Prime Federer vs Prime Djokovic at all major slams

[mike danny]

I would agree with you if it had happened only once. But it happened three times in two years and always against the same player.

But we're only talking about the USO here. So why do you even bring up all of Fed's runs in 2014-2015?

 

[Pagoo]

My God!

What a thread!

 

[mike danny]

The numbers contradict you. Despite this incredible drop you describe Fed’s results 14/15 W/USO were actually the same or better than in 04/08. Don’t hate me, hate the numbers.

Yeah, Fed lost to Cilic at 2014 USO and almost went down 2 sets to love against Stan at Wimb. Clearly on the same level as 2004-2008

You people need glasses.

 

[mike danny]

Actually, I’m not saying that. I am saying that if this had happened only once at one tournament then your argument (big dip in the finals) would make much more sense. But the fact that in three different slams over two years Fed managed to get results similar or even better than in 04/08 but was always stopped by the same player, then maybe it’s that player that is the problem and not a dip in performance.

In 2017/18, in another three slams Fed also had great results up to the finals and didn’t face anyone like 2014/15 Nole (maybe 17 AO?) and the results were quite different.

This indicates there is strong support to the idea that “old’ fed can reach very high levels o play at some tournaments but has had to face a player of a quality he never faced in 04/08

Or maybe he was better in 2017-2018 than in 2014-2015 and Djokovic didn't face the best Fed

Just bringinp up another biased opinion like you constantly do.

 

[mike danny]

You may be right. But there are many ways to win. If 14/15 Fed managed to improve his serve to make up for his reduced groundstroke game good for him.

Also I think 2012 Nole is but a shadow of 2015 Nole, arguably the most dominant player in one season in the whole Open Era

Just like 2015 Federer is a shadow of 2004-2007 Federer.

Djokovic 2012 > Djokovic 2015 as he lost less sets at Wimb. It's just that he lost to a better opponent who exposed him. It's your argument.

 

[mike danny]

You mean up to the semifinals? Could be.

Well he faced Fed before the final because of the draw, something that wasn't the case in 2015.

2012 Wimb Djokovic > 2015 Wimb Djokovic.

 

[tarutani]

20 yo Nadal was only relevant on clay, so prime Federer had nobody standing in his way that was on prime Novak's level on all other surfaces. The fact that a clay court specialist ended his streak at Wimbledon is already an indication that Federer's level wasn't as high as some people claim.

Besides, Sampras is better than Federer on grass and played against much better grass court players: he is also 7-0 in Wimbledon finals. Federer's level on grass is not even the highest there was and people are making claims about how his peak would be too much to handle.

Federer doesn't play usual grass tennis like Rafter/Sampras/McEnroe: he is a baseline player who relies on his serve and forehand so what exactly would he have done differently? Nadal broke prime Federer on grass and Novak returns better than Nadal but somehow he would do worse? Federer's backhand was an error machine during his prime and even the improved version still can't sustain the attacks of Novak but somehow prime Federer would have an easier time? The same Federer that was losing to teenage Berdych, Murray and Nadal?

Novak is the first player since 2007 to defend Wimbledon and to do it he beat Federer twice in a row. That's probably the worst thing that Federer fans and the media could imagine happening besides Rafa doing it so they vent and talk about the past and dream scenarios. Meanwhile, Novak has 3 Wimbledon titles.

 

[RF-18]

So 2017 Rome Djokovic > 2011 and 2015 Rome Djokovic?

The whole thing about this not losing a set at USO, started with some of you talking down Federer in 2015, saying he was nowhere near his level, that he was old yada yada so GabeT mentioned his run to the final at USO, where he reached the final not losing a set, and also only being broken twice in 6 matches. As he said, that has to count for something. The tournament prior to USO, it was more or less the same story there at Cincinnati, Federer wins the whole thing without dropping a set, and also he didn't get broken not even once the whole tournament. Then all of this explosion of pages started. All he was saying was that Federer was not as garbage as people make him out to be. He was perfectly fine, and showcased levels wich could have beat Nole but he couldn't bring it. Just cause he couldn't beat Djokovic, doesn't mean he was terrible as a player. That's what you people make it out to be,when the true thing is that Federer was showing high level all round that year on HC.

 

[zagor]

20 yo Nadal was only relevant on clay.

Which is why he reached several Wimbledon finals in a row in his early 20s compared to not being able to even reach QF after.

so prime Federer had nobody standing in his way that was on prime Novak's level on all other surfaces.

Who did Novak had standing in his way in 2015? Please don't say Fed in his 30s, we've already concluded he's a weak player that only won because there was no one else on HC/grass.

Was it Murray or Stan? One guy that is 1-5 in slams against that same crappy Federer and the other one being his eternal pigeon.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Before US Open 2015 final excluding the losses against Djokovic, Federer had won 75 sets out of 77 on fast courts.

''wasn't at his peak'' LOL LOL LOL

 

[robthai]

The simple answer is both would score wins against each other but Federer would lead the h2h due to being a bad match up for Nole. A younger Federer would welcome the baseline grind with Djokovic, where as the 2015 version would try to avoid long baseline rallies like the plague. This is like asking prime Nadal vs prime Federer. Nadal would still lead the h2h.

 

[Pagoo]

Which is why he reached several Wimbledon finals in a row in his early 20s compared to not being able to even reach QF after.



Who did Novak had standing in his way in 2015? Please don't say Fed in his 30s, we've already concluded he's a weak player that only won because there was no one else on HC/grass.

Was it Murray or Stan? One guy that is 1-5 in slams against that same crappy Federer and the other one being his eternal pigeon.

When people want to eat their cake and ave it. So much foolishness on here.

 

[mike danny]

The simple answer is both would score wins against each other but Federer would lead the h2h due to being a bad match up for Nole. A younger Federer would welcome the baseline grind with Djokovic, where as the 2015 version would try to avoid long baseline rallies like the plague. This is like asking prime Nadal vs prime Federer. Nadal would still lead the h2h.

Federer wasn't chopped liver in 2015, but he wasn't on the same level as 2004-2008 either which is what GabeT was arguing about.

 

[Pagoo]

Before US Open 2015 final excluding the losses against Djokovic, Federer had won 75 sets out of 77 on fast courts.

''wasn't at his peak'' LOL LOL LOL

So your only purpose of joining this forum is to use it as an outlet to express your Federer hate? The guy really did a number on you, didn't he?

 

[Pagoo]

Federer wasn't chopped liver in 2015, but he wasn't on the same level as 2004-2008 either which is what GabeT was arguing about.

That GabeT is one of the most desperate Djokovic fans.The guy literally lives for Djokovic's achievements. He claims "it's impossible to predict" (mind you he only said that to posters who said Federer would win the majority of matches), yet he stayed on here arguing his heart out.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

AO 2011 Djokovic >>>>>2007 Federer
FO 2015 Djokovic >>>>>2007 Federer
WB 2015 Djokovic >>>>> Any version Federer
USO 2015 Djokovic >>>> 2015 Federer

Bhakk Bsdk

I have realized that but they are like all over social media as well. Youtube, Twitter, etc. It is delusion to believe that Federer would go 10-0 against Djokovic on grass or even 9-1, and then say he goes 4-6 against Djokovic on plexi. The guy has only won one set against Djokovic on plexi and that was only because Djokovic took a breather from the absolute destruction he was laying on him, then re-engaged and finished him off. I mean we have seen Djokovic beat Federer on grass but have we seen Federer get close to beating Djokovic on plexi? I like Federer but come on.

 

[zagor]

When people want to eat their cake and ave it. So much foolishness on here.

Apparently, Fed is an extremely overrated and lucky average player who dominated a field of toddlers and challenger level players but who also somehow doubles in as tough competition for Djokodal on demand. It's hilarious, you can't make this stuff up.

They should really stop comparing either of them favourably to historic greats like Sampras or Borg given that this era is so sh1tty that a mental midget with a recreational BH won 20 slams and reached #1 as a 36 year old.

 

[Pagoo]

Apparently, Fed is an extremely overrated and lucky average player who dominated a field of toddlers and challenger level players but who also somehow doubles in as tough competition for Djokodal on demand. It's hilarious, you can't make this stuff up.

They should really stop comparing either of them favourably to historic greats like Sampras or Borg given that this era is so sh1tty that a mental midget with a recreational BH won 20 slams and reached #1 as a 36 year old.

It's more than hilarious. For all that, a win over Federer is celebrated like none other. It really shouldn't be a big deal when Nadal or Djokovic beats Federer because he's overrated anyway.

Last year, some Djokovic fans wanted Federer to become number one so Djokovic could reclaim the number one spot from him and not Nadal. Like you said, you can't make this stuff up! Somehow, it's more prestigious to take the number one ranking from a 36 year old weak-era champion, than a 31 year old strong-era champ.

LOL.

 

[Plamen1234]

@Lew - Stop embarrassing yourself.You should find something else to comment on

 

[GabeT]

I love you all and I forgive you for disagreeing with me

 

[robthai]

I love you all and I forgive you for disagreeing with me

thats ok. Your opinion is a small minority. Most people including non Fed fans would give Fed the edge due to the match up factor.

 

[Zhilady]

Murray played in a more modern and competitive era than Roddick, Federer played in a less modern and competitive era than Djokovic.

And I was not talking about slam titles.

LOL, and Federer didn’t play in a more modern and competitive era than Tilden? Keep ‘me coming.

 

[Zhilady]

If you think Tilden, Laver, Doherty, Budge, Gonzales, Kramer played better than Federer since they dominated more, at least I have to admit you're coherent.

I disagree that they dominated more. It’s a hard comparison to make, for a variety of reasons, but Federer post-2017 has made it easy for a case to be made for him over anyone. And almost impossible for a case to be made over him for anyone in the Open Era. I guess that’s where your butthurt comes in.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

LOL, and Federer didn’t play in a more modern and competitive era than Tilden? Keep ‘me coming.

He did. That's what I was suggesting to you.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

thats ok. Your opinion is a small minority. Most people including non Fed fans would give Fed the edge due to the match up factor.

What match up factor?

 

[Zhilady]

He did. That's what I was suggesting to you.

Federer has the equivalent of 20 Majors. Or 26, if you want to consider the WTF as a Major. No player in the history of the game has more Majors than Federer. That alone gives him a solid argument over anyone in history.

Now, I don’t like to make that argument, because some players like Gonzales didn’t get the opportunity to compete in as many Majors as Federer did (despite winning many of their titles in a split field, which is a different matter) but still, that argument holds more water than the nonsense argument you’re trying to make.

It’d be like saying Zverev performed better in the more modern and competitive era of 2017-2018 than Djokovic did, so Zverev > Djokovic.

 

[KINGROGER]

Murray is on a whole different level from Roddick.

Murray and Roddick wins at slams vs prime Fed = 0.

They’re both his pigeons. IE same level.

 

[KINGROGER]

Murray played in a more modern and competitive era than Roddick, Federer played in a less modern and competitive era than Djokovic.

And I was not talking about slam titles.

Roddick had to go through prime Fed at 3/4 slams. It doesn’t get any tougher than that.

 

[KINGROGER]

20 yo Nadal was only relevant on clay, so prime Federer had nobody standing in his way that was on prime Novak's level on all other surfaces. The fact that a clay court specialist ended his streak at Wimbledon is already an indication that Federer's level wasn't as high as some people claim.

Besides, Sampras is better than Federer on grass and played against much better grass court players: he is also 7-0 in Wimbledon finals. Federer's level on grass is not even the highest there was and people are making claims about how his peak would be too much to handle.

Federer doesn't play usual grass tennis like Rafter/Sampras/McEnroe: he is a baseline player who relies on his serve and forehand so what exactly would he have done differently? Nadal broke prime Federer on grass and Novak returns better than Nadal but somehow he would do worse? Federer's backhand was an error machine during his prime and even the improved version still can't sustain the attacks of Novak but somehow prime Federer would have an easier time? The same Federer that was losing to teenage Berdych, Murray and Nadal?

Novak is the first player since 2007 to defend Wimbledon and to do it he beat Federer twice in a row. That's probably the worst thing that Federer fans and the media could imagine happening besides Rafa doing it so they vent and talk about the past and dream scenarios. Meanwhile, Novak has 3 Wimbledon titles.

Lol at 14/15 BH being an improvement. Not to mention every other aspect of his baseline game being much worse.

 

[KINGROGER]

Before US Open 2015 final excluding the losses against Djokovic, Federer had won 75 sets out of 77 on fast courts.

''wasn't at his peak'' LOL LOL LOL

Yes he wasn’t at his peak. His playing level was much declined from 03-07 and even 11-12.

What match up factor?

Did you watch any of their matches between 2007-2012? When Fed’s FH was on, it was pretty much lights out for Djokovic apart from AO and Miami. He’s pretty much the favourite anywhere but slow HC where he can’t hit through the court, and only a slight favourite on clay.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Murray and Roddick wins at slams vs prime Fed = 0.

They’re both his pigeons. IE same level.

Do I really have to mention all the stats of Murray and Roddick?

 

[Pheasant]

For all of those people that think winning is easy at an old age, we'll get to see what Nadal and Djokovic do during their age 33-37 years. And the good news is that they won't have to face an ATG during his absolute peak. So they will have a huge advantage over old Federer.

Here's the bar that Federer has set for old players. And he did this going against Nadal and Djokovic that were 5-6 years younger than him.

So far, from 2014-2018, Federer(age 33-37 seasons) has gone:
223-36, .861 overall
49-18, .731 vs the top 10,
made 10 slam semis, 6 slam finals, and won 3 slam titles

If Nadal from 2019-2023(age 33-37 seasons) and Djokovic from 2020-2024(age 33-37 seasons) can put up the same results despite not facing 2 ATG that are 5-6 years younger, then I'll start to believe that age isn't as big of a deal as I originally thought.

Fed's incredible play as an old man is what puts him at the top. Federer is a combination of young Borg and old Rosewall wrapped into one career. It seems impossible.

Let's see Nadal and Djokovic age nearly as well as Federer. Time will tell. But I would bet a lot of money that they won't. They will someday appreciate how tough it is to win at an old age. Luckily for them, they aren't that old yet. But both have clearly experienced a dip in play.

 

[mike danny]

For all of those people that think winning is easy at an old age, we'll get to see what Nadal and Djokovic do during their age 33-37 years. And the good news is that they won't have to face an ATG during his absolute peak. So they will have a huge advantage over old Federer.

Here's the bar that Federer has set for old players. And he did this going against Nadal and Djokovic that were 5-6 years younger than him.

So far, from 2014-2018, Federer(age 33-37 seasons) has gone:
223-36, .861 overall
49-18, .731 vs the top 10,
made 10 slam semis, 6 slam finals, and won 3 slam titles

If Nadal from 2019-2023(age 33-37 seasons) and Djokovic from 2020-2024(age 33-37 seasons) can put up the same results despite not facing 2 ATG that are 5-6 years younger, then I'll start to believe that age isn't as big of a deal as I originally thought.

Fed's incredible play as an old man is what puts him at the top. Federer is a combination of young Borg and old Rosewall wrapped into one career. It seems impossible.

Let's see Nadal and Djokovic age nearly as well as Federer. Time will tell. But I would bet a lot of money that they won't. They will someday appreciate how tough it is to win at an old age. Luckily for them, they aren't that old yet. But both have clearly experienced a dip in play.

Old age hurts you against significantly younger ATG's. If Nadal and Djokovic don't face such players in their 30's, their old age may not be exposed.

We saw a glimpse last year of how older Nadal would do against a younger peak ATG when he went up against Federer, who was even older than him.

 

[Pagoo]

Old age hurts you against significantly younger ATG's. If Nadal and Djokovic don't face such players in their 30's, their old age may not be exposed.

We saw a glimpse last year of how older Nadal would do against a younger peak ATG when he went up against Federer, who was even older than him.

It's really unfortunate that lost gen failed to step up. It would have laid to rest all these nonsense arguments. You think Nadal will be the favorite on clay at his age if there was a younger ATG on clay like Federer had?

Think Djokovic would have doubled his slam count if there was a younger ATG? Instead, it's the same old weak-era champion they are still battling with.

 

[mike danny]

It's really unfortunate that lost gen failed to step up. It would have laid to rest all these nonsense arguments. You think Nadal will be the favorite on clay at his age if there was a younger ATG on clay like Federer had?

Think Djokovic would have doubled his slam count if there was a younger ATG? Instead, it's the same old weak-era champion they are still battling with.

Yes, 2014-present has been void of great young players. No wonder Djokovic, Federer, Nadal and even Murray still decide to stick around, despite all their problems. Why retire when there's no one to push you out?

The haters can say whatever they want about Fed, but there is one thing even they cannot deny: Fed has dealt with great young players pretty much his entire career from Nadal to Djoko to Murray to Delpo.

Nadal and Djokovic to this day have not proven themselves against great young players, which creates the illusion that they are playing peak tennis.

 

[Pagoo]

Yes, 2014-present has been void of great young players. No wonder Djokovic, Federer, Nadal and even Murray still decide to stick around, despite all their problems. Why retire when there's no one to push you out?

The haters can say whatever they want about Fed, but there is one thing even they cannot deny: Fed has dealt with great young players pretty much his entire career from Nadal to Djoko to Murray to Delpo.

Nadal and Djokovic to this day have not proven themselves against great young players, which creates the illusion that they are playing peak tennis.

Exactly. Think about it. Djokovic won all his majors against older players. Every single one. He hasn't faced a younger player in a slam final.Compare that to Federer.

It is what it is, but when some of his fans and Federer haters want to talk smack about Federer, they need to engage their brains for a second.

 

[mike danny]

Exactly. Think about it. Djokovic won all his majors against older players. Every single one. He hasn't faced a younger player in a slam final.Compare that to Federer.

It is what it is, but when some of his fans and Federer haters want to talk smack about Federer, they need to engage their brains for a second.

It is indeed shocking.

People criticize Fed for losing to younger ATG's in slam finals in his 30's, but where are these younger players who are supposed to contest slam finals against Nadal and Djokovic?

How I wished for Fed to play guys as old or older than him in slam finals in his 30's.

Now Djokodal fans are coming with ridiculous statements like players are peaking in their older years to make it sound like they dealt with mighty competition.

 

[Pagoo]

It is indeed shocking.

People criticize Fed for losing to younger ATG's in slam finals in his 30's, but where are these younger players who are supposed to contest slam finals against Nadal and Djokovic?

How I wished for Fed to play guys as old or older than him in slam finals in his 30's.

Now Djokodal fans are coming with ridiculous statements like players are peaking in their older years to make it sound like they dealt with mighty competition.

Yep. They know they need to make those statements. Yeah, we are about to witness Djokovic's peak, right? The tour has been weak since 2014. It doesn't matter how they slice it. The absence of younger ATG players make it weak.

 

[Zhilady]

Do I really have to mention all the stats of Murray and Roddick?

Federer >> Djokovic for the same reasons Murray > Roddick.

And the reasons are stats and results.

 

[KINGROGER]

Do I really have to mention all the stats of Murray and Roddick?

No because they’re irrelevant when discussing how tough they are for Fed at grand slams. He owned them both when fully fit and playing well.

 

[Druss]

What problems do you have with Murray?

Murray is on a much higher level than Safin, Delpo, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko.

Look at the top 10 wins, slam finals/semis, olympic medals, m1000...

And you know what I think about putting 04-09 on the same level as 11-16 in general.

Murray is not a better player than Safin. He is more consistent and accomplished, but he is not better.

Peak for peak.....Murray is toast!

 

[Druss]

I'd like to know what some of you think about a USO match up between:

2007 Djokovic vs 2015 Federer

Who would win?

I think that would be a very close match, but I'd favour the younger and hungrier Djoker.

Edit: I better stop referring to Djokovic as 'hungry' as he does look literally starved for calories these days.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

No because they’re irrelevant when discussing how tough they are for Fed at grand slams. He owned them both when fully fit and playing well.

we're discussing about how good they are, not how tough for Federer.

Nadal was owned 7-0 by Djokovic in 2011-12, that doesn't mean he wasn't a better player than Murray.

Losing to Murray is not the same as losing to Roddick. They're not players of the same level.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

For all of those people that think winning is easy at an old age, we'll get to see what Nadal and Djokovic do during their age 33-37 years. And the good news is that they won't have to face an ATG during his absolute peak. So they will have a huge advantage over old Federer.

Here's the bar that Federer has set for old players. And he did this going against Nadal and Djokovic that were 5-6 years younger than him.

So far, from 2014-2018, Federer(age 33-37 seasons) has gone:
223-36, .861 overall
49-18, .731 vs the top 10,
made 10 slam semis, 6 slam finals, and won 3 slam titles

If Nadal from 2019-2023(age 33-37 seasons) and Djokovic from 2020-2024(age 33-37 seasons) can put up the same results despite not facing 2 ATG that are 5-6 years younger, then I'll start to believe that age isn't as big of a deal as I originally thought.

Fed's incredible play as an old man is what puts him at the top. Federer is a combination of young Borg and old Rosewall wrapped into one career. It seems impossible.

Let's see Nadal and Djokovic age nearly as well as Federer. Time will tell. But I would bet a lot of money that they won't. They will someday appreciate how tough it is to win at an old age. Luckily for them, they aren't that old yet. But both have clearly experienced a dip in play.

With this logic Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Del Potro were too young until 2009-10, since Federer started to dominate at 23.

That means peak Federer had a 15-23 score against too young big 4, and since they became adult in 2010 he won only 3 slams.

Longevity is personal. Some players peak at 25, some at 30, some at 35. Nobody at 20, unless they stop training.

In my opinion the new generation set the bar too high for Federer in 2008-12, then in 2014 with the new racket and an improved game he was capable to overcome the whole field except Djokovic. Infact they have a 23-5 and 10-1 score since 2014 against the other two big4, who meanwhile even reached no.1 position.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Federer >> Djokovic for the same reasons Murray > Roddick.

And the reasons are stats and results.

Stats wise there is much more difference between Murray and Roddick, anyway you have to take into account the eras they played too.

Otherwise Federer wouldn't stand a chance against Tilden.

Murray is 8-3 against Roddick, Djokovic is 15-8 in the most important matches with Federer. That should suggest you the level of play.

A stat I like anyway is the number of top ranked players met and beaten in the peak period. Go compare for example the number of top-8 beaten by Federer in 2004-09 and by Djokovic in 2011-16.

 

[abmk]

Stats wise there is much more difference between Murray and Roddick, anyway you have to take into account the eras they played too.

Otherwise Federer wouldn't stand a chance against Tilden.

Murray is 8-3 against Roddick, Djokovic is 15-8 in the most important matches with Federer. That should suggest you the level of play.

A stat I like anyway is the number of top ranked players met and beaten in the peak period. Go compare for example the number of top-8 beaten by Federer in 2004-09 and by Djokovic in 2011-16.

20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12

should I repeat that ?

20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>12

Now go and deal with it instead of some making up some arbitrary, useless BS.

oh and fed > djoko on grass, fast HC, indoors.
about even on clay
and its debatable on slow HC

as far as your bold part is concerned, that's because of increasing homegenization leading to more meetings b/w top 8 players, lesser depth below top 8 or top 10 in 2011-16 compared to 2004-09 again leading to lesser more meetings b/w top 8 players.

doesn't mean 2011-16 was stronger than 2004-09.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12

should I repeat that ?

20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>12

Now go and deal with it instead of some making up some arbitrary, useless BS.

oh and fed > djoko on grass, fast HC, indoors.
about even on clay
and its debatable on slow HC

as far as your bold part is concerned, that's because of increasing homegenization leading to more meetings b/w top 8 players, lesser depth below top 8 or top 10 in 2011-16 compared to 2004-09 again leading to lesser more meetings b/w top 8 players.

doesn't mean 2011-16 was stronger than 2004-09.

In 17-18 there is no more homogeneization? Top players don't reach the end of the tournaments anymore.

Tilden 100 wins in a row, no loss in majors for 7 years. Tilden much better player than Federer.

 

[abmk]

In 17-18 there is no more homogeneization? Top players don't reach the end of the tournaments anymore.

17-18 are relatively weaker/more inconsistent years thanks to the field of top guys being older than on an average (leading to more injuries/inconsistencies)

Tilden 100 wins in a row, no loss in majors for 7 years. Tilden much better player than Federer.

oh please, stop acting like you give a flying f*** or know sh*t about players before 2000. You started watching tennis from around 2011 or so.

 

[timnz]

Who would you favour to win the majority of matches if Federer and Djokovic played each 10 times on each of the major slams?

These are my predictions:

Aus Open- Djokovic wins 6-4 (current surface)

French Open Even 5-5

Wimbledon Federer 8-2

Us Open Federer 7-3

curious to see everyone else's predictions.

Well its kind of funny - but the Australian Open and the US Open in recent years have swapped. The AO has become medium-fast and the US Open has become slow. Hence, the AO would now favour Federer over Djokovic and the opposite way around at the US Open.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

2006: no homogeneization

2007-16: homogeneization

2017: no homogeneization again.

Funny