B
BrokenGears
Guest
Since you were born this century and haven't really watched much of him outside highlight reels I don't think you're qualified to even talk about this lmao.
How about he's an old man in tennis terms? Oh right. He never ages according to you guys and he's at his peak today.
Keep 'em coming. I'm going to throw up from so much laughter.
I watch anywhere from 20-40 minute highlight reels and I look at draws and stats. I think I know a bit.
According to you guys Fed turned into a mug after 2007 and lost his prime in his mid to late 20s. Apparently he’s been irrelevant since he stopped winning slams frequently
No one thinks Fed isn’t peak rn. We think he’s playin really good.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Because I knew it'd get under your skin.
BrokenGears said:
He's literally this era's Hewitt.
No you brought up his opinion on the courts, I retorted with a well known opinion from a different player about the speed of rebound ace which you think was fast.BrokenGears said:
Still was pretty slow. I mean Agassi did well there as well because he had time to set up his shots and go for winners he couldn't on faster surfaces. Why do you think he hammered Sampras there? He beat him twice and never lost to him.BrokenGears said:
Because Lleyton lead him 7-2 at one point lmao. And at his peak he might've lost heaps in a row but he's beaten him as an old man too. So if he beat him at Brisbane in 2014 on his last legs how's he going to do poorly against him at his peak? It's a joke. You have zero clue what you're talking about lmao.BrokenGears said:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
You don't watch full matches? Why am I not surprised?
Actually Fed's prime period was probably 2003-2012 lmao. But keep your assumptions up about me.BrokenGears said:
He's not even playing good tennis today though lmao. He is legitimately losing to lesser players. Whenever he meets Novak he's playing alright but aside from that he's been **** since the Australian Open win.BrokenGears said:
B
BrokenGears
Guest
Because I knew it'd get under your skin.
He's literally this era's Hewitt.
No you brought up his opinion on the courts, I retorted with a well known opinion from a different player about the speed of rebound ace which you think was fast.
Still was pretty slow. I mean Agassi did well there as well because he had time to set up his shots and go for winners he couldn't on faster surfaces. Why do you think he hammered Sampras there? He beat him twice and never lost to him.
Because Lleyton lead him 7-2 at one point lmao. And at his peak he might've lost heaps in a row but he's beaten him as an old man too. So if he beat him at Brisbane in 2014 on his last legs how's he going to do poorly against him at his peak? It's a joke. You have zero clue what you're talking about lmao.
Novak winning it cheered me up
Who has the better career in an era of 3 ATGs?
It’s Hewitt’s opinion. We’re talking about Fed’s opinion because in this context we’re talking abt Fed. He said that he felt AO courts had slowed down considerably.
My point still stands. It wasn’t as slow as it was 2008-2016
How old was Fed? This is youngrray beating primerer.
B
BrokenGears
Guest
You don't watch full matches? Why am I not surprised?
Actually Fed's prime period was probably 2003-2012 lmao. But keep your assumptions up about me.
He's not even playing good tennis today though lmao. He is legitimately losing to lesser players. Whenever he meets Novak he's playing alright but aside from that he's been **** since the Australian Open win.
I find vids that are long enough to give me a good idea of the match. And yes I do watch full matches when I can find them.
So do you think he played absolute crap in 2014-2015? I’ll agree it wasn’t his best or even his prime. But his serve and net skills were right up there and he was destroying players not named Djokovic.
Yes, 2018 Federer is crap I agree
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Cool.
Not like he's going to win more in another eras with big time ATGs. You'd need a 2002 like year every year for 5 years for him to win enough to be considered an ATG lmao. He'd need to be playing absolute garbage. In that context Hewitt and Roddick would've won more too.BrokenGears said:
Yet he still won there in 2010.BrokenGears said:
How does that not prove he'd do well there? Because he didn't beat your boy on the way or what?It was still slow and the speed wasn't what was hurting Fed.BrokenGears said:
How old was Hewitt? You do know he's older than Fed right?BrokenGears said:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
OK then. I guess I shouldn't be so harsh actually it isn't easy to find older matches.
Nope. I think he played good tennis those years. But it wasn't his prime.BrokenGears said:
OK moving on then.BrokenGears said:
B
BrokenGears
Guest
Cool.
Not like he's going to win more in another eras with big time ATGs. You'd need a 2002 like year every for 5 years for him to win enough to be considered an ATG lmao. He'd need to be playing absolute garbage. In that context Hewitt and Roddick would've won more too.
Yet he still won there in 2010.
It was still slow and the speed wasn't what was hurting Fed.
How old was Hewitt? You do know he's older than Fed right?
Never said he was close to an ATG. I think he’s better than Hewitt or Arod career wise.
Can you deny that Fed’s draw in 2010 was weak? He literally was abt to lose to Davy before one of the worst chokes to ever appear on the planet started
I’d say Fed would love if AO was faster from 2008-2016 because it would have helped him a lot
I’m taking about Hewitt v Fed early days
Last edited by a moderator:
B
BrokenGears
Guest
Like I’ve watched enough matches of ATGs even from older days. I watched tons of Ned matches like the one he had against Mathieu to appreciate what defense he had in those yrs. I watched Fed v Sampras or Fed v Safin etc... I watched his match against Blake in masters cup. I might not know it all, but I would say I know enough.
Fine.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
And when have I disagreed on that front? I'm not blind or stupid. I am aware he has a better career than them both. But in terms of level I don't see much difference tbh. It's consistency that helps him out.
BrokenGears said:
You are aware Davydenko was on a hot streak and hammered Nadal at Doha? He absolutely crapped on the guy. He was peaking until he got a wrist injury which effectively curtailed his career.
So nope. Don't think it was that weak especially concerning Davydenko.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Those aren't older days to me. Older days to me is sitting down and watching Lendl and Connors duke it out. Not Nadal or Federer in their earlier careers.
B
BrokenGears
Guest
And when have I disagreed on that front? I'm not blind or stupid. I am aware he has a better career than them both. But in terms of level I don't see much difference tbh. It's consistency that helps him out.
You are aware Davydenko was on a hot streak and hammered Nadal at Doha? He absolutely crapped on the guy. He was peaking until he got a wrist injury which effectively curtailed his career.
So nope. Don't think it was that weak especially concerning Davydenko.
Alright
You and me both know that Ned had a match up issue v Davy. Fed has no such match up issue.
B
BrokenGears
Guest
I watched a lot of Borg, Chang, and Lendl. Especially a really good quality Lendl v Chang match that Chang won on YouTube
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I loved Chang a lot back in the day. That guy could really move.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Yeah but Davydenko won the WTF in 2009 too. It wasn't just out of the blue. And check out the match, it wasn't even close between him and Nadal. That doesn't just come down to matchup issues. Davydenko was playing great tennis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_ATP_World_Tour_Finals_–_Singles
He took out Fed and Del Potro back to back. Del Potro in straights nonetheless. You can't say that isn't him playing great tennis.
The only certain thing his record shows is the same as every other player, which tourneys he won.
Well i dont know... Is top10 reaching far almost every tourney a sign of a strong top10 or a weak 10-50? Could be both imo. Or something in between. I just cant see why #23 beating #9 is a sign of a weak field and #9 beating #23 is a strong field.
Just dont think top10 wins count too much. Im sure Roger could beat more top10's in his prime If they reached far enough to face him. He beat 4 top10s at AO17, at age 35. The only reason he was so "lucky" to play 4 top10s was his rankings of course, because of injury.
Last edited:
Because Del Potro is nowhere near Federer’s level. Maybe in 2009 he could take it to him at the USO but Fed really did blow that match.
Federer’s FH in general is way more consistent and troubled Djokovic more.
Yeah true but see how 2012 Federer did vs Djokovic. 03-07 version played even better than 2012 with same style.
B
BrokenGears
Guest
Djoko has problems with people who completely hit through his defense. Stan does that very well. Fed never slapped his FH and his BH. I don’t see how Fed is going to destroy Djoko’s defense, especially 2011 Djokovic. He’ll hit plenty of winners, but on slow AO, slow USO, and RG, he won’t break it.
I don’t deny that, but once again Djoko has amazing defense
That’s why he would win 60-40 on slow Wimbledon. 2012 Djoko wasn’t close to 2015 Djokovic or 2011 Djokovic
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
2015 Federer wasn't close to being close to 2006 Federer, yet he played even with peakest of peak 2015 Djokovic at Wimbledon for two sets and a bit.
Amazing how despite reportedly watching a lot of matches you still vastly underestimate the power of peak attacking tennis. Also, "Fed never slapped his FH", yeah hit all those winners ever so gently
Slow = Djok, fast = Fed, medium = Fed, thus fedr goat. Why? 'Cause attack beats defence when both are at the same level, which they would be in medium conditions. Slow grass is still medium fast, so Fedr wins.
B
BrokenGears
Guest
2015 Federer wasn't close to being close to 2006 Federer, yet he played even with peakest of peak 2015 Djokovic at Wimbledon for two sets and a bit.
Amazing how despite reportedly watching a lot of matches you still vastly underestimate the power of peak attacking tennis. Also, "Fed never slapped his FH", yeah hit all those winners ever so gently
Slow = Djok, fast = Fed, medium = Fed, thus fedr goat. Why? 'Cause attack beats defence when both are at the same level, which they would be in medium conditions. Slow grass is still medium fast, so Fedr wins.
That's literally why I said it would be 60-40 Fed
So you're saying Fed hits his FH winners like Stan or Del Po? Ok
Lmao medium is very debatable
Old racket Federer? Most certainly:
And even old Federer in 2017 for a bit regained his old FH for a bit once he was comfortable with the larger racket.
Skip to 5:30. Literally on a medium-fast court Federer hitting 5-6 winners in a row with his FH, dictating each point with it. The video doesn’t even have many points from 03-06 where his FH was even more powerful and lethal.
Last edited:
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
70-30 at best, Djoko isn't handling the barrage of serves, forehands and skidding slow slices that easily.
More compact technique yet more efficient, leading to almost as much power while taking the ball earlier and better redirection. Fed's peak FH is legit one of the GOAT shots, only the running FH is a little weaker - that's where Delpo rules.
Attack > defence
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
2015 Federer wasn't close to being close to 2006 Federer, yet he played even with peakest of peak 2015 Djokovic at Wimbledon for two sets and a bit.
Amazing how despite reportedly watching a lot of matches you still vastly underestimate the power of peak attacking tennis. Also, "Fed never slapped his FH", yeah hit all those winners ever so gently
Slow = Djok, fast = Fed, medium = Fed, thus fedr goat. Why? 'Cause attack beats defence when both are at the same level, which they would be in medium conditions. Slow grass is still medium fast, so Fedr wins.
The best defense is a good offense.
Attacking doesn't always beat defense and vice versa. There's a fine line there. But this would be assuming that Djokovic only plays defense and never offense which isn't exactly correct. Giving the edge to Federer on medium surfaces is pushing it really. They are basically even there. The best way to compare Djokovic and Federer hypothetically is to look at their matches from 2007 Canada until 2012 WTF because their primes and peaks overlapped and they both were within the top 3 players in the world during this time. Federer won 6 Slams during this time and Djokovic won 5.Slow hardcourt(AO, IW, Miami)/4-0 Djokovic
Fast hardcourt(USO, Cincy, Basel, Dubai, Shanghai)/7-4 Federer
Medium hardcourt(Canada, WTF)/2-2
Clay--3-2 Djokovic
Grass--1-0 Federer
Overall--13-12 Djokovic
Apart from their stomping grounds of slow and fast hardcourt, it's pretty even which I think this rivalry would have been if their peaks overlapped. They have been virtually even for a long time.
Looking further ahead, out of the 13 sets they have played at Wimbledon, Djokovic has had set points in 10 of them. Federer has done so in 7. Now this wasn't peak Federer but a Federer good enough to add 2 more Wimby titles in that time frame. This suggests that Djokovic would have been a handful for Federer to deal with at his peak. No way does he beat Djokovic 7 out of 10 times at Wimbledon.
Last edited:
B
BrokenGears
Guest
The best returner and ATG at defense isn’t hitting back FH and serves? You must be joking.
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
slam finals/semis, yec finals and masters finals against players who have 75+% of wins in slams:
Djokovic 47-30
Nadal 37-23
Federer 23-37
Djokovic 47-30
Nadal 37-23
Federer 23-37
Last edited by a moderator:
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
ATG FH and serves, with clever variety to boot.
The way you frame it, it's like saying "the best returner getting aced four times in a row? You must be kidding!"... and then you learn Federer has in fact done it.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
The best defense is a good offense.
Slow hardcourt(AO, IW, Miami)/4-0 Djokovic
Fast hardcourt(USO, Cincy, Basel, Dubai, Shanghai)/7-4 Federer
Medium hardcourt(Canada, WTF)/2-2
Clay--3-2 Djokovic
Grass--1-0 Federer
Overall--13-12 Djokovic
Apart from their stomping grounds of slow and fast hardcourt, it's pretty even which I think this rivalry would have been if their peaks overlapped. They have been virtually even for a long time.
Looking further ahead, out of the 13 sets they have played at Wimbledon, Djokovic has had set points in 10 of them. Federer has done so in 7. Now this wasn't peak Federer but a Federer good enough to add 2 more Wimby titles in that time frame. This suggests that Djokovic would have been a handful for Federer to deal with at his peak. No way does he beat Djokovic 7 out of 10 times at Wimbledon.
As usual, Djokovic's dealings with past-peak Fed give Djokofans false pride regarding how he'd hypothetically fare against the mythical beast that is Peak Federer
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
As usual, Djokovic's dealings with past-peak Fed give Djokofans false pride regarding how he'd hypothetically fare against the mythical beast that is Peak Federer
Well at least you admit that you guys have created a mythical beast.
Naw I think false pride is thinking Federer would trounce Djokovic 7/10 times on grass. It's not happening bruh. The edge goes to Federer for sure but not 70% of the time.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Well at least you admit that you guys have created a mythical beast.
Federer is the grasscourt GOAT who achieved 5 Wimbledon titles and 7 finals in a row during his peak/prime, yes it's absolutely happening. 60/40 is Djokovic's AO edge
NatF
Bionic Poster
Federer is the grasscourt GOAT who achieved 5 Wimbledon titles and 7 finals in a row during his peak/prime, yes it's absolutely happening. 60/40 is Djokovic's AO edge
60/40 to Djokovic over career's with a 60/40 edge to Federer in absolute peak form
Eren
Professional
The best defense is a good offense.
Slow hardcourt(AO, IW, Miami)/4-0 Djokovic
Fast hardcourt(USO, Cincy, Basel, Dubai, Shanghai)/7-4 Federer
Medium hardcourt(Canada, WTF)/2-2
Clay--3-2 Djokovic
Grass--1-0 Federer
Overall--13-12 Djokovic
Apart from their stomping grounds of slow and fast hardcourt, it's pretty even which I think this rivalry would have been if their peaks overlapped. They have been virtually even for a long time.
Looking further ahead, out of the 13 sets they have played at Wimbledon, Djokovic has had set points in 10 of them. Federer has done so in 7. Now this wasn't peak Federer but a Federer good enough to add 2 more Wimby titles in that time frame. This suggests that Djokovic would have been a handful for Federer to deal with at his peak. No way does he beat Djokovic 7 out of 10 times at Wimbledon.
How often did they meet from 07-09 and how often from 10-12? (seriously interested, not something criticize your analysis).
Regarding the bold part. I diagree. If you consider the matches they played at Wimbledon, Djokovic was at his best or close to his best in every match. Federer was playing good tennis in 2012 (not consistent though). In sets played it's only 7-6 to Djokovic. IMO, Peak Federer can defnitely win 7/10 on grass against Novak, peak for peak. I mean, he has twice the Wimbledon titles Djokovic has.
Overall, I agree with your analysis. The H2H would be very close. I think Djokovic would have a big egde (something like 4-1) on slow HC and Federer would have such an edge on grass.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Federer is the grasscourt GOAT who achieved 5 Wimbledon titles and 7 finals in a row during his peak/prime, yes it's absolutely happening. 60/40 is Djokovic's AO edge
Yes and this automatically means he beats a 4 time Wimby champ 70% of the time? Not in the real world. Only in mythical land. Lol.
One thing that is not being realized is that if you get peak Federer, you regain some speed, agility and some of forehand ability but you lose some edge of the serve, backhand, court sense and tennis IQ, since those things actually improved after his peak. It's not a perfect world.So Djokovic only has 60/40 edge in Australia although he is 3-0 there since hitting his prime but Federer is 70/30 edge at Wimbledon although he trails Djokovic 1-2 overall? This is true if it's in the mythical land.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I just can't see him beating Djokovic 7/10 times at Wimbledon. He's too good of a grass player to let that happen. If this were Sampras in his fast conditions of his era then yes very much so but not in this slowed baseline grass era. I've seen enough to know he would definitely challenge Federer. For one, no one is going to play at the very best of their ability everytime. They will have slips and letdowns like all past greats like Becker, Edberg, McEnroe and Borg had. It's just not realistic to think otherwise. Federer has the edge but not 70/30.
Nadal_Django
Legend
Which version? The 2007 AO?60/40 to Djokovic over career's with a 60/40 edge to Federer in absolute peak form
The version of Fed which only had to deal with Robredo, Roddick and Gonzales for the title!? Talking about creating myths!
Eren
Professional
Oh well... I gave Novak the same edge on slow HC lol.
But fine, 60/40 on grass for Fed and the same ratio to Djokovic on Slow/medium hard.
On fast grass, Fed could do a lot of damage as well. He adapted his game to these slower conditions but he was tailor made for fast surfaces.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Whatever number you like and what feels good to you man.
Yes he could but that just wasn't the conditions of his era so it didn't make sense for me to comment on it.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes and this automatically means he beats a 4 time Wimby champ 70% of the time? Not in the real world. Only in mythical land. Lol.
The neo-backhand thing is overrated as hell, he only deployed it properly for two tournaments (AO and IW '17) and was back to the standard stuff right after, no better than peak. Same with tennis IQ which peak Fed already had in spades, but was lazy to use because his stunning form usually led to winning without having to be creative, but when he chose to, well you could see what happened to poor Roddick. Serve yes, he'd lose a bit as statistically demonstrable, but would gain so much more in forehand and movement and agility and stamina and confidence borne by all of the above.
The real land is where Djokovic had a significant form advantage in every of those wins - 2008 because mono, 2011 because peak and 2014+ because age/peak.
As I gracefully explained above, Mythical Peak Fedr was so much better than this old shell it's not even funny.
Such disrespect for Peak Fed, unbelievable!
The neo-backhand thing is overrated as hell, he only deployed it properly for two tournaments (AO and IW '17) and was back to the standard stuff right after, no better than peak. Same with tennis IQ which peak Fed already had in spades, but was lazy to use because his stunning form usually led to winning without having to be creative, but when he chose to, well you could see what happened to poor Roddick. Serve yes, he'd lose a bit as statistically demonstrable, but would gain so much more in forehand and movement and agility and stamina and confidence borne by all of the above.
The real land is where Djokovic had a significant form advantage in every of those wins - 2008 because mono, 2011 because peak and 2014+ because age/peak.
As I gracefully explained above, Mythical Peak Fedr was so much better than this old shell it's not even funny.
Such disrespect for Peak Fed, unbelievable!
In August 2015 Federer stated that he played better than ever. I do not understand how anyone can question a self-assessment of a player. I can understand if you say that he playes better now as then he could not include 2018, but you can say he played better in 2007 as he has done his own measurement and there is no one more competent for that than him.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Your lack of understanding is nothing new.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
The neo-backhand thing is overrated as hell, he only deployed it properly for two tournaments (AO and IW '17) and was back to the standard stuff right after, no better than peak. Same with tennis IQ which peak Fed already had in spades, but was lazy to use because his stunning form usually led to winning without having to be creative, but when he chose to, well you could see what happened to poor Roddick. Serve yes, he'd lose a bit as statistically demonstrable, but would gain so much more in forehand and movement and agility and stamina and confidence borne by all of the above.
The real land is where Djokovic had a significant form advantage in every of those wins - 2008 because mono, 2011 because peak and 2014+ because age/peak.
As I gracefully explained above, Mythical Peak Fedr was so much better than this old shell it's not even funny.
Such disrespect for Peak Fed, unbelievable!
Naw his backhand definitely improved around 2015 in my opinion. Under Edberg, there was a significant improvement with that shot. During his peak he often hit too short on the backhand side which is how Nadal was able to bully him so often on that wing.
His tennis IQ is definitely higher which is only natural. The more you play and the more experience you have, the smarter tennis you play.
I think I was pretty fair in my hypothetical comparison from 2007 Canada until 2012 WTF. There were 10 meetings in 07-09, 5 meetings in 2010, and 10 meetings in 11-12. The head to head was basically even and Federer was not far off from his prime in those last two years even if he wasn't quite at his best. Djokovic was not that great in 2009 and 2010 so it balances out. Djokovic is just better on slower hardcourt. I would think anyone should be able to concede that by looking at the overall head to head with matches in between 07-12 on that surface and then seeing how Federer has plenty of wins on faster hardcourt in those years but not on the slower surface.
It seem that you are losing nerves. When you say that Federer ws better in, lets say, 2007 than in 2015 you are arguing with Federer, not me.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
I do not question Djokovic's superiority on the slower HC of (slow) AO, Miami, Canada and (slow) Paris, giving him a bigger edge at AO/Canada than Federer at Wimbledon/USO is ricockulous though. Miami is the one place Djokovic would absolutely dominate, the reverse of Federer in Cincinnati.
No superiority can be found at IW, however, which has slow bounce but the ball flies fast off the racquet through the desert air. Peak 2011/15 Djokovic wins aren't telling, and the 2014 final was decided by tiebreak.
My list is simple and clear:
AO - Djokovic (clear edge on slow AO)
IW - tie (edge Fed imo, if even 2015 Djokovic choked a set in terrible fashion)
Miami - Djokovic (total dominance)
MC - Djokovic
Rome - Djokovic (06 Fed can go toe-to-toe with any Djok but that was a one-off, clear edge Djok otherwise)
3rd clay - Federer (just check his results in 02-12, even the Nadal losses were close - if only Fed wasn't choking so much)
RG - tie (probably edge Djokovic in typical conditions, he matches up better against Nadal so that's not telling)
Wimbledon - Federer (clear edge)
Canada - Djokovic
Cincinnati - Federer (total dominance)
USO - Federer (clear edge)
1st fall - tie (06 Madrid ~ 15 Shanghai, both were stunning against slightly lacking opp so look similar)
Paris - Djokovic (clear edge)
YEC - tie (depends on conditions, fast goes to Fed and slow to Djok)
This.
It's pretty hilarious that quite a few Ultronians and Bullzillions actually think Federers career exist only because peak-Djokodal wasnt around.
The best defense is a good offense.
Slow hardcourt(AO, IW, Miami)/4-0 Djokovic
Fast hardcourt(USO, Cincy, Basel, Dubai, Shanghai)/7-4 Federer
Medium hardcourt(Canada, WTF)/2-2
Clay--3-2 Djokovic
Grass--1-0 Federer
Overall--13-12 Djokovic
Apart from their stomping grounds of slow and fast hardcourt, it's pretty even which I think this rivalry would have been if their peaks overlapped. They have been virtually even for a long time.
Looking further ahead, out of the 13 sets they have played at Wimbledon, Djokovic has had set points in 10 of them. Federer has done so in 7. Now this wasn't peak Federer but a Federer good enough to add 2 more Wimby titles in that time frame. This suggests that Djokovic would have been a handful for Federer to deal with at his peak. No way does he beat Djokovic 7 out of 10 times at Wimbledon.
I’d give Djokovic 70/30 on plexicushion over Fed. Rebound ace 50/50 as it was a quicker more lively court but still not fast.Yes and this automatically means he beats a 4 time Wimby champ 70% of the time? Not in the real world. Only in mythical land. Lol.
So Djokovic only has 60/40 edge in Australia although he is 3-0 there since hitting his prime but Federer is 70/30 edge at Wimbledon although he trails Djokovic 1-2 overall? This is true if it's in the mythical land.
Wimbledon definitely 70/30 at least to Federer. Peak Fed is completely different to old 2014-2016 version who had no baseline weapons.
Last edited:
AO: clear edge to Djokovic on slow/plexicushion. 50/50 RA.
IW: 50/50
Miami: clear dominance by Djokovic
MC: slight edge to Federer
Rome: clear edge to Djokovic, despite Fed’s 06 final performance
3rd clay: clear edge to Federer
Wimbledon: clear edge to Federer
Canada: slight edge to Djokovic
Cincinnati: clear dominance by Federer
USO: clear edge to Federer
Madrid indoors/Shanghai: clear dominance by Federer
Paris: clear edge to Djokovic (on faster, Federer and 2011 Fed can challenge peak Nole there)
YEC: clear dominance to Fed at Shanghai. 50/50 at London
IW: 50/50
Miami: clear dominance by Djokovic
MC: slight edge to Federer
Rome: clear edge to Djokovic, despite Fed’s 06 final performance
3rd clay: clear edge to Federer
Wimbledon: clear edge to Federer
Canada: slight edge to Djokovic
Cincinnati: clear dominance by Federer
USO: clear edge to Federer
Madrid indoors/Shanghai: clear dominance by Federer
Paris: clear edge to Djokovic (on faster, Federer and 2011 Fed can challenge peak Nole there)
YEC: clear dominance to Fed at Shanghai. 50/50 at London
CYGS
Legend
His first 12 slams. So at least 60% of his career.
Likewise for Djokovic. His last 8 slams with no peak Fedal. Another weak era champion.
Like he wouldnt win slams 2004-2007 If Djokodal was around...
. Well Nadal was around... But not peak-Nadal of course, lol.Thats the funny thing, some seem to believe Feds decline didnt help Djokodal, even though he was a constant threat to them, even in his thirties.
Last edited:
Another way to look at it is Fedal won a total of 25 slams combined when Nole was non-existent. After Fedal went through battle for many years they wore each other out physically and mentally, and then Nole took advantage of the situation and start winning majors.
Similar threads
