If Federer takes a set against Djokovic, Maybe even two..
- Thread starter RF-18
- Start date
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
I'm only going to watch as long as Fed doesn't fall behind a set and a break. If you look at his last 2 slam wins against Nole(2011 FO, 2012 Wimbledon) he never fell behind a set & break. That's the "gold standard" for Fed to be able to win against Djokovic. He aint gonna be coming from behind to beat Nole in a slam like EVER. In fact all 6 of his slam wins he won the 1st set and never fell behind 2 sets to 1.
RF20Lennon
Legend
The only time they met was in 2008 in Federer's prime where Federer had mono. He was supposed to skip the tournament. Doesn't tell us anything really.
2015 Djokovic would OWN pummel 2008 Federer and 2008 Djokovic in his sleep.
2015 Djokovic would OWN pummel 2008 Federer and 2008 Djokovic in his sleep.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
nvm
Forgot it was a different surface.
Forgot it was a different surface.
Last edited:
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
It will validate the 'mono'.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
It will show that posters read too much into whether a player is in his "prime" or in [sic] his "peak," and hopefully persuade some posters that the results aren't foreordained by such abstractions, but instead are also influenced by how the players happen to perform on that particular occasion.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Ultron in straights.
BVSlam
Professional
Nothing, like helterskelter said. Being in your prime does not mean you play every match perfectly. Neither does not being in your prime mean you can't have a standout match/tournament like Djokovic did at AO2008. It's sports, not science where a question can have only one answer.
Has Djokovic ever beaten Federer coming behind from a 1 set deficit in a Major? I think since 2012, he's always started out winning the first set.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
2014 Wimbledon and 2011 USO and 2010 USO. He's got a few.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Fed straight-setted Novak at the AO 2007. Granted, Novak was a baby (just for a few more months) and that was Rebound Ace.
I'd give Fed about a 35% chance in the SF. He is probably the most dangerous obstacle Novak has in his way.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
It's amazing how things could have changed had Fed simply won one of the match points he had in 2010 and 2011.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Federer had mono in 2008 and just played average at the 2011 AO (still - he was unlucky to not win a set there). He would've easily won sets against Djokovic if they played in any edition since 2008 with the exception of 2015 and (maybe) 2013.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
2008 Djokovic was hella good...probably better than 2015 Djoker at the AO. 08 and 11 are his highest levels at the AO followed by 13, 15, and 12.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
It will tell us that Djokovic was probably playing worse than he did in their last two AO matches, unless Fed has an abnormal serving day of over 75% 1st serves in, which would explain it better. I honestly don't understand how Berdych could take him to the brink when Roger was in his prime back in 2009 and now, seven years later, can't even take a set off him. It's kinda funny how people always mention Nadal when talking about great athleticism in tennis and how he's a freak of nature but when you really think about it, Federer's the biggest freak of all and I mean this in the nicest possible way. The guy is undoubtedly the most remarkable tennis player, maybe even sportsman, I've ever witnessed.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
won't mean that much. Some of the sets in 2008 and 2011 could have gone the other way, Djoker was better in those matches than he likely will be in this one too. Plus Fed wasn't serving great in either of those two matches so if he serves super well him squeezing out a set shouldn't be a surprise.
08 Fed was capable of playing at a higher level in 11 and 15 but couldn't that tournament. 11 has a better groundgame than 15 but if 15 serves better that could bridge the gap so not much overall difference in overall level of play since he was quite average in that 11 AO match. Obviously if 2011erer serves well too like the RG semi 2015 Fed simply cannot play that well anymore. Still doesn't show anything, we know that when 2015 Federer serves the lights out he can play at a level close to previous years but because his groundgame is shaky and his movement is plain worse it's not sustainable which is why his overall level is a good bit lower.
08 Fed was capable of playing at a higher level in 11 and 15 but couldn't that tournament. 11 has a better groundgame than 15 but if 15 serves better that could bridge the gap so not much overall difference in overall level of play since he was quite average in that 11 AO match. Obviously if 2011erer serves well too like the RG semi 2015 Fed simply cannot play that well anymore. Still doesn't show anything, we know that when 2015 Federer serves the lights out he can play at a level close to previous years but because his groundgame is shaky and his movement is plain worse it's not sustainable which is why his overall level is a good bit lower.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
I disagree here. I think Fed plays much better when he is ahead. For example, we know that the tiebreak in the first set of the FO SF in 2011 helped decide that match. Fed might have tanked emotionally had he lost the first set.
Similarly, if Fed had won the first set at Wimbledon this past year, he might have won in straights.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
I facepalm hard every time someone tries to suggest Federer is playing "prime tennis."
NO. Federer is 34 years old FFS.
You're making Novak fans look bad with posts like this.
The flip side of the coin of course are Fed fans who will look at any result and spin it to make it like "Peak Fed" would trounce Novak:
NO. Federer is 34 years old FFS.
You're making Novak fans look bad with posts like this.
The flip side of the coin of course are Fed fans who will look at any result and spin it to make it like "Peak Fed" would trounce Novak:
Last edited:
mattosgrant
Banned
What it shows is these "he won a match at 34, he would win every match in his prime" or "he lost to you at 16, he would never beat you in your prime" etc...type arguments are pointless, seriously flawed, and lack depth and context, as most rational people already believe.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
It will be interesting if Fed actually comes out and plays well. If he plays as he did in the last 2 slam matches they played, it will be boring as hell. Fed shanking, blowing 30 BP's and choking isn't interesting and makes for lousy tennis. Djoker seems to be always "on" and ready when he plays Roger in slams, just as Nadal was.
mattosgrant
Banned
He could play better. I think Roger in his mind thought he should have won over Djokovic on a faster court. At the Australian he knows quite clearly he is the underdog, and will be the underdog in his own mind, which could help him play more relaxed.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
You think Federer played poorly in the Wimbledon final? I don't think he did. I think Djokovic played very well. Federer didn't play as well as he had in the semis, but that doesn't mean he played poorly.
Now, the US Open final is another story.
abmk
Bionic Poster
federer played absolute sh*t tennis in the 1st set vs berdych in their 4R match and was lucky that the score read 6-4 berdych, looking at how horrible he was playing, it should've been 6-1,6-2. The second set was close and better quality, but somehow berdych won it. Then federer's level rose , berdych's dipped and fed took the match in 5.
that was the 1st match that I saw in which federer was genuinely affected by the sheer pace of shot of any player since he hit his peak.
xFedal
Legend
Fed will snap Novaks 16 finals in a row streak, 2 months ago he broke Novaks win streak at WTF, he's planning on breaking another streak 16 finals in a row. Old man never gives up. NOOO!
mattosgrant
Banned
I think he played well in the Wimbledon final actually, I agree. The U.S Open final he both played not so great, and aside from that his big point conversion was a disaster.
I just mean in general he wont feel the pressure as much (I am guessing) as in a Wimbledon or U.S Open final. I think in his mind, rightly or wrongly, he should beat Djokovic in the 2 fast court slams, even today. I don't think he can rationally believe that at the Australian Open which could help him play better, atleast as well as the Wimbledon final last year. It doesn't mean he will win of course, he is playing the Djoker on his turf where he was even losing soundly many years ago.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
It honestly wouldn't surprise me - Fed thrives on ending Novak's streaks!
xFedal
Legend
Good News is that Novak has never lost from this stage onwards . Fed is against the odds this time.It honestly wouldn't surprise me - Fed thrives on ending Novak's streaks!
Djokovic_is_the_best#1
Bionic Poster
I would agree. Djoko is my fav as you know but testament to fact that fed just keeps coming back strong but hopefully Novak keeps denying him
Jaitock1991
Hall of Fame
IMO, Fed should have 100% won the USO final. Big loss. But this one however. I just don't see how he's going to pull it off. Night conditions simply seem too slow for him to hit through Djoker, and there's no way he's going to outgrind him.
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
Yeah essentially isn't this semi gonna be equivalent conditions to the US final? Bad news for Fed. He really needs indoor grass to beat Djoker!
metsman
G.O.A.T.
well safin 05 too...but it was rare
abmk
Bionic Poster
I think the word affect is maybe not correct, it should be shaken up by ...
he wasn't shaken up by safin's pace in AO 05.
USO roger had his chances in '10 and '11, didn't convert, and that was when he was playing excellent. He has some sort of mental block when he gets pushed hard IMO that he can't seem to overcome.
You see the difference in Djokovic where he focuses at another level when he needs to and Roger does the opposite. Never really been a great 5 set player.
The best thing that could have happened to him was to consistently face adversity when starting to win majors which, although might have decreased his count overall, it would have leveled the field in terms of majors across the big 4 IMO (well djoko, nadal, fed).
You see the difference in Djokovic where he focuses at another level when he needs to and Roger does the opposite. Never really been a great 5 set player.
The best thing that could have happened to him was to consistently face adversity when starting to win majors which, although might have decreased his count overall, it would have leveled the field in terms of majors across the big 4 IMO (well djoko, nadal, fed).
Not sure what you are referring to here. Roger beat Djokovic when Federer was in his prime (see US Open 2007) hence won 3 sets. So not sure what you are talking about.
Tennisanity
Legend
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
All wins count Tennisanity, irrespective of the player's age.Oh don't you know? None of the wins count when Novack was a 'baby'.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Federer just played with bad strategy against Berdych back then. Not anymore.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
So what do you think he's doing now that's better than back then?
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Who are you rooting for?
metsman
G.O.A.T.
berdych was more dangerous back then too. But yeah Fed had problems in that 09-11 period of trying to ballbash with ballbashers which may have worked at his peak but not then. I think Fed took a while to accept that he declined.
When are the overlapping primes then? Roger Peak Mid-2003 to begining of 2010. Novak when?
Past his peak Roger in 2011 beat Novak at the French Open and had 2 match points against Novak at the US Open. Not sure what you are talking about when you say Federer can't win a set.
Note: Novak wasn't a baby in 2007 - he was a 20 year old US Open finalist and only 4 months later was an Australian Open winner.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Federer!
metsman
G.O.A.T.
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
Not sure what on earth you're talking about with "couldn't take a set in his prime," but I like the gist of the question... like, how is he doing it now? I think the biggest takeaway is that, somehow, he's gotten even smarter about the game that it takes to beat the guy. He's ironed out his flaws, gotten stronger, and hasn't lost enough to take him out of the equation. I think it's the efficiency/economy remaining top drawer, strength increasing, and physiological intuition nearly maxing out.
Similar threads
