Federer at US open vs Djokovic at US Open

[BauerAlmeida]

A hypothetical peak-for-peak match would not be close enough for the clutch factor to be a factor.

Federer in 2007 was at his peak and clutch factor is what tipped the scale for him because Djokovic felt the pressure of his first slam final. Set 1 and 2 could have easily been won by Djokovic, especially the first one in which he was serving 6-5 40-0. And he had just beaten him in Montreal so it was no fluke. And set 3 was close as well, despite Djokovic being mentally out from going 2-0 down.

The idea that Fed would just choke any close match is stupid as well.

Agreed. Also, the idea that Federer would just routine him and the match would not be close at all is stupid as well.

 

[NatF]

Federer in 2007 was at his peak and clutch factor is what tipped the scale for him because Djokovic felt the pressure of his first slam final. Set 1 and 2 could have easily been won by Djokovic, especially the first one in which he was serving 6-5 40-0. And he had just beaten him in Montreal so it was no fluke. And set 3 was close as well, despite Djokovic being mentally out from going 2-0 down.





Agreed. Also, the idea that Federer would just routine him and the match would not be close at all is stupid as well.

Federer out peaks Djokovic at the USO pretty clearly imo. Routine is too strong but I think it ends in 4 sets more often than not.

 

[zakopinjo]

Are people really still crying about the 2020 default and the 2022 ban? Both of those situations are on Joker. He had been skating on think ice for years at that point and was lucky he wasn’t defaulted more times in his career. As for 2022, he knew well in advance that he wouldn’t be able to play without being vaccinated. It’s not like the rug was pulled out from under his feet at the last minute.

USO2020 is not eligible for disqualification. There is no intent, physical or verbal contact with the linesman.

Serena's rampage on the court and threat to the linesman qualifies for disqualification. She is not disqualified...

 

[The Blond Blur]

USO2020 is not eligible for disqualification. There is no intent, physical or verbal contact with the linesman.

Serena's rampage on the court and threat to the linesman qualifies for disqualification. She is not disqualified...

It was eligible for disqualification…hence why he was disqualified. Joker had been pushing the envelope for years. For example, he was lucky he wasn’t DQ at the 2016 RG QF when he threw his racquet barely missing a linesman there. Later that same year in the YEC he hit a ball into the air out of anger, and was later asked about it in his press conference if he regretted doing it and if it’ll ever catch up to him. Joker’s response wasn’t you’re right, I need to be better and behave more professionally. Instead his response was you guys are always picking these things. Rather than take accountability for his actions he instead played the victim card.

And Serena should have been DQ as well. Just because she wasn’t doesn’t mean that Joker didn’t deserve to be DQ. Had I been the chair umpire I would have DQ both of them on the spot.

 

[RSJfan]

So Nadal is no longer the US Open GOAT?

FEDR, Pete and Jimbo are all legit choices for open era USO GOAT. Vamosovic are not.

 

[RSJfan]

Are people really still crying about the 2020 default and the 2022 ban? Both of those situations are on Joker…

A true Egg fan is revealed by their permanent Egg grievances and enthusiasm for whining about them at any opportunity. If you’re not still whining about the 2020 USO default and 2022 Oz deportation then you’re a fair weather Egg fan.

 

[zakopinjo]

It was eligible for disqualification…hence why he was disqualified. Joker had been pushing the envelope for years. For example, he was lucky he wasn’t DQ at the 2016 RG QF when he threw his racquet barely missing a linesman there. Later that same year in the YEC he hit a ball into the air out of anger, and was later asked about it in his press conference if he regretted doing it and if it’ll ever catch up to him. Joker’s response wasn’t you’re right, I need to be better and behave more professionally. Instead his response was you guys are always picking these things. Rather than take accountability for his actions he instead played the victim card.

And Serena should have been DQ as well. Just because she wasn’t doesn’t mean that Joker didn’t deserve to be DQ. Had I been the chair umpire I would have DQ both of them on the spot.

There is no intention, no verbal and physical contact. 100% accident.

A unique case of disqualification in the world of tennis. Such cases almost always lead to a verbal warning from the judge.

We have had cases where players accidentally hit children who are collecting balls and wearing towels, who then burst into tears. None of those cases led to a verbal warning, not to mention the possibility of disqualification...

I don't know how people can defend the decision to disqualify Novak.

 

[beltsman]

Federer obviously, but it's such a shame that he never won again. Why oh why did they have to make it mucky and slow

 

[JasonZ]

Who dominated is an easy question. There's no debate about that.

If you want to ask who was better overall, there's at least a discussion to be had.

no, that discussion should not be, 5 > 4.

 

[RSJfan]

There is no intention, no verbal and physical contact. 100% accident.

A unique case of disqualification in the world of tennis. Such cases almost always lead to a verbal warning from the judge.

We have had cases where players accidentally hit children who are collecting balls and wearing towels, who then burst into tears. None of those cases led to a verbal warning, not to mention the possibility of disqualification...

I don't know how people can defend the decision to disqualify Novak.

#TrueEggFan
#EggLivesMatter

 

[inflation_era]

Djokovic won a slam by 2008. he was peak. That peak Djoker lost easily to Fed at USO2008 and 2009. Any version of Djokovic has no chance against peak Federer.

 

[fedfan24]

Djokovic won a slam by 2008. he was peak. That peak Djoker lost easily to Fed at USO2008 and 2009. Any version of Djokovic has no chance against peak Federer.

Wimbledon or USO, take your pick it’s over in 4. AO goes to Djokovic, courts there are too sticky, favour his game better

 

[MichaelNadal]

Wimbledon or USO, take your pick it’s over in 4. AO goes to Djokovic, courts there are too sticky, favour his game better

Sticky is actually a great way to describe the AO courts lol, well done

 

[Biotic]

Have to give it to Fraud, at the end of the day he won more and Djoko messed up a few he shouldn't have, 2012 and 2014 stand out. Djoko does have objectively much better longevity.

Also have to point out peak stupidity hailing Fraud as incomparably better while simultaneously calling his competition stronger. Not to mention Djoko played Dull in his best 3 editions there...but worry not, Roddick and Blake are closing that gap for sure.

 

[Aabye5]

There is no intention, no verbal and physical contact. 100% accident.

A unique case of disqualification in the world of tennis. Such cases almost always lead to a verbal warning from the judge.

We have had cases where players accidentally hit children who are collecting balls and wearing towels, who then burst into tears. None of those cases led to a verbal warning, not to mention the possibility of disqualification...

I don't know how people can defend the decision to disqualify Novak.

It was physical contact. If he had thrown a racquet instead of a ball would it be clearer?

That said, it was really just bad luck for Novak.

 

[Enceladus]

Are people really still crying about the 2020 default and the 2022 ban? Both of those situations are on Joker. He had been skating on think ice for years at that point and was lucky he wasn’t defaulted more times in his career. As for 2022, he knew well in advance that he wouldn’t be able to play without being vaccinated. It’s not like the rug was pulled out from under his feet at the last minute.

A true tennis fan doesn't support Covid bans or other political interventions that damage the ethos of the Open era.

 

[Third Serve]

Federer in 2007 was at his peak and clutch factor is what tipped the scale for him because Djokovic felt the pressure of his first slam final. Set 1 and 2 could have easily been won by Djokovic, especially the first one in which he was serving 6-5 40-0. And he had just beaten him in Montreal so it was no fluke. And set 3 was close as well, despite Djokovic being mentally out from going 2-0 down.

This is a bit overplayed IMO. From the way the match progressed I think it shows gradual improvement as Fed went from first gear to third throughout the match. On balance, it was easily his worst of the five finals he won (which is why I'd call it prime but not peak - that'd be 2004 or 2006), but once Fed warmed up Djokovic wasn't winning it. Fed was mediocre in the first set, great in the second, and excellent in the third. I don't think it can be described as a situation where clutchness was the single deciding factor. I think Fed just took more time to get his game going but once it did get going, Djokovic wasn't winning. This also happened in USO 2005 IIRC, but to a lesser extent. And this type of thing happens to Djokovic quite often these days (see W 2022 against Sinner). I don't think it's fair to say clutchness was the thing that tipped the scale to Federer. Certainly, Fed was clutch, but I think that the way the match progressed is more representative of a raw level difference between the two. If Djokovic had made it 2-0 up I still think Fed would have taken it based on the improvements he was already showing in the second set.

Djokovic goofed by not taking the first, but Fed was the better player in the second, and the third set wasn't quite as close as the scoreline indicates. It's not really comparable to the level of danger Djokovic was in during US Open 2011 (which actually was his peak - he hasn't played a better USO which obviously wasn't the case for Fed in 2007), so I find it frustrating when people try to equate the two situations. Literally the closest Federer win over Djokovic was still a more straightforward victory than Djokovic's most comfortable win over Federer (USO 2015). Either way you slice it, this is a criticism that applies even more to Djokovic than it does to Federer.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Have to give it to Fraud, at the end of the day he won more and Djoko messed up a few he shouldn't have, 2012 and 2014 stand out. Djoko does have objectively much better longevity.

Also have to point out peak stupidity hailing Fraud as incomparably better while simultaneously calling his competition stronger. Not to mention Djoko played Dull in his best 3 editions there...but worry not, Roddick and Blake are closing that gap for sure.

New York Rafa is epic af

 

[The Blond Blur]

A true tennis fan doesn't support Covid bans or other political interventions that damage the ethos of the Open era.

It’s not about whether you support it or not. It’s about did you know about the host country’s laws/policies for entry. Joker knew the requirements and chose not to meet them.

 

[inflation_era]

USO after 2000
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic

 

[Robert F]

It’s not about whether you support it or not. It’s about did you know about the host country’s laws/policies for entry. Joker knew the requirements and chose not to meet them.

Overall agree. But wasn't there was some push from Tennis Australaia that they were paving the way for him to come over without a vaccine? Looks like they were going to find a way to bend the rules and in the end politics shut down the exception/bending of the rules once he got in country. So part of the blame falls on Tenins Australia. Still Djoker, like everyone else in wanting to get into Australia was well aware of the rules.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Overall agree. But wasn't there was some push from Tennis Australaia that they were paving the way for him to come over without a vaccine? Looks like they were going to find a way to bend the rules and in the end politics shut down the exception/bending of the rules once he got in country. So part of the blame falls on Tenins Australia. Still Djoker, like everyone else in wanting to get into Australia was well aware of the rules.

Basically what happened is that the Minister of Health and Aged Care sent TA and Tiley multiple correspondence that if players wanted to enter Australia they would have to be fully vaccinated. To be considered “fully vaccinated” visitors had to have two doses of TGA approved vaccines. And that also a previous Covid infection within the last 6 months was grounds for exemption.

Tiley/TA tried to pull a fast by saying you can enter Australia, but based on Victorian law you couldn’t enter Melbourne park without having your exemption reviewed by an Australian medical practitioner that was then registered in the Australian Immunization Register.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Federer dominated the tournament. He's the only players in the last 25 years to do so.

 

[NoleFam]

This is a bit overplayed IMO. From the way the match progressed I think it shows gradual improvement as Fed went from first gear to third throughout the match. On balance, it was easily his worst of the five finals he won (which is why I'd call it prime but not peak - that'd be 2004 or 2006), but once Fed warmed up Djokovic wasn't winning it. Fed was mediocre in the first set, great in the second, and excellent in the third. I don't think it can be described as a situation where clutchness was the single deciding factor. I think Fed just took more time to get his game going but once it did get going, Djokovic wasn't winning. This also happened in USO 2005 IIRC, but to a lesser extent. And this type of thing happens to Djokovic quite often these days (see W 2022 against Sinner). I don't think it's fair to say clutchness was the thing that tipped the scale to Federer. Certainly, Fed was clutch, but I think that the way the match progressed is more representative of a raw level difference between the two. If Djokovic had made it 2-0 up I still think Fed would have taken it based on the improvements he was already showing in the second set.

Djokovic goofed by not taking the first, but Fed was the better player in the second, and the third set wasn't quite as close as the scoreline indicates. It's not really comparable to the level of danger Djokovic was in during US Open 2011 (which actually was his peak - he hasn't played a better USO which obviously wasn't the case for Fed in 2007), so I find it frustrating when people try to equate the two situations. Literally the closest Federer win over Djokovic was still a more straightforward victory than Djokovic's most comfortable win over Federer (USO 2015). Either way you slice it, this is a criticism that applies even more to Djokovic than it does to Federer.

Federer served 50% in the 3rd set in 2007 so he definitely wasn't excellent in the 3rd. If anything, he was excellent in the 2nd set when he served 70%, had 18 winners to 9 unforced errors, but still almost lost the set. This shows how good 2007 Djokovic became in a span of a couple of months and how good of a player he would become. A more mature version of Djokovic would have given Federer hell on a day like that.

Statistically, the 2008 final is the worst final that Federer won but Murray was such trash in that match that it didn't even matter. Federer served 48% in that 3rd set in 2008 and Murray lost the set 6-2.

 

[nolefam_2024]

All of this talking is for nothing. Fed has given Nole lifeline at usopen in 2011. If Nole wins another, he should suffer consequences of it. Without pandemic, most likely Nole would have already made fed suffer.

 

[RSJfan]

..,Still Djoker, like everyone else in wanting to get into Australia was well aware of the rules.

Except Egg had “exemption permission”.

 

[Biotic]

New York Rafa is epic af

Nah... Garish kits don't make epic for me. Never liked that stuff tbh.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nah... Garish kits don't make epic for me. Never liked that stuff tbh.

I can tell

 

[messiahrobins]

Who dominated more at US Open
Federer : 5 titles all conseuctive
Djokovic: 4 titles

Finals
Federer: 7 finals
Djokovic: 10 finals

H2H
3:3
Federer won from 2007-2009
Djokovic won at 2010-2011 , 2015 ( saved mp in the first two wins)

Federer won 5 in a row, how is that even a question. Djokovic wasnt even as dominant as Nadal at the US Open let alone federer or sampras or connors the 3 alphas in New York

 

[Rosstour]

Nah... Garish kits don't make epic for me. Never liked that stuff tbh.

How is that garish sir

 

[GabeT]

5>4 so I place Federer ahead.

But Novak had a lot of bad luck there and it’s easy to imagine alternative scenarios (a favorite pastime here) where he ends up with more USOs than Fed. It wouldn’t require too much to change.

what I don’t get is why 5 in a row is supposed to be better than 5 spread over time. Sure, the 5-in-a-row shows more concentrated wins. But so what? The other guys shows more longevity.

 

[MeatTornado]

Sticky is actually a great way to describe the AO courts lol, well done

End of the average day session in Australia

 

[Rosstour]

5>4 so I place Federer ahead.

But Novak had a lot of bad luck there and it’s easy to imagine alternative scenarios (a favorite pastime here) where he ends up with more USOs than Fed. It wouldn’t require too much to change.

what I don’t get is why 5 in a row is supposed to be better than 5 spread over time. Sure, the 5-in-a-row shows more concentrated wins. But so what? The other guys shows more longevity.

Defending a title is hard. Defending it 4x is 4x harder.

I think Rafa won 5x French Opens consecutively, no? And that's very impressive no?

 

[MichaelNadal]

End of the average day session in Australia

Ball staying on the court for half a second before bouncing lol, especially in 2012

 

[GabeT]

Defending a title is hard. Defending it 4x is 4x harder.

I think Rafa won 5x French Opens consecutively, no? And that's very impressive no?

Winning a tournament two years in a row is hard

winning a tournament twice over mutilple years is also hard


why would we say that winning them consecutively is harder?

 

[Rosstour]

Winning a tournament two years in a row is hard

winning a tournament twice over mutilple years is also hard

why would we say that winning them consecutively is harder?

I'm not even sure why you're pursuing this other than to belittle Federer

Anyone would agree that 3 in a row (for example) is better than 3 in 5 years. Shutting out your competition over and over is literally what "dominance" is all about in this sport

Fed has 5 consecutive championships at two different Slams. I see why you're looking to minimize that, since Djoko's longest streak of defended Slam wins is 3 AO and he's only done that once.

 

[Biotic]

Ball staying on the court for half a second before bouncing lol, especially in 2012

It helped your boy a lot

 

[Subway Tennis]

Federer for sure but he has more frustrating losses here than anywhere else

2010/11 to Djoko were awful bc MP, but not Fs

2009 awful bc would have been 6 consecutive

But the worst was 2014. He would've faced Nishikori in the F, which would have basically been a walkover for him and a 6th US/18th major at the time. He went four seasons without a Slam

There is a good case to make for Federer being an 8 or even 9 time US Open winner, which is crazy given how brutal the US Open is for reasons of calendar position, variation of conditions, difficult crowds etc etc.

It’s crazy to remember how easy he made this tournament look to win over the five year streak.

 

[GabeT]

I'm not even sure why you're pursuing this other than to belittle Federer

Anyone would agree that 3 in a row (for example) is better than 3 in 5 years. Shutting out your competition over and over is literally what "dominance" is all about in this sport

Fed has 5 consecutive championships at two different Slams. I see why you're looking to minimize that, since Djoko's longest streak of defended Slam wins is 3 AO and he's only done that once.

But it’s not true that “anyone would agree”. A good chunk of the Big 3’s perception as GOAT contenders is how long they were winning slams. We prize Fed’s 2017 Wimby win a lot even if it was years after any other similar win. In fact many would say they prize it because it was so far from a prior wimby trophy.

yes, winning in a row is great. But winning the same across a longer span is also great. one reflects concentration and the other reflects longevity. Why would we prize one over the other?

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Djokovic won a slam by 2008. he was peak. That peak Djoker lost easily to Fed at USO2008 and 2009. Any version of Djokovic has no chance against peak Federer.

Federer won slams until 2018, I guess every win until then is peak too. And Djokovic could have gone 2-1 up in 2008, so it wasn't that easy.

 

[inflation_era]

Federer won slams until 2018, I guess every win until then is peak too. And Djokovic could have gone 2-1 up in 2008, so it wasn't that easy.

After you win a first slam in your earlier years you are peak. Peak coincides with youth and energy. When you are older and win a slam, usually it's done because of weak competition. Yes Fed in 2018 had weak competition, just like Djokovic did from 2018 until 2024.

 

[Third Serve]

Federer served 50% in the 3rd set in 2007 so he definitely wasn't excellent in the 3rd. If anything, he was excellent in the 2nd set when he served 70%, had 18 winners to 9 unforced errors, but still almost lost the set. This shows how good 2007 Djokovic became in a span of a couple of months and how good of a player he would become. A more mature version of Djokovic would have given Federer hell on a day like that.

Statistically, the 2008 final is the worst final that Federer won but Murray was such trash in that match that it didn't even matter. Federer served 48% in that 3rd set in 2008 and Murray lost the set 6-2.

The serve percentage isn’t super great but Fed significantly improved his placement of those serves that did go in. Started in the second half of the second set and continued throughout the third. It was a trade-off that ultimately worked as Djokovic wasn’t able to return them as effectively. Part of that was Djokovic employing a very sus second serve return strategy in the third though, I will concede. But the point is that Fed was much better with his placement which I think mitigates the difference in %.

Fed was also sharper off the baseline in set 3. He was rough in the first few games of the second set (though not as bad as the first), which is the primary reason for Djokovic’s early lead, but the third set was largely free of those errors.

Not sure where your W-UFE figures come from. TA has Fed’s numbers equal in set 2 and slightly winner-favored in set 3. That was a relatively error-strewn match from both players, I’d be surprised if any of the sets had a 2-1 winner-error ratio.

Disagree on 2008. Yeah Murray was terrible of course but Fed was much more aggressive in that match. The 2007 final was probably the most passive Fed had played in a Slam final up to that point (well, besides maybe RG 2006 but that’s clay), and his FH was weaker than usual even if it was a good BH and return day.

Where is this statistical inferiority in the 2008 final coming from? He posted a strictly better winner-UFE differential going by TA (in 2007 it was negative which you rarely saw for Fed in the late stages of a HC Slam in those days) and an only marginally worse first serve %. The first set was much better than anything in the 2007 final, and I’d credit Fed’s forehand with that.

As a side note: I think people overrate how well Djokovic was playing in the 2007 match. His forehand was money, but he was too inconsistent, chokey, and his return needed work. He played better in both the 2008 and 2009 matches with Fed imo, even though they weren’t as close. Fed pretty much had as close to an off day as he could get in that final, though he cleaned up his play as the match progressed.

 

[Rosstour]

But it’s not true that “anyone would agree”. A good chunk of the Big 3’s perception as GOAT contenders is how long they were winning slams. We prize Fed’s 2017 Wimby win a lot even if it was years after any other similar win. In fact many would say they prize it because it was so far from a prior wimby trophy.

yes, winning in a row is great. But winning the same across a longer span is also great. one reflects concentration and the other reflects longevity. Why would we prize one over the other?

I think one is obviously harder. Even to defend a title is huge let alone do it 3,4,5 years consecutively. That's why Borg's career is so mythical even though short by modern standards

I understand the argument for longevity but it's a very general term and I think it's not logical to say that Sampras had longevity at USO but not Fed simply bc Sampras's titles were over a 12 year period and Fed only 5. Federer made 2 Fs, 3 SF and 3 QF after his last win there, including in his final appearance there at 38. Fed made six Finals in a row and Sampras only managed 3 in a row, going 1-3 in his final 3 seasons.

 

[Hitman]

Winning a tournament two years in a row is hard

winning a tournament twice over mutilple years is also hard


why would we say that winning them consecutively is harder?

Its not IMO. It's all equally hard....

 

[Rosstour]

Its not IMO. It's all equally hard....

If it were the same level of difficulty then it wouldn't be hyped so much. Look at the NBA, the teams that won 3 in a row are looked at differently. The biggest knock against the San Antonio Spurs is that they never repeated and consequently ppl downgrade them for that.

Sampras defended his title exactly one time--Fed did it 4x. We (and you in particular) love talking about dominance and domination, where is the dominance there by PETE?

 

[rUDin 21]

I'm not even sure why you're pursuing this other than to belittle Federer

Anyone would agree that 3 in a row (for example) is better than 3 in 5 years. Shutting out your competition over and over is literally what "dominance" is all about in this sport

Fed has 5 consecutive championships at two different Slams. I see why you're looking to minimize that, since Djoko's longest streak of defended Slam wins is 3 AO and he's only done that once.

Djoko won 4 Wimbledons in a row 2018-2022.
You're probably also try to minimize that.

 

[Hitman]

If it were the same level of difficulty then it wouldn't be hyped so much. Look at the NBA, the teams that won 3 in a row are looked at differently. The biggest knock against the San Antonio Spurs is that they never repeated and consequently ppl downgrade them for that.

I don't think it is any more impressive than Sampras' five USO titles personally.

 

[Rosstour]

I don't think it is any more impressive than Sampras' five USO titles personally.

See my edit.

If greatness is tied to domination then what period did Pete dominate?

 

[Hitman]

See my edit.

If greatness is tied to domination then what period did Pete dominate?

Its 5 vs 5. That's it. If Federer has the concentration, then Sampras has the longevity by winning USO titles in his teens, 20s and 30s.

I respect consecutive wins, but they are not a tie breaker for me when the title count is the same. You win more, you are better IMO.

Federer is ahead of Djokovic solely because he has an additional title to his name IMO, and that is enough.

 

[NoleFam]

The serve percentage isn’t super great but Fed significantly improved his placement of those serves that did go in. Started in the second half of the second set and continued throughout the third. It was a trade-off that ultimately worked as Djokovic wasn’t able to return them as effectively. Part of that was Djokovic employing a very sus second serve return strategy in the third though, I will concede. But the point is that Fed was much better with his placement which I think mitigates the difference in %.

Fed was also sharper off the baseline in set 3. He was rough in the first few games of the second set (though not as bad as the first), which is the primary reason for Djokovic’s early lead, but the third set was largely free of those errors.

Not sure where your W-UFE figures come from. TA has Fed’s numbers equal in set 2 and slightly winner-favored in set 3. That was a relatively error-strewn match from both players, I’d be surprised if any of the sets had a 2-1 winner-error ratio.

Disagree on 2008. Yeah Murray was terrible of course but Fed was much more aggressive in that match. The 2007 final was probably the most passive Fed had played in a Slam final up to that point (well, besides maybe RG 2006 but that’s clay), and his FH was weaker than usual even if it was a good BH and return day.

Where is this statistical inferiority in the 2008 final coming from? He posted a strictly better winner-UFE differential going by TA (in 2007 it was negative which you rarely saw for Fed in the late stages of a HC Slam in those days) and an only marginally worse first serve %. The first set was much better than anything in the 2007 final, and I’d credit Fed’s forehand with that.

As a side note: I think people overrate how well Djokovic was playing in the 2007 match. His forehand was money, but he was too inconsistent, chokey, and his return needed work. He played better in both the 2008 and 2009 matches with Fed imo, even though they weren’t as close. Fed pretty much had as close to an off day as he could get in that final, though he cleaned up his play as the match progressed.

TA is largely inaccurate and I'm going off the official stats. Djokovic won 30% of receiving points in set 1, 30% in set 2, to down to 19% won in set 3 despite Federer's 1st serve percentage being the worse in that set than the other two sets. That shows that Djokovic was mentally deflated and he was longer returning nor playing as well. Him winning 19% receiving points when his opponent is serving 50% is horrendous so not sure why you think it's anything other than that.

Federer was +8 in winners to errors in the 2007 final and he was +3 in 2008. He served 60% in 2007 for the match and 59% in 2008. Not a great serving percentage in either year but he was serving his 1st serve 5 mph faster in 2007 than 2008 on average. So statiscally, he was better in 2007 than 2008.

People probably do overrate how well Djokovic played in 2007 but that's more of a credit to him that he was a newbie and not playing close to the level he would play once he matured as player, and played Federer that close for 2 sets in one of the best years of his career.