Federer game is more complete than Djokovic

[Mike Sams]

Contrary to the myth that Djokovic has the most complete game... Federers bane is simply his single handed backhand which is unreliable and causes consistency issues or breakdown under pressure. 2 handed backhands are much more reliable and consistent with another arm to help the racquet.

Federer is better at literally every type of stroke except flat/topspin backhand.

Serve - Federer
Forehand - Federer
Volleys - Federer
Overhead - Federer
Slice backhand - Federer

No one would even disagree with any of that right? So the only thing Djokovic is better at is backhand and because of that much better at return of serve. He's also just a super consistent reliable player in general which gets you great results in tennis

But Federer clearly has the most complete game

The backhand is pretty important, don't you think? That's how Djokovic routinely and consistently beat Federer and Nadal.
Djokovic's backhand is impenetrable and he can hit it anywhere and turn defense into offense in a single point.
Only way to beat Djokovic is to bomb him off the court (Stan) or play a near perfect game for the full match.

 

[Tennis_Slapper23]

Please stop

 

[M3aty]

Contrary to the myth that Djokovic has the most complete game... Federers bane is simply his single handed backhand which is unreliable and causes consistency issues or breakdown under pressure. 2 handed backhands are much more reliable and consistent with another arm to help the racquet.

Federer is better at literally every type of stroke except flat/topspin backhand.

Serve - Federer
Forehand - Federer
Volleys - Federer
Overhead - Federer
Slice backhand - Federer

No one would even disagree with any of that right? So the only thing Djokovic is better at is backhand and because of that much better at return of serve. He's also just a super consistent reliable player in general which gets you great results in tennis

But Federer clearly has the most complete game

I’ve said this several times on this forum and Novak bootlickers come out of the woodwork to deny it. As if these things aren’t just common sense to people who actually play/coach the game

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

How about return of serve? Possibly the next most important metric after serve.

Thats not a stroke but good luck competing with a top notch 2 handed backhand with a one hander on return unless you're prime Federer blasting back 132 mph Roddick serve for an amazing winner

 

[Curtennis]

Thats not a stroke but good luck competing with a top notch 2 handed backhand with a one hander on return unless you're prime Federer blasting back 132 mph Roddick serve for an amazing winner

It’s not. It’s a critical component to a “complete game”.

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

The backhand is pretty important, don't you think? That's how Djokovic routinely and consistently beat Federer and Nadal.
Djokovic's backhand is impenetrable and he can hit it anywhere and turn defense into offense in a single point.
Only way to beat Djokovic is to bomb him off the court (Stan) or play a near perfect game for the full match.

Of course I'm just saying Federer is more complete cause he's better at pretty much all the other 6-7 shots

Its actually amazing how you can still be more effective than someone with most your types of shots being inferior

 

[Mike Sams]

Of course I'm just saying Federer is more complete cause he's better at pretty much all the other 6-7 shots

Its actually amazing how you can still be more effective than someone with most your types of shots being inferior

I don't know. I'm only looking at the player that wins. Not how nice his strokes look.

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

I don't know. I'm only looking at the player that wins. Not how nice his strokes look.

I wonder if it would've been different if Federer was Djokovics age and Djokovic Federer age especially with prime Federers lightning quick reaction speed. I wish we could see that alternate universe lol

 

[Federev]

Contrary to the myth that Djokovic has the most complete game... Federers bane is simply his single handed backhand which is unreliable and causes consistency issues or breakdown under pressure. 2 handed backhands are much more reliable and consistent with another arm to help the racquet.

Federer is better at literally every type of stroke except flat/topspin backhand.

Serve - Federer
Forehand - Federer
Volleys - Federer
Overhead - Federer
Slice backhand - Federer

No one would even disagree with any of that right? So the only thing Djokovic is better at is backhand and because of that much better at return of serve. He's also just a super consistent reliable player in general which gets you great results in tennis

But Federer clearly has the most complete game

Novak is an epic champion.

But his most crucial and potent and most important stat vs Fed - by far - is “6 years”.

 

[M3aty]

Federer is better at…just about everything in tennis lol
Novak has the advantage in backhand and a bit better in returning.
I just saw someone say Novak’s serve and forehand are comparable to Fed’s. I don’t…….understand…..how a human being can say this with no troll intent. Help me understand.
His serve has less pace, worse placement, worse action, worse variety, worse in just basic technical prowess, and is never used to construct a point. It’s…a serve. He had a period of his career where the second serve statistically was notably great—but again, the percentage won on those games is a byproduct of him never having to press because he’s the better baseline mover against practically anybody.
As for the forehand. Wow. Let’s address another nutter comment. The forehand was attackable for a large part of his career. It took him years to be able to control it properly. The technique is actually quite good—generates fairly easy power, and good at handling opposing spin. The problem is his racket head speed is nowhere in the ballpark of Federer, and he has WAY less variety. Novak lacks the intuition to know when to end the point early with it. In no universe is it a weapon. I can name 20 current players with better forehands. Another 20 additionally who have retired. It’s adequate. It’s not great, it’s not super good, it’s adequate. Better than average, absolutely. Good enough, 21 slams says yes.
Prime Fed’s forehand was a nuclear bomb and he could summon it at will on the biggest points. It is the quintessential perfect stroke in tennis without any level of hyperbole attached. This is not up for debate.
Lets continue
Novak struggles moving vertically to net. His sense of anticipation isn’t natural, he finds himself out of position constantly, and his volleying is absolutely horrifying bad. Like Nadal (though Nadal is better in this regard) he only comes to net to finish points, not to start them. CERTAINLY never following a serve.
His overhead is somewhere around 4.5 level. It is nauseatingly unforgivable. His slice—hilariously it’s actually improved greatly over the years. I’d say it’s pretty good now. Not best in the history of the sport good like Fed’s but hey, Fed is Fed and you’re never getting that again so if anything is in the ballpark let’s celebrate it while we can.
The mental game comments. Lmao. Federer owns the most wins in the history of the sport when coming back from two sets to love. down. Can’t take that sentiment seriously either, but in the context of several slams where both faced each other, at least there’s something to point to.
Novak can be your favorite player. That’s quite alright! Maybe you’re Serbian. Maybe you hated Fed growing up because he thrashed your childhood idol. These things are understandable. Sadly, this doesn’t remove Novak’s numerous technical deficiencies. There is not a SINGLE aspect of tennis (mental game and backhand included) where Fed isn’t in the top five historically. That’s just reality. That’s where I choose to live. You should too. I watched most of his matches, not the odd highlight here and there on YouTube. I pray some of you in here at least attempt to do the same, because I gotta say, there is some DISTURBINGLY embarrassing commentary in this forum recently.

 

[wangs78]

Fed's defining weakness against Djokovic is mental. That's it. Djokovic certainly has the better RoS, rally backhand and defensive court coverage, but all of that is not enough to beat Federer. What beats Federer is a mental edge that began after the 2010 and 2011 USO semifinals that has compounded into what seems like ridiculous karma favoring Novak in tiebreaks or when he is on the edge of defeat. It's unfortunate because on paper Fed is the better player but this very clear mental hiccup has crushed him for this particular matchup.

 

[daggerman]

Federer is better [than Djokovic] at…just about everything in tennis lol

And yet...

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Fed's defining weakness against Djokovic is mental. That's it. Djokovic certainly has the better RoS, rally backhand and defensive court coverage, but all of that is not enough to beat Federer. What beats Federer is a mental edge that began after the 2010 and 2011 USO semifinals that has compounded into what seems like ridiculous karma favoring Novak in tiebreaks or when he is on the edge of defeat. It's unfortunate because on paper Fed is the better player but this very clear mental hiccup has crushed him for this particular matchup.

I'm not sure if its mental or if its Djokovic game being so stable and consistent that hes immune to pressure where Federer game especially with one hand backhand vulnerable to pressure

 

[TheRed]

Of course I'm just saying Federer is more complete cause he's better at pretty much all the other 6-7 shots

Its actually amazing how you can still be more effective than someone with most your types of shots being inferior

I agree that Fed is a more complete player but Djokovic is as good or better on the shots that matter in today's game i.e. backhand, ROS, forehand (Not all time great but solid and very capable), serve (much improved from early in career). Sure, Fed is better at net and with the slice but neither shots factor in that much of the modern game. This is an extreme example, but it doesn't matter if a player is solid overall and fantastic with drop shots and slices. He'll lose more often than not to a player w/ a superior serve and forehand.

 

[GabeT]

Not a very good analysis. It’s like comparing two recipes and choosing between them based on the ingredients. But as we all know what makes the difference is not just the individual ingredients but how they are combined.

think of the two big parts to tennis, service games and return games. Fed is better at one and Novak better at the other. that already tells you that the so called stroke advantages may not be so relevant. a more detailed analysis would look at whether Fed was better at service than Novak at return (or vice versa). And whether this varied by surface.

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Not a very good analysis. It’s like comparing two recipes and choosing between them based on the ingredients. But as we all know what makes the difference is not just the individual ingredients but how they are combined.

think of the two big parts to tennis, service games and return games. Fed is better at one and Novak better at the other. that already tells you that the so called stroke advantages may not be so relevant. a more detailed analysis would look at whether Fed was better at service than Novak at return (or vice versa). And whether this varied by surface.

Sure but thats digging into what matters the most which has nothing to do with most complete skillset as a player

 

[GabeT]

Sure but thats digging into what matters the most which has nothing to do with most complete skillset as a player

If Novak is better than Fed at 50% of the games played then there is no reason to call Federer the more complete player.

 

[Kralingen]

Federer is clearly better at playing tennis, but Djokovic is possibly better at winning tennis matches.

 

[Booger]

Not a very good analysis. It’s like comparing two recipes and choosing between them based on the ingredients.

I guess federer would be beef wellington. High end ingredients, visually appealing, and desired at even the most high end events. But also complex to the point you'd never try an at home version.

Eggovic is like crappy $5 pizza from Little Caesar's. Very boring and no one actually likes it, but somehow it racks up huge stats.

 

[GabeT]

I guess federer would be beef wellington. High end ingredients, visually appealing, and desired at even the most high end events. But also complex to the point you'd never try an at home version.

Eggovic is like crappy $5 pizza from Little Caesar's. Very boring and no one actually likes it, but somehow it racks up huge stats.

Uh… No

 

[juanparty]

I wonder if it would've been different if Federer was Djokovics age and Djokovic Federer age especially with prime Federers lightning quick reaction speed. I wish we could see that alternate universe lol

21-20 statistics talk

 

[Booger]

Uh… No

Yes

 

[Pheasant]

I guess we’d need to define what being more complete means. If that means having more offensive weapons, then I’d say Federer is more complete. But if we define it as having fewer weaknesses, then I’d say Djoker is more complete.

But at the end of the day, all that matters is who wins. Both of those guys won a ton.

If Mr X comes along and is less complete than both of those players, but wins 5 CYGS’s,then he will easily top both.

 

[fafa]

Federer's FH on the run was an UE machine, Novak knew that.
Djokovic's net game is extremely underrated.

 

[GabeT]

The tennis analysis in this website is ever so crappy

 

[Sudacafan]

I am afraid that it does not matter anymore now.

 

[Sudacafan]

The tennis analysis in this website is ever so crappy

That’s why it has become my favorite trolling source material, by far. Very entertaining. I am immensely grateful to all the users of this forum that make this possible day in day out.

 

[TMF]

It's been mentioned plenty of times at TTW that Djokovic can play in a slow homogenous era but cannot survive in a fast-paced serve-and-volley era.

Federer has all the skills to play well in any era, any type of environment.

Ask Boris Becker, he'll tell you the same thing

 

[socallefty]

Ask Boris Becker, he'll tell you the same thing

I did while we were playing cards in jail together. He said that Djokovic would beat every player from pre-2005 like a drum on any surface every time because the game of tennis has improved so much especially after poly strings appeared.

 

[TMF]

I did while we were playing cards in jail together. He said that Djokovic would beat every player from pre-2005 like a drum on any surface every time because the game of tennis has improved so much especially after poly strings appeared.

Cool story bro

 

[M3aty]

Federer is clearly better at playing tennis, but Djokovic is possibly better at winning tennis matches.

I’m more than willing to concede this actually. This is (with some caveats) a good way to look at them imo

 

[GabeT]

Federer is clearly better at playing tennis, but Djokovic is possibly better at winning tennis matches.

If you are better at winning matches you are better at playing tennis. Winning matches is how we actually measure how good you are at playing tennis

 

[mahatma]

Federer is better at…just about everything in tennis lol
Novak has the advantage in backhand and a bit better in returning.
I just saw someone say Novak’s serve and forehand are comparable to Fed’s. I don’t…….understand…..how a human being can say this with no troll intent. Help me understand.
His serve has less pace, worse placement, worse action, worse variety, worse in just basic technical prowess, and is never used to construct a point. It’s…a serve. He had a period of his career where the second serve statistically was notably great—but again, the percentage won on those games is a byproduct of him never having to press because he’s the better baseline mover against practically anybody.
As for the forehand. Wow. Let’s address another nutter comment. The forehand was attackable for a large part of his career. It took him years to be able to control it properly. The technique is actually quite good—generates fairly easy power, and good at handling opposing spin. The problem is his racket head speed is nowhere in the ballpark of Federer, and he has WAY less variety. Novak lacks the intuition to know when to end the point early with it. In no universe is it a weapon. I can name 20 current players with better forehands. Another 20 additionally who have retired. It’s adequate. It’s not great, it’s not super good, it’s adequate. Better than average, absolutely. Good enough, 21 slams says yes.
Prime Fed’s forehand was a nuclear bomb and he could summon it at will on the biggest points. It is the quintessential perfect stroke in tennis without any level of hyperbole attached. This is not up for debate.
Lets continue
Novak struggles moving vertically to net. His sense of anticipation isn’t natural, he finds himself out of position constantly, and his volleying is absolutely horrifying bad. Like Nadal (though Nadal is better in this regard) he only comes to net to finish points, not to start them. CERTAINLY never following a serve.
His overhead is somewhere around 4.5 level. It is nauseatingly unforgivable. His slice—hilariously it’s actually improved greatly over the years. I’d say it’s pretty good now. Not best in the history of the sport good like Fed’s but hey, Fed is Fed and you’re never getting that again so if anything is in the ballpark let’s celebrate it while we can.
The mental game comments. Lmao. Federer owns the most wins in the history of the sport when coming back from two sets to love. down. Can’t take that sentiment seriously either, but in the context of several slams where both faced each other, at least there’s something to point to.
Novak can be your favorite player. That’s quite alright! Maybe you’re Serbian. Maybe you hated Fed growing up because he thrashed your childhood idol. These things are understandable. Sadly, this doesn’t remove Novak’s numerous technical deficiencies. There is not a SINGLE aspect of tennis (mental game and backhand included) where Fed isn’t in the top five historically. That’s just reality. That’s where I choose to live. You should too. I watched most of his matches, not the odd highlight here and there on YouTube. I pray some of you in here at least attempt to do the same, because I gotta say, there is some DISTURBINGLY embarrassing commentary in this forum recently.

Sadly with all the ups in Federer's game and all the mediocre metrics from Djokovic in his game - Federer could not really dominate Djokovic and stands with losing H2H in slams, overall, less titles, less slams. Just all metrics he is below Djokovic. How?

Can't be about age difference, as they played about 50 times out of which half were in Federer's prime. Or we are only discussing hypothetical Federer who doesn't lose a match and has 1500-0 overall W/L stat while real Federer is an average showing in biggest matches?

 

[gjm127]

Fed's defining weakness against Djokovic is mental. That's it. Djokovic certainly has the better RoS, rally backhand and defensive court coverage, but all of that is not enough to beat Federer. What beats Federer is a mental edge that began after the 2010 and 2011 USO semifinals that has compounded into what seems like ridiculous karma favoring Novak in tiebreaks or when he is on the edge of defeat. It's unfortunate because on paper Fed is the better player but this very clear mental hiccup has crushed him for this particular matchup.

Perfectly said.

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

If you are better at winning matches you are better at playing tennis. Winning matches is how we actually measure how good you are at playing tennis

You have the most black and white way of thinking I've ever seen. Whats your profession/field of study, ebgineering?

 

[Silverbullet96]

Granted this is all conjecture, but the indisputable fact is that Roger and Wawrinka have proved that one handers can outduel two handers frequently enough for it to be a fair fight.

2 players alone can't prove something like that. Something like the fact that there's only 5 one handers in the entire Top 50 today, that proves something.

 

[socallefty]

Hypothetically, Federer is better (especially if you are a Fedfan). In real life, Djokovic has been slightly better.

I watched Federer lose to Djokovic twice from courtside in IW finals by Novak being more aggressive than him taking the ball on the rise and running him ragged. Federer was 33 and 34 years old and playing superb tennis blowing every other player away until the final. The same thing happened in 2 Wimbledon finals and 1 USO final in that time frame.

Before people claim that Federer was too old in 2014-15, I should mention that this is when he started beating Nadal always outside of clay and Djokovic came within 1 match of a CYGS at the same age.

I think their H-H of 27-24 in favor of Djokovic is an accurate reflection of their relative playing levels over the entirety of their careers. Federer started off strong at 4-0, played him even for many years and then couldn’t keep up with him once Djokovic hit his BOAT form in 2015. They haven’t played much in the last few years when Federer got too old.

 

[abmk]

Sadly with all the ups in Federer's game and all the mediocre metrics from Djokovic in his game - Federer could not really dominate Djokovic and stands with losing H2H in slams, overall, less titles, less slams. Just all metrics he is below Djokovic. How?

Can't be about age difference, as they played about 50 times out of which half were in Federer's prime. Or we are only discussing hypothetical Federer who doesn't lose a match and has 1500-0 overall W/L stat while real Federer is an average showing in biggest matches?

absolutely about age difference.
federer's prime was from YEC 2003 to AO 2010. DJokovic's 2011-2016 (you can argue about parts of 08/18-early 19 for djoko and USO 11-Cincy 12 for fed as prime-ish)
they have played FAR more matches from 2011 onwards than from 2006- AO 10.
They have played 31 matches from 2011 onwards compared to 14 till AO 2010 (or 19 till 2010 end)
They played 18 matches in Djokovic's 3 best years (2011,12,2015) and 2 matches in federer's 3 best years (2004-06)

serious desperation/lying if you say half the matches were in federer's prime.
Djokovic is mega ultra lucky with the age difference.
if ages were reversed, we'd see federer having a big lead instead of a mere 27-23.
I mean past prime fed was 2-3 vs peak Djoko in slams in 11-12, with a point away from 3-2 and obviously dominated him in 07-09 in slams (4-1) as expected.
fed beat djoko in RG 11, convincing win in Wim 12 with djoko at his prime and fed not at his and like 7th best version of fed at USO had MPs vs best version of djoko in 11.
fed's also clearly better at the YEC with h2h being 3-3, with djoko having age advantage in 5/6 matches.

Djokovic just got super lucky with ~33+ fed

fed does have more titles than djokovic (atleast now) and as far as # of slams goes, that's solely because of Djokovic's vulturing in this pathetic loser disgrace to tennis extended inflation era with 2 useless generations (89-99 born)

 

[The Fedfather]

Fed's defining weakness against Djokovic is mental. That's it. Djokovic certainly has the better RoS, rally backhand and defensive court coverage, but all of that is not enough to beat Federer. What beats Federer is a mental edge that began after the 2010 and 2011 USO semifinals that has compounded into what seems like ridiculous karma favoring Novak in tiebreaks or when he is on the edge of defeat. It's unfortunate because on paper Fed is the better player but this very clear mental hiccup has crushed him for this particular matchup.

Agreed, except I think Federer truly lost the mental edge after Wimbledon 2014. The USO 2011 was bad but Federer seemed to knew it was bad from him and had that "What in the actual f*ck happened?" attitide about it, rather than "Djokovic might be too strong for me now". After Wimby 2014 I think Roger might've thought he was nearing the end of his career (cause remember, it was different time then regarding retiring age) and he took the loss to mean more than it did.

 

[abmk]

Fed's defining weakness against Djokovic is mental. That's it. Djokovic certainly has the better RoS, rally backhand and defensive court coverage, but all of that is not enough to beat Federer. What beats Federer is a mental edge that began after the 2010 and 2011 USO semifinals that has compounded into what seems like ridiculous karma favoring Novak in tiebreaks or when he is on the edge of defeat. It's unfortunate because on paper Fed is the better player but this very clear mental hiccup has crushed him for this particular matchup.

USO 10 was djoko saving those 2 MPs and fed was the worse player in the match anyways
While fed did lose USO 11 due to a choke, fed had edged out Djoko in RG 11 mentally being clutch.
Also beat djoko convincingly in Wim 12 including a cluthc 3rd set.

it has to do with age/physicality from 2014 onwards. That leads to mental doubts. If not for age, those mental doubts wouldn't come into the picture.
If you want more proof, I suggest, you look at fed being 6-4 in Bo3 in 14-early 16 while being 0-4 in Bo5 (slams)

Agreed, except I think Federer truly lost the mental edge after Wimbledon 2014. The USO 2011 was bad but Federer seemed to knew it was bad from him and had that "What in the actual f*ck happened?" attitide about it, rather than "Djokovic might be too strong for me now". After Wimby 2014 I think Roger might've thought he was nearing the end of his career (cause remember, it was different time then regarding retiring age) and he took the loss to mean more than it did.

See above.

 

[mahatma]

absolutely about age difference.
federer's prime was from YEC 2003 to AO 2010. DJokovic's 2011-2016
they have played FAR more matches from 2011 onwards than from 2006- AO 10.
They have played 31 matches from 2011 onwards compared to 14 till AO 2010 (or 19 till 2010 end)
They played 18 matches in Djokovic's 3 best years (2011,12,2015) and 2 matches in federer's 3 best years (2004-06)

serious desperation/lying if you think half the matches were in federer's prime.
Djokovic is mega ultra lucky with the age difference.
if ages were reversed, h2h would be an absolute bloodbath with federer having a big lead instead of a mere 27-23.

Let's agree that a player's peak for a 24 year career was not for 4 -5 years. Give your god atleast a 12 year peak starting from 2003-2015.

Him not winning slams in 2010s was more due to competition and not him peaking less. He himself said it in interviews that he was playing his best tennis in 2015.

This is your god stating the same- https://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2015-08-17/20377.php

 

[norcal]

Anyone who actually plays tennis knows Federer is the more complete player. How is this even a question?

 

[Robert F]

I'm not sure I'd use just strokes to define the most complete player. From that analysis alone, sure Fed wins.
But there are so many other factors that determine who is most complete. Many have added to that conversation.
--tennis intelligence/strategy (I give Djoker the edge. He's really developed a game of playing high percentage tennis, oddly I think Fed was a great tactician except when he felt under pressure then he'd get stubborn)
--mental fortitude/battling pressure (Djoker wins here)
--court coverage (Djoker career wise has the edge over Fed, but Fed in his youth was close)
--risk tolerance (Djoker has really reduced the risk he takes since the early 2000s. Fed has always been willing to take risk which in his peak payed off dividends).

When you factor the above in, maybe Djoker has the edge. But honestly, if they both faced each other in their absolute peaks it would be damn close. High percentage aggressive defensive tennis vs. attacking forward moving tennis.

I'll also note that I think Fed's game would translate better across generations. But Djoker has built a textbook game to dominate the current surfaces and competition. Djokovic has really shaped his game by constantly finding high percentage shots that keep his opponents at bay. Almost a "good enough tennis." Why hit a blazing winner--when you can wear your opponent down by consistently hitting your targets hard and heavy. Use 2-3 high percentage shots to open the court for a low risk winner. Djoker only takes high risk shots/go for a big winner when he is way out of position (which he rarely is due to his fitness and court sense. Today's opponents can't handle it. They get caught in rallies they will be on the losing end most of the time, or try to blow Djoker off the court in resulting in a flurry of errors.

 

[abmk]

Let's agree that a player's peak for a 24 year career was not for 4 -5 years. Give your god atleast a 12 year peak starting from 2003-2015.

Him not winning slams in 2010s was more due to competition and not him peaking less. He himself said it in interviews that he was playing his best tennis in 2015.

This is your god stating the same- https://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2015-08-17/20377.php

fed ain't my god, just the best goddamn player in tennis and the GOAT. I don't wear tinted glasses unlike you defending the loser pathetic inflation era (thanks to 89-99 born - 2 WORST generations EVER) just to pump up Djokovic.
I said fed's prime was from YEC 2003 to AO 2010. that's a little over 6 years. Djokovic's prime period is similar, as is nadal's.

2007-09 was a little better competition wise than 2011-13 and fed won 6 slams in the former - more than anyone else in that time frame. So that competition argument goes straight into the gutter bin.

LOL @ bringing in that 2015 quote. If you seriously believe that, your tennis evaluation skills are Pappu level. fed most likely only said that because he didn't want to show vulnerabilities while he was playing.
When he retired, he said the reality: that USO 04 final was his best match for example:

From about 10:40 to 11:40, he mentions the best match of his career as the 2004 US Open final because he said "the match was perfect, I was on top of the world with my 3rd slam of the year showing the world I was deserving of being number one against a guy who I struggled against early on in my career:

Roger Federer: 2004 US Open was my best match and 2008 Wimbledon was my most heartbreaking loss

People always discuss this topic on TTW about what the best match each player ever played was and what was the toughest loss of each player's career. Federer sat down in an interview with sports media giant, Eurosport, to discuss his decision to retire, reflect on his career, and his hopes for...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

 

[DSH]

Fed's problem is that he was born too early and we didn't get to see peak Fed against old Djokovic the way we did with Djoker vs. Fed.

I promise it would not be pretty.

And what would happen if we reversed the age of Agassi and Federer, with the Swiss being 11 years older than the American?
Peak Federer went to 5 sets with a 34-plus-year-old version of Agassi at the US Open and at that time you could see the sense of relief (and excitement) of the then world number 1 after winning that match.
A year later, with Federer at his peak and Agassi suffering from sciatica, five-set matches in the previous rounds, the Vegas Kid came within six points of going two sets to one against to his much younger rival.
Does it make sense, then, to create scenarios where we transform reality through imaginary or parallel worlds?

 

[abmk]

as far as breakup of games goes:

serve: fed
return: djoko (fed vs the best servers though)
FH: fed
BH flat/tospin: djoko
BH slice: fed
transition game: fed
net game: fed
passing shots+lob: fed
offensive movement: fed
defensive movement: djoko

 

[DSH]

Fed's defining weakness against Djokovic is mental. That's it. Djokovic certainly has the better RoS, rally backhand and defensive court coverage, but all of that is not enough to beat Federer. What beats Federer is a mental edge that began after the 2010 and 2011 USO semifinals that has compounded into what seems like ridiculous karma favoring Novak in tiebreaks or when he is on the edge of defeat. It's unfortunate because on paper Fed is the better player but this very clear mental hiccup has crushed him for this particular matchup.

No, I agree that prime for prime, Federer is the better player of the two (although many Swiss apologists want us to believe that if he and Djokovic were the same age the Serbian would suffer the same fate than Roddick or Hewitt, which is an aberration) but prime Djokovic is clearly better than post prime Federer and that has been strongly reflected, especially in the Grand Slam tournaments in the last decade, where the Serbian let his rival know, after his defeat at Wimbledon 2012, which of the two was in charge from that moment on.
Federer had his breakthrough moment, Djokovic had it later.
This is the cycle of life in any profession, especially in high-elite physical competitions, and complaining is very unsportsmanlike, I think.

 

[Hitman]

Roger had a complete repertoire, but not an impregnable game.

Novak has a complete and in-exploitable modern game but doesn't boast of the same forecourt prowess.

And then there's the mental part....I think the results speak for themselves.

I should say though that this is a forced comparison. The two are far more alike than casual observers care to admit. What say you @Hitman?

As for the agenda of this thread, that's apparent as day.

Yeah, I think that says it.

 

[mahatma]

fed ain't my god, just the best goddamn player in tennis and the GOAT. I don't wear tinted glasses unlike you defending the loser pathetic inflation era (thanks to 89-99 born - 2 WORST generations EVER) just to pump up Djokovic.
I said fed's prime was from YEC 2003 to AO 2010. that's a little over 6 years. Djokovic's prime period is similar, as is nadal's.

2007-09 was a little better competition wise than 2011-13 and fed won 6 slams in the former - more than anyone else in that time frame. So that competition argument goes straight into the gutter bin.

LOL @ bringing in that 2015 quote. If you seriously believe that, your tennis evaluation skills are Pappu level. fed most likely only said that because he didn't want to show vulnerabilities while he was playing.
When he retired, he said the reality: that USO 04 final was his best match for example:

From about 10:40 to 11:40, he mentions the best match of his career as the 2004 US Open final because he said "the match was perfect, I was on top of the world with my 3rd slam of the year showing the world I was deserving of being number one against a guy who I struggled against early on in my career:

Roger Federer: 2004 US Open was my best match and 2008 Wimbledon was my most heartbreaking loss

People always discuss this topic on TTW about what the best match each player ever played was and what was the toughest loss of each player's career. Federer sat down in an interview with sports media giant, Eurosport, to discuss his decision to retire, reflect on his career, and his hopes for...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Very result oriented analysis of yours that ends at exactly 2010 AO for peak. No technical aspect on why his level was lower, no stats around serve speeds, fh / bh shot speeds, first serve % ( Again not result oriented metric like winners etc as they are all competition dependent too).

I don't think he declined at all till '18 in any of the above.

 

[junior74]

What about the game between the ears?

The nose game? Close, but edge to Federer.