Federer > Djokovic prime to prime at slams except on plexi AO

abmk

Bionic Poster
He means it's been established what he thinks. At least guru is willing to discuss so maybe we can yet get him to reconsider.
Its not very clear what he means.

About trying. Lets see, Exhibit A.

He gets unreturned serves% of Fed vs Wim 09 wrong. I correct him. He gets a different wrong number. I show him the split up in detail.
He BSs about me counting DFs as serves unreturned. I showed him again he was wrong.

He has his head so far up his a** that he can't even admit a simple mathematical fact. You think he's going to actually reconsider something much bigger?

People sleep on 12 Federer because they underrate 12 Djok and 12 Murray. 12 Djok was actually quite good. Fed just served out of his shoes and played great baseline tennis to win that match. Fed hit 44% unreturned serves against Djokovic. That's absurd. For all the talk about how great Fed served in 09 he only had 38% unreturned against a far weaker returner in Roddick. People lump 12 Djokovic in w 13-14 Djok but they really shouldn't. He was great at each slam. Had a herculean effort to win AO, lost to Peakdal at RG, lost to a great Fed at W, and would've had his best USO if not for the wind in the final. As for 12 Murray well I think you could make a reasonable argument for that to be his W peak so the fact that Fed beat him in 4 speaks volumes.
Wrong data
Fed had 89/197 (45.18%) of his serves unreturned vs Roddick in the Wimbledon 2009 final.

I guess when you have ****ty data like that and poor observation/analysis skills (to not double check), this is what happens. What makes it worse (in case you didn't get it) is you try to proclaim your opinions as informed ones, when getting it wrong on multiple levels.
Lol even the source you picked doesn't have 45% :-D It has 42.6% which is still lower than against a way way way superior returner in Djokovic. I guess when you can't add this is the type of tennis analysis you have :laughing:

Roddick return breakdown

Total service points from federer= 197
# of first serves faced by Roddick = 128
# of 2nd serves faced by Roddick = 65
# of DFs from fed = 4
# of serves of federer that Roddick had to return = 193
# of serves in play = 104

# of serves unreturned by Roddick = 193-104 = 89
Total # of serves by Federer = 197

Therefore Federer's serves unreturned by Roddick = 89/197 = 45.18%




Anything else, Stupidiot?
Did you get your 5th grade math lesson yet, The Hack?
twice you got the stats regarding Fed unreturned serves in Wim 09 final wrong (one time after being corrected)
Lol you were the one who was wrong lmfao you counted DFs as unreturned serves by the server lmfao. As far as tennis goes I have no interest in talking to you anymore as you're neither interesting nor respectful nor in touch with reality so there's no point.
I didn't count DFs as unreturned serves by the server, The Hack.
I higlighted the relevant portions.

Roddick return breakdown

Total service points from federer= 197
# of first serves faced by Roddick = 128
# of 2nd serves faced by Roddick = 65
# of DFs from fed = 4
# of serves of federer that Roddick had to return = 193
# of serves in play = 104

# of serves unreturned by Roddick = 193-104 = 89

Total # of serves by Federer = 197

Therefore Federer's serves unreturned by Roddick = 89/197 = 45.18%





I'm supposed to respect you when you are so biased and can't get something right after being told twice?


Contd in next post.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
@AnOctorokForDinner :

Continuing:

Exhibit B:
He says 2005 final was 2nd worst of Fed's USO finals, that it was worse than USO 2009 final.
Says fed should've crushed Agassi of USO 2005 final as he did Murray in USO 2008 final.

When I pointed out the big difference in serving in the 2 finals, he made it look like it doesn't matter much . Said federer's highs in 2009 USO final were better. I pointed out FEderer's highs in USO 2005 final were better (1st set, 3rd set after being down 2-4 and the 4th set). He had no proper response to that. He alspo pivoted to a BS strawman about Isner serving even after I pointed out about federer's highs in USO 2005 final being better.

Never admitted he was wrong about saying fed should've crushed Agassi of USO 2005 final as he did Murray in USO 2008 final.

When it's your second worst of 7 USO finals and a good couple levels below what you did the year before and after it's subpar. Still a respectable level but not as good as what you expect from Fed. Sorry just the truth.
2nd worst of 7 USO finals?
Better than 2009 final and 2015 final for sure. How the hell is it 2nd worst by any means?
I'd put it a tad above 2007 final. (there were stretches of below par play in both, slightly longer in USO 05 final perhaps scorewise, but he never reached the highs of USO 2005 final in the USO 07 final - and it didn't have to do with Djokovic , considering he did reach those highs in USO 08 and USO 09 vs Djokovic himself)
USO 08 final is also very debatable considering Agassi played much better than Murray did.
I think 09 was better. He should've wiped away Agassi like he did Murray.
LULz, based on what? Fed's worst ever serving day in a slam match at his prime (AO 04-AO 10). Like serving at 51% and 11 DFs to start off with? He had like 15 DFs in 6 matches in the tournament before that. His serving % before the final was 62.1% in the tournament:


or that he crumbled in the 5th set? gave delpo the chance to come storming back in the 2nd set with a silly dropshot?

goes to show crappy your evaluation is considering Agassi played WAYYYY better than Murray did in the respective finals. day&night difference.
Edit: But then its amply clearly you don't understand the importance of serve - given your ridiculous assertion that fed played better in USO 09 final than in USO 05 final. ROTFL.

You went missing on that after I called you out, FTR.
For those who don't know, Federer at 76% in that 2005 final and he wasn't rolling them in either. He was serving normally.
.

Regarding 09 vs 05 USO I don't really want to talk more about this but I think the highs Fed reached in 09 were decidedly higher than 05 and that 05 Fed cracked under less pressure from Agassi than required from Del Po Agassi just couldn't keep it up. If Del Po misses one of those passes at 5-4 we're talking about 09 USO Fed with his best slam wins instead of as a loss. You're view of the 05 USO final shows a lack of recognition for the importance of movement and stamina.
so nothing on the serve still? too ashamed?
federer's highs in USO 05 final were better than that in USO 09 final - 1st set, 3rd set after going down 2-4 and the 4th set.

of course you don't want to talk more about that because you got called out big time for your absurd bullsh*t.

the bold part shows you are clueless. Its the lack of stamina&movement part that makes me rate Agassi of USO 05 final not that high. Its only because of the stamina part that I rate Hewitt of USO 05 SF as a slightly bigger potential threat (even though agassi was in a better position scoreline wise). only the stamina part that makes me pause when comparing with USO 06 final Roddick or USO 13 final Djokovic.

But its obvious your delusional hacky view thinking that Agassi of USO 05 final was equivalent to Murray of USO 08 final (you said fed should've put him down similarly) goes to show you don't recognize the importance of amazing groundstroking&returning in this match from Agassi. Oh and Agassi served solidly in the final and was clutch as well.
He served worse sure. Serve is important. It's not all that goes into analysis. If not we can go ahead and crown Isner GOAT no?

No I don't want to talk about it because butthurt fans like you won't stop spouting your unoriginal fed propoganda every time I bring up that one of Fed's 5 USO F wins was not very impressive lmao.
I said "federer's highs in USO 05 final were better than that in USO 09 final - 1st set, 3rd set after going down 2-4 and the 4th set."

that's about the whole game. Did that go over your head? or just pretending?

But its obvious your delusional hacky view thinking that Agassi of USO 05 final was equivalent to Murray of USO 08 final (you said fed should've put him down similarly) goes to show you don't recognize the importance of amazing groundstroking&returning in this match from Agassi. Oh and Agassi served solidly in the final and was clutch as well. "
There are more exhibits, but these 2 should be enough. The 1st one in particular is the most damning.
You can wake up someone who is sleeping. You cannot wake up someone pretending to be asleep.
 
Last edited:

RS

Legend
Was gonna make a thread on the USO 05 final but think i have done enough threads for a while. Think somebody else should do it.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Um not a good argument this, berdie is not some titan requiring extreme level to conquer. 2013 WB QF and 2016 AO QF with him had similar scorelines and we know what happened afterwards. I mean, obviously I support the rebuttal but better not to use faulty inference, don't give ammo.
I didn't think I needed to give the full context, but apparently I did/do.

Nadal had his struggles with Youzhny&Soderling (neither of whom were considered easy matchups for him) at that Wimbledon in earlier rounds.
Berdych was not an easy matchup either for Nadal at that time. Berdych led 3-2 in their h2h (Berdych being 3-0 on HC and 0-2 on clay).
Berdych didn't play badly, not great, but not badly. Nadal played really well beat him convincingly in that QF. So yes, that data point counts if you are looking for a non-Fed match at that Wimbledon where he played really well. It wasn't just the matchup in the final.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Pundits are experts now? Roflmaoing.
Nothing more compelling than their 2011 slam meetings, with Djokovic peak and Federer going on 29-30 past prime.

Yeah feel free to construct narratives that feed on themselves. You aren't much different from abmk after all, hoho. At least he tracks match stats directly rather than lewsian cherry stats.
and admits when he has done mathematical error (maybe when done in a hurry or not fully attentive enough), has watched many matches before 2000 , doesn't come up ridiculous stuff like fed should've crushed Agassi of USO 2005 final like he did Murray of USO 2008 final etc. etc.
so many other things its a bit tough to keep track actually. ;)

Speaking of before 2000, did you miss this?

Nope. I don't recall any choking in the match. Agassi saved one BP with some pretty good play from what I remember in the 3rd set.
Just dipping from the really high levels in sets1 and 2 is not choking. Med still played some good tennis from set 3-5.

I checked:

med broken at 2-3 in the 3rd set
then breaks back
At 4 all 30-40, saves BP with winner.
Just saw this point: good FH, good volley and then finishes off with another volley. No choking on this BP.

Next game, 3 excellent points from Agassi to force 3 errors from medvedev (&1 DF from med). hardly qualifies as choking.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Fed was good in 2012 on the whole I meant. 2 sf, One Gs, One olympic silver and year end finalist!! Yes Djokovic beat a very good Federer that year. Ok wawa vs delpo is a subjective one and am glad you agreed that its so and if you ask me who is better between 09 Fed & 16 Djokovic then its a tough choice. I will still put Djokovic ahead of Fed due to his performances against Nadal. Its similar to Murray vs Nadal or Nadal vs Djokovic at Wimbledon for me. I will put prime Nadal always ahead of these two because of his performances against healthy, young Fed at grass during 06-08. You can say Nadal has a match up advantage and Murray doesn't, but then at the eod if all things are tied , the tb should be a players performances against the that surfaces goat during that point of time.
fed having a good year in 2012 doesn't mean he didn't play cr*p in that RG 2012 semi vs Djoko (which matters the most). You can put Djokovic ahead of fed at RG due to Nadal. But my point is there evidence to go the other way including their own prime to prime level match in 11. It should be the totality of performances at prime IMO.

Wawa 15 RG vs delpo 09 RG is a subjective one if you are deciding which is better, but you atleast have to acknowledge they were on a similar level/close if you want to be fair.

Re: nadal vs Murray on grass: But there's also the fact that Nadal is 3-0 vs murray at Wim. 2-0 if we ignore 2008 match.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
It might irk me if it was the truth but thankfully I don't have to worry about that.

I don't put much stock in the pundits either but again it's quite rare when the majority opinion among experts is completely asinine. At the very least there is some compelling evidence to believe it. I think that different understandings of tennis can lead you to different conclusions about BOAT/GOAT and one can rationally hold that any of the Big 3 can claim either or both of those titles. Personally, I think it's ridiculous and arrogant to say otherwise.
But what evidence do pundits have that Djokovic's overall peak is the highest? They have as much evidence as we armchair experts do.
 

RS

Legend
His richest assertion was that Murray would rather play Fed in slams than Djokovic. Yeah, Murray would rather face the guy he has struggled the most against instead of the guy he won 2 slams against.
I read the text and it has now been flashed up again. This thread isn’t ending any time soon lol.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
His richest assertion was that Murray would rather play Fed in slams than Djokovic. Yeah, Murray would rather face the guy he has struggled the most against instead of the guy he won 2 slams against.
How can you ignore Murray beating a spent Federer so convincingly in all of 5 sets at AO 2013 semi !? How can you!? :p

In any case I got some assertions of his which are worse IMO.

See above posts of mine. The Guru's gems ->
1. Failing at basic math (multiple times) with regard to fed's unreturned serve% vs Roddick in Wim 09 final
2. Fed of USO 05 final worse than FEd of USO 09 final
3. Fed of USO 05 final should've crushed Agassi like he crushed Murray in USO 08 final.

 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
How can you ignore Murray beating a spent Federer so convincingly in all of 5 sets at AO 2013 semi !? How can you!? :p

In any case I got some assertions of his which are worse IMO.

See above posts of mine. The Guru's gems ->
1. Failing at basic math (multiple times) with regard to fed's unreturned serve% vs Roddick in Wim 09 final
2. Fed of USO 05 final worse than FEd of USO 09 final
3. Fed of USO 05 final should've crushed Agassi like he crushed Murray in USO final.

We all have out opinions and assertions, so it's ok. It's subjective anyway. I have my own assertions he disagrees with so it's fine.

But that Murray would rather play Fed in slams than Djoko really has no ground to stand on.

Their AO 2013 SF actually further proves my point. Murray at his best vs Fed being 31.5 and sub par and Murray still needed 5 sets to win.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
We all have out opinions and assertions, so it's ok. It's subjective anyway. I have my own assertions he disagrees with so it's fine.

But that Murray would rather play Fed in slams than Djoko really has no ground to stand on.

Their AO 2013 SF actually further proves my point. Murray at his best vs Fed being 31.5 and sub par and Murray still needed 5 sets to win.
"Failing at basic math (multiple times) with regard to fed's unreturned serve% vs Roddick in Wim 09 final " This one isn't subjective at all. Its an objective number.
Federer had 89 serves unreturned out of 197 vs Roddick in the Wimbledon 2009 final (45.18%)

I agree with you on the Murray part and AO 13 SF part.
 

RS

Legend
My comment started another debate. It started from me making a comment about if Djokovic would look so good vs 07/08 Federer in response to Guru and now we get to this.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
My comment started another debate. It started from me making a comment about if Djokovic would look so good vs 07/08 Federer in response to Guru and now we get to this.
My turn:

I know the popular opinion around here is that 2015 Djokovic would beat 2008 Federer at Wimb, but I disagree. If Fed could almost beat his toughest match-up, don't see why he'd lose to 2015 Djokovic, who wouldn't present any match-up difficulties.
 

aditya123

Hall of Fame
fed having a good year in 2012 doesn't mean he didn't play cr*p in that RG 2012 semi vs Djoko (which matters the most). You can put Djokovic ahead of fed at RG due to Nadal. But my point is there evidence to go the other way including their own prime to prime level match in 11. It should be the totality of performances at prime IMO.

Wawa 15 RG vs delpo 09 RG is a subjective one if you are deciding which is better, but you atleast have to acknowledge they were on a similar level/close if you want to be fair.

Re: nadal vs Murray on grass: But there's also the fact that Nadal is 3-0 vs murray at Wim. 2-0 if we ignore 2008 match.
I already said Rg 12 win doesn't fully compensate for Rg 11 loss. And regarding the delpo vs Wawa comparision thing, you brought it up and I was simply stating that its a subjective one . That's it , better you put a poll and see who is ahead at Rg , is it Djokovic or Federer.
 

RS

Legend
My turn:

I know the popular opinion around here is that 2015 Djokovic would beat 2008 Federer at Wimb, but I disagree. If Fed could almost beat his toughest match-up, don't see why he'd lose to 2015 Djokovic, who wouldn't present any match-up difficulties.
You should comment that to Djokovic fans for more effect lol or make a thread about it.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Too much stock gets put into that RG 11 meeting. They met in 2012 aswell btw, only one year later. Overall 4-3 in sets at RG between them in Djokos favour.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Too much stock gets put into that RG 11 meeting. They met in 2012 aswell btw, only one year later. Overall 4-3 in sets at RG between them in Djokos favour.
LOL at pretending that 2012 RG means anything with both players being worse than the previous year.

That's why people don't talk about it too much.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Too much stock gets put into that RG 11 meeting. They met in 2012 aswell btw, only one year later. Overall 4-3 in sets at RG between them in Djokos favour.
LOL at pretending that 2012 RG means anything with both players being worse than the previous year.

That's why people don't talk about it too much.
yes, only I'd add that fed was MUCH MUCH worse in 12 RG - not even remotely close to prime level.
Any good CC player in good form would've beaten him in 2012 RG.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
LOL at pretending that 2012 RG means anything with both players being worse than the previous year.

That's why people don't talk about it too much.
If RG 11 means the world, then a meeting one year later should mean something aswell. Federer tends to look worse cause his game is more error prone.

If they play 4 times, and Djokovic wins 3 of them while his opponent can't muster a good enough game to fight back, while winning one where he played better, you can't just say "oh we will just focus on that one meeting as proof of who is better prime to prime". This isn't some video game.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
If RG 11 means the world, then a meeting one year later should mean something aswell. Federer tends to look worse cause his game is more error prone.

If they play 4 times, and Djokovic wins 3 of them while his opponent can't muster a good enough game to fight back, while winning one where he played better, you can't just say "oh we will just focus on that one meeting as proof of who is better prime to prime". This isn't some video game.
They didn't play 4 times though, so I'm not sure what your argument is.

And thanks for the bolded gem. You're funny. (y)
 

NoleIsBoat

Rookie
My turn:

I know the popular opinion around here is that 2015 Djokovic would beat 2008 Federer at Wimb, but I disagree. If Fed could almost beat his toughest match-up, don't see why he'd lose to 2015 Djokovic, who wouldn't present any match-up difficulties.
Probably because Djokovic leads Federer 3 - 0 in actual Wimbledon final matches :whistle:
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
If RG 11 means the world, then a meeting one year later should mean something aswell. Federer tends to look worse cause his game is more error prone.

If they play 4 times, and Djokovic wins 3 of them while his opponent can't muster a good enough game to fight back, while winning one where he played better, you can't just say "oh we will just focus on that one meeting as proof of who is better prime to prime". This isn't some video game.
I know you don't like this thread or the fact that 2012 RG isn't rightfully given much importance talking prime to prime since fed was 30.5+ and sh*te in that match. Deal with it.
2011 RG isn't enough by itself, but it is a significant data point while talking about prime to prime.
2012 RG isn't.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
They didn't play 4 times though, so I'm not sure what your argument is.

And thanks for the bolded gem. You're funny. (y)
The reality is they are tied and Djokovic won his match in a dominant fashion compared to the other encounter they had. Djokovic being able to fight back while Federer folds like cheap suit is more credit to Djoko. Or you gonna blame Djokovic cause Federer can't play up to par?
 

RS

Legend
The reality is they are tied and Djokovic won his match in a dominant fashion compared to the other encounter they had. Djokovic being able to fight back while Federer folds like cheap suit is more credit to him. Or you gonna blame Djokovic cause Federer can't play up to par?
Who do you think had a higher peak Djokovic or Federer?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
The reality is they are tied and Djokovic won his match in a dominant fashion compared to the other encounter they had. Djokovic being able to fight back while Federer folds like cheap suit is more credit to him. Or you gonna blame Djokovic cause Federer can't play up to par?
Federer shouldn't have even been to the semis (y)
 

NoleIsBoat

Rookie
The reality is they are tied and Djokovic won his match in a dominant fashion compared to the other encounter they had. Djokovic being able to fight back while Federer folds like cheap suit is more credit to Djoko. Or you gonna blame Djokovic cause Federer can't play up to par?
Federer in 2012 defeated Djokovic and Murray back to back winning Wimbledon and became number 1 but was in terrible form because he lost at RG to Djokovic :whistle:
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
The reality is they are tied and Djokovic won his match in a dominant fashion compared to the other encounter they had. Djokovic being able to fight back while Federer folds like cheap suit is more credit to Djoko. Or you gonna blame Djokovic cause Federer can't play up to par?
 
Top