Their H2H balances on grass being 2-1 to Djokovic funnily enough. Which proves how irrelevant any lead Djokovic has is when they're so close.
If the big four were at their absolute best..
- Thread starter sheq
- Start date
Their H2H balances on grass being 2-1 to Djokovic funnily enough. Which proves how irrelevant any lead Djokovic has is when they're so close.
A 5 set record is an extremely odd and dangerous statistic. You can draw whatever conclusion you want from it.
On the face of it, someone with a better 5 set record would seem to be mentally stronger, right?
Consider the 2008 Wimbledon final. Federer was down 4-6 4-6. If he wasn't mentally strong, he wouldn't have fought so hard, and would have dropped the match in the third set (4-6 4-6 5-7, let's say). However, he managed to take it to a fifth set, even though he wasn't playing very well.
Consider the 2008 French Open final. Nadal was easily the better player, outclassing Federer 6-1 6-3 6-0. But if Federer had been better that day, maybe at his absolute best, he might have taken the match to a 5th set, but would've still lost it. Here, by losing badly, his 5th set record doesn't worsen.
You also have to factor in the 5 set matches played when one player was expected to win in 3 or 4 sets (Nadal playing 5 set matches at Wimbledon against {Youzhny, Haase, Petzchner}, Federer vs Benneteau and Falla, Djokovic vs. Seppi, Simon). Does winning in 5 sets make them more mentally strong here than winning in 4? Most of these matches went 5 sets because of mental lapses by these players, which goes against your claim.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I don't understand what claim it could be going against. I never said anything about mental strength to begin with and his 5 set record is not as good as Nadal's or Djokovic's? Correct? They are better 5 set match players which I felt was something to add to the equation if we are considering all factors involved within a peak to peak best of 5 set match.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I agree. I see Fed having a clear advantage on grass, Nadal on clay, Djokovic on slower HCs, Fed again on fast HCs. That's about it, and it's not very original thinking...
Devin
Semi-Pro
Absolute best -- I'd go for the player with the superior ATTACKING weapons almost anywhere.
AO: Federer *
IW: Federer
Miami: Djokovic
Anything on clay: Nadal **
Wimbledon: Federer
Canada: Djokovic ***
Cincinnati: Federer
US Open: Federer
Shanghai: Federer/Djokovic ****
Paris: Djokovic
WTF: Federer *****
* I would take Federer's 2007 performance over Djokovic's 2011 performance. Otherwise, Djokovic has been superior at the AO. If it was 2004 Federer playing Djokovic, I think Djokovic would ultimately win in the end because he would be too consistent for Roger at that time. I think he would frustrate Federer with his defensive abilities, which would probably not be the case for 2007 Federer.
** Some people might give Madrid/Hamburg to Federer, but I can't see him beating peak Nadal here.
*** If I was comparing their games objectively, I would give the edge to Federer here because it's a medium speed court (I think), but Djokovic has been generally superior here. Even in 2004, I can't say he utterly dominated his opponents here.
**** This one is difficult. I would probably give Federer's run in Madrid the slight edge considering he had to play Gonzalez, who had more rest than Tsonga. Don't forget that a bagel and a breadstick are more difficult on faster courts. However, if they were meeting in the earlier rounds, Djokovic has the edge. Shanghai's current court speed might make it closer too.
***** I would take Federer here even in the slow 2014-2015 conditions. Here's my logic: He was able to win Hamburg twice before he had truly developed a specialized clay game because the bounce was low. I think the slice would be more effective there than some people think. He also came CLOSE to scoring 3 straight wins on a low bouncing clay court against Nadal (Hamburg 2007, --almost Hamburg 2008--, Madrid 2009). I'm not sure as to how well Nadal played (again, just because it was in their peak/prime years doesn't mean it was a peak/prime performance), but it still looks good that someone's beaten the clay court king who abuses your backhand point after point after point. Slow hard courts are Djokovic's bread and butter (bagels and breadsticks eh?) but I think the low bounce gives Federer an edge here. It would be really close though, I don't see either player winning in less than a deciding set. Federer's slice works better against Djokovic than it does against Nadal too imo.
And if I'm going to give my absolutely honest opinion, I think Djokovic would struggle more against Federer's older serve than his newer one. He hit his older serve harder, but his new serve has slightly better placement. To me, Djokovic struggles more against powerful serves (as long as the placement isn't bad). I think it's because Djokovic takes more time to hit the return stroke, so it might rush him a little more. This is just my opinion, however. A lot of people will probably disagree with me here, but Federer's serve didn't really help him significantly against Djokovic in 2015.
AO: Federer *
IW: Federer
Miami: Djokovic
Anything on clay: Nadal **
Wimbledon: Federer
Canada: Djokovic ***
Cincinnati: Federer
US Open: Federer
Shanghai: Federer/Djokovic ****
Paris: Djokovic
WTF: Federer *****
* I would take Federer's 2007 performance over Djokovic's 2011 performance. Otherwise, Djokovic has been superior at the AO. If it was 2004 Federer playing Djokovic, I think Djokovic would ultimately win in the end because he would be too consistent for Roger at that time. I think he would frustrate Federer with his defensive abilities, which would probably not be the case for 2007 Federer.
** Some people might give Madrid/Hamburg to Federer, but I can't see him beating peak Nadal here.
*** If I was comparing their games objectively, I would give the edge to Federer here because it's a medium speed court (I think), but Djokovic has been generally superior here. Even in 2004, I can't say he utterly dominated his opponents here.
**** This one is difficult. I would probably give Federer's run in Madrid the slight edge considering he had to play Gonzalez, who had more rest than Tsonga. Don't forget that a bagel and a breadstick are more difficult on faster courts. However, if they were meeting in the earlier rounds, Djokovic has the edge. Shanghai's current court speed might make it closer too.
***** I would take Federer here even in the slow 2014-2015 conditions. Here's my logic: He was able to win Hamburg twice before he had truly developed a specialized clay game because the bounce was low. I think the slice would be more effective there than some people think. He also came CLOSE to scoring 3 straight wins on a low bouncing clay court against Nadal (Hamburg 2007, --almost Hamburg 2008--, Madrid 2009). I'm not sure as to how well Nadal played (again, just because it was in their peak/prime years doesn't mean it was a peak/prime performance), but it still looks good that someone's beaten the clay court king who abuses your backhand point after point after point. Slow hard courts are Djokovic's bread and butter (bagels and breadsticks eh?) but I think the low bounce gives Federer an edge here. It would be really close though, I don't see either player winning in less than a deciding set. Federer's slice works better against Djokovic than it does against Nadal too imo.
And if I'm going to give my absolutely honest opinion, I think Djokovic would struggle more against Federer's older serve than his newer one. He hit his older serve harder, but his new serve has slightly better placement. To me, Djokovic struggles more against powerful serves (as long as the placement isn't bad). I think it's because Djokovic takes more time to hit the return stroke, so it might rush him a little more. This is just my opinion, however. A lot of people will probably disagree with me here, but Federer's serve didn't really help him significantly against Djokovic in 2015.
Last edited:
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I find that to be a very weak conclusion from a stat that needs to be put into context.
How many five setters do the top players get into in the first place as a result of not winning in 4? How many times do they end up in a four setter by not winning in 3?
How much energy do they put into not getting into that situation in the first place?
Of course a front-runner won't do as well at the tail end of such matches, because normally they make sure they don't get into those situations.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Well Fed is definitely weaker than Nadal and Djokovic in matches that go to deciding sets. Why that is, I don't exactly know. Maybe he's just the type of player who survives when he shouldn't on the back of his serve but ends up losing anyway. Or maybe that just doesn't fly. Maybe it's fitness or mentality or other things. Answers on a postcard. There are probably years or a peak period of 3-5 years where Fed is no worse or even better, I dunno.
Devin
Semi-Pro
Not good enough.
We would need a fused Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray (had a thread on this). Then, it would be a true mind-boggling, thrilling, extraordinary battle.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
How can it be a weak conclusion if it's true? It's a factor to consider if we are talking about two players who are going at it peak to peak and there will certainly be matches that are going to be close. The closer the matches get the more clutch certain players become. It doesn't mean all matches would go to 5 sets but it is variable that can be included because it is a tangible number that we can add into the hypothetical equation.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Peak Djokovic v Peak Federer would be hotly contested at the non-clay events and it could honestly go either way.
Let's not forget peak Nadal off clay. He is very much a threat for any title e.g.
Australian Open 2009 & 2017 could have gone either way
Australian Open 2012 could have gone either way
Wimbledon 2007 and 2008 could have gone either way
It would be great to see the big four peaking at the same time. Wow! I guess the closest we got was 2012 (from a slams point of view)
Let's not forget peak Nadal off clay. He is very much a threat for any title e.g.
Australian Open 2009 & 2017 could have gone either way
Australian Open 2012 could have gone either way
Wimbledon 2007 and 2008 could have gone either way
It would be great to see the big four peaking at the same time. Wow! I guess the closest we got was 2012 (from a slams point of view)
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Well, it may be a good factor to consider WHEN a match gets to 5, but before putting too much importance on that one fact I'd like to do a lot of thinking about when it happens, and against whom.
For instance, Fedal only played one 5 setter on clay, which Fed lost. Nadal, as you very well know, has been kryptonite for Fed on clay.
I'm glancing at my data, hope I am reading it right, because honestly I never thought about this.
It appears that Fedal split 5 setters on HCs, one each.
Then split with Nadal also on grass. So that is about what you would expect for those two.
The one place I can see Fed getting hurt in 5 setters is to Novak, three of them, but other than the first time in 2010 they were during Novak's peak and in Fed's rather weak period, 2011 and 2014. And in all three cases he lost the first two sets.
Let me know if I am missing some. I'm not set up to automatically find only 5 sets.
The reason I think that a record in 5 sets is so misleading is that I believe there are at least a couple players with great records in 5 sets who are by no means ATGs.
We almost might want to check how often it happens - out of Y matches, how many X matches are 5 setters? Because, as I said, that's something no player wants to have to play, ever, if given a choice. The Big Three are very competitive in % of 4 set matches won...
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I haven't gone into it deeply. Never really thought about it before.
But I would only worry about the very top players, because lower ranked players get into situations where they have to fight through more often, and getting into a lot of those situations is not good for winning big tournaments.
Do you have a page where the raw numbers are collected about how many times, when, and against which players?
Also, before worrying too much about the bottom line, I'd also like to know the % of times it happens. Like in Roger's case, did he get into 5 setters more or less often than other players in relationship to all the matches he has played?
We know these days we won't even find 5 setters outside of majors, and I would assume for Fed he's had more than his fair share of them at the end of majors...
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
I know there's an extensive thread somewhere on 5-setters played. What's annoying is that all the stats on this forum are scattered and have no local hub because there is no dedicated sub-forum. This needs to be fixed, I'd say.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/atp-5-set-records-five-set.335267/page-18
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
One thing I want to correct you on is that Djokovic came back from 2 sets to love down at the 2011 USO and they split sets in the other two meetings. Also, Federer wasn't weak in 2011 or 2014. He got to at least the SF in 3/4 majors in both of those years, made a GS final in both years and won two Masters tournaments in 2014. He may not have been at his peak or prime but I wouldn't call him weak.
So if we are talking about best of 5 set scenarios this is a relative stat because it tells you who is more clutch is certain situations and etc. It doesn't mean that Federer would lose in this hypothetical if taken to a 5th set but it is something to consider.
sheq
Professional
People thinks peaked Murray would just have a slim chance only at Shanghai. I still think during our fantasy year where big four peaked at the same time, Murray would have one. If not we shouldnt call it big four but big three. Idk maybe Murray really doesnt deserve to be in this competition because other three guys' peaked performance are far superior for peaked Murray.
Druss
Hall of Fame
NatF
Bionic Poster
Federer was rubbish in the final and was down match points early in the tournament. Djokovic was nigh untouchable all tournament in 2015.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
of course
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
Simon had set points in both sets ffs. Could have easily gone the distance, Fed's shot selection was rather unspectacular in that final, though both guys played a much more lower quality match coming from their amazing SFs.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Crap, I know what I did. I have scores for losses in reverse (long story, so I probably read all those scores wrong.
Remember, I told you I am glancing at data that I don't have filtered for this. I never thought about it before.
So I'm sure you are right about that.
Weak as in no longer at his peak level, which should be obvious from any careful study of his stats.
He got to at least the SF in 3/4 majors in both of those years, made a GS final in both years and won two Masters tournaments in 2014. He may not have been at his peak or prime but I wouldn't call him weak.
You probably know the data on Djokovic better than I do, but you don't know it in depth re Fed.
In 2014, what you consider a strong year for him, his return game, again, was very poor for his standards on grass. His peak on grass was from 2003-2006. Even in 2007 it began to fall a little, but most years after that it was below his career average. Just as service stats are key for Novak (when he serves very well, he wins), the return is Fed's key, and when he returns well he wins.
When Novak is serving really well, and Fed is returning really well, flip a coin.
On clay Fed's return stats were 4th worst of his career in 2914, going back to 2002.
His return game on HCs was better but still a bit below his career average (never a good sign).
By the way, Fed was excellent in stats on HCs, in 2015, even on return. I would argue that he WAS near his peak that year, and Novak was simply too good.
I'm not saying that peak Fed beats peak Novak on HCs. To me at their peaks they were very, very close.
Druss
Hall of Fame
Still he won the tournament and Old*rer brought his A-game were it mattered most (vs Djoko).
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I missed this:
Novak has a better % of winning 5 setters, but he has had to play them about 12% of the time, while Fed has only had to play them about 10% of the time.
So, as I expected, Novak ends up in long matches a bit more frequently and may find himself doing so more often and losing more if he plays for a few more years.
I was curious, so I ran the numbers of 5 setters vs total matches in majors.
Novak has a better % of winning 5 setters, but he has had to play them about 12% of the time, while Fed has only had to play them about 10% of the time.
So, as I expected, Novak ends up in long matches a bit more frequently and may find himself doing so more often and losing more if he plays for a few more years.
NatF
Bionic Poster
@NatF I see you're saying Djokovic has been better over his career at AO and you would favor him to get the best of Federer in a longer series of matches, but peak for peak you favor Fed because of his AO 07 run. (The SF vs Roddick was particularly impressive.) But if it's just 1 match we're looking at peak for peak, then why not compare the final levels? Fed 2007 vs Djok 2011. Please explain this to me buddy
Sure we can talk about their levels in the finals. This is my take.
I think it would be a very tough match. I would say Gonzalez played a better match than Murray, quite clearly so IMO. But isolating to how Djokovic and Federer played I do think Federer played a bit better overall. Djokovic spread the court more with a more DTL shots but I think on aggregate Federer's combined groundstrokes were a bit better. Federer played cleanly and aggressively off the backhand, I think he could live with Djokovic in the cross court rallies off that side and Djokovic in 2011 wasn't quite so expert at dealing with the slice as he would be in 2015 (Federer used it to great effect in the 2011 SF). Off the forehand side Djokovic hit it extremely well in the final but this is peak Federer at his best so I would favour Federer to do more damage off that side. In general I favour a relatively superior forehand with a slightly weaker backhand to the reverse. And by relative I mean to the opponent.
Federer had some sloppy play in the first set and his serve percentage was quite low but he really raised his level in the second and third. I would say Federer served better and Djokovic returned slightly better (albeit against a worse serve) overall. Djokovic was broken 3 times in the last 2 sets by Murray which I don't see happening to Federer after he got his serve going.
I think Djokovic wins the first set 6-4, Federer raises his game and crucially edges the second set and then wins 2 of the next 3 sets - perhaps in a row.
For that match it was like peak Federer again. I would still go with Madrid 2006 though overall for Federer, it would be a toss up with 2015 Djokovic.
Last edited:
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
He played unbelievably well against Djokovic though
NatF
Bionic Poster
Peak stuff for sure. But that was like the only match lol.
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
Now that is the C**k I know and love!The Nole fanbase remains as strong as ever, just like the C**k
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
He came into the net 48 times that night.
NatF
Bionic Poster
It was sexy all court tennis, I thought he hit his forehand really well too.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
This probably depends on how you frame the question of mentality I'd say. I'd also agree that Nadal and Djokovic are better in matches that go 5 sets, but then neither of them have had the 4 year winning machine run that Federer had either for example. Nadal's best years are spaced out, and Djokovic had great consistency overall, but only one major in each in of 2012-2014. But does that just mean Federer is the most talented? Or is he better mentally over longer stretches (instead of say a match to match basis)? Tough to say, but IMO too many people have such a myopic view of mentality, Federer's in particular because he doesn't have a great record in 5 sets. Yet many people would probably admit that Federer is the toughest of the 3 to actually put away, and he has 10? comebacks from 2 sets down, He also has a "bad" H2H against his main rivals, but it's a bit of an abstract quality especially when trying to compare 3 ATG's who are so obviously mentally strong anyway.
Last edited:
Lebron Blake
New User
Nadal would win everything on clay
He would challenge Federer in Wimbledon
He would make 4 slam finals winning 2 of them no doubt Federer would win 2 slams plus most of the hardcourt events as for the others they'd win ******** because it's all about Federer and Nadal the best players of all time
End of story
He would challenge Federer in Wimbledon
He would make 4 slam finals winning 2 of them no doubt Federer would win 2 slams plus most of the hardcourt events as for the others they'd win ******** because it's all about Federer and Nadal the best players of all time
End of story
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Of all the matches he had to GOAT that tournament it just had to be the one he played against Novak.
I am the Greatest!
Professional
Slow and high bouncing courts: Djokovic
Clay: Nadal
Everything else: Roger
Leave Murray out. He won't win anything if those three are at their peaks.
Clay: Nadal
Everything else: Roger
Leave Murray out. He won't win anything if those three are at their peaks.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Of all the matches he had to GOAT that tournament it just had to be the one he played against Novak.
Your guy did basically the same thing in the SF of the AO in 2016. I wish it was the other way around
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Nah, I think I'll keep things just as they are thank you very much.Your guy did basically the same thing in the SF of the AO in 2016. I wish it was the other way around
mike danny
Bionic Poster
LOL, it was just Shanghai. Novak had already won their most important match earlier that year. I'd rather he got destroyed by Djokovic in Shanghai and take WimbOf all the matches he had to GOAT that tournament it just had to be the one he played against Novak.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Nah, I think I'll keep things just as they are thank you very much.
Really? Both are tier 1 titles no?
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Who cares. Djokovic won their most important meeting that yearOf all the matches he had to GOAT that tournament it just had to be the one he played against Novak.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
No thanks. Your boy can keep his 2014 Shanghai titleReally? Both are tier 1 titles no?
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Look who is talking. The guy who supports the guy that has won 19 slams and won't let anyone else win.Novak fans, most greedy fans of all time no?
NatF
Bionic Poster
He let Djokovic win plenty in 2014-2015. Show some gratitude.
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Nah not enough. Poor Novak has won only 12 slams?? Cmon even Tomic will win that many.
Plus Novak only has 300 mil in the bank compared to Feds 500 mil. How's Novak suppose to pay them bills?
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Btw Fed won the h2h in 2014. 3-2
NatF
Bionic Poster
You're right. Novak has another kid on the way, don't want to see him/her out on the streets begging for scraps of food from incorrigible Fedfans in the future.
When Tomic decides to take tennis seriously the Big 3 might as well pack their bags and head to the seniors tour.
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Yeah. Tomic has already beaten Djokovic at the Hopman Cup and Kooyong. 2 huge tournaments
chut
Professional
Wth is that so called stat? It didn't happen often but he lost a few matches 1 set up such as the AO2012 final. Also against Ferrer at the USO way back. They're all great frontrunners btw.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
My bad regarding the 2012 AO, Djokovic should have won the first, lol.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Haha, it doesn't bother me now but not gonna lie, it really did at the time despite the fact that Djokovic had won their most important match that year. Just really p1ssed me off how Federer could look so mediocre in his first match and then as soon as he sees Novak on the other side of the net, decides to play like it's 2007 all over again(and not for the first time).
Having said that, had I known back then that that would be the last time Novak would fail to reach a tier 1 final(@NatF
) for the next 18 months, the defeat would've literally been like water off a duck's back to me. Similar threads
