mike danny
Bionic Poster
Don't argue with him. It's pointless. Federer has constantly been at his best for the last 15 year in his views.
Peak Djokovic (2011) is NOT better than peak Federer
- Thread starter revolutiontenniz
- Start date
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
If you look at ATG tennis players one would find that none have everything. Fedal fans have a hard time dealing with this. They demand and want fed to own everything.
The fact remains that that run from 2010 DC through AO 2012 was the greatest exhibition of peak level of smash mouth tennis ever witnessed.
Fed has the records majors and longest peak that is what it is.
It is really strange those who call themselves tennis fans would degrade that 2011-2012 as well as that 2015 and 4 majors in a row.
Sad fact Fedal fans are not tennis fans.
And to even say Fed was not playing near peak in 2011 is a f*cking joke.
The fact remains that that run from 2010 DC through AO 2012 was the greatest exhibition of peak level of smash mouth tennis ever witnessed.
Fed has the records majors and longest peak that is what it is.
It is really strange those who call themselves tennis fans would degrade that 2011-2012 as well as that 2015 and 4 majors in a row.
Sad fact Fedal fans are not tennis fans.
And to even say Fed was not playing near peak in 2011 is a f*cking joke.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
He wasn't. He went 9 months without a title between Doha and Basel. And twice he gave away a 2 sets to love lead.
I'm not saying he did not play at a high level in 2011, he certainly did. But it wasn't his peak. Was Djokovic at his peak post AO 2013 until the fall season in 2014?
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
They make it sound like if Federer 2011 had started losing to all and sundry players. Most of the time in 2011 he lost to players who were clearly superior from the pack he used to defeat in 2005-06. In 2011 he lost in AO to Djokovic, FO to Nadal, W to Tsonga (well not from ATG league but Fed had lost to him earlier as well) and USO to Djokovic. The truth is that Fed had never had multislam season beating this level of players. It is stupid to conclude based on this evidence that he started losing cause he has started to decline. He had never triumphed this kind of competition. All these decline theories are bogus. Did Djokovic decline in 2013 or 2014 ? No, he was out of form or failed to maintain level. If had declined in 2013 or 2014, we would not have seen 2015. All these theories of peak - non peak are figments of imaginations of fanboys to console themselves on defeats of their favs. These are great players and with time they invent new tool while letting go older tools. That doesn't make them any weaker. When they become weak they start on one way journey towards oblivion. See what is happening with Ferrer. That is decline. What happened with Rafa in 15-16 is being out of form when you lose to all and sundry and failed to make a single SF for two years. Same is what is happening to Djokovic in 2017. It is not decline when you losing to just top two players (who happened to be from the level you never dominated ) but defeating everyone else.
Anyways, if one has to believe in theories of peak or non-peak just to keep themselves happy, go ahead and do that. World is yours.
Melzer, Tsongax2, Berdych, Gasquet. 04-06 Fed doesn’t lose to these guys with such regularity.
He also doesn’t blow a 2 set and double MP lead to Djokovic at USO, or lose in straights at Dubai. He wouldn’t blow 2 set lead to Tsonga in a million years.
Fed was good enough to go 2 sets up but then his level dropped. 04-07 Fed wouldn’t have that drop and he’d likely win in 3 or 4 sets. See 08 match for reference.
I guess what we can take from your posts, is Nadal was at his peak in 2015. It’s just that likes of Fognini, Berdych, López etc too strong for him.
Last edited:
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
Outside big 4 In 2007 he lost to Guillermo Canas (IW), Guillermo Canas (Miami) Flippo Volandri (Rome), Nalbandian (Madrid Masters), Nalbandian (Paris Masters), Gonzalez (YEC tournament) - Total 6
Outside big 4 In 2011 he lost to Melzer (MC), Gasquet (Rome), Tsonga W, Tsonga (rogers cup) Berdych Cincinnati - Total 5
You can choose yourself outside big 4, which year he played better. It is as clear as broad daylight that age didn't become Federer's problem after 2008, big 4 became.
2007 itself was a drop off from 2004-2006. Evidenced by the Canas and Volandri defeats .
Djokovic wasn’t really a massive factor to beating Fed all the time until 2014 lol. Slams were 2-3 peak Nole vs post prime Fed with 1 match split by fine margins.
Federer’s problem after 2006/2007 was losing to lesser players with alarming frequency. Look at 08/09 the calibre of player he lost to the most. Hint, it wasn’t Nadal or Djokovic (outside of W/AO)
In 2007 he won 3 slams, 2 masters and WTF. It isn’t even close when comparing that type of season with 2011.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Is it really? Evidence points towards Fed not playing near peak given ANDY MURRAY passed him in the rankings. Just lol.
killerboi2
Hall of Fame
Yeah, I don't think there was any real sharp decline from Federer either. His competition started improving significantly from around late 2010/2011 mark as well. The frequent excuses from his fans do start to look a little silly, especially when he loses to top players like Nadal and Djokovic. Fans of Djokovic also have this weird problem, where they think if he hasn't played his utmost best in the match then the win doesn't count for whatever reason.
Pheasant
Legend
We have all learned that being old is a big advantage for the sport of tennis. We always thought that players were more prone to injuries as they aged. But the opposite has been shown to be true. We are learning that the older you get, the less a player gets injured and the better he is.
With these new revelations, we need to reconsider Fed’s peak years.
2008 was Federer’s 3rd best year. Fed was still young that year, which is a disadvantage. However, mono helped him immensely. His 2nd best year was 2013. Playing with bad back at 31-32 years old while using an outdated racket was even more beneficial than mono, although Söderling might disagree.
But Federer’s true peak year was in 2016. Federer never played better. His knee was never healthier and he was just entering the prime age for tennis. However, the competition was far better. A 2006 version of Federer playing with a modern racket would have been lucky to crack the top 100 in 2016.
But the good news for Fed’s fans is that Fed will hit an even higher peak. This peak will happen when Fed turns 50.
With these new revelations, we need to reconsider Fed’s peak years.
2008 was Federer’s 3rd best year. Fed was still young that year, which is a disadvantage. However, mono helped him immensely. His 2nd best year was 2013. Playing with bad back at 31-32 years old while using an outdated racket was even more beneficial than mono, although Söderling might disagree.
But Federer’s true peak year was in 2016. Federer never played better. His knee was never healthier and he was just entering the prime age for tennis. However, the competition was far better. A 2006 version of Federer playing with a modern racket would have been lucky to crack the top 100 in 2016.
But the good news for Fed’s fans is that Fed will hit an even higher peak. This peak will happen when Fed turns 50.
3lite
Professional
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-best-tennis-player-of-all-time.603038/page-7
2011 Novak Djokovic is the greatest the world has ever seen.
Undeniable.
2011 Novak Djokovic is the greatest the world has ever seen.
Undeniable.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
On outdoor hard they probably did. Federer was a little better at the HC slams on aggregate but Djoker better at the masters on aggregate.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
You mentioned 2004-07 in your own post. I immediately provided you evidence that in 2007 he lost more outside big 4 than in 2011. So if there was no big 4, his 2011 would have been as good as 2007. He would have won AO if there was no Djokovic, would have won FO if there was no Nadal and again would have won USO if no Djokovic and Nadal. He would have had 3 slam years.
Now you are removing and changing your period to 2004-06. I can break that as well but than instead of accepting truth, you'll again change the argument. So no point in even trying.
Except his loss to Tsonga at Wimbledon proves this to be false.
2011 Fed is now peak. Ok Nadal peaked in 2015. Djokovic 2017.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
Knew you wouldn't accept the fact that outside big 4 Federer lost more in 2007 then in 2011. Facts are there. Numbers are there. You told 2007 was part of peak Fed and that argument has been put to shredder. Rest you can keep regurgitating same peak-non peak imaginative theories. I am a Nadal fan, but I wouldn't say that he lost to Djokovic in FO 2015 as he was past his peak. Yes he was out of form for whole year but if I say that he was losing to Djokovic because he was physically declined than I would be being dishonest just like bunch of Fed Fans who try to attribute Fed's losses to his physical decline. Physical decline is one way journey and if Federer had started that journey in 2007 then by now, full 10 years after that start, he should be geriatric. Anyways you can keep beating same tune but for most of the ears, that would just be cacophony.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
No sir, as you said being young is advantage. That's why Fed in 98 when 17 years old was best version of Federer. In fact that's why all GS are won by players of age of 18-19. As they grow old they keep getting dimnished. All players are at their peak when they start as they were youngest then.
I agree with all these theories. Thank You for enlightening me.
Last edited:
But if there is a pre-peak there is probably also a post-peak right? Would you agree it was a clear decline in Djokovic level second half of 2016 compared to the first half? And if you agree Djokovic declined at 29y isnt it also a possibility that Federer could have declined?
I find it strange that so many people seem to believe that the only reason for him winning less post AO2010 is the rise of Djoko/Rafa, and that his own decline has nothing to do with it.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
He had started winning less after year 2007. In 2008 he won just one GS. In 2009 he won two (both thanks he could avoid Rafa). In 2010 he won just one.
So his drought didn't kick in at AO 2010. His drought kick in as early as after USO 2007. After that he could win any GS only when he didn't have to play Nadal and Djokovic (with an exception of USO 2008).
Isn't age of 26 too early for age related decline to kick in? Particularly more when you are doing physically fine enough to win two GS and 3 masters at the age of 36?
If you think objectively, it's not so difficult to find why most of the people believe that Fed's winning rate slowed down with emergence of big 3, not because age related decline.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Given that he's the oldest YE#1 and can play 80+ matches in a season at 31 we can safely conclude Nadal has never been injured, if you think objectively. The only reason he won 2 slams in 2017 is because his main rival is a 36 year old part time player, Nadal's actual level of play was just as high as it was in 2015 and 2016.
He's also as good on grass as he's always been, there's just much more depth now which is why he can't pass the 4th round for 6 years.
Not to forget, most people believe Nadal is a CC specialist who can only win when the conditions are slow which is why we can, objectively speaking conclude that he'd win zero slams off clay in any other era putting his historical place in the game in perspective. They also believe some other things about him as I'm sure you know but I'd rather not go into detail about.
Last edited:
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
It depends on one's level of stupidity. Any dog and his turd knows that when an influx of players the quality of Nadal and Djokovic + Murray come along that whoever was winning before will win less in the future, assuming they are adding to a collective rather than replacing a like-for-like collective; but that same dog and his massive (and I'm talking gargantuan here because it reads tennis warehouse) pile of **** will also spot things going on with that former dominant force itself, be able to weigh cause and effect and realise that contexts are nuanced things that aren't merely binary.
abmk
Bionic Poster
wait, are we talking about the same djokovic who got his a** kicked by Tommy Haas ? he'd stop federer at wimbledon in 2009 ? LOL, ha ha ha
same goes for djokovic who lost to tsonga at AO 10 and then tsonga got destroyed in straight sets by federer.
Federer in his prime (2004-09) was 4-1 vs djokovic (only loss coming in AO 08 , when he was affected by mono, federer would've been slightly favored in AO 08, if not for that). Federer also beat Djokovic 3 times in a row from 2007-09 at the USO.
-------------
Federer was in better form than Nadal as well in AO 10 and would've beaten him (considering Murray was beating him even before the injury)
Wim 09 -- Nadal may not even have got to the final (facing a draw of Hewitt, Roddick, Murray).
A single match b/w federer nadal at Wimbledon alone, would be 50-50. If somehow Nadal got to the final with that draw, Nadal's chances would certainly be less than 50%.
RG 09, yes, federer got lucky in that he didn't have to beat Nadal, but Soderling beat him in 4 sets fair and square and FEderer beat him.
oh and of course Murray is excluded here from your bullsh*t because Federer kicked his a** in both USO 08 and AO 10.
Post #319 also exposes your BS.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
Injuries don't necessarily mean physical decline though some injuries may cause permanent decline. When Rafa is not able to win at Wimby but able to win so comfortably at FO, I wouldn't say that he is physically declined to win at W. I would say his grass game hasn't been good and it's his fault not of some external factor like age.
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
If five year s younger ATGS like Nadal and Djoko hadn't been around when Fed hit 30 then sure, yes, he might have won a few more titles. But tennis players in their thirties don't have the speed, stamina and mental endurance they had in their twenties. You can make up a bit for that in experience and maturity (as we saw in the way Fed was better prepared mentally to face Nadal in 2017) but not that much.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
My point is not much different from what you are saying. I totally agree that Fed would have won few more in his 30's if he didn't have to contend with this new group. Similarly I would say that he would have won few less if this group was present in 2004-07. But suggestions that GS count of Fed has no relation with emergence of Nadal/Djokovic is ludicrous.
zagor
Bionic Poster
None of which matters to Nadal because he's never really been there. I mean, numerous supposed injuries in early 20s but can run like a gazelle and reach 3 slam finals at 31? They all magically got better, LOL!
Indeed, Nadal only won 2008 WImbledon because he avoided serve and volleyers like Muller and Dustin Brown, they are combined 4-1 on grass against him afterall. I always knew BP was right.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Some superb posting from zagor and NN and a bunch of confused kids.
Yay!
Yay!
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
You digressing from the subject. I nowhere made any comment on Nadal's competency on Grass court. This thread has got nothing to do with Nadal independently.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Equally ludicrous is the suggestion that Federer's drops in form have no relation to Nadal/Djokovic's slam counts. Your disingenuous claims about not seeing a difference in Federer's level of play across many years paints you as a bit of a muppet. Especially when you have no trouble pointing out changes in form for Nadal and Djokovic...
zagor
Bionic Poster
The points and analogies I've made are very much correlated with the discussion we're having.
They serve a purpose in establishing some ground rules such as whether we hold every player to this idealistic "no excuses" standard or just Fed.
NatF
Bionic Poster
It's only Federer, Nadal is apparently the best player of all time - he's just a little inconsistent, all his losses were when he wasn't at his best, where as Federer simply wins by being a vulture with his consistency - when he loses it was simply to better players.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Well done @ForumMember! You are the only one in the discussion not giving insults to the others
Vamos
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yeah, he is such a fair poster with such terrific arguments and definitely no bias at all.Well done @ForumMember! You are the only one in the discussion not giving insults to the others
Vamos
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Not more bias than anyone else in the discussion
mike danny
Bionic Poster
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
You are no saint yourself dear
NatF
Bionic Poster
Well done @ForumMember! You are the only one in the discussion not giving insults to the others
Vamos
ForumMember is an awful poster. The stock of anyone that defends him falls as well BTW
mike danny
Bionic Poster
No one is. I never claimed I was.
But there is a difference between posters like myself and posters like him.
zagor
Bionic Poster
It sort of became this ultimate backhanded compliment. Fed is so consistent, so injury free, has such an effortless game, amazing longevity, is perfect at scheduling etc. which obviously proves that all of his slam titles are due to his opportunistic vulturing of weak eras. He never gets injured, has an off day, didn't even a lose a fraction of footspeed in the last 14 years etc. so if he gets beat there can be to no other reason than his opponent's superlative play. For other players though, you get a frikkin list as long as your arm.
I mean there are certainly better arguments in Novak or Nadal's favour (Novak's competition in 2011, winning 4 in a row, Nadal's unprecedented dominance on clay and Wimbledon win over Fed etc.) than proclaiming Fed to be this ageless vampire. I doubt anyone's truly deluded enough to believe that despite what they claim.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Its just because he has another fav than youForumMember is an awful poster. The stock of anyone that defends him falls as well BTW
You are very similar, just he insult others less than yourself
mike danny
Bionic Poster
So now me calling him out means I am insulting him? Well, when he speaks absolute nonsense, someone has to call him out, right? I mean you had no problem calling Fed fans a horrible fanbase.
It's funny seeing you complaining how terrible and horrible the Fed fans are, worst fanbase ever etc, bu here you are defending ForumMember.....
I'm sure if he was a Fed fan you wouldn't even bother defending him. But because he is a Nadal fan, here you are.
And LOL at calling us similar.
NatF
Bionic Poster
There's simply a lack of integrity on here - and it does go both ways. So many double standards.
I like plenty of Nadal fans, I like plenty of Djokovic fans - there are plenty of Federer fans I don't like.
You won't catch me applauding one-dimensional Fedfans who use broken logic and spend more time hating on another player than they do supporting their own.
But to each his/her own, most posters on this forum see things as you do. Everyone is in their own camp where all that matters is who they're supporting, it doesn't matter what the content of their argument is. It would be like me supporting some random Fedfan for calmly arguing that Nadal is just a dirtballer who got lucky with slowed surfaces. Should I applaud such a poster for only insulting our intelligence and logic and not our character?
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
His arrogance is obvious, as is yours.
Certainly agreeable Nadal fans exist, like vanioman and Bender. It's the personality, not fan allegiance. There's no shortage of arrogant Fed fans either, e.g. Kingroger, only since he's on "our" side, I find him hilarious rather than annoying - that's where the fan question apparently matters.Actually, an arrogant but knowledgeable poster can still be decent - abmk and nolefam as an example, both fiercely opinionated, but basing their opinions on actual match viewing experience/analysis as much as general factoids. You aren't that though, I only see you bemoan Fedfans' supposedly massive unfairness at every turn, while almost unquestionably siding with fellow Rafans. Such impartial, much unbiased, so tennis analyst.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Think we need AO to start!
Arent you guys ever getting tired of discussing same stuff over and over?
zagor
Bionic Poster
Oh definitely, I plain disagree with for example Fed fans who use his 2011 FO win over Novak (or 2 MPs at 2011 USO) to proclaim his superiority in these type of scenarios.
So many variables go into every match (form, match-up, level on the day, draw etc.) to draw such blanket conclusions. Not to mention that I do consider Fed's 2011 FO run to have been one of his best ones when it comes to clay.
RudyHuxtable
Semi-Pro
2006 Fed vs 2011 Nole would be fun to watch
mike danny
Bionic Poster
No, it's not just those matches.
At the USO Novak has never had it easy against Fed, not even in 2015. It's safe to assume based on a set of 6 matches that Novak wouldn't be getting the better of Fed at the USO overall like other posters are saying.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Tell that to ForumMember who says the same ridiculous stuff over and over.
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
Excellent post. We're all biased and that's fine so long as we acknowledge it. When I joined here I nearly chose a neutral username but then decided it was fairer to let people know where I was coming from.
But you can easily spot the posters who are trying to be rational and those who think their support of a player entitles them to switch off their brain entirely.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
It's easy to spot the irrational posters.
When you see stuff like "Since 2008", you already know you're dealing with a Fed hater and possibly a Nadal fan.
When you see stuff like "Nadal is just a clay courter", you already know you're dealing with a Nadal hater.
Sometimes it's too easy to spot them.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
