Fed's record in 5 setters with Djokovic and Nadal

lud

Hall of Fame
Very easily to figured.

In three wins where Federer won ag. Nadal it was never 40-15 or 15-40 in last game.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
not in that match. djokovic played closer to prime level in USO 10 semi than federer did.
I'm talking form wise. Federer was in better form, and he also had a slam title to his name in 2010.

Why are you calling Djokovic peak in 11-12 then?
 

blablavla

Legend
Fed fans --> Federer declined at 26
Also Fed fans --> god why over30 Djokodal are so good :cry:
1. because Fed had 2 younger ATGs chasing him
2. because there is nobody chasing Djokodal

so they all declined relative to their peak forms, but in one case there were 2 players capable to exploit the decline, and in another case there is only a 38 years old dude who can fight them.

weak era confirmed?
 

guitarra

Professional
Fed had a 40-15 vs Rafa too (in Rome 2006) but not all remember it. It’s just that 40-15 is a cursed score if only it was 40-30 or 40-0...
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I'm talking form wise. Federer was in better form, and he also had a slam title to his name in 2010.

Why are you calling Djokovic peak in 11-12 then?
yes, I'm talking form wise too. Federer played sh*te in sets 2 and 4 of USO 2010. Djokovic played at an almost even level throughout the semi.

@ bold part, well because he was.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Though neither were really that close anyway. Quite an errorfest, that one. Could even argue that Djokovic even played better in the final.
I don't think he was.

It wasn't an errorfest from djokovic, but was from fed.
38 UEs from djoko to 66 from fed
 

Devtennis01

Professional
Djokovic is more consistent, has more versatility from back of the court and his game is basically primed for these current conditions and demands of the tour.
Federer is a great, great player, but his natural game is a throwback to another age. Even he has said he modified his game to stay relevant and his skills and talent meant he did it incredibly well, but not quite as well as Nadal or Djokovic or arguable even Murray.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Can you list those five setters?
easy enough for me on top of my head :

Monfils USO 2014 QF
Cilic Wim 16 QF
Raonic Wim 16 semi (lost)
Nishi AO 17 4R
Wawrinka AO 17 SF
Nadal AO 17 F
Tiafoe USO 17 1R
Youzhny USO 17 2R
Cilic AO 18 F
 

RS

Legend
Djokovic is more consistent, has more versatility from back of the court and his game is basically primed for these current conditions and demands of the tour.
Federer is a great, great player, but his natural game is a throwback to another age. Even he has said he modified his game to stay relevant and his skills and talent meant he did it incredibly well, but not quite as well as Nadal or Djokovic or arguable even Murray.
Murray?
 

Devtennis01

Professional
Yes. I think that's why Murray has such a strong head to head vs Federer. Because Murray really shaped his game for the grinding tennis which wins. That helped him beat Federer so many times like Nadal and Djokovic also have. What do you think?
 

RS

Legend
Yes. I think that's why Murray has such a strong head to head vs Federer. Because Murray really shaped his game for the grinding tennis which wins. That helped him beat Federer so many times like Nadal and Djokovic also have. What do you think?
I would say with the talent Murray had he has underachieved. I don’t think I would say he adapted worse than Murray to find success even if he doesn’t grind as much as Murray. Maybe I misunderstood.
 

Devtennis01

Professional
I would say with the talent Murray had he has underachieved. I don’t think I would say he adapted worse than Murray to find success even if he doesn’t grind as much as Murray. Maybe I misunderstood.
No, it's fine. I was just saying the reason I think Federer has lost so many five setters to Nadal and Djokovic is that Nadal and Djokovic have formed games which are better suited to current conditions. I think Federer has also done so, and he is on record as saying he went more to the baseline in the mid 2000s, but I think Nadal and Djokovic are better suited anyway to this style. Murray is, too, which is why I think he has a good record versus Federer. They are so consistent and strong from the baseline and marginally better so than Federer. This doesn't mean I think Murray is better than Federer but when they face each other say on a medium slow hard court, I think Murray matches up very well.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
This doesn’t account for his record vs Nadal.

“Nadal has a match-up advantage” - and yet Federer managed to upend him several times in best of 5. Djokovic has no such advantage and hasn’t lost at all to Federer in 5.
Well, duh. Federer was prime when facing Nadal in the 5 setters (outside AO 2017). He was post-prime when facing Novak Djokovic.

“Djokovic beat him regularly when he was post prime”. So did Nadal, and yet Djokovic’s record is far superior. Again, “post prime” does not appear to be a valid explanation.
Novak Djokovic has obviously been better than Nadal in recent years, yes.
 

Tony48

Legend
Well, duh. Federer was prime when facing Nadal in the 5 setters (outside AO 2017). He was post-prime when facing Novak Djokovic.
What do you mean “well duh?” 2017 contradicts everything you said. Federer was 1) post prime and 2) has a matchup disadvantage. But he still managed to beat Nadal despite these two obstacles. And with only one “obstacle,” he can’t beat Djokovic. So obviously being “post prime” is not the reason why he can’t beat Djokovic if he can do it vs. Nadal.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
What do you mean “well duh?” 2017 contradicts everything you said. Federer was 1) post prime and 2) has a matchup disadvantage. But he still managed to beat Nadal despite these two obstacles. And with only one “obstacle,” he can’t beat Djokovic. So obviously being “post prime” is not the reason why he can’t beat Djokovic if he can do it vs. Nadal.
That's one match, mate. Doesn't affect the general pattern of his encounters with Nadal and Novak Djokovic.

I suppose your theory is that the Serb is God on Earth? :rolleyes:
 

Tony48

Legend
That's one match, mate. Doesn't affect the general pattern of his encounters with Nadal and Novak Djokovic.

I suppose your theory is that the Serb is God on Earth? :rolleyes:
Yes, that one match disproves your theory. If you’re going to beat the “post prime” drum to make excuses for Federer, then it should be consistent, not just when it’s convenient.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Yes, that one match disproves your theory. If you’re going to beat the “post prime” drum to make excuses for Federer, then it should be consistent, not just when it’s convenient.
One match doesn't disprove a pattern - things don't have to 100% accuracy to be true.

Also, what is your theory? Hmmm?
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
If Federer declined, how he improved his H2H against Nadal and Murray? I look forward reading explanations of clever TTW people.
 

Rago

Hall of Fame
Yes. Three times when facing double MP in the fifth, he said yay now I am gonna take advantage of him being post prime. :)

USO'2007 Final was such a close match. One of peak Fed's average performances in a slam final; Novak should have pushed him to 4 at the very least.

I don't think Federer has ever "owned" Djokovic in a HC slam (expect maybe 2009 USO but don't think even that was a "beatdown").
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
What's Federer's 5-set record? I read somewhere that it's around .500, the worst such record for a tennis ATG! Djokovic has the 2nd best 5 set record, after Borg. Nadal used to be in the top 3 (along with Borg and Djokovic), but he keeps tumbling down the list.

Federer's 5-set record reminds me of his record in final-set tiebreaks! Federer still has the best winning % ever in tiebreaks (Ashe and Djokovic are 2nd and 3rd), but he has just a horrific record in final-set tiebreaks, losing much more often than he won. (Is there any clutch scale where Djokovic is not among the tops?)

So the seniority argument doesn't hold any water, Federer just doesn't have the clutch gene.

When there's not much pressure, Federer's certainly the world beater supreme. But he doesn't handle pressure nearly as well as Djokovic, for instance! Is there any doubt that, if there were no pressure in those 40-15 situations, he would've won?

Statistically speaking, if you pit the 2nd best ever, and the worst ever (for ATG's) in 5-set matches, an undefeated record for the former in 4 matches, cannot be considered a surprise! Regardless of age!
 
Last edited:

Tony48

Legend
One match doesn't disprove a pattern - things don't have to 100% accuracy to be true.

Also, what is your theory? Hmmm?
Federer has significantly improved his H2H the last few years vs Nadal despite being “post prime”. In fact, the pattern vs. Nadal on HC has been reversed. So not only is the theory disproved but the pattern no longer exists.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Federer has significantly improved his H2H the last few years vs Nadal despite being “post prime”. In fact, the pattern vs. Nadal on HC has been reversed. So not only is the theory disproved but the pattern no longer exists.
That's because Nadal is also post prime, lol. And now you have moved the goalposts away from the purpose of this thread, which is about 5 setters.

I was also asking what your theory about why he has beaten Nadal but lost to Novak Djokovic is.
 

Tony48

Legend
That's because Nadal is also post prime, lol. And now you have moved the goalposts away from the purpose of this thread, which is about 5 setters.

I was also asking what your theory about why he has beaten Nadal but lost to Novak Djokovic is.
1. Nadal is post prime? And what is Djokovic? They’re practically the same age.

2. I have no qualms talking about 5 setters. You brought up the “pattern” subject, but the only pattern that exists with Federer and Djokovic is that Djokovic always beats Federer when the match goes to a 5th set. So I assumed you were talking about best of 3.

3. My theory is that Djokovic has a mental advantage over Federer. A 5th set is tennis is about who wants it more and who is more focused.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
1. Nadal is post prime? And what is Djokovic? They’re practically the same age.

2. I have no qualms talking about 5 setters. You brought up the “pattern” subject, but the only pattern that exists with Federer and Djokovic is that Djokovic always beats Federer when the match goes to a 5th set. So I assumed you were talking about best of 3.

3. My theory is that Djokovic has a mental advantage over Federer. A 5th set is tennis is about who wants it more and who is more focused.
1. Nadal peaked earlier than Novak Djokovic - he's been winning slams since he is a teenager. He is indeed only one year older, but had many more miles on the clock before the Serb became a top player. Having said that, Novak Djokovic is also past prime, but not as much as Federer and Nadal. Fact is, the young generation are so weak that they haven't been able to challenge even the lesser lights of the previous era, let alone the Big 3 - until this recent US Open, when (not) coincidentally, 2 of them were out, and the other one self-destructed.

2. The general pattern of Federer's 5 setters against Nadal was that most of them were played when he was at prime, hence he won a number of them. Whereas with Novak Djokovic, they have generally been when he is post-prime, hence him losing them.

3. Your theory is wrong.
 

Fedeonic

Hall of Fame
One thing that I haven't read in almost 4 pages is what Federer thinks when playing against either Nadal or Djokovic.
Against Nadal, Roger considers Rafa as his equal, so he's always giving that extra 10% to cross the finish line, not in vain all the 6 5-setters against Nadal, both had their chances to win the 6 matches, even the Aus Open 2009 final, Roger outclassed Rafa in the first 4 sets.
Against Djokovic, Roger still has in mind that his tennis is vastly superior to Nole, so he mostly expect that Djok will fold when Roger is points away from the win, but Djoker is even a better player than Nadal when his back is against the wall, so all the lucky FH on the 40-15s are not that lucky after all.

Summarizing, Federer expects Nadal to be Nadal, but Federer expects Djokovic to be, well, Hewitt (?)
 

Tony48

Legend
1. Nadal peaked earlier than Novak Djokovic - he's been winning slams since he is a teenager. He is indeed only one year older, but had many more miles on the clock before the Serb became a top player. Having said that, Novak Djokovic is also past prime, but not as much as Federer and Nadal. Fact is, the young generation are so weak that they haven't been able to challenge even the lesser lights of the previous era, let alone the Big 3 - until this recent US Open, when (not) coincidentally, 2 of them were out, and the other one self-destructed.

2. The general pattern of Federer's 5 setters against Nadal was that most of them were played when he was at prime, hence he won a number of them. Whereas with Novak Djokovic, they have generally been when he is post-prime, hence him losing them.

3. Your theory is wrong.
1. So now since they’re all post prime and that doesn’t suit your argument, you have to break it down even further into some “sorta post prime” for Djokovic and “super post prime” for Federer. What was Federer in 2010? Sorta kinda post prime or maybe a little bit post prime?

2. Above, you needed to be extra specific about the “type” of post prime Djokovic was in, but for Federer, he’s simply post prime with the assumption that he can’t play tennis anymore. Your bias is really on display here.

(and it still doesn't make any sense, considering Federer was not only "post prime" but also at a severe match-up disadvantage and still won in 2017)

3. Please explain.
 
Last edited:

Biotic

Rookie
What are the odds of getting 40-15ed so many times?

3/4 vs Djokovic and 1/6 vs Nadal, 4/10 vs both, and 4/7 including only those he lost.

7 losses is a solid sample, not sure what to make of it. You can throw in every possible explanation, it won't cut it. One of the weirdest facts in tennis surely.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
1. So now since they’re all post prime and that doesn’t suit your argument, you have to break it down even further into some “sorta post prime” for Djokovic and “super post prime” for Federer. What was Federer in 2010? Sorta kinda post prime or maybe a little bit post prime?

2. Above, you needed to be extra specific about the “type” of post prime Djokovic was in, but for Federer, he’s simply post prime with the assumption that he can’t play tennis anymore. Your bias is really on display here.

(and it still doesn't make any sense, considering Federer was not only "post prime" but also at a severe match-up disadvantage and still won in 2017)

3. Please explain.
There's no need to be sarcastic. Of course it makes sense that Federer is further past his prime than Novak Djokovic (2004-07 for the former, 2011-15 for the latter). He is six years older after all. It doesn't change my point that Novak Djokovic has beaten post-prime Federer in all his 5-set wins, and that the Serb was close to his prime than Federer was. I also never assumed that "Federer can't play tennis anymore" - indeed, as the sport's GOAT, he is still able to bring a high level. Just not as high as at his peak. In summary, he narrowly lost matches like the Wimbledon finals of 2014 and 2019 as he wasn't as good as he was a decade earlier - he'd have won them if he'd been at his 2004-07 level.

Your theory is wrong because Novak Djokovic didn't win close matches due to being mentally stronger than Federer. He won them because Federer was post-prime. What a GOAT Federer is, to get within a point of defeating a younger ATG when well past prime, in the 2019 Wimbledon final.
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
One thing that I haven't read in almost 4 pages is what Federer thinks when playing against either Nadal or Djokovic.
Against Nadal, Roger considers Rafa as his equal, so he's always giving that extra 10% to cross the finish line, not in vain all the 6 5-setters against Nadal, both had their chances to win the 6 matches, even the Aus Open 2009 final, Roger outclassed Rafa in the first 4 sets.
Against Djokovic, Roger still has in mind that his tennis is vastly superior to Nole, so he mostly expect that Djok will fold when Roger is points away from the win, but Djoker is even a better player than Nadal when his back is against the wall, so all the lucky FH on the 40-15s are not that lucky after all.

Summarizing, Federer expects Nadal to be Nadal, but Federer expects Djokovic to be, well, Hewitt (?)
Nobody is that clueless, especially Federer, who had 1st hand experience against Djokovic and Hewitt!

If anything, Federer knew Hewitt didn't have enough when push comes to shove, so he relaxed and played well against Hewitt in the clutch. And he didn't have that many clutch moments against Hewitt, whose career plateaued and declined quickly!
 

Third Serve

Legend
USO'2007 Final was such a close match. One of peak Fed's average performances in a slam final; Novak should have pushed him to 4 at the very least.

I don't think Federer has ever "owned" Djokovic in a HC slam (expect maybe 2009 USO but don't think even that was a "beatdown").
AO 2007.

But yeah, that’s probably true. Could say the same for Djokovic against Fed at HC Slams as well. Even in AO 2016, he dropped a set.
 

SinneGOAT

Professional
Is it that simple though ? Failing to convert match points, on his own serve, and that in 2 important matches, can't be explained only by being past prime.
I mean, 2011 Fed vs. 2011 Djokovic, it’s literally Goliath versus a slightly bigger-than-normal David. 2019 Djokovic, slightly prime Djokovic versus a way past prime Federer, 2015 Federer vs. Djokovic, Federer was past his prime while Djokovic was prime. Same goes for 2014, but to a lesser extent.
 

Tony48

Legend
There's no need to be sarcastic. Of course it makes sense that Federer is further past his prime than Novak Djokovic (2004-07 for the former, 2011-15 for the latter). He is six years older after all. It doesn't change my point that Novak Djokovic has beaten post-prime Federer in all his 5-set wins, and that the Serb was close to his prime than Federer was. I also never assumed that "Federer can't play tennis anymore" - indeed, as the sport's GOAT, he is still able to bring a high level. Just not as high as at his peak. In summary, he narrowly lost matches like the Wimbledon finals of 2014 and 2019 as he wasn't as good as he was a decade earlier - he'd have won them if he'd been at his 2004-07 level.
2017 still upends your argument. Federer was "post prime" and lost vs. Djokovic, but still manages to beat Nadal.

Your theory is wrong because Novak Djokovic didn't win close matches due to being mentally stronger than Federer. He won them because Federer was post-prime. What a GOAT Federer is, to get within a point of defeating a younger ATG when well past prime, in the 2019 Wimbledon final.
They never played a five setter during 2004-2007, so how can you say who would have won what?

Additionally, trying to explain away 2019 Wimbledon as "post prime" is ridiculous. All he needed to do was hit an ace. Post prime Federer can't serve anymore?
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
The first instance when Fed failed to convert double MP's against Novak was in 2010, when Federer was all of 29. Fedfans have funny ideas about old age!
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
2017 still upends your argument. Federer was "post prime" and lost vs. Djokovic, but still manages to beat Nadal.
Nadal also well post-prime at this point, as is well known. (His prime from roughly 2008 - 2013)

They never played a five setter during 2004-2007, so how can you say who would have won what?
No, because Federer was so superior to the Serb that he defeated him in straights in the big matches (see, 2007 US Open final). Of course, this was pre-prime Novak Djokovic; had their primes intersected, Federer would have won in 5.

Additionally, trying to explain away 2019 Wimbledon as "post prime" is ridiculous. All he needed to do was hit an ace. Post prime Federer can't serve anymore?
Federer was almost 38 - that well known age for tennis players to be at prime :rolleyes:

I'm not denying that Federer should have won one more point. The fact is, to state that he lost due to Novak Djokovic's supposed mental superiority is nonsense. He lost because at nearly 38, he wasn't quite good enough to beat a much younger ATG. If he'd been 28, he would have been.

End of discussion. You bore me.
 

Tony48

Legend
Nadal also well post-prime at this point, as is well known. (His prime from roughly 2008 - 2013)
How is this a counter point? According to you, Federer would have been 10 years past his prime, and Nadal only 4.

No, because Federer was so superior to the Serb that he defeated him in straights in the big matches (see, 2007 US Open final). Of course, this was pre-prime Novak Djokovic; had their primes intersected, Federer would have won in 5.
How are you going to mention the 2007 U.S. Open and fail to mention the slam that occurred immediately after it? Djokovic won in straights (Djokovic 3 years from his prime and Federer a month from his).

Federer was almost 38 - that well known age for tennis players to be at prime :rolleyes:

I'm not denying that Federer should have won one more point. The fact is, to state that he lost due to Novak Djokovic's supposed mental superiority is nonsense. He lost because at nearly 38, he wasn't quite good enough to beat a much younger ATG. If he'd been 28, he would have been.

End of discussion. You bore me.
He lost 10 years ago in the same fashion. Was Federer 38 ten years ago as well? These excuses are ridiculous.
 

Fedeonic

Hall of Fame
Nobody is that clueless, especially Federer, who had 1st hand experience against Djokovic and Hewitt!

If anything, Federer knew Hewitt didn't have enough when push comes to shove, so he relaxed and played well against Hewitt in the clutch. And he didn't have that many clutch moments against Hewitt, whose career plateaued and declined quickly!
Yeah, I know the comparison doesn't even make sense, but my point stands that in Federer's mind, Nadal is his equal, while Djokovic is not.

The other possible explanation could be that Nadal is a more conservative shot-maker than Nole, that means that Rafa is naturally more passive against Roger than Djoker. In critical situations, Nadal will try to run down everything to force the error, while Nole will go big on his shots to win the point, so Roger's more offensive minded tennis will push down Nads the most of the time, while against Djokovic, it's more like a 50-50 situation.
 

Tony48

Legend
Yeah, I know the comparison doesn't even make sense, but my point stands that in Federer's mind, Nadal is his equal, while Djokovic is not.

The other possible explanation could be that Nadal is a more conservative shot-maker than Nole, that means that Rafa is naturally more passive against Roger than Djoker. In critical situations, Nadal will try to run down everything to force the error, while Nole will go big on his shots to win the point, so Roger's more offensive minded tennis will push down Nads the most of the time, while against Djokovic, it's more like a 50-50 situation.
Exactly. Novak is more willing to force the issue against Federer when it gets down to the wire.
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
When Federer was 29, the only reason he was past his prime was Djokovic and Nadal put him there! Without those two, Federer's prime would've been extended indefinitely!

Djokovic is now 33, but is not past his prime, because no one yet is able to put him there!

That's why arguments about prime-ship are circuitous and conditional! As I noted many times, Fedfans' arguments regarding old age are exclusively reserved for Djokovic, and no other player. So just maybe it's Djokovic's game, including mental toughness, that made the crucial difference! Can any Fedfan consider that possibility?

In both '14 and '15, Federer was in superb shape in getting to the Wimbledon finals, losing one set each year. As Federer himself said, he was playing as well as he ever did at Wimbledon. But when he lost to another Wimbledon great, Fedfans refuse to give credit where it belongs, and all they could think of was old age!
 
Last edited:
Top