Krajicek: "peak Djokovic beats peak Federer"

  • Thread starter Deleted member 757377
  • Start date

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
BUT he would still make tougher competition LMAO
How would you know that if, hypothetically, Federer crushed him every time? That's the basis of a "weak era" argument in the first place. Fed crushed him so he must be weak. Nothing to do with Federer being arguably the greatest player that ever lived or taking Baghdatis's AO 2006 form and comparing it to Murray's, AO 2011 final form.
 
B

BrokenGears

Guest
You called old Agassi weak competition and old Fed strong competition, yep, no bias there. And I'm the one spouting bias. And like I said, young Nadal was better than anyone Djokovic faced in 2015-2016.

Fed would own Murray just like he owned everyone else, it doesn't matter if he is tougher or not. He wouldn't prevent Fed from adding slams.
he was stronger than 2005 Agassi and young Nadal was only peak on clay

maybe but he would be miles tougher
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
It’s funny to see the unvarying patterns of the Fed hate. The Djokovic fans start 400 new threads a month proclaiming Nole “GOAT,” while the VB’s merely wade en masse into Fed match threads to gloat when he’s losing. Also to toss out random “22 >15” reminders.
Let them let it all out before they get pressed even harder.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
USO 16 bad form and minor injury problems

FO 15 fluke performance
Fluke? You cannot be serious. You've got AO 2013-2015 + US Open 13 and US Open 16 to show you that FO 2015 wasn't a fluke. Their slam-matches have been extremely close, however their career h2h have been
 
B

BrokenGears

Guest
How would you know that if, hypothetically, Federer crushed him every time? That's the basis of a "weak era" argument in the first place. Fed crushed him so he must be weak. Nothing to do with Federer being arguably the greatest player that ever lived or taking Baghdatis's AO 2006 form and comparing it to Murray's, AO 2011 final form.
Uh you use stats?
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Explain how how your version of “peak” Fed is 2015, a year he went slamless. Why isn’t peak Fed one of the three years where he won 3/4 slams in 2004, 2006 or 2007?

It’s beyond laughable.
Your are mixing the level of performance with the outcome of performance. Explain to me difference between the 2 so that I know that you have enough gray matter for the discussion. BTW, Federer said that 2015 is his best version, so this is the end of the discussion about that.
 

TJfederer16

Hall of Fame
It’s funny to see the unvarying patterns of the Fed hate. The Djokovic fans start 400 new threads a month proclaiming Nole “GOAT,” while the VB’s merely wade en masse into Fed match threads to gloat when he’s losing. Also to toss out random “22 >15” reminders.
I know, think they forget that for over a year their man disappeared off of the face of the earth and they had all crawled into their little holes.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
he was stronger than 2005 Agassi and young Nadal was only peak on clay

maybe but he would be miles tougher
Young Nadal was good on grass too. He was actually giving peak Fed tough matches on that surface. And even if he was peak only on clay, at least he was peak on a surface. Old Fed wasn't peak on any surface. Young Nadal had clay under complete lockdown. There was no such player in 2015-2016, so Djokovic got an easy pass on every surface.

In the end, 2015 Fed troubled Novak in the USO final as much as 2005 Agassi troubled Fed in the USO final. Not much difference, or at least not a significant one to call 2015 Fed better. And you conveniently omitted 2004 Agassi, the real 34 year old Agassi same age as 2015 Fed.
 

Zhilady

Professional
4-3 Djokovic in slams
19-5 overall h2h

We’re talking peak levels, right? Peak Wawrinka is 2014-2016 (his Slam winning years).

Djokovic is 1-3 against peak Wawrinka at Slams.

If you’re going by overall H2H, peak Roddick > peak Djokovic. I don’t think you want to go that route, either.
 
B

BrokenGears

Guest
Young Nadal was good on grass too. He was actually giving peak Fed tough matches on that surface. And even if he was peak only on clay, at least he was peak on a surface. Old Fed wasn't peak on any surface. Young Nadal had clay under complete lockdown. There was no such player in 2015-2016, so Djokovic got an easy pass on every surface.

In the end, 2015 Fed troubled Novak in the USO final as much as 2005 Agassi troubled Fed in the USO final. Not much difference, or at least not a significant one to call 2015 Fed better. And you conveniently omitted 2004 Agassi, the real 34 year old Agassi same age as 2015 Fed.
Was he as good as 2014 Fed or 2015 on grass?

Pretty sure that they didn't play in 2004
AO 2011 and 2016, FO 2016.
You think Baggy played better than Mury in those matches? Really?
 

TJfederer16

Hall of Fame
Your are mixing the level of performance with the outcome of performance. Explain to me difference between the 2 so that I know that you have enough gray matter for the discussion. BTW, Federer said that 2015 is his best version, so this is the end of the discussion about that.
If you actually watched Roger back then, if you had eyes you would have clearly seen he was better. His agility and speed were 10x more explosive, his groundstrokes were brutal, he possessed the best forehand we've ever seen around that time. 2015 wasn't even as good as 2017 level wise. His level in 2015 was great at times but lacked consistency. For example at Wimbledon that year he peaked against Murray and played some incredible tennis, then his form took a nose dive in the final, that would have never happened at his 'real' peak. You say Roger said himself his 2015 form was his best form, apart from the fact I can't remember him saying this, although he may have done, I really doubt he actually believes it and if he does, he's wrong.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Nadal's 2015 was objectively better than Baggy's 2006 year

I'm still looking at everything else
How's that relevant? So when you look at say, the WTF 2009, you would also say that Rafa was a tougher opponent than Davydenko, cause he had a better year?
You primarily need to look at match stats, and after that tournament stats - not stats over a whole year - to judge how tough a given opponent was in a specific match.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I don't need stats to conclude that Ned sucked ass in 2015. I have my own eyes to judge. Slam final and a semi better than no slams semis. Ned was no better than your regular top 20 player in 2015. You going to these lengths to prop him up is laughable, especially since the point of comparison is Baghdatis, who wasn't even a rival of Fed's. :-D
 
If you actually watched Roger back then, if you had eyes you would have clearly seen he was better. His agility and speed were 10x more explosive, his groundstrokes were brutal, he possessed the best forehand we've ever seen around that time. 2015 wasn't even as good as 2017 level wise. His level in 2015 was great at times but lacked consistency. For example at Wimbledon that year he peaked against Murray and played some incredible tennis, then his form took a nose dive in the final, that would have never happened at his 'real' peak. You say Roger said himself his 2015 form was his best form, apart from the fact I can't remember him saying this, although he may have done, I really doubt he actually believes it and if he does, he's wrong.
Lol, go find some old Federer videos from 2005-06. He looks like slomo compared to older Fed. Not to mention that his serve was much worse, and his backhand was all about damage control.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Was he as good as 2014 Fed or 2015 on grass?

Pretty sure that they didn't play in 2004


You think Baggy played better than Mury in those matches? Really?
Peak Fed is 2004-2007.

Young Nadal wasn't that much worse than 2014-2015 Fed on grass. At least young Nadal had a ground game.
 
B

BrokenGears

Guest
How's that relevant? So when you look at say, the WTF 2009, you would also say that Rafa was a tougher opponent than Davydenko, cause he had a better year?
You primarily need to look at match stats, not stats over a whole year, to judge how tough a given opponent was.
I agree. It's harder to find those stats tho

It's still relevant
No, it's just your bias that's talking.
I have the stats for you to see, stats are unbiased
I don't need stats to conclude that Ned sucked ass in 2015. I have my own eyes to judge. Slam final and a semi better than no slams semis. Ned was no better than your regular top 20 player in 2015. You going to these lengths to prop him up is laughable, especially since the point of comparison is Baghdatis, who wasn't even a rival of Fed's. :-D
Your eyes aren't objective thankfully
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Lol, go find some old Federer videos from 2005-06. He looks like slomo compared to older Fed. Not to mention that his serve was much worse, and his backhand was all about damage control.
You are right. In 2005/6 he is a half-baked player compared to today.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
B

BrokenGears

Guest

NatF

Bionic Poster
It's not stats in total. It's an eye test too in some sense, plus watching Murray play Djokovic on slow plexi isn't going to be the same at all as Fed-Baghdatis on Rebound Ace. At any rate, the stats aren't that hard to find. They're in the link below from the ATP website.

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/scores/2006/580/MS001/match-stats?isLive=False
Better to use this site for slam matches;

https://matchstat.com/en/tennis/h2h-odds-bets/Marcos Baghdatis/Roger Federer

It's what I use.
 

ghostofMecir

Hall of Fame
How do you comment Kevin Anderson? Karlovic? Irrespective of them, Federer said it so that is it.
Anderson is 32...let’s see where he is at 34. Also, both he and Ivo are relative giants who can win points without much movement during half of the the match. Federer is 6’1” and Eisner have that luxury. His serve has been great because of GOAT placement and ball toss.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
eye tests aren't objective. The other part I agree

oh wow, im dumb, thx
No they aren't in total. But they can give an idea that someone played better than someone else over a 2 week period or in a specific match. Hence why using the entirety of one guy's career to say he was "better competition" (at one specific point) than another guy is also not really objective.
 
Top