I just remembered

daggerman

Semi-Pro
It's not post-prime just because he was in his early 30s. Things don't work like that.

2012 Federer is very similar to 2003 Federer in terms of Points Won % (54.5 to 53.8), Games Won % (58.9 each) , and Sets Won % (78.9 to 77.8), yet I don't think anybody would argue that 2003 wasn't the beginning of Roger's prime.

Prime Federer beat Prime Djokovic (fairly easily) at 2012 Wimbledon. There's no need to truncate Roger's prime to make Djokovic seem worse than he is.
 

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
I think it gets forgotten because it's pretty unremarkable? A four setter with very little controversy. Federer was very, very good in 2012. By that time, Djokovic was in control of the rivalry on hardcourt, but Federer was probably still his equal on grass imo. Not a surprising result.

It's easy to forget about matches like 2012 WI. They got lost in the shuffle because there are so many great matches between these two.

It's not post-prime just because he was in his early 30s. Things don't work like that.

2012 Federer is very similar to 2003 Federer in terms of Points Won % (54.5 to 53.8), Games Won % (58.9 each) , and Sets Won % (78.9 to 77.8), yet I don't think anybody would argue that 2003 wasn't the beginning of Roger's prime.

Prime Federer beat Prime Djokovic (fairly easily) at 2012 Wimbledon. There's no need to truncate Roger's prime to make Djokovic seem worse than he is.
There's a tendency to underrate Federer's level in 2011 and 2012 on TTW imo.
 

beard

Hall of Fame
2012 Djokovic (prime) lost easily to 2012 Federer (post-prime) at Wimbledon. I had forgotten about that match. Rarely talked about. Anyone else remember?
I haven't forget that match, it was last slam win for Federer against Novak...

Federer won fair and square.... Luckily he lost all slam matches against Novak in next 8 years... 8 years... 8 years.8 years... 8 years... 8 years... 8 years... 8 years...
8 years... 8 years... 8 years...
8 years... 8 years... 8 years...
 

Knovax

Rookie
I think it gets forgotten because it's pretty unremarkable? A four setter with very little controversy. Federer was very, very good in 2012. By that time, Djokovic was in control of the rivalry on hardcourt, but Federer was probably still his equal on grass imo. Not a surprising result.

It's easy to forget about matches like 2012 WI. They got lost in the shuffle because there are so many great matches between these two.



There's a tendency to underrate Federer's level in 2011 and 2012 on TTW imo.
Forgotten? That doesn't make much sense to me. It is among some of my earliest Wimbledon memories with the exception of 2011 when Djokovic triumphed for the first time at the hallowed grounds. Djokovic was the heavy favorite for Wimbledon I remember since he was the defending champion. Everyone pretty much assumed he had it in the bag. Alas, Federer denied him. It was a wake up call for all of Nolefam without a doubt. I was very unhappy about that loss. Perhaps, that is why it isn't talked about much? I'm not sure.
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
2012 Djokovic (prime) lost easily to 2012 Federer (post-prime) at Wimbledon. I had forgotten about that match. Rarely talked about. Anyone else remember?
If you forgot about it, it must not have been an important match. So, let's discuss something more important like prime Tsitsipas vs prime Federer on grass.
 

beltsman

Legend
It's not post-prime just because he was in his early 30s. Things don't work like that.

2012 Federer is very similar to 2003 Federer in terms of Points Won % (54.5 to 53.8), Games Won % (58.9 each) , and Sets Won % (78.9 to 77.8), yet I don't think anybody would argue that 2003 wasn't the beginning of Roger's prime.

Prime Federer beat Prime Djokovic (fairly easily) at 2012 Wimbledon. There's no need to truncate Roger's prime to make Djokovic seem worse than he is.
Or maybe Philippoussis was a better grass player than 2012 Djokovic.
 

Gazelle

Legend
It's not post-prime just because he was in his early 30s. Things don't work like that.

2012 Federer is very similar to 2003 Federer in terms of Points Won % (54.5 to 53.8), Games Won % (58.9 each) , and Sets Won % (78.9 to 77.8), yet I don't think anybody would argue that 2003 wasn't the beginning of Roger's prime.

Prime Federer beat Prime Djokovic (fairly easily) at 2012 Wimbledon. There's no need to truncate Roger's prime to make Djokovic seem worse than he is.
Fed's prime starts in 2004.

2003 is pre-prime, 2012 is post-prime.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
It's not post-prime just because he was in his early 30s. Things don't work like that.

2012 Federer is very similar to 2003 Federer in terms of Points Won % (54.5 to 53.8), Games Won % (58.9 each) , and Sets Won % (78.9 to 77.8), yet I don't think anybody would argue that 2003 wasn't the beginning of Roger's prime.

Prime Federer beat Prime Djokovic (fairly easily) at 2012 Wimbledon. There's no need to truncate Roger's prime to make Djokovic seem worse than he is.
There's no reason to fallaciously extend Federer's prime to make Djokovic look better than he is either. 2012 Fed is about as prime as 2018-2019 Novak is. Are we going to say 38 year old Fed had a prime Djokovic beat at Wimbledon?

Everyone with any sense or knowledge of Federer's career would argue vigorously against the entirety of 2003 being Federer's prime. 03 Fed was prime in 3 tournaments, two of them on grass which is a rather different surface especially back then, and one in the last tournament of the year when he finally got his mentality together. So no 2003 in totality is not Fed's prime and 2012 is certainly better on HC and even clay which is what those stats show. That doesn't make 2012 prime because what you're comparing to in 2003 is not prime performance. 2012 was not as good as actual prime Federer (03 TMC - 10 AO) at any big tournament (slams and YEC) besides 2008 Fed when he was physically compromised at AO and YEC. So that's a pretty clear indication that 2012 Fed is not prime, one of these is not like the other, ya know? Yes, 2012 Fed played very well at some smaller tournaments (Dubai, Rotterdam, IW, CIncy), better than some in his prime particularly in the 07-09 phase where he wasn't focused on them, but if we're going to be giving smaller tournaments weight over the biggest to determine prime that dilutes the whole thing. It's not post prime because he was old, although because he was old his movement degraded to the point that rendered him post prime, he's post prime because his level in bigger tournaments simply doesn't stack up to his level in those tournaments in his real prime. Federer's prime is very very easy to classify. A very clear beginning and a very clear end. Same as Djokovic's honestly, it's Nadal's that's a bit trickier because he was up and down so often on HC so you have to break it down by surface and tournaments.

2003 Fed was peak on grass, yes, but if we're going to go by stats his stats (and level) on grass it destroys 2012 especially on the return so there's no sense in making any comparison to try to prop up 2012. What the sense is in comparing 2003 stats on HC (when Fed clearly was not prime) to 2012 to prop up 2012's performance on grass vis a vis 2003's performance on grass, I don't really understand, aside from the aforementioned purpose of making Djoker look better.
 

daggerman

Semi-Pro
There's no reason to fallaciously extend Federer's prime to make Djokovic look better than he is either. 2012 Fed is about as prime as 2018-2019 Novak is. Are we going to say 38 year old Fed had a prime Djokovic beat at Wimbledon?

Everyone with any sense or knowledge of Federer's career would argue vigorously against the entirety of 2003 being Federer's prime. 03 Fed was prime in 3 tournaments, two of them on grass which is a rather different surface especially back then, and one in the last tournament of the year when he finally got his mentality together. So no 2003 in totality is not Fed's prime and 2012 is certainly better on HC and even clay which is what those stats show. That doesn't make 2012 prime because what you're comparing to in 2003 is not prime performance. 2012 was not as good as actual prime Federer (03 TMC - 10 AO) at any big tournament (slams and YEC) besides 2008 Fed when he was physically compromised at AO and YEC. So that's a pretty clear indication that 2012 Fed is not prime, one of these is not like the other, ya know? Yes, 2012 Fed played very well at some smaller tournaments (Dubai, Rotterdam, IW, CIncy), better than some in his prime particularly in the 07-09 phase where he wasn't focused on them, but if we're going to be giving smaller tournaments weight over the biggest to determine prime that dilutes the whole thing. It's not post prime because he was old, although because he was old his movement degraded to the point that rendered him post prime, he's post prime because his level in bigger tournaments simply doesn't stack up to his level in those tournaments in his real prime. Federer's prime is very very easy to classify. A very clear beginning and a very clear end. Same as Djokovic's honestly, it's Nadal's that's a bit trickier because he was up and down so often on HC so you have to break it down by surface and tournaments.

2003 Fed was peak on grass, yes, but if we're going to go by stats his stats (and level) on grass it destroys 2012 especially on the return so there's no sense in making any comparison to try to prop up 2012. What the sense is in comparing 2003 stats on HC (when Fed clearly was not prime) to 2012 to prop up 2012's performance on grass vis a vis 2003's performance on grass, I don't really understand, aside from the aforementioned purpose of making Djoker look better.
Ok, I guess Roger was only good for 4 years then. Some GOAT :rolleyes:
 

daggerman

Semi-Pro
Count with me here. 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09. That's 6. Six. Plus three other big tournaments. So that's basically 6.5.
Roger was at least as good in 12 as he was in 08 and 09.

Points Won %:
2012: 54.5
2008: 54.5

2009: 53.9

Games Won %:
2012: 58.9

2008: 58.6
2009: 57.6

Sets Won %:
2008: 79.1

2012: 78.9
2009: 77.5

Source: Ultimate Tennis Statistics
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Roger was at least as good in 12 as he was in 08 and 09.

Points Won %:
2012: 54.5
2008: 54.5

2009: 53.9

Games Won %:
2012: 58.9

2008: 58.6
2009: 57.6

Sets Won %:
2008: 79.1

2012: 78.9
2009: 77.5

Source: Ultimate Tennis Statistics
Yes, at Dubai, Rotterdam, IW, Cincy (compared to 08, 09 was pretty damn good), blue clay. You know, the things that matter. 08 RG, 08 Wimby, 09 AO, 09 RG, 09 Wimby, 09 USO, 09 YEC all better than 2012. 08-09 better than 12 at every single big event when the former was physically fit. Hence, prime, while 12 is not.

Anyways, I guess we can't say anything for sure until we have the ELO number.
 

daggerman

Semi-Pro
Yes, at Dubai, Rotterdam, IW, Cincy (compared to 08, 09 was pretty damn good), blue clay. You know, the things that matter. 08 RG, 08 Wimby, 09 AO, 09 RG, 09 Wimby, 09 USO, 09 YEC all better than 2012. 08-09 better than 12 at every single big event when the former was physically fit. Hence, prime, while 12 is not.

Anyways, I guess we can't say anything for sure until we have the ELO number.
Grand Slams Only (you know, the things that matter):
Points Won %: 2012: 55.2,
2008: 55.0, 2009: 54.9
Games Won %: 2012: 60.3, 2008: 59.2, 2009: 58.9
Sets Won %: 2008: 81.3, 2009: 81.2 ,2012: 75.6

Wimbledon Only:
Points Won %: 2012: 56.3
, 2009: 55.1, 2008: 54.9
Games Won %: 2012: 63.5, 2008: 58.9, 2009: 57.5
Sets Won %: 2009: 87.5, 2008: 87.0, 2012: 80.8

US Open Only:
Points Won %: 2012: 55.6
, 2008: 55.1, 2009: 54.4
Games Won %: 2008: 60.9, 2012: 60.3, 2009: 57.5
Sets Won %: 2008: 87.5, 2009: 80.0, 2012: 76.9

Australian Open Only:
Points Won %: 2008: 55.6
, 2009: 55.0, 2012: 55.0
Games Won %: 2009: 61.6, 2008: 59.7, 2012: 59.0
Sets Won %: 2012: 81.3, 2008: 75.0, 2009: 80.0

Roland Garros Only:
Points Won %: 2009: 55.0,
2008: 54.3, 2012: 53.8
Games Won %: 2009: 57.9, 2012: 57.8, 2008: 57.4
Sets Won %: 2009: 77.8, 2008: 75.0, 2012: 65.2

Save for Roland Garros, where Roger was truly mediocre by his standards (albeit against a tough draw), Roger's 2012 performance on a per-point and per-game basis at the slams (you know, the things that matter) was as good as or better than his performance in either 2008, 2009, or both. I hate to break it to you, my dude, but players don't get better per-point as they exit their prime. It's ok to admit Roger was still good in 2012. We don't think any less of him by thinking he was better for longer, trust me.

Source: Ultimate Tennis Statistics
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
2012 Federer in general is massively underrated, he held down the World no.1 ranking for a good part of that season, after everyone was saying he can't win slams anymore.
It's not underrated.

2011-2012 Federer > 2014-2015 and beyond by quite a margin.

2012 in particular is on par with many of his multi-slam seasons in terms of level.
 

daggerman

Semi-Pro
Oh dear, another one. This trend of deliberately misusing figures to push a point is really, really, really bad and getting more popular by the week. Loo must be giddy at leaving such prominent legacy. The quality of discourse has unbelievably devolved, I hate having to be a curmudgeon but what else is left.
Enlighten me, then. What figures are being misused, and how are they being misused?

Mind you, I'm not making a particularly strong claim. I'm not saying he was better in 2012 than in 2008/09; I'm merely saying there isn't evidence that he was worse in 2012.

EDIT: I'm not even trying to make a pro-Djokovic point. For all I care, Federer is better than Djokovic. Who cares? But irrespective of that, saying Federer was past his prime in 2012 never seems to be accompanied by any compelling evidence.
 
Last edited:

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Grand Slams Only (you know, the things that matter):
Points Won %: 2012: 55.2,
2008: 55.0, 2009: 54.9
Games Won %: 2012: 60.3, 2008: 59.2, 2009: 58.9
Sets Won %: 2008: 81.3, 2009: 81.2 ,2012: 75.6

Wimbledon Only:
Points Won %: 2012: 56.3
, 2009: 55.1, 2008: 54.9
Games Won %: 2012: 63.5, 2008: 58.9, 2009: 57.5
Sets Won %: 2009: 87.5, 2008: 87.0, 2012: 80.8

US Open Only:
Points Won %: 2012: 55.6
, 2008: 55.1, 2009: 54.4
Games Won %: 2008: 60.9, 2012: 60.3, 2009: 57.5
Sets Won %: 2008: 87.5, 2009: 80.0, 2012: 76.9

Australian Open Only:
Points Won %: 2008: 55.6
, 2009: 55.0, 2012: 55.0
Games Won %: 2009: 61.6, 2008: 59.7, 2012: 59.0
Sets Won %: 2012: 81.3, 2008: 75.0, 2009: 80.0

Roland Garros Only:
Points Won %: 2009: 55.0,
2008: 54.3, 2012: 53.8
Games Won %: 2009: 57.9, 2012: 57.8, 2008: 57.4
Sets Won %: 2009: 77.8, 2008: 75.0, 2012: 65.2

Save for Roland Garros, where Roger was truly mediocre by his standards (albeit against a tough draw), Roger's 2012 performance on a per-point and per-game basis at the slams (you know, the things that matter) was as good as or better than his performance in either 2008, 2009, or both. I hate to break it to you, my dude, but players don't get better per-point as they exit their prime. It's ok to admit Roger was still good in 2012. We don't think any less of him by thinking he was better for longer, trust me.

Source: Ultimate Tennis Statistics
Well you've convinced me. Not only have you convinced me on 2012, you've convinced me that Federer's prime actually lasted until the 2018 AO.

Anyways, I just want to see the ELO just to confirm, can you go get me the ELO?
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Oh dear, another one. This trend of deliberately misusing figures to push a point is really, really, really bad and getting more popular by the week. Loo must be giddy at leaving such prominent legacy. The quality of discourse has unbelievably devolved, I hate having to be a curmudgeon but what else is left.
chin up, you're a very sarcastic guy, times like these is where the sarcasm should really be in full flight.
 

ForehandCross

Professional
It's not post-prime just because he was in his early 30s. Things don't work like that.

2012 Federer is very similar to 2003 Federer in terms of Points Won % (54.5 to 53.8), Games Won % (58.9 each) , and Sets Won % (78.9 to 77.8), yet I don't think anybody would argue that 2003 wasn't the beginning of Roger's prime.

Prime Federer beat Prime Djokovic (fairly easily) at 2012 Wimbledon. There's no need to truncate Roger's prime to make Djokovic seem worse than he is.
It wasn't "fairly" easy at all.
I think it gets forgotten because it's pretty unremarkable? A four setter with very little controversy. Federer was very, very good in 2012. By that time, Djokovic was in control of the rivalry on hardcourt, but Federer was probably still his equal on grass imo. Not a surprising result.

It's easy to forget about matches like 2012 WI. They got lost in the shuffle because there are so many great matches between these two.



There's a tendency to underrate Federer's level in 2011 and 2012 on TTW imo.
Djokovic wasn't in control on HC, he got blasted off the court in vinay and almost lost USO the year before, but he was beginning to take control.

Beating 2012 Grass Djokovic isn't even a big deal. But yes beating Djokovic and a very very good Murray back to back on Grass is very impressive.
 

dr325i

Legend
2012 Djokovic (prime) lost easily to 2012 Federer (post-prime) at Wimbledon. I had forgotten about that match. Rarely talked about. Anyone else remember?
We also don’t hear much about the AO 08 prime Federer and baby Novak.
I just remembered that one
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
We also don’t hear much about the AO 08 prime Federer and baby Novak.
I just remembered that one
Only 2 players could outplay Peak Federer at his own game: Safin and Djokovic. You needed that explosive power and total confidence in your own talent to pull it off, like Djokovic displayed at AO08 and Safin at AO05.
Nadal beat Federer by making him play bad. Djokovic beat Federer by playing his own game better.
 

daggerman

Semi-Pro
It wasn't "fairly" easy at all.


Djokovic wasn't in control on HC, he got blasted off the court in vinay and almost lost USO the year before, but he was beginning to take control.

Beating 2012 Grass Djokovic isn't even a big deal. But yes beating Djokovic and a very very good Murray back to back on Grass is very impressive.
Nitpicking one's use of "fairly" is fairly unproductive, my friend. Let's be humans, ok?
 

daggerman

Semi-Pro
Well you've convinced me. Not only have you convinced me on 2012, you've convinced me that Federer's prime actually lasted until the 2018 AO.

Anyways, I just want to see the ELO just to confirm, can you go get me the ELO?
Just watch the tennis, dude.
 
Enlighten me, then. What figures are being misused, and how are they being misused?

Mind you, I'm not making a particularly strong claim. I'm not saying he was better in 2012 than in 2008/09; I'm merely saying there isn't evidence that he was worse in 2012.

EDIT: I'm not even trying to make a pro-Djokovic point. For all I care, Federer is better than Djokovic. Who cares? But irrespective of that, saying Federer was past his prime in 2012 never seems to be accompanied by any compelling evidence.
Stop using bulk stats as the ultimate measure for one, they overweigh easy wins. Nadal had the highest game/point winning percentage at AO 2019 even including the final, (slightly) higher than Djokovic's at the same tournament and higher than any of Nadal's other AO campaigns including (slightly) 2009, so that means he was in peak form, huh? lol

Primes lasting 5-7 years is actually long and strong, Fedalovic all fit in (Fed 2004-09, Nad ~2007-13 with gaps, Djok 2011-16) except Nadal ridiculously extending his clay prime but he's the single surface goat by far so conventions don't apply.
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
I oddly enough only remember one tournament that year.
Yep. Nadal reasserting dominance and putting Djokovic back in his place.

Gotta be Nadal's clay peak IMO. Djokovic would've beaten anyone else that day but Nadal still weathered the storm. Arguably more impressive than the 2008 final, because Federer did half the job for him.
 
Top