Federer losses in slams at prime vs Djokovic losses in slams at prime - against non ATGs

[abmk]

Stich-Sampras was 5-4 and last match in '95.
Krajick-Sampras was 6-4 and Pete won the last match in 2000. Not exactly "ownage" bud.
Bastl beat Pete in the last year of his career on a vastly different Wimbledon surface than what Pete grew up on.

Fed's a GOAT candidate for sure, but he's been aided by near-homogenous conditions and getting to play pigeons. The ability to upset was also vastly diminished because all the surfaces were slow which helped him dominate and domesticate his pigeons.

Imagine how many slams Pete would have won, and how thoroughly he would have dominated if all the surface played like grass, or just a bit slower/less slick. He'd still have the occasional upset against great players like Kracijek and Stich, sure, but his stats would be virtually identical to Feddy's.

Krajicek Pete was 6-2 at one stage before Krajicek's injury issues got worse and Pete took the last 2 matches.
Federer made his gen players look worse than they were unlike Pete who kept losing once in a while - Korda, Rafter, Kucera etc. (not just Krajice, Stich etc)

Pete's era was worse competition wise. 98 was probably the worst.
Agassi AWOL for like half of Pete's prime.

Fed would've been more consistent than Pete even in the 90s - he's just the better player and of course would have won 2-3 RGs in his place, not just 1.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

Pete Krajicek was 6-2 at one stage before Krajicek's injury issues got worse and Pete took the last 2 matches.
Federer made his gen players look worse than they were unlike Pete who kept losing once in a while - Korda, Rafter, Kucera etc.

Pete's era was worse competition wise. 98 was probably the worst.
Agassi AWOL for like half of Pete's prime.

Fed would've been more consistent than Pete even in the 90s - he's just the better player.

Fed was 2-9 v. Hewitt until conditions slowed down. Ouch.
Fed's competition was definitely worse. 2004-07 was probably the worst. Not a single player with his head on straight able to challenge Fed off clay, with Nadal still learning how to play off it. Of course we know what he did to Fed once he did.
Nah, Fed would have been bounced like a drunk in the 90s. Not mentally strong enough to handle players and surfaces capable of producing upsets on the reg. Wouldn't be pretty. And as it is, he's gonna end up #3 in his own gen.

 

[RS]

2007-2009 vs 2011-2013 which was stronger ?

 

[abmk]

Fed was 2-9 v. Hewitt until conditions slowed down. Ouch.

you mean before Fed entered his prime? LULZ. what next? you gonna bring up Chang owning Pete before Pete entered his prime?
even on the faster surfaces (Wim, USO, YEC), fed beat hewitt from 2004 onwards, including in hewitt's prime in 04-05 (apart from 01-02). the turn in their matchup had almost nothing to do with the speed, LOL.

Fed's competition was definitely worse. 2004-07 was probably the worst. Not a single player with his head on straight able to challenge Fed off clay, with Nadal still learning how to play off it. Of course we know what he did to Fed once he did.

yeah, Nadal trails the h2h outside of clay 10-14. you were saying?
2004-05,07 were pretty good years. only 06 was relatively weaker.
08 and 09 were also pretty good years.
04-09 definitely stronger than 93-98.

Nah, Fed would have been rode like Seabiscuit in the 90s. Not mentally strong enough to handle players and surfaces capable of producing upsets on the reg. Wouldn't be pretty. And as it is, he's gonna end up #3 in his own gen.

he's easily the best of his gen. Nadal is only better off clay and Nole only better on slow HC.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

game-wise yes. Mentally? Worse.

Based on one Roddick final eh. Some overrating going on I see. 1995 Ivanisevic > 2004 Roddick at Wimbledon, the level he put up in sets 2&4 was nasty, two service points lost lol. Mugged up an early service break in the fifth and that's bad but better than choking break chances in the fourth and never getting there. 1998 Ivanisevic ~ 2009 Roddick throughout the first four sets, rather similar stories in fact: Sampras/Federer down from their best in previous years and a bit unclutch initially, Ivanisevic/Roddick choke the second set TB but keep believing and end up taking the fourth set by one good quality break. The major difference is of course the fifth set because Ivanisevic had an unnecessary long semi with Krajicek and ran out of gas at this point, whereas Roddick still had plenty fitness in store. A significant difference but ot really mental unless you put most of the blame for the long semi on Goran's choking but who knows how Roddick would handle Krajicek, who was scarier than Murray. In the end, I think the idea that there was a significant mental difference between Ivanisevic and Roddick, such that would clearly offset Ivanisevic's game/talent superiority in given conditions such as grass and indoors, in late stages of big tournaments is faulty; Roddick was more consistent of course.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

you mean before Fed entered his prime? LULZ. what next? you gonna bring up Chang owning Pete before Pete entered his prime?
even on the fastest surfaces, fed beat hewitt from 2004 onwards, including in hewitt's prime in 04-05 (apart from 01-02). had literally nothing to do with the speed, LOL.



yeah, Nadal trails the h2h outside of clay 10-14. you were saying?
2004-05,07 were pretty good years. only 06 was relatively weaker.
08 and 09 were also pretty good years.
04-09 definitely stronger than 93-98.



he's easily the best of his gen. Nadal is only better off clay and Nole only better on slow HC.

Pete was King of the Jungle, Fed was Papa Smurf.

No need to get upset, Fed's time was great and you'll always have the highlights of his great passes against Roddick coming to net.

 

[abmk]

Pete was King of the Jungle, Fed was Papa Smurf.

No need to get upset, Fed's time was great and you'll always have the highlights of his great passes against Roddick coming to net.

LOLZ, pete was surpassed by fed level wise and achievements long time ago. Deal with it. No need to get upset,
youll always have the highlights of pete being helped by goran choking away vs him or getting bagelled by playing cr*p or agassi being AWOL for like half of his prime.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Murray or Roddick or Hewitt and in what order for peak on grass?

Roddick in a single match because of serve+FH, but he has to time his peak for the final. Murray and Hewitt for the whole tournament, more likely to beat Roddick than not unless he produces his peak against them. Murray a bit higher than Hewitt for better craft.

 

[RS]

Roddick in a single match because of serve+FH, but he has to time his peak for the final. Murray and Hewitt for the whole tournament, more likely to beat Roddick than not unless he produces his peak against them. Murray a bit higher than Hewitt for better craft.

Murray hit 76 winners in the Wim 09 SF to like 20 errors and he got edged out with those numbers

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Murray hit 76 winners in the Wim 09 SF to like 20 errors and he got edged out with those numbers

I came to recognise W-UE numbers on their own are overrated because they are heavily dependent on nuances in conditions, playing styles, matchups...

 

[RS]

I came to recognise W-UE numbers on their own are overrated because they are heavily dependent on nuances in conditions, playing styles, matchups...

Still the considered defensive pusher hit winners at a even bigger rate than Federer did in the finals vs Roddick on grass twice

 

[Deleted member 775898]

2007-2009 vs 2011-2013 which was stronger ?

Both were significantly weaker than the Berrettini era.

 

[abmk]

Based on one Roddick final eh. Some overrating going on I see. 1995 Ivanisevic > 2004 Roddick at Wimbledon, the level he put up in sets 2&4 was nasty, two service points lost lol. Mugged up an early service break in the fifth and that's bad but better than choking break chances in the fourth and never getting there. 1998 Ivanisevic ~ 2009 Roddick throughout the first four sets, rather similar stories in fact: Sampras/Federer down from their best in previous years and a bit unclutch initially, Ivanisevic/Roddick choke the second set TB but keep believing and end up taking the fourth set by one good quality break. The major difference is of course the fifth set because Ivanisevic had an unnecessary long semi with Krajicek and ran out of gas at this point, whereas Roddick still had plenty fitness in store. A significant difference but ot really mental unless you put most of the blame for the long semi on Goran's choking but who knows how Roddick would handle Krajicek, who was scarier than Murray. In the end, I think the idea that there was a significant mental difference between Ivanisevic and Roddick, such that would clearly offset Ivanisevic's game/talent superiority in given conditions such as grass and indoors, in late stages of big tournaments is faulty; Roddick was more consistent of course.

I wouldn't strongly persist on my stand wrt to Wim 95 semi vs 04 Roddick final right now since its been quite some time since I watched both those Sampras-Ivanisevic matches, but I recall atleast some choking in both those Sampras-Ivanisevic matches.
You had the 92 final choke and the meltdown in the 3rd set of 94 final as well.

Re: 98 Wimbledon.
Goran Krajicek was 3 hr 22 mins
Roddick Murray was 3 hr 7 mins
Hardly much of a difference time wise

mentally bigger strain on Goran of course just considering those 2 matches. But keep in mind, Roddick had a 5-setter vs Hewitt in the QF in contrast to Goran having 3 TBs vs Siemrink in the QF.

Keep in mind Sampras-Goran 98 final was 2h 52 min total, Fed-Roddick 09 final was 4hr 16 min total.

Re: your last point, its not like there's that big a difference physically b/w Goran&Roddick physically on grass either.

I wouldn't bring in indoors here.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Still the considered defensive pusher hit winners at a even bigger rate than Federer did in the finals vs Roddick on grass twice

Grassray had a strong potential that he nominally fulfilled with two bulldones but those were the weakest draws he faced whereas he routinely underperformed against stronger opponents and I do believe it was largely mental. Not only couldn't hit enough 1st serves under pressure but hit more nervously/softly / made worse shotmaking decisions on bigger points, although he didn't normally implode the way he would against Djokovic at AO, with the big exception of 2011 SF ewrgh. I imagine Murray with Hewitt's arrogance/self-belief would do a lot better / more competitive at least if not an extra final/title.

 

[RS]

Grassray had a strong potential that he nominally fulfilled with two bulldones but those were the weakest draws he faced whereas he routinely underperformed against stronger opponents and I do believe it was largely mental. Not only couldn't hit enough 1st serves under pressure but hit more nervously/softly / made worse shotmaking decisions on bigger points, although he didn't normally implode the way he would against Djokovic at AO, with the big exception of 2011 SF ewrgh. I imagine Murray with Hewitt's arrogance/self-belief would do a lot better / more competitive at least if not an extra final/title.

You meant the 12 SF vs Djokovic in AO .

Think mental came into it but is a bit overstated but fair enough generally.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I wouldn't strongly persist on my stand wrt to Wim 95 semi vs 04 Roddick final right now since its been quite some time since I watched both those Sampras-Ivanisevic matches, but I recall atleast some choking in both those Sampras-Ivanisevic matches.
You had the 92 final choke and the meltdown in the 3rd set of 94 final as well.

1992 final was too shaky sure, best chance to win (who could've predicted the 2001 run o^O) with Baselineassi across the net eh. Ivanisevic performed well against Sampras though outside of fifth sets ha. The '94 bagel is rather irrelevant, no chance to win from two sets down to Grasspras so why bother (ho), would've been more decent not to be so blatant though.

Re: 98 Wimbledon.
Goran Krajicek was 3 hr 22 mins
Roddick Murray was 3 hr 7 mins
Hardly much of a difference time wise

Lots more points in the former though which means a lot more serving.

Keep in mind Sampras-Goran 98 final was 2h 52 min total, Fed-Roddick 09 final was 4hr 16 min total.

Must be entirely due to the fifth set, 22 more games means over an hour extra.

Re: your last point, its not like there's that big a difference physically b/w Goran&Roddick physically on grass either.

Not that big but sufficient to separate them I say. Ivanisevic was an even bigger server and a bit more capable of getting hot on the return in peak/prime (return stroke, comparing return games directly is obscrubed by them playing different tennis re grass speed).

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

You meant the 12 SF vs Djokovic in AO .

Think mental came into it but is a bit overstated but fair enough generally.

I was referring to Murray at least not outright imploding at WB except 2011 SF like he did vs Djokovic in most of their AO matches.

 

[RS]

I was referring to Murray at least not outright imploding at WB except 2011 SF like he did vs Djokovic in most of their AO matches.

Was just making a point generally about his mental yeah. He did put up a good fight in 09-10 losses at Wim and in 12 as well.

 

[metsman]

Roddick in a single match because of serve+FH, but he has to time his peak for the final. Murray and Hewitt for the whole tournament, more likely to beat Roddick than not unless he produces his peak against them. Murray a bit higher than Hewitt for better craft.

03-04 Grassdick is cleaner and more consistent than anything either of them produced FWIW. Also had very impressive runs at Queens in those years, beat more good players in a week than Murray has in his whole career (Tsonga alone who is good but we know can't bring a focused level for more than 2 sets 99% of the time has been like 75% of Murray's good grass wins, 12 OG SF Djokovic is the other one).

Can't really say "Murray for the tournament" when he's been brink of defeat against Verdasco, struggled vs Jerzy and way past expiration date Stronga in his title wins. Oh and then in his other good run he struggles with Karlovic, Baghdatis, and Ferrer ROFLMAO. Yeah he takes advantage of a terrible set from Fed in the final (worst set Federer played in a Wimby final to that point), or else would have been a routine straight setter with 1 close like 03 Wimby SF except a much worse Federer.

04/12 SFs cancel, good performances against fairly good opponents. Roddick's only other blemish in those years was a throwaway set to Scricaphan in a match that was overall routine unlike the matches I mentioned. Anyways, 5 vs 1.

I know it's a natural stereotype to say "Mury more consistent" but I don't see a shred of evidence to support it on grass. Murray has better longevity, but that doesn't mean he was more consistent at his best. Yeah 09 Roddick had some throwaway sets, but he beat a really good version of Murray (better than any opponent Murray has ever beaten on grass) and gave Federer the fight of his life so it's still a clearly better run than anything Murray did on grass, considering Murray never had a clean run to the title anyways despite his weaker opposition.

 

[metsman]

Grassray had a strong potential that he nominally fulfilled with two bulldones but those were the weakest draws he faced whereas he routinely underperformed against stronger opponents and I do believe it was largely mental. Not only couldn't hit enough 1st serves under pressure but hit more nervously/softly / made worse shotmaking decisions on bigger points, although he didn't normally implode the way he would against Djokovic at AO, with the big exception of 2011 SF ewrgh. I imagine Murray with Hewitt's arrogance/self-belief would do a lot better / more competitive at least if not an extra final/title.

It's not mental. Murray has a severely lacking game to battle the big boys. Drunkovic playing down to his intensity level is the only way to compete. It's clear Murray does not the footwork and ballstriking to compete. And I know this because people like Tsonga, Berdych, Delpo (and obviously Djok) were totally exposing Federer's drop in movement and making look slow from the baseline yet Murray got masterclassed and let Federer run all over him from the baseline in their biggest matches in the same period. Not only could he not hang with old man in a ballstriking contest, his supposed strengths (defense and return) weren't nearly enough to make up the gap either. Yeah yeah B03 wins, get in line with Simon there.

Hewitt's footwork and Roddick's FH/Serve is more dangerous to great players than anything Murray can do. Yeah someone will throw the book at me regarding Murray's GOATest of all time return and how he wins 48% of return games against so and so, etc. Yes Murray is great at getting balls back on serve near the middle of the court, not gonna work against Fedal. May work against Isner, Karlovic, even Berdych/Stan, sure. Compare the fear old man had against peakovic on return, knowing that there was pressure and that he wouldn't have the athleticism to adapt. Never ever once felt that vs Murray, don't care what the stats say. Aggregate stats don't capture the effects I mention, and all effects are present only in a small sample size of matches.

 

[RS]

It's not mental. Murray has a severely lacking game to battle the big boys. Drunkovic playing down to his intensity level is the only way to compete. It's clear Murray does not the footwork and ballstriking to compete. And I know this because people like Tsonga, Berdych, Delpo (and obviously Djok) were totally exposing Federer's drop in movement and making look slow from the baseline yet Murray got masterclassed and let Federer run all over him from the baseline in their biggest matches in the same period. Not only could he not hang with old man in a ballstriking contest, his supposed strengths (defense and return) weren't nearly enough to make up the gap either. Yeah yeah B03 wins, get in line with Simon there.

Hewitt's footwork and Roddick's FH/Serve is more dangerous to great players than anything Murray can do. Yeah someone will throw the book at me regarding Murray's GOATest of all time return and how he wins 48% of return games against so and so, etc. Yes Murray is great at getting balls back on serve near the middle of the court, not gonna work against Fedal. May work against Isner, Karlovic, even Berdych/Stan, sure. Compare the fear old man had against peakovic on return, knowing that there was pressure and that he wouldn't have the athleticism to adapt. Never ever once felt that vs Murray, don't care what the stats say. Aggregate stats don't capture the effects I mention.

Comparing Federer of the Wim 12 that Murray faced who was in great (and in 3 rounds general) to the versions that Berdych and Del Potro and Tsonga faced in that 2010-2013 period in slams in average or poor form for his is a bit strange considering the huge difference in form.........

Not really gonna comment on the rest lol since you comment is to Octorok but still.

 

[metsman]

Comparing Federer of the Wim 12 that Murray faced who was in great (and in 3 rounds general) to the versions that Berdych and Del Potro and Tsonga faced in that 2010-2013 period in slams in average or poor form for his is a bit strange considering the huge difference in form.........

Not really gonna comment on the rest lol since you comment is to Octorok but still.

it's not about the results, it's about the matchup dynamics. Federer was masterclassing Delpo in 09 but Delpo managed to still turn it around and totally unsettle Federer. Tsonga did the same. Could Murray have done that? never seen it.

 

[abmk]

1992 final was too shaky sure, best chance to win (who could've predicted the 2001 run o^O) with Baselineassi across the net eh. Ivanisevic performed well against Sampras though outside of fifth sets ha. The '94 bagel is rather irrelevant, no chance to win from two sets down to Grasspras so why bother (ho), would've been more decent not to be so blatant though.

considering it was bagel, I wouldn't call it irrelevant.

Lots more points in the former though which means a lot more serving.

Must be entirely due to the fifth set, 22 more games means over an hour extra.

not sure how more points serving makes a difference physically as compared to other shots when difference in match length is 15 mins.

mentally bigger strain on Goran of course just considering those 2 matches (98 semi and 09 semi). But keep in mind, Roddick had a 5-setter vs Hewitt in the QF in contrast to Goran having 3 TBs vs Siemrink in the QF. So I don't think Goran should get a pass on this.

Not that big but sufficient to separate them I say. Ivanisevic was an even bigger server and a bit more capable of getting hot on the return in peak/prime (return stroke, comparing return games directly is obscrubed by them playing different tennis re grass speed).

Goran was a more deceptive server for sure.
The return thing is a bit more complex. Its one thing to get hot on the return vs SnVers. not the same vs someone staying more on the baseline though?

 

[RS]

it's not about the results, it's about the matchup dynamics. Federer was masterclassing Delpo in 09 but Delpo managed to still turn it around and totally unsettle Federer. Tsonga did the same. Could Murray have done that? never seen it.

You make a good point about Del Potro when he peaked but Fed seemed to be toying a little bit in USO 09 which helped that a good amount.

Murray would likely be a clear underdog vs a peak Fed but not sold on the idea of those players doing way better exactly.

 

[abmk]

It's not mental. Murray has a severely lacking game to battle the big boys. Drunkovic playing down to his intensity level is the only way to compete. It's clear Murray does not the footwork and ballstriking to compete. And I know this because people like Tsonga, Berdych, Delpo (and obviously Djok) were totally exposing Federer's drop in movement and making look slow from the baseline yet Murray got masterclassed and let Federer run all over him from the baseline in their biggest matches in the same period. Not only could he not hang with old man in a ballstriking contest, his supposed strengths (defense and return) weren't nearly enough to make up the gap either. Yeah yeah B03 wins, get in line with Simon there.

Hewitt's footwork and Roddick's FH/Serve is more dangerous to great players than anything Murray can do. Yeah someone will throw the book at me regarding Murray's GOATest of all time return and how he wins 48% of return games against so and so, etc. Yes Murray is great at getting balls back on serve near the middle of the court, not gonna work against Fedal. May work against Isner, Karlovic, even Berdych/Stan, sure. Compare the fear old man had against peakovic on return, knowing that there was pressure and that he wouldn't have the athleticism to adapt. Never ever once felt that vs Murray, don't care what the stats say. Aggregate stats don't capture the effects I mention, and all effects are present only in a small sample size of matches.

federer did get a MUCH higher% of unret. serves vs Murray than vs Djokovic in Wim 12 -- granted he served clearly better in the Wim 12 semi.
14/15 Djokovic went up a notch on grass, so its a different story.

 

[metsman]

federer did get a MUCH higher% of unret. serves vs Murray than vs Djokovic in Wim 12 -- granted he served clearly better in the Wim 12 semi.
14/15 Djokovic went up a notch on grass, so its a different story.

Yeah and 15 was massively the opposite, kind of my point about all these effects only being visible in a small sample so it's something you have to really see and feel than look at the stats. And I just don't ever think Murray's return was as scary as Djokovic's (or Agassi's, or Nalbandian's, or Safin's) against Fedal. There's just no fear factor, most of the time he'll give you a first ball you can attack.

 

[metsman]

You make a good point about Del Potro when he peaked but Fed seemed to be toying a little bit in USO 09 which helped that a good amount.

Murray would likely be a clear underdog vs a peak Fed but not sold on the idea of those players doing way better exactly.

They wouldn't do much better if at all against peak Fed but Fed would probably be more scared of their games if it clicked. With Murray if you are Fedal, you always know the chances will be there and you can generate them pretty much whenever, and you can always play your natural game, you just have to take them.

Delpo with his massive hitting off both wings and Tsonga with his massive serve/FH disrupted two pretty decent versions of Federer (10 Wimbledon we can easily ignore, that was total trash). If Delpo hadn't nailed line after line in the 2nd set of 09 USO we'd be talking about that major in very high terms for Federer. Let's not forget 09 RG either. 11 Wimby may not have been super inspiring by Fed (didn't think he was getting through the court with his FH), but he certainly was cruising and in decent enough form to have challenged for the title. 12 USO wasn't a disastrous job by Federer either (worse than 12 Wimbledon late rounds, but I'd say definitely better than 13 AO), but clearly he was a step slow on Berdych's serve and hitting.

 

[abmk]

They wouldn't do much better if at all against peak Fed but Fed would probably be more scared of their games if it clicked. With Murray if you are Fedal, you always know the chances will be there and you can generate them pretty much whenever, and you can always play your natural game, you just have to take them.

Delpo with his massive hitting off both wings and Tsonga with his massive serve/FH disrupted two pretty decent versions of Federer (10 Wimbledon we can easily ignore, that was total trash). If Delpo hadn't nailed line after line in the 2nd set of 09 USO we'd be talking about that major in very high terms for Federer. Let's not forget 09 RG either. 11 Wimby may not have been super inspiring by Fed (didn't think he was getting through the court with his FH), but he certainly was cruising and in decent enough form to have challenged for the title. 12 USO wasn't a disastrous job by Federer either (worse than 12 Wimbledon late rounds, but I'd say definitely better than 13 AO), but clearly he was a step slow on Berdych's serve and hitting.

fed in AO 13 QF vs tsonga > fed in USO 12 QF vs berdych
He was spent to an extent after that QF vs tsonga in the semi vs Murray of course.

 

[RS]

They wouldn't do much better if at all against peak Fed but Fed would probably be more scared of their games if it clicked. With Murray if you are Fedal, you always know the chances will be there and you can generate them pretty much whenever, and you can always play your natural game, you just have to take them.

Delpo with his massive hitting off both wings and Tsonga with his massive serve/FH disrupted two pretty decent versions of Federer (10 Wimbledon we can easily ignore, that was total trash). If Delpo hadn't nailed line after line in the 2nd set of 09 USO we'd be talking about that major in very high terms for Federer. Let's not forget 09 RG either. 11 Wimby may not have been super inspiring by Fed (didn't think he was getting through the court with his FH), but he certainly was cruising and in decent enough form to have challenged for the title. 12 USO wasn't a disastrous job by Federer either (worse than 12 Wimbledon late rounds, but I'd say definitely better than 13 AO), but clearly he was a step slow on Berdych's serve and hitting.

In one off streaky matches yes they could but on a general basis i think no but you seem to agree and good point about Del Potro in RG 09 though.

We never did see much of a peak Nadal vs a peak Murray even though Nadal is the favourite it would be competitive at AO and Wimby (Even in the USO if Murray brang his 08 SF form).

 

[abmk]

Yeah and 15 was massively the opposite, kind of my point about all these effects only being visible in a small sample so it's something you have to really see and feel than look at the stats. And I just don't ever think Murray's return was as scary as Djokovic's (or Agassi's, or Nalbandian's, or Safin's) against Fedal. There's just no fear factor, most of the time he'll give you a first ball you can attack.

didn't feel that way on grass specifically in 12. felt as a standalone shot on grass, Murray's was better at that time.
Different story on HC/clay at that time and on grass since 14 onwards.

 

[Tony48]

Stop looking at names and look at level of play read post 31.

Does OP get the same lecture?

 

[RS]

Does OP get the same lecture?

He looks at level and not names check his ratings.

 

[Tony48]

He looks at level and not names check his ratings.

The OP is literally nothing but a list of names with absolutely no regard for level of play.

EDIT: I didn’t see that OP rated those players. I’ll further comment after I look at that.

EDIT 2: Firstly, who assigned these ratings? If it's the OP, then surely there's no partiality to them. We already have a universally-accepted player rating: ELO

Secondly, according to whatever rating OP used for the players, Djokovic lost someone playing at a higher level than del Potro twice (Wawarinka AO14 and RG15). In fact, according to these ratings, Wawrinka played better than most of the people Federer played against (ATG or not), which undermines the entire premise of this thread.

 

[RS]

The OP is literally nothing but a list of names with absolutely no regard for level of play.

EDIT: I didn’t see that OP rated those players. I’ll further comment after I look at that.

EDIT 2: Firstly, who assigned these ratings? If it's the OP, then surely there's no partiality to them. We already have a universally-accepted player rating: ELO

Secondly, according to whatever rating OP used for the players, Djokovic lost someone playing at a higher level than del Potro twice (Wawarinka AO14 and RG15). In fact, according to these ratings, Wawrinka played better than most of the people Federer played against (ATG or not), which undermines the entire premise of this thread.

Never saw that.

Do you like the ELO?

 

[mike danny]

Roddick in a single match because of serve+FH, but he has to time his peak for the final. Murray and Hewitt for the whole tournament, more likely to beat Roddick than not unless he produces his peak against them. Murray a bit higher than Hewitt for better craft.

2004/2009 Roddick better than any Murray at Wimb, IMO. Murray just more consistent.

 

[mike danny]

03-04 Grassdick is cleaner and more consistent than anything either of them produced FWIW. Also had very impressive runs at Queens in those years, beat more good players in a week than Murray has in his whole career (Tsonga alone who is good but we know can't bring a focused level for more than 2 sets 99% of the time has been like 75% of Murray's good grass wins, 12 OG SF Djokovic is the other one).

Can't really say "Murray for the tournament" when he's been brink of defeat against Verdasco, struggled vs Jerzy and way past expiration date Stronga in his title wins. Oh and then in his other good run he struggles with Karlovic, Baghdatis, and Ferrer ROFLMAO. Yeah he takes advantage of a terrible set from Fed in the final (worst set Federer played in a Wimby final to that point), or else would have been a routine straight setter with 1 close like 03 Wimby SF except a much worse Federer.

04/12 SFs cancel, good performances against fairly good opponents. Roddick's only other blemish in those years was a throwaway set to Scricaphan in a match that was overall routine unlike the matches I mentioned. Anyways, 5 vs 1.

I know it's a natural stereotype to say "Mury more consistent" but I don't see a shred of evidence to support it on grass. Murray has better longevity, but that doesn't mean he was more consistent at his best. Yeah 09 Roddick had some throwaway sets, but he beat a really good version of Murray (better than any opponent Murray has ever beaten on grass) and gave Federer the fight of his life so it's still a clearly better run than anything Murray did on grass, considering Murray never had a clean run to the title anyways despite his weaker opposition.

Fed has had worse sets in a Wimb final than the first one in 2012. The second set vs Nadal in 2008 just off the top of my head.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

2004/2009 Roddick better than any Murray at Wimb, IMO. Murray just more consistent.

0 time Wimbledon winner better than 2 time winner who actually defeated Federer in a slam, and BO5 on grass

 

[metsman]

Fed has had worse sets in a Wimb final than the first one in 2012. The second set vs Nadal in 2008 just off the top of my head.

nah not even close. Both featured two breaks, but Fed was up against a much tougher (for him and in general) opponent in 2008 and had a higher base level. Same for 2nd set of 04. 4th set of 07 you can say ok, but 2012 first set may have easily lost by two breaks against a fearless Nadal.

 

[Deleted member 779124]

nah not even close. Both featured two breaks, but Fed was up against a much tougher (for him and in general) opponent in 2008 and had a higher base level. Same for 2nd set of 04. 4th set of 07 you can say ok, but 2012 first set may have easily lost by two breaks against a fearless Nadal.

Don’t know. I think the 2012 Federer in the late rounds is comparable to 2008 Federer. I know it is Nadal but Federer looked really shaky in return in parts.

 

[Sunny014]

Except Murray is an ATG and Kuerten is not.

Kuerten's dominance on Clay is what makes a defeat to him excusable for Federer while Murray is not all that great, so if Novak got pwned by him in 2013 and an year before to Federer raises questions on his game during his peak.

 

[Sunny014]

Murray faced peak Federer too and beat him on his 2nd try. Most of Murray's wins came when when Federer was 24-27 but nice try there.

Nobody gives a **** to Murray's worthless BO3 wins over Federer.

Talk of BO5, has Murray ever beaten Federer except that 1 instance in Federer's horrible year 2013 (and that too in 5 sets..lol) ?
otherwise the next has been beating Djokovic in BO3 but never could come close to him in BO5 even now....

So lets talk of BO5 only, wins there means the level is high!

 

[Sunny014]

Imagine a Safin that you have to face twice a year instead of once in an even ok state and you get Wawrinka. Imagine Roddick and Hewitt but better and you get Murray. Nishikori loss is unforgivable and something that would've never happened to Fed no doubt. Other two is elbowovic so not worth talking about. Healthy 18W-20 Novak has only one loss to non ATGs as well btw unless we want to count the default.

Djokovic is 0-2 vs Safin and Fedeer is a freakin 17-0 Wawrinka on Hard Courts.

Chances of Stan troubling Federer if they were of the same age would be worse than now .. haha.... but chances of Safin troubling Djokovic would be as much as Stan troubling Novak or maybe even more, Safin would be a nightmare, he has a backhand as good nd powerful as wawrinka, is taller, has a stronger forehand ....very bad matchup for novak

 

[NoleFam]

Nobody gives a **** to Murray's worthless BO3 wins over Federer.

Talk of BO5, has Murray ever beaten Federer except that 1 instance in Federer's horrible year 2013 (and that too in 5 sets..lol) ?
otherwise the next has been beating Djokovic in BO3 but never could come close to him in BO5 even now....

So lets talk of BO5 only, wins there means the level is high!

All matches count my friend. You can't say only BO5 matters. Slams may matter more but they all matter to an extent and Murray beat Federer twice in a BO5 match.

 

[Sunny014]

I would be interested to know how you think 2007-2013 Nadal best slam opp stacked up with those 2.

Nadal is a guy who feasted on the transition period of 1 champ's peak ending to beginning of another champ's peak.

Nadal picked 3 HC slams in 2 years (2009-2010) and 2 in his remaining 14 years of slam level years (05-08 & 11-2021)

So the competition appears tough for Nadal because he isn't that good outside clay.

 

[Sunny014]

All matches count my friend. You can't say only BO5 matters. Slams may matter more but they all matter to an extent and Murray beat Federer twice in a BO5 match.

Not really. ..... Murray despite his BO3 heroics could not transition to BO5 victories over an ageing Federer while Nadal and Novak successfully did.

Why?

Because they are ATGs and Sir Andy isn't.

 

[NoleFam]

Not really. ..... Murray despite his BO3 heroics could not transition to BO5 victories over an ageing Federer while Nadal and Novak successfully did.

Why?

Because they are ATGs and Sir Andy isn't.

Well if Federer wasn't interested in winning those matches in BO3, I don't think he would have taken the court. Fact is Murray went 6-2 against him early on.

 

[Deleted member 779124]

For Federer :

2004-2009:

AO 2004 : Nalby: 8/10 (Edit: Hewitt 7.25/10)
RG 2004 : Kuerten 8.75/10
Wim 2004 : Roddick 9.25/10, Hewitt 7.5/10
USO 04 : Agassi 8.75/10

AO 2005 : Safin 10/10
RG 2005 : Nadal 9.5/10
Wim 05 : Hewitt 7.5/10
USO 05 : Hewitt 8/10, Agassi 8/10

AO 06 : Davydenko 7.25/10, Haas 7/10
RG 2006: Nadal 9.25/10
Wim 06: Ancic 7.5/10, Nadal 7.25/10 (debatable I know, Nadal had the higher peak in set3, but set1 was him nervous and his set 4 was worse than any of Ancic's sets)
USO 06: Blake 7.25/10, Roddick 7/10

AO 07: Gonzo 7.5/10
RG 2007: Davy 7/10, Nadal 10/10
Wim 2007: Nadal 9.5/10
USO 07: Lopez 7.5/10, Roddick 9/10, Davy 7/10, Djokovic 7.25/10

AO 08: Tipsy 7.25/10, Djokovic 9.5/10
RG 08: Nadal 10/10
Wim 08: Nadal 9.5/10
USO 08: Andreev: 7.75/10, Djokovic 7.75/10

AO 09: Berdych 7/10, Nadal 9.25/10
RG 09: Delpo 9.25/10
Wim 09: Roddick 9.25/10
USO 09: Soderling 7.25/10, Djokovic 7.5/10, Delpo 8.25/10

Very tennis smart as always my friend.

 

[Sunny014]

Well if Federer wasn't interested in winning those matches in BO3, I don't think he would have taken the court. Fact is Murray went 6-2 against him early on.

Everyone has to lose something or the other, nobody can win all the time.
It isn't magic you know.

In BO3 people lose even at their peak, no big deal.

 

[Lew II]

10 years after AO 2011 Djokovic is still awesome

While Fed fans have to neglect everything Fed did after 2007

 

[Sunny014]

10 years after AO 2011 Djokovic is still awesome

While Fed fans have to neglect everything Fed did after 2007

Easy to be awesome when Feddy was 30+ for most of the decade, Nadal is a clay courter with bad knees, immediate generation below you are jokers like Thiem, Dimitrov, and even fellows like Danni/TsiTsi are not yet of the mental level to even compete properly in the finals.

Djokovic's mindgames work in such a scenario..