Jannik Sinner 2024 vs. Novak Djokovic 2011 on HC: has the Sinner already surpassed Djokovic peak on HC?

[Third Serve]

Lol just stop. Federer had a great 5 year period and then almost fell off at the tournamnet. It's very much an argument in Djokos favour with the longevity subject wich is to the point of superiority. It's just insane how you and your pal are trying to brush it off so nonchalantly. 07, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21 and 23 is a crazy run in this day and age. And add to that he had a disqualification in 2020, missed another due to injury (2017) and wasn't allowed in the country in 22. Trying to treat it as an outrage that he can be considered up there is just complete tunnel vision.

“Fell off” is kind of crazy when his 2009, 2011, and 2015 runs are quite a bit better than some of Djokovic’s runs you’ve listed here, namely the bolded ones. 2009 and 2011 themselves are probably better than all but 2011 and 2015, and maybe 2018.

Trust me, I know it’s fun to treat old Fed as a meme (I’ve done so on a few occasions, don’t get me wrong) but after Novak left his prime, he never put up a US Open run that was as good as Fed’s 2011. He certainly has the advantage in longevity but it’s not quite as massive as you imply, and the difference isn’t enough for me to tip the scales over to him.

Plus, some of Fed’s “weaker” runs like 2010 and 2012 are basically the equivalents of 2016 and 2021 for Djokovic, except he didn’t have a meme draw to the F (unlike 2016). Guarantee if you put that Djokovic in either of 2010 or 2012, he walks away from the tournament with not a F but a SF, and his performances are lumped in with his 2014 loss to Nishikori.

I mean seriously, if you do an age comparison of them year by year at the tournament after they had both left their primes…

2010 vs. 2016: Fed better
2011 vs. 2017: Fed better by default
2012 vs. 2018: Djokovic better
2013 vs. 2019: Equal
2014 vs. 2020: Fed better by default, but Djokovic had the potential to be better
2015 vs. 2021: Fed better
2016 vs. 2022: Neither played
2017 vs. 2023: Djokovic easily better
2018 vs. 2024: Equal

Like this does not come out as Djokovic being massively favored in longevity. Even if you give him both of 2020 and 2022 (and I’m not 100% sure he gets 2020), I don’t think it builds up to a massive advantage. And I don’t even think my picks here are that controversial. I think the most arguable one is probably 2010 vs. 2016.

If you want to excuse Djokovic for being injured in 2017 then you also can’t give him 2022 because Fed had his injury in 2016.

For me, that advantage in longevity, while notable, is not enough for Djokovic to completely overcome what I believe to be Fed’s clear superiority peak-for-peak. Even with Djokovic’s very best run at the US Open (2011) there are holes to poke into his level. His serving was unconvincing in the final and he had a shoulder injury by the time the match got to the fourth set. And he barely survived against a version of Federer who—while he was still good—didn’t have the movement and power off the ground as his younger self.

I don’t believe there are any such holes to poke into Fed’s two best performances (2004 and 2006). The best you could probably come up with is the Agassi QF in 2004 where Fed went five, but that had some of the worst wind I’ve ever seen in a professional tennis match which really screwed up the second half of the match (and besides it wasn’t too close to begin with—Fed could still have been down two sets to love, a break down in the fifth, and two match points on the opponent’s serve).

I’ve stirred up a hornet’s nest with that last post since four people have directly or indirectly (Gabe ) replied to it so I’ll leave it at that. All that’s to say that I think the case for Djokovic’s longevity here is overstated, and I think his finals count at the USO is padded by several dud runs that would have counted for SFs had he been in some of Fed’s losing draws.

Like Fed getting smoked by a genuinely red-hot Cilic is awful for him but Djokovic getting smoked by a perfectly fine but not exactly zoning Medvedev is enough to make the list? I dunno.

Jeesh, where tf is Kral when you need him?

 

[Racquet_smash]

“Fell off” is kind of crazy when his 2009, 2011, and 2015 runs are quite a bit better than some of Djokovic’s runs you’ve listed here, namely the bolded ones. 2009 and 2011 themselves are probably better than all but 2011 and 2015, and maybe 2018.

Trust me, I know it’s fun to treat old Fed as a meme (I’ve done so on a few occasions, don’t get me wrong) but after Novak left his prime, he never put up a US Open run that was as good as Fed’s 2011. He certainly has the advantage in longevity but it’s not quite as massive as you imply, and the difference isn’t enough for me to tip the scales over to him.

Plus, some of Fed’s “weaker” runs like 2010 and 2012 are basically the equivalents of 2016 and 2021 for Djokovic, except he didn’t have a meme draw to the F (unlike 2016). Guarantee if you put that Djokovic in either of 2010 or 2012, he walks away from the tournament with not a F but a SF, and his performances are lumped in with his 2014 loss to Nishikori.

I mean seriously, if you do an age comparison of them year by year at the tournament after they had both left their primes…

2010 vs. 2016: Fed better
2011 vs. 2017: Fed better by default
2012 vs. 2018: Djokovic better
2013 vs. 2019: Equal
2014 vs. 2020: Fed better by default, but Djokovic had the potential to be better
2015 vs. 2021: Fed better
2016 vs. 2022: Neither played
2017 vs. 2023: Djokovic easily better
2018 vs. 2024: Equal

Like this does not come out as Djokovic being massively favored in longevity. Even if you give him both of 2020 and 2022 (and I’m not 100% sure he gets 2020), I don’t think it builds up to a massive advantage. And I don’t even think my picks here are that controversial. I think the most arguable one is probably 2010 vs. 2016.

If you want to excuse Djokovic for being injured in 2017 then you also can’t give him 2022 because Fed had his injury in 2016.

For me, that advantage in longevity, while notable, is not enough for Djokovic to completely overcome what I believe to be Fed’s clear superiority peak-for-peak. Even with Djokovic’s very best run at the US Open (2011) there are holes to poke into his level. His serving was unconvincing in the final and he had a shoulder injury by the time the match got to the fourth set. And he barely survived against a version of Federer who—while he was still good—didn’t have the movement and power off the ground as his younger self.

I don’t believe there are any such holes to poke into Fed’s two best performances (2004 and 2006). The best you could probably come up with is the Agassi QF in 2004 where Fed went five, but that had some of the worst wind I’ve ever seen in a professional tennis match which really screwed up the second half of the match (and besides it wasn’t too close to begin with—Fed could still have been down two sets to love, a break down in the fifth, and two match points on the opponent’s serve).

I’ve stirred up a hornet’s nest with that last post since four people have directly or indirectly (Gabe ) replied to it so I’ll leave it at that. All that’s to say that I think the case for Djokovic’s longevity here is overstated, and I think his finals count at the USO is padded by several dud runs that would have counted for SFs had he been in some of Fed’s losing draws.

Like Fed getting smoked by a genuinely red-hot Cilic is awful for him but Djokovic getting smoked by a perfectly fine but not exactly zoning Medvedev is enough to make the list? I dunno.

Jeesh, where tf is Kral when you need him?

Weird how 2004 and 2006 are consistently mentioned yet 2005 is not. The final is the best forehand display i've ever seen on a hard court.

 

[Third Serve]

Weird how 2004 and 2006 are consistently mentioned yet 2005 is not. The final is the best forehand display i've ever seen on a hard court.

Personally I take 2005 over Djokovic’s 2011 run slightly but his backhand was rather loose in that tournament which is a hole you can poke at when assessing his overall performance—in the same way that I’m poking a hole at Djokovic’s serving in the 2011 final.

I just think 2004 and especially 2006 are more impervious to such arguments.

 

[The Guru]

You're ignoring Djokovic also has the edge pre prime too with multiple strong performances before Federer became relevant at the USO. If Federer puts in similar quality showings to 07-09 Djokovic in 01-03 there's a good chance he 8 peats

 

[TheFifthSet]

If you age swap Djokovic and Federer Djokovic might literally be the favorite at every single USO from 01-09 like literally every single one. That's also ignoring Djokovic's stronger post prime.

How do you figure that swapping ages is somehow beneficial to Djoko?

81-born Djokovic with the same trajectory, keeping everything else the same (I always make that qualifier because while it's rly dumb to think they WOULD stay the same, every other hypothetical requires even MORE mental gymnastics) :

'01: ain't beating Hewitt, pre-final Sampras, Agassi and some other floaters would pose a challenge.

'02: ain't beating inspired Sampras, 50-50 to beat either Hewitt or Agassi.

'03: '09 Djokovic was mid at that tournament, isn't beating Roddick.

'04: '10 Djokovic would lose to Agassi, perhaps Hewitt who was fantastic going into the final.

'05: '11 Djokovic wins.

'06: '12 non-Windkovic wins in those conditions.

'07: I give '13 Djokovic 40-50% to win. The Wawa match tired him out a lot, I don't know if he'd get through Isner/Feli/Roddick/Davy/whoever makes it in place of Zygotovic.

'08: '14 Djokovic sucked balls, he isn't winning.

'09: Toss-up, Sod and Dasco won't win but might tire him out a little, I give him favourite status over Delpo but he could lose it.

That amounts to like 3-5 titles. Him and Fed would be lucky to meet even once during that time.

-


Now, Fed:

'01-'09: taking ski trips to the Alps or losing before the QF.

'10: '04 Fed even with the mental scarring can beat '10 Nadal, without it he is the prohibitive favourite, I said what I said.

'11-'14: '05-'08 Fed wins all of these, maybe three at worst.

'15: '09 Fed cruises.

'16: '10 Fed beats '16 Wawrinka.

'17: ‘11 Fed over ‘17 Ned and ‘23 Djoko.

'18: outside shot for '12 Fed to win, maybe 30%

'19-'20: '13 Fed isn't winning, '14 I give a small chance to.

'21: '15 Fed wins easily.


So that's, what, 7-10 titles?

 

[The Guru]

How do you figure that swapping ages is somehow beneficial to Djoko?

81-born Djokovic with the same trajectory, keeping everything else the same (I always make that qualifier because while it's rly dumb to think they WOULD stay the same, every other hypothetical requires even MORE mental gymnastics) :

'01: ain't beating Hewitt, pre-final Sampras, Agassi and some other floaters would pose a challenge.

'02: ain't beating inspired Sampras, 50-50 to beat either Hewitt or Agassi.

'03: '09 Djokovic was mid at that tournament, isn't beating Roddick.

'04: '10 Djokovic would lose to Agassi, perhaps Hewitt who was fantastic going into the final.

'05: '11 Djokovic wins.

'06: '12 non-Windkovic wins in those conditions.

'07: I give '13 Djokovic 40-50% to win. The Wawa match tired him out a lot, I don't know if he'd get through Isner/Feli/Roddick/Davy/whoever makes it in place of Zygotovic.

'08: '14 Djokovic sucked balls, he isn't winning.

'09: Toss-up, Sod and Dasco won't win but might tire him out a little, I give him favourite status over Delpo but he could lose it.

That amounts to like 3-5 titles. Him and Fed would be lucky to meet even once during that time.

-


Now, Fed:

'01-'09: taking ski trips to the Alps or losing before the QF.

'10: '04 Fed even with the mental scarring can beat '10 Nadal, without it he is the prohibitive favourite, I said what I said.

'11-'14: '05-'08 Fed wins all of these, maybe three at worst.

'15: '09 Fed cruises.

'16: '10 Fed beats '16 Wawrinka.

'17: ‘11 Fed over ‘17 Ned and ‘23 Djoko.

'18: outside shot for '12 Fed to win, maybe 30%

'19-'20: '13 Fed isn't winning, '14 I give a small chance to.

'21: '15 Fed wins easily.


So that's, what, 7-10 titles?

I mean all I can say is this is so wrong to me that it's not even worth discussing.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I mean all I can say is this is so wrong to me that it's not even worth discussing.

felt roughly the same about your assertions there believe me, but was tactful enough to leave that out, s’pose the “don’t reply or just be civil” card hasn’t served me well with you.

Next time, then.

 

[The Guru]

felt roughly the same about your assertions there believe me, but was tactful enough to leave that out, s’pose the “don’t reply or just be civil” card hasn’t served me well with you.

Next time, then.

Sincerely didn't mean to be rude I didn't want to not reply though I guess you would've preferred that. Just wanted to indicate that I saw it but don't feel it's worth getting into because I just don't think we could possibly have an interesting discussion if that's your baseline.

 

[NoleFam]

It's way stronger. Djokovic was lucky to get 7 wimbledons and Federer arguably unlucky to only end with 8. Djokovic was unlucky to only have 4 USOs while I think 5 for Fed is about appropriate.

I don't know if he was lucky to get 7 because we have to remember that the 2020 version was canceled where he would have been a massive favorite but he did have some rotten luck at the USO. With that said, the 2019 match swinging his way was a bit of luck for him because I always felt he didn't play that great that day and Federer mostly outplayed him.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Sincerely didn't mean to be rude I didn't want to not reply though I guess you would've preferred that. Just wanted to indicate that I saw it but don't feel it's worth getting into because I just don't think we could possibly have an interesting discussion if that's your baseline.

I can cop to there being ample room for disagreement on a tournament-to-tournament basis if you don’t wanna get into the weeds there (I realize it’s time-consuming), but what is controversial about the more general sentiment that swapping their ages and circumstances wouldn’t hurt Federer at the USO like you claimed?

He had an uninterrupted eight year span at the Open where he either won by large margins against good competition compared to the other two (only taken to 5 twice at the USO from 2004-2008, with better individual match wins than Djokodal managed in perhaps their 5 best USO’s combined) or lost by incredibly tiny ones each time. ‘10 USO is the only one of those that wasn’t absolutely stellar, and then he followed it up with several more runs that at least could’ve been weak title levels in a more barren field absent Djokovic (like ‘16 and ‘20-‘23).

If he replicates his form (on a “relative” basis if his “absolute” level doesn’t do it for you, lol) then ‘87-born Federer sure seems like a much safer bet to hoard titles than an ‘81-born Djokovic if they swap. At the very least it’s not something to hang your hat on and that’s even if we DO give ‘07-‘10 Djokovic favourite status from ‘01-‘04….like even if I’m being super-duper charitable and say he’s the favourite he’d be 1st fave rather than odds-on (had his share of early tourney struggles that may have hurt him against stronger floaters, lost straightforwardly each time, was only in great tournament form two of those years + Roddick ‘03/Hewitt ‘04 were in blazing form), whereas Fed in so many of these reshuffled years is a laughably huge favourite.


I just don’t see what you’re seeing to be so confident in your proclamation and I didn’t think I was even being that unfair to Djokovic (hand-waving ‘10 Djokovic’s chances against an older Agassi that might gas in a more physical match may have looked like it on the surface, but I was factoring in their differing wind abilities—and, of course, I let Djoko off the hook later on for playing a poor final in ‘12 in the wind, so wouldn’t that even out?)

Also don’t quite see how the framing regarding ‘20 or Djokovic’s overall post-prime period holds up (more-or-less agree with @Third Serve’s comparison of them in their 30’s, but again I can understand if putting a magnifying glass over each year isn’t the way you wish to spend your time).

I take it you think Djokovic should get a mulligan in a “fairer” world for his decision to carelessly hit that errant ball (the sort of behaviour I worried would lead to a default somewhere for YEARS before it happened, even posted about it on here!), but couldn’t that also apply to Federer in a year like ‘16?

In a more “just” world he doesn’t draw that bath for his kids and, everything else remaining the same, would’ve been on the shortlist for USO favourites that year (it was a terrible tournament for top-end quality, no??) Why does Djokovic get a do-over for a careless choice but Federer doesn’t for a freak, non-tennis related injury that set in motion another injury which made him miss the tournament? I mean I can entertain a case for it your way but it feels like you’re stacking the favourable counterfactuals in one direction. Easier to steelman a case for ‘22 Djokovic getting a pass but then in a roundabout way missing all those big HC tournaments could’ve left him better-equipped to win in ‘23 due to having less career mileage.

 

[NatF]

I'm pretty sure the match in 07 was closer by DR than 11 even with Djokovic folding the third set after choking the first two. The 11 match was not actually all that close from a level perspective Fed played great but Djokovic was clearly better.

Right so even if that was true Djokovic never lost to Federer from 2010 onwards either... Federer's entire argument is based on him dominating the 00s and that happened because the USO competition was garbage and a not fully mature Djokovic was his strongest opponent. Djokovic would've dominated the 00s even harder and even if he failed to win in the 10s (not a guarantee) that still leaves him better off than Fed. And the idea that it would be one way traffic if they were the same age is pretty much completely laughable. Federer has a surprisingly terrible success rate against top tier HC opposition and the idea that he could dominate Djokovic in NYC is a complete joke of a take and pretty much removes your inability to make fun of takes like Djokovic>Fed at Wimbledon.

I think it's pretty well tread ground why Federer has a match up advantage vs Djokovic I'm surprised you don't know it/see it but we can get into that if you like.

Stop please this is embarrassing.

Fed has more titles and beat better competition for the majority of them - 2018 and 2023 say hello. The fact you're trying to use D/R to suggest the 2007 match which ended in straights was closer that a match Djokovic was a point from losing is just pure desperation.

Djokovic doesn't dominate **** in the 00's lol, 07-10 Djokovic wasn't good enough to dominate the field in Fed’s place, from 2011 onwards he obviously wins several titles but he doesn't do 5 in a row in those circumstances either. Nevermind that Fed cleans up even harder in the 10's if they swapped ages.

Nah no match-up Djokovic basically relied on an edge in stamina and physicality to beat Fed for years and years. Fed is the better player.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Mind you @The Guru I think Djokovic gets a little shortchanged at the USO at times, to me he’s clearly had a better career than Nadal there despite having the same amount of titles. Ned’s draws en route to his four were hideously bad and even the H2H is a bit skewed by Djokovic having to navigate past Fed and Wawrinka in gruelling 5-set matches before his losses while Nadal breezed by a set of opponents that Fedkovic have like a combined 1159-4 H2H against (‘10 Djokovic doesn’t win anyway, but he may have made it closer, while ‘13 Djoko kind of gassed and lost the plot, may not have happened if there draws were reversed). Hell draw disparity even hurts him in his lone WIN, as the tough match against Fed in’11 probably left him less than 100% in the final, which hurts him in our famously nebulous “peak” discussions.

But in a Fed-Djoko comparison at the USO, I just see so little breathing room for a meaningful comparison. Fed has the extra title, a better peak, they both had five events marred by injury or freak circumstance (‘12-‘13, ‘16-‘17 and ‘19 for Fed… ‘16-‘17, ‘19-‘20 and ‘22 for Djokovic)….and closer losses too, lol. Don’t get how the luck broke Fed’s way here at all.

 

[The Guru]

I can cop to there being ample room for disagreement on a tournament-to-tournament basis if you don’t wanna get into the weeds there (I realize it’s time-consuming), but what is controversial about the more general sentiment that swapping their ages and circumstances wouldn’t hurt Federer at the USO like you claimed?

That generalization I'm fine with your tournament to tournament analysis makes it very clear to me that what you see is just outside of what I would consider to be the reasonable realm of evaluation. Again I don't say that to be insulting it just means a conversation wouldn't be productive. Like in other topics if someone says hey I think KD is better at basketball than Steph or my moral system is act utilitarianism I'm just going to immediately think there is no way I can have a good conversation with this person. Doesn't mean there aren't plenty of smart people who hold those positions but I think they are completely unreasonable.

 

[The Guru]

Stop please this is embarrassing.

Fed has more titles and beat better competition for the majority of them - 2018 and 2023 say hello. The fact you're trying to use D/R to suggest the 2007 match which ended in straights was closer that a match Djokovic was a point from losing is just pure desperation.

Djokovic doesn't dominate **** in the 00's lol, 07-10 Djokovic wasn't good enough to dominate the field in Fed’s place, from 2011 onwards he obviously wins several titles but he doesn't do 5 in a row in those circumstances either. Nevermind that Fed cleans up even harder in the 10's if they swapped ages.

Nah no match-up Djokovic basically relied on an edge in stamina and physicality to beat Fed for years and years. Fed is the better player.

What's embarrassing is your lack of understanding or complete disregard for any context or nuance.

Sometimes people play an extremely close match by level that ends up being straight sets and sometimes people play not so close matches that go 5 because of how the tennis scoring system works. Crazy concept I know. Anyway, I'm not even claiming it was closer especially not in the sense of the outcome because that's obviously untrue but it's an absolutely asinine argument to make that hey Fed almost won this match therefore he's superior. That would already be incredibly stupid from the jump to base everything on one match but it's even more stupid when in that match Djokovic was easily the better player despite carrying an injury. I was never actually making the 07 argument I was pointing out the absurdity of your argument using that as an example.

Except he literally was good enough... He lost to no one but Fed and then beat him and lost to Nadal.

Wow that is a shocking lack of tennis understanding from you. You have your increasingly ridiculous Fed and Fed era lean but I didn't think you would ever make such a bad micro take as that. Yikes.

 

[The Guru]

I don't know if he was lucky to get 7 because we have to remember that the 2020 version was canceled where he would have been a massive favorite but he did have some rotten luck at the USO. With that said, the 2019 match swinging his way was a bit of luck for him because I always felt he didn't play that great that day and Federer mostly outplayed him.

I don't think that much of his 19/21/22 victories. They're not poor but they're not good either. And Djokovic also isn't exactly flush with strong losing efforts either. Compare that to Federer who has fewer weak victories and more strong losses a gap of 1 slam at Wimbledon seems to me to underplay the difference between what they produced there over their careers.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Federer peaked higher everywhere, agreed upon by all objective tennis observers.

i've heard "Djokovic has never beaten someone as good as '09 del Potro at RG" but the question must be asked, who is the best opponent has Federer beaten indoors at the YEC? Nalbandian '05/'06 RR? Tsonga '11 RR/F? Nadal (shuddering) '10 F? i've been reviewing his record recently and honestly i don't think it's that clear that Federer belongs on the same tier as the other 5 OE indoor GOATs (if you want Djokovic to also move down you can throw in indoors irrelevancy era tax i guess)

[thinking Djokovic is a greater grass courter than Federer is] No less ridiculous of an opinion than saying Fed is a greater HCer

true!

So even if I concede Djokovic is superior in slow conditions, Fed at least has a HC condition he's superior in that makes the aggregate a debate.

given that surface characteristics aren't a binary, surely medium speed conditions should also be considered? and isn't that mediumness basically the basis of Djokovic's career domination? AO and homogeneity and so on and so on?

ridiculous winds interrupting what likely would've been his peak run at the USO in 2012

i don't think we talk enough about Djokovic sucking in wind actually. like that's just a feature of playing outdoors, especially at the USO or at Indian Wells, and you have to deal, and if you can't that's your problem. genuinely what other ATG has sucked this much in wind where it's the primary excuse for at least 3 slam losses (USO '12, RG '19, Wimbly '23), in otherwise successful seasons and runs, against meaningful competition?

11-16 Djokovic has a reasonable chance at a 6 peat from 04-09

i mean how can you say this? like as an Alcaraz supporter i would never let him live down reversible flops like AO '22 against Berrettini or RG '23 and Cinci '23 against Djokovic or AO '24 against Zv*rev. but you as a Djokovic supporter are just fully ignoring the Nishikori loss in '14, not to mention the Nadal loss in '13 and the Wawrinka loss in '16, and that's not even getting into the Murray loss in '12

As far as peak level goes Djokovic literally went 4 years in a row without losing a match on indoor hard while facing the best set of HC opposition that's occurred simultaneously in the history of tennis

indoor vs outdoor hard though. the likes of Nadal or Berdych or Cilic (however threatening they were in the first place) were meaningfully less threatening indoors imo. granted, Federer (and Murray when he showed up) were still likely better competition than Federer ever faced indoors (depending on response to my first bit in this comment)

Why do you think Fed has a match advantage? It's more that he just has more firepower to his game on HC and is a better player if he's on and doesn't run out of gas because he's playing someone 6 years younger...

slice gives Djokovic a fair bit of trouble on forehand side (tangentially i'm curious if that was an intentional move by Nadal in USO '13 and if he just never really returned to it in later hard court matches with Djokovic) & 1st serve disguise gives Djokovic trouble on return. matchup issues because Djokovic built his forehand around pace & spin absorption and redirection rather than generation (just as Federer built his drive backhand for shotmaking on lower bouncing surfaces, lest we get hasty about labeling certain things skill issues and not matchup issues), and because Federer's serve isn't inherently better than all other serves, just in one particular regard that happens to disproportionately trip up Djokovic (see the same story with Kyrgios, which notably Djokovic managed to handle in Wimbly '22, and see again the implied Nadal forehand comparison)

I'm pretty sure the match in 07 was closer by DR than 11 even with Djokovic folding the third set after choking the first two.

should we restart the dialogue about AO '07 F and what DR tells us?

that happened because the USO competition was garbage and a not fully mature Djokovic was his strongest opponent

tapping the sign:

Exactly this. Fed’s level at the AO has been great even with the Ls.

The problem with discussing the same question for the USO is that the Big 3 (1) really avoided each other there, (2) avoided tough opponents from the field, and (3) did not peak at the same time, which just means most discussion on here will devolve into pure fan bias speculation.

Fed’s best USOs involved Roddick, Hewitt and preprime Djoker, Djokovic’s best USOs involve him nearly losing to end-of-prime/old Federer and beating “lost before i stepped on court” Nadal, and Nadal’s involve him beating preprime and Total ErrorBot Djokovic. It’s not great for bragging for any of them

it's even possible the draw in 09 cost him the title given his massive match up advantage vs Del Po and his form was actually pretty solid

i would compare this to the Tsonga vs Murray h2h. yes there's the matchup advantage, but also consider that Tsonga's career peak tournaments (AO '08, Canada '14) coincided with him beating Murray (even if we want to quibble about Murray's form). i think it's quite likely that USO '09 del Potro (who in IW '13, one of his peak tournaments, beat familiar terrorizers Djokovic AND Murray), would have prevailed over USO '09 Djokovic

It is likely that both but at the very least 1 of 2020/22 would go to Djokovic without ridiculous circumstances.

the question must be asked: peak PCB > post-prime Djokovic on outdoor hard courts? (see bronze medal match)

(not being serious)

also i fear Alcaraz had destiny on his side and wouldn't be losing to Djokovic at USO '22... (being serious i do genuinely think his whole unnecessary marathon shtick would have put him in the necessary underdog mindset and he pretty much always serves well against Djokovic which would be crucial)

I don't know why that would be considering Federer didn't touch another USO after 27, when he won his last Slam at 36 and made his last final at nearly 38. That means for 11 years and the entire 2nd half of his career, he went from king of the USO to a bystander while all his rivals won it. Djokovic (3), Connors (2), Nadal (2), Sampras (1), Laver (1), Rosewall (1), etc. all won the USO at 28 or after. Federer is missing from that list. If anything, Djokovic's argument is stronger at the USO over Federer than it is at Wimbledon because of the difference in finals.

it is always Very Interesting when Federer fans implicitly argue that his post-prime form was worse than Agassi's but then also have to argue that it's respectable enough to bolster his USO GOAT ranking

lol a lot of Fed fans wont even say Djo is better at the AO leave alone Wimbledon

hey abmk says Djokovic is better at AO! i'll admit i was quite surprised when i first saw that in his sig

But also, there's a bigger difference between grass, clay, and hard compared to hard and indoor hard, if you know what I mean? The latter are easier to compare even if, yes, they don't fully line up.

oh the points are, 1. if Connors could make those finals on surfaces he wasn't as good on (grass and green clay, if only by a small margin), he could have done at least that (if not more) on outdoor hard 2. the people Borg played likely wouldn't have beaten him on outdoor hard, though it might have been a little closer

Honestly Agassi might be better than it seems at the US Open. He only had a couple of winning runs but some of his losing performances were pretty solid, especially 2001.

i would love to see '05 Agassi dropped in '23 Djokovic's USO draw and have a merry time with Medvedev in the final lol. he's taken '88 Wilander to 5 at RG; he's not scared of the bargain brand version

 

[NatF]

What's embarrassing is your lack of understanding or complete disregard for any context or nuance.

Sometimes people play an extremely close match by level that ends up being straight sets and sometimes people play not so close matches that go 5 because of how the tennis scoring system works. Crazy concept I know. Anyway, I'm not even claiming it was closer especially not in the sense of the outcome because that's obviously untrue but it's an absolutely asinine argument to make that hey Fed almost won this match therefore he's superior. That would already be incredibly stupid from the jump to base everything on one match but it's even more stupid when in that match Djokovic was easily the better player despite carrying an injury. I was never actually making the 07 argument I was pointing out the absurdity of your argument using that as an example.

Except he literally was good enough... He lost to no one but Fed and then beat him and lost to Nadal.

Wow that is a shocking lack of tennis understanding from you. You have your increasingly ridiculous Fed and Fed era lean but I didn't think you would ever make such a bad micro take as that. Yikes.

Fundamental misunderstanding of tennis scoring here. Not all points are equal. Fed was far closer to winning ergo it was a closer match. There's literally no grounds to discuss. It's not like the 2011 SF was a a fairly one sided four setter or something, Fed won the first two sets and had two points to take the match. The lopsided D/R is just because of sets 3 and 4 where Fed dropped intensity, but those weren't must win sets for him like they were for Novak.

Making the Andy Murray argument now, "he only lost to Big 3 therefore he would beat everyone else", his level in most of those losses wasn't good enough. That's the truth of the matter. In his prime he lost to Murray and Nishikori as well, we can handwave the loss to Nadal in 2013 as well but he went down meekly there too. So no 2007-2010 is not a lock for those wins.

Seems more like you're just desperate to explain why old Fed gave peak Djokovic so much trouble lol. Federer matched up well with Djokovic but that's not the same as having a match-up advantage.

 

[NoleFam]

I don't think that much of his 19/21/22 victories. They're not poor but they're not good either. And Djokovic also isn't exactly flush with strong losing efforts either. Compare that to Federer who has fewer weak victories and more strong losses a gap of 1 slam at Wimbledon seems to me to underplay the difference between what they produced there over their careers.

I honestly thought he played better in 2022 than he did in 2019 or 2021. Slightly higher return points won than either of those, and his serving was much better overall than 2019. 2021 service numbers are a bit better but that was his weakest Wimbledon with the weakest draw, and he didn't really play any great returners on grass. I felt he was just coasting in 2021 and didn't get out of 3rd gear mostly because no one forced him too for the most part.

He didn't play that well in 2019 and definitely not in the final. His 2022 final performance was great. I do agree Federer had better losing efforts though but Djokovic completely dominated Wimbledon. Didn't lose a match on Centre Court for 10 years and probably would have 5 peated if the 2020 edition wasn't canceled.

 

[TheFifthSet]

i've heard "Djokovic has never beaten someone as good as '09 del Potro at RG" but the question must be asked, who is the best opponent has Federer beaten indoors at the YEC? Nalbandian '05/'06 RR? Tsonga '11 RR/F? Nadal (shuddering) '10 F? i've been reviewing his record recently and honestly i don't think it's that clear that Federer belongs on the same tier as the other 5 OE indoor GOATs (if you want Djokovic to also move down you can throw in indoors irrelevancy era tax i guess)

true!

given that surface characteristics aren't a binary, surely medium speed conditions should also be considered? and isn't that mediumness basically the basis of Djokovic's career domination? AO and homogeneity and so on and so on?

i don't think we talk enough about Djokovic sucking in wind actually. like that's just a feature of playing outdoors, especially at the USO or at Indian Wells, and you have to deal, and if you can't that's your problem. genuinely what other ATG has sucked this much in wind where it's the primary excuse for at least 3 slam losses (USO '12, RG '19, Wimbly '23), in otherwise successful seasons and runs, against meaningful competition?

i mean how can you say this? like as an Alcaraz supporter i would never let him live down reversible flops like AO '22 against Berrettini or RG '23 and Cinci '23 against Djokovic or AO '24 against Zv*rev. but you as a Djokovic supporter are just fully ignoring the Nishikori loss in '14, not to mention the Nadal loss in '13 and the Wawrinka loss in '16, and that's not even getting into the Murray loss in '12

indoor vs outdoor hard though. the likes of Nadal or Berdych or Cilic (however threatening they were in the first place) were meaningfully less threatening indoors imo. granted, Federer (and Murray when he showed up) were still likely better competition than Federer ever faced indoors (depending on response to my first bit in this comment)

slice gives Djokovic a fair bit of trouble on forehand side (tangentially i'm curious if that was an intentional move by Nadal in USO '13 and if he just never really returned to it in later hard court matches with Djokovic) & 1st serve disguise gives Djokovic trouble on return. matchup issues because Djokovic built his forehand around pace & spin absorption and redirection rather than generation (just as Federer built his drive backhand for shotmaking on lower bouncing surfaces, lest we get hasty about labeling certain things skill issues and not matchup issues), and because Federer's serve isn't inherently better than all other serves, just in one particular regard that happens to disproportionately trip up Djokovic (see the same story with Kyrgios, which notably Djokovic managed to handle in Wimbly '22, and see again the implied Nadal forehand comparison)

should we restart the dialogue about AO '07 F and what DR tells us?

tapping the sign:


i would compare this to the Tsonga vs Murray h2h. yes there's the matchup advantage, but also consider that Tsonga's career peak tournaments (AO '08, Canada '14) coincided with him beating Murray (even if we want to quibble about Murray's form). i think it's quite likely that USO '09 del Potro (who in IW '13, one of his peak tournaments, beat familiar terrorizers Djokovic AND Murray), would have prevailed over USO '09 Djokovic

the question must be asked: peak PCB > post-prime Djokovic on outdoor hard courts? (see bronze medal match)

(not being serious)

also i fear Alcaraz had destiny on his side and wouldn't be losing to Djokovic at USO '22... (being serious i do genuinely think his whole unnecessary marathon shtick would have put him in the necessary underdog mindset and he pretty much always serves well against Djokovic which would be crucial)

it is always Very Interesting when Federer fans implicitly argue that his post-prime form was worse than Agassi's but then also have to argue that it's respectable enough to bolster his USO GOAT ranking

hey abmk says Djokovic is better at AO! i'll admit i was quite surprised when i first saw that in his sig

oh the points are, 1. if Connors could make those finals on surfaces he wasn't as good on (grass and green clay, if only by a small margin), he could have done at least that (if not more) on outdoor hard 2. the people Borg played likely wouldn't have beaten him on outdoor hard, though it might have been a little closer

i would love to see '05 Agassi dropped in '23 Djokovic's USO draw and have a merry time with Medvedev in the final lol. he's taken '88 Wilander to 5 at RG; he's not scared of the bargain brand version

Wow you were probably only a few keystrokes away from going over the character limit.

 

[The Guru]

Fundamental misunderstanding of tennis scoring here. Not all points are equal. Fed was far closer to winning ergo it was a closer match. There's literally no grounds to discuss. It's not like the 2011 SF was a a fairly one sided four setter or something, Fed won the first two sets and had two points to take the match. The lopsided D/R is just because of sets 3 and 4 where Fed dropped intensity, but those weren't must win sets for him like they were for Novak.

Making the Andy Murray argument now, "he only lost to Big 3 therefore he would beat everyone else", his level in most of those losses wasn't good enough. That's the truth of the matter. In his prime he lost to Murray and Nishikori as well, we can handwave the loss to Nadal in 2013 as well but he went down meekly there too. So no 2007-2010 is not a lock for those wins.

Seems more like you're just desperate to explain why old Fed gave peak Djokovic so much trouble lol. Federer matched up well with Djokovic but that's not the same as having a match-up advantage.

I know not all points are equal. That doesn't mean I have to think Johannson was playing better tennis than Roddick. He won he deserved to win I'm also not going to sit here and tell you that he was playing better tennis. You can. Go for it. I think it's a dumb take but whatever. Obviously tennis comes down to big points all the time but I'm not going to sit here and tell you that Nadal missing a BH pass by a few inches or Djokovic touching the net or even Stan getting screwed on an out call says anything meaningful about the levels that those guys brought to those matches.

Wasn't good enough for Fedal sure. Better than anything Fed ever had to face in his prime at the USO. I never said lock. I said favorite. I don't think 01 Hewitt has no chance vs 07 Djokovic but I know where I'm putting my money.

Not at all. There's nothing to explain. Djokovic won the matches he was supposed to win and even one he wasn't really supposed to and he did so in impressive fashion despite being at a clear matchup disadvantage.

 

[The Guru]

I honestly thought he played better in 2022 than he did in 2019 or 2021. Slightly higher return points won than either of those, and his serving was much better overall than 2019. 2021 service numbers are a bit better but that was his weakest Wimbledon with the weakest draw, and he didn't really play any great returners on grass. I felt he was just coasting in 2021 and didn't get out of 3rd gear mostly because no one forced him too for the most part.

He didn't play that well in 2019 and definitely not in the final. His 2022 final performance was great. I do agree Federer had better losing efforts though but Djokovic completely dominated Wimbledon. Didn't lose a match on Centre Court for 10 years and probably would have 5 peated if the 2020 edition wasn't canceled.

I think the 22 final was a pretty good performance but he was also playing Nick Kyrgios and was executing a pretty simple gameplan. Honestly, I'm not convinced that 23 is not better than all of them. Though I do think you have a fair point on him coasting in 21 I think there's probably some truth to that.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Honestly, I'm not convinced that 23 is not better than all of them.

reposting myself from this June:

i don't think Djokovic's form in that final could reasonably be described as playing really well. he was very good in the 1st set (helped by Alcaraz being really bad there), and good in the 4th and 5th sets, but he was pretty bad on return in the 2nd set and then flopped in the tiebreaker, and he was horrible in the 3rd set (5-19 winners-UEs, with Alcaraz just being less bad at 9-14). throughout the match his backhand and return were worse than Alcaraz (which should have been his main edges), and he also served quite poorly. his net play on the whole was good but it notably let him down on that break point in the 5th so it's difficult to give him props for that. his forehand was good but not doing enough on the shotmaking front to make up for his flagging stamina.
Alcaraz's Wimbly run was impressive for plenty of reasons - his returning, his mental strength to recover from the RG letdown and break all the Djokovic trends (tiebreakers, 5 sets in major final, Wimbledon dominance), or his backhand consistency - but i don't think Djokovic's actual level of play contributed that much to it as an achievement

 

[NoleFam]

I think the 22 final was a pretty good performance but he was also playing Nick Kyrgios and was executing a pretty simple gameplan. Honestly, I'm not convinced that 23 is not better than all of them. Though I do think you have a fair point on him coasting in 21 I think there's probably some truth to that.

The returning in 2022 though, when Kyrgios was serving 73%....He just seemed more on the ball there than 2019 on the return and his top level was higher. Didn't always play great (Norrie match) and had to dig himself out of trouble sometimes (Sinner match) but I was overall impressed by his returning and his overall top level when he needed it.

I thought he was pretty good overall in 2023 as well but somewhat choked in the final, one of the rare times in his career where that's happened in a big match. I think that the fact that the Wimbledon record was on the line made him tense up. Alcaraz played amazing as well.

 

[NoleFam]

reposting myself from this June:

Yea, the serve deserted him day when he needed the most. Just poor serving in that final and those backhand errors in that tiebreak ended up being very costly. He needed his serve especially considering that his return wasn't clicking like it was the whole tournament. I think he was tight though after the 1st set.

 

[NatF]

i've heard "Djokovic has never beaten someone as good as '09 del Potro at RG" but the question must be asked, who is the best opponent has Federer beaten indoors at the YEC? Nalbandian '05/'06 RR? Tsonga '11 RR/F? Nadal (shuddering) '10 F? i've been reviewing his record recently and honestly i don't think it's that clear that Federer belongs on the same tier as the other 5 OE indoor GOATs (if you want Djokovic to also move down you can throw in indoors irrelevancy era tax i guess)

true!

given that surface characteristics aren't a binary, surely medium speed conditions should also be considered? and isn't that mediumness basically the basis of Djokovic's career domination? AO and homogeneity and so on and so on?

i don't think we talk enough about Djokovic sucking in wind actually. like that's just a feature of playing outdoors, especially at the USO or at Indian Wells, and you have to deal, and if you can't that's your problem. genuinely what other ATG has sucked this much in wind where it's the primary excuse for at least 3 slam losses (USO '12, RG '19, Wimbly '23), in otherwise successful seasons and runs, against meaningful competition?

i mean how can you say this? like as an Alcaraz supporter i would never let him live down reversible flops like AO '22 against Berrettini or RG '23 and Cinci '23 against Djokovic or AO '24 against Zv*rev. but you as a Djokovic supporter are just fully ignoring the Nishikori loss in '14, not to mention the Nadal loss in '13 and the Wawrinka loss in '16, and that's not even getting into the Murray loss in '12

indoor vs outdoor hard though. the likes of Nadal or Berdych or Cilic (however threatening they were in the first place) were meaningfully less threatening indoors imo. granted, Federer (and Murray when he showed up) were still likely better competition than Federer ever faced indoors (depending on response to my first bit in this comment)

slice gives Djokovic a fair bit of trouble on forehand side (tangentially i'm curious if that was an intentional move by Nadal in USO '13 and if he just never really returned to it in later hard court matches with Djokovic) & 1st serve disguise gives Djokovic trouble on return. matchup issues because Djokovic built his forehand around pace & spin absorption and redirection rather than generation (just as Federer built his drive backhand for shotmaking on lower bouncing surfaces, lest we get hasty about labeling certain things skill issues and not matchup issues), and because Federer's serve isn't inherently better than all other serves, just in one particular regard that happens to disproportionately trip up Djokovic (see the same story with Kyrgios, which notably Djokovic managed to handle in Wimbly '22, and see again the implied Nadal forehand comparison)

should we restart the dialogue about AO '07 F and what DR tells us?

tapping the sign:


i would compare this to the Tsonga vs Murray h2h. yes there's the matchup advantage, but also consider that Tsonga's career peak tournaments (AO '08, Canada '14) coincided with him beating Murray (even if we want to quibble about Murray's form). i think it's quite likely that USO '09 del Potro (who in IW '13, one of his peak tournaments, beat familiar terrorizers Djokovic AND Murray), would have prevailed over USO '09 Djokovic

the question must be asked: peak PCB > post-prime Djokovic on outdoor hard courts? (see bronze medal match)

(not being serious)

also i fear Alcaraz had destiny on his side and wouldn't be losing to Djokovic at USO '22... (being serious i do genuinely think his whole unnecessary marathon shtick would have put him in the necessary underdog mindset and he pretty much always serves well against Djokovic which would be crucial)

it is always Very Interesting when Federer fans implicitly argue that his post-prime form was worse than Agassi's but then also have to argue that it's respectable enough to bolster his USO GOAT ranking

hey abmk says Djokovic is better at AO! i'll admit i was quite surprised when i first saw that in his sig

oh the points are, 1. if Connors could make those finals on surfaces he wasn't as good on (grass and green clay, if only by a small margin), he could have done at least that (if not more) on outdoor hard 2. the people Borg played likely wouldn't have beaten him on outdoor hard, though it might have been a little closer

i would love to see '05 Agassi dropped in '23 Djokovic's USO draw and have a merry time with Medvedev in the final lol. he's taken '88 Wilander to 5 at RG; he's not scared of the bargain brand version

The indoor GOAT'S are probably Mac, Lendl, PETE and Becker. I think Fed passes the eye test to be included in that group but if you were to say he should be in the tier below them that's fine to me.

Fast is probably a misnomer from me, I would take Fed in anything medium upwards as I don't think many surfaces they played on were truly fast. Of course Djokovic isn't going to get white washed and he has some strong performances of his own on faster HC.

Match-up wise I don't think that's enough to call it an advantage. Not when Fed has traditionally had difficulties against players with high shot tolerance and strong left sides himself. Nevermind the gap in physicality as well as he aged. I don't think struggling with spot serving is a match-up thing. The junk balling stuff sure, but considering that Djokovic had his own patterns of play that were effective I don't think Fed had a clear advantage. I also don't think the slice was that fundamental to many of his late career wins over Djokovic. I think it was the serve +1 that did the majority of the damage.

 

[The Guru]

i don't think we talk enough about Djokovic sucking in wind actually. like that's just a feature of playing outdoors, especially at the USO or at Indian Wells, and you have to deal, and if you can't that's your problem. genuinely what other ATG has sucked this much in wind where it's the primary excuse for at least 3 slam losses (USO '12, RG '19, Wimbly '23), in otherwise successful seasons and runs, against meaningful competition?

i mean how can you say this? like as an Alcaraz supporter i would never let him live down reversible flops like AO '22 against Berrettini or RG '23 and Cinci '23 against Djokovic or AO '24 against Zv*rev. but you as a Djokovic supporter are just fully ignoring the Nishikori loss in '14, not to mention the Nadal loss in '13 and the Wawrinka loss in '16, and that's not even getting into the Murray loss in '12

indoor vs outdoor hard though. the likes of Nadal or Berdych or Cilic (however threatening they were in the first place) were meaningfully less threatening indoors imo. granted, Federer (and Murray when he showed up) were still likely better competition than Federer ever faced indoors (depending on response to my first bit in this comment)

slice gives Djokovic a fair bit of trouble on forehand side (tangentially i'm curious if that was an intentional move by Nadal in USO '13 and if he just never really returned to it in later hard court matches with Djokovic) & 1st serve disguise gives Djokovic trouble on return. matchup issues because Djokovic built his forehand around pace & spin absorption and redirection rather than generation (just as Federer built his drive backhand for shotmaking on lower bouncing surfaces, lest we get hasty about labeling certain things skill issues and not matchup issues), and because Federer's serve isn't inherently better than all other serves, just in one particular regard that happens to disproportionately trip up Djokovic (see the same story with Kyrgios, which notably Djokovic managed to handle in Wimbly '22, and see again the implied Nadal forehand comparison)

should we restart the dialogue about AO '07 F and what DR tells us?

i would compare this to the Tsonga vs Murray h2h. yes there's the matchup advantage, but also consider that Tsonga's career peak tournaments (AO '08, Canada '14) coincided with him beating Murray (even if we want to quibble about Murray's form). i think it's quite likely that USO '09 del Potro (who in IW '13, one of his peak tournaments, beat familiar terrorizers Djokovic AND Murray), would have prevailed over USO '09 Djokovic

also i fear Alcaraz had destiny on his side and wouldn't be losing to Djokovic at USO '22... (being serious i do genuinely think his whole unnecessary marathon shtick would have put him in the necessary underdog mindset and he pretty much always serves well against Djokovic which would be crucial)

it is always Very Interesting when Federer fans implicitly argue that his post-prime form was worse than Agassi's but then also have to argue that it's respectable enough to bolster his USO GOAT ranking

hey abmk says Djokovic is better at AO! i'll admit i was quite surprised when i first saw that in his sig

Yeah fair point but we're also talking about completely ridiculous wind levels in 2012 and also 2019 so bad in 2019 they postponed the match. Djokovic seems to struggle more than he should with any sort of non standard weather event but there's no denying that it is unlucky to be facing someone your better than and have a huge factor come in that is a neutralizer and you also happen to struggle with.

I'm not saying they're not flops. They're flops. But just because he lost to Nadal doesn't mean I think he would lose to Roddick. It takes two to tango. You have to someone give you the opportunity to flop.

Agreed competition less steep on indoor HCs than outdoor HCs a fair distinction to make.

Agreed pretty obvious stuff here. To add on Federer defends attacks in order from best to worst 1. Depth 2. Shape 3. Flat Pace. What does Djokovic primarily attack with? Depth. Djokovic is also perhaps the greatest horizontal mover of all time but is less great moving vertically and Federer challenges vertical movement far more than the average player.

That Gonzo got his ass handed to him? DR has its limitations and biases (like being biased towards the better server which Novak was not) but its also very helpful.

Not an unreasonable take but Djokovic definitely has a strong chance there 09 USO Djo was not a slouch. Watch the second set of the semi it's glorious stuff. Djokovic is also just so incredibly comfortable playing the rallies that he'd play against Del Po. Not saying he's a big favorite but he's got a very real chance.

Yeah I think Alcaraz's level was super lackluster in the semis and final. I mean he was 1 point from likely losing to Ruud. Don't think Djokovic would ever be anywhere near that position.

Haha so much this. I've been saying this for years 34/35 year old Agassi monster strong opponent but 15 Fed super mediocre. But also good and better than old Djokovic. So many Fed fans arguments eventually reduce to the further back in time you move the better people are at tennis when literally the opposite is demonstrably true.

Wow that is shocking.

 

[The Guru]

reposting myself from this June:

You can poke the same holes in 19/21/22. The 19 final was a worse performance imo. 21 final was also mid and the semi wasn't much better 23 Djokovic probably wins those matches more handily. 22 the quarters and semis are clearly worse but the final was probably better but again the matchup is so different who knows. Not to mention the conditions.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

The returning in 2022 though, when Kyrgios was serving 73%....He just seemed more on the ball there than 2019 on the return and his top level was higher. Didn't always play great (Norrie match) and had to dig himself out of trouble sometimes (Sinner match) but I was overall impressed by his returning and his overall top level when he needed it.

don't forget the TvR takedown! genuinely solid grass court floater whose serve was neutralized, barring one redlining set that happened to fall his way, grass-style

Yea, the serve deserted him day when he needed the most. Just poor serving in that final and those backhand errors in that tiebreak ended up being very costly. He needed his serve especially considering that his return wasn't clicking like it was the whole tournament. I think he was tight though after the 1st set.

i think it was the wind : P

Match-up wise I don't think that's enough to call it an advantage. Not when Fed has traditionally had difficulties against players with high shot tolerance and strong left sides himself. Nevermind the gap in physicality as well as he aged. I don't think struggling with spot serving is a match-up thing. The junk balling stuff sure, but considering that Djokovic had his own patterns of play that were effective I don't think Fed had a clear advantage. I also don't think the slice was that fundamental to many of his late career wins over Djokovic. I think it was the serve +1 that did the majority of the damage.

1. imo there being a Federer-favoring matchup advantage overall is the best explanation for why late career Federer could so consistently keep things agonizingly close against Djokovic but never really win the big matches (due to the underlying athleticism gap, and not due to outstanding mental weakness). if Federer was outright better, one would expect him to eke out a few more wins, and if Federer was outright worse, one would expect him to get blown out a few more times. thinking something along the lines of this comment (not endorsing the last line, but including for completeness):

I guess my point is I do think Djokovic did well enough against "older" Federer to not be an argument against him. He won the vast majority of their matches 2011 onwards, pretty much always having the clear better of the match up overall at every juncture, and by a large margin in slams where Federer managed only 2 wins after 2010 (and 0 after 2012). If the match up was pretty even I would strongly use that against Djokovic and for Federer then, but it is really isn't even close to that. Mind you I don't think Djokovic did well enough to make a point in his favor in the prime to prime match up either for sure though, as some Djokovic vans argue. Basically their head to head is inconclusive to me either way. The reason I favor Federer on medium to fast courts prime to prime is watching them play in their primes and best years, and pretty much nothing else.

2. i would note that the slice has always been Federer's way of surviving on the backhand wing in rallies, and so it giving Djokovic trouble (i singled out the forehand as the more glaring wing but Djokovic's backhand isn't too suited to slices either imo, even if only because they give him that classic ballstriker itch of "i gotta do something here soon") addresses the bit about rally tolerance and strong ad sides. for a weaker (due to rally tolerance questions) but still relevant example, see the Safin h2h

3. i think the "firepower" explanation for Federer > Djokovic on hard is vague and unsatisfying and basically assigns too much inherent importance to the serve and forehand on hard courts (or even in general), when if anything i think hard courts tend to disproportionately demand solidity and aggressive potential on the drive backhand

there's no denying that it is unlucky to be facing someone your better than and have a huge factor come in that is a neutralizer and you also happen to struggle with.

but this is exactly the Federer vs old Agassi at the USO situation, except Federer didn't struggle with the wind anywhere near as much as Djokovic! and this isn't a matchup issue that exploits the quirks of someone's technical/athletic development, unless you're telling me Djokovic made tradeoffs somewhere that resulted in him being bad in wind (especially when there's a very good comparison across the net in Murray)

I'm not saying they're not flops. They're flops. But just because he lost to Nadal doesn't mean I think he would lose to Roddick. It takes two to tango. You have to someone give you the opportunity to flop.

surely you recognize that the Nishikori loss is the most glaring and immediately objectionable? also i would buy this argument about the Nadal loss more if i heard Djokovic fans hyping up Nadal's USO '13 level but instead i've mostly heard stamina and form excuses for Djokovic... and okay so Nadal induces more errors from Djokovic than others, but Djokovic was also independently making more errors than his norm, and that could still hurt him even (or perhaps especially) in a different matchup, such as Roddick!

Agreed pretty obvious stuff here. To add on Federer defends attacks in order from best to worst 1. Depth 2. Shape 3. Flat Pace.

ehhh i would definitely put it more like 1. pace 2. depth 3. width 4. height. still agree with the general point that Djokovic's high-margin offense doesn't quite work on Federer (and then he doesn't quite have the same backup shotmaking gear), and that's not necessarily more of a flaw in his game than Federer's natural rally tolerance fluctuations and backhand offense limitations

Djokovic is also perhaps the greatest horizontal mover of all time but is less great moving vertically and Federer challenges vertical movement far more than the average player.

yeah i was re-reading the Djokovic-Simon AO '16 match report by Wasp and i was like... awkward sorta short forehands you say...

(also i really think you have to do era and surface contextualization for the bolded part, there's just far too many great movers in different styles to say this kind of thing)

DR has its limitations and biases (like being biased towards the better server which Novak was not) but its also very helpful.

my feeling is that as soon as you zoom in to single matches, you absolutely have to accept a primarily subjective rather than stats-based framing, in order to make any sense of them. i just don't know that DR really captures the momentum of the matches in question

Djokovic is also just so incredibly comfortable playing the rallies that he'd play against Del Po. Not saying he's a big favorite but he's got a very real chance.

i'm just not sure del Potro in that kind of form is comfortable for anyone (note also Djokovic's best forehand picks here:

). i guess the way i'd put it is that Djokovic was good enough and liked the matchup enough that i'm sure he'd take it to 5, but i also just think del Potro would usually win in the end

Yeah I think Alcaraz's level was super lackluster in the semis and final. I mean he was 1 point from likely losing to Ruud. Don't think Djokovic would ever be anywhere near that position.

eh the SF against Tiafoe was NID, Alcaraz's level when he needed to lock in was great. like i said Alcaraz was inefficient but other than the QF against Sinner he wasn't really in trouble. if Alcaraz was 1 point from losing to Ruud then Djokovic was 1 point from losing to Medvedev in '23 (since we're talking about stamina), but then we both know that their respective serve-volley plays set point down were high enough percentage (along with their overall levels being higher) that this doesn't really tell us much about the matches. and honestly it's not like '22 Djokovic was immune to single-match lessened stamina allegations (RG vs Nadal, YEC and maybe even Astana vs Medvedev, even Madrid vs Alcaraz pre-third set according to some copers).

You can poke the same holes in 19/21/22. The 19 final was a worse performance imo. 21 final was also mid and the semi wasn't much better 23 Djokovic probably wins those matches more handily. 22 the quarters and semis are clearly worse but the final was probably better but again the matchup is so different who knows. Not to mention the conditions.

the difference for me is that Djokovic's return in '23 was off the whole tournament. like he was struggling to break Thompson and Sinner, forget Hurkacz, and for him on grass that's very concerning. i don't think '19/'21 matter (they were pretty mid/outright bad) because i think '22 just showed a better level when needed even if e.g. the random sets lost against Norrie and Sinner bring down the average. kind of like the Wimbly '24 vs RG '24 question for Alcaraz actually, where i'd side with the former

 

[RS]

Lol

 

[jl809]

It’s bizarre to reflect that in 2 of Djoker’s most hyped up slam wins ever, he nearly got knocked out of the tournaments in question by Kevin Anderson and Gilles Simon

 

[RS]

You're ignoring Djokovic also has the edge pre prime too with multiple strong performances before Federer became relevant at the USO. If Federer puts in similar quality showings to 07-09 Djokovic in 01-03 there's a good chance he 8 peats

People would argue Agassi 01 Sampras 02 Roddick 03 beat Djokovic USO 07-09 8/10 btw. (7/10) for Rod.

 

[RS]

How do you figure that swapping ages is somehow beneficial to Djoko?

81-born Djokovic with the same trajectory, keeping everything else the same (I always make that qualifier because while it's rly dumb to think they WOULD stay the same, every other hypothetical requires even MORE mental gymnastics) :

'01: ain't beating Hewitt, pre-final Sampras, Agassi and some other floaters would pose a challenge.

'02: ain't beating inspired Sampras, 50-50 to beat either Hewitt or Agassi.

'03: '09 Djokovic was mid at that tournament, isn't beating Roddick.

'04: '10 Djokovic would lose to Agassi, perhaps Hewitt who was fantastic going into the final.

'05: '11 Djokovic wins.

'06: '12 non-Windkovic wins in those conditions.

'07: I give '13 Djokovic 40-50% to win. The Wawa match tired him out a lot, I don't know if he'd get through Isner/Feli/Roddick/Davy/whoever makes it in place of Zygotovic.

'08: '14 Djokovic sucked balls, he isn't winning.

'09: Toss-up, Sod and Dasco won't win but might tire him out a little, I give him favourite status over Delpo but he could lose it.

That amounts to like 3-5 titles. Him and Fed would be lucky to meet even once during that time.

-


Now, Fed:

'01-'09: taking ski trips to the Alps or losing before the QF.

'10: '04 Fed even with the mental scarring can beat '10 Nadal, without it he is the prohibitive favourite, I said what I said.

'11-'14: '05-'08 Fed wins all of these, maybe three at worst.

'15: '09 Fed cruises.

'16: '10 Fed beats '16 Wawrinka.

'17: ‘11 Fed over ‘17 Ned and ‘23 Djoko.

'18: outside shot for '12 Fed to win, maybe 30%

'19-'20: '13 Fed isn't winning, '14 I give a small chance to.

'21: '15 Fed wins easily.


So that's, what, 7-10 titles?

Could you do the same for Wimbledon?

 

[TheFifthSet]

1. imo there being a Federer-favoring matchup advantage overall is the best explanation for why late career Federer could so consistently keep things agonizingly close against Djokovic but never really win the big matches (due to the underlying athleticism gap, and not due to outstanding mental weakness). if Federer was outright better, one would expect him to eke out a few more wins, and if Federer was outright worse, one would expect him to get blown out a few more times. thinking something along the lines of this comment (not endorsing the last line, but including for completeness):

Gotta applaud this novel argument, but I think the competing explanation (Peak Fed being a little better on non-clay such that sub-peak versions could keep it close) is still equally plausible. While the physicality gap doubtless played a role in longer matches, it’s ultimately NOT the reason Fed couldn’t eke out enough wins, when at the finish line, to meet your (presumably reasonable) threshold (though it probably prevented him from *nearing it* on a couple of occasions, like ‘15 Wimby/USO).

Rather, it was the failure to produce one more moderately well-placed serve in two separate matches when at >98.5% win expectancy. That’s how close he was to a pretty respectable 4-7 late career slam H2H.

Agree with @martinezownsclay that the H2H itself is insufficient to answer this question, and with his overall conclusion.

 

[RS]

i've heard "Djokovic has never beaten someone as good as '09 del Potro at RG" but the question must be asked, who is the best opponent has Federer beaten indoors at the YEC? Nalbandian '05/'06 RR? Tsonga '11 RR/F? Nadal (shuddering) '10 F? i've been reviewing his record recently and honestly i don't think it's that clear that Federer belongs on the same tier as the other 5 OE indoor GOATs (if you want Djokovic to also move down you can throw in indoors irrelevancy era tax i guess)

true!

given that surface characteristics aren't a binary, surely medium speed conditions should also be considered? and isn't that mediumness basically the basis of Djokovic's career domination? AO and homogeneity and so on and so on?

i don't think we talk enough about Djokovic sucking in wind actually. like that's just a feature of playing outdoors, especially at the USO or at Indian Wells, and you have to deal, and if you can't that's your problem. genuinely what other ATG has sucked this much in wind where it's the primary excuse for at least 3 slam losses (USO '12, RG '19, Wimbly '23), in otherwise successful seasons and runs, against meaningful competition?

i mean how can you say this? like as an Alcaraz supporter i would never let him live down reversible flops like AO '22 against Berrettini or RG '23 and Cinci '23 against Djokovic or AO '24 against Zv*rev. but you as a Djokovic supporter are just fully ignoring the Nishikori loss in '14, not to mention the Nadal loss in '13 and the Wawrinka loss in '16, and that's not even getting into the Murray loss in '12

indoor vs outdoor hard though. the likes of Nadal or Berdych or Cilic (however threatening they were in the first place) were meaningfully less threatening indoors imo. granted, Federer (and Murray when he showed up) were still likely better competition than Federer ever faced indoors (depending on response to my first bit in this comment)

slice gives Djokovic a fair bit of trouble on forehand side (tangentially i'm curious if that was an intentional move by Nadal in USO '13 and if he just never really returned to it in later hard court matches with Djokovic) & 1st serve disguise gives Djokovic trouble on return. matchup issues because Djokovic built his forehand around pace & spin absorption and redirection rather than generation (just as Federer built his drive backhand for shotmaking on lower bouncing surfaces, lest we get hasty about labeling certain things skill issues and not matchup issues), and because Federer's serve isn't inherently better than all other serves, just in one particular regard that happens to disproportionately trip up Djokovic (see the same story with Kyrgios, which notably Djokovic managed to handle in Wimbly '22, and see again the implied Nadal forehand comparison)

should we restart the dialogue about AO '07 F and what DR tells us?

tapping the sign:


i would compare this to the Tsonga vs Murray h2h. yes there's the matchup advantage, but also consider that Tsonga's career peak tournaments (AO '08, Canada '14) coincided with him beating Murray (even if we want to quibble about Murray's form). i think it's quite likely that USO '09 del Potro (who in IW '13, one of his peak tournaments, beat familiar terrorizers Djokovic AND Murray), would have prevailed over USO '09 Djokovic

the question must be asked: peak PCB > post-prime Djokovic on outdoor hard courts? (see bronze medal match)

(not being serious)

also i fear Alcaraz had destiny on his side and wouldn't be losing to Djokovic at USO '22... (being serious i do genuinely think his whole unnecessary marathon shtick would have put him in the necessary underdog mindset and he pretty much always serves well against Djokovic which would be crucial)

it is always Very Interesting when Federer fans implicitly argue that his post-prime form was worse than Agassi's but then also have to argue that it's respectable enough to bolster his USO GOAT ranking

hey abmk says Djokovic is better at AO! i'll admit i was quite surprised when i first saw that in his sig

oh the points are, 1. if Connors could make those finals on surfaces he wasn't as good on (grass and green clay, if only by a small margin), he could have done at least that (if not more) on outdoor hard 2. the people Borg played likely wouldn't have beaten him on outdoor hard, though it might have been a little closer

i would love to see '05 Agassi dropped in '23 Djokovic's USO draw and have a merry time with Medvedev in the final lol. he's taken '88 Wilander to 5 at RG; he's not scared of the bargain brand version

Djokovic RG 11 would beat Del Potro RG 09 like 9-1. I think Fed fans just use that one to fire back something quick.

 

[TheFifthSet]

but this is exactly the Federer vs old Agassi at the USO situation, except Federer didn't struggle with the wind anywhere near as much as Djokovic! and this isn't a matchup issue that exploits the quirks of someone's technical/athletic development, unless you're telling me Djokovic made tradeoffs somewhere that resulted in him being bad in wind (especially when there's a very good comparison across the net in Murray)

Glad someone else sees this. Not struggling in the wind is putting it mildly, Federer was very resilient under those conditions (see: USO ‘04 against another GOAT-level wind player in Agassi, ‘12 IW vs Nadal who was a good wind player that decimated Murray in similar conditions three years earlier… for solid wind performances in milder gusts there’s ‘08 Wimby F and ‘08 USO SF).

Djokovic meanwhile was just plain mortal in wind and a little worse overall in non-sterile conditions.

I’ve argued before that ‘04 Windgassi was basically given a superpower in that match because the wind made it a closed-court affair that obscured whatever age-cum-movement issues he had as well as blunting Fed’s serve…plus it was played over two days…in normal conditions Agassi at that stage in his career is “just another strong opponent” up there with ‘08 Djokovic or ‘15 Fed, but with all of those advantages going for him I’d say Fed actually doesn’t get *enough* credit for that win.

 

[SonnyT]

Every great had at least an iconic victory in the slams! What was Sinner's?

 

[NatF]

1. imo there being a Federer-favoring matchup advantage overall is the best explanation for why late career Federer could so consistently keep things agonizingly close against Djokovic but never really win the big matches (due to the underlying athleticism gap, and not due to outstanding mental weakness). if Federer was outright better, one would expect him to eke out a few more wins, and if Federer was outright worse, one would expect him to get blown out a few more times. thinking something along the lines of this comment (not endorsing the last line, but including for completeness):

Why is it more logical for it to be a match-up? All Fed’s wins over Djokovic in 2015 were in straight sets. In BO3 Fed could blitz Djokovic with his more offensive game, in BO5 the physicality element added different pressures and Fed couldn't replicate it for long enough - plus Djokovic was more dialed in. IMO it's a question of execution for Fed rather than any stylistic element. Like I said if you look at the players who have troubled Fed throughout his career, generally it's guys with great movement who can attack his backhand wing. I don't see why Fed is more of a tough match-up than the other way around. IMO the h2h in their later years is simply a case of Fed having a superior offensive game that translates better to the quicker courts.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Could you do the same for Wimbledon?

Sure, I’m a glutton for punishment anyway.


‘81-born Djokovic probably isn’t making title-winning inroads until his Age 24 year, so I’ll start from there:

‘05: wins comfortably

‘06: wins comfortably, ‘06 Ned may be similar against the rest of the field but 25 y/o Djokovic was a good enough ballstriker with too big an edge in the serve-return.

‘07 and ‘08: Nadal wins both or they split meetings as 27 y/o Djokovic in good form wouldn’t fold on second serve returns despite being a worse overall grass-courter than ‘08 Fed…still don’t see it being enough though.

‘09: it was a very hot/dry fortnight perfect for big serving and Federer faced a bunch of bots serving out of their skin so I actually don’t think Djokovic is a shoo-in in his place. Still think he’s the pre-tournament favourite though.

In-post edit: wait I forgot about the age-swapping with Fed. Age 22 Fed was imperious at Wimby, don’t see Djoko being favoured there.

‘10: 29 y/o Djokovic was injured and lost to Querrey, needless to say he’s not winning here.

‘11: Injured again and Fed is 24 here.

‘12: 31 y/o Djokovic has his hands full with ‘12 Murray much less 25 y/o Fed (who IRL won Wimby losing only one set).

‘13: not likely to beat Murray, less likely to beat Fed.

‘14: who knows how good a 33 y/o Djoko would’ve been (this was the COVID year) but Fed is the presumptive favourite again.

‘15: repeating myself here but even Murray would be a toughie, much less a still-20’s and still-formidable Fed at the tail-end of his Wimby prime.

‘16: Djokovic has a chance here, believe it or not. 29 y/o Fed sucked at Wimby, ‘16 Murray was great but I don’t think it’s an unwinnable match.

‘17: 30 year old Fed is the tournament favourite, IMO.

‘18: 31 year old Fed is the tournament favourite, though even ‘18 Nadal/Delpo slay an injury-ridden 37 year old Djokovic.


Range: 2-5 titles.


—

‘87-born Fed:

See above to get a sneak peek. Don’t really see much changing in his Age 22-28 years here. I’ll say he wins 6 out of 7 over that time, if only because winning 7 in a row is such a monumental task that I think he’d slip under the pressure that one time. I’m breaking my own stupid “all else remaining the same” rule to beat the favouritism rap.

With that, let’s skip to the more arguable years:

‘16: doesn’t win, was injured and playing like ****.

‘17: most likely wins.

‘18: most likely wins.

‘19: was injured, isn’t winning jack.

‘20: tournament wasn’t played, shame since he was in good enough form.

‘21: wins lol.

‘22: injured but barely lost to Raonic in 5 in the semis so, shrugs. Probably loses in the end.

‘23: wins.

‘24: injured, doesn’t beat Raz.

‘25: TBD, but hard to see anyone totally blowing 38 y/o Fed’s level out of the water.


Range: 9-11 titles, probably would be 10-12 if ‘20 is played.

@NatF @zagor @mike danny @Third Serve @metsman … greetings fellow Hypothetical Gangsters, thoughts?

 

[RS]

Sure, I’m a glutton for punishment anyway.


‘81-born Djokovic probably isn’t making title-winning inroads until his Age 24 year, so I’ll start from there:

‘05: wins comfortably

‘06: wins comfortably, ‘06 Ned may be better against the rest of the field but 25 y/o Djokovic was a good enough ballstriker with too big an edge in the serve-return.

‘07 and ‘08: Nadal wins both or they split meetings as 27 y/o Djokovic I’m good form wouldn’t fold on second serve returns despite being a worse overall grass-courter than ‘08 Fed…still don’t see it being enough though.

‘09: it was a very hot/dry fortnight suited to big serving and Federer faced a bunch of bots serving out of their minds so I actually don’t think Djokovic is a shoo-in in his place. Still think he’s the pre-tournament favourite though.

In-post edit: wait I forgot about the age-swapping with Fed. Age 22 Fed was imperious at Wimby, don’t see Djoko being favoured there.

‘10: 29 y/o Djokovic was injured and lost to Querrey, needless to say he’s not winning here.

‘11: see above, injured again and Fed is 24 here.

‘12: 31 y/o Djokovic has his hands full with ‘12 Murray much less 25 y/o Fed (who IRL won Wimby losing only one set).

‘13: very unlikely to beat Murray, even unlikelier to beat Fed.

‘14: who knows how good a 33 y/o Djoko would’ve been (this was the COVID year) but Fed is the presumptive favourite again.

‘15: repeating myself here but even Murray would be a toughie, much less a still-20’s and still-formidable Fed at the tail-end of his Wimby prime.

‘16: Djokovic has a chance here, believe it or not. 29 y/o Fed sucked at Wimby, ‘16 Murray was great but I don’t think it’s an unwinnable match.

‘17: 30 year old Fed is the tournament favourite, IMO.

‘18: 31 year old Fed is the tournament favourite, though even ‘18 Nadal/Delpo slay an injury-ridden 37 year old Djokovic.


Range: 2-5 titles.


—

‘87-born Fed:

See above to get a sneak peek. Don’t really see much changing in his Age 22-28 years here. I’ll say he wins 6 out of 7 over that time, if only because winning 7 in a row is such a monumental proposition that I think he’d slip under the pressure or lose motivation once. With that, let’s skip to the more arguable years:

‘16: doesn’t win, was injured and playing like ****.

‘17: most likely wins.

‘18: most likely wins.

‘19: was injured, isn’t winning jack.

‘20: tournament wasn’t played, shame since he was in good enough form.

‘21: wins lol.

‘22: injured but barely lost to Raonic in 5 in the semis so, shrugs. Probably loses in the end.

‘23: wins.

‘24: injured, doesn’t beat Raz.

‘25: TBD, but hard to see anyone totally blowing 38 y/o Fed’s level out of the water.


Range: 9-11 titles.

@NatF @zagor @mike danny @Third Serve @metsman … greetings fellow Hypothetical Gangsters, thoughts?

Good stuff. Your good at these.

 

[SonnyT]

For '16 WB, Djokovic was already nursing a sore elbow! It persisted until '18 AO!

 

[zakopinjo]

Sure, I’m a glutton for punishment anyway.


‘81-born Djokovic probably isn’t making title-winning inroads until his Age 24 year, so I’ll start from there:

‘05: wins comfortably

‘06: wins comfortably, ‘06 Ned may be similar against the rest of the field but 25 y/o Djokovic was a good enough ballstriker with too big an edge in the serve-return.

‘07 and ‘08: Nadal wins both or they split meetings as 27 y/o Djokovic in good form wouldn’t fold on second serve returns despite being a worse overall grass-courter than ‘08 Fed…still don’t see it being enough though.

‘09: it was a very hot/dry fortnight perfect for big serving and Federer faced a bunch of bots serving out of their skin so I actually don’t think Djokovic is a shoo-in in his place. Still think he’s the pre-tournament favourite though.

In-post edit: wait I forgot about the age-swapping with Fed. Age 22 Fed was imperious at Wimby, don’t see Djoko being favoured there.

‘10: 29 y/o Djokovic was injured and lost to Querrey, needless to say he’s not winning here.

‘11: Injured again and Fed is 24 here.

‘12: 31 y/o Djokovic has his hands full with ‘12 Murray much less 25 y/o Fed (who IRL won Wimby losing only one set).

‘13: very unlikely to beat Murray, even unlikelier to beat Fed.

‘14: who knows how good a 33 y/o Djoko would’ve been (this was the COVID year) but Fed is the presumptive favourite again.

‘15: repeating myself here but even Murray would be a toughie, much less a still-20’s and still-formidable Fed at the tail-end of his Wimby prime.

‘16: Djokovic has a chance here, believe it or not. 29 y/o Fed sucked at Wimby, ‘16 Murray was great but I don’t think it’s an unwinnable match.

‘17: 30 year old Fed is the tournament favourite, IMO.

‘18: 31 year old Fed is the tournament favourite, though even ‘18 Nadal/Delpo slay an injury-ridden 37 year old Djokovic.


Range: 2-5 titles.


—

‘87-born Fed:

See above to get a sneak peek. Don’t really see much changing in his Age 22-28 years here. I’ll say he wins 6 out of 7 over that time, if only because winning 7 in a row is such a monumental task that I think he’d slip under the pressure that one time. I’m breaking my own stupid “all else remaining the same” rule to beat the favouritism rap.

With that, let’s skip to the more arguable years:

‘16: doesn’t win, was injured and playing like ****.

‘17: most likely wins.

‘18: most likely wins.

‘19: was injured, isn’t winning jack.

‘20: tournament wasn’t played, shame since he was in good enough form.

‘21: wins lol.

‘22: injured but barely lost to Raonic in 5 in the semis so, shrugs. Probably loses in the end.

‘23: wins.

‘24: injured, doesn’t beat Raz.

‘25: TBD, but hard to see anyone totally blowing 38 y/o Fed’s level out of the water.


Range: 9-11 titles; 10-12 w/o COVID.

@NatF @zagor @mike danny @Third Serve @metsman … greetings fellow Hypothetical Gangsters, thoughts?

You have only one mistake. Novak Djokovic became what he became because of Federer and Nadal. Novak 1981 would have a different development (much easier) against these aforementioned players, because he is simply better than them.

Federer1987 would have had Novak1981 in front of him (owner of 10+ slams), and thus Federer would have experienced a different development, he would also have had mental blocks against Novak in the most important matches.
Tennis is a living thing, not a computer simulation.

And one more thing, Federer1987 would not have been a great volley player.

 

[TheFifthSet]

You have only one mistake. Novak Djokovic became what he became because of Federer and Nadal. Novak 1981 would have a different development (much easier) against these aforementioned players, because he is simply better than them.

Federer1987 would have had Novak1981 in front of him (owner of 10+ slams), and thus Federer would have experienced a different development, he would also have had mental blocks against Novak in the most important matches.
Tennis is a living thing, not a computer simulation.

And one more thing, Federer1987 would not have been a great volley player.

To all your points: yeah perhaps, who knows?


The reason I keep surrounding factors the same is that not doing so is messier, not because I seriously think these things would play out in identical or linear fashions despite vastly different landscapes. The butterfly effect/common sense alone makes it insane to believe that.

Whichever way you choose to conduct time-travel/hypothetical tennis analysis, it will be fraught with problems. I just prefer this one. None of them are fair or even coherent. Like you said, real-life tennis is not a computer simulation.

 

[RF-18]

“Fell off” is kind of crazy when his 2009, 2011, and 2015 runs are quite a bit better than some of Djokovic’s runs you’ve listed here, namely the bolded ones. 2009 and 2011 themselves are probably better than all but 2011 and 2015, and maybe 2018.

Trust me, I know it’s fun to treat old Fed as a meme (I’ve done so on a few occasions, don’t get me wrong) but after Novak left his prime, he never put up a US Open run that was as good as Fed’s 2011. He certainly has the advantage in longevity but it’s not quite as massive as you imply, and the difference isn’t enough for me to tip the scales over to him.

Plus, some of Fed’s “weaker” runs like 2010 and 2012 are basically the equivalents of 2016 and 2021 for Djokovic, except he didn’t have a meme draw to the F (unlike 2016). Guarantee if you put that Djokovic in either of 2010 or 2012, he walks away from the tournament with not a F but a SF, and his performances are lumped in with his 2014 loss to Nishikori.

I mean seriously, if you do an age comparison of them year by year at the tournament after they had both left their primes…

2010 vs. 2016: Fed better
2011 vs. 2017: Fed better by default
2012 vs. 2018: Djokovic better
2013 vs. 2019: Equal
2014 vs. 2020: Fed better by default, but Djokovic had the potential to be better
2015 vs. 2021: Fed better
2016 vs. 2022: Neither played
2017 vs. 2023: Djokovic easily better
2018 vs. 2024: Equal

Like this does not come out as Djokovic being massively favored in longevity. Even if you give him both of 2020 and 2022 (and I’m not 100% sure he gets 2020), I don’t think it builds up to a massive advantage. And I don’t even think my picks here are that controversial. I think the most arguable one is probably 2010 vs. 2016.

If you want to excuse Djokovic for being injured in 2017 then you also can’t give him 2022 because Fed had his injury in 2016.

For me, that advantage in longevity, while notable, is not enough for Djokovic to completely overcome what I believe to be Fed’s clear superiority peak-for-peak. Even with Djokovic’s very best run at the US Open (2011) there are holes to poke into his level. His serving was unconvincing in the final and he had a shoulder injury by the time the match got to the fourth set. And he barely survived against a version of Federer who—while he was still good—didn’t have the movement and power off the ground as his younger self.

I don’t believe there are any such holes to poke into Fed’s two best performances (2004 and 2006). The best you could probably come up with is the Agassi QF in 2004 where Fed went five, but that had some of the worst wind I’ve ever seen in a professional tennis match which really screwed up the second half of the match (and besides it wasn’t too close to begin with—Fed could still have been down two sets to love, a break down in the fifth, and two match points on the opponent’s serve).

I’ve stirred up a hornet’s nest with that last post since four people have directly or indirectly (Gabe ) replied to it so I’ll leave it at that. All that’s to say that I think the case for Djokovic’s longevity here is overstated, and I think his finals count at the USO is padded by several dud runs that would have counted for SFs had he been in some of Fed’s losing draws.

Like Fed getting smoked by a genuinely red-hot Cilic is awful for him but Djokovic getting smoked by a perfectly fine but not exactly zoning Medvedev is enough to make the list? I dunno.

Jeesh, where tf is Kral when you need him?

Now you wanna add context to the fact that Federer was never a legit contender at USO outside a few years. Even using one year performance (2011) like one year suddenly can be universal, it doesn't work like that. You can't have one great year and then following that go out in quarter finals. After that 2011 bout, Federer lost to Berdych and Robredo. And we haven't even mentioned Federers first years in the Open. It took him till he was 23 to get past the first week. Djokovic was already making finals and semis at 19-20. So the pattern is seen in his young years as well there. He had a great run in his mid 20s, but that's pretty much it. Djokovic was consistently making finals from age 20 to 36. What are we even arguing here.



Injuries is part of the game so sure I'll concede that 2017 shouldn't be used here, but 2020 and 2022 (and 2022 where starting Wimbledon he went on a great run and had a real chance just like in 2020 to win the title). But anyway I mentioned these years just to show what a crazy run Djokovic has really been on at the USO since he was a teenager. He made all those finals (10) yet he had a disqualification and got banned from the country as well. Like @The Guru said earlier the set of circumstances that has kept Djokovic "just" at 4 is pretty ridiculous.

The longevity is not even close, ,an you are struggling this much to concede the difference. You are giving it, but you are doing it with alot of restraint.

 

[RS]

I personally think it's a stretch to put Fed ahead on HC and Djokovic ahead at the USO.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Now you wanna add context to the fact that Federer was never a legit contender at USO outside a few years. Even using one year performance (2011) like one year suddenly can be universal, it doesn't work like that. You can't have one great year and then following that go out in quarter finals. After that 2011 bout, Federer lost to Berdych and Robredo. And we haven't even mentioned Federers first years in the Open. It took him till he was 23 to get past the first week. Djokovic was already making finals and semis at 19-20. So the pattern is seen in his young years as well there. He had a great run in his mid 20s, but that's pretty much it. Djokovic was consistently making finals from age 20 to 36. What are we even arguing here.



Injuries is part of the game so sure I'll concede that 2017 shouldn't be used here, but 2020 and 2022 (and 2022 where starting Wimbledon he went on a great run and had a real chance just like in 2020 to win the title). But anyway I mentioned these years just to show what a crazy run Djokovic has really been on at the USO since he was a teenager. He made all those finals (10) yet he had a disqualification and got banned from the country as well. Like @The Guru said earlier the set of circumstances that has kept Djokovic "just" at 4 is pretty ridiculous.

The longevity is not even close, ,and it's absolutely crazy that you are struggling this much to concede the difference. You are giving it, but you are doing it with alot of restraint.

Ok that’s all well and good but….which years is he off on re: their late careers?


He’s giving specifics and you’re responding (mostly) in generalities. It’s not crazy, he just has a different and more granular way of comparing them as players.

But yea which years, and why?

 

[Third Serve]

Wow you were probably only a few keystrokes away from going over the character limit.

NonP would be proud

 

[Third Serve]

I think @Angrybirdstar is the real winner of this thread

 

[Third Serve]

The longevity is not even close, ,a you are struggling this much to concede the difference. You are giving it, but you are doing it with alot of restraint.

I haven’t struggled at all to concede a gap in longevity exists. My quibble is that this gap has been overstated.

 

[RS]

I think @Angrybirdstar is the real winner of this thread

For sure.

 

[mike danny]

Djokovic now better than Fed at USO? Djokovic fans are never satisfied