RS
Bionic Poster
He finished him off often before they got close often pre 29. But in peaks between the two you will have lots of close matches and Fed has been worse off than Djokovic in those.
Peak Djokovic vs Peak Federer...... splitting hairs?
- Thread starter MichaelNadal
- Start date
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Peak to peak means non-peak is hardly relevant.
Djokovic had 5 SPs to bagel Nadal there, if Federer peaked higher it follows he should have hypothetically bagelled Nadal. Don't believe that. Djokerer matchup is different of course but this near-bagel is quite convincing.
Think Fed's IW peak is clearly better though, peak djo at IW would be 2011/15 and his handling of aulderer wasn't particularly impressive. At the same time, no evidence for either's superiority in 1st fall, 2006 v 2015 both dominated a somewhat limp field convincingly. So I give Fred IW/3rd clay/Cincy and Djo the rest of masters except 1st fall which is even, that is 5-3 Djo - but Fred's 2-1 in slams (RG deemed even, 2011 an outlier given circumstances so can't profess) is more significant obviously, plus slightly higher YEC peak.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
RS
Bionic Poster
Federer was worse even before he got older in a close matches imo. I disagree slightly about Federer prime as well.
TheAssassin
Legend
When it comes to peak, Djokovic is up there with anyone. Combined with his stunning front running as well as clutch skills, and when taking the whole tennis calendar into account, he is the best player I have watched alongside Federer. It's not controversial to me if you are slightly leaning towards Fed as he has sustained his peak for longer but suggesting there is a significant gap between them is going overboard because both in terms of their levels and results the difference is really small.
Breakpointerer
Legend
Overall it's pretty much a coinflip.
NatF
Bionic Poster
abmk
Bionic Poster
2008 MC was part of fed's peak at MC. Hence I mentioned it. Djokovic was by no means playing below par.
I thought it was 2 SPs that Djokovic had vs Nadal at MC, but turns out it was 5 SPs. The point is Djokovic matchup is different. And even if it wasn't that much different, it'd be atleast a bit arrogant to say fed would bagel that Nadal.
I can see people saying tied or djoko better at MC, but one could argue the other way around as well.
Re: IW, that's part of why I said I would give fed the edge myself.
I think Madrid 06 level from fed was better than anything djoko has shown at shanghai.
Also fed's win in 14 over a well playing djokovic at Shanghai is a data point that matters.
I don't consider RG 11 an outlier. the conditions helped federer compensate for him not being exactly at his physical peak.
There's also fed beating delpo in RG 09, while djoko lost to wawr in RG 15.
djoko doesn't have any wins at RG approaching that of delpo 09 or djoko 11 vs a well playing opponent.
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
He saved the worst for Hamburg though.Before the worst choke imaginable
NatF
Bionic Poster
Oh it was Hamburg that had the infamous capitulation.
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
Federer can beat Peak Djokovic. Djokovic can also beat Peak Federer. I'd say Djokovic has a higher peak but Federer has the matchup advantage.
Just watching highlights of this and it makes me wonder. Fed BARELY got by Novak in 2 tiebreaks and finally a break in the 3rd in 2007. We know what happened AO 2008. Djokovic also was beating Nadal in 2007 as well. I have 2 questions.
1. How good was Djokovic in 2007 compared to later on? I think his level is WAY too underrated. The man was already FANTASTIC in 07 and 08, granted he took a dip in 2010.
2. If they were both at their peaks who would win most of the matches? Obviously I like Fed more, but I have no horse in the race. Sway me please.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Pretty slim reasoning for MC really... no overwhelming evidence either way though, no surprise whoever wins. The near-bagel still more convincing imo.
Madrid 06 vs Shanghai 15, both about equal runs, don't see a clear point to tip the scales.
2011 RG SF was definitely an outlier for how clutch Federer was, outside of 1/13 BPs in set 2. Quite above par. Overall Djokovic hasn't had a super shiny RG run either so no judgment here. 2-1 in slams is enough for superiority anyway hehe.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic also had a pretty good Shanghai 2018 run (yeah, Career Inflation Era, I know). Didn't get broken once if memory serves me right.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
True, I think he was better in 2015 SF/F though. Bit sharper. Coulda made an extra break vs Coric in '18 F.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I have federer converting 2/10 BPs in the 1st set.
RG 2011 SF is definitely not an outlier for clutch by prime fed standards By 2011 standards? Yeah, probably.
Fed used to win many of close or somewhat close sets when playing well vs djokovic - USO 2007 1st&2nd set, USO 2008 3rd set, USO 2009 all 3 sets (even won Wim 12 3rd set after FO 11)
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
2/3 in games though. Also saved double SP at 4-5 with big serving. Fred was top clutch from 2-4 in the first and the end of the fourth, and while he wasted plenty of BPs in the second he saved both BPs with aces iirc.
Federer was the better player in all those sets though except USO 07. Players feel which one has the slight advantage at the moment and it affects mental makeup, which is why top players win most TBs for example. RG 11 is remarkable for winning very close sets having not been the slightly better player until the end. Did that as well in USO 11 (set 1) and WB 14 (sets 1 and 4) but no win sadly. Did the opposite - losing a set where he was the better player - in USO 15 (set 3) and WB 19 (also set 3)...
Anyway, point is I can't vouch Federer has the higher base peak/prime level than Djokovic at RG so can't promise a win. The opposite is also true. Too close to call reliably.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Fraud has given 4 6-2 or better sets to Nadal on clay, and in 2 of them Nadal was probably better than 13 MC first set. No doubt that peak Federer would be able to tee off on slow short balldal.
06-08 was so much better than 13 at MC that it's really not even worth comparing.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
None at MC, dohoho.
abmk
Bionic Poster
1st set of RG 11 - fed also lost 2/2 BPs on his serve at first before saving those 2 SPs. clutch at the end, but may not even have been needed if he was broken only once and not twice.
3rd set - lost by a break. saved 2/3 BPs. did not generate a single BP. not sure how that is worth mentioning as clutch.
Edit: Fed's DR in that RG 2011 match was 1.22.
[[(67*141)/(168*46)]]
Summarily: clutch at end of 1st set, end of 4th set, not clutch at start of 1st set nor in 2nd set. By no means was it out of the ordinary clutch by fed prime standards.
USO 08 3rd set was fairly even till fed pulled away from 5 all.
Even Wim 12 3rd set IIRC.
@ bold part: That's your opinion.
To me , fed has the edge at RG. RG 2011 SF, RG 2009 SF and RG 2015 F are sufficient enough data points to seperate.
Last edited:
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah Fred couldn't keep up with Djo in sets 3/4 until Djo serving for the fourth, indicative of his post-prime state, yet managed to bring his best just in time to break back and clinch the TB - terrific clutch this.
Don't think delpo v stan is a one-on-one comparison since JMDP let the fourth set go while Wawr fought back from 0-3 down. Anyway, Fred may win for sure, I just don't think it's a given.
abmk
Bionic Poster
not how I remember the 4th set and TA point by point backs me up:.
Federer lost 1 point on serve in his 1st 4 service games. djoko lost 6. Given the way the set was going, it looked to be going to a TB without any breaks.
Fed holds at love
Djoko holds at 30
fed holds at 15
djoko holds at 15
fed holds at love
djoko holds at 30 after being down 0-30
fed holds at love
djoko holds at 15
then long game where djoko breaks
federer breaks back with a great game
point is both were red-hot.
stan didn't play well in the 1st set.
Not sure if djoko would be able to take a red hot stan like delpo of the 2nd set to a TB (TB was one where delpo faltered in the whole of 1st 3 sets. fed couldn't even break him till the start of the 4th set)
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Okay. I said Fed may win, just not so convinced to be willing to insist on it unlike you. Either way he's got the higher peak in slams. We've always agreed Federer is the peakest of the three and possibly ever, what's the problem. I didn't imply you were being unreasonable. Obviously partial to Federer, but given his positive matchup with Djokovic it might be the correct judgment.
abmk
Bionic Poster
no problem at all. Just pointing out why I disagreed and why fed's level of clutchness in RG 11 was nothing out of ordinary by prime fed standards.
RaulRamirez
Legend
You think it's acceptable to believe Novak has a fifty-fifty shot against peak Roger at Wimbledon based on his matches against him in his mid to late 30s?
RaulRamirez
Legend
Mostly, I was making a quick word play, but..
.
I think that overall Federer is the more classic grass player, and has been better at Wimbledon, but it's hardly off-the-wall - let alone blasphemous (even to the tennis gods) - to posit that peak Novak would have a 50-50 shot against peak Roger.
I'm not huge on head-to-head or on hypotheticals, but also, I don't give someone an automatic pass for being 5 or 6 years older, or for counting close calls as projected wins...or for pinpointing peak and prime to sell my arguments. We know how subjective people get. My guess is that Novak at his best has the skills to neutralize Roger at his best at Wimbledon, but I put Fed's level a little higher.
Blasphemy? That would be saying with a straight face that Bernie Tomic has done more for Australian tennis than Rod Laver.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well, he was up 4-0 against Nadal at 2008 MC before collapsing.
Chances are 2013 Nadal doesn't come back from that deficit.
Beckerserve
Legend
Federer by a distance. At their best Federer does everything better bar perhaps BH. Even ROS was in federer wheelhouse at his peak. He dismantled big servers more than Djokovic.
Just watching highlights of this and it makes me wonder. Fed BARELY got by Novak in 2 tiebreaks and finally a break in the 3rd in 2007. We know what happened AO 2008. Djokovic also was beating Nadal in 2007 as well. I have 2 questions.
1. How good was Djokovic in 2007 compared to later on? I think his level is WAY too underrated. The man was already FANTASTIC in 07 and 08, granted he took a dip in 2010.
2. If they were both at their peaks who would win most of the matches? Obviously I like Fed more, but I have no horse in the race. Sway me please.
I have the utmost respect for djokovic but there is a reason why two guys are way out in front on 20 Majors while he languishes at 17 in his mid 30s. His peak level simply not as high as Federer or Nadal.
The better comparison is Nadal v Federer.
Biotic
Hall of Fame
Federer had 17 slams at 35, back in 2016 you dimwit.
Beckerserve
Legend
It is 2020 bud.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yea it's 2020 and Djokovic is only 33, or did that point completely fly over your head?
Beckerserve
Legend
Only 33 lol. Djokovic missed the boat slam race wise. Too far back now.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Your posts get more ridiculous by the day and you can no longer hide your fear and frustration of Djokovic. You desperately want him to be done but like this poster so accurately pointed out, Federer was sitting on 17 Slams at 35. Djokovic still has two more years to do nothing at the Slam level and still have time to catch him if he can stay at the top. So good luck.
Beckerserve
Legend
Time will tell. Maybe he will more likely he won't. His fear of bo5 does not inspire confidence tbh.
I like to live in the present. Today it is 20-20-17. Huge advantage for the boys on 20.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
Bro he got spanked and then scraped through by millimeters at the USO.
As to the thread, yes it’s splitting hairs. And while less consistent, the peakiest versions of Nadal is right there with them. However they wind up stat padding in different ways, none of them has convincingly seperated themselves from the others
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
His fear of BO5?? Wtf are you talking about? The man who won more BO5 Slam matches than anyone else in the OE, except Federer who played 6 years longer, is suddenly afraid to play a BO5 match?
Yea and at the present, Federer is 39 and may no longer be a moving target. Like I said, good luck.
Beckerserve
Legend
Djokovic want slams to be bo3 bud. Said that yesterday or day before. Nadal is a moving target at FO and UO and Federer has a W left in him and i have a hunch he would love Djokovic in the final next year at Sw19 where he would do what Nadal did to him in Paris.His fear of BO5?? Wtf are you talking about? The man who won more BO5 Slam matches than anyone else in the OE, except Federer who played 6 years longer, is suddenly afraid to play a BO5 match?
However time will tell. 2020 ends 20-20-17. So forgive me for being contented.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
I don’t think Djokovic is clearly better at RG than Fed he’s just better against Nadal, and even then peakovic just got an extra set in 13 for his trouble
they haven’t met enough there to give it one or the other
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
dude have you see Nextgen? Djokovic will retire with 40 slams at the age of 45
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
He also said it over 2 years ago and then won 4 more Slams since he made those comments. You are really lost if you think someone with a much better 5 set record than either Federer or Nadal, and only 2nd to Borg as far ATGs goes, is suddenly afraid of them. Lol. You're salivating at the thought of that happening at SW19. Gonna suck if it just ends up being smugness being wiped off your face.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
What if it's true though, huh?
The AO claim was quite bold indeed. Not the one you're quoting though. Nadal was 6-2'd by Trough and let Tso stretch him to TB as well. Sapienti sat.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I'd like to see the exact quote.
And if he was talking about on RA or that slowass AO 12 plexi surface.
Or maybe he got pissed because AO 06 from fed tends to get severely under-rated.(I mean fed did have some dips for sure, but his peaks in that tourney were really high - lots of bagels&breadsticks)
I'd say AO 06 fed loses to nadal on the 12 surface in 5 sets, but it'd be closer on the 06 RA surface
Edit: what metsman said about MC is true. Federer got back a double break vs a much better Nadal in the 4th set of MC 2006 final, got up 4-0 in the 2nd set vs a clearly better Nadal in 2008 MC.
could easily see prime federer 6-2 2013 MC 1st set Nadal.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
AO12 surface was abysmal. Other than the physical strain and drama of the final, pretty unwatchable tennis throughout the tournament
RS
Bionic Poster
Slow court but as a slam it is among the best for sure. Look at the standard of play.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Superb post and worded in such a lovely way, if those words were a girl, you'd want to marry her
Great post!
abmk
Bionic Poster
it's delusional to say novak would be remotely close to 50-50 peak to peak or prime to prime vs fed on grass
Even past his prime red beat prime novak in 4 sets on 12 wim
Fed's return on grass at his peak was no less than novak's. his return stats on grass and at wimbledon from 03-07 surpass that of novak in 11-15 FTR.
Fed's serve& service game are obviously better.
So how again does novak come close to 50-50 vs fed at wim peak to peak?
Mivic
Hall of Fame
No doubting that some of his claims hold weight, my issue is that he asserts all of his opinions as if they are fact. Based on the stuff I’ve read from him I’m pretty sure the guy thinks that peak Federer being favourite against any version of Nadal at RG post 2012 is an unquestionable truth.
Last edited:
RaulRamirez
Legend
Thank you.
I knew none of that, and was being both clueless and blasphemous.
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
Don’t bother. He’s obviously delusional
