Peak Federer Vs. Peak Djokovic

[GabeT]

Some facts:

• Federer accomplished more (Slams, time at # 1) than Nole.
• But Nole had periods of peak dominance relative to his peers that was greater than anything Federer accomplished (ELO ratings)
• Nole also has accomplishments Fed never reached, like holding all four slams or winning the most M1000s. Nole was also a greater threat to Nadal then Fed ever was, meaning he beat Nadal much more, even on Nadal's best surface.
• Nole leads the H2H but the 6 year age difference means they never met at their peak levels.
• But Fed couldn't totally dominate even Baby Nole. Fed won the first four matches but never repeated that. Nole began beating Fed in 2007, when Nole was barely 20 years old. And Nole's first win came at a M1000 final.

The rest is all opinion

Of the Big 3 rivalries this one may be the closest of all?

 

[Charlie]

Federer has a bigger advantage on his favorite courts than Djokovic has on his, so a slight edge to Federer overall. Anyone saying that either player is leagues above the other is very delusional.

 

[NatF]

Some facts:

• Federer accomplished more (Slams, time at # 1) than Nole.
• But Nole had periods of peak dominance relative to his peers that was greater than anything Federer accomplished (ELO ratings)
• Nole also has accomplishments Fed never reached, like holding all four slams or winning the most M1000s. Nole was also a greater threat to Nadal then Fed ever was, meaning he beat Nadal much more, even on Nadal's best surface.
• Nole leads the H2H but the 6 year age difference means they never met at their peak levels.
• But Fed couldn't totally dominate even Baby Nole. Fed won the first four matches but never repeated that. Nole began beating Fed in 2007, when Nole was barely 20 years old. And Nole's first win came at a M1000 final.

The rest is all opinion

Of the Big 3 rivalries this one may be the closest of all?

Might want to add in that Novak couldn't even totally dominate old Fed? For the sake of being balanced.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Some facts:

• Federer accomplished more (Slams, time at # 1) than Nole.
• But Nole had periods of peak dominance relative to his peers that was greater than anything Federer accomplished (ELO ratings)
• Nole also has accomplishments Fed never reached, like holding all four slams or winning the most M1000s. Nole was also a greater threat to Nadal then Fed ever was, meaning he beat Nadal much more, even on Nadal's best surface.
• Nole leads the H2H but the 6 year age difference means they never met at their peak levels.
• But Fed couldn't totally dominate even Baby Nole. Fed won the first four matches but never repeated that. Nole began beating Fed in 2007, when Nole was barely 20 years old. And Nole's first win came at a M1000 final.

The rest is all opinion

Of the Big 3 rivalries this one may be the closest of all?

Also some more facts about their matchups:

1) They met a lot more times post 2011 than pre (and can continue to in future) and the lead is by 1
2) They never met on grass before Fed turned 30 while Fed did meet multiple times on slow HC and clay after 2011.

This isn't a knock against Djokovic, it is what it is. I do believe Fed would win 55-60% of their matches overall if played evenly across all conditions/surfaces.

 

[GabeT]

Might want to add in that Novak couldn't even totally dominate old Fed? For the sake of being balanced.

true

 

[Tennisanity]

Some facts:

• Federer accomplished more (Slams, time at # 1) than Nole.
• But Nole had periods of peak dominance relative to his peers that was greater than anything Federer accomplished (ELO ratings)
• Nole also has accomplishments Fed never reached, like holding all four slams or winning the most M1000s. Nole was also a greater threat to Nadal then Fed ever was, meaning he beat Nadal much more, even on Nadal's best surface.
• Nole leads the H2H but the 6 year age difference means they never met at their peak levels.
• But Fed couldn't totally dominate even Baby Nole. Fed won the first four matches but never repeated that. Nole began beating Fed in 2007, when Nole was barely 20 years old. And Nole's first win came at a M1000 final.

The rest is all opinion

Of the Big 3 rivalries this one may be the closest of all?

How isn't "Fed couldn't totally dominate even Baby Nole" an opinion? It's your opinion on what you think dominate means. If not, what's the standard definition of dominate in terms of tennis?

 

[GabeT]

How isn't "Fed couldn't totally dominate even Baby Nole" an opinion? It's your opinion on what you think dominate means. If not, what's the standard definition of dominate in terms of tennis?

Could have been clearer. I would define total domination as, say, something like a 9-1 w/l. Which is what Fed had with most of the tour back then.

 

[Tennisanity]

Could have been clearer. I would define total domination as, say, something like a 9-1 w/l. Which is what Fed had with most of the tour back then.

But that definition isn't fact. Let's say I don't agree with that definition, then it means it's your opinion Fed didn't dominate.

 

[tennis_pro]

Djokovic better on slow HC, roughly equal on clay, Federer better on grass/faster HC.

 

[GabeT]

But that definition isn't fact. Let's say I don't agree with that definition, then it means it's your opinion Fed didn't dominate.

yes, I would have to rephrase that.

 

[6august]

If Novak's biggest rival in 2011 was not prime/peak Nadal then it would easily Roger. His killing spree over Nadal makes the question much more difficult.

I still put peak Fed a little ahead - his peak lasted longer and also back in that time except Claydal every Roger's match ended before it started, most of his opponents were scared to death before stepping into the court.

And both of them benefit from a very weak era

51- 49 for Roger.

 

[Jackuar]

Assuming peak fed vs peak nole meet and Assuming ideal surface characteristics, ie, no handicap due to surface.

Read as Aspect-Fed-Nole.

Serve-70-30
Return-35-65
Static Forehand-70-30
Running Forehand-70-30
Static backhand-50-50
Running backhand-50-50
Drop-60-40
Lob-60-40
S&V-70-30
Passing shot-60-40
Cross court-70-30
Slice-65-35
Overhead-100-0
Top spin-50-50
Defense-40-60
Offense-65-35
BP taken-25-75
BP held-55-45
Tiebreaker-7-4
Court coverage-55-45(Fed here gets only a slight edge because firstly he would avoid long rallies. But if taken to the stretch Nole can definitely give him a run)

Stamina(not only in one match but let's say a scenario of them meeting in a series of consecutive matches) - 80-20


Edit: BO3: I'll predict Fed in 3 sets, with one Tiebreaker.

BO5: Fed in 4 sets, with at least one set domination, at max 1 tiebreakers.

 

[JoelSandwich]

Federer but it would be close.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Some facts:

• But Nole had periods of peak dominance relative to his peers that was greater than anything Federer accomplished (ELO ratings)

That's not a fact.

"Novak reached a higher peak ELO rating" is.

Your statement is an interpretation of said ranking, therefore an opinion. It is an opinion that the ELO rating correctly reflects greatness of domination in tennis.

 

[90's Clay]

Equal 2011/2015 Nole is on par with 2005/2006 Fed. About the same level. Out of prime/peak years, Fed is better which is why he has more slams than Nole.

Absolute Peak Level wise I say Nadal edges both of them by a little bit however

 

[AustinTx24]

Assuming peak fed vs peak nole meet and Assuming ideal surface characteristics, ie, no handicap due to surface.

Read as Aspect-Fed-Nole.

Serve-70-30
Return-35-65
Static Forehand-70-30
Running Forehand-70-30
Static backhand-50-50
Running backhand-50-50
Drop-60-40
Lob-60-40
S&V-70-30
Passing shot-60-40
Cross court-70-30
Slice-65-35
Top spin-50-50
Defense-40-60
Offense-65-35
BP taken-25-75
BP held-55-45
Tiebreaker-7-4
Court coverage-55-45(Fed here gets only a slight edge because firstly he would avoid long rallies. But if taken to the stretch Nole can definitely give him a run)

Stamina(not only in one match but let's say a scenario of them meeting in a series of consecutive matches) - 80-20


Edit: BO3: I'll predict Fed in 3 sets, with one Tiebreaker.

BO5: Fed in 4 sets, with at least one set domination, at max 1 tiebreakers.

Forgot one thing here...

Overhead-100-0

 

[Surion]

Assuming peak fed vs peak nole meet and Assuming ideal surface characteristics, ie, no handicap due to surface.

Read as Aspect-Fed-Nole.

Serve-70-30
Return-35-65
Static Forehand-70-30
Running Forehand-70-30
Static backhand-50-50
Running backhand-50-50
Drop-60-40
Lob-60-40
S&V-70-30
Passing shot-60-40
Cross court-70-30
Slice-65-35
Top spin-50-50
Defense-40-60
Offense-65-35
BP taken-25-75
BP held-55-45
Tiebreaker-7-4
Court coverage-55-45(Fed here gets only a slight edge because firstly he would avoid long rallies. But if taken to the stretch Nole can definitely give him a run)

Stamina(not only in one match but let's say a scenario of them meeting in a series of consecutive matches) - 80-20


Edit: BO3: I'll predict Fed in 3 sets, with one Tiebreaker.

BO5: Fed in 4 sets, with at least one set domination, at max 1 tiebreakers.

Wow, total BS, nice.

And I'm a Fed fan.

 

[Charlie]

Read as Aspect-Fed-Nole.

Static backhand-50-50
Running backhand-50-50

Hell naw.

 

[Charlie]

Roger won 12 of his slams between 03 and 07 and 16 of 18 between 03 and '10.

Djoko, Nadal and Murray were just starting their careers as teenagers between 03 and 07.

In that time Federer was defeating the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, way past prime Agassi, etc. In other words, Roger had his way in a depleted field before Djoko/Nadal/Murray had reached their primes.

Had their been a closer overlap, Roger would have ranked below Nadal and Djoko in overall slams and overall legacy ranking. Probably third behind Djoko and Nadal, but far ahead of Murray obviously.

Bill Russell won 13 titles in a far earlier era than Jordan who won six but no one believes Russell is the better player.

If their primes had overlapped more or less identically Nadal and Djokovic would have won the most slams and Rger would have been third.

Federer outlasted Nadal, his biggest younger rival. It remains to be seen what Djokovic does, I really hope he has more success in the future, but right now you can see that Federer, a 35 year old, is just as much of a contender for Majors as Nadal and Djokovic are, and they are 5-6 years younger. Now imagine if they were all born at the same time. For sure Federer would have won less during his best years because Rafa and Novak are miles better than any of his real peers, but once all three get older, it's very likely that Fed wins the most from that point forward.

 

[jm1980]

I'm not even going to read this thread because I know exactly what it says - specially the posts from Fed fans

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here

 

[mike danny]

Roger won 12 of his slams between 03 and 07 and 16 of 18 between 03 and '10.

Djoko, Nadal and Murray were just starting their careers as teenagers between 03 and 07.

In that time Federer was defeating the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, way past prime Agassi, etc. In other words, Roger had his way in a depleted field before Djoko/Nadal/Murray had reached their primes.

Had their been a closer overlap, Roger would have ranked below Nadal and Djoko in overall slams and overall legacy ranking. Probably third behind Djoko and Nadal, but far ahead of Murray obviously.

Bill Russell won 13 titles in a far earlier era than Jordan who won six but no one believes Russell is the better player.

If their primes had overlapped more or less identically Nadal and Djokovic would have won the most slams and Rger would have been third.

Is there actually a way for you to prove that? How do you know Fed would be third?

Meanwhile in the real world, 18>14>12. Deal with it.

 

[Gazelle]

This thread is basically an asylum for depressed Djok fans.

Therapy: Bash Fed and his achievements as much as possible, in order to feel better.

 

[mike danny]

Look at the stats again:

Federer: 12 slam titles between 03 and 07 (N/D/M between 15 and 20)

4 slams between 08 and 10 (top opponents between 20 and 23)

2 slams from 11 to 17 (top opponents 23 to 30)

12 of 18 Fed slams won when Djoko/Nadal/Murray were either not on tour or just starting their professional careers.

Fed dominated in a depleted field, after Agassi/Sampras and before Djoko/Nadal/Murray reached their prime.

Roger's proper place in history is as a co-equal among Djoko/Nadal, not their superior. This will become more obvious in the years to come.

Nadal has an astonishing 14 slams while competing with prime Fed/Djoko.

Djoko has 12.

Fed's GOAT status is more an accident of history, of favorable timing rather than superior skills.

Wow, most most clueless statement award goes to you.

I could easily say Nadal won most of his slams at RG against guys who prefer HC and grass.

Or that Djokovic won half of his slams in a depleted field with washed up Nadal and old Fed.

But I would be as clueless as you.

 

[mike danny]

Blll Russell had 11 titles with the Celtics > Jordan's 6 yet Jordan is obviously the better player.

Federer's slams win dropped off precipitously once D/N/M reached their primes.

Because he is much older than them. Nadal's winnjng rate dramatically dropped after age 27 too. Djokovic's seems to be dropping now as well after 29.

Explain that.

 

[mike danny]

Blll Russell had 11 titles with the Celtics > Jordan's 6 yet Jordan is obviously the better player.

Federer's slams win dropped off precipitously once D/N/M reached their primes.

How come only Fed's achievements are due to perfect timing? I see many Fed haters use this argument. Why not Djokovic's too?

Federer is considered the GOAT by most people. He is not the Bill Russell of tennis. He is the Jordan.

 

[mike danny]

I don't know which post you are referring to, I was simply putting Federer's achievements into context. Namely, once Djoko/Nadal/Murray entered their prime, Federer's slam wins dropped precipitously.

Betw


Fed won 4 titles between ages 26 and 29, not exactly ancient.

Djokovic won 6 slams between ages 26 and 29, which is regarded as Djoko's prime.

Nadal


Look at Fed's slam opponents during 03 to 07. Not exactly littered with all time greats.

Fed won 5 slams aged 26-29. Nadal won 4. Djokovic 6.

So how is Nadal better than Roger?

Look at Djokovic's opponents in 2014-2016 and you'll see he had an easy ride too.

 

[mike danny]

I don't know which post you are referring to, I was simply putting Federer's achievements into context. Namely, once Djoko/Nadal/Murray entered their prime, Federer's slam wins dropped precipitously.

Betw


Fed won 4 titles between ages 26 and 29, not exactly ancient.

Djokovic won 6 slams between ages 26 and 29, which is regarded as Djoko's prime.

Nadal began winning slams earlier than Djoko but is breaking down sooner.


Look at Fed's slam opponents during 03 to 07. Not exactly littered with all time greats.

If you're only argument is that Federer stopped winning as much once Nadal, Nole and Murray reached their primes, remember that Nadal only won 4 slams between ages 26 and 29. He must have got exposed too.

 

[Charlie]

Federer: 12 slam titles between 03 and 07 (N/D/M between 15 and 20)

4 slams between 08 and 10 (top opponents between 20 and 23)

2 slams from 11 to 17 (top opponents 23 to 30)

12 of 18 Fed slams won when Djoko/Nadal/Murray were either not on tour or just starting their professional careers.

Fed dominated in a depleted field, after Agassi/Sampras and before Djoko/Nadal/Murray reached their prime.

So you are going to penalize Federer for winning a lot before Djokovic, Nadal and Murray reached their primes but totally ignore Federer's own age in this and the fact that from 2011 or 2017 there were like only two years where he played his prime tennis? Double standard alert.

Nadal has an astonishing 14 slams while competing with prime Fed/Djoko.

Djoko has 12.

The astonishment of Nadal's Slams is so overhyped it's ridiculous. Some of his opponents, including prime Federer and Djokovic, were absolute garbage in some of the Slam finals. Just because it's a prime period for those two doesn't mean it's always an equally difficult task beating them. And let's not forget how clearly inferior he is to both Fed and Novak outside of clay. Unfortunately that wasn't exposed enough because the Spaniard has the habit of having more early losses than his two early rivals do, meaning some meetings just didn't happen.

Novak's path to emerging and becoming the best player in the world was probably the hardest as there was a Fedal duopoly going on for several years. He made up for that a bit by not having a younger rival of such a caliber like Federer had in Nadal and Djokovic, and you can see Fed fans calling all those youngsters mugs mostly for that reason. But the main issue for him was that although he has no big match-up issues with anyone, he couldn't dominate the field (not just a couple of rivals, but the field) to the same extent Federer did. If he did, Fed and Nole would have been pretty much equal. Unfortunately that's not the case, but with some of the similarities I see in their games and more notably achievements, I consider Novak to be something like 80% of Federer.

Roger's proper place in history is as a co-equal among Djoko/Nadal, not their superior. This will become more obvious in the years to come.

Fed's GOAT status is more an accident of history, of favorable timing rather than superior skills.

I don't consider Federer so superior to Nadal and Djokovic as both of them have proven themselves many times by having constant, decade long success, and by recording a lot of wins over Federer in the process. But he is greater by that one step, making him the greatest ever. Despite that, I don't think Federer is the only one with a great resume. Novak and Rafa have been incredible as well, way more than their detractors give them credit for.

 

[donquijote]

Out of Big 3, peak Federer only lost to Del Potro who had also beat peak Nadal in the same tournament.
Peak Djokovic lost to Murray and Wawrinka twice each.
Also peak Djokovic let 31 yo Federer become World No.1.

Peak definition: Under 30 and won GS titles before.

 

[slal1984]

I think it all depends on the surface they play on..!!

 

[Charlie]

Basically a wide open field.

Once DNM entered the field, Roger continued to win slams, but at a far slower rate.

Some of Federer's peers are clearly better than any player born in 90s, at least that's the picture so far.

Maybe because he also got older so he had to slow down at some point? Look at Nadal, he had a rate of winning at least a Slam for 10 years with some dominant runs, but has nothing in the last 3 years. Djokovic had better consistency and one of finest dominant periods ever, winning so many titles in 2011-16 but has rapidly slowed down after winning 4 in a row. Murray never even had a Slam winning rate to being with. Were they stopped by some force of younger players or did father time just do its work as always?

Throw Djoko and/or Nadal exclusively, in their primes, into 03 to 07 without Roger and their results would have been phenomenal as well.

I agree with that, but you can also put Federer in Djokovic's or Nadal's place in some of the years and he would be phenomenal too. These are three of the greatest players, they are going to have massive success no matter what.

 

[Xavier G]

Peak Federer or peak Djokovic?
Geezus, what's wrong with too many of you people, seriously? ( I'm trying to be diplomatic).

Federer of course.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Federer has the superior resume, no question about it.

But that's not incompatible with the simple observation that the vast majority of his slam titles (12 of 18) were won between 03 and 07 before NMD were even on tour or were just beginning their careers.

Agassi was well past his prime and Pete had already retired.

Basically a wide open field.

Once DNM entered the field, Roger continued to win slams, but at a far slower rate.

Throw Djoko and/or Nadal exclusively, in their primes, into 03 to 07 without Roger and their results would have been phenomenal as well.

The last sentence is quite a statement. Nadal exists in the form we know him as a tennis player because of Federer. Take Fed out of the equation, and you're still looking at a supreme athlete, but his game would likely be worlds different. Remove Nadal, and Fed's steamrolling of the field continues unabated for a bit.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Out of Big 3, peak Federer only lost to Del Potro who had also beat peak Nadal in the same tournament.

Peak definition: Under 30 and won GS titles before.

I guess peak Federer also lost to Djokovic, Nadal, Safin, Kuerten, Nalbandian, Soderling, Berdych and Tsonga.

Or does this peak definition only apply for Djokovic?

 

[FedTheMan]

Equal 2011/2015 Nole is on par with 2005/2006 Fed. About the same level. Out of prime/peak years, Fed is better which is why he has more slams than Nole.

Absolute Peak Level wise I say Nadal edges both of them by a little bit however

Reasonable post.

Comparing the 3 at their peaks, I would say:

• Djokovic is the best on slow HC
• Nadal is the best on clay
• Federer is the best on grass and fast HC

However, Nadal is very good at beating his rivals on the biggest stages so I can see your point.

 

[harinder]

Federer has the superior resume, no question about it.

But that's not incompatible with the simple observation that the vast majority of his slam titles (12 of 18) were won between 03 and 07 before NMD were even on tour or were just beginning their careers.

Agassi was well past his prime and Pete had already retired.

Basically a wide open field.

Once DNM entered the field, Roger continued to win slams, but at a far slower rate.

Throw Djoko and/or Nadal exclusively, in their primes, into 03 to 07 without Roger and their results would have been phenomenal as well.

Yours is a common argument based purely on conjecture/speculation. Would Federer win less if his peak coincided with that of Nadal and Djokovic? Most likely yes but N & D would win less too. And as mentioned earlier, if their primes coincided, Federer would pull away regardless in the post-prime period . He won less after Nadal and Djokovic primed also because his abilities declined and he had to got through a period of adjustment. This is normal in sports with an ageing dominant champion who has younger ATG's chasing your heels. Djokovic and Nadal became the players they are because they had Federer to benchmark against. Father time is real. Nadal is clearly in decline and Djokovic is beginning his twilight now too. They are both losing their grip against the field and they do not have ATG's chasing them either. Bottom line is Federer dominated his peers while holding his own against younger ATG's in his post-prime career. I

 

[Purplemonster]

Nole has the best forehand + backhand combination. Federer's forehand was a more deadly shot but Nole's more complete from the baseline. I feel the serve is the determining point here though, and I'd have to give the edge to Federer. It's close though but I do feel Federer was slightly better at his best.

The edge ??? Federer serve over Djokovic by a landslide.

 

[uliks]

Assuming peak fed vs peak nole meet and Assuming ideal surface characteristics, ie, no handicap due to surface.

Read as Aspect-Fed-Nole.

Serve-70-30
Return-35-65
Static Forehand-70-30
Running Forehand-70-30
Static backhand-50-50
Running backhand-50-50
Drop-60-40
Lob-60-40
S&V-70-30
Passing shot-60-40
Cross court-70-30
Slice-65-35
Top spin-50-50
Defense-40-60
Offense-65-35
BP taken-25-75
BP held-55-45
Tiebreaker-7-4
Court coverage-55-45(Fed here gets only a slight edge because firstly he would avoid long rallies. But if taken to the stretch Nole can definitely give him a run)

Stamina(not only in one match but let's say a scenario of them meeting in a series of consecutive matches) - 80-20


Edit: BO3: I'll predict Fed in 3 sets, with one Tiebreaker.

BO5: Fed in 4 sets, with at least one set domination, at max 1 tiebreakers.

Bamos!

 

[donquijote]

I guess peak Federer also lost to Djokovic, Nadal, Safin, Kuerten, Nalbandian, Soderling, Berdych and Tsonga.

Or does this peak definition only apply for Djokovic?

I was speaking about GS finals and you know that already. No one can go 100% win all year. Even Federer.

 

[jussumman]

Is there a year or short period that was closest their peaks intersected? Doesn't look like they intersected, so maybe we can instead look at the medium point between the two.

2011 ND peak starts and RF 2007 peak ends... the middle of that is 2009.

Roger Federer won 2/3 in 2008.
3/5 Nole wins in 2009 however.

It's too close to call for a theoretical answer to go one way if there was a slight edge. Plus the fact their H2H is essentially the same, I vote even.

For all time obviously Fed has 5 years on ND so that will be settled in the future.

 

[Alien]

Djokovic 2011 and 2015/6 is the highest level of tennis ever seen. Apart from what can be seen to the eye, it is obvious that after years from what beginners call Prime Fed time tennis evolves and is at a higher absolute level. Irrelevant if Federer is the GOAT in term of achievements (he is no doubt) or if his game is the most aesthetically ever (it is).

 

[GabeT]

That's not a fact.

"Novak reached a higher peak ELO rating" is.

Your statement is an interpretation of said ranking, therefore an opinion. It is an opinion that the ELO rating correctly reflects greatness of domination in tennis.

It reflects domination. Greatness is another issue.

 

[tennisaddict]

Djokovic 2011 and 2015/6 is the highest level of tennis ever seen. Apart from what can be seen to the eye, it is obvious that after years from what beginners call Prime Fed time tennis evolves and is at a higher absolute level. Irrelevant if Federer is the GOAT in term of achievements (he is no doubt) or if his game is the most aesthetically ever (it is).

Sure, tennis evolved. Hence fringe players of prior era - Stan , Ferrer and Berdych achieved their career bests during the period between 2011-16.

 

[Alien]

Sure, tennis evolved. Hence fringe players of prior era - Stan , Ferrer and Berdych achieved their career bests during the period between 2011-16.

Uugh? So Stan played the same when he beat Djokovic than in 2005? No progress in his game or Ferrer's? Are you for real? Why am I losing my time with kids?

 

[KINGROGER]

Well post prime Federer went 2-3 at slams vs peak Nole. 1-1 at RG (Fed's 1 being the one where they were closer in level) 1-0 Wimbledon (ownage) 0-1 at AO (ownage by Nole) 0-1 at USO (Fed was better player but choked).

Prime for prime (07USO - 09) 3-1 to Fed. 1 loss at AO thanks to mono, 3 easy USO wins for Fed.

Peak Nole vs grampa fed 4-0. Can't really analyse anything rom this as Fed had next to zero ground game to compete with peak ATG.

That leads me to believe over 10 matches:

AO: 6-4 to Nole plexicushion, 6-4 Fed rebound ace
RG: 6-4 Federer
Wimbledon: 10-0 Federer
USO: 9-1 Federer

 

[tennisaddict]

Uugh? So Stan played the same when he beat Djokovic than in 2005? No progress in his game or Ferrer's? Are you for real? Why am I losing my time with kids?

I am agreeing with you. I am waiting for Ferrer to evolve some more and win the FO this year or next. Same with Berdych for USO. After all they didn't reach major finals for nothing.

 

[Jackuar]

Forgot one thing here...

Overhead-100-0

Oh yeah.. How did I....!!

 

[VexlanderPrime]

Who knows really. If I had to guess I'd give Fed a slight edge probably. Both guys had some absurd sustained peaks that stand out higher than any other players. Just enjoy the differing styles of greatness imo: Unmatched Otherworldly aggressive tennis v. The most balanced offense/defense combo ever. I love watching both.

Highest peak is cool and all but I'd take better overall career myself. Fed def has the edge there.

 

[Tennisanity]

Throw Djoko and/or Nadal exclusively, in their primes, into 03 to 07 without Roger and their results would have been phenomenal as well.

Not really, the guys that Fed was dominating between 04-07 were beating peak Nadal in 2010 when those players were way past their primes. Scary to think what they would do to Nadal if they were peak. And Roddick who was Fed's pigeon, leads the H2H against Djoko, so no Nadal and Djoko would not be getting as phenomenal results. Matchups are a part of tennis believe it or not.

 

[Tennisanity]

It reflects domination. Greatness is another issue.

It reflects domination in your opinion.