Federer at US open vs Djokovic at US Open

[zagor]

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

Borg's career is also mythical because grass and clay were polar opposites in his time and he dominated both (which no one ever did), he was also great on indoor carpet. Very versatile and dominant player, in general I think 80s greats are underrated compared to the big 3 and even Sampras.

Regarding x5 in a row, I do remember it was a big deal in the media in 2008, whether Fed will break Borg's record of 5 Wimbledons in a row.

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.

Talking about this, Lendl also deserve a shout, he made 8 USO finals in a row.

Agree overall, Fed's x5 in a row at Wimbledon and USO are one of his most special achievements in my book. TBH I probably value concentrated dominance and high peak level over longevity in any sport.

Never thought Fed would have ended with more AOs than USOs, they did went in opposite directions regarding court speed which probably affected Fed's final tally.

 

[zagor]

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'd say winning multiple slams over more years is more common than winning multiple a row, especially when you look at USO where nobody even defended the title there since 2008.

Either way, as many things in sport it comes down to an opinion, which achievement weighs more in your eyes. I personally value winning in a row more as it shows dominance, so until someone wins 6 at USO it's hard for me to put anyone over Fed there.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

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

Dopic gonna Dopic lol

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

Federer!

 

[RS]

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.

Most Fed fans would probably say Fed goes like 7-3 against Djokovic. I guess that's extracted as a Fed in competitive 4 or 5.

 

[metsman]

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.

There's this thing called wind, you should learn about it.

Then again as a Noelfan, not too surprising you've chosen to block the effects of wind at the USO out of your mind.

 

[RS]

metsman what's the chances of 9-1 Fed peak for peak?

 

[NoleFam]

There's this thing called wind, you should learn about it.

Then again as a Noelfan, not too surprising you've chosen to block the effects of wind at the USO out of your mind.

Hard to decipher where you're going through all that cynicism and superiority complex.

 

[metsman]

metsman what's the chances of 9-1 Fed peak for peak?

Federer in a clean 4 is the likely outcome assuming Djokovic actually comes to play which happens less than half the time at the USO historically. The guy was below expected standards in every single USO SF/F from 12-15 besides 15 SF against a F- opponent who couldn't move and I'll add the 12 SF after the resumption.

Still that's MAX 4 out of 10 matches in his prime, 5 of 11 if we count the 12 QF. Still not 50%.

 

[metsman]

Hard to decipher where you're going through all that cynicism and superiority complex.

Take your time. It's a toughie!

 

[RS]

Federer in a clean 4 is the likely outcome assuming Djokovic actually comes to play which happens less than half the time at the USO historically. The guy was below expected standards in every single USO SF/F from 12-15 besides 15 SF against a F- opponent who couldn't move and I'll add the 12 SF after the resumption.

Still that's MAX 4 out of 10 matches in his prime, 5 of 11 if we count the 12 QF. Still not 50%.

Could it be the case 8 or 9 times out of 10 though?

 

[metsman]

Fed was below standards in 4 big matches from 04-09 if you count the 04 USO QF (I don't, if 2011 SF had finished 6-3 Djokovic's performance would have been clearly worse in that match vs Federer's in 04 QF even discounting the wind). But 2 of the other 3 ended up in straights so kind of silly to knock a guy for being below par when he can still win in straights. So that leaves basically 1 match at the very end of 6 straight years. It's a completely unparalleled record of bringing your best to the toughest place to play well on the whole tour. Maybe Federer's most impressive thing.

 

[NoleFam]

Take your time. It's a toughie!

I'm sure you believe that, lol.

 

[RS]

I will take as a yes.

 

[fedfan24]

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

2021 and 2022 have * next to them.
Norrie
Berretini
Shapovalov
Kyrgios

Let that sink in the moment.

 

[mike danny]

I’ll never understand why winning the same number of titles over a longer period is somehow better. It just means you lost more.

Winning less titles over a longer period is worse.

 

[fedfan24]

I’ll never understand why winning the same number of titles over a longer period is somehow better. It just means you lost more.

Winning less titles over a longer period is worse.

Federer didn’t exactly fall off a cliff either

F, SF, SF (both of these with double MP) QF, SF, F when healthy since his last win in 2008.

13, 17 + 19 back issues
16 DNP
18 heat stroke + hand injury

 

[Bride of Alcaraz]

Federer winning 5 consecutive US Open titles is better than anything Djokovic ever did!
I mean nobody has won more than 5 US Opens, so for Federer to win FIVE IN A ROW is insane
That streak is easily the most difficult hardcourt feat in tennis history.

 

[RS]

 

[jl809]

Is Federer at the AO better than Djokovic at the USO?

 

[RS]

Is Federer at the AO better than Djokovic at the USO?

Is Fury gonna redeem himself

 

[jl809]

Is Fury gonna redeem himself

Nah. Even though he will have to go in focused after the lame “I was just having fun” vibe excuses last time, so I think it will be closer for sure

 

[Biotic]

Ngl, I'd like to see this loudmouth get wrecked again.

 

[Aabye5]

I’ll never understand why winning the same number of titles over a longer period is somehow better. It just means you lost more.

Winning less titles over a longer period is worse.

Or it means you lost in different years. For the number of times he played, Federer has 'a lot of losses'.

 

[mike danny]

Or it means you lost in different years. For the number of times he played, Federer has 'a lot of losses'.

Sure, but Djokovic still hasn’t reached him in titles in spite of his greater longevity

 

[Aabye5]

Sure, but Djokovic still hasn’t reached him in titles in spite of his greater longevity

Yes, I already picked Federer for this one hands down.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

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 don’t rate big 3 vulturing slams in their mid 30’s against the Berrettinis, Dimitrovs, Raonics, Sheltons and Nishikoris of the world as highly as beating ATGs. So no, I don’t think winning over a longer span is that great when it was enabled by CIE.

 

[roysid]

For Djokovic, US open result is definitely underachievment. For a HC slam, his US Open finals record is 4-6. Thats shocking. Even his RG finals record is better at 3-4.

Thats a massive hole in djokovics resume

 

[MichaelNadal]

For Djokovic, US open result is definitely underachievment. For a HC slam, his US Open finals record is 4-6. Thats shocking. Even his RG finals record is better at 3-4.

Thats a massive hole in djokovics resume

 

[GabeT]

I don’t rate big 3 vulturing slams in their mid 30’s against the Berrettinis, Dimitrovs, Raonics, Sheltons and Nishikoris of the world as highly as beating ATGs. So no, I don’t think winning over a longer span is that great when it was enabled by CIE.

There is no such thing as vulturing or CIE

 

[JoJoHackshow]

There is no such thing as vulturing or CIE

So true. Beating Nadal in a final is the same as beating Shapo, Ruud, Tsitsipas, Norrie, etc in a final

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

There is no such thing as vulturing or CIE

You think competition matters or not? In assessing greatness, do you think Djokovic beating Federer and Nadal back to back in 2011 holds equal weight as Djokovic beating Shelton and Medvedev in 2023?

 

[GabeT]

You think competition matters or not? In assessing greatness, do you think Djokovic beating Federer and Nadal back to back in 2011 holds equal weight as Djokovic beating Shelton and Medvedev in 2023?

If we are only going to count those tournaments where a player beat Fed and Nadal back to back (or their equivalent across time) we may as well just shut down tennis

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

If we are only going to count those tournaments where a player beat Fed and Nadal back to back (or their equivalent across time) we may as well just shut down tennis

Of course we count all tournaments, but beating ATGs is more impressive while beating Dimitrov and Shelton is less impressive. Going back to the original topic, winning tournaments across long time spans isn’t as impressive as continued dominance when Djokovic’s last 2 US opens were won against unimpressive competition. I’ll say the same about Federer’s last Wimbledon and AO, and Nadal’s last 3 slams off clay.

 

[Biotic]

Of course we count all tournaments, but beating ATGs is more impressive while beating Dimitrov and Shelton is less impressive. Going back to the original topic, winning tournaments across long time spans isn’t as impressive as continued dominance when Djokovic’s last 2 US opens were won against unimpressive competition. I’ll say the same about Federer’s last Wimbledon and AO, and Nadal’s last 3 slams off clay.

We can safely throw Federer's first 5 AOs and a few Ws and USOs from the weak era in the mix.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

However, being consecutive doesn't mean much. It means you were more dominant at your best but less good at your worst (IF you had the same amount overall, which isn't the case here).

Winning 4 in a row isn't better than winning one when you are 18, one at 22, one at 26 and one at 30.


If Player A wins Wimbledon, RG and US Open in the same year and nothing else the rest of his career is he better than Player B winning US Open a certain year, Wimbledon two years later and RG three years later? Don't see a reason to say so. One is more dominant one has better longevity. Can make a case for either.

(not particularly related to the overarching discussion) i think if an accomplishment/record is equalled but in a non-consecutive manner, the intervening time/failed attempts should have to pass a higher standard

in the bolded example, if player B wins the same amount of nothing as player A outside of the specific slam wins, then that means player B failed to ever maintain slam-winning form within a year, which is less excusable than failing to maintain form outside of a given great year. in other words it's a sort of inconsistency that isn't quite balanced out by the apparent consistency/longevity of winning over a longer period of time (whereas winning or being in the position to win consistently, over that longer period of time, would provide more credibility to the longevity argument)

why would we say that winning them consecutively is harder?

simple probability no? for any span of time, much fewer configurations of consecutive wins vs configurations with same number of non-consecutive wins. comparing the difficulty of consecutive wins to a near-max-range gap is where it gets trickier

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

We can safely throw Federer's first 5 AOs and a few Ws and USOs from the weak era in the mix.

Agreed on the AOs and a few Ws, but 4 of Feds 5 USOs were won going to through ATGs.

 

[NatF]

There is no such thing as vulturing or CIE

Exactly what a fan of a vulture would say

 

[MasturB]

We also have to take into consideration just how much slower the USO courts got as Fred got older. They were so slow that the AO had surpassed them in speed. When Fred peak began the USO could lay claim to fastest hardcourt tournament. Then we know the USO purposely started slowing the conditions to sell more concessions.

Towards Fred's final half of his career, so many HC tourneys had slowed down too. This isn't Novak's fault as he's proven to be an excellent fast court player as well, but when comparing the USO stats we do have to take this into consideration.

 

[Biotic]

Agreed on the AOs and a few Ws, but 4 of Feds 5 USOs were won going to through ATGs.

Well, if that is the criteria, technically 2024 AO Sinner also has a claim.

 

[GabeT]

Exactly what a fan of a vulture would say

This is what you’ve descended to? Kindergarten taunts?

Made clearer by the posters that liked the post

 

[GabeT]

simple probability no? for any span of time, much fewer configurations of consecutive wins vs configurations with same number of non-consecutive wins. comparing the difficulty of consecutive wins to a near-max-range gap is where it gets trickier

yeah, this is a good point. But at the same time it’s also very difficult to for a player to maintain slam winning level across time (and the longer the time the more difficult it is).

 

[GabeT]

Of course we count all tournaments, but beating ATGs is more impressive while beating Dimitrov and Shelton is less impressive. Going back to the original topic, winning tournaments across long time spans isn’t as impressive as continued dominance when Djokovic’s last 2 US opens were won against unimpressive competition. I’ll say the same about Federer’s last Wimbledon and AO, and Nadal’s last 3 slams off clay.

The Open Era has been around for close to 60 years. In that time period millions of people played tennis and tried to be pros but only a very small group ever managed to qualify for a slam. An even tinier group managed to won one. According to Wikipedia only 58 players in those six decades managed to win a slam.

So we know that winning a slam, any slam, is an incredibly difficult feat. Describing winning any slam as "vulturing" indicates the poster has no clue as to the effort, dedication and training required to win one of these tournaments.

Similarly talk of a CIE is equally ignorant. Did the number of slams in a year increase, leading to all kinds of players winning a slam because it became so much easier? of course not. That would be a CIE, comparatively speaking. But in reality only Novak and Nadal won many slams in this so called CIE, two of the best players ever. If an era inflates the career of just 1-2 players then commonsense would indicate the differentiating factor are the players themselves.

You say that the competition isn't the same in all slams. Sure. But we don't have a way to measure this. Sorry, no, eye test is a waste of time. The only quantitative based analysis of slam difficulty I've seen (from UTS IIRC) shows that it was Novak that had the toughest challenges. I'm not saying that's true, neither I nor anyone else knows this for certain. But if you are going to bring up that older Novak did not face anyone like what older Fed faced others will point out that the opposite is also true, younger Fed did not face the competition younger Novak did.

 

[NatF]

This is what you’ve descended to? Kindergarten taunts?

Made clearer by the posters that liked the post

When faced with kindergarten logic, it seems right.

 

[GabeT]

When faced with kindergarten logic, it seems right.

Wow, so denying the concept of vulturing and CIE, something you only hear about in anonymous online forums and would be laughed at by tennis analysts, coaches, and players, is kindergarten logic?

 

[NatF]

Wow, so denying the concept of vulturing and CIE, something you only hear about in anonymous online forums and would be laughed at by tennis analysts, coaches, and players, is kindergarten logic?

Several former pros and pundits have commented on the weakness of the #NextGens Even if they hadn't, hanging your hat on the words of those who have a vested interest in hyping and selling the sport rather than doing any critical analysis youself is pretty kindergarten imo

It's ok though, Djokovic can still be GOAT even if he won a third of his slams playing his C game against relatively weaker players if you're one of those "only the total matters" kind of people.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

I don’t rate big 3 vulturing slams in their mid 30’s against the Berrettinis, Dimitrovs, Raonics, Sheltons and Nishikoris of the world as highly as beating ATGs. So no, I don’t think winning over a longer span is that great when it was enabled by CIE.

Which ATG has Federer beat? And if we include Agassi despite being past his best then Djokovic has beaten Federer despite being past it.

You also somehow forgot to include Medvedev and del Potro (you know, the one who beat Federer in a final there). But I'm sure it was an honest mistake. Raonic beat Federer at his best slam in his mid 30s, so he wasn't that bad.

ATG beaten at the USO:

Federer: Agassi 2004, Agassi 2005, Djokovic 2007, Djokovic, 2008, Djokovic 2009
Djokovic: Federer 2010, Federer 2011, Federer 2015, Nadal 2011

Other US Open champions non-ATG

Federer: Hewitt 2004, Hewitt 2005, Hewitt 2009, Roddick 2006, Roddick 2007, Murray 2008, Cilic 2011, Wawrinka 2015
Djokovic: del Potro 2007, del Potro 2012, del Potro 2018, Roddick 2008, Wawrinka 2012, Wawrinka 2013, Murray 2014, Cilic 2015, Medvedev 2023


Maybe I'm forgetting a couple of matches here and there but I don't see any significant difference.

 

[GabeT]

Several former pros and pundits have commented on the weakness of the #NextGens Even if they hadn't, hanging your hat on the words of those who have a vested interest in hyping and selling the sport rather than doing any critical analysis youself is pretty kindergarten imo

It's ok though, Djokovic can still be GOAT even if he won a third of his slams playing his C game against relatively weaker players if you're one of those "only the total matters" kind of people.

I made a very specific comment that you responded to. And it was about vulturing and CIE. So I have no idea what pros and pundits commenting on the weakness of the NextGens (which you provide no proof for btw) has to do with it. there are all kinds of opinions about players and who was better and who was worse. But the claims I addressed were about something else. No former pro or pundit has ever said that Novak vultured his wins. That‘s a ridiculous claim that you only find in online forums.

As for Novak winning with his C game all I can say is that it’s been clear for a long time that none of the Eye Test Brigade have any clue how to measure and compare levels across time. Your complete lack of analytical skills is why you run away from making any prediction that can actually be tested.

I don’t care about GOATs. But let‘s not forget that it was the Federer fanbase that for years kept parroting ”17>X“ every time the GOAT debate came up. That’s because you were convinced that Federer would never lose the slam race (so much for your analytical skills). Of course several of the Eye Test brethren had to go so far as to ask that old threads be deleted because their wrong predictions had been bumped.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Which ATG has Federer beat? And if we include Agassi despite being past his best then Djokovic has beaten Federer despite being past it.

You also somehow forgot to include Medvedev and del Potro (you know, the one who beat Federer in a final there). But I'm sure it was an honest mistake. Raonic beat Federer at his best slam in his mid 30s, so he wasn't that bad.

ATG beaten at the USO:

Federer: Agassi 2004, Agassi 2005, Djokovic 2007, Djokovic, 2008, Djokovic 2009
Djokovic: Federer 2010, Federer 2011, Federer 2015, Nadal 2011

Other US Open champions non-ATG

Federer: Hewitt 2004, Hewitt 2005, Hewitt 2009, Roddick 2006, Roddick 2007, Murray 2008, Cilic 2011, Wawrinka 2015
Djokovic: del Potro 2007, del Potro 2012, del Potro 2018, Roddick 2008, Wawrinka 2012, Wawrinka 2013, Murray 2014, Cilic 2015, Medvedev 2023


Maybe I'm forgetting a couple of matches here and there but I don't see any significant difference.

I don't think there's a significant difference between Fred's competition at the Us and Novak's if we compare them prime for prime (2004-2009 to 2011-2016).

Thing is Fed made 6 consecutive finals winning the first 5. Djoko won 2 titles instead losing 3 other finals. That's a significant difference.

 

[Subway Tennis]

2004 Roger Peakerer vs 2011ovic - in a match between those two versions, does Djokovic take it to five or do you figure Federer in 4?