abmk
Bionic Poster
he wasn't "consistently" facing/stopped by edberg, there. clueless.
which is why I gave the nalbandian example for 2003.
Federer faced and beat a very in-form Agassi in USO 2004. just because federer didn't lose to him doesn't mean that was weak.
Only someone dumb could come to conclusion.
JacksonColt
Rookie
yes, Roddick's ceiling was up there with Stan's.
Roddick on grass and fast HC >>> stan on them. vice versa on slow HC and clay.
1 slam each for Safin/Delpo (vs fed)
2 slams for Murray, 3 for stan. 1 loss to querrey and 1 more to nishikori. (djokovic)
guess, which is better.
Federer had Agassi in 2003-05 and then NAdal from 2005 onwards, clueless.
Nadal from 2005-10 > nadal from 2011-2016.
ha ha, more and more clueless bunch stuff.
Fed's RG 09 draw >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Djokovic's RG 2016 draw
Federer has beaten prime Nadal on clay twice. Djokovic only thrice.
bold part is just hilarious stuff borne out of desperation.
Jajajaja! Your desperation is hilarious. Roddick's ceiling up there with Stan's? Was this before or after he beat Federer in a major? Oh wait. Roddick was useless and a punching bag. Federer laughed at him as a challenger. Get real.
Agassi? Jajaja! What's the age difference between him and Federer? I thought so.
You have nothing but hot air. Your arguments are weak. Move on because I'm bored with you.
JacksonColt
Rookie
You didn't know what you were talking about obviously. Clean the egg off your face. Edberg was definitely an obstacle for Sampras if he is beating him in US Open finals after Sampras became a US Open winner. You lost. Move on.
JacksonColt
Rookie
abmk
Bionic Poster
hi hi hi hi
ho ho ho ho
even I can type stuff like that, not just you.
it was when he won the USO in 03, wim 04 (including the final vs fed), the USO 07 QF, the Wim 09 final, when he bashed nadal and djokovic back to back in dubai 2008, when he lead djokovic 5-4 etc. etc.
maybe you should watch some of those and get a clue.
stan is also a lousy 3-21 vs federer, just like Roddick. So he was useless and a puching bag as well.
This is with Roddick facing Federer far more times at his prime than Stan did.
If Stan's prime co-incided with fed's, he'd have 1 major tops. Maybe even 0.
Oh, but wait, your boy at his prime lost to this "useless" guy thrice at slams. :
you were talking about ATGs.and Agassi was playing pretty well on HC in 2003-05 >>> something you'd know if you had a clue.
said the guy whose agenda and ignorance has been exposed big time.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
no, he didn't. DJokovic had it quite easy from mid-2014 to 2016 onwards and currently now.
JacksonColt
Rookie
The main synopsis of this is, Djokovic is better. Quality beats Quantity. He is the man. He has the highest ELO ever, he has all the majors, he has the Golden Masters, he owns the head to heads against the two guys with the most majors, he has held all majors and the year end tournament at the same time, he has dominated on every surface, etc. Sorry about it but he will be the greatest when it is said and done. It's time to prepare yourself for this. The majority already believe he played the game at the highest level and I do too.
JacksonColt
Rookie
Womp womp womp. Boring. Jajajaja!
abmk
Bionic Poster
go get a dictionary and learn the meaning of the word "consistently".
92 was not a prime Sampras year.
Edberg stopped him there, just like Nalbandian stopped Federer in USO 03.
Now learn to understand and get a clue about tennis (you'll learn its not just about ATGs, hopefully)
abmk
Bionic Poster
hi hi hi. your ignorance got exposed. ho ho ho ...
Eren
Professional
No need to be sorry. If he is indeed the best then he will prove it. You almost make it sound like the quality of my life will decrease if Djokovic gets to be the undisputed GOAT LMAO.
What he needs to do though, is improve his pathetic Slam final record of 14-9. That's pretty bad. Discard the Nadal/Federer losses and then he has a 14-4 record which is the same as Sampras but Djoke lost to mugs. Not good.
If he gets to 22-14, then he's there (Federer won't win a lot I think, and Nadal is not going to 5+ more either).
abmk
Bionic Poster
the synopsis is federer is better. Quality and quantity both. He is the man.
clearly better on fast HC, grass,indoors obviously.
Beat djokovic at his peak in RG 11, stopping his streak. was able to stop a red-hot delpo in RG 09 unlike djoko vs stan in RG 15. so better at RG as well.
better at hamburg/madrid, worse at Rome ..quality-wise, similar at Monte carlo (4 finals for each, but djoko was able to convert due to weaker competition in his Monte carlo finals) ..so overall edge to federer quality-wise on clay as well.
JacksonColt
Rookie
Was Federer a former US Open winner in '03? Had he even made it past the 4th round of the US Open before that? NO! Federer got crushed in the 4th round of the US Open that year, not in the final against all time great. Your arguments are beyond weka and desperate. Step to me with something sufficient or don't even bother. This is pathetic!
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
I'm always amused by this idea that future generations will go scrabbling about in the records to see who beat who in a particular Final. Why will anyone who didn't watch them play care about this sort of stuff?
Most people under 30 have probably never even heard of Borg - let alone have any clue who he beat and where. After Fedalovic have all retired there'll be a few people endlessly recycling the old arguments in Former Pro and the vast majority will have moved on.
Most people under 30 have probably never even heard of Borg - let alone have any clue who he beat and where. After Fedalovic have all retired there'll be a few people endlessly recycling the old arguments in Former Pro and the vast majority will have moved on.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
why did Federer have to have be a former US Open winner by 2003?
Lendl wasn't a former US open winner in 82, 83,84 ..
and Borg didn't win USO at all.
Just another one of your pathetic "conditions" to try to "divert".
Federer had won Wimbledon 2 months before the USO in 2003 and was one of the favorites for the USO in 2003. Was stopped by his peer Nalbandian in 4 sets.
>>>> something you'd know if you had a frickin' clue.
JacksonColt
Rookie
Not better than Djokovic. Yea 2011 French Open was great until he got destroyed in the 2012 French Open. Suddenly, 2011 wasn't all that great anymore.
Djokovic didn't get slayed on grass, hardcourt and clay back to back to Nadal like Federer did. He didn't have a 13 match deficit in the head to head. Federer will never the ultimate best because of this. Djokovic tamed the beast when Federer wouldn't. He has the highest ELO rating for a reason. Deal with the facts.
abmk
Bionic Poster
ha ha ha..more delusions.
federer's prime on clay (or red clay to be more specific) ended in 2011. He was mediocre in 2012 on red clay (incl. at RG)
only in your butthurt delusional mind is 2011 not all that great or 2012 anywhere near significant as 2011.
its somewhat like comparing 2016 AO SF/F djokovic vs 2017 or 2018 AO djokovic. (who lost to Istomin/Chung)...just so you get a clue.
no, Djokovic just lost 7 times to non-ATGs in slams in 6 years at his prime (3 to stan, 2 to murray, 1 to querrey and 1 to nishikori)
unlike only 3 times for federer at his prime.
and like I said: federer clearly better on fast HC, grass,indoors obviously. arguably better on clay as well.
so clearly better than djokovic.
ELO system sucks for tennis. and obviously can't take into account homogenization.
JacksonColt
Rookie
He is the best. It's pretty obvious my friend. Only Borg reached a height close to his. Federer is like #5 in ELO overall. These are facts that you have to face.
14-9 is good enough and ratio is not that important. He doesn't need 22 Slams. His 14 already are worth more than 14 of Federer's Slams. Truth. He already has reached the highest level ever seen in tennis.
abmk
Bionic Poster
ha ha ha.
I'll bet you wouldn't have watched 3-4 matches of Borg.
just spewing clueless BS based on ELO, which shouldn't be used for tennis anyways.
The same ELO which has Murray at #8 and Sampras at #12.
JacksonColt
Rookie
ha ha ha..more delusions.
federer's prime on clay (or red clay to be more specific) ended in 2011. He was mediocre in 2012 on red clay (incl. at RG)
only in your butthurt delusional mind is 2011 not all that great or 2012 anywhere near significant as 2011.
its somewhat like comparing 2016 AO SF/F djokovic vs 2017 or 2018 AO djokovic. (who lost to Istomin/Chung)...just so you get a clue.
no, Djokovic just lost 7 times to non-ATGs in slams in 6 years at his prime (3 to stan, 2 to murray, 1 to querrey and 1 to nishikori)
unlike only 3 times for federer at his prime.
and like I said: federer clearly better on fast HC, grass,indoors obviously. arguably better on clay as well.
so clearly better than djokovic.
ELO system sucks for tennis. and obviously can't take into account homogenization.
Jajajaja! You have to be the saddest Fed fanboy on this thread. I almost feel sorry for you. Dry those tears my friend.
Djokovic is the greatest in the making. Facts. Djokovic reached the highest level. Facts. ELO does not suck. Federer just is not the #1 in ELO so you dismiss it. Fact.
abmk
Bionic Poster
sad ? I'm having fun at your expense here.
ELO is fine for chess.
Sucks for tennis.
that's the truth.
Learn to read.
and read the below and accept the TRUTH :
ha ha ha..more delusions.
federer's prime on clay (or red clay to be more specific) ended in 2011. He was mediocre in 2012 on red clay (incl. at RG)
only in your butthurt delusional mind is 2011 not all that great or 2012 anywhere near significant as 2011.
its somewhat like comparing 2016 AO SF/F djokovic vs 2017 or 2018 AO djokovic. (who lost to Istomin/Chung)...just so you get a clue.
no, Djokovic just lost 7 times to non-ATGs in slams in 6 years at his prime (3 to stan, 2 to murray, 1 to querrey and 1 to nishikori)
unlike only 3 times for federer at his prime.
JacksonColt
Rookie
ha ha ha.
I'll bet you wouldn't have watched 3-4 matches of Borg.
just spewing clueless BS based on ELO, which shouldn't be used for tennis anyways.
The same ELO which has Murray at #8 and Sampras at #12.
Yep. I have actually.
Because Sampras was very bad on one surface that's why his rating is lower, while Murray won a clay Masters and made the French Open final. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to get this but it does take a brain.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic actually had to beat Federer, and also Murray majority of times to win the slams from 2014-16. Federer on grass, who has 8 Wimbledon titles and was playing sublime tennis. Also on HCs. Murray Aswell who reached #1 for the first time. This is tough. Beating up guys like Roddick and Hewitt + Baghdatis, Gonzalez during a three year stretch is not even close of the same toughness to what Djokovic had to overcome.
Djokovic's USO draw was pretty weak, but that's a rare occurrence for him.
abmk
Bionic Poster
again, more cluelessness.
Sampras in 94 also won a CC masters (Rome) and unlike Murray who had only 1 slam at that time, Sampras had 3 slams (Wim 93, USO 93, AO 94) and was going for his 4th in a row at RG 94. was stopped by Courier in the QF.
Not to mention that it was the highest level of Federer ever, according to Federer.
JacksonColt
Rookie
sad ? I'm having fun at your expense here.
ELO is fine for chess.
Sucks for tennis.
that's the truth.
Learn to read.
and read the below and accept the TRUTH :
ha ha ha..more delusions.
federer's prime on clay (or red clay to be more specific) ended in 2011. He was mediocre in 2012 on red clay (incl. at RG)
only in your butthurt delusional mind is 2011 not all that great or 2012 anywhere near significant as 2011.
its somewhat like comparing 2016 AO SF/F djokovic vs 2017 or 2018 AO djokovic. (who lost to Istomin/Chung)...just so you get a clue.
no, Djokovic just lost 7 times to non-ATGs in slams in 6 years at his prime (3 to stan, 2 to murray, 1 to querrey and 1 to nishikori)
unlike only 3 times for federer at his prime.
Womp womp womp. Excuses excuses. Djokovic slayed him in 2012. Get out of here with those delusions. If you are going to go around throwing around 2011 then accept the 2012 beating with it. He got crushed.
ELO tells it like it is and displays the truth. The truth is Djokovic is the highest level ever and better than everyone else. Sorry Fed fanboy. Truth hurts sometimes.
Eren
Professional
You're talking too much crap out of your ass lol. Nadal is better than Djokovic. Federer is better than Djokovic as it stands. A deficit of three and six Slams aren't going to cut it.
14-9 is not good enough for me no matter how you spin it. If Djokovic was that good he would not have lost to Stan and Andy in Slam finals and that is the end of it. These are facts you have to face.
His one Slam is as of much value to me as Fed's one Slam is to me. Beating and older ATG is no big deal, Federer had a 9-3 record against old Agassi/Sampras.
Arguable but no truth. Nadal's level on clay is higher than anything I've ever seen.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Federer also faced and beat Nadal in 2005-07 many times. Add in Agassi, Nalbandian, Davydenko.
2004-07 > 2014-2016 (by a significant distance)
and bringing up baghdatis is hilarious. he wasn't a prime rival of Federer. even Gonzalez wasn't either.
federer in slams in 2014-16 was no better than agassi in 2004-05 (in terms of being a threat. actually slightly worse IMO).
Murray put up no great performances in slams vs djoko in 15-16.
RG 15 was a good fight, not that great a level and djoko should've finished him off in 4 sets tops, maybe in 3 sets.
stan was the only one playing at a high level in slams consistently to threaten him.
throw in the fail gen or worst gen (Raonic-nishi-dimi gen) in 2014-2016 and you have relatively weaker period from mid-2014 to 2016.
Edit : Just in case it wasn't clear, mentioning Baghdatis, Gonzalez, but leaving out Nadal, Agassi just goes to show your BS.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
yeah, just like Chung slayed DJokovic in AO 18. I'm sure that was "prime level" djokovic who got crushed.
get off the clueless trail.
RG 2011 >>>>>>> RG 2012in terms of signficance. that's the TRUTH. deal with it.
the truth is djokovic doesn't even come remotely close to highest level anywhere except on slow HC (and slow indoor courts which are a disgrace frankly)
Federer's level is up there on fast HC, grass and indoors (and slow HC)
and ELO sucks for tennis, regardless of how much delusionals like you want to mention it.
JacksonColt
Rookie
Murray won Rome in 2016, made the Madrid final and made the final of the French Open. He beat Djokovic, Nadal and Wawrinka which is something Sampras has never come close to doing on clay. He also made 3 major finals, won 3 Masters, the Olympics and won the year end tournament. This is all surface excellence which Sampras did not have in 1994.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Clown'ish from you. Mentioning Baghdatis and Gonzalez but ignoring Nadal and Agassi...
Beating Murray who pretty much laid an egg in every slam meeting isn't tough btw
abmk
Bionic Poster
yeah, Murray did better on clay in 2016 than Sampras did. But Sampras also did fine in 94 on clay by winning ROme and reaching RG QFs.
the period I mentioned for Sampras in 93-94, he won 3 frickin' slams and you are on about 3 slam finals(incl. 1 win) for Murray ? LOL...ha ha ha
Sampras also had 3 masters in that time frame (IW, Miami and Rome)
Last edited:
JacksonColt
Rookie
Chung? Jajajaja! So desperate and trying to make anything stick. Djokovic had been out of the game for 6 months and still had an injury that wasn't healed. He wasn't even in the top 10 anymore.
Federer was like #3 in the world, had already made the semis of both majors and won Indian Wells and Madrid. Not even close to comparable. Fact is, Djokovic destroyed him in 2012 in straight sets to make his first French Open final. Come up with better excuses.
ELO says otherwise. Highest level ever = Novak Djokovic
abmk
Bionic Poster
whoppity doo. Take djoko's loss in AO 17 to Istomin then.
#2 in the world. had won 2 slams in the previous season, made the USO final and the YEC final.
had beaten #1 Murray in warmup tournament, Doha.
loses to 100+ ranked Istomin at the AO.
yes, djokovic destroyed a sucky, mediocre federer on red clay in 2012 RG. nothing surprising.
Fedrer stopped an absolute peak DJokovic at RG in 2011. Big deal.
much more significant than RG 2012.
a system sucky for the purpose saying something doesn't mean squat.
Like I said ..
"the truth is djokovic doesn't even come remotely close to highest level anywhere except on slow HC (and slow indoor courts which are a disgrace frankly)
Federer's level is up there on fast HC, grass and indoors (and slow HC)
and ELO sucks for tennis, regardless of how much delusionals like you want to mention it."
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Clown'ish from you. Mentioning Baghdatis and Gonzalez but ignoring Nadal and Agassi...
Beating Murray who pretty much laid an egg in every slam meeting isn't tough btw
I didn't mention Nadal cause those wins were good. But he played Nadal only 3 times off clay. He didnt play him once on HC and we have 2 HC slams.
Federers majority of peak opponents were quite weak in comparison to what Djokovic has had to overcome. This is not up to debate.
JacksonColt
Rookie
whoppity doo. Take djoko's loss in AO 17 to Istomin then.
#2 in the world. had won 2 slams in the previous season, made the USO final and the YEC final.
loses to 100+ ranked Istomin.
yes, djokovic destroyed a sucky, mediocre federer on red clay in 2012 RG. nothing surprising.
Fedrer stopped an absolute peak DJokovic at RG in 2011. Big deal.
much more significant than RG 2012.
a system sucky for the purpose saying something doesn't mean squat.
Like I said ..
"the truth is djokovic doesn't even come remotely close to highest level anywhere except on slow HC (and slow indoor courts which are a disgrace frankly)
Federer's level is up there on fast HC, grass and indoors (and slow HC)
and ELO sucks for tennis, regardless of how much delusionals like you want to mention it."
Federer had won two Masters in 2012 and had made the semi of Australia and the semi of the French Open. You are inventing new excuses because you cannot accept he got beaten badly. He was among the top 3 in the world and playing high quality. 2012 was just as important as 2011. Take the loss. Jaja.
No matter how many times you recite this it won't change the fact. Multiple tennis sites use ELO now and they all have one thing in common. That is Novak Djokovic is #1. Fact. Accept it and dry your tears.
NatF
Bionic Poster
It's totally up for debate if you actually want to have a nuanced discussion about level of play...
Unless you think Djokovic is much better at Wimbledon and the USO than Federer is peak for peak there's little room to argue that Djokovic had much tough competition.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Federer played Nadal 7 times off clay from 2004-07.
so talking about the "tough" competition for djokovic, but not mentioning nadal (because those wins were good) for federer. yeah, makes perfect sense. not !
federer's competition in 2004-07 > djokovic's in 2014-16 . that is not up for debate.
What is up for debate is competition of fed from 2004-09 vs djoko from 2011-2016.
Nadal_Django
Legend
I have to say, things that dude is pulling out of his a.ss, hmm, they are quite amazing, lol...
2004 hurricane USO Agassi better than Fed USO 2015... 2005 Agassi also..
2009 RG Delpo better than 2015 RG Wawrinka
2004, 2005, 2009 Wimbledon Roddick better than 2014, 2015 Wimbledon Federer
2006 USO Roddick better than 2013 USO Djokovic
2004 AO Nalbandian better than 2015 AO Wawrinka, Raonic, Murray and 2016 AO Federer and Murray... Etc... etc
The pattern is rather visible. Isn't it!? Lol
Whatever the outrageousness of the claim it is, he can squeeze it somehow to fit his agenda.
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
seasons with 18+ of wins in 2004-09 slams beside Federer:
2008 Nadal 24
2007 Nadal 20
2007 Djokovic 19
2008 Djokovic 18
seasons with 18+ of wins in 2011-16 slams beside Djokovic:
2011 Nadal 23
2016 Murray 23
2012 Murray 22
2015 Wawrinka 21
2011 Murray 21
2011 Federer 20
2012 Federer 19
2014 Federer 19
2015 Murray 19
2013 Ferrer 19
2015 Federer 18
2012 Ferrer 18
2008 Nadal 24
2007 Nadal 20
2007 Djokovic 19
2008 Djokovic 18
seasons with 18+ of wins in 2011-16 slams beside Djokovic:
2011 Nadal 23
2016 Murray 23
2012 Murray 22
2015 Wawrinka 21
2011 Murray 21
2011 Federer 20
2012 Federer 19
2014 Federer 19
2015 Murray 19
2013 Ferrer 19
2015 Federer 18
2012 Ferrer 18
JacksonColt
Rookie
Quality > Quantity. Fact. Djokovic > Fedal. Fact. ELO and head to head tells the true story. Djokovic held all the majors and also won 6 Masters in one year. They never did this and owned the game like he did. Nadal is just a clay beast. He has nothing on Djokovic off clay. Federer won 12 majors in 4 years with no all time great then got destroyed by Nadal.
Djokovic at his best is better than them both. Fact. Ratio is meaningless. Check the head to heads. He owns Stan and Andy.
Federer played Sampras once. What a cherrypicked statistic you came up with. He didn't even start beating Agassi until Agassi was 32. Jajaja-ROFL!
Last edited:
Plamen1234
Hall of Fame
Exactly. Some people are getting worked up over 2004-2007 era all the time.Posting the same nonsense all over again.And they never get tired of doing this,it is like this is only purpose in their life.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
and yet again , you can't accept the Istomin loss in AO 2017, can you ?
was djokovic anywhere near the level in AO 2017 as he was in AO 16 semi/final for instance ? no.
federer was playing below par on a specific surface (red clay) in 2012. that's the reality.
Even Djokovic would just laugh you out of the room if you said to him that their RG 2012 semi was anywhere near as significant as their RG 2011 match.
Besides point was about prime or peak level.
Federer came out on top in their prime to prime match. Deal with it.
2012 RG match is not relevant as far as prime to prime goes since federer was wayyy below par on red clay in 2012.
Again deal with the reality,
hey, I'm just telling the TRUTH man. Sorry if it hurts you.
abmk
Bionic Poster
and yet at his prime, lost 5 times to them in slams combined, incl. going 1-3 in slams vs stan from 2014-2016. LOL !
also the way he lost #1 to Murray in 2016.
federer had 2 ATGs in 2004-07 (agassi in 2004-05 and nadal in 2005-07) (even a 3rd in the final year, 2007 - djokovic). but nice try at BSing.
Federer was dominated by the best nadal in 2008-09, true. (but he had beaten him in 2006/07 wim and had gone 5-2 off clay vs him in 2004-07)
Federer also got back in 2017 with 4 wins in a row (incl. a slam win)
at their bests:
slow HC : djokovic, federer
fast HC : federer
grass : federer
indoors : federer
slow indoors (a disgrace to be honest) : djokovic, federer
clay : nadal
true story. deal with it.
check the h2hs ? LOL, you mean the one he had to huff and puff to finally get across federer. with so many more matches in his prime as compared to federer's ?
LOL !!!!!!!
Last edited:
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Let Djokovic get 20 majors . Then we can dissect for some trivia
At this point his career is a complete tier below Federer’s
At this point his career is a complete tier below Federer’s
Eren
Professional
Djokovic had a losing H2H record against Federer in Slams, Slam finals and overall. He started to beat an almost 33 year old Federer LMAO in for the first time in a Slam final.
Are you senile? You're using the age excuse when it suits your agenda and disregard it otherwise lol.
Federer=Nadal > Djokovic. FACT and TRUTH and I know it hurts.
Nadal_Django
Legend
Slow Hard Djokovic and Fed!?
Why so generous towards Djokovic Maybe you should learn a thing or two from your cult colleague and also self proclaimed expert in tennis level @NatF when AO topic is at hand...Similar threads
