Hypothetical TTW War : Peak Federer vs Peak Djokovic throughout a season

[jl809]

If these guys can take Federer to 5 sets on grass then Djokovic will as well.

But the thread is about peak, and I only see peak Federer in there once and that was against the guy who is the worst match up for Federer in existence… and Fed still won anyway

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

No one ever really brings up this match. Doesn’t fit the narrative, I guess.

Even the thumbnail shows post-prime Fed up a break and 0-30 in the second. Another set that got away, I guess, but indicative nonetheless of a more competitive match than the eventual scoreline might convey, as was often the case between these two.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

If these guys can take Federer to 5 sets on grass then Djokovic will as well.

Literally one peak showing which was his 4th/5th best lategame showing anyway. No surprise that the list includes PETE, the scrub (lol).

 

[Razer]

But the thread is about peak, and I only see peak Federer in there once and that was against the guy who is the worst match up for Federer in existence… and Fed still won anyway

If Peak Federer was so great to never be stretched to 5 then he should have not gone down 1-3 after 2011 to Novak.

 

[GoatNo1]

Fed - hypothetical GOAT
Rafa - when healthy GOAT
No1e - The Real GOAT

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Realistically the big 3 are coin tosses against each other almost everywhere if truly playing peak for peak.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

If Peak Federer was so great to never be stretched to 5 then he should have not gone down 1-3 after 2011 to Novak.

'After 2011' is a little disingenuous here because the losses in that record, which are the only ones that matter for the point, really began 3 years later, at least 8 years after Fed's grass Zenith (and near enough at Djoker's). Not to mention that they were all competitive.

 

[Razer]

'After 2011' is a little disingenuous here because the losses in that record, which are the only ones that matter for the point, really began 3 years later, at least 8 years after Fed's grass Zenith (and near enough at Djoker's). Not to mention that they were all competitive.

Sure, 14 onwards Federer is not Peak Federer but 0-3 in the finals is not befitting Federer's stature, this only shows that saying Novak would never stretch peak Fed to 5 is a blasphemous statement. He could sneak in a win and lose in 5 on other occasions.

 

[Kralingen]

Where’s metsman he would love this one

 

[GabeT]

Realistically the big 3 are coin tosses against each other almost everywhere if truly playing peak for peak.

yes. And on top of that, the Fedovic rivalry was the closest of the big 3, right from the beginning. God, people here love to debate the same things over and over!

 

[Juice4080]

Fed's peak happened without any all time greats to really stretch him. As soon as he faced someone of his ilk he magically became past his prime. Post prime Fed is still a all time great and light years better than anyone he faced during his prime so right there we can say that Novak faced tougher competition. While Fed's game is tailor made to dispatch of lesser competition it isn't that resilient against all time greats.

Over a calendar year im picking Novak to prevail overall.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

AO: Djokovic
IW: Federer
Miami: Djokovic
Montecarlo: Djokovic
Roma: Djokovic
Madrid/Hamburg: Federer
Roland Garros: Djokovic
Wimbledon: Federer
Canada: Djokovic
Cinci: Federer
USO: Federer
Paris: Djokovic
Shangai/Madrid: Djokovic
YEC: Federer

 

[GoatNo1]

peak fed in his own ERA (04-09) vs big4:

Fed vs big4 (04-09)	Totals	Rafael Nadal	Andy Murray	Novak Djokovic
Roger Federer	45.5% (20-24)	35.0% (7-13)	40.0% (4-6)	64.3% (9-5)

peak + prime No1e in his own ERA (11-now) vs big 4:

No1e vs big4 (11-now)	Totals	Rafael Nadal	Roger Federer	Andy Murray
Novak Djokovic	67.7% (65-31)	63.9% (23-13)	67.7% (21-10)	72.4% (21-8)

 

[Third Serve]

OP is baiting, true objective observers of the sport should recognize this upon reading the Wimbledon take.

 

[MasterSlice74]

There absolutely no way Djoker would beat Fed peak for peak at Wimby. He only barely beat the 14/15 versions and scraped past nearly 38 yr old Fed In 19. The 2012 match was the closest to both of them being at their peak with Djoker just past his best season ever. That Fed was still probably his 4/5th version of Fed there.

FED 03-07 would 100% beat all versions of Djoker at Wimby.

08-09 would probably beat most versions of Djoker there too.

Not to mention Wimby 2012...

 

[SonnyT]

Out of ten, Djokovic 7-3

 

[Federev]

If these guys can take Federer to 5 sets on grass then Djokovic will as well.

We don’t have to speculate.

Peak Novak couldn’t take post-prime Federer past four sets at Wimbledon in 2012. Fed won in four.

In fact Peak Novak couldn’t take post-prime Federer past four sets at RG for that matter in 2011. Fed won in four.

And peak Novak had to face down match points of post-prime Federer in 2011 at the USO.

That’s Roger past his peak. Is Peak Federer going to do worse?

 

[Razer]

We don’t have to speculate.

Peak Novak couldn’t take post-prime Federer past four sets at Wimbledon in 2012. Fed won in four.

I’m fact Peak Novak couldn’t take post-prime Federer past four sets at RG for that matter in 2011. Fed won in four.

And peak Novak had to face down match points of post-prime Federer in 2011 at the USO.

That’s Roger past his peak. Is Peak Federer going to do worse?

Peak Novak, Past Novak, Present Federer, Prime Federer .... Please stop randomly dishing out these fancy terms and explain why Federer at any point in his career could not cross 16,000 points on the ATP Calender year ? Let alone 16,950.

Wasn't he great enough at his peak ? I ask this question because you are automatically assuming Federer deteriorated every year after 2007 when this is not true. IMO Roger was not past his peak in 2010-2012.

 

[Federev]

Peak Novak, Past Novak, Present Federer, Prime Federer .... Please stop randomly dishing out these fancy terms and explain why Federer at any point in his career could not cross 16,000 points on the ATP Calender year ? Let alone 16,950.

Wasn't he great enough at his peak ?

Can you tell me why peak Novak couldn’t beat post-prime Fed in 2011 at RG, in 2012 at WB, or had to face MPs at the USO in 2011?

He should have crushed Federer and loses 2 slams and almost a 3rd on 3 different surfaces.

This thread isn’t about points amassed in a year. It’s about how players at their best do against one another.

 

[Razer]

Can you tell me why peak Novak couldn’t beat post-prime Fed in 2011 at RG, in 2012 at WB, or had to face MPs at the USO in 2011?

He should have crushed Federer and loses 2 slams and almost a 3rd on 3 different surfaces.

This thread isn’t about points amassed in a year. It’s about how players at their best do against one another.

I already told you, a bad day in the office during RG11
Federer and Nadal were 11-1 vs Novak from ao11 to ao12, so 1 loss in between to Federer is law of averages playing its part.

"Crushed Federer" ? Is Federer a 5th tier player like roddick/hewitt to be crushed ? Federer was in his prime in 2011 and 2012, you cannot crush someone like that.

 

[Federev]

I already told you, a bad day in the office during RG11
Federer and Nadal were 11-1 vs Novak from ao11 to ao12, so 1 loss in between to Federer is law of averages playing its part.

"Crushed Federer" ? Is Federer a 5th tier player like roddick/hewitt to be crushed ? Federer was in his prime in 2011 and 2012, you cannot crush someone like that.

“A bad day at the office”. Lol.

He almost had one again at the very next slam they met.

And he had a very bad one again a year later at WB.

That’s a lot of badness in some important matches for a Peak Novak against a post-prime Fed.

 

[Razer]

“A bad day at the office”. Lol.

He almost had one again at the very next slam they met.

And he had a very bad one again a year later at WB.

That’s a lot of badness in some important matches for a Peak Novak against a post-prime Fed.

Federer was in his prime in 2011, close to his peak.

Check the game%, tb%, break%, return points won% .and other stats....

RPW is an important stat in Tennis, whenever a person is at 40% or more then he is hitting at his peak.

 

[SonnyT]

Yeah, Fedfans are so accurate that they could pinpoint where 'prime' began or ended.

Unfortunately, in the world of blood, sweat and tears, tenacity and effort count. And 40:15 counts.

Like the tenacity and effort that Djokovic gave in Cincy last week, Federer could never give.

 

[Razer]

Yeah, Fedfans are so accurate that they could pinpoint where 'prime' began or ended.

Unfortunately, in the world of blood, sweat and tears, tenacity and effort count. And 40:15 counts.

Like the tenacity and effort that Djokovic gave in Cincy last week, Federer could never give.

His most tenacious win Aus open 2017 final .. it was a great win.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Sure, 14 onwards Federer is not Peak Federer but 0-3 in the finals is not befitting Federer's stature, this only shows that saying Novak would never stretch peak Fed to 5 is a blasphemous statement. He could sneak in a win and lose in 5 on other occasions.

I think peak Fed is being underrated here. That 0-3 in finals simply means Djoker was a grass ATG, and while that's to his credit, I don't think I'd be putting Fed over PETE at Wombledangle purely on the back of Fed, say, beating him in 5 and 4 setters in 2004 and 2005 respectively. I'd have to look elsewhere. Curiously enough that scenario is exactly what transpired between Fed and Agassi at the US Open! Shows what a beast OldPolyAgassi was on hard.

 

[RS]

Realistically the big 3 are coin tosses against each other almost everywhere if truly playing peak for peak.

They beat everybody else as well.

 

[abmk]

Fed's peak happened without any all time greats to really stretch him. As soon as he faced someone of his ilk he magically became past his prime. Post prime Fed is still a all time great and light years better than anyone he faced during his prime so right there we can say that Novak faced tougher competition. While Fed's game is tailor made to dispatch of lesser competition it isn't that resilient against all time greats.

Over a calendar year im picking Novak to prevail overall.

fed's prime was from YEC 03-AO 10.
He had agassi, nadal and djokovic in that time period.
but sure, no all time greats.

past prime fed in 11-12 played peak djokovic tougher than prime nadal did in slams, especially in 11. But sure, its not resilient vs ATGs.
spoken like a guy who hasn't watched much tennis during fed's prime or has a propaganda agenda.

Edit: oh and fed's competition in prime in 04-09 > djokovic's in 11-16.
and comparing post prime competition would be absolutely laughable.
djokovic had tougher competiton pre-prime, but the above 2 are more important.
federer's competition clearly tougher than djokovic's.

 

[Hitman]

fed's prime was from YEC 03-AO 10.
He had agassi, nadal and djokovic in that time period.
but sure, no all time greats.

past prime fed in 11-12 played peak djokovic tougher than prime nadal did in slams, especially in 11. But sure, its not resilient vs ATGs.
spoken like a guy who hasn't watched much tennis during fed's prime or has a propaganda agenda.

Federer's prime started at Halle 2003 on the grass. 2003 is one of his best seasons on grass level wise, it is that Roddick was just insanely hot during that time also and outperformed him.

 

[abmk]

Federer's prime started at Halle 2003 on the grass. 2003 is one of his best seasons on grass level wise, it is that Roddick was just insanely hot during that time also and outperformed him.

Halle 03, Wim 03 was prime level from fed. But not really after that before YEC 03.
Roddick did outperform him after that, but fed had too many losses before YEC to be truly considered prime level.

Jiri Novak in Gstaad loss in 5 sets
Roddick loss in 3-setter in Canada (credit to Roddick for this one)
nalby in straights (albeit TBs) in cincy
nalby in 4 sets in USO
hewitt in 5 sets in DC
ferrero in 3 sets in Madrid
Ljubicic in 3 sets in basel
Henman in straights in Paris

only won 1 title - that is Vienna

Maybe you call it prime-ish period at best, but not truly prime level.

 

[RS]

Halle 03, Wim 03 was prime level from fed. But not really after that before YEC 03.
Roddick did outperform him after that, but fed had too many losses before YEC to be truly considered prime.

Jiri Novak in Gstaad loss in 5 sets
Roddick loss in 3-setter in Canada (credit to Roddick for this one)
nalby in straights (albeit TBs) in cincy
nalby in 4 sets in USO
hewitt in 5 sets in DC
ferrero in 3 sets in Madrid
Ljubicic in 3 sets in basel
Henman in straights in Paris

only won 1 title - that is Vienna

Who do you think would have won between Fed and Roddick in USO 03 if they played? I tend to think Fed in 4 or 5.

 

[Beerus]

AO - Djokovic in 5 on the blue court. Toss-up on the green court
FO - Djokovic in 5 or maybe toss-up
W - Federer in 4. Would win in 3 on fast grass
USO - Federer in 4

What do you think? @TheNachoMan

 

[abmk]

Who do you think would have won between Fed and Roddick in USO 03 if they played? I tend to think Fed in 4/5.

Considering Roddick beat Fed in Canada coming from 2-4 down in the 3rd set, it could absolutely have gone either way.
Considering Roddick shook a considerably better Federer in Wim 04, USO 03 would be considerably tougher for fed vs Roddick.
don't see fed getting it done in 4 sets at all.
Roddick takes 2 or 3 sets - could go either way.

 

[Hitman]

Halle 03, Wim 03 was prime level from fed. But not really after that before YEC 03.
Roddick did outperform him after that, but fed had too many losses before YEC to be truly considered prime level.

Jiri Novak in Gstaad loss in 5 sets
Roddick loss in 3-setter in Canada (credit to Roddick for this one)
nalby in straights (albeit TBs) in cincy
nalby in 4 sets in USO
hewitt in 5 sets in DC
ferrero in 3 sets in Madrid
Ljubicic in 3 sets in basel
Henman in straights in Paris

only won 1 title - that is Vienna

Maybe you call it prime-ish period at best, but not truly prime level.

The loss to Jiri was not a bad loss, he stated that he felt tired because it was the first time he had played such a long grass season, it wasn't because he sucked.

Nalbandian was always a problem for Federer, we saw Nalbandian take him out in YEC 05 and back to back in Madrid and Paris in 07 also...plus Nalbandian was crazy hot, he was one point away from beating Roddick in the US semis, who himself was the hottest player on the tour.

Losing to Roddick at Montreal is a not bad loss at all, Roddick was on fire in the summer of 03, ever since he beat Agassi in Queens.

Losing that match to Hewitt doesn't mean he wasn't prime, he mentally lost the plot while he was cruising and Hewitt put in one of his best ever performances.

The loss to Henman isn't a bad one, Henman beat a lot of good players that event, he was fresh after having missed a lot of the season, while Federer and boys were already looking towards YEC.

It was prime level to me, he was just breaking away from the pack at that point, the gap started to look bigger only after AO, where he hit his peak levels.

 

[abmk]

AO - Djokovic in 5 on the blue court. Toss-up on the green court
FO - Djokovic in 5 or maybe toss-up
W - Federer in 4. Would win in 3 on fast grass
USO - Federer in 4

What do you think? @TheNachoMan

Djokovic on plexi, fed on RA
Fed with edge at RG
Fed in 4 on any grass
Fed in tighter 4 at USO ..maybe 5 sets.

 

[Beerus]

Djokovic on plexi, fed on RA
Fed with edge at RG
Fed in 4 on any grass
Fed in tighter 4 at USO ..maybe 5 sets.

Peak Federer would comfortably straight-set peak Djokovic on fast grass. Don't be a propagandist.

 

[abmk]

The loss to Jiri was not a bad loss, he stated that he felt tired because it was the first time he had played such a long grass season, it wasn't because he sucked.

Nalbandian was always a problem for Federer, we saw Nalbandian take him out in YEC 05 and back to back in Madrid and Paris in 07 also...plus Nalbandian was crazy hot, he was one point away from beating Roddick in the US semis, who himself was the hottest player on the tour.

Losing to Roddick at Montreal is a not bad loss at all, Roddick was on fire in the summer of 03, ever since he beat Agassi in Queens.

Losing that match to Hewitt doesn't mean he wasn't prime, he mentally lost the plot while he was cruising and Hewitt put in one of his best ever performances.

The loss to Henman isn't a bad one, Henman beat a lot of good players that event, he was fresh after having missed a lot of the season, while Federer and boys were already looking towards YEC.

It was prime level to me, he was just breaking away from the pack at that point, the gap started to look bigger only after AO, where he hit his peak levels.

agree on Roddick loss. not a bad one at all.
while nalby was tough for fed at that point, fed should've done better in both matches. we all saw fed beating nalby in AO 04, thrashing him in YEC 03, USO 05, madrid 06, beating him in YEC 06 RR, basel 08 etc. fed was 10-3 vs nalby from 2003 YEC to 2008 (didn't play in 2009)

6-7,1-6 vs Henman in Paris is a tame loss in the 2nd set. and if he was already looking forward to YEC, then we can pretty much agree Paris wasn't prime level.
cincy - fed had to save what 7 or 9 MPS vs draper, remember? its not just loss to nalby.
too many losses in that timeframe for fed. ljubicic loss in basel? ferrero loss in madrid?

like I said, he only won one small title in that time frame - Vienna.

Only Canada and DC could be said to be prime level tournaments for fed between Wim 03 and YEC 03. with Roddick playing at prime level to wrestle it away and hewitt fighting back in DC after fed was playing well to go up 2 sets to love.

you can say prime-ish level for that time period maybe, but not truly prime. Agree to disagree.

 

[abmk]

Peak Federer would comfortably straight-set peak Djokovic on fast grass. Don't be a propagandist.

Don't be a Beerist!

 

[Beerus]

AO: peak to peak, fed, prime to prime: djoko
RG: peak to peak, fed, prime to prime: even
Wim: both fed
USO: both fed
YEC: both fed

Masters:
IW and Monte Carlo - even
Hamburg/Madrid, Cincy, Shanghai: fed
Miami, Rome, Canada, Paris - djoko

I was almost correct.

Big 3 peak for peak

Djokovic vs Federer AO: Djokovic narrowly FO: Djokovic narrowly W: Federer USO: Federer YEC: Federer Djokovic vs Nadal AO: Djokovic FO: Nadal W: Djokovic narrowly USO: 50/50 YEC: Djokovic Federer vs Nadal AO: Federer FO: Nadal W: Federer USO: Federer YEC: Federer

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

 

[TheNachoMan]

AO - Djokovic in 5 on the blue court. Toss-up on the green court
FO - Djokovic in 5 or maybe toss-up
W - Federer in 4. Would win in 3 on fast grass
USO - Federer in 4

What do you think? @TheNachoMan

Djokovic at AO and RG, Fed at Wimbledon and USO.

 

[Hitman]

agree on Roddick loss. not a bad one at all.
while nalby was tough for fed at that point, fed should've done better in both matches. we all saw fed beating nalby in AO 04, thrashing him in YEC 03, USO 05, madrid 06, beating him in YEC 06 RR, basel 08 etc. fed was 10-3 vs nalby from 2003 YEC to 2008.

too many losses in that timeframe for fed. ljubicic loss in basel? ferrero loss in madrid?
like I said, he only won one small title in that time frame - Vienna.

you can say prime-ish level maybe, but not truly prime. Agree to disagree.

Just because Federer could have done better against Nalbandian, doesn't mean he wasn't prime. He lost during in his peak back to back in Madrid and Paris in 07, a well playing Nalbandian will almost always have a say on his matches with Federer. Don't forget that Nalbandian pushed the best version of Federer on clay at Rome the distance, and was giving him all he could handle in the RG semis also. Also the fact Nalbandian was literally one point away from beating Roddick and more than likely winning the USO himself, as Ferrero was gassed in the final, that it is not a bad loss at all. Federer was just coming back down off the high of winning Wimbledon also, almost as if he was content with his year.

The loss to Ferrero was not bad at all. You know Ferrero beat Hewitt and Agassi back to back at USO, 2003 was peak Ferrero, even on the grass he made the fourth round. And at AO 04, Federer and Ferrero were fighting in the semis in a direct showdown to see who would be number one. Saying that Federer lost to Ferrero in Madrid means he was not in his prime is kind of trashing Federer's competition, also Ferrero won the title that year also.

And speaking of Luby...the dude gave Federer problems in 05 also in those tight finals at the start of the season, and even in Miami 06, Federer couldn't break him in the final, it took three tie breaks to get past him, a match he could have lost.

So yeah, agree to disagree. I think you are confusing peak Federer with prime Federer, peak Federer is 04-07, but prime started in 2003.

 

[abmk]

Just because Federer could have done better against Nalbandian, doesn't mean he wasn't prime. He lost during in his peak back to back in Madrid and Paris in 07, a well playing Nalbandian will almost always have a say on his matches with Federer. Don't forget that Nalbandian pushed the best version of Federer on clay at Rome the distance, and was giving him all he could handle in the RG semis also. Also the fact Nalbandian was literally one point away from beating Roddick and more than likely winning the USO himself, as Ferrero was gassed in the final, that it is not a bad loss at all. Federer was just coming back down off the high of winning Wimbledon also, almost as if he was content with his year.

The loss to Ferrero was not bad at all. You know Ferrero beat Hewitt and Agassi back to back at USO, 2003 was peak Ferrero, even on the grass he made the fourth round. And at AO, Federer and Ferrero was fighting in the semis in a direct showdown to see who would be number one. Saying that Federer lost to Ferrero in Madrid means he was not in his prime is kind of trashing Federer's competition, also Ferrero won the title that year also.

And speaking of Luby...the dude gave Federer problems in 05 also in also those tight finals at the start of the season, and even in Miami 06, Federer couldn't break him in the final, it took three tie breaks to get past him, a match he could have lost.

So yeah, agree to disagree. I think you are confusing peak Federer with prime Federer, peak Federer is 04-07, but prime started in 2003.

not saying loss to ferrero is bad or ljubicic is bad per se, but all of them bundled together in that one period and winning only 1 small title does not equal truly prime level.
cincy - fed had to save what 7 or 9 MPS vs draper, remember? its not just loss to nalby.
Miami 06 - fed broke Ljubicic twice FTR (and vice versa)

am not confusing anything. I take prime fed to be from YEC 03 to AO 10.

 

[Hitman]

not saying loss to ferrero is bad or ljubicic is bad per se, but all of them bundled together in that one period and winning only 1 small title does not equal truly prime level.
cincy - fed had to save what 7 or 9 MPS vs draper, remember? its not just loss to nalby.
Miami 06 - fed broke Ljubicic twice FTR (and vice versa)

But do you understand that at that point all of them were very close? 2003 was very competitive, Ferrero won RG, Federer won W, Roddick won USO. Also Federer won more titles than anyone else that year, he won 7 titles. You can't tell me he wasn't prime that year with 7 titles to his name. Federer pulled away in 2004 because his peak level then started to kick into gear. There is a difference.

 

[NatF]

I tend to call 2003-2012 prime as either side of that there's either a lot of physical improvement to be done or there's clear decline in that same department. Of course saying that there's a wide margin between even 2003 and say 2006 for example.

 

[TheNachoMan]

I tend to call 2003-2012 prime as either side of that there's either a lot of physical improvement to be done or there's clear decline in that same department. Of course saying that there's a wide margin between even 2003 and say 2006 for example.

It’s all very arbitrary and subjective. Which is why TTW runs in circles around it and never agrees. lol

Numbers are nice. I like numbers.

 

[RS]

There is a legit argument for Nalbandian being tougher for Fed than anybody not named Nadal and Djokovic.

Doesn't get talked about enough.

 

[NatF]

It’s all very arbitrary and subjective. Which is why TTW runs in circles around it and never agrees. lol

Numbers are nice. I like numbers.

I don't think a quantitative analysis tells the whole story but fair enough.

Nothing wrong with a bit of subjectivity.

 

[jl809]

2003 Wim onwards is prime Fed. Prime doesn't automatically mean you final in every tournament or even in every slam. Plus wasn’t USO 03 affected by crappy scheduling anyway?

 

[abmk]

But do you understand that at that point all of them were very close? 2003 was very competitive, Ferrero won RG, Federer won W, Roddick won USO. Also Federer won more titles than anyone else that year, he won 7 titles. You can't tell me he wasn't prime that year with 7 titles to his name. Federer pulled away in 2004 because his peak level then started to kick into gear. There is a difference.

yes, I know it was actually a 4-way race (Roddick, Fed, Ferrero and even agassi a little behind)

marseille
dubai
munich
halle
Wim
vienna
YEC

5 of those 7 titles were smaller ones. No Masters 1000.
I'm saying period between Wim and YEC (not including those) wasn't truly prime.
fed also didn't make it to QFs of any slam in 03 apart from Wim (granted thanks to nalby in 4R). Loss to Horna in 1R at RG.

Halle 03/Wim 03/YEC 03 were absolutely peak level, not just prime level.
Canada 03 and DC 03 can be said to prime level. with Roddick playing at prime level to wrestle it away and hewitt fighting back in DC after fed was playing well to go up 2 sets to love.

not others really. not saying all others were bad losses, but too many of them - jiri, nalby, nalby, ferrero, ljubicic, henman.
I can accept prime-ish level for that period, but don't agree with truly prime level.

 

[Beerus]

AO - Djokovic in 5 on the blue court. Toss-up on the green court
FO - Djokovic in 5 or maybe toss-up
W - Federer in 4. Would win in 3 on fast grass
USO - Federer in 4

What do you think? @TheNachoMan

Federer probably beats Djokovic on the green court. I will cope somehow.

 

[abmk]

2003 Wim onwards is prime Fed. Prime doesn't automatically mean you final in every tournament or even in every slam. Plus wasn’t USO 03 affected by crappy scheduling anyway?

Federer had a loss in 8 of the 9 tournaments he played in between Wim 03 and YEC 03 (not including those). Only won one small title - Vienna.
No masters tournament and 4R loss in USO to Nalby in 4 sets.
USO 03 was affected by rain/bad scheduling, but didn't have any effect in this match IIRC.