Federer 2015 vs Djokovic 2021

Kralingen

Legend
Congrats to Federer on yet another glorious hypothetical victory, by the way ;)

Overall mostly agree with the commentary. 2021 was a weird year, Olympics interspersed with Masters and IW/Miami either being postponed or played with no high level participation. ‘15 Federer actually played more and showed less burnout than Djokovic, which seems bizarre.

I do think Novak ‘15 was way way better than his ‘21 version so for Fed to be a worthy adversary to ‘15 Djokovic is a good achievement. However ‘21 Djokovic came with the goods in the AO/FO/Wimby later stages, especially the first two, and definitely deserves his 3 titles. Unfortunate that Federer did not get this sort of late career opportunity, but given that he lost to AO Seppi, he wasn’t doing CYGS either.
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
wrong.
2016 had injured/AWOL fed/nadal.
Wawarinka was there in the first of 2017 (better than first half of 2016 actually)
2017 also had delpo in the 2nd half of the season. Thiem on clay. Dimitrov having his best year, including AO run, YEC win, Cincy, Brisbane/.
Well, if Dimitrov is your proof of strong competition, then you’ve already lost the debate. In any case, this thread is a "let's make ourselves feel better by rationalizing some stats and speculating some hypotheticals" for Fed fans when it's not actually a 1:1 comparison. Djokovic was going after the Grand Slam and that pressure clearly got to him at the U.S. Open. 2015 Fed didn't have to operate under anything close to that type of pressure. No one is ever going to look at Federer's 2015 season and say it looked better than Djokovic's 2021 season of going 1 short of a CYGS; that is no one except TTW keyboard warriors who can't see the forest for the trees.

Not when Fed won the AO and Sunshine Double. Competition was still good then.

Also, Fed's Wim win wasn't worse than Novak's. Both were about equally easy.

And Fed still beat Nadal to attain most of that success, didn't he? Better than beating the Next Gen. And I'm confused on why your statement doesn't apply to 2021 as well since the players you mentioned were also absent this year.
2021 is a relatively easy year in terms of competition for Djokovic, but 2017 was even more so for Federer. He had to go through Nadal at the Australian Open, his weakest slam, while Djokovic had to go through Nadal at the French, by far his strongest slam. But it's funny hearing you say 2017 was "still good then" when you've been saying at other times that competition has been weak since 2014/2015. So basically competition is strong when Federer plays well but weak when Djokovic plays well. If that's not an agenda...

2015 Fed would clown 2021 Djoko at the USO.
Again, it's not a fair comparison. Djokovic was going for a CYGS. Federer was not.
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
So, 2015 Federer who is maligned by his own fans for losing to Seppi and others earlier in the year is significantly better than 2021 Djokovic who was 1 match away from completing the CYGS and defeated the:
. god of clay in Nadal at RG
. hottest clay player at the time in Tsitsipas at RG
. USO champ and hottest HC player at the time in Medvedev at AO
. OSG champ and hottest HC player at the time in Zverev at USO plus AO
. hottest grass player at the time in Berrettini at W who also only lost to Djokovic in slams
Logically doesn't quite add up.
Actually, it makes perfect sense once you take into account:

PRETTY BACKHAND factor
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Well, if Dimitrov is your proof of strong competition, then you’ve already lost the debate. In any case, this thread is a "let's make ourselves feel better by rationalizing some stats and speculating some hypotheticals" for Fed fans when it's not actually a 1:1 comparison. Djokovic was going after the Grand Slam and that pressure clearly got to him at the U.S. Open. 2015 Fed didn't have to operate under anything close to that type of pressure. No one is ever going to look at Federer's 2015 season and say it looked better than Djokovic's 2021 season of going 1 short of a CYGS; that is no one except TTW keyboard warriors who can't see the forest for the trees.



2021 is a relatively easy year in terms of competition for Djokovic, but 2017 was even more so for Federer. He had to go through Nadal at the Australian Open, his weakest slam, while Djokovic had to go through Nadal at the French, by far his strongest slam. But it's funny hearing you say 2017 was "still good then" when you've been saying at other times that competition has been weak since 2014/2015. So basically competition is strong when Federer plays well but weak when Djokovic plays well. If that's not an agenda...



Again, it's not a fair comparison. Djokovic was going for a CYGS. Federer was not.
Nadal was a bigger force in 2017 overall than in 2021. And Fed faced 3 other top 10 players besides Nadal to win.

And no, 2017 wasn't any worse than 2021 was. That's just fanboy talk.

I also didn't say 2017 was strong, but it was good during the first 4 months of the year when Fed won the AO and Sunshine Double.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Seems as tough to beat as the 2015 one to me. Yeah this USO final not so much but throughout the year he's been really tough and consistent at the slams. I just think that Federer's problem against Djokovic is not his tennis. Even in 2019 he still had the tennis to beat Djokovic. But Federer hates those grinding matches. He's been able to win some but it's not his game.
2021 Djokovic can't play the tennis 2015 could. It's night and day difference between the 2 versions.

2019 Fed almist beat him and he was better in 2015.
 

Fed_Nole

New User
As Nole fan, I have to say 2015 Fed was very unlucky or 2021 Nole has been quite lucky. Take Nole off 2015 field, Fed absolutely would have bagged Wimbledon, USO, WTF and IW. I hope/expect Nole can follow Fed career path and have another 2017/2018 surge. 22/23 majors are within his reach. But if it stays @ 20-20-20, I'm fine with it.

Fed peak/dominance is unparalleled, it would be unrealistic/unfair to see him as #3 ATG.
 

FRV4

Professional
As Nole fan, I have to say 2015 Fed was very unlucky or 2021 Nole has been quite lucky. Take Nole off 2015 field, Fed absolutely would have bagged Wimbledon, USO, WTF and IW. I hope/expect Nole can follow Fed career path and another 2017/2018 surge. 22/23 majors are within his reach. But if it stays @ 20-20-20, I'm fine with it.

Fed peak/dominance is unparalleled, it would be unrealistic/unfair to see him as #3 ATG.
I respect your appreciation for Fed and Djokovic (your username)
 

guga_fan

Semi-Pro
Don't think he beats Med that easily as well
Surely he does. No way Medvedev would break that version of Federer with his serving and willingness to move forward. Federer made the final without losing a set and destroyed Wawrinka in the semis.

That Federer also returned much better than Djokovic did in the final this year, which was very poor for his standard. Federer never had any particular problem with big servers.

Imagine Med dealing with Federer’s SABR, serve and volley, slices, dropshots, short slices and variety in general. Don’t forget how successful Djokovic was at the net against him before he got desperate.
 
Last edited:

alinefx

Rookie
2017 was when half the top 10 players from 2016 were either playing injured or out with injury: Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Raonic, Nishikori so the competition level fell drastically.
By that measure, 2021 had NO competition for Novak then, right? Only “useless Nextgenners”, and he couldn’t even beat them all for the ultimate prize. I’m sure he’d trade a 40-15 for a CYGS any day.
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
By that measure, 2021 had NO competition for Novak then, right? Only “useless Nextgenners”, and he couldn’t even beat them all for the ultimate prize. I’m sure he’d trade a 40-15 for a CYGS any day.
Of course the flaw in your premise is that Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas are far from useless and have gone deep in majors several times now, contending for them, and sometimes winning them. They weren't much in 2017, but they are now. As for 40-15, losing a CYGS is harder to take than losing Wimbledon double match point up, but even in losing, being 1 match short of winning a CYGS is a far greater achievement than actually winning one Wimbledon.
 

ND-13

Hall of Fame
Federer’s level was fantastic in the second half, yet has nothing to show

Djokovic was great at FO, but nothing spectacular otherwise, yet managed to come so close to CYGS .

If Djokovic 2021 had Djokovic 2015 as a competition, doubt he would have won anything though , so I can see OP’s view point
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Berrettini and Shapovalov played about as well as Raonic and Berdych.

The rest are mostly irrelevant level-wise. Djokovic would conquer that draw dropping 2 sets, maybe 3 at most.

Cilic could have made it tough, but we know how that turned out.
nah, Berdych was a step above in his match vs fed than berr/shap vs djoko
 
Comparing the years in which they both turned 34.

Slams:

AO: Federer lost in 3R to Seppi. Djokovic won it. Obviously, Djokovic was better. But if Fritz had held his head/was as solid as Seppi, he could've taken out Djokovic who was hampered in that match.

RG: Federer made it to QF, losing one set, but lost to peak Wawa in straights. Djokovic won it. Obviously, Djokovic was better. But 2015 RG Djokovic > 2021 RG Djokovic and given 15 Wawa beat 15 Djoko convincingly, he'd have beaten 21 Djoko convincingly as well.

Wim: Federer demolished Murray in the SF. Djoko had to rely on Shapo choking big time in the 1st 2 sets. Fed was also more dominant/impressive in the rounds prior.
Yeah, Djoko won his final vs a meh Berretini in 4 sets and fed lost to peak Djoko in 4 sets, but I don't think fed was any worse level wise in Wim 15 final compared to Djoko in Wim 21 final.

Their stats at respective Wimbledons are about the same overall despite Fed facing 15 Djok and 15 Murray, both of whom are significantly better than anyone Djoko faced in Wim 21.
Fed's serving stats a little better than Djoko's and Djoko's return stats a little better than Fed's

Serve: fed at 95.5% hold, Djoko at 93.8% hold. fed winning 75.7% service points, djoko winning 73.7% service points
Return: fed at 26.4% breaks, djoko at 28.3% breaks. fed winning 38.3% return points, djoko winning 41.3% return points


If we take stats before the final (Wim 15 final Djoko and Wim 21 final Berretini are like gigantic miles apart)

Serve: fed at 98.9% hold, Djoko at 94.6% hold. fed winning 78.6% service points, djoko winning 74.9% service points
Return: fed at 31.5% breaks, djoko at 28.6% breaks. fed winning 40.2% return points, djoko winning 41.7% return points


The service stats difference widens obviously. Fed also surges ahead on break%, even with a little less % of return points won.

Keep in mind that fed's competition before the final was significantly better: Murray, Groth, Querrey, Simon, RBA, Dzhumur
Djokovic: Shapo, Fucsovic, Kudla, Anderson,Draper, Garin

Conclusion? Fed in Wim 15 > Djoko in Wim 21, clearly

USO: Fed came into the final without losing a set, including dismantling Wawa in the semi. Lost to peak djokovic in a tight 4-setter in the final. Djokovic struggled on his way to the final and lost in straights to Med. Obviously fed was better.

Other tournaments till USO:

Federer in 15 won Cincy and Brisbane/Dubai/Istanbul/Halle, made the final of IW/Rome
Djokovic in 21 Won Belgrade, made final of Rome

So fed obviously better here.

Win loss record:

Fed was 51-8 till USO
Djokovic 44-6 till USO

Summary:

15 as a year was a relatively weak one, similar to 06,10.
fed made 2 slam finals and a QF in 15 as opposed to djoko in 21 winning 3 slams and making a slam final.

so how much worse was 21 compared to 15? Quite a bit, I'd say.
Stan won RG 2015.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Well, if Dimitrov is your proof of strong competition, then you’ve already lost the debate.
Considering you mentioned Raonic and Nishi in 2016, the joke is on you pal.
Besides I never said 2017 was strong. It wasn't. It was a weak year, overall. Just like 2016 was weak. Your BS propaganda like 2016 was so much better is just downright hilarious and makes a mockery out of yourself.

2017 was when half the top 10 players from 2016 were either playing injured or out with injury: Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Raonic, Nishikori so the competition level fell drastically.
In any case, this thread is a "let's make ourselves feel better by rationalizing some stats and speculating some hypotheticals" for Fed fans when it's not actually a 1:1 comparison.
it contained actual evaluation of levels, but muh hypotheticals only.

Djokovic was going after the Grand Slam and that pressure clearly got to him at the U.S. Open. 2015 Fed didn't have to operate under anything close to that type of pressure. No one is ever going to look at Federer's 2015 season and say it looked better than Djokovic's 2021 season of going 1 short of a CYGS; that is no one except TTW keyboard warriors who can't see the forest for the trees.
That applies only for USO. But am sure the pressure of having to face a prime ATG (like fed had to in 15) doesn't matter at all , especially compare to Djokovic having a nearly free field in 2021,, right? What a joke!
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
2017 was when half the top 10 players from 2016 were either playing injured or out with injury: Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Raonic, Nishikori so the competition level fell drastically.
Stan wasn't injured in the first half of the season. It was only after RG after that battle with Murray that he collapsed. I'll grant you the rest of that batch (but Raonic and Nishikori are hardly strong opponents anyway: the fact that Raonic was #3 in 2016 is a testament to that year's weakness). Still, 2016 had Federer and Nadal injured for large portions of the year, and then Djokovic too had a massive drop in form after RG. I think 2017 as a whole was a little weaker than 2016 outside of the spring HC season where it was actually pretty solid, but there was no "drastic" drop in the level of competition between both years when the two of them were certainly among the lowest of the low in terms of strength.
 

Amen786

Semi-Pro
Comparing the years in which they both turned 34.

Slams:

AO: Federer lost in 3R to Seppi. Djokovic won it. Obviously, Djokovic was better. But if Fritz had held his head/was as solid as Seppi, he could've taken out Djokovic who was hampered in that match.

RG: Federer made it to QF, losing one set, but lost to peak Wawa in straights. Djokovic won it. Obviously, Djokovic was better. But 2015 RG Djokovic > 2021 RG Djokovic and given 15 Wawa beat 15 Djoko convincingly, he'd have beaten 21 Djoko convincingly as well.

Wim: Federer demolished Murray in the SF. Djoko had to rely on Shapo choking big time in the 1st 2 sets. Fed was also more dominant/impressive in the rounds prior.
Yeah, Djoko won his final vs a meh Berretini in 4 sets and fed lost to peak Djoko in 4 sets, but I don't think fed was any worse level wise in Wim 15 final compared to Djoko in Wim 21 final.

Their stats at respective Wimbledons are about the same overall despite Fed facing 15 Djok and 15 Murray, both of whom are significantly better than anyone Djoko faced in Wim 21.
Fed's serving stats a little better than Djoko's and Djoko's return stats a little better than Fed's

Serve: fed at 95.5% hold, Djoko at 93.8% hold. fed winning 75.7% service points, djoko winning 73.7% service points
Return: fed at 26.4% breaks, djoko at 28.3% breaks. fed winning 38.3% return points, djoko winning 41.3% return points


If we take stats before the final (Wim 15 final Djoko and Wim 21 final Berretini are like gigantic miles apart)

Serve: fed at 98.9% hold, Djoko at 94.6% hold. fed winning 78.6% service points, djoko winning 74.9% service points
Return: fed at 31.5% breaks, djoko at 28.6% breaks. fed winning 40.2% return points, djoko winning 41.7% return points


The service stats difference widens obviously. Fed also surges ahead on break%, even with a little less % of return points won.

Keep in mind that fed's competition before the final was significantly better: Murray, Groth, Querrey, Simon, RBA, Dzhumur
Djokovic: Shapo, Fucsovic, Kudla, Anderson,Draper, Garin

Conclusion? Fed in Wim 15 > Djoko in Wim 21, clearly

USO: Fed came into the final without losing a set, including dismantling Wawa in the semi. Lost to peak djokovic in a tight 4-setter in the final. Djokovic struggled on his way to the final and lost in straights to Med. Obviously fed was better.

Other tournaments till USO:

Federer in 15 won Cincy and Brisbane/Dubai/Istanbul/Halle, made the final of IW/Rome
Djokovic in 21 Won Belgrade, made final of Rome

So fed obviously better here.

Win loss record:

Fed was 51-8 till USO
Djokovic 44-6 till USO

Summary:

15 as a year was a relatively weak one, similar to 06,10.
fed made 2 slam finals and a QF in 15 as opposed to djoko in 21 winning 3 slams and making a slam final.

so how much worse was 21 compared to 15? Quite a bit, I'd say.
I agree Fully. The only block to fed's 2015 season was a great younger player at his physical best or else it could have been his statistically best season after 2009.
Australia open 3R (bad loss no change)
Dubai title
Indian wells title
Rome title
French open quarter finale (loss to red player not changing)
Halle title
Wimbledon title
Cincinnati title
United States open title
Basel title
Atp finals title

So that accounts for 2 slams, atp finals title, 3 masters shields, 3 atp 500 titles, year end number one with a huge margin.

Whereas Djokovic did not have any great younger player to stop him at all in 2021.
Definitely not the fault of the serb though, he kept his mental fortress and clutch
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
Considering you mentioned Raonic and Nishi in 2016, the joke is on you pal.
Besides I never said 2017 was strong. It wasn't. It was a weak year, overall. Just like 2016 was weak. Your BS propaganda like 2016 was so much better is just downright hilarious and makes a mockery out of yourself.
Not at all. A healthy Raonic and Nishikori are much better than Dimitrov. 2016 Raonic took out Federer at Wimbledon. So you can't have it both ways. If Dimitrov can be considered significant competition, then Raonic and Nishikori are doubly so. Also, 2 of the 7 toughest slam wins come in 2016 and 2016 is only one of 6 years in which every slam win was in the top 100 toughest so it was far from weak but rather among the 6 statistically toughest in the Open Era from a slam perspective:


That applies only for USO. But am sure the pressure of having to face a prime ATG (like fed had to in 15) doesn't matter at all , especially compare to Djokovic having a nearly free field in 2021,, right? What a joke!
Djokovic and Federer have played 50 times. Djokovic laughs at pressure when he faces Federer. That's nothing compared to the pressure of a CYGS. And dismissing the field of 2021 is what's a joke.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Not at all. A healthy Raonic and Nishikori are much better than Dimitrov. 2016 Raonic took out Federer at Wimbledon. So you can't have it both ways. If Dimitrov can be considered significant competition, then Raonic and Nishikori are doubly so. Also, 2 of the 7 toughest slam wins come in 2016 and 2016 is only one of 6 years in which every slam win was in the top 100 toughest so it was far from weak but rather among the 6 statistically toughest in the Open Era:

Nope, all 3 are on a similar level, a little bit give and take here.
2019 Dimi beat FEderer at USO and 2019 fed season was better than 2016 fed season. Big whoop.
Both beat a hampered/injured federer.
2 of the 7 toughest slam in 2016? bwhaha... Joke of a mega joke.


Djokovic and Federer have played 50 times. Djokovic laughs at pressure when he faces Federer. That's nothing compared to the pressure of a CYGS. And dismissing the field of 2021 is what's a joke.
hey hack, its pressure for older federer that a prime younger Djokovic can easily outlast you even if you outplay him at the beginning. World doesn't revolve around pressure only on Djokovic, you djoko obssessed hack.
2021 field is a joke, just like your "analysis"
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
Nope, all 3 are on a similar level, a little bit give and take here.
2019 Dimi beat FEderer at USO and 2019 fed season was better than 2016 fed season. Big whoop.
Both beat a hampered/injured federer.
2 of the 7 toughest slam in 2016? bwhaha... Joke of a mega joke.
When faced with the numbers, you enter psychological denial, but they are what they are.

hey hack, its pressure for older federer that a prime younger Djokovic can easily outlast you even if you outplay him at the beginning. World doesn't revolve around pressure only on Djokovic, you djoko obssessed hack.
2021 field is a joke, just like your "analysis"
When someone has to resort to insults, then you know they've run out of legitimate arguments.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
When faced with the numbers, you enter psychological denial, but they are what they are.



When someone has to resort to insults, then you know they've run out of legitimate arguments.
hey, those are ELO numbers, which don't work for tennis.
Just throwing some numbers without context/justification or why they should be used doesn't work.
But then you'd have to get your a** out of you know where to understand that.
 
When faced with the numbers, you enter psychological denial, but they are what they are.



When someone has to resort to insults, then you know they've run out of legitimate arguments.
The guy is a resident village idiot here on this board. Whatever he says, whatever the insults he strikes, just don't take him too much seriously. 8-B
 

junior74

Talk Tennis Guru
2015 Fed was really good but is being a bit overrated here imo. Cincy was impressive but overall not quite his peak. Would have a hard time beating 2021 Djokovic, who is a beast. Those grinding long matches, we have seen it many times and they end with Djokovic as the winner.
In all honesty, I think Djokovic 21 is overrated, too. Djokovic 15 would take him. Federer, Murray, Wawrinka were playing great tennis in 2015. 2021 is a field of inexperienced slam players.

I think Fed15 and Djok21 are not that different, level wise. They played very different fields. I don't see Djok21 beating Fed15 in Wimbledon and US Open. But that's the beauty of hypotheticals :)
 
I agree Fully. The only block to fed's 2015 season was a great younger player at his physical best or else it could have been his statistically best season after 2009.
Australia open 3R (bad loss no change)
Dubai title
Indian wells title
Rome title
French open quarter finale (loss to red player not changing)
Halle title
Wimbledon title
Cincinnati title
United States open title
Basel title
Atp finals title

So that accounts for 2 slams, atp finals title, 3 masters shields, 3 atp 500 titles, year end number one with a huge margin.

Whereas Djokovic did not have any great younger player to stop him at all in 2021.
Definitely not the fault of the serb though, he kept his mental fortress and clutch
If if if.....
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
hey, those are ELO numbers, which don't work for tennis.
Just throwing some numbers without context/justification or why they should be used doesn't work.
But then you'd have to get your a** out of you know where to understand that.
Well, of course if you don't understand Elo (it is a person's name, not an acronym) and it goes against your world view, you would dismiss as not working when in actuality, it is a better predictor than the ATP and WTA rankings themselves as to who will win a match. Elo is a tool, no more and no less, but it works better than almost every other unbiased tool out there, which is why stat-heavy sites like 538, Tennis Abstract, and Ultimate Tennis Statistics use it.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Well, of course if you don't understand Elo (it is a person's name, not an acronym) and it goes against your world view, you would dismiss as not working when in actuality, it is a better predictor than the ATP and WTA rankings themselves as to who will win a match. Elo is a tool, no more and no less, but it works better than almost every other unbiased tool out there, which is why stat-heavy sites like 538, Tennis Abstract, and Ultimate Tennis Statistics use it.
ELO returns rubbish like Murray 09 having higher rating than Sampras 94 (when Sampras was more dominant along with holding multiple slams and Murray holding 0 slams). So when I say its rubbish for tennis, its based on the results I've seen.

It also doesn't have a way to evaluate actually what happened in the matches.

Its an absolute utter joke to say AO 16 was tough by any means based on what actually happened. It was an easy draw.
AO 2012 and AO 2013 itself for Djokovic were far harder and its not even in the same ballpark.

But then you wouldn't know head/tail out of anything except using anything props up Djokovic and your mega-dumb arguments, would you? Get your head outta ....
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
Well, of course if you don't understand Elo (it is a person's name, not an acronym) and it goes against your world view, you would dismiss as not working when in actuality, it is a better predictor than the ATP and WTA rankings themselves as to who will win a match. Elo is a tool, no more and no less, but it works better than almost every other unbiased tool out there, which is why stat-heavy sites like 538, Tennis Abstract, and Ultimate Tennis Statistics use it.
Elo is good for predicting matches of contemporaries but useless for saying how one player would perform in anothers field.
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
Well, of course if you don't understand Elo (it is a person's name, not an acronym) and it goes against your world view, you would dismiss as not working when in actuality, it is a better predictor than the ATP and WTA rankings themselves as to who will win a match. Elo is a tool, no more and no less, but it works better than almost every other unbiased tool out there, which is why stat-heavy sites like 538, Tennis Abstract, and Ultimate Tennis Statistics use it.
Elo is good for exactly that: predicting matches between players of the same era who are competing against each other.

If you're using Elo to compare players between different eras in different fields, then you really don't understand Elo at all.

The main issue with using it like that is that Elo takes way too long to adjust and it inflates over time.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, there is no way a Djokovic that hits UFEs left and right can beat Federer.
It's a tough one to predict. Different match up (as a responese to that Djoko would hit UFE ). But indeed Federer was in great form and Djoko would be in huge trouble considering how basically every match was tough for him.

Overall though Djoko in 2021 has been a mental beast and played great improved tennis when he had to. 3 slams against these dudes and final in another is an unreal performance by him. He has fought off every next gen including Nadal at FO. Federer 2015 wouldn't for example win FO. So it's hard to argue for Federer 15 overall.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Considering you mentioned Raonic and Nishi in 2016, the joke is on you pal.
Besides I never said 2017 was strong. It wasn't. It was a weak year, overall. Just like 2016 was weak. Your BS propaganda like 2016 was so much better is just downright hilarious and makes a mockery out of yourself.





it contained actual evaluation of levels, but muh hypotheticals only.



That applies only for USO. But am sure the pressure of having to face a prime ATG (like fed had to in 15) doesn't matter at all , especially compare to Djokovic having a nearly free field in 2021,, right? What a joke!
Federer 2015 is not attempting a Grand Slam if you replace him with Djokovic this year. So that should settle things. You are underrating Djokos ability and qualites to adapt on all surfaces no matter if he is 34 or 27.
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
ELO returns rubbish like Murray 09 having higher rating than Sampras 94 (when Sampras was more dominant along with holding multiple slams and Murray holding 0 slams). So when I say its rubbish for tennis, its based on the results I've seen.
So first of all, I just checked Tennis Abstract and it shows 1994 Pete with the higher Elo over 2009 Murray. Second, as already stated by Third Serve, Elo isn't intended to compare players when their competition doesn't overlap. That said, I'm sure you will object that Elo rates 2016 Murray higher than 1994 Sampras anyway, but Elo takes into account level of difficulty of opposition, and Pete just didn't have the same level of opposition in Courier and an Agassi who had dropped out of the top 10 in 1993 and was working his way back from injury. Murray had to contend with a GOATing Djokovic for much of the year (Djokovic's own peak Elo is in early 2016, the highest Elo of anyone ever). 1994 Sampras went 77-12. 2016 Murray went a better 78-9. Sampras won 2 majors, 3 Masters and the YEC. Murray won 1 major, reached 2 major finals (both times losing to Djokovic), won 3 Masters, the YEC, and Olympic Gold. They both had great years.

Its an absolute utter joke to say AO 16 was tough by any means based on what actually happened. It was an easy draw.
AO 2012 and AO 2013 itself for Djokovic were far harder and its not even in the same ballpark.
Well, if you look at the relative difficulty numbers, we are talking about a less than 2% difference among all three tournaments in level of competition. You can have your opinion, but to me, if you look at the entire draw of all 7 players, the competition is pretty comparable. 2012 had the hardest QF, SF, and F opponents, but Djokovic didn't have to play a seed in R32 or R16 in 2012 like he did in 2013 and 2016.

But then you wouldn't know head/tail out of anything except using anything props up Djokovic and your mega-dumb arguments, would you? Get your head outta ....
I must have really gotten to you. Only the truth hurts this much.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
It's a tough one to predict. Different match up (as a responese to that Djoko would hit UFE ). But indeed Federer was in great form and Djoko would be in huge trouble considering how basically every match was tough for him.

Overall though Djoko in 2021 has been a mental beast and played great improved tennis when he had to. 3 slams against these dudes and final in another is an unreal performance by him. He has fought off every next gen including Nadal at FO. Federer 2015 wouldn't for example win FO. So it's hard to argue for Federer 15 overall.
Djoko 2021 wouldn't win 2015 FO either.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
I know, but just saying that if you switch the years, Djoko doesn't win the FO either just like Fed in 2015 didn't.
Federer doesn't win in either editions, so my point still stands. He doesn't attempt CYGS like Novak did, so how can we give 15 Fed over Novak the nod overall in terms of "level" of play? It settles it.
 

InsideOut900

Hall of Fame
That said, I'm sure you will object that Elo rates 2016 Murray higher than 1994 Sampras anyway, but Elo takes into account level of difficulty of opposition, and Pete just didn't have the same level of opposition in Courier and an Agassi who had dropped out of the top 10 in 1993 and was working his way back from injury. Murray had to contend with a GOATing Djokovic for much of the year (Djokovic's own peak Elo is in early 2016, the highest Elo of anyone ever). 1994 Sampras went 77-12. 2016 Murray went a better 78-9. Sampras won 2 majors, 3 Masters and the YEC. Murray won 1 major, reached 2 major finals (both times losing to Djokovic), won 3 Masters, the YEC, and Olympic Gold. They both had great years.
ELO only takes into account relative difficulty.

So if say the top 10 players are consistent at beating lower ranked players like Rublev for instance, then beating Rublev yields you good ELO points, when in reality, it's a really easy task to beat him as Tsitsipas/Zverev/Medvedev/Djokovic.

Conversely, if the tour is inconsistent ala Wawrinka or Roddick, you gain relatively low ELO points by beating them compared to the actual difficulty of the task.

So if the tour is consistent, but useless at beating those above them in rankings, you get inflated ELOs.

One think I do not know, does ELO account for closeness of matches or just win/loss? Because beating someone is straights should yield more points compared to beating same player in 5 sets.
 
Last edited:
Top