So who is better/greater-Djokovic in AO or Federer in Wimbledon

Title


  • Total voters
    56

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Having extra finals is better than not having extra finals.

If and when Noel passes the mark in terms of wins, I'll gladly put him on top.
 
Federer, higher level. Djokovic played six five-setters during his runs (and the last three were disappointing quality); Federer played two. Lost four finals to fitter & clutch(er) greats, three in five sets. No such luck that he could play crap sets and still win.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
For now, Federer. Getting beaten in the final adds far more money and ranking points than losing in earlier rounds.

However, Djoker is likely to eclipse Fed in this contest.
 

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
Both have 8 titles. Choose between being 8-0 in finals against having 12 Wimbledon finals but having a 0-3 record against your main rival.
Djokovic is better.

Djokovic is already ahead in dominance ratio and has matched Roger's title count.

Age for age, Novak is also ahead

Having played more Wimbledon events than Novak has played AO's, Federer has had more time and opportunity to accumulate finals appearances.

Djokovic's control of the title matches here is Sampras-like. When he is good form at his favourite event, he is almost impossible to stop.
 
Last edited:

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
@SummerBreeze @Tennis_Hands - just to clarify (not being harsh as there may be a language barrier at work here) but being "unbeaten" in this context is referring to Djokovic's unbeaten record in title matches. It's not a claim that Djokovic has never lost a match at AO.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Federer, higher level. Djokovic played six five-setters during his runs (and the last three were disappointing quality); Federer played two. Lost four finals to fitter & clutch(er) greats, three in five sets. No such luck that he could play crap sets and still win.
Now detractors will value more H2H and no wonder, we already knew that.Titles and number of finals have always been secondary on this forum and the H2H was always glorified.
 

upchuck

Professional
So let me get this straight. Y'all putting Federer ahead of Djokovic even though he has had many more chances to make the Wimbledon final by virtue of his age...all while Djokovic has a better winning percentage at the AO than Fed does at Wimbledon? Okay.
 
@SummerBreeze @Tennis_Hands - just to clarify (not being harsh as there may be a language barrier at work here) but being "unbeaten" in this context is referring to Djokovic's unbeaten record in title matches. It's not a claim that Djokovic has never lost a match at AO.
There is no language barrier no worries. These discussions also imply losing in the final is worse then in the second round somehow XD
 

MeatTornado

Legend
Novak can easily catch up and certainly surpass Federer.

But for now I don't see how Roger gets knocked for reaching 4 extra finals and exclusively losing to ATGs, 3 of which came at Novak's current age or older. And the 4th is considered one of the best matches of all time. 3 of them were 5 set epics.

Would he seriously have been "better" or "greater" if he'd lost in the 4th round more often?
 
Top