Federer vs Davydenko Roland Garros 2007

[NoleFam]

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?

Yea according to them, Djokovic would lose by a big or small margin. But without a doubt, he would lose. LOL. Well on Plexi, he's 3-0 against Fed, 1-0 against Nadal, 5-0 against Murray and 2-1 against Wawrinka. Only 1 loss against any of them so that sounds about right.

 

[uliks]

Actually the majority of the louder Fed fanboys here on TTW thinks that Federer, peak for peak is better than Djokovic at AO and is having the higher peak there, so i'm afraid no advantage for Djokovic even at AO...

 

[tacou]

Great match

 

[Emperor of Belgrade]

Actually the majority of the louder Fed fanboys here on TTW thinks that Federer, peak for peak is better than Djokovic at AO and is having the higher peak there, so i'm afraid no advantage for Djokovic even at AO...

I just hope that Novak can find consolation in his quite 6essful AO re6ume and the fact that he wrote hi6tory there.

 

[hup]

davydenko seeing thread about himself on ttw forums:

davydenko after seeing how the thread turned out:

 

[abmk]

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.

oh talking about respect are we ? how about the sh*t load of djoko fans crying weak era and always putting the likes of hewitt, roddick, safin etc. down ?

09 and 14 , though the h2h may be reverse, federer won the biggest match in 09 - USO 09 SF, djokovic won the biggest match in 14 - wim 14 F

as far as the bold part is concerned, yes and no ..

if you asked on clay, federer fans would say federer and djokovic fans would say djokovic fans would say djokovic ...that's understandable ..

not at the USO or wimbledon where its clear cut ..

just as it is clear cut that djokovic's peak at the AO > nadal's peak at the AO even though their only match there prime to prime was close ..and bear in mind , neither djokovic or nadal are my favorites ..

 

[Emperor of Belgrade]

oh talking about respect are we ? how about the sh*t load of djoko fans crying weak era and always putting the likes of hewitt, roddick, safin etc. down ?

09 and 14 , though the h2h may be reverse, federer won the biggest match in 09 - USO 09 SF, djokovic won the biggest match in 14 - wim 14 F

as far as the bold part is concerned, yes and no ..

if you asked on clay, federer fans would say federer and djokovic fans would say djokovic fans would say djokovic ...that's understandable ..

not at the USO or wimbledon where its clear cut ..

just as it is clear cut that djokovic's peak at the AO > nadal's peak at the AO even though their only match there prime to prime was close ..and bear in mind , neither djokovic or nadal are my favorites ..

As I said, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how subjective or objective it is.

But attacking Djoko fans for crying weak era will not help your or anybody's case. Recently Novak is the one being attacked by the other fan bases every day how he is being handed the trophies, how he is winning just because everyone else has declined, how there are no fast surfaces anymore. Pretty much the same crying. Also you and several others keep blaming every Federer loss on sickness, average level of play shown or age, but never give credit to Djokovic. I expected by now after his 23 wins that there would be at least some of it, but still nothing. So I am sure that Djokovic fans are not the ones having the biggest problem with showing respect.

I am not saying that Djokovic has a higher peak than him at USO and Wimbledon, in fact I think Federer has the edge at those tournaments. The thing is I don't know (nobody does) who would be a winner of their peak to peak battle. What I said in the post you quoted, the matches they played are not evidence that tell us who would win. However, those matches combined with titles won give us evidence how tough an opponent is. Thanks to that data, we can honestly say that Djokovic is an excellent Wimbledon and USO player, and claiming that Federer would easily beat Djokovic is not something that should be considered objective. Saying the opposite wouldn't be either because Federer has the data that backs him up too.

Well Djokovic and Nadal not being your favorites is not important to say at all when you are making a comparison between them. You should only say who you prefer when you are comparing your favorite with someone else, not when comparing two players that are neither your favorites.

 

[abmk]

As I said, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how subjective or objective it is.

But attacking Djoko fans for crying weak era will not help your or anybody's case. Recently Novak is the one being attacked by the other fan bases every day how he is being handed the trophies, how he is winning just because everyone else has declined, how there are no fast surfaces anymore. Pretty much the same crying. Also you and several others keep blaming every Federer loss on sickness, average level of play shown or age, but never give credit to Djokovic. I expected by now after his 23 wins that there would be at least some of it, but still nothing. So I am sure that Djokovic fans are not the ones having the biggest problem with showing respect.

I am not saying that Djokovic has a higher peak than him at USO and Wimbledon, in fact I think Federer has the edge at those tournaments. The thing is I don't know (nobody does) who would be a winner of their peak to peak battle. What I said in the post you quoted, the matches they played are not evidence that tell us who would win. However, those matches combined with titles won give us evidence how tough an opponent is. Thanks to that data, we can honestly say that Djokovic is an excellent Wimbledon and USO player, and claiming that Federer would easily beat Djokovic is not something that should be considered objective. Saying the opposite wouldn't be either because Federer has the data that backs him up too.

Well Djokovic and Nadal not being your favorites is not important to say at all when you are making a comparison between them. You should only say who you prefer when you are comparing your favorite with someone else, not when comparing two players that are neither your favorites.

Like I said, when I said "easily", it means a comfortable 4-set win, somewhat like wimbledon 2012 SF or USO 08 SF , not a straight set win and I believe in that.

Its blatantly obvious to me from watching their matches at their respective peaks ..just the same as djokovic vs nadal at the AO ..

just because djokovic is a very good player at wimbledon or USO doesn't mean federer - who is arguably the greatest/best at both wouldn't win the peak to peak battle ..you can argue about clay, but grass and fast HC is clear cut, no questions..

the matches at the USO -- show post-prime federer played prime djokovic clearly closer than pre-prime djokovic played prime federer

all 3 matches at wimbledon have happened in federer's post-prime years ( last 2 when he was ~33/34 -- with federer not at his prime level in either of them ). djokovic winning the last 2 shows he is a very good grass court player. it does not in any way show that federer would not win the peak to peak grass court battle.

there is a clear gulf b/w the very best on the surface and a very good player. Unless there is a matchup issue ( which there isn't in this case ), the very best player on the surface comes out on top peak to peak

I'm pretty sure majority of it is retaliation to the federer played in a weak era bullsh*t that has been paraded on for ages for here ...If I had a dollar for everytime roddick, hewitt, safin etc. have been called clowns over here, I'd be a millionnare by now !

as far as the bold part is concerned, I've said it before and will repeat it : kuerten's peak for instance is clearly better than federer's on clay IMO.

 

[metsman]

Like I said, when I said "easily", it means a comfortable 4-set win, somewhat like wimbledon 2012 SF or USO 08 SF , not a straight set win and I believe in that.

Its blatantly obvious to me from watching their matches at their respective peaks ..just the same as djokovic vs nadal at the AO ..

just because djokovic is a very good player at wimbledon or USO doesn't mean federer - who is arguably the greatest/best at both wouldn't win the peak to peak battle ..you can argue about clay, but grass and fast HC is clear cut, no questions..

the matches at the USO -- show post-prime federer played prime djokovic clearly closer than pre-prime djokovic played prime federer

all 3 matches at wimbledon have happened in federer's post-prime years ( last 2 when he was ~33/34 -- with federer not at his prime level in either of them ). djokovic winning the last 2 shows he is a very good grass court player. it does not in any way show that federer would not win the peak to peak grass court battle.

there is a clear gulf b/w the very best on the surface and a very good player. Unless there is a matchup issue ( which there isn't in this case ), the very best player on the surface comes out on top peak to peak

I'm pretty sure majority of it is retaliation to the federer played in a weak era bullsh*t that has been paraded on for ages for here ...If I had a dollar for everytime roddick, hewitt, safin etc. have been called clowns over here, I'd be a millionnare by now !

as far as the bold part is concerned, I've said it before and will repeat it : kuerten's peak for instance is clearly better than federer's on clay IMO.

I would disagree Re. Kuerten even though he has a strong case. Imo Federer actually playing consistently with a clay court game would edge Kuerten. In 2004 he was still super inconsistent and played on clay like he did on other surfaces (hitting flatter, going for more lines, aggressively running around backhands even though he would be out of position). When it clicked he was incredible, but besides Hamburg he was very average on clay that year. I don't think either of their clay meetings mean much...you have to look at matchup for them and I think Fed would come out on top. Kuerten would get his share of wins but both at their peaks and playing like this I would favor federer slightly.

 

[Emperor of Belgrade]

Like I said, when I said "easily", it means a comfortable 4-set win, somewhat like wimbledon 2012 SF or USO 08 SF , not a straight set win and I believe in that.

Its blatantly obvious to me from watching their matches at their respective peaks ..just the same as djokovic vs nadal at the AO ..

just because djokovic is a very good player at wimbledon or USO doesn't mean federer - who is arguably the greatest/best at both wouldn't win the peak to peak battle ..you can argue about clay, but grass and fast HC is clear cut, no questions..

the matches at the USO -- show post-prime federer played prime djokovic clearly closer than pre-prime djokovic played prime federer

all 3 matches at wimbledon have happened in federer's post-prime years ( last 2 when he was ~33/34 -- with federer not at his prime level in either of them ). djokovic winning the last 2 shows he is a very good grass court player. it does not in any way show that federer would not win the peak to peak grass court battle.

there is a clear gulf b/w the very best on the surface and a very good player. Unless there is a matchup issue ( which there isn't in this case ), the very best player on the surface comes out on top peak to peak

I'm pretty sure majority of it is retaliation to the federer played in a weak era bullsh*t that has been paraded on for ages for here ...If I had a dollar for everytime roddick, hewitt, safin etc. have been called clowns over here, I'd be a millionnare by now !

as far as the bold part is concerned, I've said it before and will repeat it : kuerten's peak for instance is clearly better than federer's on clay IMO.

I already said that we cannot tell for sure who would win the peak-to-peak battle, they never clashed. Thanks to the data we have, we can only pick the favorite, but we can't tell the outcome. I am not denying that Federer would be the favorite judging by their peaks I saw at USO and Wimbledon. He is more likely to win than not when talking about one single match, however if we had a rivalry when they played peak-to-peak matches most of the time, he wouldn't win it every single time. Federer would most probably lead in that rivalry but wouldn't dominate it IMO.

Retaliation or not, two wrongs don't make a right. I would be a millionaire too if I had a dollar for every time Djokovic is being called a weak era beneficiary and is being handed victories and titles.

Well ok, you have the right to think that. I am not denying that Federer has a higher peak at USO and Wimbledon, but I don't think it would be a domination from him because the gap between him and Novak is not a huge one IMO. Just as an example, lets say Fed would have a 10-6 lead peak-to-peak, not 10-0. If he has a higher peak than someone, it doesn't mean he will win all the time. The wins Djokovic achieved over Federer are not telling me that his peak is higher, not at all. But they are telling me that Djokovic would be a very tough opponent to beat, even for Federer.

 

[abmk]

I already said that we cannot tell who would win the peak-to-peak battle, they never clashed. Thanks to the data we have, we can only pick the favorite, but we can't tell the outcome. I am not denying that Federer would be the favorite judging by their peaks I saw at USO and Wimbledon. He is more likely to win than not when talking about one single match, however if we had a rivalry when they played peak-to-peak matches most of the time, he wouldn't win it every single time. Federer would most probably lead in that rivalry but wouldn't dominate it IMO.

Retaliation or not, two wrongs don't make a right. I would be a millionaire too if I had a dollar for every time Djokovic is being called a weak era beneficiary and is being handed victories and titles.

Well ok, you have the right to think that. I am not denying that Federer has a higher peak at USO and Wimbledon, but I don't think it would be a domination from him because the gap between him and Novak is not a huge one IMO. Just as an example, lets say Fed would have a 10-6 lead peak-to-peak, not 10-0. If he has a higher peak than someone, it doesn't mean he will win all the time. The wins Djokovic achieved over Federer are not telling me that his peak is higher, not at all. But they are telling me that Djokovic would be a very tough opponent to beat, even for Federer.

I don't think federer would have a 10-0 lead either ..

I think it would be something like 8-2 at wimbledon and 7-3 at the USO ..

but if I had to pick what would happen in a single match b/w them peak-to-peak, I'd definitely go with federer ...

fair enough : re the weak era talk. It doesn't make it right, but it is what it is. But there is no denying djokovic has it relatively easier now ..just like federer did in 06, nadal did in 10 ...note the word is relatively..

 

[abmk]

I would disagree Re. Kuerten even though he has a strong case. Imo Federer actually playing consistently with a clay court game would edge Kuerten. In 2004 he was still super inconsistent and played on clay like he did on other surfaces (hitting flatter, going for more lines, aggressively running around backhands even though he would be out of position). When it clicked he was incredible, but besides Hamburg he was very average on clay that year. I don't think either of their clay meetings mean much...you have to look at matchup for them and I think Fed would come out on top. Kuerten would get his share of wins but both at their peaks and playing like this I would favor federer slightly.

nah, it doesn't have much to do with their matches h2h. More to do with kuerten's game when it was clicking , like vs bruguera in RG 97 final, vs ferrero in RG 2001 SF
...

I meant in their absolute best forms, I'd favour kuerten on clay.

in a series , federer would come out on top due to better consistency/longevity ..

 

[Emperor of Belgrade]

I don't think federer would have a 10-0 lead either ..

I think it would be something like 8-2 at wimbledon and 7-3 at the USO ..

but if I had to pick what would happen in a single match b/w them peak-to-peak, I'd definitely go with federer ...

fair enough : re the weak era talk. It doesn't make it right, but it is what it is. But there is no denying djokovic has it relatively easier now ..just like federer did in 06, nadal did in 10 ...note the word is relatively..

We do disagree slightly with those imaginary H2Hs but you get my point.

I am well aware of the fact that Djokovic has it relatively easier now than before, just like Fed and Rafa. However they all won when the competition is stronger too, so putting an asterisk on the achievements they achieved in an easier manner is pointless. In the end, history will tell how many titles you won, not how hard your opponents were. After all, the point is to become the best of your generation because it is very hard to compare different eras.

 

[abmk]

We do disagree slightly with those imaginary H2Hs but you get my point.

I do

I am well aware of the fact that Djokovic has it relatively easier now than before, just like Fed and Rafa. However they all won when the competition is stronger too, so putting an asterisk on the achievements they achieved in an easier manner is pointless. In the end, history will tell how many titles you won, not how hard your opponents were. After all, the point is to become the best of your generation because it is very hard to compare different eras.

difference is most of the fed fans acknowledge that djokovic did not have it easy from 11-13.

many of the djokodal fans do not acknowledge federer did not have it easy in 04, 05, 07 ....instead chose to make sweeping statements that 04-07 was a joke era.

 

[uliks]

I already said that we cannot tell for sure who would win the peak-to-peak battle, they never clashed. Thanks to the data we have, we can only pick the favorite, but we can't tell the outcome. I am not denying that Federer would be the favorite judging by their peaks I saw at USO and Wimbledon. He is more likely to win than not when talking about one single match, however if we had a rivalry when they played peak-to-peak matches most of the time, he wouldn't win it every single time. Federer would most probably lead in that rivalry but wouldn't dominate it IMO.

Retaliation or not, two wrongs don't make a right. I would be a millionaire too if I had a dollar for every time Djokovic is being called a weak era beneficiary and is being handed victories and titles.

Well ok, you have the right to think that. I am not denying that Federer has a higher peak at USO and Wimbledon, but I don't think it would be a domination from him because the gap between him and Novak is not a huge one IMO. Just as an example, lets say Fed would have a 10-6 lead peak-to-peak, not 10-0. If he has a higher peak than someone, it doesn't mean he will win all the time. The wins Djokovic achieved over Federer are not telling me that his peak is higher, not at all. But they are telling me that Djokovic would be a very tough opponent to beat, even for Federer.

Judging by their peaks or level or whatever Federer was supposed to win against Djokovic also in 2014 and 2015 W and 2015 USO, but we all know what happened. Lets leave artistic impression for figure skating, tennis when is playing at this level is all about matchups, mental toughness, playing tough in important moments, and for that reason i really like peak Djokovic chances against any version of Federer and whatever the surface...

 

[metsman]

nah, it doesn't have much to do with their matches h2h. More to do with kuerten's game when it was clicking , like vs bruguera in RG 97 final, vs ferrero in RG 2001 SF
...

I meant in their absolute best forms, I'd favour kuerten on clay.

in a series , federer would come out on top due to better consistency/longevity ..

Kuerten was definitely really tough but outside of BH to BH rallies he wouldn't really have a serious way to hurt Fed imo. And the slice down the line would be a good neutralizer when Fed was stretched to the BH wing because Guga wasn't great moving to his FH.
FH to FH Fed was owning him even in their 02 meeting and Fed has a better serve. And 2006 Fed's backhand could probably hold up pretty well against Guga's backhand. If Fed's backhand was off Guga could definitely capitalize but I think if Fed's backhand clicks he would get the better of him.

Guga would definitely have his chances though because Fed's backhand usually went off for a set or two even at his peak on clay. When it was on he could make even Nadal look bad (but of course Nadal could break it down easier than anyone else could) but I will agree Federer didn't have many of those 97 RG or 01 RG performances like you mentioned because his backhand would usually go off long enough for him to lose a set. But in the end Guga isn't Nadal where he can consistently find Federer's backhand with crazy spin and angles, doesn't have the defense to really frustrate Federer/make him play out of his skin so I think Fed would edge him.

 

[Emperor of Belgrade]

I do



difference is most of the fed fans acknowledge that djokovic did not have it easy from 11-13.

many of the djokodal fans do not acknowledge federer did not have it easy in 04, 05, 07 ....instead chose to make sweeping statements that 04-07 was a joke era.

Well we cannot measure who has been less appreciative, it is a mess all around. But I guess you should just accept all that bashing when supporting currently the most successful player in history, just like we are try to deal with it now because of our support for currently the best player in the world.

 

[abmk]

Judging by their peaks or level or whatever Federer was supposed to win against Djokovic also in 2014 and 2015 W and 2015 USO, but we all know what happened. Lets leave artistic impresion for figure skating, tennis when is playing at this level is all about matchups, mental toughness, playing tough in important moments, and for that reason i really like Djokovic chances against any version of Federer and whatever the surface...

yep, we saw all of that in RG 11 when federer broke djokovic when he was serving for the set to win the 4th set.

when federer beat djokovic comprehensively in wimbledon 12

when federer saved 4 or 5 SPs to take the TB in wimbledon 15 -- though in the match he was nowhere near peak level, when he made the comeback from dead in the 4th set in wim 14 ( when he was nowhere near peak level in that match either )

again, how on earth is federer supposed to be at peak level in 2015 W when he was supposed to lose in straights to andy murray, huh ?

we all saw the mental toughness of djokovic in the net-gate in RG 13 , in USO 13 final.....not being able to win RG 14, 15 ...going down to nishikori that way in USO 14, to murray in straights in wim 13 ..

it has nothing to do with artistic impression. It has do with level of play being better than djokovic's at the W/USO.

 

[Emperor of Belgrade]

Judging by their peaks or level or whatever Federer was supposed to win against Djokovic also in 2014 and 2015 W and 2015 USO, but we all know what happened. Lets leave artistic impression for figure skating, tennis when is playing at this level is all about matchups, mental toughness, playing tough in important moments, and for that reason i really like peak Djokovic chances against any version of Federer and whatever the surface...

I would always give Djokovic a chance too, but he is not the favorite all the time. Neither is Federer. No player is best at everything.

 

[abmk]

Well we cannot measure who has been less appreciative, it is a mess all around. But I guess you should just accept all that bashing when supporting currently the most successful player in history, just like we are try to deal with it now because of our support for currently the best player in the world.

oh trust me , I've been here for long enough to get a good measure of who has been less appreciative.

Anyways your posts so far have been constructive, so continue on that

 

[uliks]

yep, we saw all of that in RG 11 when federer broke djokovic when he was serving for the set to win the 4th set.

when federer beat djokovic comprehensively in wimbledon 12

when federer saved 4 or 5 SPs to take the TB in wimbledon 15 -- though in the match he was nowhere near peak level, when he made the comeback from dead in the 4th set in wim 14 ( when he was nowhere near peak level in that match either )

again, how on earth is federer supposed to be at peak level in 2015 W when he was supposed to lose in straights to andy murray, huh ?

it has nothing to do with artistic impression. It has do with level of play being better than djokovic's at the W/USO.

Yes. Based on what happened in 2014 and 2015 W i have to give edge to Djokovic on grass. USO would be a closer affair probably, but mentally tougher Djokovic would probably prevail in 5 set there...

 

[abmk]

Yes. Based on what happened in 2014 and 2015 W i have to give edge to Djokovic on grass. USO would be a closer affair probably, but mentaly tougher Djokovic would probably prevail in 5 set there...

good ...you are consistent with your andy murray will beat federer in wimbledon 15 SF in straights shtick. I like it

 

[Emperor of Belgrade]

oh trust me , I've been here for long enough to get a good measure of who has been less appreciative.

Anyways your posts so far have been constructive, so continue on that

Well, I wasn't just referring to the situation on this forum, you clearly have more knowledge about it than me anyway. For the best possible comparison, we should wait for both players to retire.

I will.

 

[abmk]

Kuerten was definitely really tough but outside of BH to BH rallies he wouldn't really have a serious way to hurt Fed imo. And the slice down the line would be a good neutralizer when Fed was stretched to the BH wing because Guga wasn't great moving to his FH.
FH to FH Fed was owning him even in their 02 meeting and Fed has a better serve. And 2006 Fed's backhand could probably hold up pretty well against Guga's backhand. If Fed's backhand was off Guga could definitely capitalize but I think if Fed's backhand clicks he would get the better of him.

Guga would definitely have his chances though because Fed's backhand usually went off for a set or two even at his peak on clay. When it was on he could make even Nadal look bad (but of course Nadal could break it down easier than anyone else could) but I will agree Federer didn't have many of those 97 RG or 01 RG performances like you mentioned because his backhand would usually go off long enough for him to lose a set. But in the end Guga isn't Nadal where he can consistently find Federer's backhand with crazy spin and angles, doesn't have the defense to really frustrate Federer/make him play out of his skin so I think Fed would edge him.

I think on clay, their Fh-FH gap reduces considerably. Guga's fh was very effective on clay. their 02 meeting doesn't have much relevance IMO, guga had problems with his hip at around that time . His prime on clay was from 99-01 - though he did have that amazing run at RG in 97 to clinch it

guga's serve was actually more powerful than federer's...
slice would be decent neutraliser, but not as effective on clay as on other surfaces

kuerten could hit winners from both wings and defend well. He had that innate understanding of how to play on a CC

its definitely not nadal-like, but kuerten would have the edge IMO, not a massive one, but still an edge.

 

[NoleFam]

Judging by their peaks or level or whatever Federer was supposed to win against Djokovic also in 2014 and 2015 W and 2015 USO, but we all know what happened. Lets leave artistic impression for figure skating, tennis when is playing at this level is all about matchups, mental toughness, playing tough in important moments, and for that reason i really like peak Djokovic chances against any version of Federer and whatever the surface...

Please don't waste your breath. LOL. They live in some alternate universe that is far far away from here and will never see it the way you do. All I hear is how Federer would surely beat Djokovic peak to peak. Rewind back 15 years ago and 20 yo Federer was getting handled by a 31 year old Agassi in the US Open. In fact, he got destroyed and barely beat a 30 year old declined and done Sampras in 5 sets at 2001 Wimbledon. He didn't start beating Agassi until he was 33 years old but all of a sudden Federer is the gold standard at both Wimbledon and the US Open? Djokovic won his first Slam at 20 and got to a US Open Final where he played a close match. He took his losses but he was winning as well at even that age but Federer is so much better peak to peak when he struggled at that same age to beat the legends who were 10+ years older than him? Federer, however, at 29 and 30 lost at the US Open because he was so much past his prime level. Not only that but now Federer would beat peak Kuerten on clay? Kuerten with a damaged hip trashed Federer in 3 sets at the French during his peak and clearly is a much better clay player than Federer. The delusions are at all time highs.

 

[metsman]

I think on clay, their Fh-FH gap reduces considerably. Guga's fh was very effective on clay. their 02 meeting doesn't have much relevance IMO, guga had problems with his hip at around that time . His prime on clay was from 99-01 - though he did have that amazing run at RG in 97 to clinch it

guga's serve was actually more powerful than federer's...
slice would be decent neutraliser, but not as effective on clay as on other surfaces

kuerten could hit winners from both wings and defend well. He had that innate understanding of how to play on a CC

its definitely not nadal-like, but kuerten would have the edge IMO, not a massive one, but still an edge.

his serve had more MPH but not better overall imo. I think Guga at his peak was than Fed against the field but in a head to head Fed would have a slight edge. But I can see why you would lean Guga...2001 especially he was awesome on the dirt. Agree to disagree.

 

[abmk]

his serve had more MPH but not better overall imo. I think Guga at his peak was than Fed against the field but in a head to head Fed would have a slight edge. But I can see why you would lean Guga...2001 especially he was awesome on the dirt. Agree to disagree.

fair enough ..

 

[I am the Greatest!]

Judging by their peaks or level or whatever Federer was supposed to win against Djokovic also in 2014 and 2015 W and 2015 USO, but we all know what happened.

Keep believing mate. We can be delusional sometimes. Federer fans here would admit that Novak should have owned Federer in those 3 Slam finals, but Federer made it competitive. He was never supposed to win those matches. He was spraying all of his shots on the court and Novak played wonderful. How can you say that Roger should have won it? Really.

 

[uliks]

Keep believing mate. We can be delusional sometimes. Federer fans here would admit that Novak should have owned Federer in those 3 Slam finals, but Federer made it competitive. He was never supposed to win those matches. He was spraying all of his shots on the court and Novak played wonderful. How can you say that Roger should have won it? Really.

It's all good mate, but check out this threads, for example! Check the polls if not! It was worse on twitter or in some other parts of the internet tennis community! Everybody were doing abmk and drooling over Federer's level, but then Djokovic happened!

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/us-open-2015-final-djokovic-1-vs-federer-2.543613/

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...l-1-novak-djokovic-vs-2-roger-federer.538102/

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...tlemens-final-1-djokovic-vs-4-federer.505555/

 

[Deleted member 743561]

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.

Ah... difficult to compare because they are years apart. Any of that would result in hypotheticals and biased speculation. We are left with accomplishments and hard statistics. Guess the conversation can be resumed in a couple of years then?

 

[abmk]

It's all good mate, but check out this threads, for example! Check the polls if not! It was worse on twitter or in some other parts of the internet tennis community! Everybody were doing abmk and drooling over Federer's level, but then Djokovic happened!

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/us-open-2015-final-djokovic-1-vs-federer-2.543613/

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...l-1-novak-djokovic-vs-2-roger-federer.538102/

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...tlemens-final-1-djokovic-vs-4-federer.505555/

umm ...wait ..for instance, this is my post :

↑tipsa...don'tlikehim! said: ↑
Surely Federer best chance to win a 18th slam given how Djokovic has been playing all week (only great match I saw he played was against Tomic).

federer has been in better form, but djoko also played pretty well vs cilic in the QF, was very focussed ( I didn't watch much of the SF today though from what I heard, djoko was doing enough )

fed's level in the murray 15 SF was indeed very high, he was nowhere near that in the final ...that's the only slam where his level was being praised that highly ...

You were the one saying murray would defeat federer in straights in Wim 15 SF ...just goes to show your delusions ...

djokovic playing below federer's level before the final in all the 3 cases is not federer's fault ..its not the fault of others who observed the same as well ..

try harder next time.

 

[Emperor of Belgrade]

Ah... difficult to compare because they are years apart. Any of that would result in hypotheticals and biased speculation. We are left with accomplishments and hard statistics. Guess the conversation can be resumed in a couple of years then?

I don't see what will happen in the next couple of years that would help us in this conversation. Even if agreement is reached, does it really matter who would win in peak battle? Titles are the most important thing and I think it would be best to stay in that area of discussion.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

I don't see what will happen in the next couple of years that would help us in this conversation. Even if agreement is reached, does it really matter who would win in peak battle? Titles are the most important thing and I think it would be best to stay in that area of discussion.

Well, that's the minimum it would take for Djok to approach some of Fed's marks, so seems like a couple of years out might give him time to make their achievements comparable. Especially if titles are the most important, then time is what he'll need. I guess it would not be too much to expect him to maintain steamroller-mode for two more calendar years, would it?

 

[Emperor of Belgrade]

Well, that's the minimum it would take for Djok to approach some of Fed's marks, so seems like a couple of years out might give him time to make their achievements comparable. Especially if titles are the most important, then time is what he'll need. I guess it would not be too much to expect him to maintain steamroller-mode for two more calendar years, would it?

We shall see, he looks solid this year so far. What I wanted to say is, even if Djokovic somehow shows an even higher level than all of his levels before, the peak to peak comparisons will most probably keep running in circles. Some Fed fans think he has a higher peak than Novak at AO, some Rafa fans think he has a higher peak at Wimbledon than Fed... It has become pointless and all we can do now properly is compare greatness by looking at titles. There you cannot look subjectively, numbers cannot be changed at our will.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Davydenko would be winning RG today.

 

[mike danny]

I would like to see this Davydenko vs Next Gen on clay.