Fed's peak vs. Djokovic's peak

A

Agassifan

Hall of Fame
During his peak, Fed was
- The best grass court player by a mile
- The best hard court player by a mile
- The second-best clay court player by some distance (both ways)

If this is Novak's peak, he is
- The best hard court player (not by a mile, but the competition is better)
- The second-best clay court player by a hair (only to the clay GOAT - assuming Rafa wins RG)
- Definitely Top 3-4 grass court player (perhaps better, but we have to see).

If, say Novak makes the RG and Wimby final and manages to win at least one of them, his absolute peak will be about as impressive as Fed's. If he sustains this for a year or so from now, he'd out-do the GOAT. Unthinkable. Fed's greatest achievement was winning the 11 slams in 4 calendar years, but IMO, the Djoker can outdo that with 2 years of absolute brilliance (or a calendar slam).
 
Last edited:
Speranza

Speranza

Hall of Fame
Agassifan said:
During his peak, Fed was
- The best grass court player by a mile
- The best hard court player by a mile
- The second-best clay court player by some distance (both ways)

If this is Novak's peak, he is
- The best hard court player (not by a mile, but the competition is better)
- The second-best clay court player by a hair (only to the clay GOAT - assuming Rafa wins RG)
- Definitely Top 3-4 grass court player (perhaps better, but we have to see).

If, say Novak makes the RG and Wimby final and manages to win at least one of them, his absolute peak will be about as impressive as Fed's. If he sustains this for a year or so from now, he'd out-do the GOAT. Unthinkable. Fed's greatest achievement was winning the 11 slams in 4 calendar years, but IMO, the Djoker can outdo that with 2 years of absolute brilliance (or a calendar slam).
Click to expand...

Holmes: IF.

He'll have to achieve what Roger did over those years, not just for 5 months.

The way he's currently playing, who is to say he couldn't do that?

Watson: Me. He still plays more defensively than Roger did over that period. To continue this level of success will be impossible (IMO) without incorporating more attack in his game over the next few years. His physical endurance will diminish. He's capable of it definitely though.
 
L

ledwix

Hall of Fame
It's only 6 tournaments, or a little less than a third of a year, and the biggest events on clay and grass haven't been played yet. And he did play 2 clay court tournaments, but only 1 was against tough opponents. So his "absolute peak" will unfortunately end soon, unless a miracle happens.
 
P

piece

Professional
MagneticCurls said:
I would say the biggest difference is Djokovic is beating Nadal on clay, pretty handily, which Fed could never do.
Click to expand...

Djokovic has a worse record on clay against Nadal than Federer does. And Federer's two victories were pretty comfortable.
 
dozu

dozu

Banned
on the other hand - yes Rafa is the clay GOAT... but at the moment, Nole is the best player on clay.

check the match stats today.... points won was 73 to 60.

that is a HUGE gap... the score actually looks closer than what was going on in the match.

Rafa was under pressure in almost all his service games.
 
M

MagneticCurls

Banned
dozu said:
on the other hand - yes Rafa is the clay GOAT... but at the moment, Nole is the best player on clay.

check the match stats today.... points won was 73 to 60.

that is a HUGE gap... the score actually looks closer than what was going on in the match.

Rafa was under pressure in almost all his service games.
Click to expand...

Good factual post.
 
R

rommil

Legend
At Fed's peak. he told the whole Djokovic clan to "be quiet, ok?". They all complied and gave Nole sore throat.
 
Cassius Clay

Cassius Clay

Banned
dozu said:
on the other hand - yes Rafa is the clay GOAT... but at the moment, Nole is the best player on clay.

check the match stats today.... points won was 73 to 60.

that is a HUGE gap... the score actually looks closer than what was going on in the match.

Rafa was under pressure in almost all his service games.
Click to expand...

Huge gap? What are you talking about? 13 points = roughly 3 games. Taking into account Djokovic won 4 more games than Nadal in total...it's not a big hole at all.
 
dozu

dozu

Banned
Cassius Clay said:
Huge gap? What are you talking about? 13 points = roughly 3 games. Taking into account Djokovic won 4 more games than Nadal in total...it's not a big hole at all.
Click to expand...

your math is flawed... put the 13 point gap in 'good places', the score could be 7-6 and 6-0.
 
dozu

dozu

Banned
your math is flawed, you can't translate point differential into game differential, because you are assuming the winner takes those games at love, which is not necessary to post a more dominant score... put the 13 point gap in 'good places', the score could almost be 7-6 and 6-0.
 
Buckethead

Buckethead

Banned
Novak can win as much as he can, He would never come close to how Fed wins, neither how Sampras won.
Is not because he beat Nadal that He is in the conversation.
He needs to have at least 10 majors to come to the table.
Beating the clay GOAT is good, but he had the chances before, and it is not impossible for him, as i said before He has the type of game to beat Nadal on clay.
 
dozu

dozu

Banned
Cassius Clay said:
But it was not. Your logic is flawed. It was 7-5 6-4. What the hell are you talking about?
Click to expand...

well, you are not paying attention.. I am saying the score could almost (need 1 more point) be 7-6 and 6-0, which looks more dominant than 7-5 and 6-4..

that's why I am saying 13 point differential is huge, and the 7-5 6-4 score looks closer than the differential indicates.

with such a score, if I didn't watch the match, I'd guess the point differential being 5 or 6.
 
Cassius Clay

Cassius Clay

Banned
dozu said:
well, you are not paying attention.. I am saying the score could almost (need 1 more point) be 7-6 and 6-0, which looks more dominant than 7-5 and 6-4..

that's why I am saying 13 point differential is huge, and the 7-5 6-4 score looks closer than the differential indicates.

with such a score, if I didn't watch the match, I'd guess the point differential being 5 or 6.
Click to expand...

4 more games = at least 8 more points in those games if they are won @30 (2 point-difference x 4). I don't think 5 or 6 differential would be the most likely scenario.
 
eidolonshinobi

eidolonshinobi

Professional
Buckethead said:
Novak can win as much as he can, He would never come close to how Fed wins, neither how Sampras won.
Is not because he beat Nadal that He is in the conversation.
He needs to have at least 10 majors to come to the table.
Beating the clay GOAT is good, but he had the chances before, and it is not impossible for him, as i said before He has the type of game to beat Nadal on clay.
Click to expand...

yessir, only time will tell.
 
billnepill

billnepill

Hall of Fame
Djk's streak is amazing, but so far he has 2 AOs.

Right now he looks invincible, but let's see how he manages RG - 2 weeks tournament with 3/5 sets AFTER the wear and tear of going deeply in every tournament he enters. Let's see how he manages another 2 weeks at Wimbledon SHORTLY after that with all reservation to Djoker's game on grass.

What about the expectations on Slams? Totally different environment.
 
T1000

T1000

Legend
Agassifan said:
During his peak, Fed was
- The best grass court player by a mile
- The best hard court player by a mile
- The second-best clay court player by some distance (both ways)

If this is Novak's peak, he is
- The best hard court player (not by a mile, but the competition is better)
- The second-best clay court player by a hair (only to the clay GOAT - assuming Rafa wins RG)
- Definitely Top 3-4 grass court player (perhaps better, but we have to see).

.
Click to expand...

No the competition isn't better imo (completely different argument for a different thread)

Roddick and Murray are better on grass imo
 
B

Bassus

Rookie
The turning point in their H2H was last year's US Open semifinal. True, Federer handled Djokovich pretty easily twice after that last year, but they weren't majors, so they don't matter much.

Federer played some pretty horrible tennis in that US Open semifinal last year, yet still he had two match points that D saved with two prayer forehands. He dominated Djokovich leading up to that match, and Djokovich was still lucky to win against a crappy playing Federer. I think Federer was thinking ahead to Nadal, about how it might be his last chance to play Nadal in a GS final, and that of all the Grand Slams the US Open would now be his best chance to beat Nadal. And in doing this he failed to put away a match he should have won.

With that come from behind victory, Djokovich gained a ton of confidence, and knew that his 2008 AO victory over Federer wasn't a fluke. And now he is currently the best player in the game.

Federer could try to console himself in that all of his loses to D have been close. Even the AO straight set loss was a tight match. But D is in his prime now and Federer is fading.

As to the thread topic...peak Federer was much better than peak Djokovich. It's not even close.
 
P

piece

Professional
MagneticCurls said:
Who gives a crap about past records? Would you predict Hrbarty would beat Nadal?
Click to expand...

Umm...this is what you said "I would say the biggest difference is Djokovic is beating Nadal on clay, pretty handily, which Fed could never do."

I was just pointing out that it was false. You said Federer had never been able to do it but Djokovic has, when in fact Federer has done it more often than Djokovic and at least as impressively as Djokovic. Both times Federer only lost 8 games to Nadal, and one time he bagelled Nadal on clay. Nole lost 9 games today. Also, Federer has won a greater percentage of his clay matches against Nadal than Djokovic has. That's all I was saying. Not trying to make any predictions.
 
M

MagneticCurls

Banned
piece said:
Umm...this is what you said "I would say the biggest difference is Djokovic is beating Nadal on clay, pretty handily, which Fed could never do."

I was just pointing out that it was false. You said Federer had never been able to do it but Djokovic has, when in fact Federer has done it more often than Djokovic and at least as impressively as Djokovic. Both times Federer only lost 8 games to Nadal, and one time he bagelled Nadal on clay. Nole lost 9 games today. Also, Federer has won a greater percentage of his clay matches against Nadal than Djokovic has. That's all I was saying. Not trying to make any predictions.
Click to expand...

Well handily is the key word. The only 'easy' win was the one Fed had at Madrid which was 6-4 6-4. Most Nadal fans would point out that happened because Nadal was tired. I disagree, but that the perception. Fed did it twice in what 5 years? Novak did it with Rafa playing amazing tennis and at the peak of his powers, despite what all the Nadalhards will have you believe. Nadal did play great. Djokovic was just better.

Anyways, the point is most of Djoker's losses to Nadal came when he was not playing this level. He is now. Therefore looking at past W-L records is really not that meaningful. Federer losses came in many levels of play. Fed will not get better from now on. Djoker will.
 
Last edited:
P

piece

Professional
MagneticCurls said:
Well handily is the key word. The only 'easy' win was the one Fed had at Madrid which was 6-4 6-4. Most Nadal fans would point out that happened because Nadal was tired. I disagree, but that the perception. Fed did it twice in what 5 years? Novak did it with Rafa playing amazing tennis and at the peak of his powers, despite what all the Nadalhards will have you believe. Nadal did play great. Djokovic was just better.

Anyways, the point is most of Djoker's losses to Nadal came when he was not playing this level. He is now. Therefore looking at past W-L records is really not that meaningful. Federer losses came in many levels of play. Fed will not get better from now on. Djoker will.
Click to expand...

Yes, and Federer lost fewer games than Djokovic did in both his victories. Federer first played Nadal on clay in 2005 at the FO. His last victory against Nadal on clay was in Madrid in 2009. So 2 victories within 4 years. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Djokovic first played Nadal on clay at the 2006 FO, and his first victory came in Madrid in 2011. That's 1 victory within a span of 5 years. So Federer's doing better on that front as well.

The level of play stuff is hard to quantify. I'd be surprised if there was a huge difference in Nadal's level between his losses to Federer and now Djokovic. I've seen all the matches and nothing really stands out. But I do think Federer played better in the final 2 sets at Hamburg 2007 than I've ever seen Djokovic play on clay.
 
mellowyellow

mellowyellow

Legend
Fed is not doing better, he is the older more experienced player against a young Nadal, Djoko is the younger player against the established Clay GOAT apples and oranges IMO........ Nadal with a WO round was not tired by any stretch in this case as was the case when Feddy got his wins....
 
Nextman916

Nextman916

Professional
Please...a 34 win streak and comparisons are being made to Fed's peak?

Fed's peak when his confidence was at 100%, was unreachable, and he has greater records/streaks to prove it. When Fed beat Nadal in 2007 Hamburg it was like he completely disregarded the fact he was playing on a clay court.
 
Last edited:
PSNELKE

PSNELKE

Legend
It´s nonsense to compaire the players with they´re peak performances.
It dooesn´t matter if you play 6 incredible months only to falll apart for the rest of the season.
Nole will never achieve what Federer did and play close to his best for years, same goes for Ralph.
I´m not saying that Nole will fall apart, cause I know how much he improved especially mentally.
The main reason why people should definately seperate Nole with Fed is that Nole will never win Wimbledon.. He didn´t proove yet, that he has a chance to compete in the final, which will never change, imo.
 
tennis_pro

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
mellowyellow said:
Fed is not doing better, he is the older more experienced player against a young Nadal, Djoko is the younger player against the established Clay GOAT apples and oranges IMO........ Nadal with a WO round was not tired by any stretch in this case as was the case when Feddy got his wins....
Click to expand...

how was Nadal tired in Hamburg in 2007?
 
N

namui

Rookie
MagneticCurls said:
I would say the biggest difference is Djokovic is beating Nadal on clay, pretty handily, which Fed could never do.
Click to expand...

Fed beat Nadal at Madrid two years ago 6-4,6-4 in 1:26 hr, without a service game being broken. That's more handily than Djokovic did yesterday.
 
P

piece

Professional
Agassifan said:
I think Fed wins in 4 sets on hard, 3 sets on grass and it goes 4 or 5 on clay, with the better man on the day winning.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right for hardcourts, leaning more toward straight sets on a fast or indoor hardcourt. But if peak Djokovic is meant to be 2011 Djokovic only then I don't see how we're supposed to speak to who would win on grass or clay. We haven't seen peak Djokovic on grass yet and we've only seen him the once in a big clay tournament.
 
N

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Cesc Fabregas said:
Fast hardcourts prime Federer beats Djokovic easily.
Click to expand...


Seriously doubt that. Prime Federer was extremely susceptible to upsets on the fast HCs; this is evidenced by the fact that he struggled in a couple of matches against Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, etc. at the USO. None of those guys though could maintain a very high level for more than a set and a half or so.


Djokovic right now would pretty much go toe to toe with prime Federer on a fast HC. It would be a pretty tight match.
 
I

IvanisevicServe

Banned
I don't get it.

Djokovic...Top 3 or 4 grass court player, 0 Wimbledon titles. Chances are he won't win it this year, either. Federer, best grass court player by a mile and 6 Wimbledon titles.

Djokovic...Best HC player, but still only has 2 Australian Opens. Federer, best HC player by a mile. 4 Australian Opens and 5 US Opens.

Djokovic...Second best clay court player. Has yet to win Roland Garros. Federer, second best clay court player. Has won Roland Garros...made 4 straight finals, 5 straight SFs.


Uh...where does Djokovic "match" Federer in this equation?
 
A

Agassifan

Hall of Fame
NamRanger said:
Seriously doubt that. Prime Federer was extremely susceptible to upsets on the fast HCs; this is evidenced by the fact that he struggled in a couple of matches against Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, etc. at the USO.
Click to expand...

Those guys were pretty good sometimes.. and unless he was playing Nadal, Fed used to get bored in the middle of some matches.
 
N

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Agassifan said:
Those guys were pretty good sometimes.. and unless he was playing Nadal, Fed used to get bored in the middle of some matches.
Click to expand...



Federer didn't get bored against Agassi; Agassi just upped his game and man handled Federer for a set and a half by just blitzing Federer with virtually everything he had. He simply gassed out though because playing that type of tennis really takes it out on the body (particularly when you are that old).


Hewitt and Roddick just couldn't keep up that high level of tennis. Djokovic on the other hand, is showing that he can. So it's not a stretch to say prime Federer would lose to Djokovic in a tight match on a fast HC.
 
I

iriraz

Hall of Fame
Federer has always been a more aggressive player then Djokovic,and on his good days he could blow u off court hitting winner after winner but also had his days where he made lots of errors.Djokovic is a lot more defensive player,playing a more % game,running for every ball and when he gets a chance he will go for the attack.
Federer had lots of matches in his career where he was basically unbreakable while looking at Djokovic`s matches u always feel u got a shot at breaking him.
 
P

piece

Professional
Federer won 5 US Opens in a row and lost in 5 sets in the final when going for his 6th. He won the TMC in 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007 (and again in 2010), only losing an epic 5 set final in 2005. These are the two biggest fast hardcourt tournaments. If prime Federer was "extremely susceptible" to upsets on fast hardcourts then so is every other player in tennis history.
 
Last edited:
S

sunny_cali

Semi-Pro
NamRanger said:
Seriously doubt that. Prime Federer was extremely susceptible to upsets on the fast HCs; this is evidenced by the fact that he struggled in a couple of matches against Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, etc. at the USO. None of those guys though could maintain a very high level for more than a set and a half or so.


Djokovic right now would pretty much go toe to toe with prime Federer on a fast HC. It would be a pretty tight match.
Click to expand...

Extremely susceptible ? How many times did he lose to those guys ? A loss of a set here and there is "extremely susceptible" ? I guess Djoker is extremely susceptible to Bellucci and Ferrer as well.:neutral:
 
N

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
piece said:
Federer won 5 US Opens in a row and lost in 5 sets in the final when going for his 6th. He won the TMC in 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007 (and again in 2010), only losing an epic 5 set final in 2005. These are the two biggest fast hardcourt tournaments. If Federer is "extremely susceptible" to upsets on fast hardcourts then so is every other player in tennis history.
Click to expand...



Didn't mean it to phrase it like that.



What I mean is that he can be vulnerable on HCs, you just have to play very good. He was never invincible on the USO HCs like he was on the Wimbledon grass; during Federer's prime you never felt he was ever in danger of losing of a single match on grass except one (which was when Roddick brought the thunder and lightning in 2004).


Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, etc. all had their chances to beat Federer at the USO. They just couldn't maintain their high level for long enough to do so.
 
I

IvanisevicServe

Banned
NamRanger said:
Didn't mean it to phrase it like that.



What I mean is that he can be vulnerable on HCs, you just have to play very good. He was never invincible on the USO HCs like he was on the Wimbledon grass; during Federer's prime you never felt he was ever in danger of losing of a single match on grass except one (which was when Roddick brought the thunder and lightning in 2004).


Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, etc. all had their chances to beat Federer at the USO. They just couldn't maintain their high level for long enough to do so.
Click to expand...

But he's still 1-3 vs. Federer at the US Open and had to save 2 match points in his lone victory last year. He then lost to Nadal in the final. Perhaps his level of play has further risen since then and he will roll to the US Open title this year, but that has yet to be seen. So far, his domination has all been on the slower surfaces.
 
aphex

aphex

Banned
NamRanger said:
Seriously doubt that. Prime Federer was extremely susceptible to upsets on the fast HCs; this is evidenced by the fact that he struggled in a couple of matches against Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, etc. at the USO. None of those guys though could maintain a very high level for more than a set and a half or so.


Djokovic right now would pretty much go toe to toe with prime Federer on a fast HC. It would be a pretty tight match.
Click to expand...

Of course. As evidenced by his 23 consecutive slam semis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TripleATeam
Peak Rafael Nadal vs Peak Robin Soderling at Roland Garros, who wins?
2 3
Replies
110
Views
4K
Rubens
Rubens
aman92
  • Poll
Peak Murray vs Peak Medvedev on Hard Courts - who wins?
2
Replies
66
Views
2K
Nadalgaenger
Nadalgaenger
G
  • Poll
Peak Novak Djokovic vs peak Rafael Nadal at US Open, who wins?
2
Replies
88
Views
5K
Deleted member 770948
D
K-H
The truth about Nadals peak/prime
Replies
2
Views
658
wangs78
wangs78
DjokoGOAT
Djokovic is the best ever on 2 surfaces and top 2 another
2
Replies
50
Views
2K
Third Serve
Third Serve
Top