Federer vs Davydenko Roland Garros 2007

Firstservingman said:
Underrated on clay.

Both of them.
Click to expand...

Fed's overrated on clay. He beat a MUG field and always lost to his daddy Rafa, except for one year he lucked out when the Swede did the dirty work for him.

JK, Fed would easily have won 3-4 RG's in another era, I put him below Borg and Nadal, but perhaps at the level of Guga?

The controversial part is I think Novak is roughly equal to Fed on clay and if he does win RG, would slightly surpass him.
 
125downthemiddle said:
Fed's overrated on clay. He beat a MUG field and always lost to his daddy Rafa, except for one year he lucked out when the Swede did the dirty work for him.

JK, Fed would easily have won 3-4 RG's in another era, I put him below Borg and Nadal, but perhaps at the level of Guga?

The controversial part is I think Novak is roughly equal to Fed on clay and if he does win RG, would slightly surpass him.
Click to expand...
Agree with all of that, including the last part.
 
125downthemiddle said:
Fed's overrated on clay. He beat a MUG field and always lost to his daddy Rafa, except for one year he lucked out when the Swede did the dirty work for him.

JK, Fed would easily have won 3-4 RG's in another era, I put him below Borg and Nadal, but perhaps at the level of Guga?

The controversial part is I think Novak is roughly equal to Fed on clay and if he does win RG, would slightly surpass him.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's controversial at all. I don't see why there should be any issue with Djokovic being viewed as the slightly better clay court player. RG or no RG.
 
Russeljones said:
I don't think it's controversial at all. I don't see why there should be any issue with Djokovic being viewed as the slightly better clay court player. RG or no RG.
Click to expand...

Thanks I think it's clear Federer is better on faster surfaces and ND on slower.
 
Tennisanity said:
Not really. 2007 Fed >> 2011 Fed, yes even despite Fed's 'inspired' performance at FO2011. Ergo, Fed2007 destroys any version of Djoko on clay.
Click to expand...

That's the universal opinion. But we really can't tell. I like Roger's chances really. I mean, huge chance that he'll beat Novak, but it's not an assurance. The only thing that we can hold true for Roger back then, is that he never lost to mugs or outside the top 10 at his peak (maybe top 5, I forgot), regardless of the surface, and racked up 23 straight semis, which isn't the case for Novak.
 
Strange that so many of Davydenko's titles came on clay (10/23) but he never made the final of Roland Garros or even any of the 3 clay Masters!
 
Last edited:
I am the Greatest! said:
That's the universal opinion. But we really can't tell. I like Roger's chances really. I mean, huge chance that he'll beat Novak, but it's not an assurance. The only thing that we can hold true for Roger back then, is that he never lost to mugs or outside the top 10 at his peak (maybe top 5, I forgot), regardless of the surface, and racked up 23 straight semis, which isn't the case for Novak.
Click to expand...

Well come on, does anyone speak with absolute assurance here? When someone says X will beat Y does it guarantee a victory? Of course not. One needs to temper what one reads into of online postings.
 
Davy had a good chance in 2005. Lost in the SF to drug cheat Puerta. Given his dominance over Nadal, he would have had a decent shot at winning the final.
 
Mainad said:
Strange that so many of Davydenko's titles came on clay (10/23) but he never made the final of Roland Garros or even any of the 3 clay Masters!
Click to expand...

It's hard to reach finals of big tournaments on clay when you're in the prime at the same time as prime Federer and prime Nadal.
 
I am the Greatest! said:
I think it's pretty much clear that Roger is the better player regardless of the surface.
Click to expand...

What a joke you are and what a joke this supposedly objective ABMK who gives me long lectures on anything I say to agree with you against my very fair statement, and not even explain. Wow, you guys really won't accept anything other than Fed is the best in every category, huh? Glad I know what I'm dealing with.
 
125downthemiddle said:
What a joke you are and what a joke this supposedly objective ABMK who gives me long lectures on anything I say to agree with you against my very fair statement, and not even explain. Wow, you guys really won't accept anything other than Fed is the best in every category, huh? Glad I know what I'm dealing with.
Click to expand...

djokovic is only better on slow HC ...not on any other surface ..
reverse for nadal ..nadal is only better on clay..not on slow HC

The generalization that they are better than federer on slower surfaces is a fallacy ...

that statement from 'I am the Greatest' was only in response to that fallacy of yours.
 
tennis_pro said:
It's hard to reach finals of big tournaments on clay when you're in the prime at the same time as prime Federer and prime Nadal.
Click to expand...

If Verdasco and pre-prime Stan could do it, I think Davydenko could have done it as well. At that time, I think he was as good on clay as they were.
 
125downthemiddle said:
I put him below Borg and Nadal, but perhaps at the level of Guga?
Click to expand...
Guga was a clay specialist though. I read that he credited his success at RG to his Luxilon strings (think they were still new to the tour when he was using them). I haven't seen enough of his game to really judge, but it seems like the quality of Fed's game is way beyond someone like that. Fed was foiled again and again at RG by a single shot to the backhand. Fed might have pulled off four or five titles there. I wonder how prime Fed might have fared against Borg at RG?
 
125downthemiddle said:
What a joke you are and what a joke this supposedly objective ABMK who gives me long lectures on anything I say to agree with you against my very fair statement, and not even explain. Wow, you guys really won't accept anything other than Fed is the best in every category, huh? Glad I know what I'm dealing with.
Click to expand...

Yeah what a joke. Lol
 
Krish872007 said:
Well, it is obvious who is the better player overall at the moment - but he's splitting it into slower vs faster hard courts and is therefore correct in his assertion.
Click to expand...

IMO, he isn't correct in his assertion that djokovic is better on clay ...
 
malbaker86 said:
That's ridiculous. Novak was pushing Rafa on clay back then so there's no reason to suggest he couldn't take a set or two or even defeat 2007 clay Fed.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, Federer is a worse match-up for Djokovic than Nadal. Both h2h's against Djokovic are roughly the same but consider the fact that Djokovic has played an old Federer several times more compared to prime Fed facing a young Djokovic. If Federer and Djokovic were roughly the same age Federer would never have a losing h2h.

Nadal's negative h2h against Djokovic is due to the fact that he can't keep up after he hit 28. Prime for prime he (and Federer) are better than Djokovic. Djokovic is just feasting on old washed up men.
 
Last edited:
tennis_pro said:
Believe it or not, Federer is a worse match-up for Djokovic than Nadal. Both h2h's against Djokovic are roughly the same but consider the fact that Djokovic has played an old Federer several times more compared to prime Fed facing a young Djokovic. If Federer and Djokovic were roughly the same age Federer would never have a losing h2h.
Click to expand...

Well we'll never know so it's all speculation. It's not as if 2010-present Djokovic isn't chop liver and wouldn't trouble prime Fed. Even Prime Fed had lost a few matches to a young Novak just like a prime Novak has lost matches to an older Novak.

But to suggest that Novak couldn't take a set off clay Fed in 2007 is what i'm trying to say is ridiculous.
 
metsman said:
he would...cmon now.
Click to expand...
I think peak Fed>peak Djoker at RG but Djoker would definitely win a set. I think if say 06 Fed met 11 Djoko at RG Fed would win something like 6-3 4-6 7-6 7-5 or something along those lines.

While you may say that that's basically similar scoreline 11 Fed beat 11 Djoker by, 11 Fed served out of his mind so even though 06 Fed was quite a bit more potent off the ground the serve difference would neutralize it. That being said 11 Fed trailed by a break in the first and 4th sets so the 06 win would be more convincing because he could take it to Djoker even when the serve wasn't firing. When the serve wasn't firing in 11, Fed was in big trouble, thankfully it was on at the right times. Djoker would target Fed's backhand, which was pretty awesome in 06 and the best it has been, but on clay I think it could be broken down for a set or two as Nalbandian did in their matches that year and Djoker would take advantage.
 
malbaker86 said:
Well we'll never know so it's all speculation. It's not as if 2010-present Djokovic isn't chop liver and wouldn't trouble prime Fed. Even Prime Fed had lost a few matches to a young Novak just like a prime Novak has lost matches to an older Novak.

But to suggest that Novak couldn't take a set off clay Fed in 2007 is what i'm trying to say is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
eh I could see 07 Novak going down in straights to 07 Fed but 11 Novak would definitely push 07 Fed hard.
 
FedFosterWallace said:
Guga was a clay specialist though. I read that he credited his success at RG to his Luxilon strings (think they were still new to the tour when he was using them). I haven't seen enough of his game to really judge, but it seems like the quality of Fed's game is way beyond someone like that. Fed was foiled again and again at RG by a single shot to the backhand. Fed might have pulled off four or five titles there. I wonder how prime Fed might have fared against Borg at RG?
Click to expand...
I think people overstate the significance of the 04 RG match. I don't know how much the 02 Hamburg match matters either, but I think both matches show that both had the game to hurt the other.

In 04, Fed was yet not consistent on clay and he was spraying errors..also he was hitting flatter and running around his forehand a lot with risk which doesn't work much on clay. His top level on clay was scary as 04 Hamburg showed(beating Moya, Hewitt, and peak Coria like that) but he didn't yet have the consistency on the surface as his form in the other clay events showed. Guga showed he had the gameplan to hurt Federer but I think a more consistent Fed with more of a clay game would get the better of him. Would be a good match, close too.

I think Fed's success against the other great clay courters he faced, Ferrero, Coria, and Moya between 03-05, facing them 5 times between Rome, Hamburg, and RG and dropping just 1 set, are enough to maybe overwrite the 04 RG match and lend credence to the fact that only nadal was better during that time on clay. Fed imo is definitely a top 5 clay courter ever, with an argument as high as 3.
 
metsman said:
I think people overstate the significance of the 04 RG match. I don't know how much the 02 Hamburg match matters either, but I think both matches show that both had the game to hurt the other.

In 04, Fed was yet not consistent on clay and he was spraying errors..also he was hitting flatter and running around his forehand a lot with risk which doesn't work much on clay. His top level on clay was scary as 04 Hamburg showed(beating Moya, Hewitt, and peak Coria like that) but he didn't yet have the consistency on the surface as his form in the other clay events showed. Guga showed he had the gameplan to hurt Federer but I think a more consistent Fed with more of a clay game would get the better of him. Would be a good match, close too.

I think Fed's success against the other great clay courters he faced, Ferrero, Coria, and Moya between 03-05, facing them 5 times between Rome, Hamburg, and RG and dropping just 1 set, are enough to maybe overwrite the 04 RG match and lend credence to the fact that only nadal was better during that time on clay. Fed imo is definitely a top 5 clay courter ever, with an argument as high as 3.
Click to expand...
How would you see prime Borg v. prime Fed, on clay, playing out?
 
I am the Greatest! said:
That's the universal opinion. But we really can't tell. I like Roger's chances really. I mean, huge chance that he'll beat Novak, but it's not an assurance. The only thing that we can hold true for Roger back then, is that he never lost to mugs or outside the top 10 at his peak (maybe top 5, I forgot), regardless of the surface, and racked up 23 straight semis, which isn't the case for Novak.
Click to expand...

Djokovic has reached 22 of the last 23 Slam semis, so the difference isn't that great in that regard. On the one time that he did lose before the semis, he lost 9-7 in the 5th set in the quarter-finals, against the eventual champion.
 
@Mainad

As for Davydenko, I think he hit with a bit too little spin for clay-court tennis at the highest level. His strokes were extremely clean, and so he had a pretty good chance of outmaneuvering most players, but he needed a bit more margin for error. Also, being relatively short and slight meant it was hard for him to handle the spin of his opponents. (For example, I don't think he'd have had much chance against Nadal had he made the 2005 RG final, despite his excellent record against him on hard courts).

I see Davydenko as having a pretty similar game in some ways to Kafelnikov. Kafelnikov was much taller. Davydenko had a much better forehand. Like Davydenko, Kafelnikov had his moments on clay, but was overall much better on hard courts.
 
helterskelter said:
Come now! Borg was playing with a wooden racket. The answer to who would win is obviously Federer. But if the question is which is greater on clay? Then the answer is equally obvious, but it's a different answer.
Click to expand...
You know what though? As I think about that, I am not absolutely certain that a wooden-racquet-master couldn't hold his own. Imagine the statement that would make.

But there must be a way to simulate that match-up. Isn't the "greater" assessment subjective? I mean, even citing all the statistics in the world... it's not so cut-and-dried because of the different era problem.
 
FedFosterWallace said:
How would you see prime Borg v. prime Fed, on clay, playing out?
Click to expand...
Borg would have many of the same advantages Nadal did, except he wouldn't be lefty so he couldn't get balls as consistently to Fed's backhand. So I think peak Fed could score some wins off Borg, which he could not do against Nadal, but Borg would win the majority...his greatness on clay cannot be stated enough, at his peak he was basically as dominant as Nadal at RG I think. He would still frustrate Fed with his Nadal like defense, passing shots, and topspin/depth of shot. He's basically a righty Nadal, which would make things a little easier for Fed but not easy enough for Fed to beat him more than say 3-4 times out of 10.
 
FedFosterWallace said:
You know what though? As I think about that, I am not absolutely certain that a wooden-racquet-master couldn't hold his own. Imagine the statement that would make.

But there must be a way to simulate that match-up. Isn't the "greater" assessment subjective? I mean, even citing all the statistics in the world... it's not so cut-and-dried because of the different era problem.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't rely too much on a simulation. It would also be "subjective" in that it would depend on the programmer of the simulation exercise, who would have to set various metrics to run the simulation. Unless there were a computer that could simulate the match without needing programming, then you wouldn't escape the problem of human subjectivity. (In the same way, the "computer" rankings actually rely on a formula determined by human beings).

You're right that it is all speculation. I was just operating from the definition of greatness as a function of achievements, and there's no doubt that Borg achieved far more on clay than has Federer. Anyway, as @vanioMan suggests, let's turn this thread back to discussion of Davydenko.
 
helterskelter said:
I wouldn't rely too much on a simulation. It would also be "subjective" in that it would depend on the programmer of the simulation exercise, who would have to set various metrics to run the simulation. Unless there were a computer that could simulate the match without needing programming, then you wouldn't escape the problem of human subjectivity. (In the same way, the "computer" rankings actually rely on a formula determined by human beings).

You're right that it is all speculation. I was just operating from the definition of greatness as a function of achievements, and there's no doubt that Borg achieved far more on clay than has Federer. Anyway, as @vanioMan suggests, let's turn this thread back to discussion of Davydenko.
Click to expand...
I don't mean a computer simulation necessarily.

(Davydenko's opponent in the OP's match was Fed...)
 
FedFosterWallace said:
I don't mean a computer simulation necessarily.

(Davydenko's opponent in the OP's match was Fed...)
Click to expand...

Sure, so let's discuss Federer, too! Just not his rivalry with Djokovic and his time-traveling rivalry with Borg!

That said, the 2007 RG semi reminds me of the 2007 UO final. On both occasions, Federer won a match in straight sets despite being under pressure for pretty much the entirety of all three sets. Ah, the benefits of confidence that domination brings. He must wish he could have bottled some of that form for the tight moments nowadays!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lud
  • Poll Poll
Best Roland Garros match from 2000's
Replies
8
Views
1K
citybert
C
arvind13
  • Poll Poll
2007 Davydenko vs 2023 Djokovic at Australian open. Who would win a best of 10 match series?
Replies
9
Views
552
Oceans II
Oceans II
Mike Sams
Federer's BP conversions against Nadal...tells the whole story of their rivalry
Replies
35
Views
5K
Deleted member 77403
D
Devin
  • Poll Poll
Federer RG 2005/RG 2006/RG 2007
Replies
13
Views
2K
abmk
abmk
TeamNadal
Would 2006 Hingis have won 2012 Roland Garros?
Replies
5
Views
2K
TeamNadal
TeamNadal
Back
Top