Does FO 2011 Indicate how Djokovic and Federer will match up in their primes on clay?

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

They're pretty even on clay. Heck one can argue Djoker may have been better in 2020/2021 on clay (at the end of his prime) than he was back then in 2011. Clay he was kind of a late bloomer. In terms of really getting it on the surface. At the end of the day its clearly both Fed/Djokovic's worst surface so who knows

 

[ibbi]

More than any other match they played, sure.

 

[Cortana]

They're pretty even on clay. Heck one can argue Djoker may have been better in 2020/2021 on clay (at the end of his prime) than he was back then in 2011. Clay he was kind of a late bloomer. In terms of really getting it on the surface. At the end of the day its clearly both Fed/Djokovic's worst surface so who knows

I think Djokovic peaked in 2011 on HC and much later on clay and grass.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

I think Djokovic peaked in 2011 on HC and much later on clay and grass.

One can certainly argue that for sure. I think he did too. He was still learning off hardcourts during that 2011 time period much like how Nadal was still learning off clay during that 06-07 time period

 

[SonnyT]

Lucky win for Fed. Once in a while.

 

[Third Serve]

Fed's game was still very physical. I rarely see this mentioned.

"Effortless" was the word but many times it wasn't. lol

It takes effort to make it look that effortless

 

[TheNachoMan]

Fed fans are so obsessed with a match that ultimately meant nothing. He got whipped like usual by his daddy in the final.

 

[ffw2]

Fed fans are so obsessed with a match that ultimately meant nothing. He got whipped like usual by his daddy in the final.

Taught us a fair amount about peak Djokovic tho.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Taught us a fair amount about peak Djokovic tho.

Peak Fed lost to Murray in 06 and Canas in 07. Peak Nadal lost to Baghdatis. Happens.

 

[RS]

Peak Fed lost to Murray in 06 and Canas in 07. Peak Nadal lost to Baghdatis. Happens.

Fed fans are going to rip you for saying this

 

[TheNachoMan]

Fed fans are going to rip you for saying this

Let them come.

 

[NeutralFan]

Federer's win probably helped Nadal since Nadal won the final. Could have been his toughest final. But I think Nadal should get more praises for his win 2011. Beating Federer was not easy for Nadal.

It probably explains bit why Nadal's form was below his standarts at RG 2011. While his form was not as good as 2007-2008 2010/2012. He still struggled much more than usual.

Also in 2011 Federers stats prior to RG is not good. In 2012 he won Madrid blue clay. I do think last few years conditions changed. I don't call DO but it helps Djokovic imo.

You're seeing in hindsight. Back then Fed had difficulties beating Rafa anywhere and at RG it was unthinkable. Back then irrespective of form Rafa would win .

 

[nolefam_2024]

I think Djokovic peaked in 2011 on HC and much later on clay and grass.

Ridiculous

 

[Third Serve]

Peak Fed lost to Murray in 06 and Canas in 07. Peak Nadal lost to Baghdatis. Happens.

Masters losses though

 

[nolefam_2024]

Novak peaked on clay earlier than grass easily. His first slam qf sf are on RG. He won Rome in 2008. In his bad year of 2009/2010 his serve was an issue but on clay he could play without serve as well.

2011 he had epic clay season. Winning 15/16 matches he played. If that is not peak then everyone is stupid.

 

[ActualTennisPlayer]

This post is similar to the Wimbledon 2012 post. In both Fed fans don’t really understand one crucial statistic:
“Unreturned Serve Percentage (59/141) 42%”

If Fed serves like this there is nothing much any other player can do.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I was wrong. He was 18/19 in 2011 on clay.
Belgrade 2011 beat number 7 Tisparevic
Madrid 2011 beat number 6 Ferrer (high elo pts as well)
Madrid 2011 beat number 1 Nadal
Rome 2011 beat Wawrinka
Rome 2011 beat Andy Murray
Rome 2011 beat Nadal
RG 2011 beat Delpo
RG2011 beat Gasquet

This is highest Nole has ever won on clay. He also reached his highest elo ranking that time.
Federer deserves big kudos for winning that match. No excuses.
MC 2012 beat number 6 Berdych
Madrid 2012 beat Wawrinka
Rome 2012 beat number 5 Tsonga
Rome 2012 beat number 3 Federer
RG 2012 beat number 5 Tsonga
RG 2012 beat number 3 Federer.

Djokovic went 4-20 that season. Not the best but very good as he was beaten by Rafa 3 times and blue clay once.

 

[nolefam_2024]

This post is similar to the Wimbledon 2012 post. In both Fed fans don’t really understand one crucial statistic:
“Unreturned Serve Percentage (59/141) 42%”

If Fed serves like this there is nothing much any other player can do.

Return it? Hold own serve?
Federer hit 13 aces in Wimbledon 2014 3rd set. he lost the set. How can he lose a set hitting 13 aces. That was epic from Nole.

 

[abmk]

They're pretty even on clay. Heck one can argue Djoker may have been better in 2020/2021 on clay (at the end of his prime) than he was back then in 2011. Clay he was kind of a late bloomer. In terms of really getting it on the surface.

djoko was good on clay by 2008 already.

@ the bold part, this is hilarious even by your standards.
11 djoko would crush 20/21 djoko on clay blindfolded.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Check out the stats from Federer. How can he lose this set. IT was most epic steal.

Have you seen a more epic steal from Federer? 13 aces, 83% first serve %, 85% first serve points won. But he was facing greatest returner in the history. Lost the set in TB.
Clutchest performance from Nole.

DJO 3-2 FED | Novak Djokovic - Roger Federer

www.flashscore.com

 

[ActualTennisPlayer]

Return it? Hold own serve?
Federer hit 13 aces in Wimbledon 2014 3rd set. he lost the set. How can he lose a set hitting 13 aces. That was epic from Nole.

If more than 40% is unreturned, then „return it“ is not the answer.
„Hold own serve” is the only option - Basically both players serve bot and then the tie break decides. In 2011, djokovic didn’t have the greatest serve yet though - at RG vs Fed the Unreturned Serve Percentage was 19%

 

[The Fedfather]

Federer’s defense is consistently discounted here

Djokovic could barely hit through him in 2011. The slice defense at times was like a brick wall, an unsolvable puzzle for Djokovic. It definitely contributed to his high error rates, frustration and inability to break down the BH like he thought

Peak Fed was like 98% of the sliding mover and defender Djokovic was plus an absolute maniac in terms of forward movement and attacking footwork.

I think quite a few people equate defense to grinding and doing a lot of running. Plus everyone knows Federer was shining in attack. But in reality, Roger's attacking style in the slowed down courts era was sustainable only due to him having brilliant, more subtle, defensive ability which made it extremely hard for anyone to get real control in rallies against him and allowed him to pounce offensively so often.

 

[Phenomenal]

They're pretty even on clay. Heck one can argue Djoker may have been better in 2020/2021 on clay (at the end of his prime) than he was back then in 2011. Clay he was kind of a late bloomer. In terms of really getting it on the surface. At the end of the day its clearly both Fed/Djokovic's worst surface so who knows

How? I think the opposite. Don't think he is a late bloomer on clay. He was pretty much good since start certainly better than grass. Don't think he peaked later on clay as some people think.

I think Djokovic peaked in 2011 on HC and much later on clay and grass.

How he peaked much later on clay? Aren't many Djokovic fans think it is 2011 and Rome?

 

[Biotic]

It sure indicates how the matchup should work on blue clay. I get that in the absolute absence of other memorable wins of his illustrious career it's pretty much the only win left to cling on to as a proof of whatever, even though it was ultimately hollow, but some decency is needed to acknowledge that Djoko had to win 40 matches in a row (and do it in a strong era as well) to be in a position to lose the 41st, with a razor thin margin and useless servebot balls.

 

[Phenomenal]

You're seeing in hindsight. Back then Fed had difficulties beating Rafa anywhere and at RG it was unthinkable. Back then irrespective of form Rafa would win .

While at the time i didn't watch the match live between them since i started watching tennis in 2012. I saw how Nadal struggled against Federer unlike any other their match on RG earlier. I know that Nadal had huge mental advantage specially on clay. But still Nadal's win is underrated to me. People think he won and it's normal just because he is Nadal. Nadal was not defending Federer's shots like he always do. I believe due to the condition more than his form.

Added additional options for interested ones.

 

[SonnyT]

Djokovic has proven time and again that he could handle Fed on any surface. The only who he couldn't handle was the clay Nadal.

 

[Phenomenal]

Djokovic has proven time and again that he could handle Fed on any surface. The only who he couldn't handle was the clay Nadal.

Same for Federer. Except AO maybe.

 

[NoleFam]

Both have played 80 clay tournaments, but Djokovic has played about 34 more matches:

-19 more matches against the top 20
-23 more matches against the top 10
-12 more matches against the top 5

Meaning, Djokovic was at the business end of clay tournaments more than Federer and also puts into perspective the more success Djokovic has on clay compared to Federer. Federer is a great clay courter in his own right but Djokovic is more accomplished and more successful.

To answer the OP, the 2011 match proves about as much as the 2012 match does, which basically gets ignored. Neither victory led to a title and one match can't tell you anything and only a series of matches can. Head to head says they are close but Djokovic has more titles.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Both have played 80 clay tournaments, but Djokovic has played about 34 more matches:

-19 more matches against the top 20
-23 more matches against the top 10
-12 more matches against the top 5

Meaning, Djokovic was at the business end of clay tournaments more than Federer and also puts into perspective the more success Djokovic has on clay compared to Federer. Federer is a great clay courter in his own right but Djokovic is more accomplished and more successful.

To answer the OP, the 2011 match proves about as much as the 2012 match does, which basically gets ignored. Neither victory led to a title and one match can't tell you anything and only a series of matches can. Head to head says they are close but Djokovic has more titles.

Yes Djokovic is far better longetivity wise. But peak to peak also he is better. Probably would be 7 3 in 10 match series if both are healthy.

 

[NoleFam]

Yes Djokovic is far better longetivity wise. But peak to peak also he is better. Probably would be 7 3 in 10 match series if both are healthy.

Over a long period of time, no doubt Djokovic has sustained at a higher level. Djokovic has all those victories over Nadal in his prime from 2011-2013 and has more bragging rights. Djokovic took 25-27 year old Nadal down in MC, Madrid and Rome finals and took Nadal to the brink in the 2013 RG SF. I would say h2h wise at least say 6-4 Djokovic because the conditions favor him over Federer. In faster conditions, I would say the opposite.

 

[Phenomenal]

Both have played 80 clay tournaments, but Djokovic has played about 34 more matches:

-19 more matches against the top 20
-23 more matches against the top 10
-12 more matches against the top 5

Meaning, Djokovic was at the business end of clay tournaments more than Federer and also puts into perspective the more success Djokovic has on clay compared to Federer. Federer is a great clay courter in his own right but Djokovic is more accomplished and more successful.

To answer the OP, the 2011 match proves about as much as the 2012 match does, which basically gets ignored. Neither victory led to a title and one match can't tell you anything and only a series of matches can. Head to head says they are close but Djokovic has more titles.

There is no doubt that for me Djokovic is clearly better player on clay overall. I said this already.

I just give an opinion that if they faced prime i would slightly favour Roger at RG.

I'm on the same side that one match doesn't tell the story, specially this match. I was asking more for Federer fans how they think about these 2 matches.

 

[Phenomenal]

Yes Djokovic is far better longetivity wise. But peak to peak also he is better. Probably would be 7 3 in 10 match series if both are healthy.

Peak to peak is just a subjective term anyway but discussed to death on forum. 7-3 is a bit harsh to me. If it is Rome then maybe okay. There where i rank Novak highly.
Still their most matches will be close on clay imo when we talk about prime/peak.

 

[NoleFam]

There is no doubt that for me Djokovic is clearly better player on clay overall. I said this already.

I just give an opinion that if they faced prime i would slightly favour Roger at RG.

I'm on the same side that one match doesn't tell the story, specially this match. I was asking more for Federer fans how they think about these 2 matches.

Are you basing it on 2006 and 2007 Federer? 18 year old Djokovic took a set from his 2006 version in MC way before his best. Djokovic beat him in 2009 Rome in the year he actually won RG as well. To me, I think 2011 Federer in those conditions would be more dangerous to prime and peak Djokovic, as we saw. The catch is the conditions don't play the same at RG year to year. Even this year, it's heavier with patchy clay, and windy which is different than the past few years.

 

[StrongRule]

Both have played 80 clay tournaments, but Djokovic has played about 34 more matches:

-19 more matches against the top 20
-23 more matches against the top 10
-12 more matches against the top 5

Meaning, Djokovic was at the business end of clay tournaments more than Federer and also puts into perspective the more success Djokovic has on clay compared to Federer. Federer is a great clay courter in his own right but Djokovic is more accomplished and more successful.

To answer the OP, the 2011 match proves about as much as the 2012 match does, which basically gets ignored. Neither victory led to a title and one match can't tell you anything and only a series of matches can. Head to head says they are close but Djokovic has more titles.

Even most Federer fans don't think the 2011 match alone proves anything, but how you still don't understand why the 2012 match gets "ignored" is beyond me.

 

[Phenomenal]

Are you basing it on 2006 and 2007 Federer? 18 year old Djokovic took a set from his 2006 version in MC way before his best. Djokovic beat him in 2009 Rome in the year he actually won RG as well. To me, I think 2011 Federer in those conditions would be more dangerous to prime and peak Djokovic, as we saw. The catch is the conditions don't play the same at RG year to year. Even this year, it's heavier with patchy clay, and windy which different than the past few years.

Honestly i can't say or argue much on this about why i pick Federer slightly. Here i can't be stubborn as i might with Nadal. Already admitted that i started watch in 2012. Eventhough i watched the earlier matches. It was more of a opinion than any analytical thought. It was just based on the matches that i watched them against Nadal. And some Djokovic Federer matches.

I felt Federer's game can give trouble Novak with his better movement and agressive play those years. I think most matches will be competitive and close so difficult to predict anyway.

Yes i was thinking about Federer on 2006-2007. He was playing against best defender on clay those years aswell. For sure he will like his chances more against Djokovic. Djokovic's game wouldn't frustrate him anything close to Nadal's.


This one I leave it to Federer fans to discuss it. I'm probably not the right person to do.

 

[NoleFam]

Even most Federer fans don't think the 2011 match alone proves anything, but how you still don't understand why the 2012 match gets "ignored" is beyond me.

I do understand why the 2012 gets ignored...lol.

 

[NoleFam]

Honestly i can't say or argue much on this about why i pick Federer slightly. Here i can't be stubborn as i might with Nadal. Already admitted that i started watch in 2012. Eventhough i watched the earlier matches. It was more of a opinion than any analytical thought. It was just based on the matches that i watched them against Nadal. And some Djokovic Federer matches.

I felt Federer game can give trouble Novak with his better movement and agressive play those years. I think most matches will be competitive and close so difficult to predict anyway.


This one I leave it to Federer fans to discuss it. I'm not the right person to do.

We all have our opinions on rivalries and what you said is fair tbh.

 

[Matrix968]

Federer beat Djoko in Monte Carlo 08. also got the 1st set vs him in Monte Carlo 14 before djoko had some issues.
they are 4-4 on clay total.

RG 2012 - fed was just bad on red clay by his standards, even more so in the semi, lost 3 sets in first 4 matches, then down 0-2 vs delpo.
had back issues. won only 56% of first serve points vs djoko. every other match on clay vs djoko, he's been above 70% first serve points won.

overall, Djoko career wise is a little better than fed on clay, that's due to longevity. that's it.

Actualy, career wise Djoko was twice better than Roger on clay. They both entered 45 clay M1000 with Djoko leading 11:6 in titles.
At RG, Roger achieved 1 title out of 19 entries, 12 QFs or better... Djoko has 2 titles out of 18 entries and reached 16 QFs or better. So, longevity argument is pretty much nonsense, right?

 

[Phenomenal]

Are you basing it on 2006 and 2007 Federer? 18 year old Djokovic took a set from his 2006 version in MC way before his best. Djokovic beat him in 2009 Rome in the year he actually won RG as well. To me, I think 2011 Federer in those conditions would be more dangerous to prime and peak Djokovic, as we saw. The catch is the conditions don't play the same at RG year to year. Even this year, it's heavier with patchy clay, and windy which is different than the past few years.

Djokovic beating Federer at Rome 2009 is no surprise to me. As i saw Nadal Djokovic matches. Djokovic was quite good on clay even back then 2007. He was pretty good at HC aswell. Had they faced in Rome 2007 he might win aswell.

I don't understand the some posters who thinks he was not good on clay earlier. Ridiculous. As similiar to ignoring a slam champion's career before 2011 from many fans.

 

[NoleFam]

Djokovic beating Federer at Rome 2009 is no surprise to me. As i saw Nadal Djokovic matches. Djokovic was quite good on clay even back then 2007. He was pretty good at HC aswell. Had they faced in Rome 2007 he might win aswell.

I don't understand the some posters who thinks he was not good on clay earlier. Ridiculous. As similiar to ignoring a slam champion's career before 2011 from many fans.

I think he was good in those years but I didn't like how much he use to spin his forehand on clay in those years, where it would sit up too much and he'd leave balls that could be attacked. That's something prime Djokovic did much better: was more penetrating with his forehand on clay and better with his court positioning. So yea he was good even back then but he definitely got much better.

 

[Phenomenal]

I didn't like his forehand much on clay specially during those early ones. But he was sometimes ripping the ball and hitting maybe even more powerfull than later years. It didn't feel natural to me unlike his backhand. His forehand is not consistent many of the times specially compared to his BH even in his prime his FH sometimes off to me. Might be underrated in some ways too.

Probably true what you said on his play. For sure also he doesn't have the same champion mindset of 2011.

 

[NoleFam]

I didn't like his forehand much on clay specially during those early ones. But he was sometimes ripping the ball and hitting maybe even more powerfull than later years. It didn't feel natural to me unlike his backhand. His forehand is not consistent many of the times specially compared to his BH even in his prime his FH sometimes off to me. Might be underrated in some ways too.

Probably true what you said on his play. For sure also he doesn't have the same champion mindset of 2011.

He had his moments though where he would redline with his forehand though like 2008 RG 3rd set against Nadal, 2009 Madrid, etc.

 

[Phenomenal]

He had his moments though where he would redline with his forehand though like 2008 RG 3rd set against Nadal, 2009 Madrid, etc.

Don't tell me Madrid lol. Nadal's FH is 100 x worse in Madrid (for some reason) than any other clay tournament or maybe even other tournaments. Despite he saved epic matchpoint


Djokovic in 2008 probably hitting through his opponents better than post 2016 on clay probably more powerfull earlier.

 

[NoleFam]

Don't tell me Madrid lol. Nadal's FH is 100 x worse in Madrid (for some reason) than any other clay tournament or maybe even other tournaments. Despite he saved epic matchpoint

Great match though and I think took a lot out of both of them.

 

[Phenomenal]

I realized even at their beginning rivalry Nadal and Djokovic prefers different conditions. Nadal likes sunny day lively ball more bouncing. Djokovic opposite at night conditions. Look at the matches at IW 2007(where i believe Nadal was amazing) and Miami 2007 Djokovic won.

 

[NoleFam]

I realized even at their beginning rivalry Nadal and Djokovic prefers different conditions. Nadal likes sunny day lively ball more bouncing. Djokovic opposite at night conditions. Look at the matches at IW 2007(where i believe Nadal was amazing) and Miami 2007 Djokovic won.

I think it depends on the surface. Nobody is an idiot and want to play Nadal in sunny dry conditions in a BO5 on clay. Lol. On grass, you probably do.

 

[duaneeo]

It indicates that Federer was one of four players to beat peak/prime Djokovic at two different slams.

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

I wouldn't make the generalization over 1 meeting. They were tied 4-4 in clay matches with them splitting matches at RG, Nole winning 3x Rome, and Fed 3X MC. Mentally Fed was still a 16-slam winner against a 2-slam winner (at that point) so there was still a major difference at that point of their careers.

 

[mental midget]

I think both are solid players but just look at their game styles. Novak is born for defense and Roger isn't. If they play 10 times Novak may win 7 times but that doesn't mean he is strong favorite. All the matches will go down the wire like how they do between these two.

Roger is incredible shoemaker but he doesn't have the focus to trade with Novak on every rally. And the serve effect is diminished on clay. Which is huge disadvantage for Roger. Basically we are asking Roger to best Novak from the groundstrokes. That's very hard especially backhand to backhand where Novak is going to force Roger.

sounds about right. i think the very best roger beats the very best novak on the day, but out of 10 matches...pretty close, tight series.

 

[Feather]

7-3 in ten matches for one player, whoever that is, is just fanboy talk..

It's either 5-5 or at max 6-4 for one player..
They are very close on clay.