Federer in the 00s or Djokovic in the 10s - Who was the more dominant player?

[Hitman]

Federer is the best player of the decade, the 00s - 15 slams, 5 year ending number ones

Djokovic is the best player of the decade, the 10s - 15 slams, 5 year ending number ones

Before them it was Sampras in the 90s. But Pete's overall achievements fall short, the question is really between Federer and Djokovic on who had the most dominant decade.

Who gets the nod?

 

[Deleted member 758560]

fred wins, in fewer given attempts he was able to score same amount as gioco, so its him

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Roger Federer

 

[nolefam_2024]

OP Djokovic ruled tennis from 2011 to 2019. But he was number 2 for few years.
I will say Djokovic. He completely killed the competition.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Isn't it nice that that Nadal is not even in the conversation for such threads. I think its very nice. Fedkovic fans need to unite against the clay courter.

 

[GabeT]

Isn't it nice that that Nadal is not even in the conversation for such threads. I think its very nice. Fedkovic fans need to unite against the clay courter.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Federer is the best player of the decade, the 00s - 15 slams, 5 year ending number ones

Djokovic is the best player of the decade, the 10s - 15 slams, 5 year ending number ones

Before them it was Sampras in the 90s. But Pete's overall achievements fall short, the question is really between Federer and Djokovic on who had the most dominant decade.

Who gets the nod?

OP why not add weeks at number 1 where Djokovic is clearly AHEAD of old swisserer

 

[The Blond Blur]

Isn't it nice that that Nadal is not even in the conversation for such threads. I think its very nice. Fedkovic fans need to unite against the clay courter.

His prime started in the mid-00’s and ended in the early 2010’s. Kind of hard to be the best player of a “decade” when your prime is broken up over 2 different decades. It’s just common sense

 

[Hitman]

fred wins, in fewer given attempts he was able to score same amount as gioco, so its him

Federer had three seasons at the start of the decade where his biggest title was a lone masters in Hamburg. Federer also played every slam in the 00s, while Djokovic did miss a slam in the 10s.

 

[SonnyT]

Federer overall owned the 00's, but Nadal owned the latter part of it, 08-10.

Djokovic overall owned the 10's. But there were two periods of it: 12-13 (partly owned by Nada) and 16-17 (jointly owned by Fedal).

Because in the latter part of 00's, Nadal proved superior to Djokovic, on all surfaces, I have to vote Djokovic on this one.

 

[DSH]

Isn't it nice that that Nadal is not even in the conversation for such threads. I think its very nice. Fedkovic fans need to unite against the clay courter.

Nadal is a clay courter only?

 

[DSH]

Federer overall owned the 00's, but Nadal owned the latter part of it, 08-10.

Djokovic overall owned the 10's. But there were two periods of it: 12-13 (partly owned by Nada) and 16-17 (jointly owned by Fedal).

Because in the latter part of 00's, Nadal proved superior to Djokovic, on all surfaces, I have to vote Djokovic on this one.

Nadal won 13 Major titles in the 2010s, one more than Sampras in the 90s, the greatest dominator of that decade.
What does that tell you?

 

[ConnorH]

A tie. Federer dominated a weak field, and Djokovic dominates Federer.

 

[GoatNo1]

2000-2009	Rafael Nadal	Andy Murray
Roger Federer	35.0% (7-13)	40.0% (4-6)

2001-2010	Rafael Nadal	Andy Murray
Roger Federer	36.4% (8-14)	42.9% (6-8)

2010-2019	Rafael Nadal	Roger Federer	Andy Murray
Novak Djokovic	63.6% (21-12)	60.0% (21-14)	72.4% (21-8)

2011-2020	Rafael Nadal	Roger Federer	Andy Murray
Novak Djokovic	66.7% (22-11)	67.7% (21-10)	72.4% (21-8)

 

[junior74]

OP why not add weeks at number 1 where Djokovic is clearly AHEAD of old swisserer

In terms of domination is when consecutive weeks kicks in

I think it's a tie. I agree with you about Rafa. He wasn't nearly as consistently dominant as the other two.

 

[socallefty]

How many Masters 1000 titles did they each win in each decade?

 

[InsuranceMan]

Isn't it nice that that Nadal is not even in the conversation for such threads. I think its very nice. Fedkovic fans need to unite against the clay courter.

No, no we don’t. Pretty easy to deservedly respect Nadal. Nobody is interested in the cringe tribalistic bull**** you always peddle on this forum with the “Us Nolefams” and “we accomplished” or “we deserve” or the crap you always say. It’s cringe. Acting like it’s some united front or like you were the one out there

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

Probably Federer for the simple fact the field was better in the 2000’s than it was in the 2010’s

 

[SABRvolley]

Federer

 

[Deleted member 806402]

Funny this question is being asked, considering the 10s and 00s cannot be further apart in terms of era strength.
What does it tell us?

 

[Fabresque]

Djokovic. 2010’s had actual tennis players. 2000’s was a joke until Nadal/Djokovic showed up.

 

[DSH]

Djokovic. 2010’s had actual tennis players. 2000’s was a joke until Nadal/Djokovic showed up.

Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ferrer vs Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic, Berdych, Tsonga, which generation was better?

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

The safin.hewitt/Roddick one. Gotta factor in end of prime Agassi too who was better than that 2010s crowd

 

[Fabresque]

Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ferrer vs Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic, Berdych, Tsonga, which generation was better?

1st has 4 slams. 2nd has 8. 2nd generation clearly better.

EDIT: Also, Ferrer is part of the 2nd group, his best results were in the 2010’s.

 

[mike danny]

A tie. Federer dominated a weak field, and Djokovic dominates Federer.

Nice bait

 

[mike danny]

Funny this question is being asked, considering the 10s and 00s cannot be further apart in terms of era strength.
What does it tell us?

2015-2019 was pretty weak to be fair

 

[mike danny]

Djokovic. 2010’s had actual tennis players. 2000’s was a joke until Nadal/Djokovic showed up.

And how was 2015-2019 not a joke?

 

[mike danny]

People saying the 2010’s were tough are probably thinking that the decade stopped in 2013

 

[duaneeo]

After reaching #1 in 2004, 00s Federer held on to it for 237 consecutive weeks, lost the #1 ranking to only one player, won multiple slam titles each year he was the YE#1, and didn't suffer multiple losses at the slams to anyone but Nadal.

 

[mike danny]

Technically Federer since it took him only 7 years to win 15 slams while it took Djokovic 9.

 

[duaneeo]

And how was 2015-2019 not a joke?

2013-2014 weren't much better.

In 2013, Nadal missed the AO and lost in the first round at WB but still ended the year #1, Murray was awful on hard after Miami, Stan wasn't Stanimal, and Old-erer had his worst season of the 2010s.

In 2014, a slam final consisted of Cilic and Nishikori, and Federer (who made one slam final) was still in contention for YE#1 heading into the WTFs. That alone says how much of a joke that season was.

 

[The Blond Blur]

2013-2014 weren't much better.

In 2013, Nadal missed the AO and lost in the first round at WB but still ended the year #1, Murray was awful on hard after Miami, Stan wasn't Stanimal, and Old-erer had his worst season of the 2010s.

In 2014, a slam final consisted of Cilic and Nishikori, and Federer (who made one slam final) was still in contention for YE#1 heading into the WTFs. That alone says how much of a joke that season was.

Because he won half the schlems, 5 MS1000s, 10 total titles, and made 14 total finals lol.

Stan was absolutely Stanimal that year. He pushed peak/prime Joker to the limit in both HC GS. He actually got screwed out serving for the match in the AO vs Joker. He and Gasquet had the best match at RG that year. Murray won Wimby. Delpo came back strong. And gatekeepers Berdych and Ferrer put up good opposition. 2013 was a much better year than any of 2015-2019.

2014 was definitely a step down but was still slightly better than 2015-mid 2016. Now the latter half of 2016-2019 was definitely on the weak side.

 

[Neptune]

Federer is the best player of the decade, the 00s - 15 slams, 5 year ending number ones

Djokovic is the best player of the decade, the 10s - 15 slams, 5 year ending number ones

Before them it was Sampras in the 90s. But Pete's overall achievements fall short, the question is really between Federer and Djokovic on who had the most dominant decade.

Who gets the nod?

Djokovic's performance in the 2010s surpasses Federer's in the 2000s by a significant margin:
over 1200 points more per season (Points adjusted generously for the period before 2009),
at least one additional big title per season,
a superior overall win percentage, particularly against top 5 and top 10 players,
and more victories against top 5 and top 10 opponents.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Djokovic's performance in the 2010s surpasses Federer's in the 2000s by a significant margin:
over 1200 points more per season,
at least one additional big title per season,
a superior overall win percentage, particularly against top 5 and top 10 players,
and more victories against top 5 and top 10 opponents.

True.

Far more masters titles as well.

 

[Jonas78]

Djokovic won 15 slams 2010-2019 while Rafa won 13, so its hard to argue it was an extreme domination.

2011 and late 2014- 2016 was all Djokovic. Same with late 2018 and on. Same with Federer 2004-2007 and USO2008-AO2010

 

[NoleFam]

Federer - 15 Slams, 5 YE #1s, 4 WTFs, 16 Masters, 82.46% win percentage
Djokovic - 15 Slams, 5 YE #1s, 4 WTFs, 29 Masters, 86.42% win percentage

Djokovic takes it.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Federer - 15 Slams, 4 YE #1s, 4 WTFs, 16 Masters, 82.46%
Djokovic - 15 Slams, 4 YE #1s, 4 WTFs, 29 Masters, 86.42%

Djokovic takes it.

Easily
Both had 5 year end number 1.

 

[NoleFam]

Easily
Both had 5 year end number 1.

Good catch and I corrected it.

 

[Neptune]

And how was 2015-2019 not a joke?

Federer played more matches but faced fewer top 5/top 10 opponents, indicating weaker competition. It's a straightforward concept.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Federer played more matches but faced fewer top 5/top 10 opponents, indicating weaker competition. It's a straightforward concept.

Very

 

[Jonas78]

Technically Federer since it took him only 7 years to win 15 slams while it took Djokovic 9.

Yeah i dont think its a totally fair comparison, Federer didnt really start winning before 2004, while Djokovic was peaking already in 2011.

 

[Hitman]

Federer - 15 Slams, 5 YE #1s, 4 WTFs, 16 Masters, 82.46% win percentage
Djokovic - 15 Slams, 5 YE #1s, 4 WTFs, 29 Masters, 86.42% win percentage

Djokovic takes it.

Yes, this is why I think Djokovic takes it over Federer for me. To me Djokovic is best player of a decade, Federer a solid second.

 

[Fabresque]

And how was 2015-2019 not a joke?

Big 3 + Murray + Wawrinka winning slams is somehow a joke?

 

[NoleFam]

Yes, this is why I think Djokovic takes it over Federer for me. To me Djokovic is best player of a decade, Federer a solid second.

Yea. Djokovic was close to doubling his total in Masters which is probably why there is such a big difference in top 5 and top 10 wins. 4% difference in win percentage as well.

 

[duaneeo]

Because he won half the schlems, 5 MS1000s, 10 total titles, and made 14 total finals lol.

Stan was absolutely Stanimal that year. He pushed peak/prime Joker to the limit in both HC GS. He actually got screwed out serving for the match in the AO vs Joker. He and Gasquet had the best match at RG that year. Murray won Wimby. Delpo came back strong. And gatekeepers Berdych and Ferrer put up good opposition. 2013 was a much better year than any of 2015-2019.

Nadal winning the summer HC Triple Crown shows how bad Djokovic, Murray, and Federer were on hard.
Stan pushed Nole at the slams; Stanimal beat Nole at the slams.
Ferrer making a slam final says it all.
Delpo came back but not all the way.
And I don't know why Berdych was even mentioned. But I do understand why no young gun was mentioned.

 

[Hitman]

Yea. Djokovic was close to doubling his total in Masters which is probably why there is such a big difference in top 5 and top 10 wins. 4% difference in win percentage as well.

Agree. Federer's issue in this discussion is that while his concentrated period of dominance from 2004-2007 is unmatched, the first three years of the decade he really didn't do anything, and that hurts him. Djokovic first year in wins five masters right off the bat, and maintained that consistency. Djokovic's 18 month run from Paris 2014 to RG 2016 is also unmatched, likely never to be seen again.

Federer has more three slam seasons - 3 to 2, but Djokovic has a NCYGS.

 

[NoleFam]

Agree. Federer's issue in this discussion is that while his concentrated period of dominance from 2004-2007 is unmatched, the first three years of the decade he really didn't do anything, and that hurts him. Djokovic first year in wins five masters right off the bat, and maintained that consistency. Djokovic's 18 month run from Paris 2014 to RG 2016 is also unmatched, likely never to be seen again.

Federer has more three slam seasons - 3 to 2, but Djokovic has a NCYGS.

Federer had 3 years where he basically did nothing while Djokovic only had a year and a half like that and mostly dominated the rest of the time, and even in years where he didn't dominate he was bagging plenty of Masters still. Federer was better in Slam final conversion rate but the overall win percentage tells the tale, and Federer is hurt there by being so poor in 2000-2002. Also, the NCYGS most definitely gives it to Djokovic even if they were closer in Masters or win percentage.

 

[messiahrobins]

Djokovic was not dominant in the 10s. Nadal had 13 slams from far fewer attempts than Djokovic getting is 15. The relevance there is because Federer achieved his 15 slams from far fewer attempts in a shorter period of time so clearly he was far more dominant as nobody was close to Federer.
The OP may have made a mistake in his premise though, as if we are factoring in M1000s then it gets more interesting. If just looking at slams its not even a discussion.

 

[Hitman]

Federer had 3 years where he basically did nothing while Djokovic only had a year and a half like that and mostly dominated the rest of the time, and even in years where he didn't dominate he was bagging plenty of Masters still. Federer was better in Slam final conversion rate but the overall win percentage tells the tale, and Federer is hurt there by being so poor in 2000-2002. Also, the NCYGS most definitely gives it to Djokovic even if they were closer in Masters or win percentage.

Yes. Federer didn't enter the slam winner's circle until 3 and a half years into the decade. That initial slow start is what hurts him, he was chasing Hewitt at the time. When he hit his stride, he really started to pick up the pace, hence his incredible concentrated period of dominance. But, as Djokovic was basically solid throughout the 10s, barring 2017, the consistency ultimately is Federer's undoing here.

 

[NoleFam]

Yes. Federer didn't enter the slam winner's circle until 3 and a half years into the decade. That initial slow start is what hurts him, he was chasing Hewitt at the time. When he hit his stride, he really started to pick up the pace, hence his incredible concentrated period of dominance. But, as Djokovic was basically solid throughout the 10s, barring 2017, the consistency ultimately is Federer's undoing here.

Yea he was a late bloomer which not only hurts him here but one of the reasons both Nadal and Djokovic ended up catching him in Slams.