Pat Cash: Djokovic is better than Federer at his best

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Maybe Djokovic is better at his best, but not greater. Two separate things. Being better means evolution, level of play. And any new generation has this. But this doesn't mean greatness.

I'm sure that 20 years from nr. 10 in the world could beat peak versions of Rafa, Fed, Nole. But that is because he has a head start in accumulated knowledge (evolution), not because he is greater.

I'm sure Roddick is better than Laver and could beat Lavers ground strokes easily, but in greatness he doesn't come close.

There will be a lot of players in the future with better skills on clay than Rafa, but I doubt anyone will be able to replicate his results.

Better doesn't mean greater. I knew more than Einstein did at his age. But this is just accumulated knowledge, I'm not greater.

Rafa, Nole may be better than Fed, like any new generation is better, but they are not greater.
 

Julian12

New User
Djokovic has almost as good a serve these days, equal touch at net, just comes in a lot less.

Arguably better lobs, even thou Rog has a good onehandet backhand lob.

Better baseline game, more athletic, not as good a mover, or smooth. Not as easy on the eye as when Roger is playing his best.
But mostly, Roger makes quiet many sloppy hits, he should has the touch to his advantage Roger,
but it´s like he can hit these ridiculous touch halfvolleys when he truely commits to it, but it´s like he tends to get too casual and sloppy, making them too airy, when he infact does posseses some of the best natural feel and talent the sport has ever seen. It´s sad to see. H´s arguably a good volleyer, very good, but that could also be due to his anticipation, reflexes and reach rather than his ridiculous feel, ofcause he has that, but he also has a great drive volley and overhead. Djokovic is imo the most complete player of them all, only awkvard looking thing is that he tends to fall on the grass, but that´s because he tries to slide probably. Both legends thou..
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
Cash can compare results if he wants, but the thing is if prime Federer and prime Djokovic were playing against each other Federer would win all their meetings at RG, Wim and US Open (and MAYBE the Australian Open too). Because look at what a 30-year-old is doing to prime Djokovic.....

So true.

Prime for prime, only Rafa stands up to Fed.
 

Fiji

Legend
Federer, Lendl and Sampras only won 2 slams after turning 28. but the ****s think djokovic will win many slams after 28. lol. delusional. this will be nole's last great year and last year where he wins multiple slams. think roger after 2009.
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
Federer, Lendl and Sampras only won 2 slams after turning 28. but the ****s think djokovic will win many slams after 28. lol. delusional. this will be nole's last great year and last year where he wins multiple slams. think roger after 2009.

I guarantee you wou're wrong.
Nole will win at least 4 more slams.
 

90's Clay

Banned
I do not see the djoker having the same aura as fed once did. Back in the old days people felt like they lost before they even got on the court against fed. People used to call fed 'invincible', yet we do not hold that same view against djoker despite his impressive season. The way i see it is if a post prime fed has one of the best shots in beating a prime djoker (and has done so fairly since the 2 other matches lost were from retirement), prime fed > prime novak.


That's because Feds Main competitor was Roddick and sciatica ridden Agassi who was 11 years older than Federer
 

Julian12

New User
So true.

Prime for prime, only Rafa stands up to Fed.
Only agressive player with a more impressive display of touch mixed with awesome groundies were prolly Nalbandian the few times he played well,

i can´t praise that Guys talent enough, i know a lot of people think he´s vastly overrated, but no doubt he knew how to hit most shots to perfection...

Federer is by far the better player of the two, there´re no comparing really. What Federer always did outstanding were to come up with good serves when needet,
not only the serve, but to overall peak at the right moments, in tiebreaks f.eks.

The other thing is his movement, and ofcause his wrist which enable him to really angle difficult shots on the run, and also, his footwork, and well, also his firepower, and well, his defensive game is among the best ever, his defensive slice both off of the backhand AND the forehand side, which enables him to neutrolise the opponents flow, and give him not much power to Work with. That´s Federers strongpoints to me. He does have finesse, but it´s more his footwork and ability to disquise his dropshots i´m impressed with,

also at net, it´s not his dropvolleys or something i´m impressed with, it´s his quickness and firmness, his reactions and reflexes, then he has the touch, but it´s often a bit sloppy i think, other times brilliant thou... No one´s '"PeRFect" lol.
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
Yes, certainly, Nalbandian always gave Roger all he could handle.

It's a bit like Ferreira always giving Sampras trouble, while he couldn't take a set of Agassi.
 

un6a

Semi-Pro
Federer, Lendl and Sampras only won 2 slams after turning 28. but the ****s think djokovic will win many slams after 28. lol. delusional. this will be nole's last great year and last year where he wins multiple slams. think roger after 2009.

But Roger won only 2 slams afetr turning 28, not because he is old (he is still very good), but because players like Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka finally matured and reached their primes.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
But Roger won only 2 slams afetr turning 28, not because he is old (he is still very good), but because players like Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka finally matured and reached their primes.

Like Murray and Wawrinka would ever do any damage to prime Federer.
 

Julian12

New User
Yes, certainly, Nalbandian always gave Roger all he could handle.

It's a bit like Ferreira always giving Sampras trouble, while he couldn't take a set of Agassi.
I actually think that in most of their matches, even some of which Roger won, exept Basel 2008, and Wimby 2011, Nalbandian could outhit Roger from both wings almost it seemed, and showed at times superior finesse, both from the back of the Court and at the net, that´s maybe also due to Roger focusing less on his net and finesse game in his later primeyears, he always had it, Nalbandian became a touch player in his later career while still having these vicious groundstrokes. Look at his match against Santoro in A0 07 i think it is, almost as impressive as when Roger beat him the year after in the same tournament.
 

volleynets

Hall of Fame
Pat Cash has been taking these opinions like throwing crap at a wall and seeing what sticks. Those of you who haven't heard him, go look up what he's been saying. As the poster above said, he's been plenty wrong and either knows he's lying in case he's right and then says "told you all along" or is delusional. It's like Wilander's comments on Federer. Too bad Wilander had no balls when he played Cash.
 

kishnabe

Talk Tennis Guru
Well baby Murray straight-setted Fed in 2006!

God-mode Wawrinka was about like God-mode Safin so yes he could also hurt any version of Fed.
Yes when MS1000 had no break matches in R1...and Federer won almost every tournament.

It not like Djokovic has not lost to scrubs this year.....

Murray however good he was in 2006...did not beat a 100 percent Federer.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Well baby Murray straight-setted Fed in 2006!
Geriatric Federer's been taking prime/peak Murray to the cleaners!


Nadalgaenger said:
God-mode Wawrinka was about like God-mode Safin so yes he could also hurt any version of Fed.
Safin's forehand/backhand combo was more devastating, he was also a better mover than Wawrinka.

No, I don't see "peak Wawrinka" beating Fed twice in majors. Heck, Safin didn't do that himself.
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
Yes when MS1000 had no break matches in R1...and Federer won almost every tournament.

It not like Djokovic has not lost to scrubs this year.....

Murray however good he was in 2006...did not beat a 100 percent Federer.
So what excuse do we have for Fed's loss? Pre-mono?
 
Top