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

xFedal

Legend
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.
You can't put Fed over Nole at RG considering Nole has more match wins there. This was the reason Fed was over Pete at Wimby when they were 7/7 .
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
You guys tried that with USO 05 and Wim 09 and it failed.
Why am I the one who has to always shift my opinion? I've proven to be open minded in the past. I've shifted on certain topics. Those two tournaments ain't happening unless I radically change my view on tennis due to some crazy realization because I've spent so much time analyzing them I'm very confident in my stance.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Why am I the one who has to always shift my opinion? I've proven to be open minded in the past. I've shifted on certain topics. Those two tournaments ain't happening unless I radically change my view on tennis due to some crazy realization because I've spent so much time analyzing them I'm very confident in my stance.
Federer should have crushed Agassi like he did with 2008 Murray isn't analysis.
 

xFedal

Legend
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.
2011 It was a terrible serving performance from Nole and 2012 it was a terrible serving performance from Fed. Fed won 76.9% 1st Serve points won that is insane and crazy including 50% 2nd serve points. Nole won 59.8% 1st serve points and 60.7% 2nd serve points won. This all happens in 2011 match.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
2011 It was a terrible serving performance from Nole and 2012 it was a terrible serving performance from Fed. Fed won 76.9% 1st Serve points won that is insane and crazy including 50% 2nd serve points. Nole won 59.8% 1st serve points and 60.7% 2nd serve points won. This all happens in 2011 match.
Evwrything was terrible about 2012 Fed. Shouldn't have even reached the semis.
 

RS

Legend
Why am I the one who has to always shift my opinion? I've proven to be open minded in the past. I've shifted on certain topics. Those two tournaments ain't happening unless I radically change my view on tennis due to some crazy realization because I've spent so much time analyzing them I'm very confident in my stance.
You don’t have to shift your opinion just making a point to him.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
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?


















Contd in next post.
Alright I stopped responding to you because you're an ass who just tries to shove his agenda down people's throats by any means necessary but again you're wrong here. Federer has 197 service points 50 aces 8 unreturnable Roddick errors on serves 26. 50+8+26=84 84/197=42.6%. If you don't count the doubles you're still wrong as it's 84/193=43.5%. And my original 38% comment was using a different source. Now kindly **** off and stop replying to my posts you're a waste of my and everyone else's time.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
Djokovic has better movement and returning and a better BH which make up for quite a few advantages that Federer has offensive wise. Djokovic is 19-6 was Stan but that is overstated as well.

Djokovic have better stamina as well which is important in long matches and as well so imo that negates it even more. I got by what you meant by the matchup though but you said level negates it so by that logic Federer level in 07 could have negates the matchup and he was 3-2 vs Nadal they year as well and Djokovic after 2012 has negated it which brings us back to the original comment really.

Matchups difficulty does exist no doubt though but then you could say Djokovic physical advantages post 2012 or even 2010 double made for it if you say that.
Difference is those strengths don't particularly harm Fed's game. I'm not sure you're getting what I'm trying to say.
 

RS

Legend
Difference is those strengths don't particularly harm Fed's game. I'm not sure you're getting what I'm trying to say.
I did get it but disagree with it not sure what I can add really.

Quite a few of those strengths are significant advantages I don’t think any them have a major major technique flaw.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
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.
You still don't understand what I meant when I said that :rolleyes:
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
... I don't even know how to respond to that. Yes I believe a good Fed beats 05 Agassi in comfortable straights.
That's your opinion, doesn't make it truth.

Agassi was striking the ball extremely well, that's why the match was competitive. Federer himswlf fired 69 winners, 39 errors and served close to 76%.

Looks pretty good to me, you just can't accept that Agassi played a good match and Fed was shellshocked by his level for a set and a half.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
That's your opinion, doesn't make it truth.

Agassi was striking the ball extremely well, that's why the match was competitive. Federer himswlf fired 69 winners, 39 errors and served close to 76%.

Looks pretty good to me, you just can't accept that Agassi played a good match and Fed was shellshocked by his level for a set and a half.
You just can't accept the opposite is true. Can we please stop discussing this? Until the day comes where we analyze point by point and discuss with eachother (never happening) I'm not changing my mind and neither are you so let's just move on.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
You can't put Fed over Nole at RG considering Nole has more match wins there. This was the reason Fed was over Pete at Wimby when they were 7/7 .
It was debatable back then and the reason was an extra final at prime (or primeish) level, not more # of match wins overall.
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
You just can't accept the opposite is true. Can we please stop discussing this? Until the day comes where we analyze point by point and discuss with eachother (never happening) I'm not changing my mind and neither are you so let's just move on.
Competition should be a topic that should never be discussed because fans are too narrow minded anyway.

I just rate Agassi better than you do and the stats show they both played a good match. Nobody is crushing a guy who is hitting the ball like that. Not even Djokodal.

Tgere's nothing to accept from the opposite side. I watched the match and the stats agree with me.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Alright I stopped responding to you because you're an ass who just tries to shove his agenda down people's throats by any means necessary but again you're wrong here. Federer has 197 service points 50 aces 8 unreturnable Roddick errors on serves 26. 50+8+26=84 84/197=42.6%. If you don't count the doubles you're still wrong as it's 84/193=43.5%. And my original 38% comment was using a different source. Now kindly **** off and stop replying to my posts you're a waste of my and everyone else's time.
You want to know where you went wrong?
The Serve statistics overview does not include unforced errors off the return
Unret = Unreturnables
FcdE = Serves where the attempted return was a forced error

That unret is actually service winners. Fed had 8 as per that
FcdE is for forced errors on the return - 26

Roddick had 5 UEs off the return:

1st set at 2-3, 30-15
2nd set at 3-4, 0-15
5th set at 1-1, 15-15
5th set at 1-1, 40-15
5th set at 6-6, 40-30

which brings # of Federer serves unreturned to *drumroll* 89. (50 aces+8 service winners+26 errors forced on the return+5 unforced errors on return)

The fact that you chose to make FcdE as roddick error on serves (did not bother to mention forced when it says forced errors clearly) goes to show you are either:
a) clueless
OR
b) mendacious bullshitter

I already pointed out the correct place to look for with a screenshot - the return statistics for Roddick. But you didn't think twice about what I pointed out, did you?

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%

# of Federer unreturned serves service game by game and in TB (From the point by point description: http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20090705-M-Wimbledon-F-Andy_Roddick-Roger_Federer.html)

Set 1: 3,2,3,2,1,2 (Total = 13)
Set 2: 1,2,1,4,1,3 and 4 in TB (Total = 16)
Set 3: 4,2,2,3,2,3 and 1 in TB (Total = 17)
Set 4: 1,2,3,1 (Total = 7)
Set 5: 3,3,3,3,3,3,2,1,2,2,2,3,3,1,2 (Total = 36)

Total = 89
 
Last edited:

RS

Legend
That's your opinion, doesn't make it truth.

Agassi was striking the ball extremely well, that's why the match was competitive. Federer himswlf fired 69 winners, 39 errors and served close to 76%.

Looks pretty good to me, you just can't accept that Agassi played a good match and Fed was shellshocked by his level for a set and a half.
How you rate Federer and Agassi out of 10 in that match?
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
You want to know where you went wrong?
The Serve statistics overview does not include unforced errors off the return
Unret = Unreturnables
FcdE = Serves where the attempted return was a forced error

That unret is actually service winners. Fed had 8 as per that
FcdE is for forced errors on the return - 26

Roddick had 5 UEs off the return:

1st set at 2-3, 30-15
2nd set at 3-4, 0-15
5th set at 1-1, 15-15
5th set at 1-1, 40-15
5th set at 6-6, 40-30

which brings # of Federer serves unreturned to *drumroll* 89. (50 aces+8 service winners+26 errors forced on the return+5 unforced errors on return)

The fact that you chose to make FcdE as roddick error on serves (did not bother to mention forced when it says forced errors clearly) goes to show you are either:
a) clueless
OR
b) mendacious bullshitter

I already pointed out the correct place to look for with a screenshot - the return statistics for Roddick. But you didn't think twice about what I pointed out, did you?



# of Federer unreturned serves service game by game and in TB (From the point by point description: http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20090705-M-Wimbledon-F-Andy_Roddick-Roger_Federer.html)

Set 1: 3,2,3,2,1,2 (Total = 13)
Set 2: 1,2,1,4,1,3 and 4 in TB (Total = 16)
Set 3: 4,2,2,3,2,3 and 1 in TB (Total = 17)
Set 4: 1,2,3,1 (Total = 7)
Set 5: 3,3,3,3,3,3,2,1,2,2,2,3,3,1,2 (Total = 36)

Total = 89
Fair enough. I didn't think you credited UEs to server but I guess you were right.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Fair enough. I didn't think you credited UEs to server but I guess you were right.
Good on you for finally accepting it.
I've worked with tons of stats for matches. So when I say something regarding them, you might want to actually double check or ask where I am coming from.
If I am wrong regarding the stats, I correct myself after checking.
 

RS

Legend
Fed 8.5/10 and Agassi only 7.5/10 due to inferior stamina.

He only played a good final for his standards, not a great one, IMO.
I would have Federer at that or a bit higher than that. I might agree on Agassi maybe put him a bit lower even.
 
Last edited:

RS

Legend
Where does 2010 and 2013 Djok plus 2015 Fed sit for you? Also Nadal and Djokovic as winners?
USO 10 - Nadal 9 to 9.5 and Djokovic 7 to 7.5
USO 13 - Nadal 8.5 to 9 and Djokovic 6.5 to 7
USO 15 - Djokovic 8 to 8.5 and Federer 7.5 to 8

Probably something like that but my bias for Rafa might be showing a bit here a bit tbh.
 
Last edited:

metsman

G.O.A.T.
08 Murray defeated Wawrinka, Del potro and Nadal en route to the final.

05 Agassi went 5 sets with Malisse, Blake and Ginepri

But yeah sure, they are on same level :laughing:
Thanks for linking Malisse, had no idea who he was. Oh I remember now, he's the guy that a certain someone struggled massively with 7 years later (when Malisse was borderline obese) before going on to whip Djokoray 2 matches later. Must be a good sign to struggle with the young and athletic version of the guy honestly.
 

NoleIsBoat

Rookie
Thanks for linking Malisse, had no idea who he was. Oh I remember now, he's the guy that a certain someone struggled massively with 7 years later (when Malisse was borderline obese) before going on to whip Djokoray 2 matches later. Must be a good sign to struggle with the young and athletic version of the guy honestly.
Career high ranking 19 for Malisse, 4 for Blake, 15 for Ginepri

Compared to:

1 slam winner Delpotro, 3 slam winner Wawrinka, 20 slam winner Nadal.


Real tough guys :whistle:
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
How would you rate them?
Going set by set (great > good > ok > mediocre > bad), Agassi had the best (1 ok, 1 great, 1 good, 1 bad) vs 2010 Djokovic (1 great, 2 mediocre, 1 bad) or 2013 Djokovic (2 good, 2 bad) or 15 Federer (1 good, 1 ok, 2 mediocre), but if you dock Agassi for physical points and the mental effect that poses, well I probably put them all around the same tier (2010 Djokovic may be a little lower because he wasn't mature enough to win anything then), but Agassi's performance was most impressive to me because he did play to his capacity for a fairly long stretch and was playing the scariest opponent.

2011 Ned is 1 good, 2 mediocre, 1 bad FWIW, maybe the worst of all of them lol. 2005 Hewitt is 1 bad, 1 ok, 1 great, 1 mediocre. 2006 Roddick is 1 great, 1 good, 2 bad.

All these performances are in the same general tier, a step above that is 04 Agassi/11 Federer (2 great sets each, Agassi had 1 more good one and 2 ok ones (maybe 1 ok 1 mediocre), Fraud had 2 bad and 1 ok) and 07 Roddick certainly belongs above that tier as well (2 great sets).
 

RS

Legend
Going set by set (great > good > ok > mediocre > bad), Agassi had the best (1 ok, 1 great, 1 good, 1 bad) vs 2010 Djokovic (1 great, 2 mediocre, 1 bad) or 2013 Djokovic (2 good, 2 bad) or 15 Federer (1 good, 1 ok, 2 mediocre), but if you dock Agassi for physical points and the mental effect that poses, well I probably put them all around the same tier (2010 Djokovic may be a little lower because he wasn't mature enough to win anything then), but Agassi's performance was most impressive to me because he did play to his capacity for a fairly long stretch and was playing the scariest opponent.

2011 Ned is 1 good, 2 mediocre, 1 bad FWIW, maybe the worst of all of them lol. 2005 Hewitt is 1 bad, 1 ok, 1 great, 1 mediocre. 2006 Roddick is 1 great, 1 good, 2 bad.
I think your ranking is on harsher scale than mine so disagree with much of it.

Out of 10 how would you put each one? By this is guess not too high bar maybe Agassi.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
I think you ranking is on harsher scale than mine so probably disagree with much of it.

Out of 10 how would you put each one? By this is guess not too high bar maybe Agassi.
like I said they are all in a similar range (i.e. I think the opponents they lost to should all beat all the other opponents with similar effort or maybe the right matchup goes 5). Don't really care to rate out of 10 when I can just rate every match by set cause they are all 4 setters.
 

RS

Legend
like I said they are all in a similar range (i.e. I think the opponents they lost to should all beat all the other opponents with similar effort or maybe the right matchup goes 5). Don't really care to rate out of 10 when I can just rate every match by set cause they are all 4 setters.
Fine.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Going set by set (great > good > ok > mediocre > bad), Agassi had the best (1 ok, 1 great, 1 good, 1 bad) vs 2010 Djokovic (1 great, 2 mediocre, 1 bad) or 2013 Djokovic (2 good, 2 bad) or 15 Federer (1 good, 1 ok, 2 mediocre), but if you dock Agassi for physical points and the mental effect that poses, well I probably put them all around the same tier (2010 Djokovic may be a little lower because he wasn't mature enough to win anything then), but Agassi's performance was most impressive to me because he did play to his capacity for a fairly long stretch and was playing the scariest opponent.

2011 Ned is 1 good, 2 mediocre, 1 bad FWIW, maybe the worst of all of them lol. 2005 Hewitt is 1 bad, 1 ok, 1 great, 1 mediocre. 2006 Roddick is 1 great, 1 good, 2 bad.

All these performances are in the same general tier, a step above that is 04 Agassi/11 Federer (2 great sets each, Agassi had 1 more good one and 2 ok ones (maybe 1 ok 1 mediocre), Fraud had 2 bad and 1 ok) and 07 Roddick certainly belongs above that tier as well (2 great sets).
Hewitt in 2005 had two sets that were good to great, final set was probably mediocre more than bad too.
 
Top