From the ATP website. Now I do have complete yearly totals including all the missing DC stats (also the # of service/return games won) from 2010 on, but not from before so I just use the ATP numbers. Maybe I'll do a thread on this and ask the posters to help me fill in the gaps.
Now the ATP's counting can be quite arbitrary. For example the total # of matches in '08 includes the single DC rubber he played (against Vliegen), but not the '11 tally which excludes the 3 DC matches he played that year. Still Fed usually has played no more than 2-3 DC matches per year if at all so the ATP averages shouldn't be off by much.
oh ok, I'm a bit surprised that his 14 numbers are a bit lesser than his numbers in 08-10 ...
actually a better measure would be # of aces/total service points ...maybe I'll compute that some time ...
For the record I wasn't just thinking of the Cilic match, and I just thought 3 straight sets was selling Djoko a little too short. I'd probably give him slightly higher chances against Pete and Fed at Wimby and the USO (though I'd think Pete would be a tougher matchup for him generally), but I agree Novak would be the underdog by some margin.
And I know I've told you this before but I also think Pete's/Fed's best beats Novak's best even at the AO. That said the AO is held at the beginning of the year, when players are still finding their groove after a long hiatus and adjusting to highly unpredictable conditions to boot (though Plex seems to have reined them in better than Rebound Ace, with more even bounces). Unsurprisingly this meant that Pete due to his riskier game suffered the most Down Under, and while Fed is a highly consistent baseliner himself Djoko with his robotic game is even more so, which has made it easier for him to play his best tennis at Melbourne while others are still tweaking their game. For that reason, and not because of some wide discrepancy in court speed between the two HC majors as is commonly assumed, I can see Novak getting the better of Pete and Fed at the AO, provided that they meet before the finals a fair number of times (which could be decisive in the case of Pete vs. Novak).
I don't see sampras' peak level at the AO being better than djoko's tbh ..
if forced to pick among the top levels at the AO , I'd go :
federer
djokovic
agassi
sampras
in that order
maybe if AO was best of 3, I could see sampras' top level overwhelming djoko enough to win, but over a BO5, I see djoko prevailing
At RG Novak would be obviously ahead of Pete (though not by something like 9-1 as per the know-nothings here). As for the other matchup I feel Djoko and Fed are pretty evenly matched, actually slightly in favor of the former to be honest, but until Novak wins a FO and can show that he can peak at the right time I'm not quite ready to put him above Fed yet.
well, I disagree, I give federer a clear edge at RG, both overall and h2h, 60-40 in fed's favor...
even with Nole matching up better vs nadal, he hasn't played at a level what federer showed at Rome 06 vs nadal in a BO5 clay match ..( I mean vs a nadal playing at a decent level )
2011, when they squared off, both playing really well , fed beat him ..
and again 2015 vs 2009, fed took out a GOATing delpo in the semi, djoker failed to do that vs stan .....
as well as stan played in this year's final, I rate delpo's perf in RG 09 & soderling's peformances ( RG 09 vs rafa and RG 10 vs fed ) as better ...
as far as BO3 on clay is concerned,
Rome is one place where Novak does decisively better overall, no question ...
hamburg/madrid , I'd take fed over Novak
MC - overall, Novak has had better results, but when they've squared off, fed beat him both times ( though novak had his problems in the 2nd set in their 14 encounter , and I'm sorry, the ridiculous sore throat excuses in 08 don't count ! )
even if Novak wins RG, I'm not putting him over fed level wise unless he shows significant change like this year's wimby final for instance ...though record-wise, he'd probably be ahead, considering he's won all the 3 CC masters ....
As I told you the other day make it Flushing if you can attend only one. You never know what's gonna happen: you might get too busy, the players might withdraw, the event could be rained out, etc. You go next time, and next time... and then the players you wanted to catch are now gone.
yeah, I'd love to go to Flushing .....
.
