Federer's competition from 2003-2008

Who had the stronger Slam competition during their prime years?

  • Total voters
    56
Djokovic2011 said:
At least Nole isn't 10-23 against his main rival. Sorry mate, couldn't resist it. :wink:
Click to expand...

Oh, good for him! And he still trails Federer at:

1. Wimbledon
2. French Open
3. US Open
4. WTF
5. YE#1

You wanna talk H2H, Djokovic is behind both Nadal and Federer. Not to mention Roddick and Safin ;)
 
Mayonnaise said:
Oh, good for him! And he still trails Federer at:

1. Wimbledon
2. French Open
3. US Open
4. WTF
5. YE#1

You wanna talk H2H, Djokovic is behind both Nadal and Federer. Not to mention Roddick and Safin ;)
Click to expand...

But according to you aren't Safin and Roddick both underrated players from the 04-07 era? If that's the case then surely there's no shame in having a losing H2H against them? :wink:
 
Djokovic2011 said:
But according to you aren't Safin and Roddick both underrated players from the 04-07 era? If that's the case then surely there's no shame in having a losing H2H against them? :wink:
Click to expand...

No shame, of course. Just like there's no shame in being 10-23 against Nadal when you have 17 Slams ;)
 
q3743012_1057216_4139ruler.jpg


/thread
 
AssaultJoker said:
But he still lost to him week ago:)

What if we bring up players before Open era who got 20+ Slams? :lol: Fed is only WTF's GOAT, nothing more. :)
Click to expand...

No player before the Open Era won 20+ slams. Rosewall won 20+ majors - not the same thing as slams considering their were of varying value.
 
AssaultJoker said:
But he still lost to him week ago

What if we bring up players before Open era who got 20+ Slams? :lol: Fed is only WTF's GOAT, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Federer has 23 Majors! Nobody has more, Open Era or pre-Open Era! :) And Federer is also the only player to win the 5 biggest titles of his era and have 20+ Majors! :) GOAT!

Djokovic, meanwhile, is at 10 Majors :lol:
 
NatF said:
No player before the Open Era won 20+ slams. Rosewall won 20+ majors - not the same thing as slams considering their were of varying value.
Click to expand...

The conditions were different in the old days Nat. Tilden for example would have had an excellent chance to win 20 plus majors but the boat travel would take ages. Many wouldn't want to go to Australian for example. And of course if a player dared turned pro he was banned from the majors. Many players at least would have had a shot to win twenty majors if they had not been banned. Of course players didn't always regard the majors to be as important as they are now. Many skipped the Australian in the 1970's. Connors skipped the French for a number of years and rarely played the Australian. There were boycotts and other issues.
 
2004-2007 is a transition period to modern power baseline era.

Some of S&Ver's actually dropped out, or take a hitus and rehab their game into baseline one, and so on.

Federer adjusted well, perhaps perfect environment for him, and quickly established
a new standard of strong baseline game.

Nadal perhaps debuted into perfect condition of tour for him.

and we have longer career for top players due to overall slowness of game and
enviroment (e.g. ranking system) that makes it harder for new young players
to break into top.

That's why we have so called new "golden era" of tennis and all these records
getting broken.

The tradition of tennis game has been exploited and the popularity of professional
tennis game perhaps have peaked.
 
pc1 said:
The conditions were different in the old days Nat. Tilden for example would have had an excellent chance to win 20 plus majors but the boat travel would take ages. Many wouldn't want to go to Australian for example. And of course if a player dared turned pro he was banned from the majors. Many players at least would have had a shot to win twenty majors if they had not been banned. Of course players didn't always regard the majors to be as important as they are now. Many skipped the Australian in the 1970's. Connors skipped the French for a number of years and rarely played the Australian. There were boycotts and other issues.
Click to expand...

Yes but I'm not saying players couldn't have won 20 slams, I just saying no one did actually win 20+ contra to what some other poster said.
 
In 2004, Federer was out-shotmaking everyone. You watch him at the AO that year, guys are going for shots and playing at a pretty quick pace, with the ball seemingly really moving through the court by today's standards. Whether he's playing Nalbandian or Hewitt or Ferrero.

That may as well be Cincinnati these days.

Then Wimbledon and the US Open were even faster, of course.

Forget weak era/strong era. How about "fast era"/"slow era?"

I'm expecting Federer to win Cincinnati again this year to kind of underscore this subtle point some more.

Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are to be commended for their success in the slow era, but that really has no bearing on the strength of competition when Federer was taking the world by storm.
 
Pretty close poll and honestly quite amazing to see those kind of results.

Dont like to play the game of "what ifs" so I voted you cant compare across eras.

Whos to say someone like David Ferrer wouldnt wear down Pete Sampras over five sets because David gets back just about everything you hit?

Honest truth is we will never know and everything we say is merely speculation.
 
Mayonnaise said:
Okay, it's now clear that I'm talking to a child. Nobody who knows anything about Tennis would say Federer was better in 2011 than 2006 :lol:
Click to expand...

Of course Fed was way better in 2006 than 2011, but you could argue that the RG match vs Nole was the best individual RG match Fed ever produced. Its not like just because your over-all level is higher means thats its impossible to have a higher level performance in a different year. Nole 2011>Nole 2013, but Nole 2013 RG was his best RG performance.

Also Mayo, I got banned for a couple of days lol so my bad on not replying to earlier comments. Sorry things got a little heated as well, I shouldn't have been personally attacking you.

Let me walk through a few things with you though:

I never said Nole 2010 would win 3/4 slams in 2004. I said if you took Nole's prime (last 16 slams) and placed them into the 16 slams between 04-07 with a 19-22 year old Federer and no Nadal, Nole wins 11-13 slams.

You have a point about my discounting Nadal but only marginally, Fed didn't have to deal with young Djokovic in that time period like we have already been over. From 04-06 there was no Nole for Fed to play. Through most of 07, Nole was not top 10 yet. Nole was only a legit challenge for Fed at 1 slam during his 04-07 run, USO 07.

If we want to simulate similar conditions then with Nadal, lets include Nadal for just 1 slam during a potential prime Nole, RG 07 in his RG 05 form. I would say that would match even conditions. Nole would lose that one.

NatF said:
Agassi 2004, Hewitt 2005, Roddick 2006-2007 would beat 2010 Djokovic at the USO. They'd have a shot against 12-13 Djokovic too who wasn't playing that well e.g. dropping sets to Youzhny and struggling with a Wawrinka who wasn't playing at his best level.

And actually Roddick in 2007 played a better match against Federer than Djokovic did. Look at the stats, more winners and less errors. So lol yourself....

Djokovic would probably win all the AO's bar 2005 and he might win even that.

At Wimbledon I agree he wins a couple of titles maybe 05-06.

At FO it's unfair to compare competition if we're not including Nadal (this goes for Wimbledon too).
Click to expand...

I've explained why we are doing that, we are using prime Djoker with similar young Fed and only young Nadal being a challenge for 1 slam (the same conditions Fed had in relation to young Nadal and young Nole).

In those circumstances you agree then:

Nole wins for sure: 3 AO, 1 USO, 1 Wimb, 3 FO = 8 slams (AO 04, 06, 07 / Wimb 06 / FO 04, 05, 06 / USO 05)

Could be 50/50 1 AO, 3 USO, 2 Wimb = 6 slams (AO 05 - Safin, Wimb 04, 05 - Roddickx2 / USO 04, 06, 07 - Agassi/Roddick/Hewitt)

Loses for sure = 1 FO (to young Nadal), 1 Wimb (to young Fed) = 2 slams (FO 07, Wimb 07)

That puts the range of potential from 8-14 slams, which you agree on.

Lets say he wins 50% of the 50/50 slams. He splits the Wimbs with Roddick and wins 2 of the 4 on hard courts.

That gets us to 11, the same # Fed won in that era.

I said 11-13 slams because I didn't account for a FO loss to Nadal initially,
but I agree to accurately simulate young Nole and young Nadal for prime Fed,
we should use 02-05 Nadal along with 00-03 Fed in that span, so that brings
the total to 10-12 slams...our average of 11 +/- 1 (if he were to go 4-2 or 2-4 in those 50/50s).

Then we also have to consider pre-USO 10 Nole playing in 00-03 would have also been a contender for several AO/USO/FO because he was contending for slams at 19-21, unlike Fed was at that time in his career.

We have the 08 AO, 08 FO, and 07, 08, 09 USO forms (all SF/F loses to Fed/Nadal) to go on to tab him as a contender at AO 02, FO 02 and USO 01, 02, and 03.

AO 02 with 08 Nole in there and no Agassi and Thomas Johnanson winning? Nole would be favored

FO 02 with Kuertan declined, won by Albert Costa? Remember Nole won Rome in 08 in this form and put up a much better fight than Fed did vs Nadal at that RG. Nole could contend there.

07-09 USO Nole who was only stopped by prime Fed going up against 01 Hewitt, 02 Sampras, 03 Roddick he could have contended for those titles as well.

I'd say between AO 02/FO 02 and those 3 USOs, Nole wins 2-3 slams and then takes 10-12 from 04-07 for a total of 12-15.

Fed at the end of 07 was at 12. Now lets make 1 more adjustment for Fed also to be fair. Lets put 07-10 Nole in the 04-07 Fed era and instead use 02-05 Nadal instead of 04-07 so both have a young each other and super young Nadal.

Fed goes up to 12-13/16 slams (adds RG 05/06, Nadal still wins RG 07 in 05 form and Fed doesn't win RG 04 regardless and I would say Nole 07-10 would have a chance to take 1 AO from Fed) for a total of 13-14 (12-13 + Wimb 03).

So I say Nole wins 12-15 vs Fed winning 13-14, if we simulate identical circumstances (and this isn't for full career, just in the 07 and prior window) and Fed almost had ideal circumstances save Nadal on clay.
 
Jam said:
well if they were the same age, then Nadal wins all the French Opens that he won and Federer wins a bit fewer Wim and US and Oz compared to what he actually did and Djokovic a bit more. Interestingly, I think Nadal might win fewer off clay as I think Fed and Djoko would stop him say maybe 1 less. So Nadal, something like 13, Federer say 14 or 15 and Djokovic 10 or 11 and probably Murray still something like 2 (if he was also included). But that total is still Fed at 32 and the others at 27 or 28. So when they're all say 27 or 28 I'd have it as:

Nadal 12
Fed 12
Djokovic 10
Murray 2

Would have been an amazing era. But of course we'll never know.
Click to expand...

This is the only point I have been trying to make this whole topic!

Bare with me as I do an analysis here, I actually think if the big 4 were all the same age throughout you might see Fed/Nadal have only slightly lower #s, but Murray/Nole #s actually go up.

If all played in the same age range Fed #s go down sharply in that era, Nadal's
#s go down slightly, and Nole's #s would actually go up, not down as Mayo keeps saying!

This is because young Fed would not stop young Nole on HC the way prime Fed stopped young Nole constantly, therby increasing his early career HC slam career #s. Prime vs Prime Fed dominates Wimby but not unbeatable, Nole dominates AO but not unbeatable, Nadal dominates FO, unbeatable (except 1 injury loss to Fed, fair to project), and USO Fed wins the most, but there is a nice distribution for others.

Fed still finishes above Nole in the totals because he would about equally dominate Wimby as Nole AO, but do better at USO, but would see most of his total #s dip across the board because he would lose a few Wimbys, some USO, and most AOs.

Nadal's #s go down slightly, but his FO # doesn't change and he doesn't have too much in the other slams to lose.

Nole's Oz/USO #s go up, and he doesn't have much to lose in FO/Wimb.

I think 12-12-10-2 sounds about right if we take all 4 starting at age 19-28 from 2002-2011 (so Fed 2 years younger, Murray/Nole 4 years older, Nadal 3 years older)all other competitors ages being equal. That amounts to 36/40 slams, toss off 4 slams to others:

Australian Open - Nole (6), Fed (1), Nadal (1), Agassi (1 - 03), Safin (1 - 05)
French Open - Nadal (9), Fed (1)
Wimbledon - Fed (6), Nadal (1), Nole (1), Murray (1), Hewitt (1 - 02)
US Open - Fed (4), Nole (3), Nadal (1), Murray (1), Random Winner (1)

Totals:
Hewitt - 1 Wimb
Agassi - 1 AO
Safin - 1 AO

Fed - 1 AO, 1 FO, 6 Wimb, 4 USO = 12
Nadal - 1 AO, 9 FO, 1 Wimb, 1 USO = 12
Nole - 6 AO, 1 Wimb, 3 USO = 10
Murray - 1 USO, 1 Wimb = 2

One Slam USO wonder - 1 USO

Now where it gets interesting though is, we would have to consider the
reverse as well, post-2011 when all hit 28. We know what Fed's form was post-28 seen the last few years (2010-2014). If there is no prime Murray/Nole/Nadal around from 2010-2014 (as we assume equivalent competition) then Fed's slam #s in THIS era would go up, just as Nole's 07-14 form placed in 02-11 #s would.

Fed in 2010/2011 USO was stopped by Nole
Fed won 2010 AO and was stopped by Nole in 2011, Murray in 2013, and Nadal in 2012/2014
Fed was stopped by Nadal in FO 11 and Nole in FO 12
Fed was won Wimby 12 and was stopped by Nole in Wimb 14

Thats a potential for 9 more slams all stopped by prime Big 4 in the SF/F in the hypothetical 2012-2016 era, if we put the big 4 at all 19 in 02.

We don't know what Murray post-28 will look like, and we are having a suspicion post-28 Nadal will look far worse than post-28 Fed. Nole, however, does look like he will still be going strong post-28, but it remains to be see how much compared to Fed. It also depends on the new generation in 15/16.

So that 12-12-10-2 estimate would be a floor that could be augmented (and certainly would be for Fed).

Ergo Fed would still be GOAT, but chances are good Nole's #s would rival Nadal at least. Perhaps when it came down to it in the end Fed/Nadal #s would actually only diminish slightly, while Murray's might improve slightly
and Nole's shoot up a considerable amount to the point where he is actually on Nadal's level with a closer gap to Fed.

Note: This should also tell you, why I feel Fed is GOAT (of open era). If you placed him in the absolute peak era ever with prime Big 4 as the top tier players (replacing Hewitt/Safin/Roddick/Agassi) and those 4 as the
second tier players (replacing Tsonga/Berdych/Ferrer/Del Po/Wawrinka), I STILL say he wins a MINIMUM of 12 career Slams.

Bottom line is none of this matters in the scheme of where players will be ranked, as it stands Fed is GOAT, Nadal tier 1, and Nole tier 2 and Nole needs to win more to move up.

But I just want you to acknowledge Nole has it tougher than Fed did during his prime. Fed's legacy is secure and he is the better player, but beating Gonzales, Philippouses, 35 year old Agassi, Roddick, Safin, and Hewitt for 80% of his slam wins doesn't measure up in difficulty to Nole having to beat prime Nadal and prime Murray for 80% of his slam wins.
 
Mayonnaise said:
Since 2008:

Old Federer - 5 Slams
Prime Djokovic - 7 Slams

Weird how an old guy who dominated a weak era won so much in a strong era ;)
Click to expand...

So Federer, who was 27 when he won USO 2008, RG and W 2009 is old but Djokovic, who won Wimbledon 2014 at the same age is prime Djokovic hahaha what a clown you are, we are all waiting for your 3rd ban :twisted:
 
Gonzo_style said:
So Federer, who was 27 when he won USO 2008, RG and W 2009 is old but Djokovic, who won Wimbledon 2014 at the same age is prime Djokovic hahaha what a clown you are, we are all waiting for your 3rd ban :twisted:
Click to expand...

27-33 Federer is old
21-27 Djokovic is prime

Try and think some, Gonzo_Style ;)
 
Old Federer won 1 Slam, that's about it, he might win another, given the fact that he played the best match of his life in the Wimbledon final...
 
SpicyCurry1990 said:
Of course Fed was way better in 2006 than 2011, but you could argue that the RG match vs Nole was the best individual RG match Fed ever produced. Its not like just because your over-all level is higher means thats its impossible to have a higher level performance in a different year. Nole 2011>Nole 2013, but Nole 2013 RG was his best RG performance.

Also Mayo, I got banned for a couple of days lol so my bad on not replying to earlier comments. Sorry things got a little heated as well, I shouldn't have been personally attacking you.

Let me walk through a few things with you though:

I never said Nole 2010 would win 3/4 slams in 2004. I said if you took Nole's prime (last 16 slams) and placed them into the 16 slams between 04-07 with a 19-22 year old Federer and no Nadal, Nole wins 11-13 slams.

You have a point about my discounting Nadal but only marginally, Fed didn't have to deal with young Djokovic in that time period like we have already been over. From 04-06 there was no Nole for Fed to play. Through most of 07, Nole was not top 10 yet. Nole was only a legit challenge for Fed at 1 slam during his 04-07 run, USO 07.

If we want to simulate similar conditions then with Nadal, lets include Nadal for just 1 slam during a potential prime Nole, RG 07 in his RG 05 form. I would say that would match even conditions. Nole would lose that one.



I've explained why we are doing that, we are using prime Djoker with similar young Fed and only young Nadal being a challenge for 1 slam (the same conditions Fed had in relation to young Nadal and young Nole).

In those circumstances you agree then:

Nole wins for sure: 3 AO, 1 USO, 1 Wimb, 3 FO = 8 slams (AO 04, 06, 07 / Wimb 06 / FO 04, 05, 06 / USO 05)

Could be 50/50 1 AO, 3 USO, 2 Wimb = 6 slams (AO 05 - Safin, Wimb 04, 05 - Roddickx2 / USO 04, 06, 07 - Agassi/Roddick/Hewitt)

Loses for sure = 1 FO (to young Nadal), 1 Wimb (to young Fed) = 2 slams (FO 07, Wimb 07)

That puts the range of potential from 8-14 slams, which you agree on.

Lets say he wins 50% of the 50/50 slams. He splits the Wimbs with Roddick and wins 2 of the 4 on hard courts.

That gets us to 11, the same # Fed won in that era.

I said 11-13 slams because I didn't account for a FO loss to Nadal initially,
but I agree to accurately simulate young Nole and young Nadal for prime Fed,
we should use 02-05 Nadal along with 00-03 Fed in that span, so that brings
the total to 10-12 slams...our average of 11 +/- 1 (if he were to go 4-2 or 2-4 in those 50/50s).

Then we also have to consider pre-USO 10 Nole playing in 00-03 would have also been a contender for several AO/USO/FO because he was contending for slams at 19-21, unlike Fed was at that time in his career.

We have the 08 AO, 08 FO, and 07, 08, 09 USO forms (all SF/F loses to Fed/Nadal) to go on to tab him as a contender at AO 02, FO 02 and USO 01, 02, and 03.

AO 02 with 08 Nole in there and no Agassi and Thomas Johnanson winning? Nole would be favored

FO 02 with Kuertan declined, won by Albert Costa? Remember Nole won Rome in 08 in this form and put up a much better fight than Fed did vs Nadal at that RG. Nole could contend there.

07-09 USO Nole who was only stopped by prime Fed going up against 01 Hewitt, 02 Sampras, 03 Roddick he could have contended for those titles as well.

I'd say between AO 02/FO 02 and those 3 USOs, Nole wins 2-3 slams and then takes 10-12 from 04-07 for a total of 12-15.

Fed at the end of 07 was at 12. Now lets make 1 more adjustment for Fed also to be fair. Lets put 07-10 Nole in the 04-07 Fed era and instead use 02-05 Nadal instead of 04-07 so both have a young each other and super young Nadal.

Fed goes up to 12-13/16 slams (adds RG 05/06, Nadal still wins RG 07 in 05 form and Fed doesn't win RG 04 regardless and I would say Nole 07-10 would have a chance to take 1 AO from Fed) for a total of 13-14 (12-13 + Wimb 03).

So I say Nole wins 12-15 vs Fed winning 13-14, if we simulate identical circumstances (and this isn't for full career, just in the 07 and prior window) and Fed almost had ideal circumstances save Nadal on clay.
Click to expand...

Federer lost 1 non-clay Slam from 2004-2007. And 3 of his Clay losses were to Nadal. I don't believe Djokovic would win any clay Slam considering he can't beat even this slower and sluggier version of Nadal. And don't say Djokovic has shown a higher level of play on Clay because Federer of Rome 2006 > Federer of 2011 FO > Djokovic of 2011 FO.

As for non-clay Slams, there is no way Djokovic wins 4 straight Wimbledons, not against Roddick who troubles him everywhere but clay. And while Djokovic is plexicushion GOAT, I doubt he can beat GOATing Safin on Rebound Ace. I'd say he loses at least once at the US Open, too, to Roddick. That gives him around 7/8 Slams.

AO: Loses to 2005 Safin on Rebound Ace
FO: Loses to Coria/Kuerten in 2004, Nadal from 2005-2007
W: Loses to 2004 Roddick and 2007 Nadal. Wins either 2005 or 2006
US Open: Loses once to Roddick/Agassi/Hewitt

That's a total of 7 Slams, maybe 8 if he ekes out a W/FO.
 
Mayonnaise said:
Federer lost 1 non-clay Slam from 2004-2007. And 3 of his Clay losses were to Nadal. I don't believe Djokovic would win any clay Slam considering he can't beat even this slower and sluggier version of Nadal. And don't say Djokovic has shown a higher level of play on Clay because Federer of Rome 2006 > Federer of 2011 FO > Djokovic of 2011 FO.

As for non-clay Slams, there is no way Djokovic wins 4 straight Wimbledons, not against Roddick who troubles him everywhere but clay. And while Djokovic is plexicushion GOAT, I doubt he can beat GOATing Safin on Rebound Ace. I'd say he loses at least once at the US Open, too, to Roddick. That gives him around 7/8 Slams.

AO: Loses to 2005 Safin on Rebound Ace
FO: Loses to Coria/Kuerten in 2004, Nadal from 2005-2007
W: Loses to 2004 Roddick and 2007 Nadal. Wins either 2005 or 2006
US Open: Loses once to Roddick/Agassi/Hewitt

That's a total of 7 Slams, maybe 8 if he ekes out a W/FO.
Click to expand...

You can't just dismiss the chances of him winning those other slams. If we hold a constant Nadal, 7 slams is a floor.

AO 04, 06, 07 + 3 USO + 1 Wimb

The other 3 Wimb, 1 FO, 1 USO, 05 AO = 6 possible slam wins

Only sure loses are 05-07 FO to Nadal.

You are seriously saying 2011 RG Nole wouldn't have a chance to beat Coria or Gaudio in 04 FO? You can pick Safin to beat Nole in that 05 AO match, but by no means is it impossible for Nole to win. Wawrinka played at pretty close levels in AO 2013 and Nole pulled it out still.

I think we have seen Nole's peak levels on grass (14 and 11) are above Roddick. Roddick could win 1, but Nole could with both in 04/05 and the 06 Wimb was very weak. I also wouldn't discount 14 Nole Wim vs 07 Wimb Nadal. He would lose to 08 Wimb Nadal probably, but Nole's ground game and serving was superb in 14 Wimb and he could have a chance there.

So I say the range is 7-13, most certainly give him at least 1 win at the ones you wrote him off in and likely 2, possibly 3. I say he gets 8-10 and like I said almost certainly he wins 1 AO before the 04-07 peak time and could contend at a weak 02 FO and 01-03 USO and wins likely 1, possibly 2 of those.

By the end of 07 I say he could have had 9-13 (average expected = 11), in the neighborhood of Fed's 12.
 
Last edited:
This is the conclusion I've come to:

Federer had a better all around field to deal with from 2003-2008 but in the years since has had better top end players to deal with.

Nowadays, every big championship is basically contested between a handful of select players (Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and for awhile there Murray). All the rounds leading up to the semifinals/final seem like a formality at this point. As to which time period was "stronger", that's totally subjective depending on whether you put more emphasis on depth or top end competitors.
 
SpicyCurry1990 said:
This is the only point I have been trying to make this whole topic! .....
...
But I just want you to acknowledge Nole has it tougher than Fed did during his prime. Fed's legacy is secure and he is the better player, but beating Gonzales, Philippouses, 35 year old Agassi, Roddick, Safin, and Hewitt for 80% of his slam wins doesn't measure up in difficulty to Nole having to beat prime Nadal and prime Murray for 80% of his slam wins.
Click to expand...

I assume you don't need my acknowledgement as given the ballpark 12-12-10-2 figures I'm implicitly acknowledging. Fed had an easier era in his early career. He was good enough in his older days to win 5 slams post-2008. This implies he'd be close to the top if not top anyway. But Djoko would definitely be a lot closer. i'd give Fed big advantage at Wim, small to mid advantage at US. Djokovic mid to big advantage at Oz, Nadal unsurpassable advantage at French. Add all that up and it puts Fed and Nadal first with Djoko close behind. Murray probably steals a couple.

Although Djokovic (and Murray) took a bit longer to reach their primes. If we make them the same age and hit their primes at the same stages of their career as it actually happened i.e. Fed 22, Nadal 19 on clay, 20-21 grass, 22 off grass, Djokovic 23, Murray 24 then this favours the younger man (nadal) at least off clay in the early years of any comparison.
 
Last edited:
Jam;8568317[B said:
]I assume you don't need my acknowledgement as given the ballpark 12-12-10-2 figures[/B] I'm implicitly acknowledging. Fed had an easier era in his early career. He was good enough in his older days to win 5 slams post-2008. This implies he'd be close to the top if not top anyway. But Djoko would definitely be a lot closer. i'd give Fed big advantage at Wim, small to mid advantage at US. Djokovic mid to big advantage at Oz, Nadal unsurpassable advantage at French. Add all that up and it puts Fed and Nadal first with Djoko close behind. Murray probably steals a couple.

Although Djokovic (and Murray) took a bit longer to reach their primes. If we make them the same age and hit their primes at the same stages of their career as it actually happened i.e. Fed 22, Nadal 19 on clay, 20-21 grass, 22 off grass, Djokovic 23, Murray 24 then this favours the younger man (nadal) at least off clay in the early years of any comparison.
Click to expand...

My bad, I meant that last point to Mayo...didn't know what I was asking for then lol
 
SpicyCurry1990 said:
Djokovic won Wimbledon 2014 45 days after turning 27
Federer won USO 2008 31 days after turning 27

please stop trying to excuse anything post-07 as not prime Federer.
Click to expand...

And you don't excuse everything pre-2007 as young Djokovic :)

Federer beat Djokovic who was a top player in 2007 at the AO and the USO.
 
Mayonnaise said:
And you don't excuse everything pre-2007 as young Djokovic :)

Federer beat Djokovic who was a top player in 2007 at the AO and the USO.
Click to expand...

I want you to put your trolls aside for one second and just think about this sequence of posts you made:

Stated Fed declined more between 06 and 07 than he did between 12 and 13

Stated Nole at an older age is in his prime, while Fed at a younger age is old (in a year he won 3 slams)

Have just equated me dismissing 06 and prior Nole (who was not ranked in the top 15 in the world and was 17-19 years) with you dismissing 26 year old Federer who was ranked between 1-3 in the world all season in 08 and only lost to Nole and Nadal

Called Djokovic at the AO 07 a top player when he was ranked 14th in the world and call Federer ranked #3 in the world as a below 60% player
 
SpicyCurry1990 said:
I want you to put your trolls aside for one second and just think about this sequence of posts you made:

Stated Fed declined more between 06 and 07 than he did between 12 and 13

Stated Nole at an older age is in his prime, while Fed at a younger age is old (in a year he won 3 slams)

Have just equated me dismissing 06 and prior Nole (who was not ranked in the top 15 in the world and was 17-19 years) with you dismissing 26 year old Federer who was ranked between 1-3 in the world all season in 08 and only lost to Nole and Nadal

Called Djokovic at the AO 07 a top player when he was ranked 14th in the world and call Federer ranked #3 in the world as a below 60% player
Click to expand...

You're missing context. I have said Federer from late 2003 to late 2009 was him in his prime. Some of it was cut short due to mono.

Rankings don't prove anything. Federer is #3 because the competition is weak. Djokovic was #14 because the competition was strong. He ended with a top rank that year, anyway.
 
Mayonnaise said:
You're missing context. I have said Federer from late 2003 to late 2009 was him in his prime. Some of it was cut short due to mono.

Rankings don't prove anything. Federer is #3 because the competition is weak. Djokovic was #14 because the competition was strong. He ended with a top rank that year, anyway.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's more to do with the fact that Nole was only 19 at the time rather than the competition being particularly strong.
 
I guess Sampras since he faced more and better surface specialists, especialy on grass. Sampras's competition for YE#1s was pathetic though, and good to Federer for ending so many years at #1 with far tougher competition for that particular honor.

Neither would even approach Laver, Borg, Nadal (who had to face both peak Federer and peak Djokovic for years during his own prime), McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Rosewall, and some others in the competition department.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Compare Federer, Nadal, Djokovic's peak/prime periods
2
Replies
85
Views
4K
Deleted member 716271
D
M
Sampras and Federer vs Nadal and Greatness
Replies
7
Views
1K
McEnroeisanartist
M
M
Comparing Slam Losses Between Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic
Replies
31
Views
6K
moonballs
moonballs
M
Random Tennis Observations from 2012
Replies
2
Views
915
sbengte
sbengte
user
  • Poll Poll
Comparing Sampras 1993-1997 to Djokovic 2011-2015
Replies
16
Views
650
Adv. Edberg
Adv. Edberg
Back
Top