primes
Fed Prime: mid-2003 to mid-2011
Nadal Prime: summer 2006 to summer 2014
Djokovic Prime: late 2008 to late 2016
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
But Federer had to do the same with Agassi, I don't get your point... It's interesting to note that both Federer and Agassi have won 3 majors in their 30s and shared a similar level of longevity (nod goes to Federer but it's close).
I think Safin was a better player than Wawrinka (just my opinion). Murray was better than Roddick/Hewitt but like I said, it mainly comes down to consistency. If you give those two guys Murray's consistency (especially Hewitt) they'd have had more chances to add slams to their haul too.. but they had a huge roadblock in Federer.
That's one thing you seem to miss... Federer was a huge roadblock for those kind of guys in majors, even Murray. He hammered Wawrinka at the US Open in 2015 for example and he was past his prime at the time (although playing great tennis). I don't see the result being any different if these guys challenged him during his 2004-2007 years.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Nadal in 2015-2016 was below par so I don't see why you have to mention him.
Beating Murray in slams isn't that tough or at least not as tough as you want to believe.
We saw how Stan does against Fed.
Nishikori? Come on...
You're barking at the wrong tree anyway. Not saying Djokovic had it ridiculously easy. But he didn't have it ridiculously hard either. Certainly not compared to what Fed had in 2004-2007.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I don't know. How can people say Fed had no competition when he had Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and even Nadal and Djokovic?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
That's no different to what Federer had.
You needed a great performance to stop Fed in 2015, but the same applies to Agassi.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Did you expect anything less? The moment Djokovic won the USO, I knew the obnoxious Djoker fanboys would begin their same old arguments with Fed being overrated and a weak era fraud.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well, duh, since
Well duh, wince Novak was a shadow of his former self at this AO. Doesn't mean Fed was playing some peak stuff.Huh? Just at this past AO you all were like djokovic would get beat by this version of Fed. Now he is an invalid. You can not make this up lol. You can not be serious!
mike danny
Bionic Poster
They aren't weak, they are just weaker than their younger selfes.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
You need to relax. None of that is mentioned in the OP. It's just Djokos numbers since 2011. What is the issue?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
The same goes for every Fed opponent who reaches a final. He was playing good tennis.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
You're not the issue. Others are.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Federer was tougher IMO.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Doesn't discount Agassi was super hard to put away even as an old man. This is a guy that was winning Masters and other big titles whenever Federer lost early.
Even in 2004 Agassi made the Australian Open SF (lost to Safin in 5 sets), Indian Wells SF (lost in 3 sets to Federer), won Cincinnati (beating Roddick and Hewitt back to back), Madrid SF (losing to Safin playing one of his 'great' matches) and barely missing out on the Masters Cup (he would've qualified given he was #8 in the world but Gaudio won a major and I'm positive he'd have done well given he made the final in '03).
I don't think Federer was much better than that if at all in 2014-2015 by the way.
Agassi was still good and should not be "dismissed" but consider this:
From 1990-2000, Agassi's record against top 10 opponents was 65-39
From 2001-> it was 24-23
He was not the same player anymore.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Unfair comparison because he only played until 2006, so you're comparing 5 years against 10 years. And you're probably including all his losses in 2006 too when he was playing basically for the novelty, nothing else.
His last 'true' year on tour was 2005, the last year he played the Australian Open (I thought he was retiring then but he wasn't).
The former point is irrelevant since we are talking %ages. 5 years vs 10 years doesn't affect the %ages.
The second point is not material, since there was only 2 such matches in 2006, and he split them. 23-22 isn't any better than 24-23.
Basically, he went from winning 2/3 matches against top 10 to winning half. Still very good but no longer great
NatF
Bionic Poster
Overall his best sustained period of play was 99-03, in 04-05 his play dropped but he was still very good on HC. His absolute best play was the end of 94 through to 95 though. Agassi from 01-02 was definitely better than many other years - and there with 00 Agassi as well.
I often find looking at just top 10 wins a bit arbitrary though.
I'll do the top 20 as it's a bigger sample size and only for the span in which he made slam finals;
1990: 10-3
1991: 7-8
1992: 10-4
1993: 5-6
1994 21-6
1995: 21-7
1996: 11-6
1997: 1-2
1998: 13-10
1999: 14-9
2000: 10-4
2001: 13-5
2002: 11-8
2003: 8-7
2004: 9-3
2005: 7-8
Does this really tell us anything about his level of play though?
Look at 1992, 10-4 (71%) record which is up there with his best percentages against the top 20 - yet he was ranked #9 that year and only won 74% of his matches, compared to say 1999 where he won 82% of his matches, was ranked #1 and won multiple majors but was 14-9 (61%) against the top 20. I would argue that Agassi was indisputably a better player in 1999 than 1992, despite that magical Wimbledon run.
I think it does. I agree that it is more complicated than 1 number, but how they are doing against the best is always a relevant measure.
And I agree that 1999 was a better year, but part of that was (and this is *always* a subject with Agassi, more so than any other ATG) the draw. In 1992, he lost in the SF/QF of 2 majors to the #1 player in the world.
In 1999, after beating Moya (a great achievement) at the French, he got a cakewalk through the rest of the tournament (what was it, Fillippini, Hrbaty and Medvedev?)
Agassi is always the hardest to evaluate because he was erratic, because he vultured titles like no one else, and then he could play brilliant tennis out of the blue.
NatF
Bionic Poster
So are you saying he was better in 1992 versus 1999? Or just that they're not far apart?
How they play against the best is a fine measure, but why is that better than how they perform against the entire field? There's something to be said for form, Medvedev beat Kuerten on the way to the FO final in a year Kuerten won MC and Rome - he was a damn fine clay courter.
Of course there are some times like the USO 2017 where much of the top 10 has withdrawn or is injured but beating players who have come through good draws but aren't ranked top 10 isn't a negative IMO.
I do agree that some of Agassi's win's do lean on the weaker side of things, at the very least his most consistent period was 99-03 - he'd lost some of that exuberant shotmaking but was more focused day to day.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
NatF summed up what I feel quite honestly better than I could myself.
To add to this, Agassi's ranking during that time period is a better barometer in regard to his level of play (and he was ranked in the top 10 consistently between 1999-2005). If the man is ranked, week in, week out, within the top 10 with a large percentage of that time being spent within the top 3 (with a generous amount at #1) I'd say his play was definitely on the great side.
We can easily say the similar things about Federer because of his losses to players outside the top 10 in majors recently (Wimbledon 2013, Australian Open 2015, US Open 2018, ect).
HetTheGreaterer
Banned
Wrong
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
Man you and the whole fed peak thing is really crazy. Do you honestly believe peak fed was invincible?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
No.
But I do believe he was significantly better than the Fed that Novak has faced since at least 2014.
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
Feds results would have been mind blowing if there was not a certain player in his way. Your lil friend helena luvs you. Lol
If we are trying to assess Andre Agassi's achievements in a given year, I think how he played against the entire field is the critical measure. If he gets to the QF of a tournament by beating #32, but then loses to #2, that is not necessarily better or worse than getting there by beating #2, only to lose to #32. I completely agree with that.
However, if we are evaluating how much of a threat Andre Agassi posed to the top players, then I think it's extremely relevant to look at how he was performing against the top players. If that's the question, in the example above, beating #32 but losing to #2 does not give evidence that he is a threat to the elite. Beating #2 and losing to #32 does. A clearer example of this is what we do every single time a tournament draw is revealed, and (to use an example better suited to several years ago) if David Ferrer and Jo-Wilfred Tsonga are carrying similar records and seedings, we still say that the player who drew Ferrer has it easier because he is much less of a threat to a top player.
All I'm saying is that while Agassi was still a very good player when Federer started beating him (2003), he was no longer as big a threat to the elite as he had been in his prime.
Pheasant
Legend
Federer and Djoker ran the show in 2014-2015, with the exception of Fed of clay and Stan.
Djokovic was a mind-blowing 50-10 vs the top 10 during those 2 years. If we back out his 7-6 record vs Fed, he was 43-4 vs the top 10. That is absurd.
Federer was 32-11 vs the top 10. If we back out his 6-7 record vs Djoker, then he was 26-4 vs the top 10 those two years.
Combined, Federer and Djoker were a combined 69-8 vs the top 10 if we exclude their matches with each other.
Djokovic was a mind-blowing 50-10 vs the top 10 during those 2 years. If we back out his 7-6 record vs Fed, he was 43-4 vs the top 10. That is absurd.
Federer was 32-11 vs the top 10. If we back out his 6-7 record vs Djoker, then he was 26-4 vs the top 10 those two years.
Combined, Federer and Djoker were a combined 69-8 vs the top 10 if we exclude their matches with each other.
Well compare 2014/2015 Fed to 2017. His BH and FH both improved. He was a good servebot/variety player who could easily dispatch the weak field but had no elite baseline game.
Peak Fed wouldn’t lose 2 Wimbledon finals to Djokovic. 2012 Fed who still played his prime style easily won in 4.
Last edited:
Similar threads
