I do understand the perspective and frusteration of Federer fans

[mattosgrant]

While Federer fans have taken a lot of heat in the last year or even two for their complaints about Djokovic dominating a weak field, and being dismissive of Djokovic, I can atleast understand their vantage point. I will try and break down what I mean.

From the perspective of a Federer fan (or even a non Federer fan in many cases) the perception is probably fairly obvious peak or even prime Federer would be atleast this dominate against the current field sans Djokovic (basically Fed taking Djokovic's place). Without getting into another of these weak field talks, think about it. Federer even today is winning every match against Murray, hasn't lost to him in over 3 years now. Of course one thus assumes prime Federer would also have won ever encounter against Murray. It also seems a pretty safe bet prime Federer would win almost every match against the current Federer, as excellent as he still is. That seems a pretty safe bet. Wawrinka is losing, and usually getting killed in every medium-fast court match, and is only winning on the slowest courts (actually he has only ever won on clay, but he would have had a good shot any year they hypothetically would have met at the Australian Open too) to current Federer. So in absolute best case for him he could be a possible threat to prime Federer on slower courts, mainly clay, and even that isn't certain but that would be the absolute best case for him and worst for Federer. Current Nadal is a shadow of his old self who has declined so much he is ranked lower than the current old Federer, so safe to believe he would lose every or almost every match to absolutely prime Federer, regardless of the match up history and issues. Best case he might win some matches on clay against prime Federer, and so worst case for Federer is maybe he wouldn't dominate totally on clay with Nadal/Wawrinka (something he never did in his prime anyway, and that 0 RG winner Djokovic hasn't done either).

So while I don't necessarily agree, I do 100% understand their vantage point when it comes to Djokovic and his current dominance, and also how they perceive him dominating the current field/competition.

 

[djokerer]

Wrong.. Lemme explain with numbers. It's easy that way. On a scale of hundred.
Peak Federer is solid 85. His field was weak like < 75.
Peak Nadal is 95(probably the highest ever). So Federer and everyone lost whenever Nadal played at his peak.
Now Nadal is 65.

Djoker now is 90-95.. And second best Federer is 80(see Federer never fell off the chart). This field is relatively weak too. But Djoker is still playing great.
Just because Federer won something at 33 doesn't make him twice as better in his peak.
See the numbers. That's how I and many people see it. It's fits the bill. But you and other Fedrerr fans might not agree with the numbers. That's subjective.
But no way your inferences are given and obvious about Federer will beat so and so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zeekhoe]

Frustraterer

 

[djokerer]

Nadal with his peak play would have won around same number of slams in any era. But not more because he could not maintain his peak any more than he did already.
If all three careers coincided and started at same time, Federer won't win many. But that's a rare coincidence and can happen only in fantasy world. Most likely Federer would have won the same number of slams in any era because he held onto his play at 80-85 for many years. He would have survived on slaughts from players like Nadal and Djoker and has many opportunities when other peak players won't make it. It's still commendable what he did.
That's why I can never call him Goat.
If success is the only criteria, then he is yes. But I would rate Sampras, Nadal above him any day. Now Djoker has a chance to surpass him with almost same route as Federer took.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Soul_Evisceration]

While Federer fans have taken a lot of heat in the last year or even two for their complaints about Djokovic dominating a weak field, and being dismissive of Djokovic, I can atleast understand their vantage point. I will try and break down what I mean.

From the perspective of a Federer fan (or even a non Federer fan in many cases) the perception is probably fairly obvious peak or even prime Federer would be atleast this dominate against the current field sans Djokovic (basically Fed taking Djokovic's place). Without getting into another of these weak field talks, think about it. Federer even today is winning every match against Murray, hasn't lost to him in over 3 years now. Of course one thus assumes prime Federer would also have won ever encounter against Murray. It also seems a pretty safe bet prime Federer would win almost every match against the current Federer, as excellent as he still is. That seems a pretty safe bet. Wawrinka is losing, and usually getting killed in every medium-fast court match, and is only winning on the slowest courts (actually he has only ever won on clay, but he would have had a good shot any year they hypothetically would have met at the Australian Open too) to current Federer. So in absolute best case for him he could be a possible threat to prime Federer on slower courts, mainly clay, and even that isn't certain but that would be the absolute best case for him and worst for Federer. Current Nadal is a shadow of his old self who has declined so much he is ranked lower than the current old Federer, so safe to believe he would lose every or almost every match to absolutely prime Federer, regardless of the match up history and issues. Best case he might win some matches on clay against prime Federer, and so worst case for Federer is maybe he wouldn't dominate totally on clay with Nadal/Wawrinka (something he never did in his prime anyway, and that 0 RG winner Djokovic hasn't done either).

So while I don't necessarily agree, I do 100% understand their vantage point when it comes to Djokovic and his current dominance, and also how they perceive him dominating the current field/competition.

While you make excellent points, I think it's more due to:

1) Federer failing to capitalize vs Djokovic in the grand scheme or things (Wimbledon 2014, US Open 2015) or failing to win a major when the path was completely cleared to him (US Open 2014)
2) Djokovic fans and Federer haters just rubbing it to our faces

 

[MichaelNadal]

When Fed was dominating, he did it with Flair. Wooooooo

 

[Djokovic2011]

Oh God, here we go again. There's really no reason whatsoever for Federer fans to feel resentful towards Djokovic now. Roger had his time in the sun and dominated in a similar fashion, even more so in the majors so why should they feel frustrated that Novak is finally having his time in the spotlight? He earned it through sheer hard work and determination, qualities that even his biggest detractors should respect and appreciate.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

While Federer fans have taken a lot of heat in the last year or even two for their complaints about Djokovic dominating a weak field, and being dismissive of Djokovic, I can atleast understand their vantage point. I will try and break down what I mean.

From the perspective of a Federer fan (or even a non Federer fan in many cases) the perception is probably fairly obvious peak or even prime Federer would be atleast this dominate against the current field sans Djokovic (basically Fed taking Djokovic's place). Without getting into another of these weak field talks, think about it. Federer even today is winning every match against Murray, hasn't lost to him in over 3 years now. Of course one thus assumes prime Federer would also have won ever encounter against Murray. It also seems a pretty safe bet prime Federer would win almost every match against the current Federer, as excellent as he still is. That seems a pretty safe bet. Wawrinka is losing, and usually getting killed in every medium-fast court match, and is only winning on the slowest courts (actually he has only ever won on clay, but he would have had a good shot any year they hypothetically would have met at the Australian Open too) to current Federer. So in absolute best case for him he could be a possible threat to prime Federer on slower courts, mainly clay, and even that isn't certain but that would be the absolute best case for him and worst for Federer. Current Nadal is a shadow of his old self who has declined so much he is ranked lower than the current old Federer, so safe to believe he would lose every or almost every match to absolutely prime Federer, regardless of the match up history and issues. Best case he might win some matches on clay against prime Federer, and so worst case for Federer is maybe he wouldn't dominate totally on clay with Nadal/Wawrinka (something he never did in his prime anyway, and that 0 RG winner Djokovic hasn't done either).

So while I don't necessarily agree, I do 100% understand their vantage point when it comes to Djokovic and his current dominance, and also how they perceive him dominating the current field/competition.

What if you put this or 2011 Djokovic instead of Federer in one of Fed's best years like 2006? Even if he does equally bad against Rafa on clay (no wins), wouldn't you fancy him winning most of other tournaments?

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Wrong.. Lemme explain with numbers. It's easy that way. On a scale of hundred.
Peak Federer is solid 85. His field was weak like < 75.
Peak Nadal is 95(probably the highest ever). So Federer and everyone lost whenever Nadal played at his peak.
Now Nadal is 65.

Djoker now is 90-95.. And second best Federer is 80(see Federer never fell off the chart). This field is relatively weak too. But Djoker is still playing great.
Just because Federer won something at 33 doesn't make him twice as better in his peak.
See the numbers. That's how I and many people see it. It's fits the bill. But you and other Fedrerr fans might not agree with the numbers. That's subjective.
But no way your inferences are given and obvious about Federer will beat so and so.

Yes, because tennis is like Dragon Ball and players have quantifiable data that translates their "power level".

 

[tennisaddict]

So @djokerer has an iphone ? His parents are cool.

 

[BVSlam]

I also understand the frustration of every fanboy of any player. I think it has a lot to do with a solid amount of members of this particular forum caring more about this stuff than your average fan of any of these players. It's only on forums like this where frustrations between fanbases are even a thing. Why the heck would you care even a single percent whether a random person you don't know thinks your favourite sucks for whatever reason? And everybody who participates knows the other party will never, ever give in or change their opinion, especially the more hardcore fans.

These frustrations are not really all that big of a deal from any fan. It's just a way to counter boredom, otherwise there is no point in these cycles of arguments. I doubt any Federer fan here is genuinely frustrated about Djokovic or his fans, and I doubt any Djokovic fan here is genuinely frustrated about his perceived reputation here or Fedal fans. I personally see it as a game to, again, counter boredom than actual frustration being the core factor in most posts.

But blegh maybe I'm trying to be boringly objective here, and even then it's just my subjective perception of things. So confusing!

 

[Poisoned Slice]

When Fed was dominating, he did it with Flair. Wooooooo

''Nature Boy'' Roger likes this post. WOOOOOOOOO.

 

[metsman]

What if you put this or 2011 Djokovic instead of Federer in one of Fed's best years like 2006? Even if he does equally bad against Rafa on clay (no wins), wouldn't you fancy him winning most of other tournaments?

2011 Djoker in 2006 sure. Although he might struggle a bit at the USO against Blake/Davy/Roddick and Blake/Roddick could take him 5 in the form they were in. Nadal in the 06 Wimby final after the first set played much better than in the 11 final and was more aggressive(court was also faster) so while Djoker would still likely win that Nadal could definitely take him 5. Would probably still win though. But other versions of Djoker would struggle with some of the opponents Fed faced at the faster court slams at the other years (Peak Nadal at Wimbledon, Agassi in the wind, peaking Roddick, Hewitt). Like put Djoker in 04 and do you see him getting past both peaking Roddick at Wimbledon and Agassi playing prime level tennis in hurricane force winds at the USO and both those courts were much faster back then than they are now. Much more likely he loses both those matches than win both. It's pretty much inconcievable that peak Federer would struggle with anyone Djoker has faced in the last two years besides GOATing Wawrinka and even then Fed would likely be able to put him down because he wouldn't give him the opportunities Djoker did(steady diet of mid court balls, lack of variety)

 

[metsman]

Like put prime/peak Djoker into 04-07 and give him Fed's draws I don't think he wins more than 5-7 majors max(3 AO's, 1-2 Wimby, 1-2 USO, doesn't beat Guga or Nadal at FO). Put prime/peak Federer into 11-15 and he likely wins more than Djoker did(2-3 majors every year). Imagine 08 Fed having to deal with Djoker's 15 field instead of peak Nadal at FO/WImby and peaking Djoker at the AO...Djoker was no slouch at the USO either that year...probably tougher than the Fed that showed up in the 15 finals.

 

[djokerer]

So @djokerer has an iphone ? His parents are cool.

Yes they are. I am the only 8th grader in my school with an iPhone .

 

[djokerer]

I also understand the frustration of every fanboy of any player. I think it has a lot to do with a solid amount of members of this particular forum caring more about this stuff than your average fan of any of these players. It's only on forums like this where frustrations between fanbases are even a thing. Why the heck would you care even a single percent whether a random person you don't know thinks your favourite sucks for whatever reason? And everybody who participates knows the other party will never, ever give in or change their opinion, especially the more hardcore fans.

These frustrations are not really all that big of a deal from any fan. It's just a way to counter boredom, otherwise there is no point in these cycles of arguments. I doubt any Federer fan here is genuinely frustrated about Djokovic or his fans, and I doubt any Djokovic fan here is genuinely frustrated about his perceived reputation here or Fedal fans. I personally see it as a game to, again, counter boredom than actual frustration being the core factor in most posts.

But blegh maybe I'm trying to be boringly objective here, and even then it's just my subjective perception of things. So confusing!

Well I don't think it's mainly boredom.
All the stuff you are talking about is mostly kids around here. Getting frustrated, ganging up on other users, having an agenda in every post. For Christ sake people have anime profile pictures and WWE references all the time. That's your regular crowd here.
There are also men around here. But men are men. They argue about sports. If not sports it's politics or something. You need something to argue. You can't change that. The problem with these people though, is that you come up with subjective analysis and make up a player as Goat.from them on you seek validation to make good about yourself and your judgement. That's the core issue. I don't think people are naive to think anything you say around here in any way changes the perspective of a certain player in others' minds.

 

[maxxy777]

They have it amazing compared to Nadals fans.
Its simple ,
before it was easy to be Feds fan now its not.
People like easy stuff.

 

[Chadillac]

Fed is still the most entertaining player on tour. He doesnt bounce the ball 18 times before every friggin serve, it becomes unwatchable after a few games.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Nadal with his peak play would have won around same number of slams in any era. But not more because he could not maintain his peak any more than he did already.
If all three careers coincided and started at same time, Federer won't win many. But that's a rare coincidence and can happen only in fantasy world. Most likely Federer would have won the same number of slams in any era because he held onto his play at 80-85 for many years. He would have survived on slaughts from players like Nadal and Djoker and has many opportunities when other peak players won't make it. It's still commendable what he did.
That's why I can never call him Goat.
If success is the only criteria, then he is yes. But I would rate Sampras, Nadal above him any day. Now Djoker has a chance to surpass him with almost same route as Federer took.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Somebody should drop your iPhone in a toilet.

 

[mattosgrant]

What if you put this or 2011 Djokovic instead of Federer in one of Fed's best years like 2006? Even if he does equally bad against Rafa on clay (no wins), wouldn't you fancy him winning most of other tournaments?

That is very true. I would personally expect the 2011, 2015, or 2016 Djokovic to completely dominate (put in Roger's place) in Roger's dominant peak years too. Maybe/probably losing the French to Nadal of course (although would have a better shot there than Federer). However atleast with Djokovic, there isn't as much nearly irrefutable proof. He does have a bad head to head with Roddick, I personally think peak Djokovic would win pretty regularly against any Roddick, but atleast there is something to create possible doubt or uncertainty. He never played Hewitt, Safin, etc..in their primes either, or played older Agassi at all. So one can still form an opinion.

In the case of Federer it is almost impossible to dispute a peak or even prime Federer dominating today in Djokovic's place when you break it down as I did. Heck he might have won the last 3 majors and the WTF without Djokovic as it is today.

 

[mattosgrant]

Oh God, here we go again. There's really no reason whatsoever for Federer fans to feel resentful towards Djokovic now. Roger had his time in the sun and dominated in a similar fashion, even more so in the majors so why should they feel frustrated that Novak is finally having his time in the spotlight? He earned it through sheer hard work and determination, qualities that even his biggest detractors should respect and appreciate.

I am not saying I agree with Djokovic bashing. Not at all. I am just saying I can understand their perspective in some respects. Surely you can see what I am getting at. I am definitely not a Federer fan FWIW.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

That is very true. I would personally expect the 2011, 2015, or 2016 Djokovic to completely dominate (put in Roger's place) in Roger's dominant peak years too. Maybe/probably losing the French to Nadal of course (although would have a better shot there than Federer). However atleast with Djokovic, there isn't as much nearly irrefutable proof. He does have a bad head to head with Roddick, I personally think peak Djokovic would win pretty regularly against any Roddick, but atleast there is something to create possible doubt or uncertainty. He never played Hewitt, Safin, etc..in their primes either, or played older Agassi at all. So one can still form an opinion.

In the case of Federer it is almost impossible to dispute a peak or even prime Federer dominating today in Djokovic's place when you break it down as I did. Heck he might have won the last 3 majors and the WTF without Djokovic as it is today.

Has sports science evolved so much in the last decade that you couldn't even put Djokovic in Fed's peak years in a hypothetical? Most of the time people just talk about swapping out the equipment. But even though it was only approx. 10 years ago, I'm thinking every other fish in that pond, so to speak, would be operating under a different set of conditions. To say nothing of the playing surfaces.

 

[mattosgrant]

Has sports science evolved so much in the last decade that you couldn't even put Djokovic in Fed's peak years in a hypothetical? Most of the time people just talk about swapping out the equipment. But even though it was only approx. 10 years ago, I'm thinking every other fish in that pond, so to speak, would be operating under a different set of conditions. To say nothing of the playing surfaces.

That is a good point.

 

[Service Ace]

Just a reminder that @djokerer is literally a 12 year old boy.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

Oh God, here we go again. There's really no reason whatsoever for Federer fans to feel resentful towards Djokovic now.

Straight up honesty: The main reason Fed fans get annoyed with Djoker is that Djoker fans started talking about breaking the slam record back when the dude was on 8 slams. These morons have continued talking this up over the last 18 months. Of course this will **** Fed fans off. Could he do it? Of course he COULD. Will he? Probably not.

But consider: If Djoker DOES break the slam record and finish with 18-19, and the next young ATG comes along during Djoker's past his prime years, starts dominating, winning a bunch of slams. How do you think Djoker fans would feel when New Guy's fans start guaranteeing Slam Records when new guy is 8 slams away from the record? We'll do the exact same thing.

(Not that YOU are guilty of this D11, just saying that THIS is the prime reason for Fed fan's fury toward the ND fanbase. A close second would be the mirror twin of insecurity at Fed retaining the beloved record.)

 

[metsman]

Straight up honesty: The main reason Fed fans get annoyed with Djoker is that Djoker fans started talking about breaking the slam record back when the dude was on 8 slams. These morons have continued talking this up over the last 18 months. Of course this will **** Fed fans off. Could he do it? Of course he COULD. Will he? Probably not.

But consider: If Djoker DOES break the slam record and finish with 18-19, and the next young ATG comes along during Djoker's past his prime years, starts dominating, winning a bunch of slams. How do you think Djoker fans would feel when New Guy's fans start guaranteeing Slam Records when new guy is 8 slams away from the record? We'll do the exact same thing.

(Not that YOU are guilty of this D11, just saying that THIS is the prime reason for Fed fan's fury toward the ND fanbase. A close second would be the mirror twin of insecurity at Fed retaining the beloved record.)

I wouldn't say this is at all our fury towards the Novak fanbase (or at least mine). I mean no one is gonna take it seriously if some troll says at the end of 2011 that Novak will break the slam record. I would say it is more a lack of knowledge or acknowledgement of earlier eras in tennis(recency bias is a normal thing but some Novak fans take it to an extreme) and maybe a slight lack of humor lol...of course no fanbase is perfect and there are large amounts of bias involved. I don't want to sound like I am critiquing other fanbases from the top of peak Fedr

 

[djokerer]

Straight up honesty: The main reason Fed fans get annoyed with Djoker is that Djoker fans started talking about breaking the slam record back when the dude was on 8 slams. These morons have continued talking this up over the last 18 months. Of course this will **** Fed fans off. Could he do it? Of course he COULD. Will he? Probably not.

But consider: If Djoker DOES break the slam record and finish with 18-19, and the next young ATG comes along during Djoker's past his prime years, starts dominating, winning a bunch of slams. How do you think Djoker fans would feel when New Guy's fans start guaranteeing Slam Records when new guy is 8 slams away from the record? We'll do the exact same thing.

(Not that YOU are guilty of this D11, just saying that THIS is the prime reason for Fed fan's fury toward the ND fanbase. A close second would be the mirror twin of insecurity at Fed retaining the beloved record.)

Federer fans started calling him goat when he has 12 slams and saying he will win 20-25.
Now you are crying foul about Djoker fans.
I guess karma is a *****.
Yes when a new star comes along people Djoker fans have to deal with it. If you are a Federer fan put up or shut up. That's the way it goes.
Oh boy, this will be fun, every time Djoker wins a big one from now on. It's even fun watching you guys give an excuse whenever Federer loses.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Wrong.. Lemme explain with numbers. It's easy that way. On a scale of hundred.
Peak Federer is solid 85. His field was weak like < 75.
Peak Nadal is 95(probably the highest ever). So Federer and everyone lost whenever Nadal played at his peak.
Now Nadal is 65.

Djoker now is 90-95.. And second best Federer is 80(see Federer never fell off the chart). This field is relatively weak too. But Djoker is still playing great.
Just because Federer won something at 33 doesn't make him twice as better in his peak.
See the numbers. That's how I and many people see it. It's fits the bill. But you and other Fedrerr fans might not agree with the numbers. That's subjective.
But no way your inferences are given and obvious about Federer will beat so and so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"The numbers".
That you just pulled out of thin air.

Well done lol.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Just a reminder that @djokerer is literally a 12 year old boy.

It shows, too.

 

[mightyrick]

People should not be able to form opinions about tennis until they have watched the sport for at least 15 years.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

People should not be able to form opinions about tennis until they have watched the sport for at least 15 years.

Cut that down to "until they have watched the sport" and you'll still be rid of 80% of the fanbois.

Or even "until they act like they've watched the sport" and then at least OP is gone.

 

[timnz]

While you make excellent points, I think it's more due to:

1) Federer failing to capitalize vs Djokovic in the grand scheme or things (Wimbledon 2014, US Open 2015) or failing to win a major when the path was completely cleared to him (US Open 2014)
2) Djokovic fans and Federer haters just rubbing it to our faces

How was the path cleared for him? He played Cilic playing his very best in his entire life. Cilic would have beaten anyone. I am convinced that Djokovic wouldn't have got a set from Cilic either. (Why would you think otherwise since he lost so badly to Nishikori in the semi's).

 

[InsideOut900]

Nadal in the 06 Wimby final after the first set played much better than in the 11 final and was more aggressive(court was also faster))

Nadal was an error machine in the 06 final as a result of his aggressive play.
http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20060709-M-Wimbledon-F-Roger_Federer-Rafael_Nadal.html
If we don't take in account the great 3rd set he played,30W to 34 UE is terrible for a grass match.
The second set was poor from both and in the 4th Nadal started playing great when down 5-1,too late for him.

 

[nolefam_2024]

That is very true. I would personally expect the 2011, 2015, or 2016 Djokovic to completely dominate (put in Roger's place) in Roger's dominant peak years too. Maybe/probably losing the French to Nadal of course (although would have a better shot there than Federer). However atleast with Djokovic, there isn't as much nearly irrefutable proof. He does have a bad head to head with Roddick, I personally think peak Djokovic would win pretty regularly against any Roddick, but atleast there is something to create possible doubt or uncertainty. He never played Hewitt, Safin, etc..in their primes either, or played older Agassi at all. So one can still form an opinion.

In the case of Federer it is almost impossible to dispute a peak or even prime Federer dominating today in Djokovic's place when you break it down as I did. Heck he might have won the last 3 majors and the WTF without Djokovic as it is today.

And don't you think this comparing Djokovic of young age and those H2Hs are frustrating for Djokovic fan?

It is simple. Federer would dominate today, heck Djokovic would dominate 2006 as well. Fed had 50+ hard court match winning streak. That is absolutely ridiculous and ********. So, both fanbase SHOULD feel happy, fedfans for what happened, Djokovic fans for what is happening.

 

[Russeljones]

What if you put this or 2011 Djokovic instead of Federer in one of Fed's best years like 2006? Even if he does equally bad against Rafa on clay (no wins), wouldn't you fancy him winning most of other tournaments?

He would still get murdered by redlining roddicks, davydenkos, safins and the like. Too many dangerous floaters on qucker surfaces.

Single major final? Notsurevic.

 

[LETitBE]

im still waiting for the nose phone to come out......i like to be different and everyone has had earphones and Iphones.

 

[ABCD]

He would still get murdered by redlining roddicks, davydenkos, safins and the like. Too many dangerous floaters on qucker surfaces.

Single major final? Notsurevic.

Spot on. Djokovic would also be absolutely murdered by redlining Gail Falkenberg.

 

[NatF]

Nadal was an error machine in the 06 final as a result of his aggressive play.
http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20060709-M-Wimbledon-F-Roger_Federer-Rafael_Nadal.html
If we don't take in account the great 3rd set he played,30W to 34 UE is terrible for a grass match.
The second set was poor from both and in the 4th Nadal started playing great when down 5-1,too late for him.

I was probably the first person on the forum to start using that resource for matches and I'm not completely sold on it's accuracy - though I do like to use it. It's often quite different from the official stats - I like to use it to get a rough idea of how much players were going down the line etc...or to get an idea of whether errors were being made early in the point or later.

If you take out the first set, Nadal is 50W 28 UE which is pretty decent, without the 4th he's 47W and 27UE and without the second he's 32W and 23UE. In the middle 2 sets he went 44W and 18UE which is very good. As the initial comment was comparing it to the 2011 final I would point out that Nadal's stats in that match were 16W and 25 UE's if you take out the third set of that match - which is significantly worse than the 2006 final. Removing other sets in different combinations will still lead to worse stats than 2006 final in pretty much every way. Also worth noting Federer was 22W and 9 UE in the set he lost in 2006, in the set Djokovic lost in 2011 he was 2 W and 6 UE.

The official stats paint 2006 as a better quality match purely in terms of winners and errors too.

 

[InsideOut900]

I was probably the first person on the forum to start using that resource for matches and I'm not completely sold on it's accuracy - though I do like to use it. It's often quite different from the official stats - I like to use it to get a rough idea of how much players were going down the line etc...or to get an idea of whether errors were being made early in the point or later.

If you take out the first set, Nadal is 50W 28 UE which is pretty decent, without the 4th he's 47W and 27UE and without the second he's 32W and 23UE. In the middle 2 sets he went 44W and 18UE which is very good. As the initial comment was comparing it to the 2011 final I would point out that Nadal's stats in that match were 16W and 25 UE's if you take out the third set of that match - which is significantly worse than the 2006 final. Removing other sets in different combinations will still lead to worse stats than 2006 final in pretty much every way. Also worth noting Federer was 22W and 9 UE in the set he lost in 2006, in the set Djokovic lost in 2011 he was 2 W and 6 UE.

The official stats paint 2006 as a better quality match purely in terms of winners and errors too.

I was comparing Nadal's performance at a global
level,not in relation with the 2011 final. Take that 3rd set out and enough players would beat Nadal in 4 sets,that was my point.
The 2011 final is probably the worst he played in a Slam final so far,but 2006 wasn't that far ahead.

 

[NatF]

I was comparing Nadal's performance at a global
level,not in relation with the 2011 final. Take that 3rd set out and enough players would beat Nadal in 4 sets,that was my point.
The 2011 final is probably the worst he played in a Slam final so far,but 2006 wasn't that far ahead.

Disagree. Take out 1st set and Nadal could make it close with many players. His level in sets 2-3 was very good, though he did choke at the end of the 2nd which brings it down a bit.

 

[InsideOut900]

Disagree. Take out 1st set and Nadal could make it close with many players. His level in sets 2-3 was very good, though he did choke at the end of the 2nd which brings it down a bit.

Coincidentlly,I have seen the match like 2 weeks ago,I wouldn't have talked about it otherwise(just using the stats).
The level in the 2nd was poor from both players,with tons of uncharacteristic errors.Nadal played a superb to break Federer,but was equaly lame when serving for the set

 

[Russeljones]

I was probably the first person on the forum to start using that resource for matches and I'm not completely sold on it's accuracy - though I do like to use it. It's often quite different from the official stats - I like to use it to get a rough idea of how much players were going down the line etc...or to get an idea of whether errors were being made early in the point or later.

If you take out the first set, Nadal is 50W 28 UE which is pretty decent, without the 4th he's 47W and 27UE and without the second he's 32W and 23UE. In the middle 2 sets he went 44W and 18UE which is very good. As the initial comment was comparing it to the 2011 final I would point out that Nadal's stats in that match were 16W and 25 UE's if you take out the third set of that match - which is significantly worse than the 2006 final. Removing other sets in different combinations will still lead to worse stats than 2006 final in pretty much every way. Also worth noting Federer was 22W and 9 UE in the set he lost in 2006, in the set Djokovic lost in 2011 he was 2 W and 6 UE.

The official stats paint 2006 as a better quality match purely in terms of winners and errors too.

There are glaring inaccuracies in serving stats, I've found.

 

[RF-18]

Like put prime/peak Djoker into 04-07 and give him Fed's draws I don't think he wins more than 5-7 majors max(3 AO's, 1-2 Wimby, 1-2 USO, doesn't beat Guga or Nadal at FO). Put prime/peak Federer into 11-15 and he likely wins more than Djoker did(2-3 majors every year). Imagine 08 Fed having to deal with Djoker's 15 field instead of peak Nadal at FO/WImby and peaking Djoker at the AO...Djoker was no slouch at the USO either that year...probably tougher than the Fed that showed up in the 15 finals.

Ferrero, Safin, Grosjean, Davydenko, Hewitt, Baghdatis, Henman, Roddick, Kiefer, Bjorkman Imagine if Djokovic had that field instead of 2012 or 2013 one.

 

[NatF]

Coincidentlly,I have seen the match like 2 weeks ago,I wouldn't have talked about it otherwise(just using the stats).
The level in the 2nd was poor from both players,with tons of uncharacteristic errors.Nadal played a superb to break Federer,but was equaly lame when serving for the set

Fair enough, I do think there were more errors from them at times than there would be in a peak performance but my recollection isn't of tons of errors

Been a little bit longer than 2 weeks since I saw it though.

 

[Russeljones]

Ferrero, Safin, Grosjean, Davydenko, Hewitt, Baghdatis, Henman, Roddick, Kiefer, Bjorkman Imagine if Djokovic had that field instead of 2012 or 2013 one.

Yes, now that you put it that way, 5-7 might be generous.

 

[RF-18]

Yes, now that you put it that way, 5-7 might be generous.

Oh yeah I forget to add GONZALEZ aswell.

 

[Russeljones]

Oh yeah I forget to add GONZALEZ aswell.

Don't you see how farcical your position is? That Gonzalez lead Nadal 3-1 in 2007, if I am not mistaken. Do you know how many new holes he would have given Novak?

 

[RF-18]

Don't you see how farcical your position is? That Gonzales lead Nadal 3-1 in 2007, if I am not mistaken. Do you know how many new holes he would have given Novak?

Yea he beat him in 2003 and 2004, when Nadal was a junior.

What did he do against Federer? Nothing. He lost every single time.

Don't see how that would've been any different if he met peak Djokovic.

 

[Russeljones]

Yea he beat him in 2003 and 2004, when Nadal was a junior.

What did he do against Federer? Nothing. He lost every single time.

Don't see how that would've been any different if he met peak Djokovic.

With your computing power? I didn't expect you to.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Weak era is a weak argument. Djokovic has been playing at a slam winning level since 2007. Despite his success at the AO 2008, he couldn't completely breakthrough because he had to compete against prime Fed on hard and prime Nadal on clay. When Federer slowed down, Nadal was there as a top contender. When Nadal declined too, Djokovic finally enjoy a weaker field. After 8-9 years of top level tennis.

If a player is able to play that well for that long, of course he will enjoy easier moment. Federer had 2006, Nadal had 2010, Sampras had the late 90's (on which he didn't capitalize).

If you look at Nadal, Federer or Djokovic complete careers, and not the few years during which they achieved the most dominance, it's completely stupid to say they had weak competition. They are among the best ever and played each others, it can't be weak.