Good point, but at least this would capture what the IRL title count does, which is that they are similarly good on grass (is similarly a word?)
I fully agree.
Ages overlapping tells us who’s actually better on grass though, which is surely fairest of all
And he beat a very good Roddick too. Plus we can see with our eyes how good his level was, FH depth, power and spin was incredible. Serve and volleys were at their best, he moved as quick and as explosive as he ever did. 06-08 fed won 2/3 vs Nadal and I’d have those versions a tad below his 03 peak. Feel like Fed’s explosive best was 03-05, 06 onward he reigned it in a bit.
How could you possibly know this? And I get it’s all hypothetical but still
Roddick himself has repeatedly said the only reason he beat Novak was because he faced the pre 2011 version. I mean, come on! Why are we reinventing Roddick? He was never even close to ATG level.
Indeed, this is why the win-loss mentality is a problem; it obfuscates the effort.
Roddick’s game worked very well on grass. Djokovic struggled with a tall guy like hurkazc who had no ground game to speak of and is a typical nextgen choker. Peak Roddick has a serve on that level, big FH, better feel around the court and moves better. He would be a tricky opponent. He battled peak/prime fed well on 3 occasions
TBF '03 is arguably Fraud's very best Wimby F. And contrary to received wisdom Bull has always struggled with net rushers. '03 Fraud is easily the fave over '11 Bull, especially since he'd be facing his nemesis sans any mental baggage (I personally think this aspect is grossly overstated, but there you go).
Except a career isn't a sprint, but a marathon. Doesn't matter how good your "peak" speed is if you don't finish first.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Roddick has been interviewed multiple times on this topic. He has been crystal clear, even brought it up in social media. He does not think he would have stood a chance against post 2010 Novak
Fed also peaked in 2015.
fair enough, Roddick is notably self depreciating so doesn’t surprise me he would talk himself down.
He is. But I recall the interview where he went over his 2012 loss against Novak and realized the sport had changed. He’s mentioned that a few times. And then again, once Novak improved his serve and his stamina issues, adding that to his ROS abilities, what does Roddick have left to fight with?
More time travel tennis lol.
Yes:
www.merriam-webster.com
A-Rod did play like an ATG for much of the '04 Wimby F and pretty much throughout the '09 marathon. Just about every Slammer (barring rare exceptions like ToJo and Gaudio) is capable of reaching such heights on occasion. The difference between them and even 1st-tier ATGs like Borg/Pistol/Fraud/Bull/Djoker is slimmer than many fans think.
You also can't magically teleport Djokovic into 2003 and remove Federer from the face of the earth. The point of OP is saying if Djokovic had the same situation before him as Federer did in 2003, could he have won 7 Wimbledons? Which would include Djokovic deep in the draw from 2010 onwards.
Fed in his 20s faced peak Roddick and Nadal on grass. Who were miles above current **********.
On grass and to a lesser extent on hard, a strong 1-2 punch can render the rest of one's game almost irrelevant. I mean you saw that just a couple days ago when Hurkacz turned Djoker into a spectator for much of the match with his serve alone. It was classic GC tennis, sans the net part. Not too hard to imagine Bombing A-Rod doing the same to Novak, especially with a FH vastly superior to the Pole's.
Yeah you can, hence the word "hypothetical." But hypos need a semblance of reality to make sense, and in no alternative reality (at least within these parameters) would anyone be able to play a version of himself. Instead of removing Fed put him in Novak's own place (so a serious Wimby threat from '11 on) and you've got something of an equal swap.
Roddick’s serve just gave Djokovic fits. You cannot really say “the Djokovic of now put back then” because racket tech is different. Yes, Djoko has become a better player than when Roddick beat him, but look at this:
Fair enough. But in the end, Novak kept his serve humming and waited for the opportunity to let his ROS give him the upper hand.
OK, but the argument is that that changed after 2010 and so isn't captured in those numbers
Fair enough. If we swap Federer and Djokovic though, this becomes even worse for Djokovic as he has to Federer 2003-2005 during his later years. Who realistically he isn't beating
The 2012 Fed version was the only version that was somewhat close to his physical prime though a diminished one. And even then:
players adapt to their circumstances. If there is one thing we known about the Big 3 is that they will adjust as needed. And Novak is also known for his ability to raise his level when necessary.
Roddick in 2010 was nowhere close to where he was even a year before as well and still beat a Djokovic ensconced as a slam winner and #2-#3 in the world so that has to be considered. And, you can‘t take Djoko of whatever year with different racket tech and take him back and play with that vs. a 2003 Roddick with his old tech. Yes, Djoko improved but Roddick gave him fits with that serve and did well with his FH and would be a much harder out than players Djokovic has defeated.
The point is that Djokovic has not been able to dominate even an older Federer And was lucky to be 3-1 up. There’s nobody else who Djokovic won 3 out of 4 matches vs. and didn’t even win half the points—not even close. 2012 Federer had the most dominant win by Far. A better and younger Federer would do even better—that’s the point.
None other than Pistol once said it is the return rather than the serve that makes the difference on grass, so yes, the better/more complete player still tends to win. But if Novak is having a mediocre day a la the '13/21 F or the earlier rounds of last year's run? That's when a Roddick or even an Anderson serving like a stud can really hurt you.
I suggest you peruse those detailed looks at Novak's paths through Pistol's/Fraud's draws I posted earlier cuz I fully acknowledge that Fed would be taking over from '11 on and Novak would be struggling in the '90s proper. I still see Djoker with at least 5 trophies, though, which is the point.
As usual this thread has now meandered into a very different thread than where I started it. So be it.
I’ve always felt that Novak and Fed had the closest of the Big 3 rivalries. Fed won the first 4 matches against teen Novak, and Novak dominated against old Fed, but in the middle it was always very close. Of the 20 matches they played after the first 4 each player won 10. And their rivalry was not as surface based as the other Big 3 rivalries
43 consecutive match wins at centre court ? The greatest streak of any majors main court?
Looks like we would essentially agree re Djokovic's path except you give him the win over 2010 Nadal, which I could see happening.
5-4 bud
People have all kinds of opinions. Which is fine. None of them can be proven right or wrong in any case
djokovic struggled in 2014 with Cilic, 2015 with Anderson, 2023 with hurcazk, 2022 Kyrgios gave him bit of a battle, 2019 Federer of course. It’s not crazy to think 2004 Roddick can do real damage if some of these guys can.
he did beat him in 2012 with his old small racket and a playstyle close to his peak years.
Oh, I certainly don’t think his post WB 18 version would go undefeated in 10-13. Or anything close to that.
I think my argument remains the same even if we agree that Fed’s peak was greater than Novak’s. I’m not making a peak to peak comparison here.
Novak has to wait till Fed got old - relative to him.
I misread your OP. (My insane Fed bias overcame my rational thinking)
Novak also hasn’t faced anyone as good as 2003 Fed in 2011, 2014 and 2015.
