Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
That means Djoker will be better when hes 56 cause he'll have 20 years more practice?
Djokovic RN is proof Fed was right all along
- Thread starter Jonesy
- Start date
mental midget
Hall of Fame
tentative agree. djokovic is an amazing player but i think fed's very best gets the slight nod.
as for fed's comment...imo he's both right and wrong. fair to say individual strokes like the serve and backhand improved over that stretch--but as for his overall effectiveness, i think his explosive movement and court positioning made him a more dangerous player...when he was on back then, he was just absolutely on top of the ball and was ending points from crazy places...and his defense + movement out wide made it much harder to put him away. short answer...speed counts for a LOT in this game and that combination of movement, hyper-aggressiveness and creativity for a couple years' stretch there was just incredible.
BUT...maybe not against nadal. that's one matchup where greater overall consistency, stronger backhand helped tip things in his favor. nadal was the one player who could defend against fed to the point where he got frustrated and lost the plot a bit (and of course, picking on the bh.) relying more on consistency, and a stronger backhand, might have taken away some of his magic against much of the tour but certainly helped against his nemesis.
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
Are you really comparing peak Wawrinka to the opponents that Djokovic faced at the last Australian Open?Then maybe 2 or 3 times you would be lucky.
Seriously, the improved serve, the more aggressive forehand, the better touch at the net and the absurd mental toughness in tiebreaks now would seal the deal more often than not. Only 2011 and 2015 Djokovic would have a chance.
The 2012-14 Djokovic often looked shaky, especially in those matches against Wawrinka. Of course Wawrinka has declined, but I doubt current Djokovic would lose a match like 2014 AO. He's way more variable and rock solid nowadays.
If so, you have lost your sense of reality.
Smack him in 3 sets
Well they do it too inflate djokers victory over Federer in 4 slams finals 2014-18
I never said that, and I don't know where you see that. Still if I rewatch matches from that time and also remember the somehow lost aura he had from 2012-14, then the Djokovic from back then has nothing against the current Djokovic. Also, as great as he was, don't act like "peak Wawrinka" was completely unbeatable. Federer could still do it quite well, it was mainly a matchup thing and maybe also due to Djokovic simply not being variable enough in those days.Are you really comparing peak Wawrinka to the opponents that Djokovic faced at the last Australian Open?
If so, you have lost your sense of reality.
Djokovic got better again with Becker later in 2014 (and especially in 2015), and his game got MUCH better once again the past few years with Ivanisevic's input, especially on the serve of course. Becker certainly showed character this year when in German TV he admitted that Djokovic clearly still improved with his successor Ivanisevic.
Things look different now than 10 years ago, and IMO the only important match today's Djokovic could lose to Wawrinka is RG 2015. That was a massive performance by Stan, no doubt. But AO 2014 and USO 2016 is almost a certain win IMO. AO 2014 was simply bad shot selection from Djokovic and USO 2016 was already the beginning of a slump and one of his worst Slam finals.
President
Legend
Federer was still playing at a high level when he made that quote, and he was most likely trying to psych himself up. Different players have different mental approaches. But there is no way in hell he was playing as well as he was in 2004-2007. Nadal's statement on his playing level was much more realistic, and it applies to Federer (and Djokovic) as well IMO.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
More often than not?
lol….. everytime
Silverbullet96
Hall of Fame
He did... in Rome 2006. Anyway like I said, I wouldn't consider 5 set record & TB as good measurements for this statistic, the reasons I've already mentioned.
But from what I can see for myself is that Djokovic still has mood swings, ups and downs from match to match, even within a match. I don't think Nadal ever did in that same way, he was just ON the whole time.
Holmes
Hall of Fame
Correct, but a fan as sharp sighted and unbiased as yourself will note that he had to think hard on the question and that he gave each year props over the other. In 2006 he said he was faster, in 2017 he said he was more complete and the game was faster. After some difficulty he ruled in 2006's favor. Given that this question was answered at a time when Fed was almost retired and was regarding two levels of play that were years behind him rather than his current level that he would have to defend as better than ever, do you accept that his levels in these years were so close as to require serious thought in order to rank one over the other?
Last edited:
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
We’ll never know because 36 year old Djokovic doesn’t have to test his abilities against 5&6 year younger tier 1 ATGs
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
I generally don’t accept the idea that people are good at critiquing themselves. No high performer can easily say to themselves, “yeah I’m not the same guy I once was”.
We see this with athletes that hold on too long across sports all the time, we see it with musicians that are washed, CEOs that are past their expiration point, etc
Holmes
Hall of Fame
He was essentially retired when he answered that question about levels of play that were both in the past, as opposed to saying he was currently better than ever. Don't think the "Roger had to keep the act up" excuse works on this one.
Last edited:
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
That word “after” is a little misleading because Fed answered 2006 immediately, then admitted that 2017 had some merits to it and that it was a wonderful year too (in true PR fashion so as not to seem insulting to those fans who would pick 2017 or the opponents he played in that year), then restated his initial answer. That’s exactly how I would have answered such a question in a public setting and I don’t really see the issue if you consider the context of it being a question that was also asked to fans.
Regardless, if 2006 Fed is better than 2017 Fed it’s not because of that quote. I don’t subscribe to the notion that the players themselves can provide a crystal clear assessment of their own play anyway.
Holmes
Hall of Fame
Did not get that read from it at all bud. PR style would be to not give a straight answer because it was too close to call. You're right that he answered 2006 immediately, then thought harder about it. It seemed like he realized that it was much closer than he initially thought and so had to give the question some attention.
Really us Fedfans go to extraordinary lengths to read into the Maestro's every action and word. Perhaps Occam's Razor is in order, a cigar is really a cigar, and the Maestro is simply answering the question honestly.
Last edited:
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
If you were using Occam’s Razor, you wouldn’t have come away with the assumption in bold. It seems more straightforward to say that he was simply giving 2017 Fed some credit for also being a great year... which it was by most reasonable standards. But the immediate answer is an immediate answer.
The fact that we’re having this discussion about Fed’s intentions very much puts a dent in the argument that we should take his word as gospel here.
As I said, Fed’s words can contribute to an argument. But they’re not quite the gotchas Djokovic fans would have us believe. We ought to look beyond mere sound bites when having an intelligent discussion about the sport.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
You missed the point, it’s not an act - it’s the difficulty of self assessment over time.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
It’s a mix of good PR, maintaining confidence (which applies only to current players assessing themselves), and the general difficulty of the task. All certainly things that can complicate quotes like these.
Aestheticsaboveallelse
Legend
But he's obliterated every one of them and looked super sharp doing it. Serve in particular seems better than ever in his career
Lol you just busted Djoker fan weird logics.
Obliterated whom. 3rd grade players.
Remember Federer obliterated everyone in 2014-15 till final and he demolished everyone till 2015 USO final and 2016 AO SF.
Can this djoker beat peak djoker of 2014-16.
Holmes
Hall of Fame
He said this in 2021 about 2017. How was this maintenance of confidence?
Holmes
Hall of Fame
Why would assessing his level 4 years after the fact be difficult or unreliable? Present level sure, but 4 years worth of perspective should be plenty.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
Why would that change things? My argument is a general one, external critics are better able to measure changes in output over time than the individual themselves. We (as a collective) watch the tape, we run the data, we don’t live it every day so we have a bird’s eye view, and we’re unburdened from the many psychological biases that are involved in self perception and self esteem. Tennis is behind other sports in terms of analytics but in the future this will be only more true
Holmes
Hall of Fame
Take it in reverse, we lack the experience, knowledge, and skill set to be able to know what to look for in the tape and data to evaluate what a player's level actually is. Why are there very few coaches who have no professional experience or intimate connection to the player?
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
This is a separate question. A group of professionals or coaches who are dedicated to analysis would be a better source of assessment than a group of recreational players and die hard fans which would be better than a group of casuals. That hierarchy doesn’t make it any easier to be objective about topics that are very close to you, of which self assessment is the closest possible degree of proximity.
On the other hand, pros who haven’t thought about it and are asked for a hot take in an interview aren’t a good source.
For example, in the NHL the players very famously don’t really watch a lot of other games and are known for spouting outdated views on player or team performance when asked. On the other hand, the analytics community and dedicated fans that consume a lot of games, interviews, analysis often have a better sense (collectively, not individually) of where a particular player or team is performing relative to the pack, or better understanding of certain things like the salary cap or contractual details. It’s demonstrable time and time again if you look at team outcomes or betting results or just how certain free agency signing or player trades work out.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Speaking generally here. The second point only applies to current players.
accidental
Hall of Fame
Interesting Federer doesn’t mention his movement at all in that quote. That’s the most noticeable decline in the big 3 from their 20’s to their mid 30’s, and probably the most important part of all of their games.
Holmes
Hall of Fame
Sure, but the 2021 quote should prove that the belief that his 2017 and 2006 levels were close is a more than reasonable supposition, arguably the more reasonable one.
Aestheticsaboveallelse
Legend
2017 he would've neo'd Djokovic if he existed with that amazing backhand hitting huge winners left and right. A Federer with a consistent winner machine backhand is unstoppable since all his other shots are so good
