Federer vs Davydenko Roland Garros 2007

[metsman]

they are in many of the matches, from 2009 onwards that I've seen ..

apparently fed had 18 UFE in the 2010 match against Berdych lmaooo

 

[uliks]

Nope. But you said he's peaking now "at 28-29." I definitely dispute that. Not saying he's winning now only because of weak competition, but it's not as impressive as when the competition was tougher. Feasting, absolutely.

The man himself said numerous times that he is at the peak of his abilities... All his biggest rivals except maybe Federer said that right now he is playing at the peak, almost unbelievable level... Experts pundits, commentators, fans also think the same, but you want to dispute that. Well, good luck with that.

 

[NoleFam]

Just because djokovic's BH is better in general does not mean that federer cannot eclipse his BH in some individual matches.

Also both gasquet and stan usually get outclassed BH-BH vs federer in most of their matches ...

tennis.matchstat.com's stats are correct in this case.

they are taken from the official RG website. You are wrong.

https://web.archive.org/web/2012012...rros.com/en_FR/scores/stats/day18/1602ms.html

40 W to 41 UEs

federer was 35 W to 44 UEs in 2011 AO SF (-9), in any case nowhere near his peak level in that match.

https://web.archive.org/web/2011051...open.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day16/1602ms.html

-6 for djokovic, -9 for federer.

federer does mix it up on many occasions, but at times becomes stubborn and insists on dueling topspin/flat BH-BH ...in this match, he mixed it perfectly well ...

That's Gasquet and Wawrinka who are all one-handed. Novak is a completely different story who's backhand is much more consistent than Federer's.
I stand corrected. I will have to stop using the site I've been using. But in any case, I said earlier that the winner/ue ratio as well as the break point ratio tell the story of a match. Federer was 4/25 and Djokovic was 4/13. Two tiebreaks decided the outcome of that match that Federer won 7 points to 5. Federer was 3/10 and Djokovic was 5/14 in Australia that year.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

The man himself said numerous times that he is at the peak of his abilities...

Someone saying he's at his peak is good enough for you? Hm. Bravado is pretty standard in any competition.

All his biggest rivals except maybe Federer said that right now he is playing at the peak, almost unbelievable level...

I definitely remember 2016 Nadal (need I say more?) gushing with praise after he'd been annihilated.

Experts pundits, commentators, fans also think the same, but you want to dispute that. Well, good luck with that.

Just about everyone acknowledges that he's rolling right now, and dominating. But he's not beating first-rate competition like he did in '11. And fans and experts know this (even you!)

 

[NoleFam]

how the hell is djokovic winning one set combined in 07-09 remotely the same as federer having MPs in 10, 11 in 15, the match was still closer than any of their 1st 3 encounters ? some delusions ..

federer's peak at the USO >> djokovic's peak at the USO, its unquestionable .....

The same reason Djokovic had multiple set points in the first two sets in their 2007 encounter. Based on the information I provided, you cannot prove that he is. Djokovic was challenging Federer while Federer was in his prime and Djokovic was not in his. Now Fed fans think that without a doubt that at his peak Fed would beat 2016 Djokovic? No I don't agree. You cannot prove that Federer is better than Novak in any of the Slams. They are 3-1 in Australia (Djokovic), 1-1 at the French, 2-1 at Wimbledon (Djokovic) and 3-3 at the US Open. You can argue about peak or prime or whatever, but the fact remains is that Federer continues to play at a high level so it's hard to say how successful he would be at 26 versus a 28 yo Djokovic.

 

[abmk]

once again Novak fans showing they don't have a functioning knowledge of tennis before 2011. Fed served 16 aces against a worst returner sure, but in a far shorter match too. Federer's serve was unbelievably clutch in both years...but in the second set of the 2009 final, when Soderling was finding the range that took out Nadal and the match was threatening to turn Federer steps up to the line and serves 4 aces to win that tiebreak. 4 points, 4 aces. Two at 128 mph and 132 mph to go from 2-1 to 4-1. Legendary stuff in the most important match of his career. Of course he served awesome in that 2011 4th set TB too

yep, fed closed the door on soderling in that 2nd set TB with unbelievable serving.

 

[abmk]

apparently fed had 18 UFE in the 2010 match against Berdych lmaooo

yep, that was hilarious.

They have fed at 10 UEs in the djokovic encounter in wimbledon 12 , when I was saw that, I was like no way...When I checked myself, I got 18 UEs total, with 9 UEs in the 3rd set alone

 

[uliks]

Someone saying he's at his peak is good enough for you? Hm. Bravado is pretty standard in any competition.

I definitely remember 2016 Nadal (need I say more?) gushing with praise after he'd been annihilated.

Just about everyone acknowledges that he's rolling right now, and dominating. But he's not beating first-rate competition like he did in '11. And fans and experts know this (even you!)

Like i said, if you want to dispute this you have do that against Djokovic, his training staff, Murray, Nadal, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Simon, Courier, Wilander, Eurosport and ESPN commentary crew, Tignor, Bodo, Lloyd, and many, many others. And if everybody knows that competition now is second rated or grade B or whatever, why in hell nobody is saying anything about it. We only hear about this weak era thing on some obscure tennis forum and from some hopeless federer twitter fanbois?! I really wonder why?

 

[metsman]

yep, that was hilarious.

They have fed at 10 UEs in the djokovic encounter in wimbledon 12 , when I was saw that, I was like no way...When I checked myself, I got 18 UEs total, with 9 UEs in the 3rd set alone

yeah the stats after 09 or so cannot be taken with any accuracy.

 

[abmk]

That's Gasquet and Wawrinka who are all one-handed. Novak is a completely different story who's backhand is much more consistent than Federer's.

even if they are one-handers, he's won the BH duel in the majority of their matches
He's out-duelled the other premier 2-handers - agassi, nalbandian, murray, safin in some of the matches ..not the majority though

I stand corrected. I will have to stop using the site I've been using. But in any case, I said earlier that the winner/ue ratio as well as the break point ratio tell the story of a match. Federer was 4/25 and Djokovic was 4/13. Two tiebreaks decided the outcome of that match that Federer won 7 points to 5. Federer was 3/10 and Djokovic was 5/14 in Australia that year.

well, but the story doesn't match with what you said as far the W/UE count goes . djokovic was 40 W to 41 UE and not too much in the -ve as you pointed out. He had one dip in that match and that was the 2nd set ( federer had his in the 3rd set ). pretty much a peak to peak match or very close to it

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Like i said, if you want to dispute this you have do that against Djokovic, his training staff, Murray, Nadal, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Simon, Courier, Wilander, Eurosport and ESPN commentary crew, Tignor, Bodo, Lloyd, and many, many others. And if everybody knows that competition now is second rated or grade B or whatever, why in hell nobody is saying anything about it. We only hear about this weak era thing on some obscure tennis forum and from some hopeless federer twitter fanbois?! I really wonder why?

Someone on here pointed out that journalists are paid to promote the sport. So, being overly critical of the competitors would be self-defeating.

 

[uliks]

Someone on here pointed out that journalists are paid to promote the sport. So, being overly critical of the competitors would be self-defeating.

The same journalists who didn't hesitate for a second to spread the fixing scandal during the AO! That was one helluva promotion, alright...
LOL... But, ok, whatever floats your boat, i guess!

 

[NoleFam]

even if they are one-handers, he's won the BH duel in the majority of their matches
He's out-duelled the other premier 2-handers - agassi, nalbandian, murray, safin in some of the matches ..not the majority though

well, but the story doesn't match with what you said as far the W/UE count goes . djokovic was 40 W to 41 UE and not too much in the -ve as you pointed out. He had one dip in that match and that was the 2nd set ( federer had his in the 3rd set ). pretty much a peak to peak match or very close to it

I don't agree. His backhand was off. He was running around it often and blasting forehands. Even McEnroe kept pointing out that Djokovic could not hit a backhand down the line to save his life. Forehand was on, backhand was not. So no I don't agree that Djokovic was at his absolute best.

 

[abmk]

The same reason Djokovic had multiple set points in the first two sets in their 2007 encounter. Based on the information I provided, you cannot prove that he is. Djokovic was challenging Federer while Federer was in his prime and Djokovic was not in his.

absolutely ridiculous, having SPs is very very different from having MPs...

gonzalez had 2 SPs in AO 07 final vs federer...federer saved them and won it in straights ..

davydenko had 6 SPs to go up 2 sets to 1 vs federer in AO 06, federer saved them all ..and won it in 4 sets

having SPs doesn't mean anything remotely close to having MPs

there is huge difference b/w winning 1 set in 3 matches and having 2 MPs in both matches and the 3rd one being closer than any of their first 3 encounters ..

Now Fed fans think that without a doubt that at his peak Fed would beat 2016 Djokovic? No I don't agree.

at wimbledon and USO, without a shadow of doubt

RG, edge to federer

plexi , djoko , rebound : federer

You cannot prove that Federer is better than Novak in any of the Slams. They are 3-1 in Australia (Djokovic), 1-1 at the French, 2-1 at Wimbledon (Djokovic) and 3-3 at the US Open. You can argue about peak or prime or whatever, but the fact remains is that Federer continues to play at a high level so it's hard to say how successful he would be at 26 versus a 28 yo Djokovic.

of course I can ...bringing up their encounters after federer is well over 32 is downright ridiculous

its not hard to say how successful he'd be peak to peak vs djokovic

takes him down convincingly at wimbledon and USO
RG would be closer, but fed would take that too
AO - plexi to djokovic and rebound to federer

thinking djokovic would have the edge at either wimbledon or USO just because of their h2h ( in unfavourable circumstances for federer ) is downright hilarious

 

[abmk]

I don't agree. His backhand was off. He was running around it often and blasting forehands. Even McEnroe kept pointing out that Djokovic could not hit a backhand down the line to save his life. Forehand was on, backhand was not. So no I don't agree that Djokovic was at his absolute best.

federer's movement wasn't at its absolute best either, neither was returning or play on break points (4/25)

major part of the reason djoko's BH was off was because federer mixed it up that well ; more so than in most of their encounters

that's why I said close to peak to peak .

 

[NoleFam]

absolutely ridiculous, having SPs is very very different from having MPs...

gonzalez had 2 SPs in AO 07 final vs federer...federer saved them and won it in straights ..

davydenko had 6 SPs to go up 2 sets to 1 vs federer in AO 06, federer saved them all ..

having SPs doesn't mean anything remotely close to having MPs

there is huge difference b/w winning 1 set in 3 matches and having 2 MPs and the 3rd one being closer than any of their first 3 encounters ..





at wimbledon and USO, without a shadow of doubt

RG I would back federer

plexi , djoko , rebound : federer



of course I can ...bringing up their encounters after federer is well over 32 is downright ridiculous

its not hard to say how successful he'd be peak to peak vs djokovic

takes him down convincingly at wimbledon and USO
RG would be closer, but fed would take that too
AO - plexi to djokovic and rebound to federer

Maybe ridiculous to you. He was 20 years old, far from his peak and in his first GS Final and challenged the dominant #1 so it is not meaningless. Bringing up Gonzalez or Davydenko is pointless since they are nowhere near the level of Djokovic. Yet after all is said and done they are tied 3-3 at the US Open. In any case, Djokovic deserves more credit than you are giving him after defeating Federer two years in a row after he had match points. Or the fact that he won a close encounter last year in 4 sets. He plays the big points extremely well when under pressure. Look at Federer's 5 set record and then look at Djokovic's and you will see that he is much more clutch over the long haul. I don't agree one way or another that Federer at his peak would undoubtedly beat Djokovic at any Slam. He definitely wouldn't beat him convincingly when he couldn't even do it in his prime and Djokovic wasn't in his. No way.

 

[uliks]

Maybe ridiculous to you. He was 20 years old, far from his peak and in his first GS Final and challenged the dominant #1 so it is not meaningless. Bringing up Gonzalez or Davydenko is pointless since they are nowhere near the level of Djokovic. Yet after all is said and done they are tied 3-3 at the US Open. In any case, Djokovic deserves more credit than you are giving him after defeating Federer two years in a row after he had match points. Or the fact that he won a close encounter last year in 4 sets. He plays the big points extremely well when under pressure. Look at Federer's 5 set record and then look at Djokovic's and you will see that he is much more clutch over the long haul. I don't agree one way or another that Federer at his peak would undoubtedly beat Djokovic at any Slam. He definitely wouldn't beat him convincingly when he couldn't even do it in his prime and Djokovic wasn't in his. No way.

More mature and experienced Djokovic, is closing that match in 3 sets. No doubt about that!

 

[abmk]

Maybe ridiculous to you. He was 20 years old, far from his peak and in his first GS Final and challenged the dominant #1 so it is not meaningless. Bringing up Gonzalez or Davydenko is pointless since they are nowhere near the level of Djokovic. Yet after all is said and done they are tied 3-3 at the US Open. In any case, Djokovic deserves more credit than you are giving him after defeating Federer two years in a row after he had match points. Or the fact that he won a close encounter last year in 4 sets. He plays the big points extremely well when under pressure. Look at Federer's 5 set record and then look at Djokovic's and you will see that he is much more clutch over the long haul. I don't agree one way or another that Federer at his peak would undoubtedly beat Djokovic at any Slam. He definitely wouldn't beat him convincingly when he couldn't even do it in his prime and Djokovic wasn't in his. No way.

even if you regard 07 as close, both 08 and 09 weren't that close. federer beat him convincingly 2/3 of the times.

also beat him convincingly at wimbledon in 12 (and that wasn't even peak federer - just him serving at his very best )

why is bringing up gonzalez or davydenko pointless ? It was to show that having SPs is nowhere near having MPs.

challenging the dominant #1 who wasn't at his best by the way, but still ending up without winning a single set doesn't exactly scream like djokovic would win vs federer peak to peak

yes, djokovic deserves credit for the close wins in 10,11 and even 15,that doesn't mean federer wouldn't the clear edge peak to peak there ...

why the importance to the overall h2h when federer played a crappy match in 10, was 34 in USO 15 and nearly had him in the 3rd set ?

I've seen both of their peaks at the USO , including their matches ..its not close, federer has clear edge.

its also reflected clearly in their slam counts ( 5 to 2 )

same for wimbledon ( 7-3 )

you can't agree that federer would undoubtedly beat djokovic at any slam because you are being a fanboy that's it.

federer's 5 set record is worse than djokovic's no question, but he's just as clutch considering their overall primes, with djoko's highs being higher and lows being lower

 

[abmk]

More mature and experienced Djokovic, is closing that match in 3 sets. No doubt about that!

more mature and experienced djokovic had to go 5 sets and save MPs in his absolute best year in 11, playing his best tennis with federer past his prime ..

Had djoko won set1, federer would've raised his level and taken the match in 07 ...

 

[mike danny]

Maybe ridiculous to you. He was 20 years old, far from his peak and in his first GS Final and challenged the dominant #1 so it is not meaningless. Bringing up Gonzalez or Davydenko is pointless since they are nowhere near the level of Djokovic. Yet after all is said and done they are tied 3-3 at the US Open. In any case, Djokovic deserves more credit than you are giving him after defeating Federer two years in a row after he had match points. Or the fact that he won a close encounter last year in 4 sets. He plays the big points extremely well when under pressure. Look at Federer's 5 set record and then look at Djokovic's and you will see that he is much more clutch over the long haul. I don't agree one way or another that Federer at his peak would undoubtedly beat Djokovic at any Slam. He definitely wouldn't beat him convincingly when he couldn't even do it in his prime and Djokovic wasn't in his. No way.

At the USO yes their rivalry is fairer. Federer beat Djokovic in his prime while Nole was not in his while Djokovic beat Federer in his prime while Fed was not in his.

At Wimb though you cannot judge. The first time they played there it was 9 years after Fed won his first Wimb title. He never played the best version of Fed from 2003-2009, the type of version Djokovic is now at the same tournament.

 

[Emperor of Belgrade]

I feel bad for Rafa and other non-Fedovic fans. They could create a tribute thread to their favorite and it is very likely that a Fedovic war would flood it. Not saying that I don't enjoy it at times, but this is getting out of control.

 

[NoleFam]

even if you regard 07 as close, both 08 and 09 weren't that close. federer beat him convincingly 2/3 of the times.

also beat him convincingly at wimbledon in 12 (and that wasn't even peak federer - just him serving at his very best )

why is bringing up gonzalez or davydenko pointless ? It was to show that having SPs is nowhere near having MPs.

challenging the dominant #1 who wasn't at his best by the way, but still ending up without winning a single set doesn't exactly scream like djokovic would win vs federer peak to peak

yes, djokovic deserves credit for the close wins in 10,11 and even 15,that doesn't mean federer wouldn't the clear edge peak to peak there ...

why the importance to the overall h2h when federer played a crappy match in 10, was 34 in USO 15 and nearly had him in the 3rd set ?

I've seen both of their peaks at the USO , including their matches ..its not close, federer has clear edge.

its also reflected clearly in their slam counts ( 5 to 2 )

same for wimbledon ( 7-3 )

you can't agree that federer would undoubtedly beat djokovic at any slam because you are being a fanboy that's it.

federer's 5 set record is worse than djokovic's no question, but he's just as clutch considering their overall primes, with djoko's highs being higher and lows being lower

Dude let's get one thing straight. You are by far a much bigger fanboy that I could ever dream to be. Just so that we are clear. Now that that's out of the way, all of their US Open matches have been close. Every last one. If I'm going by your logic, then 2010 and 2011 were not close. Since I'm pretty sure you are looking at points won and saying this match was not close or that match was close. In 2010, Djokovic had 15 more points and in 2011, he had 18 more points. Compare that to 2007 when Federer had 16 more points and 14 more points in 2009. No me saying that Federer is not without a doubt a lock to beat Djokovic at Wimbledon and the US Open is not me being a fan boy, it's me being realistic. Just because Federer has more titles at those two tournaments, that guarantees that he would beat Djokovic convincingly at his peak, even though the head to heads say otherwise? Boy bye.

 

[NoleFam]

At the USO yes their rivalry is fairer. Federer beat Djokovic in his prime while Nole was not in his while Djokovic beat Federer in his prime while Fed was not in his.

At Wimb though you cannot judge. The first time they played there it was 9 years after Fed won his first Wimb title. He never played the best version of Fed from 2003-2009, the type of version Djokovic is now at the same tournament.

I agree with you. You actually make sense. Now try to talk some sense into your fellow Fed fam member.

 

[metsman]

At the USO yes their rivalry is fairer. Federer beat Djokovic in his prime while Nole was not in his while Djokovic beat Federer in his prime while Fed was not in his.

At Wimb though you cannot judge. The first time they played there it was 9 years after Fed won his first Wimb title. He never played the best version of Fed from 2003-2009, the type of version Djokovic is now at the same tournament.

Djoker in his USO matches against Federer in 07-09 was as good as Djokovic was in the 15 stats. Posted basically the same stats against a much worse Federer.

Federer played the best version of Novak at the USO when he was almost 2 years past his prime. Federer was millimeters away from winning that match (on both match points). 34 Federer also played Novak toe to toe in 15, winning two fewer points and more return points. Novak never played the best version of Fed at the USO.

From that, It's pretty insane to argue that Peak Djokovic even takes peak Federer 5 at the USO.

 

[metsman]

In 2010, Djokovic had 15 more points and in 2011, he had 18 more points.

HAHAHAHAHAHA...do know what a percentage is??

Not to mention most of that difference was built up after the MP when Fed turned into shankerror.

 

[abmk]

Dude let's get one thing straight. You are by far a much bigger fanboy that I could ever dream to be. Just so that we are clear. Now that that's out of the way, all of their US Open matches have been close. Every last one. If I'm going by your logic, then 2010 and 2011 were not close. Since I'm pretty sure you are looking at points won and saying this match was not close or that match was close. In 2010, Djokovic had 15 more points and in 2011, he had 18 more points. Compare that to 2007 when Federer had 16 more points and 14 more points in 2009. No me saying that Federer is not without a doubt a lock to beat Djokovic at Wimbledon and the US Open is not me being a fan boy, it's me being realistic. Just because Federer has more titles at those two tournaments, that guarantees that he would beat Djokovic convincingly at his peak, even though the head to heads say otherwise? Boy bye.

I'm going by how those matches went - including situation as well as points won.

federer was one point away in both 2010 and 2011 from winning

you taking up 07 or 08 or 09 as remotely similar is just fanboyism ...

djokovic wasn't close to winning any of the sets in 09.was convincingly taken down in the 4th set in USO 08. that's close to federer having MPs in 10 and 11 ? hilarious

yep, federer is well and above djokovic peak to peak at USO and wimbledon. That's the reality. You not admitting that is basically you being a big fanboy.

I like how you ran away from responding to the wim 12 point as well ..

the h2h only says so otherwise only because djokovic happened to meet well past his prime federer twice at wimbledon and thrice at USO ( the losses of federer being closer than any of djokovic's from 07-09 )

go and take a deep breath and maybe you'll realise you are being ridiculously fanboyish over here ..

 

[abmk]

Djoker in his USO matches against Federer in 07-09 was as good as Djokovic was in the 15 stats. Posted basically the same stats against a much worse Federer.

Federer played the best version of Novak at the USO when he was almost 2 years past his prime. Federer was millimeters away from winning that match (on both match points). 34 Federer also played Novak toe to toe in 15, winning two fewer points and more return points. Novak never played the best version of Fed at the USO.

From that, It's pretty insane to argue that Peak Djokovic even takes peak Federer 5 at the USO.

maybe he could take him to 5 if a bit lucky and or federer is not clutch enough, but otherwise, I think federer takes him down in 4 sets ...

 

[NoleFam]

HAHAHAHAHAHA...do know what a percentage is??

Not to mention most of that difference was built up after the MP when Fed turned into shankerror.

The rebuttal that I made was ridiculous and I meant for it to be so I could prove a point to how unrealistic he sounds. The fact that you took it literally is hilarious.

 

[Tennisanity]

The old man you talk about is exactly peak Federer If you can state 1 match in the last stages of the French other than the final in 2009 when Federer played like that, I would be glad. Djokovic at peak condition took out Nadal in straights twice is a small time spawn.He almost bagelled him 2 years later. If you honestly think that Djokovic was at peak condition in the first 2 sets is your problem,I won't argue any further. The last set was peak to peak and it ended 7-6 with Djokovic serving to take it.
Federer beating Djokovic peak to peak is possible and even probable,but stating crap such as "old man" or "peak Djokovic" doesn't work for me.

Why other than the final? It's not my problem that I know the truth, Djokovic was peak in all sets at FO2011. There's no way around it. You can't just pick and choose which points he's pick for and which one's he's not. He won 3 slams that year, hence he was peak in 2011. Please do not be stupid and argue that.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

The same journalists who didn't hesitate for a second to spread the fixing scandal during the AO! That was one helluva promotion, alright...
LOL... But, ok, whatever floats your boat, i guess!

(Sorry for delay in responding. Working on something at same time.) Do you happen to know who broke that story? Was it a credible news agency, or did some bookie leak it to Twitter or something? Depending on how the word got out, the media would have to cover it. That's a little different from denigrating the product itself by writing scathing commentaries on the very lifeblood of the sport.

 

[Tennisanity]

Well if the FO is all that matters, then Djokovic came back a year later and straight setted Federer right before he won Wimbledon for the 7th time. The sword cuts both ways.

Yes that was a great win by Djoko in 2012. But 2011 already proved peak Fed would straight set Djoko at FO.

 

[NoleFam]

I'm going by how those matches went - including situation as well as points won.

federer was one point away in both 2010 and 2011 from winning

you taking up 07 or 08 or 09 as remotely similar is just fanboyism ...

djokovic wasn't close to winning any of the sets in 09.was convincingly taken down in the 4th set in USO 08. that's close to federer having MPs in 10 and 11 ? hilarious

yep, federer is well and above djokovic peak to peak at USO and wimbledon. That's the reality. You not admitting that is basically you being a big fanboy.

I like how you ran away from responding to the wim 12 point as well ..

the h2h only says so otherwise only because djokovic happened to meet well past his prime federer twice at wimbledon and thrice at USO ( the losses of federer being closer than any of djokovic's from 07-09 )

go and take a deep breath and maybe you'll realise you are being ridiculously fanboyish over here ..

Of course 2010 and 2011 were closer and I wasn't saying they were the same. I said by your logic which is in itself ridiculous and was making fun of you. LOL. Well that belief that you have that Federer is without a doubt "well above" Djokovic at the US Open and Wimbledon will stay within the Fed fanbase. No one else will agree with you. That is fanboyism when you think your fave without a doubt on any day could step on the court and convincingly beat 2016 Novak Djokovic in a best of 5 of on hardcourt. No former pro, tennis analyst, commentator or casual fan would agree. Sorry. Also, this is going nowhere with the constant back and forth because we will never come to an agreement on anything.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Yes that was a great win by Djoko in 2012. But 2011 already proved peak Fed would straight set Djoko at FO.

Oh dear.

 

[metsman]

I don't know. Let me go ask both of my degrees and see what they say and I will get back to you. LMAO. The rebuttal that I made was ridiculous and I meant for it to be so I could prove a point to how unrealistic he sounds. The fact that you took it literally is hilarious.

his logic was not "winning 15 more points in a 5 set match is the same as winning 15 more points in a 3 set match". You were trying to make him sound stupid, and you ended up sounding stupid instead, so I called you out for it. It happens, move on.

 

[metsman]

maybe he could take him to 5 if a bit lucky and or federer is not clutch enough, but otherwise, I think federer takes him down in 4 sets ...

yup...it's impossible to win these kinds of arguments though against that fanbase so let's move on.

 

[NoleFam]

his logic was not "winning 15 more points in a 5 set match is the same as winning 15 more points in a 3 set match". You were trying to make him sound stupid, and you ended up sounding stupid instead, so I called you out for it. It happens, move on.

I don't recall asking you what his logic was. LOL. Can't he explain for himself? Regardless of what his logic was meant to be, it doesn't make sense. I didn't try to make him sound stupid. Fanboyish, yes, but I never said he was stupid. Don't put words in my mouth and furthermore, keep it moving.

 

[Emperor of Belgrade]

 

[Doflamingo]

Of course 2010 and 2011 were closer and I wasn't saying they were the same. I said by your logic which is in itself ridiculous and was making fun of you. LOL. Well that belief that you have that Federer is without a doubt "well above" Djokovic at the US Open and Wimbledon will stay within the Fed fanbase. No one else will agree with you. That is fanboyism when you think your fave without a doubt on any day could step on the court and convincingly beat 2016 Novak Djokovic in a best of 5 of on hardcourt. No former pro, tennis analyst, commentator or casual fan would agree. Sorry. Also, this is going nowhere with the constant back and forth because we will never come to an agreement on anything.

You would have a bigger chance of encountering a leprechaun and finding a pot of gold under a tree than arguing with abmk about Federer not being perfect, unbeatable, undeniable and the God's gift to Tennis ​

 

[abmk]

Of course 2010 and 2011 were closer and I wasn't saying they were the same. I said by your logic which is in itself ridiculous and was making fun of you. LOL. Well that belief that you have that Federer is without a doubt "well above" Djokovic at the US Open and Wimbledon will stay within the Fed fanbase. No one else will agree with you. That is fanboyism when you think your fave without a doubt on any day could step on the court and convincingly beat 2016 Novak Djokovic in a best of 5 of on hardcourt. No former pro, tennis analyst, commentator or casual fan would agree. Sorry. Also, this is going nowhere with the constant back and forth because we will never come to an agreement on anything.

it depends on what you call convincingly. For me a 4-set win like wimby 12 or USO 08 is also a convincing win.

There was nothing ridiculous in what I said ..

what "logic" of mine were trying to make fun of ? You just ended up looking like a fool with the points part
a) because of the %s
b) because I took into consideration both points as well as the match situation.

No, its reality that federer is well and above djokovic at the US Open and wimbledon ...both level wise and achievements ..deny it all you want, fanboy ..

 

[abmk]

You would have a bigger chance of encountering a leprechaun and finding a pot of gold under a tree than arguing with abmk about Federer not being perfect, unbeatable, undeniable and the God's gift to Tennis ​

said the flamingo who changed his tune from andy muray the great competitor at the AO to it doesn't matter who gave djokovic the hardest time -- simon ...

when convincingly forgetting that he made fun of in-form baghdatis, gonzalez in comparision to murray ...

you are just as thick as NoleFam if you think nole's peak level is near federer's at either wimbledon or the US Open ..

Saying that doesn't mean I think federer is perfect or unbeatable ...

 

[abmk]

yup...it's impossible to win these kinds of arguments though against that fanbase so let's move on.

looks like there's only one fan in the Djokovic fanbase here who'd see some logic...that's Hitman, no one else. zip , zero ..nada ..

 

[abmk]

Yes that was a great win by Djoko in 2012. But 2011 already proved peak Fed would straight set Djoko at FO.

I don't think so. All it indicates is (close to) peak to peak federer is better at RG. I'd back him to take down djokovic in 4 sets (probably slightly easier, but that's it )

 

[mr_eko]

Davydenko's reactions after hitting winners in that first set was badass. The guy knew he was hitting the ball so well.

 

[NoleFam]

it depends on what you call convincingly. For me a 4-set win like wimby 12 or USO 08 is also a convincing win.

There was nothing ridiculous in what I said ..

what "logic" of mine were trying to make fun of ? You just ended up looking like a fool with the points part
a) because of the %s
b) because I took into consideration both points as well as the match situation.

No, its reality that federer is well and above djokovic at the US Open and wimbledon ...both level wise and achievements ..deny it all you want, fanboy ..

LOL. Your whole stance is ridiculous. I never said Djokovic would beat Fed or vice versa at their peaks because no one knows how that match will go, especially with their past history. You and other Fed fans think Fed would not only beat Djokovic but convincingly beat Djokovic at Wimbledon and the US Open just because he has more titles. No you made yourself look like a fool when you don't have enough proof to say Fed would beat him in a convincing fashion. That's fanboyism at its best when you can't take off the rose-colored glasses for one minute to even see it more objectively.

 

[Tennisanity]

I don't think so. All it indicates is (close to) peak to peak federer is better at RG. I'd back him to take down djokovic in 4 sets (probably slightly easier, but that's it )

I think on average Fed may take between 3 and 4 sets depending on how he's serving. Fed had 17 bp's in 2007 against Nadal. Djoko would have little chance especially given how much of a better matchup peak Fed is for Djoko.

 

[Emperor of Belgrade]

LOL. Your whole stance is ridiculous. I never said Djokovic would beat Fed or vice versa at their peaks because no one knows how that match will go, especially with their past history. You and other Fed fans think Fed would not only beat Djokovic but convincingly beat Djokovic at Wimbledon and the US Open just because he has more titles. No you made yourself look like a fool when you don't have enough proof to say Fed would beat him in a convincing fashion. That's fanboyism at its best when you can't take off the rose-colored glasses for one minute to even see it more objectively.

All I can say personally on this recent debate is:

Comparing achievements is simple. You have the numbers that cannot be changed at will.

Comparing peaks is usually subjective. Most of the time, a person leans towards his favorite.

However, it becomes completely pointless when comparing peaks that are several years apart. The matches we have at our disposal are not strong evidence. If player A who was not at his peak lost in a tight match or won against player B who was at his peak, it doesn't mean that player A will definitely beat player B in a peak-to-peak battle.

Look at some of H2Hs between Novak and Fed. In 2009, Fed's prime year, Novak had a 3-2 H2H. In 2014, Novak's prime year, Fed had a 3-2 H2H. So there is absolutely no rule that either would surely win a peak-to-peak battle.

Also, I see no reason to argue about level of play, would 2004 Fed beat 2011 Djokovic at USO or any other hypothetical. Federer fans have the right to think he at his peak would crush peak Djokovic at USO and Wimbledon. However if I were in their place, I would much rather be happy because of 5 USOs and 7 Wimbledons than trying to give bonus points/titles to him or downgrade another fantastic USO and Wimbledon player because of my own subjective opinion about peaks.

As a Djokovic fan, I couldn't care less what Federer fans think about Djokovic and how many greats they think have shown a higher level on certain surfaces than him. His 2 US Opens and 3 Wimbledons are however proof that he is a fantastic HC and grass player and that he would be a tough opponent for anyone. No win is guaranteed, but a good fight though is.

 

[abmk]

LOL. Your whole stance is ridiculous. I never said Djokovic would beat Fed or vice versa at their peaks because no one knows how that match will go, especially with their past history. You and other Fed fans think Fed would not only beat Djokovic but convincingly beat Djokovic at Wimbledon and the US Open just because he has more titles. No you made yourself look like a fool when you don't have enough proof to say Fed would beat him in a convincing fashion. That's fanboyism at its best when you can't take off the rose-colored glasses for one minute to even see it more objectively.

its not just because he has more titles, but quite a few matches where he has played at a level higher than djokovic ever has at Wimbledon or at the USO.
its not fanboysim to say that ..

its nor fanboyism to say djoko would beat tsonga peak to peak at the AO even though they are 1-1 there ..
or that djokovic would beat nishikori peak to peak at the USO even though it is 0-1 to Novak there ..

I do have more than enough proof of fed being able to beat him in a convincing fashion - wimbledon 12 for one ( apart from his impressive set of high level matches there at wimbledon ) - FYI, that was federer's at best 8th wimbledon or at worst 9th worst wimbledon( 03,04,05,06,07,09) and 08 being debatable on what you consider ..
and djokovic's 4th best wimbledon ( after 11, 14, 15 )

USO 07, 08, 09 and 11 ( where he had MPs vs djokovic playing at his best even though federer wasn't playing at his peak level ) ( apart from his impressive set of high level matches there in general )

 

[NoleFam]

All I can say personally on this recent debate is:

Comparing achievements is simple. You have the numbers that cannot be changed at will.

Comparing peaks is usually subjective. Most of the time, a person leans towards his favorite.

However, it becomes completely pointless when comparing peaks that are several years apart. The matches we have at our disposal are not strong evidence. If player A who was not at his peak lost in a tight match or won against player B who was at his peak, it doesn't mean that player A will definitely beat player B in a peak-to-peak battle.

Look at some of H2Hs between Novak and Fed. In 2009, Fed's prime year, Novak had a 3-2 H2H. In 2014, Novak's prime year, Fed had a 3-2 H2H. So there is absolutely no rule that either would surely win a peak-to-peak battle.

Also, I see no reason to argue about level of play, would 2004 Fed beat 2011 Djokovic at USO or any other hypothetical. Federer fans have the right to think he at his peak would crush peak Djokovic at USO and Wimbledon. However if I were in their place, I would much rather be happy because of 5 USOs and 7 Wimbledons than trying to give bonus points/titles to him or downgrade another fantastic USO and Wimbledon player because of my own subjective opinion about peaks.

As a Djokovic fan, I couldn't care less what Federer fans think about Djokovic and how many greats they think have shown a higher level on certain surfaces than him. His 2 US Opens and 3 Wimbledons are however proof that he is a fantastic HC and grass player and that he would be a tough opponent for anyone. No win is guaranteed, but a good fight though is.

Exactly and great post. That is basically where I stand as well. There are too many factors that go into play on the day and anything can happen. I cannot lean either way, even though Djokovic is my fave, and say he would convincingly beat Federer at his peak. Many posts back in this thread, I said it would be a toss up and that's pretty much where I stand. Fed fans think no one can't touch him and their biases won't change so these kinds of debates are pointless. Let the Fed fans think what they want but Novak has already shown he is no slouch on grass or hard and would put up a fight against anyone.

 

[accidental]

Federer was such a beast from the baseline back then

 

[Emperor of Belgrade]

Exactly and great post. That is basically where I stand as well. There are too many factors that go into play on the day and anything can happen. I cannot lean either way, even though Djokovic is my fave, and say he would convincingly beat Federer at his peak. Many posts back in this thread, I said it would be a toss up and that's pretty much where I stand. Fed fans think no one can't touch him and their biases won't change so these kinds of debates are pointless. Let the Fed fans think what they want but Novak has already shown he is no slouch on grass or hard and would put up a fight against anyone.

It seems it is not the case who would win, but whether Fed would win by a big or a small margin.

However, for an extension of pointless debates, a good counter would be Djokovic being untouchable at good old Plexi against any opponent. Surely if he cannot touch Fed at USO and Wimbly, then it is the opposite at AO, no?