Finally the over-rating of Djokovic based on AO SF/F can end now!

[Third Serve]

Then what does? By a significant margin, Djokovic also has the better winning percentage, 91.3%, at the AO than Federer's 88.2% at Wimbledon. A 3% difference is big. If Djokovic went 0-3 at the AO from here on out, he'd still have the higher winning percentage. Djokovic is 4-1 against Federer at the AO and Federer is 1-3 against Djokovic at Wimbledon.

If this thread is to point out that Djokovic at the AO is less impressive than Nadal at RG, yeah, that's obvious. But if it's to point out that Djokovic at the AO is less impressive than Federer at Wimbledon, no, by any objective measure, that's not true. Here is Ultimate Tennis Statistics's level of difficulty of all the AOs won by Djokovic and all the Wimbledons won by Federer taking into account all 7 players they matched up against in each. Djokovic's toughest 7 AO wins are all more difficult than all but Federer's 2012 Wimbledon win. Overall level of difficulty is not even close. Djokovic had it harder and still won 2 more than Fed.

Year	Slam	Winner	Difficulty
2016	Australian Open	Novak Djokovic	1.170
2013	Australian Open	Novak Djokovic	1.158
2012	Australian Open	Novak Djokovic	1.149
2012	Wimbledon	Roger Federer	1.144
2011	Australian Open	Novak Djokovic	1.140
2008	Australian Open	Novak Djokovic	1.116
2019	Australian Open	Novak Djokovic	1.109
2015	Australian Open	Novak Djokovic	1.080
2006	Wimbledon	Roger Federer	1.078
2020	Australian Open	Novak Djokovic	1.071
2005	Wimbledon	Roger Federer	1.055
2017	Wimbledon	Roger Federer	1.045
2021	Australian Open	Novak Djokovic	1.023
2009	Wimbledon	Roger Federer	1.023
2007	Wimbledon	Roger Federer	1.020
2004	Wimbledon	Roger Federer	0.962
2023	Australian Open	Novak Djokovic	0.947
2003	Wimbledon	Roger Federer	0.861

UTS difficulty ratings are a bit of a meme. They’re based on opponent Elo which is notoriously bad at comparing relative levels across time because of its tendency to inflate over time and because it’s slow to adjust… and we’re dealing with a sport in which player form fluctuates pretty quickly… hence the existence and prevalence of upsets.

Elo is better suited to examining and comparing recent levels of players (i.e. how has Sinner been doing lately compared to Alcaraz?).

 

[zvelf]

I mean, I didn't say Fed's were supremely tough, I just disagreed with the idea that Djokovic's are. After 2012 his competition wasn't all that.

But in comparing Djokovic at AO to Federer at Wimby based on how tough competition was, that Fed's competition was "also" not "supremely tough" matters.

Djokovic has more AO titles than Fed at Wimb precisely because he had to face Thiem, Med and Tsitsipas while Fed had prime Djokovic. They both had the same number of titles when they were 31.

I'll take #5 Thiem (who beat #1 Nadal in 4 sets along the way), #4 Medvedev, and #3 Tstitsipas over #48 Philippoussis and #7 Cilic. So if you want to discount Djokovic's last 3 AO titles, you should discount 2 of Fed's Wimbledon titles and Djokovic still leads.

And Chung beat Djokovic in AO, in straight sets. So what, we now should now always call him a tough opponent when someone beats him, like Nadal in USO 2019 third round? Djokovic fans hyping Tsitsipas getting wins over Federer and Nadal in slamless years for them is honestly sad.

For someone who goes around saying that Djokovic's 2015 destruction of Nadal at RG shouldn't count because Nadal was slumping, you sure are hypocritical.

Nadal leads the head to head against Tsitsipas 7-2, and not even one match happened when it was anything close to prime Nadal. Yet reading the posts of some Djokovic fans one might think Tsitsipas owns him. The guy is like 2-5000 down against top players. But yeah, the 2 wins he got are definitely what matters, sure.

For someone who goes around hyping slam matches over everything else, you should recognize that Tsitsipas is 1-1 against Nadal in slams. But I agree, Tsitsipas is not one of Djokovic's tougher AO opponents, but every member of the Big 3 has played some weaker opponents in their pet slams. That you completely dismiss Murray, arguably the best AO player never to win it, shows your agenda.

UTS difficulty ratings are a bit of a meme. They’re based on opponent Elo which is notoriously bad at comparing relative levels across time because of its tendency to inflate over time and because it’s slow to adjust… and we’re dealing with a sport in which player form fluctuates pretty quickly… hence the existence and prevalence of upsets.

Elo is better suited to examining and comparing recent levels of players (i.e. how has Sinner been doing lately compared to Alcaraz?).

Of course, Elo is not infallible, but it is proven as more reliable than ATP rankings in predicting winners. In any case, even if you can argue some runs as over or under-inflated, over time, it evens out when considering large sets of data. That data states clearly that Djokovic's AO competition overall was more difficult than Federer's Wimbledon competition.

 

[mike danny]

But in comparing Djokovic at AO to Federer at Wimby based on how tough competition was, that Fed's competition was "also" not "supremely tough" matters.


I'll take #5 Thiem (who beat #1 Nadal in 4 sets along the way), #4 Medvedev, and #3 Tstitsipas over #48 Philippoussis and #7 Cilic. So if you want to discount Djokovic's last 3 AO titles, you should discount 2 of Fed's Wimbledon titles and Djokovic still leads.

But Fed beat Roddick in that same Wimb where he beat Phillippoussis. I'd take players like these over Pouille, Karatsev and Paul.

Point is, yes, Fed got a freebie in 2017 at Wimb, but considering how he had to deal with a younger GOAT contender for all of the 2010's, I'd say it was partially deserved. Djokovic hasn't had that. Instead he's managed to win 2 titles while carrying injuries.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

We need to be thankful he at least didn't mention Nishikori in 2019.

Well, Nishikori got injured, if not he would have been a tough rival. Why did Federer need 5 sets to beat him if not?

 

[RS]

Djokovic 6-4 or 7-3.

Hewitt AO 04/05 vs Djokovic AO 20/21 in the same?

 

[abmk]

Well, Nishikori got injured, if not he would have been a tough rival. Why did Federer need 5 sets to beat him if not?

dude, please stop.
nishikori played well in AO 17 4R vs fed like vs djoko in USO 14.
nishi played sh*t in AO 16 QF, hitting every 2nd ball out.

calling nishi of AO16 QF as tough is an embarassment.
go and watch the matches, seriously.

 

[fedfan24]

dude, did not expect this from you. What an insult to peak nadal at Wimbledon. shame shame. you are hereby stripped of your Nadal fan status!

1. don't forget, djokovic aged 26 lost to wawa in QF of AO.
2. because fed has played at a higher level. Djoko at AO is worse than Fed at Wim level wise but has been far luckier with competition past prime or prime-ish level. Imagine fed of Wim 14, 15, 19 facing djoko AO 20/21/23 level competition.
if djoko of AO 20/21/23 had faced younger versions of himself like fed did in Wim 14/15, he'd have got beaten as well.

I agree, it’s always best to look at high level runs over title count when evaluating level

If we say 01,03,04,05,06,07,08,09,11,12,14,15,17,19 that’s 14 for federer
08,11,12,13,14,15,16,19,20,21,23,24 that’s 12 for djokovic

the 2 difference in title count is mega weak opponents in 21/23 compared to fed facing peak djokovic in 14/15.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

fed had pretty good competition at Wim in 04 (roddick+hewitt), 07 (nadal) and 09(roddick+ depth of haas+soderling+karlovic) and 12(djoko+murray)
djoko's good competition AO wins were 08 (fed/tsonga), 12 (murray/nadal), 13 (wawa, berdych, murray)

lol AO 16, nishi was dog sh*t in that QF, federer stone footed for first 2 sets and murray meh.
19 cr*p nadal, med meh
20 injured federer
21 sh*t med, choking zverev

please wake up

Edit: and are you standards so low that you consider beating a tiring nadal and BPerer at 37.5 as some big achievement?
2023 AO was a joke draw with Paul in the semi and with tsitsipas playing a below par 1st set and mega clowning away the 2nd set TB. match was done.
atleast tpas was decent in RG 21 final unlike in AO 23 final.

When it's a Federer rival, he's tough, when it's a Djokovic rival tons of excuses like crao, ****, choking, etc. lol.


Wimbledon 2004 is tough because of Roddick and Hewitt, but 2016 for Djokovic is not tough facing Federer and Murray (and Nishikori, who is better than Grosjean).

Of course, if the Hewitt match had happened to Djokovic against somebody else we'd talk about how crap or **** or choking or whatever was because he was bageled and breadsticked in the same match and only won one set via tie break. Or Roddick losing a set to get a 2-1 lead in the final from a break up. But of course 2007 Nadal makes it a tough draw when he needed five sets to beat Youzhny and was losing against Djokovic for a while before the injury and almost loses to Soderling.


2009 is depth with Roddick, Haas, Soderling and Karlovic. But Djokovic faced far stronger depth in 2013 in a run that had Wawrinka, Berdych, Ferrer and Murray. 2019 is "crap" Nadal when he did not lose a set before the final and he was even considered the favorite by many people and won the other HC slam that year.

Also, beating Medvedev and Zverev on HC is not easy at all. Not too different than beating Roddick and Hewitt. Medvedev already won a slam on HC, the YEC and many other finals. He has better numbers than Hewitt on HC already. And Zverev basically lacks the slam, but if he wins one he is ahead of Roddick with the OG, several M1000s and two YECs.

 

[fedfan24]

I'll take #5 Thiem (who beat #1 Nadal in 4 sets along the way), #4 Medvedev, and #3 Tstitsipas over #48 Philippoussis and #7 Cilic. So if you want to discount Djokovic's last 3 AO titles, you should discount 2 of Fed's Wimbledon titles and Djokovic still leads.

Roddick then phillipousis is an average slam win though. Similar to 2015/2016 wins for djokovic. 2003 fed and 2016 djokovic levels were super high anyway.

You should really compare their competition post prime. Peak Djokovic x2 then again in 2019 vs thiem, Medvedev, Tsitsipas. 14,15,19 W fed eats these guys for breakfast.

 

[Justice Underworld]

OP, aren't you the poster who blames most of Federer's losses to Nadal and Djokovic because of age when he was less than 5 and 6 years older? Now when Djoker loses to Sinner who is over 14 years younger this proves Djoker is overrated at the Aussie Open? Don't you think you are a hypocrite? Djoker has won the Aussie Open 10 times and never lost a final so it's not possible for him to be overrated.

 

[fedfan24]

When it's a Federer rival, he's tough, when it's a Djokovic rival tons of excuses like crao, ****, choking, etc. lol.


Wimbledon 2004 is tough because of Roddick and Hewitt, but 2016 for Djokovic is not tough facing Federer and Murray (and Nishikori, who is better than Grosjean).

Of course, if the Hewitt match had happened to Djokovic against somebody else we'd talk about how crap or **** or choking or whatever was because he was bageled and breadsticked in the same match and only won one set via tie break. Or Roddick losing a set to get a 2-1 lead in the final from a break up. But of course 2007 Nadal makes it a tough draw when he needed five sets to beat Youzhny and was losing against Djokovic for a while before the injury and almost loses to Soderling.


2009 is depth with Roddick, Haas, Soderling and Karlovic. But Djokovic faced far stronger depth in 2013 in a run that had Wawrinka, Berdych, Ferrer and Murray. 2019 is "crap" Nadal when he did not lose a set before the final and he was even considered the favorite by many people and won the other HC slam that year.

Also, beating Medvedev and Zverev on HC is not easy at all. Not too different than beating Roddick and Hewitt. Medvedev already won a slam on HC, the YEC and many other finals. He has better numbers than Hewitt on HC already. And Zverev basically lacks the slam, but if he wins one he is ahead of Roddick with the OG, several M1000s and two YECs.

Hewitt/2016 Federer is about the same both meh played well for a set and a bit.

2004 Roddick is easily better than 2015/2016 Murray who was a step down from his 2012-2013 level there.

 

[abmk]

I agree, it’s always best to look at high level runs over title count when evaluating level

If we say 01,03,04,05,06,07,08,09,11,12,14,15,17,19 that’s 14 for federer
08,11,12,13,14,15,16,19,20,21,23,24 that’s 12 for djokovic

the 2 difference in title count is mega weak opponents in 21/23 compared to fed facing peak djokovic in 14/15.

remove 24 for djokovic.
it'd be 11 in total.

I'd also split those into 2 tiers

fed at Wim tier 1: 03-09,12
fed at Wim tier 2: 01,11,14,15,17,19

djoko at AO tier1: 08,11-16,19
djoko at AO tier 2: 20,21,23

 

[BauerAlmeida]

dude, please stop.
nishikori played well in AO 17 4R vs fed like vs djoko in USO 14.
nishi played sh*t in AO 16 QF, hitting every 2nd ball out.

calling nishi of AO16 QF as tough is an embarassment.
go and watch the matches, seriously.

Lol,

Whenever they play Djokovic they miraculously suck and when they play Federer they are brilliant lol.

It's not me that should watch the matches. It's you that should realize that player's levels don't exist in a vacuum, they are directly affected by your opponent's. This isn't swimming or sprinting where every player has his own lane.

Your arguments are hilarious, it's always X was **** or crap or choking vs Djokovic and a demigod when they play Federer.

Nishikori plays like **** in 2016 but was brilliant in 2017, a year apart with no major injury, no significant age difference, no slump, nothing.

Or when Federer plays one of his best matches ever in the Wmbledon 2015 SF but then plays badly in the final vs Djokovic. It's that Djokovic got lucky. Medvedev beats Alcaraz in the SF of the USO and then Djokovic beats a badly playing Medvedev in the final. He got lucky again. Or Murray being bad in AO finals against Djokovic despite constantly making finals beating everyone else. Or Nadal playing stellar at the AO 2019 and then sucking in the final against Djokovic.



Looks like Djokovic gets extremely lucky that all players drop their level from one match to another drastically for no reason. Or MAYBE he has something to do with that if it happens time and time again.

 

[tennis_pro]

How can Djokovic at the AO be worse than Federer at W when Novak's 10/10 in AO finals, while Federer has lost 4 W finals, including one aged merely 26? Not to mention 10 > 8.

Yea better lose to Wawrinka in the QF than to Nadal in the final. Can't lose a final if you don't reach it, HUH? It literally took a GOAT contender playing arguably the match of his life to take down a less than his best Federer ONCE and that was Fed's only loss at Wimbledon in 2003-2009.

Also, Federer was merely 32 in the W 2014 final. Djokovic was 36 in today's match against Sinner. Not the same situation. You can't sum it up all losses after age 30 as if they're all the same. 31 is not 39, and 32 is not 36.

Federer had Djokovic blocking him at Wimbledon in 2014-2019. Who was the equivalent for Djokovic in 2019-2025 again? I wonder how many finals Djokovic would've won at Wimbledon in 2019-2025 if he was competing against a 6-years younger Fed.

So instead of a 38-year old Fed where he still required the choke of the century to barely beat him imagine he faced a 28-year old Fed. Or in the 2022 final he faces a 30 or 31 year old Fed instead of Kyrgios. Don't make me laugh, Fed who was a generation older than Djokovic pushed him hard on pretty much every occasion, I don't think a 34-year old Djokovic would win more than a set against a 28-year old Fed at Wimbledon.

It's been long overdue for Djokovic and actually it' still sad that time beat him more than the new generation.

 

[abmk]

When it's a Federer rival, he's tough, when it's a Djokovic rival tons of excuses like crao, ****, choking, etc. lol.


Wimbledon 2004 is tough because of Roddick and Hewitt, but 2016 for Djokovic is not tough facing Federer and Murray (and Nishikori, who is better than Grosjean).

Of course, if the Hewitt match had happened to Djokovic against somebody else we'd talk about how crap or **** or choking or whatever was because he was bageled and breadsticked in the same match and only won one set via tie break. Or Roddick losing a set to get a 2-1 lead in the final from a break up. But of course 2007 Nadal makes it a tough draw when he needed five sets to beat Youzhny and was losing against Djokovic for a while before the injury and almost loses to Soderling.


2009 is depth with Roddick, Haas, Soderling and Karlovic. But Djokovic faced far stronger depth in 2013 in a run that had Wawrinka, Berdych, Ferrer and Murray. 2019 is "crap" Nadal when he did not lose a set before the final and he was even considered the favorite by many people and won the other HC slam that year.

Also, beating Medvedev and Zverev on HC is not easy at all. Not too different than beating Roddick and Hewitt. Medvedev already won a slam on HC, the YEC and many other finals. He has better numbers than Hewitt on HC already. And Zverev basically lacks the slam, but if he wins one he is ahead of Roddick with the OG, several M1000s and two YECs.

nishi was very good in USO 14 vs djoko, but was cr*p in the AO 16 QF - hitting every ball out

so please stop embarassing yourself and watch the matches.

2019 AO nadal was cr*p in the final. anyone calling nadal favorite in AO 19 after watching djoko level in SF is kidding themselves.

roddick of Wim 04 >>>>> fed of AO 16 or murray of AO 16
hewitt of WIm 04 was also significantly better.

nadal in Wim 07 had a tough first week, but demolished berdych in the QF. he wasn't losing sh*t to djokovic. one set lost isn't saying much.. and played his best in the final vs fed.

Edit:
I already mentioned 2013 AO as tough for djokovic, but it is similar to Wim 09 depth wise, so stop with the bullsh*t over-rating calling it as far stronger depth.
Roddick of Wim 09 ~ Wawa of AO 13
Haas of Wim 09 semi <~ Murray of AO 13 final (blisters after set2)
Soderling of Wim 09 ~ Berdych of AO 13
Karlovic of Wim 09 > ferrer of AO 13 semi (ferrer extremely lucky to get through vs mega choking almagro in the first place and was below par in the semi - granted vs peak level djokovic)

 

[abmk]

Lol,

Whenever they play Djokovic they miraculously suck and when they play Federer they are brilliant lol.

It's not me that should watch the matches. It's you that should realize that player's levels don't exist in a vacuum, they are directly affected by your opponent's. This isn't swimming or sprinting where every player has his own lane.

Your arguments are hilarious, it's always X was **** or crap or choking vs Djokovic and a demigod when they play Federer.

Nishikori plays like **** in 2016 but was brilliant in 2017, a year apart with no major injury, no significant age difference, no slump, nothing.

Or when Federer plays one of his best matches ever in the Wmbledon 2015 SF but then plays badly in the final vs Djokovic. It's that Djokovic got lucky. Medvedev beats Alcaraz in the SF of the USO and then Djokovic beats a badly playing Medvedev in the final. He got lucky again. Or Murray being bad in AO finals against Djokovic despite constantly making finals beating everyone else. Or Nadal playing stellar at the AO 2019 and then sucking in the final against Djokovic.



Looks like Djokovic gets extremely lucky that all players drop their level from one match to another drastically for no reason. Or MAYBE he has something to do with that if it happens time and time again.

I just said "nishikori played well in AO 17 4R vs fed like vs djoko in USO 14."

USO 14 was vs freaking Djokovic.

I am giving you this one last chance to stop this BS. else you are proving yourself to be an absolutely annoying poster, posting BS, lying about what I am saying. and I will put you on ignore if you continue on this track.

federer didn't play one of his best wimbledon matches vs Murray in WIm 15. its not even in top 10. he did play very well vs Murray, but its not top 10. and he didn't play bad vs djoko. he still played good, but his level did dip compared to semi and it was partly due to djokovic and partly due to himself. (yes, mega genius, I know this ->

It's you that should realize that player's levels don't exist in a vacuum, they are directly affected by your opponent's.

but its isn't all due to your boy djokovic. player own level also matters.

nadal got a bunch of players playing clown levels at AO 19 and level got over-rated.

murray also got beat easily by fed in AO 10 final. merely decent in that final, nothing tough. this despite him playing very well vs nadal in QF and cilic in SF.

 

[RS]

Another Fedovic fanbase spectacle.

 

[abmk]

OP, aren't you the poster who blames most of Federer's losses to Nadal and Djokovic because of age when he was less than 5 and 6 years older? Now when Djoker loses to Sinner who is over 14 years younger this proves Djoker is overrated at the Aussie Open? Don't you think you are a hypocrite? Djoker has won the Aussie Open 10 times and never lost a final so it's not possible for him to be overrated.

this has been addressed like 3-4 times by me in this thread.
if I say federer is much much better than Sampras at Wimbledon, that would be over-rating as well. and federer has won 8 Wimbledons and made 4 more finals.

of course prime djokovic would've swept past this Sinner, but point is 20+ AO djokovic isn't remotely close to prime and had pretty easy competition to win AO 20/21/23 at not particularly high level. and you might want to read the opening post again slowly and properly.

 

[zvelf]

But Fed beat Roddick in that same Wimb where he beat Phillippoussis. I'd take players like these over Pouille, Karatsev and Paul.

Point is, yes, Fed got a freebie in 2017 at Wimb, but considering how he had to deal with a younger GOAT contender for all of the 2010's, I'd say it was partially deserved. Djokovic hasn't had that. Instead he's managed to win 2 titles while carrying injuries.

But Djokovic had near-peak Fed and peak Nadal in 2007-2010 continuously stopping him at slams, which is roughly the equivalent of Fed facing peak Djokovic and peak Nadal later. Speaking of peak/prime Nadal, Djokovic has had to face that Nadal his entire career. Djokovic was stopped by Nadal in the 2007 RG SF, 2007 Wimbledon SF, 2008 RG SF, 2010 USO F, and he was stopped by Federer in the 2007 USO F, 2008 USO SF, and 2009 USO SF. We can go through draws and cherry-pick easy or tough competition all day across 20 years of matches. I already showed that Djokovic overall had tougher competition at AO than Federer at Wimbledon based on numbers. You can disagree, but level of competition is at least debatable, and if it's that close, Djokovic still wins because he's got 2 more AO titles than Fed has Wimbledon titles and that's not close.

 

[RS]

nishi was very good in USO 14 vs djoko, but was cr*p in the AO 16 QF - hitting every ball out

so please stop embarassing yourself and watch the matches.

2019 AO nadal was cr*p in the final. anyone calling nadal favorite in AO 19 after watching djoko level in SF is kidding themselves.

roddick of Wim 04 >>>>> fed of AO 16 or murray of AO 16
hewitt of WIm 04 was also significantly better.

nadal in Wim 07 had a tough first week, but demolished berdych in the QF. he wasn't losing sh*t to djokovic. one set lost isn't saying much.. and played his best in the final vs fed.

Edit:
I already mentioned 2013 AO as tough for djokovic, but it is similar to Wim 09 depth wise, so stop with the bullsh*t over-rating calling it as far stronger depth.
Roddick of Wim 09 ~ Wawa of AO 13
Haas of Wim 09 semi <~ Murray of AO 13 final (blisters after set2)
Soderling of Wim 09 ~ Berdych of AO 13
Karlovic of Wim 09 > ferrer of AO 13 semi (ferrer extremely lucky to get through vs mega choking almagro in the first place and was below par in the semi - granted vs peak level djokovic)

Fed's top 4 players in RG 09 vs Djokovic's top 4 players in AO 12 who comes out as better?

 

[TMF]

What is "supremely tough", and in that case, which of Federer titles at Wimbledon came against supremely tough competition aside from 2012?

Because Djokovic had to beat Nishikori, Murray and Federer in 2016, Murray and Wawrinka in 2015, Wawrinka, Berdych, Ferrer and Murray in 2013, Medvedev and Nadal in 2019, Thiem and Federer in 2020, Medvedev and Zverev in 2021. 2023 was "easier", yeah, but Tsitsipas is not the clown people like to pretend he is for some reason, he beat both Federer and Nadal at the AO and he beat Sinner who might win the event this year to reach that final.

LOL
Tsitsipas is 12 years younger than old Nadal, 17 years younger than grandpa Federer. That's nothing to brag, he's just another weak 90's born player

 

[abmk]

Fed's top 4 opponents in RG 09 vs Djokovic's top 4 opponents in AO 12 who comes out as better?

nadal AO 12 final ~ delpo RG 09 semi
murray AO 12 semi obviously tougher than anyone of acusaso, haas, PHM, soderling

but depth wise, federer had 6 half-decent+ opponents (everyone except first round): Acusaso, PHM, Haas, Monfils, Delpo, Sod
djokovic had 4 (from 4R onwards - hewitt, ferrer, murray, nadal)

if we have to take top 4 only, I'd give djoko AO 12 slight edge thanks to Murray.

 

[RS]

Djokovic's top 4 opponents in USO 11 vs Fed's top 4 opponents Wim 12?

 

[BauerAlmeida]

LOL
Tsitsipas is 12 years younger than old Nadal, 17 years younger than grandpa Federer. That's nothing to brag, he's just another weak 90's born player

But when Djokovic beats opponents 10 or 15 years younger it's nothing to brag and they are weak...

 

[RS]

nadal AO 12 final ~ delpo RG 09 semi
murray AO 12 semi obviously tougher than anyone of acusaso, haas, PHM, soderling

but depth wise, federer had 6 half-decent+ opponents (everyone except first round): Acusaso, PHM, Haas, Monfils, Delpo, Sod
djokovic had 4 (from 4R onwards - hewitt, ferrer, murray, nadal)

if we have to take top 4 only, I'd give djoko AO 12 slight edge thanks to Murray.

I was thinking that some people might say RG 09 had better depth.

 

[abmk]

I was thinking that some people might say RG 09 had better depth.

it did, isn't it obvious - I mean for those who watched and know their stuff.
but if we are taking top 4 vs top 4, djoko AO 12 gets the slight edge thanks to Murray semi.

 

[RS]

it did, isn't it obvious - I mean for those who watched and know their stuff.
but if we are taking top 4 vs top 4, djoko AO 12 gets the slight edge thanks to Murray semi.

Would we extend this to the other half the draw pre final too?

 

[fedfan24]

Djokovic's top 4 opponents in USO 11 vs Fed's top 4 opponents Wim 12?

1 2011 Federer
2012 Djokovic/Murray and 2011 Nadal similar level.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

I just said "nishikori played well in AO 17 4R vs fed like vs djoko in USO 14."

USO 14 was vs freaking Djokovic.

Well, he beat Djokovic in that match, so it's not like it's a match that matters when assessing the level of competition in Djokovic's victories.

I am giving you this one last chance to stop this BS. else you are proving yourself to be an absolutely annoying poster, posting BS, lying about what I am saying.

Lying about what? It's right there in your post you claiming Djokvic's opponents are crap and choking and whatnot while ignoring a player playing the same way against Federer. I did not claim you said every single opponent Djokovic ever faced in history was crap or choking.

and I will put you on ignore if you continue on this track.

You are free to do whatever you want or deem necessary.

but its isn't all due to your boy djokovic. player own level also matters.

Yes, but you cannot take a player's level on a vacuum. It's like claiming Federer beat a crap Hewitt at USO 2004 because the Aussie got bageled twice. No, Hewitt had reached the final without dropping a set and had won Cinci right before. He was playing great tennis. It's credit to Federer for making him look like crap. And it would be ridiculous to take merit from Federer because he won easily and give him more credit if it had been a tougher match. It's circular reasoning. Same goes for Djokovic vs Nadal at AO 2019 or Medvedev at USO 2023.

nadal got a bunch of players playing clown levels at AO 19 and level got over-rated.

It was a great level though, he did not drop a set and was dropping 2-3 games per set against players which aren't bad like Tsitsipas, Tiafoe, De Minaur or Berdych.

murray also got beat easily by fed in AO 10 final. merely decent in that final, nothing tough. this despite him playing very well vs nadal in QF and cilic in SF.

Then credit goes to Federer for dispatching him so easily, although Murray was crap in his first 3 slam finals, including vs Djokovic at the AO 2011 as well and couldn't deal with the situation. He improved for Wimbledon 2012 but almost chokes a 2-0 lead at USO that year. Finally played a good final in Wimbledon 2013.

 

[abmk]

Djokovic's top 4 opponents in USO 11 vs Fed's top 4 opponents Wim 12?

fed of USO 11 > djoko or murray of Wim 12
nadal of USO 11 < djoko or murray of Wim 12
tipsy of USO 11 (retired) < benneteau of Wim 12
dolgo of USO 11 > youzhny of Wim 12

 

[abmk]

Well, he beat Djokovic in that match, so it's not like it's a match that matters when assessing the level of competition in Djokovic's victories.

point was I evaluated nishi's level as it was - be it USO 14 or AO 16 or AO 17. have you even seen his match vs djoko in AO 16 QF. he was sh*t. so many UFEs in short points.

now nishi was ok in Wim 18 vs djoko for example. this was a match djokovic won btw. nothing tough, but not sh*t like in AO 16 QF.
if nishi hasn't played well in a slam match that djokovic has won, what can I do?

now raonic/dimi haven't played well in a slam match that federer has won, so what can I do? I'm just stating it as is. I'm not going to say dimi in AO 16 or Wim 17 was very good or Rao in Wim 14 or Wim 17.

Lying about what? It's right there in your post you claiming Djokvic's opponents are crap and choking and whatnot while ignoring a player playing the same way against Federer. I did not claim you said every single opponent Djokovic ever faced in history was crap or choking.

what else is this?
"When it's a Federer rival, he's tough, when it's a Djokovic rival tons of excuses like crao, ****, choking, etc. lol."

when did I ignore player playing cr*p vs federer. Cilic was cr*p in Wim 17 final for example.

Yes, but you cannot take a player's level on a vacuum. It's like claiming Federer beat a crap Hewitt at USO 2004 because the Aussie got bageled twice. No, Hewitt had reached the final without dropping a set and had won Cinci right before. He was playing great tennis. It's credit to Federer for making him look like crap. And it would be ridiculous to take merit from Federer because he won easily and give him more credit if it had been a tougher match. It's circular reasoning. Same goes for Djokovic vs Nadal at AO 2019 or Medvedev at USO 2023.

Hewitt was a little below par in USO 04 final AND federer made him look worse than he was. hewitt was in his prime unlike nadal in AO 19.
and nadal was coming in like after 4 months injury break unlike hewitt. Agassi won Cincy 04 beating Hewitt and Roddick.

med is a level below hewitt and played a meh final. just stating it as is.

It isn't taking credit from federer to say hewitt was a little below par himself as long as you say federer made hewitt look worse than he was and played at a stellar level (one of the all time best on HC). see below for nadal-djokovic AO 19 ...

It was a great level though, he did not drop a set and was dropping 2-3 games per set against players which aren't bad like Tsitsipas, Tiafoe, De Minaur or Berdych.

each one of those players played like sh*t vs nadal at that AO. do you even watch, man?
nadal did play well in those matches, but wasn't tested.
nadal was well below par in the final, djokovic playing great exposed his weaknesses and made him look worse than he was.

Then credit goes to Federer for dispatching him so easily, although Murray was crap in his first 3 slam finals, including vs Djokovic at the AO 2011 as well and couldn't deal with the situation. He improved for Wimbledon 2012 but almost chokes a 2-0 lead at USO that year. Finally played a good final in Wimbledon 2013.

Murray was cr*p in USO 08 and AO 11 finals. he was decent in AO 10 final. (similar to AO 13/15 finals - maybe a little worse)
point is Murray hasn't played a good AO final per se - be it vs djokovic or vs fed. so stop over-rating him in AO finals.
now he did play very good semis vs both of them - AO 12 vs djoko and 13 vs fed.
just state things realistically.

Murray was obviously pretty good in Wim 12/USO 12 and Wim 13 finals.
Murray didn't almost choke that lead. Djoko was simply better in sets 3 and 4 with wind going down. I give credit where it is due - in this case for Djokovic.
and when you say finally played a good final in Wim 13 like he didn't play well in WIm 12/USO 12 finals, I'm like smh.

 

[RS]

Nadal's top 4 opponents in RG 05 vs Djokovic's top 4 opponents in Wim 14?

 

[TMF]

But when Djokovic beats opponents 10 or 15 years younger it's nothing to brag and they are weak...

Djkovic is 6 years younger than Federer. He is in the right place and at the right time to vulture all of those wins in the CIE, while old Federer hardly had a chance. Djokovic vultured 12 slams, Federer only 3.

Tsitsipas BAREly beat old Nadal in 2021 AO after being down 0-2 set. If he was a really a good NextGen player in his prime, he should be able to win comfortably. His overall record against Nadal is 2-7.

Djoker fans should refrained themselves from overrating Tsitsipas.


These 90s born players are suppose to beat old players in their 30s and taking over the tour. The fact that they are incapable is a testament of not being good enough. Every past era are have young great players stepping up, and don't let mid-35 years old players making a mockery out of the sport(except this era)

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Djkovic is 6 years younger than Federer. He is in the right place and at the right time to vulture all of those wins in the CIE, while old Federer hardly had a chance. Djokovic vultured 12 slams, Federer only 3.

Tsitsipas BAREly beat old Nadal in 2021 AO after being down 0-2 set. If he was a really a good NextGen player in his prime, he should be able to win comfortably. His overall record against Nadal is 2-7.

Djoker fans should refrained themselves from overrating Tsitsipas.


These 90s born players are suppose to beat old players in their 30s and taking over the tour. The fact that they are incapable is a testament of not being good enough. Every past era are have young great players stepping up, and don't let mid-35 years old players making a mockery out of the sport(except this era)

Who overrates Tsitsipas? Nobody claims he is a world-beater or anything, but you see people talk about him as if he was a clown when he was one set away from having wins against the whole big 3 at slams. He reached slam finals on different surfaces, he won the YEC, he won multiple M1000s, etc. Not a bad career. Beat Djokovic on hard and Nadal on clay. A player like Davydenko had most disappointing slam performances and he is not trashed nowhear near as much (and I really enjoyed watching him play, not he claiming he should). Ferrer was poor vs Big 3 too and didn't do much damage at slams aside from being a gatekeeper and doesn't get anywhere near that level of criticism.

 

[abmk]

Who overrates Tsitsipas? Nobody claims he is a world-beater or anything, but you see people talk about him as if he was a clown when he was one set away from having wins against the whole big 3 at slams. He reached slam finals on different surfaces, he won the YEC, he won multiple M1000s, etc. Not a bad career. Beat Djokovic on hard and Nadal on clay. A player like Davydenko had most disappointing slam performances and he is not trashed nowhear near as much (and I really enjoyed watching him play, not he claiming he should). Ferrer was poor vs Big 3 too and didn't do much damage at slams aside from being a gatekeeper and doesn't get anywhere near that level of criticism.

firstly davy was up vs prime fed (&prime nadal) -- not ancient Nadal or ancient djokovic or ancient fed like tpas
secondly davy atleast has 6-1 h2h vs nadal on HC to talk about
davy does get criticism for his slam under-performance, but the point is davy is 2nd tier player of his generation, tpas amongst the 1st tier players of his generation. If you don't get that this is significant, well ...
Also tpas is active. so will get more criticism.

Edit: if it is not clear, fed, hewitt, roddick, safin, ferrero from fed gen were 1st tier
nalby, davy, ferrer 2nd tier and they are similar to zed, med, tpas level wise (who are 1st tier from their gen)

 

[fedfan24]

Who overrates Tsitsipas? Nobody claims he is a world-beater or anything, but you see people talk about him as if he was a clown when he was one set away from having wins against the whole big 3 at slams. He reached slam finals on different surfaces, he won the YEC, he won multiple M1000s, etc. Not a bad career. Beat Djokovic on hard and Nadal on clay. A player like Davydenko had most disappointing slam performances and he is not trashed nowhear near as much (and I really enjoyed watching him play, not he claiming he should). Ferrer was poor vs Big 3 too and didn't do much damage at slams aside from being a gatekeeper and doesn't get anywhere near that level of criticism.

Davydenko lost to peak fed 4 times at slams between 06-07, 3 of the semi finals and a QF.

 

[zvelf]

Yes, but you cannot take a player's level on a vacuum. It's like claiming Federer beat a crap Hewitt at USO 2004 because the Aussie got bageled twice. No, Hewitt had reached the final without dropping a set and had won Cinci right before. He was playing great tennis. It's credit to Federer for making him look like crap. And it would be ridiculous to take merit from Federer because he won easily and give him more credit if it had been a tougher match. It's circular reasoning. Same goes for Djokovic vs Nadal at AO 2019 or Medvedev at USO 2023.

Yeah, I agree with this. This is where a lot of subjectivity comes in because just how poor one player is playing vs. how much the other player is making one player play poorly is difficult to suss. When it's that subjective, confirmation bias easily sets in and by definition, we're blind to our own subconscious biases. Furthermore, there's something paradoxical to claim that if a match is very competitive, then the winner should get more credit than when the winner easily beats their opponent.

 

[Third Serve]

Of course, Elo is not infallible, but it is proven as more reliable than ATP rankings in predicting winners. In any case, even if you can argue some runs as over or under-inflated, over time, it evens out when considering large sets of data. That data states clearly that Djokovic's AO competition overall was more difficult than Federer's Wimbledon competition.

Predicting winners of future matches that are about to happen is very different from comparing opponent strength from several years apart. I already said that Elo is pretty handy for assessing how good a player is compared to the current field at that moment, but it has serious flaws for cross-era comparisons to the point that I don’t take it very seriously when it’s invoked.

Large sets of data don’t really factor as much in this specific comparison between Fed and Djokovic when really the only relevant matches out of the seven for comparing the competition between two GOAT-level players at their best Slams are going to be SFs and Fs… and maybe a few QFs. There aren’t that many of those to go around (between the two players, I believe Fs + SFs comes to about 36) so a misleading Elo value for a handful of those opponents can offset a whole tournament placement by just enough to swap a few ranking spots here.

Plus, the margins for some of these title difficulty ratings are thin enough that even if the above weren’t true at all, it’s still close enough that a misleading value or two would likely account for that small a difference.

Additionally, the notion that a large sample size would resolve everything is defeated by the fact that Elo inflates over time because no matter how big the sample size is, there can be no evening out because the more recent matches will simply be weighted higher every time, irrespective of actual quality. It’s why Murray in 2009 pretty much had a higher Elo than Sampras in any of his seasons even though there shouldn’t be any discussion about who would be the tougher opponent to take down (after adjusting for things like technology).

And why 2017 Wimbledon is rated much stronger than 2004, 2007, and 2009 which is complete, utter nonsense.

Lastly, and this is a point that applies more to the 80’s/90’s than the 00’s, but homogenization of playing conditions drives up Elo. Surface specialists are underrated by pure Elo on their best surfaces (e.g. Roddick’s failures at RG adversely affect his Elo at Wimbledon, where he’s way better). Obviously, though, no one cares about RG when we’re talking about Wimbledon so Elo can be a bit sketchy there. As conditions have generally become more homogenized over time, recent players benefit more from this quirk of Elo than 80’s, 90’s, and early 00’s players who had to deal with a generally greater variety of surfaces during their careers. Surface Elo is a solution that deals with this specific problem, but I don’t see many people using it.

Now I wouldn’t recommend using any type of Elo metric in the first place, but for specialists like Roddick a surface Elo would be far more appropriate.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

secondly davy atleast has 6-1 h2h vs nadal on HC to talk about

That's why I specifically mentioned slams.

davy does get criticism for his slam under-performance, but the point is davy is 2nd tier player of his generation, tpas amongst the 1st tier players of his generation. If you don't get that this is significant, well ...
Also tpas is active. so will get more criticism.

Edit: if it is not clear, fed, hewitt, roddick, safin, ferrero from fed gen were 1st tier
nalby, davy, ferrer 2nd tier and they are similar to zed, med, tpas level wise (who are 1st tier from their gen)

Several players were bigger rivals than Tsitsipas for Djokovic in the past couple of years. Mainly Nadal, Medvedev, Alcaraz and Zverev. One can say Alcaraz belongs to a different generation in terms of age, but he's been a top player for the last couple of years already, he is an early bloomer. He is one of the rivals Djokovic had in the past few years in the so-called "Carrer Inflation Era". Then there's obviously Nadal who before 2023 was a top player battling for YE1 and slams. So while he peaked in a different generation, he was still a top player in this one, almost finishing #1 in 2022.

So while Tsitsipas is arguably the 3rd best player of his generation behind Zverev and Medvedev, generations overlap in reality. In terms of how much of a strong rival he was to Djokovic in the past few years, he is behind those. OTOH, while Davydenko is indeed in the 2nd tier of rivals for Federer in terms of achievements, at one point he was one of his main rivals. For instance, Ferrero kinda vanished in mid-2004 which was Federer's first year of dominance. They faced at the AO at the SF but then they didn't face in the latter stages of slams and Ferrero was outside the top 20 the rest of Federer's prime. Ferrero was a top player from 2000 to 2003. Safin was a similar case but until mid-2005 when he got injured. Hewitt lasted until the end of 2005. Davydenko's first top year was 2005. Until 2004 INCLUDED, Davydenko never made it to the 4th round of a slam and only once made it to the 3rd round. 2005-2009 were his best years and he won his biggest title in 2009 (YEC) and his M1000s in 2006, 2008 and 2009.

Simply put, there was very little overlap at the top between Davydenko and Hewitt or Safin and no overlap at all with Ferrero. There was with Roddick as he lasted longer at the top and with Nalbandian too. But Roddick peaked earlier as well and Davydenko was ranked higher than him for a big chunk of that period (2005-2009).

So to sum up, Davydenko was ranked in 2006-2009 pretty much as Tsitsipas has been for the past few years. He was absolutely one of the best players in the world in that period, being ranked regularly in the top 5 and reaching as high as 3 only behind Fedal. He wasn't a second-tier player that was in the bottom end of the top 10. There were players born in the same period as him that achieved more but it was at a different time. Ferrer is something similar in that sense, as he peaked in 2012 and 2013, even later than Davydenko and much later than all other of his contemporaries.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Yeah, I agree with this. This is where a lot of subjectivity comes in because just how poor one player is playing vs. how much the other player is making one player play poorly is difficult to suss. When it's that subjective, confirmation bias easily sets in and by definition, we're blind to our own subconscious biases.

Exactly, there isn't much of an objective way to analyze a player's level in tennis.

Furthermore, there's something paradoxical to claim that if a match is very competitive, then the winner should get more credit than when the winner easily beats their opponent.

And yet to see it very often...Sometimes you'd think a player should drop a set so they don't claim the opponent "bent over" or was terrible.

 

[mika1979]

How can Djokovic at the AO be worse than Federer at W when Novak's 10/10 in AO finals, while Federer has lost 4 W finals, including one aged merely 26? Not to mention 10 > 8. Also, Federer was merely 32 in the W 2014 final. Djokovic was 36 in today's match against Sinner. Not the same situation. You can't sum it up all losses after age 30 as if they're all the same. 31 is not 39, and 32 is not 36.

Iy

1. Djoko is the greatest AO champ, no question.

2. But Djoko was getting significantly over-rated there based on his SF/F record. Djoko at AO is worse than Fed at Wim level wise but has been far luckier with competition past prime or prime-ish level. Imagine fed of Wim 14, 15, 19 facing djoko AO 20/21/23 level competition.
Comparison of Djokovic at AO to nadal to RG is downright laughable.

The last actual high level opponent Djokovic faced at AO in the semi/final was AO 12 semi/final murray and nadal.
some decent to at best good opponents after that in SF/F, but nothing that tough. Of course he did face peak wawa in 4R and QF in AO 13 and 14, but those aren't SF or F. Wawa played lackluster in the AO 15 semi.

3. The AO 14 QF vs Wawa was like the de facto semi. and djoko was losing to Roddick in AO 09 QF, Tsonga in AO 10 QF - which is deep in the tournament.

4. Commentator Somdev was mentioning this is the first time Djoko has played AO SF/F in the day conditions

The straws one clutches to

 

[esvc]

This thread is a waste of energy lol. Fed is finished. Nole is GOAT.

 

[LuckyR]

This thread is a waste of energy lol. Fed is finished. Nole is GOAT.

He's definitely the King of Australia.

 

[zvelf]

firstly davy was up vs prime fed (&prime nadal) -- not ancient Nadal or ancient djokovic or ancient fed like tpas
secondly davy atleast has 6-1 h2h vs nadal on HC to talk about
davy does get criticism for his slam under-performance, but the point is davy is 2nd tier player of his generation, tpas amongst the 1st tier players of his generation. If you don't get that this is significant, well ...
Also tpas is active. so will get more criticism.

"Ancient Nadal and Djokovic" makes it sound like they were horrible players in their mid-30s but they were not. They just went down from all-time GOAT-level to ATG-level, from superhuman to near-peak human. Same with Federer, who was GOAT-level but then dropped to ATG-level, which lasted until 2019. How "bad" is Tsititsipas? He is 2-2 against Fed with the 17-year age gap. Djokovic is 3-2 against Alcaraz with the 16-year age gap.

While I agree that Davydenko and Tsitsipas are in the same ballpark playing level, Davydenko was tier 2 because tier 1 was two GOAT level players in Federer and Nadal. They were the outliers, not Davydenko. Tsitsipas may be tier 1 for his generation, but it's not in doubt that Medvedev and Zverev are ahead of him for that generation.

Edit: if it is not clear, fed, hewitt, roddick, safin, ferrero from fed gen were 1st tier
nalby, davy, ferrer 2nd tier and they are similar to zed, med, tpas level wise (who are 1st tier from their gen)

It's not that black and white. Hewitt, Safin, and Ferrero all had strikingly up-and-down careers due to either injury or just plain decline. At their highest peaks, they probably surpass Zed, Med, and Tsitsipas, but average level across career? No. Hewitt might be remembered as a tough rival for Federer only because Hewitt led the head-to-head 7-2 from 1999-2003, that is, mostly before Federer hit his stride. From 2004-2009, it was 14-0 Federer. But Hewitt was plagued with injuries for half this period. By the middle of 2006, Hewitt had dropped out of the top 10 and never re-entered it. 2004 to 2013 (the last match they played) is presumably the period Federer fans want to evaluate their rivalry and not the pre-2004 period when Hewitt dominated Federer. In 2004-2013, Federer went 16-2 against Hewitt, but out of all these matches, Hewitt was ranked in the top 10 at the time of the match for only 7 of these matches. For these 7 matches, maybe Hewitt was better than Zed, Med, and Tsitsipas's average level, but for the other 11, very much probably not.

Using Ferrero as a main rival against Federer is more misleading than Hewitt. Around the middle of 2004, Ferrero became a shadow of himself, dropped out of the top 10, never to return, and ended 2004 at #33. Prime Federer played this weak Ferrero 6 times, and this post-2004 Ferrero was certainly worse than Zed, Med, and Tsitsipas. Federer and Ferrero's primes overlapped for 1 year.

Prime Federer played Safin 8 times. Safin's rank during these matches in chronological order were 86, 30, 4, 4, 5, 24, 75, 27. Every time they played when Safin was outside the top 20, Federer won in straight sets. So in 3 of these matches, maybe Safin was better than Zed, Med, and Tsitsipas's average level, but for the other 5, very much probably not. After 2005, when 3 of these matches took place, Safin's win percentage was 53%. He was struggling to beat the entire field half the time. That was definitely not Zed, Med, and Tsitsipas level.

So Hewitt, Safin, and Ferrero were 1st tier at their peaks, but none of those peaks lasted very long and when they dropped, they weren't even second tier but third or fourth tier. And the truth is, Hewitt and Ferrero's highest peaks were before prime Federer.

 

[DjokoLand]

Jesus the hyperbole goes both ways on here from he was injured or unfit to he wasn’t even that great here.

The truth is he is 36 played terrible against the most inform player in the last 4 months who is coming into his own and was beating.

It reminds me of the RG against Nadal where he was squashed then won against him the next year. I feel this year Djokovic will decline and Sinner is obviously improving that he will have to play his best to match the match go either way

 

[zvelf]

Large sets of data don’t really factor as much in this specific comparison between Fed and Djokovic when really the only relevant matches out of the seven for comparing the competition between two GOAT-level players at their best Slams are going to be SFs and Fs… and maybe a few QFs. There aren’t that many of those to go around (between the two players, I believe Fs + SFs comes to about 36) so a misleading Elo value for a handful of those opponents can offset a whole tournament placement by just enough to swap a few ranking spots here.

That’s an easy way to hand wave early round opponents away with no statistical analysis involved. But the truth is that early round opponents do matter and can weaken a player along the way even if that player wins the match. It matters if you play #33 in the world in the first round instead of #170 qualifier.

Plus, the margins for some of these title difficulty ratings are thin enough that even if the above weren’t true at all, it’s still close enough that a misleading value or two would likely account for that small a difference.

Again, possible in a few cases, but it should even out when looking at 32 different slams.

Additionally, the notion that a large sample size would resolve everything is defeated by the fact that Elo inflates over time because no matter how big the sample size is, there can be no evening out because the more recent matches will simply be weighted higher every time, irrespective of actual quality. It’s why Murray in 2009 pretty much had a higher Elo than Sampras in any of his seasons even though there shouldn’t be any discussion about who would be the tougher opponent to take down (after adjusting for things like technology).

No, Elo inflation is a myth. Two Ph.D professors did an analysis of Elo ratings and proved that inflation is not real. This was performed for chess, not tennis, but the mathematical system is exactly same so if inflation were innate to Elo, then it would have been seen here. Here is the paper: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/ReHa11c.pdf

According to Tennis Abstract, Murray’s 2009 Elo did not surpass Sampras's peak, but even if he did, it wouldn’t be that outlandish. Murray won 84.6% of his matches in 2009 and went 2-2 against Federer and 2-2 against Nadal and 1-0 against Djokovic. Murray was 5-4 against the Big 3 and 14-6 against the top 10. In Sampras’ entire career, he only had one year, 1994, when he surpassed that win percentage and he went 13-7 against the top 10 in 1994, a lower win percentage than Murray in 2009 against top opposition. Would even Sampras do better than 4-4 against peak Federer and peak Nadal? Sampras won the AO and Wimbledon in 1994 and Murray didn’t win any slams in 2009, but Elo doesn’t care about that, just wins and losses and level of opposition. From that standpoint, Murray and Sampras were pretty close in level.

And why 2017 Wimbledon is rated much stronger than 2004, 2007, and 2009 which is complete, utter nonsense.

I don’t have time to do a complete analysis of every year, but I’ll just pick 2004 since it’s the first year you listed. I’ll list the actual ranking, not the seeding next to each player. In 2004, Federer played:

R1: #295 Alex Bogdanovic
R2: #138 Alejandro Falla
R3: #123 Thomas Johansson
R4: #62 Ivo Karlovic
QF: #10 Lleyton Hewitt
SF: #10 Sebastien Grosjean
F: #2 Andy Roddick

In 2017: Federer played:

R1: #84 Alexandr Dolgopolov
R2: #79 Dusan Lajovic
R3: #30 Mischa Zverev
R4: #11 Grigor Dimitrov
QF: #7 Milos Raonic
SF: #15 Tomas Berdych
F: #7 Cilic

Roddick is better than Cilic and that Hewitt may be a little better than that Raonic, but that Berdych (who took out Ferrer and Thiem and was leading Djokovic before Novak retired) is definitely better than that Grosjean, but most importantly, 2017’s opposition in the first 4 rounds are just leagues and leagues better than in 2004 so Elo’s call is sound.

Lastly, and this is a point that applies more to the 80’s/90’s than the 00’s, but homogenization of playing conditions drives up Elo. Surface specialists are underrated by pure Elo on their best surfaces (e.g. Roddick’s failures at RG adversely affect his Elo at Wimbledon, where he’s way better). Obviously, though, no one cares about RG when we’re talking about Wimbledon so Elo can be a bit sketchy there. As conditions have generally become more homogenized over time, recent players benefit more from this quirk of Elo than 80’s, 90’s, and early 00’s players who had to deal with a generally greater variety of surfaces during their careers. Surface Elo is a solution that deals with this specific problem, but I don’t see many people using it.

While this speculation may be correct, homogenization was already in effect for most of the time period we’re discussing in this thread as we’re not talking about the 80s or 90s or even early 00s. Roddick sucked at RG just as much throughout his entire career.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Sinner absolutely deserved to win today, I don’t think I’ve seen any Djokovic fans excuse the loss, it happened.

This threads premise of Federer being better at Wimbledon despite having 2 less titles and the hardcourt field being stronger and deeper is ridiculous.

There's NUMEROUS threads in this GPP Forum excusing this loss "Something was Wrong w/ Djokovic" "Djoker was sick", etc. Been watching Djokovic fans on this board since 2011-2012, and they are the LEAST capable of admitting their anti vaxx hero actually lost. They're even less capable of giving the opponent who beat him full credit for being the better player on the day. It's always Novak was sick, had some hidden injury, decided to play like crap, etc. Again, been watching this for over a decade on these boards

 

[Holmes]

How can Djokovic at the AO be worse than Federer at W when Novak's 10/10 in AO finals, while Federer has lost 4 W finals, including one aged merely 26? Not to mention 10 > 8. Also, Federer was merely 32 in the W 2014 final. Djokovic was 36 in today's match against Sinner. Not the same situation. You can't sum it up all losses after age 30 as if they're all the same. 31 is not 39, and 32 is not 36.

Because Federer was old, while at the same age, Novak is young.

 

[GabeT]

@abmk losing his mind over Fed being third wheel is a gift that keeps on giving. Really awesome lol

clowniest poster ever

 

[mavsman149]

There's NUMEROUS threads in this GPP Forum excusing this loss "Something was Wrong w/ Djokovic" "Djoker was sick", etc. Been watching Djokovic fans on this board since 2011-2012, and they are the LEAST capable of admitting their anti vaxx hero actually lost. They're even less capable of giving the opponent who beat him full credit for being the better player on the day. It's always Novak was sick, had some hidden injury, decided to play like crap, etc. Again, been watching this for over a decade on these boards

The “Something was wrong with Djokovic” was started by @Federev, who is not a Djokovic fan