Are you sure Flink is assuming that?
You are delusional. Djokovic did not play his best tennis in every match in 2011.
Djokovic did not lose rhythm at 2011 FO after Fognini's withdrawal?
Djokovic was No. 67 when he played Federer in MC 2006.
Djokovic had an off day in the final at 2012 Cincinnati and at that time Federer was No. 1 in the ATP rankings. It's much less embarrassing then Federer needing 3 sets to bet Djokovic when he was No. 67.
Wishful thinking.
I have often seen Federer fans imply the following:
1. Djokovic was at his absolute peak in 2011
2. Federer beat Djokovic at FO 2011
3. Therefore, Federer beat absolute peak Djokovic at FO 2011
They are now getting the taste of their own medicine. That's what I am doing in this thread but you are too dumb to understand it.
1) Among other mistakes, yes. It was already outlined by other posts in this thread.
2) Obviously not, nobody does, but you guys use similar arguments to imply silly points as well. As other people have pointed out, Gasquet ACTUALLY WON in Federer's statistically best year. What has it meant? Absolutely nothing. There's also the fact that very few have been able to touch "Peak Fed" outside of clay. He would've probably swept 2006 if everything was played on hard court and grass, with a similar record in 2005. Instead, the match was on clay, a condition that favors Djokovic. If you want to contest that, you're either saying a) Djokovic isn't an amazing clay court player, or b) Federer is as good as Djokovic on clay.
3) Why should he? He has access to the courts to practice on. If anything, he should be playing better. He has complained about issues related to his poor conditioning before. Having to play fewer sets should be in his favor. The fact is, the argument is a shaky one. It's like an excuse Nole would actually use for why he lost. Players lose because they got outplayed. Whether it was because they underperformed or the other guy overperformed doesn't matter.
4) Nobody gives a flying f*ck. Gasquet still outperformed him a year beforehand.
5) It's not wishful, it's subjective. Arguments can be made either way. Both players have displayed absurdly high levels of performance on the court.
6) The difference being, Federer actually won both referenced matches. So no, it's not that people are too dumb to understand it, it's just that your argument is so weak that it doesn't hold water. If you want a good comparison, then use Federer taking Djokovic to 5 sets at the 2014 Wimbledon with a new racket, dinking half his backhands, post prime, somehow makes him the superior player. He lost the match. He did VERY well to get to 5 sets, but it means nothing. If he won, you have an argument. But he lost, so all you have is speculation. Yes, people will make these stupid ass arguments, like you just tried to do, and some of the more rational-minded people will call them out for it (or the irrational-minded will poke at the obvious holes of the argument). Beyond that, you let the fanatics just tear into each other while you eat some popcorn.
