Stronger competition: 2004-06 Federer or 2012-14 Djokovic?

Stronger competition


  • Total voters
    34

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
2004-06 Federer's Slam + YEC final/semifinal opponents

Nadal x4
Hewitt x4
Roddick x3
Safin x3
Agassi
Ferrero
Gaudio
Nalbandian
Davydenko
Henman
Grosjean
Blake
Baghdatis
Kiefer
Bjorkman


2012-14 Djokovic's Slam + YEC final/semifinal opponents

Nadal x6
Federer x5
Murray x4
Wawrinka x2
Del Potro x2
Ferrer x2
Nishikori x2
Dimitrov
Gulbis
 

RS

Bionic Poster
2012-2014 was more top heavy but the depth sucked because you had the lost gen entering their peaks and they didn't do anything of note. 2012 was the strongest and most competitive year among all those years though.
You could make a case 2012 was the best year ever even.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
2012-2014 was stronger but not enough to cover the fact that Federer won 8 slams to Djokovic's 3 lol.
Federer had the possibility to win 8 slams without facing an ATG in the final/semifinal:

AO 2004
RG 2004
WI 2004
UO 2004
AO 2005
WI 2005
AO 2006
UO 2006

Djokovic had the possibility to win 1 slam without facing an ATG in the final/semifinal:

UO 2014
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Federer had the possibility to win 8 slams without facing an ATG in the final/semifinal:

AO 2004
RG 2004
WI 2004
UO 2004
AO 2005
WI 2005
AO 2006
UO 2006

Djokovic had the possibility to win 1 slam without facing an ATG in the final/semifinal:

UO 2014

ATG says nothing about how anyone played on the day (y)

Fed also played Agassi in the QF twice and Kuerten was an ATG on clay so...
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
I would say 12-14 on first blush, and maybe on second, but in so many threads here, there is a circular (chase-your-tail) aspect to all of it. Sometimes, the gist of many arguments is akin to this:

Federer (or, substitute Nadal or Djokovic) had it easier because he never had to face Federer (or, substitute N or D).

To be honest, it is factual that Fed won 12 of his slams, 4 of his YE#1s and most of his weeks at #1 before Novak won his first slam. Does that invalidate those achievements? Of course not. Did his relatively easier competition (I think most would agree, but not all) give him a running start on Novak, in both achievements and perception? Of course it did.

But to Fed's credit, he dominated during that period, and we'll never know how this whole era would've played out if they were exactly the same age or Novak was almost 6 years older.

And then there's Rafa, who could be greater than both, with his own path.

What we haven't yet seen is Novak with, say, 5 years on the tour with no Federer, or with a Fed that is not great competition. And we'll probably never have that because ... Federer - his talent, his drive and his incredible longevity.

Enjoy them all - all 3 "GOATs".
 

NatF

Bionic Poster

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
Go out and get some gifts for your loved ones :giggle:
that's actually what he's doing at the moment... treating himself with some tasty random numbers :giggle:

and Xmas is too dangerous, anyway:
Xmaslightstats.jpg
(no turkey or santa klaus?) :unsure:
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Still says nothing about individual slam matches (y)

The funny thing is that Djokovic 4/5 times he was confronted with a draw without an ATG in SF/F failed he failed - USO 2012, Wim 2013, USO 2014, FO 2015 (sorry Murray doesn't count as an ATG)
It says much more than your eye test.

Murray counts as an ATG for me. The definition is subjective. And ATG or not, he's in a different league from any of Federer's opponents until 2006 except Nadal and Agassi.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
It says much more than your eye test.

Murray counts as an ATG for me. The definition is subjective. And ATG or not, he's in a different league from any of Federer's opponents until 2006 except Nadal and Agassi.
Think you’re forgetting Hewitt and Roddick. Fed had to beat both multiple times between 03-07 to win his slams.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
It says much more than your eye test.

Murray counts as an ATG for me. The definition ii subjective. And ATG or not, he's in a different league from any of Federer's opponents until 2006 except Nadal and Agassi.

Stop lying please (y) I use match stats just as much as the eye test. Also anything which involves looking at invidual matches automatically places it above anything which doesn't.

If Murray was in a different league he didn't really play like it for the most part.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Think you’re forgetting Hewitt and Roddick. Fed had to beat both multiple times between 03-07 to win his slams.
Murray is better than Hewitt and Roddick combined:

 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Stop lying please (y) I use match stats just as much as the eye test. Also anything which involves looking at invidual matches automatically places it above anything which doesn't.

If Murray was in a different league he didn't really play like it for the most part.
The match stats you use are meaningless to me. Winner/error ratio alone can make a Isner/Karlovic match look better than a Djokovic/Nadal one.

Combining winner/error ratio with the length of rallies could be a start.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
The match stats you use are meaningless to me. Winner/error ratio can make a Isner/Karlovic match look better than a Djokovic/Nadal one.
Yeah they are misleading. Forced errors as well count though.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
The match stats you use are meaningless to me. Winner/error ratio alone can make a Isner/Karlovic match look better than a Djokovic/Nadal one.

That's why you need the eye test as well (y) Who said I only look at winners/errors anyway...

But I'm sure you can gauge match level without watching and without looking at the stats...not.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Definitely not.
Theyre about the same top level, Murray being more consistent though.
Roddick is just not good clay at all. For that reason Murray has the higher peak too. Maybe equal at Wimbeldon/USO. Not at AO/RG though.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
That's why you need the eye test as well (y) Who said I only look at winners/errors anyway...

But I'm sure you can gauge match level without watching and without looking at the stats...not.
Its not that he cannot gauge it he just leaves it out. The sole intent is to favour Djokovic and tbh his stats are good at doing that.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
AO 2003 QF Roddick > any Murray at the AO

It's the truth.
Roddick has AO 2003 QF and the whole of AO 2004.
Murray has the AO 2010 QF,AO 2012,AO 2013 before the blisters in set 3 though.
And he is made to look worse based on the fact he kept playing Djokovic who is the best AO player imo in finals and then Federer in AO 2010 the 2nd best AO player imo.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Roddick has AO 2003 QF and the whole of AO 2004.
Murray has in the AO 2010 QF,AO 2012,AO 2013 before the blisters in set 3 though.
And he is made to look worse based on the fact he kept playing Djokovic who is the best AO player imo in finals and then Federer in AO 2010 the 2nd best AO player imo.

Murray's biggest edge is his consistency IMO. He has a lot of very good showings at the AO, but I also think relative to some others he's had decent draws to get to the final. Obviously his finals opponents have been Godly which is unfortunate.

Match analysis is important but people do go overboard into making Federer look better in this all the time.

Any others go overboard in not using it at all to make Federer look worse (y)
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Murray's biggest edge is his consistency IMO. He has a lot of very good showings at the AO, but I also think relative to some others he's had decent draws to get to the final. Obviously his finals opponents have been Godly which is unfortunate.



Any others go overboard in not using it at all to make Federer look worse (y)
Murray edge is consistency and a direct matchup IMO. Roddick has massive diificulty dealing with Murray and his ROS and ground game . On a non fast court like AO 2003 leave alone the 2012 court it would be even harder for Roddick. He needs to keep the points shorter. Roddick did play 2 great matches in 2 years in a row so maybe that is a advantage for him.
Yeah some people do go overboard in make Federer look worse like the maker of this thread but Federer fans come in the biggest numbers. IMO it has been in recent years were Djokovic fans propped up more.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Murray edge is consistency and a direct matchup IMO. Roddick has massive diificulty dealing with Murray and his ROS and ralling. On a non fast court like AO 2003 leave alone the 2012 court it would be even harder for Roddick. He needs to keep the points shorter. Roddick did play 2 great matches in 2 different years so maybe that is a advantage for him.
Yeah some people do go overboard in make Federer look worse like the maker of this thread but Federer fans come in the biggest numbers. IMO it has been in recent years were Djokovic fans propped up more.

Yes, Murray like Hewitt would have often given Roddick fits. That's not what I'm talking about though. Level of play is relative to the field not a single match up. Besides that 2003 Roddick served super well and moved well too, his forehand was also a big weapon- so yeah I don't think Murray has a big edge even in direct match up. I think Roddick put on a bit more weight moving into 2004, not sure he was ever as explosive as he was then - though his serve probably peaked in mph a bit later.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Yes, Murray like Hewitt would have often given Roddick fits. That's not what I'm talking about though. Level of play is relative to the field not a single match up. Besides that 2003 Roddick served super well and moved well too, his forehand was also a big weapon- so yeah I don't think Murray has a big edge even in direct match up. I think Roddick put on a bit more weight moving into 2004, not sure he was ever as explosive as he was then - though his serve probably peaked in mph a bit later.
Roddick destroyed his oppenents without dropping a set before losing to Safin which is why i counted AO 2004.
If your talking level over the field it is harder to rank. Roddick never had a peak match vs any of the big 3 at AO.
I will have to take a look at more earlier matches your a big Roddick fan so you will have seen more than me.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Roddick destroyed his oppenents without dropping a set before losing to Safin which is why i counted it.
If your talking level over the field it is harder to rank. Roddick never had a peak match vs any of the big 3 at AO.
I will have to take a look at more earlier matches your a big Roddick fan so you will have seen more than me.

Well he did beat Djokovic at the AO ;)

Roddick was very good at the AO in 2004 as well this is true.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Well he did beat Djokovic at the AO ;)

Roddick was very good at the AO in 2004 as well this is true.
Federer had none of it the next round though ;)
Roddick played good in AO 2009 even if not on his AO 2003-04 level.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Federer had none of it the next round though ;)
Roddick played good in AO 2009 even if not on his AO 2003-04 level.

Roddick gave a decent account of himself there. Straight sets but not an embarrassing loss against a very good Federer.
 

JackGates

Legend
2004-06 Federer's Slam + YEC final/semifinal opponents

Nadal x4
Hewitt x4
Roddick x3
Safin x3
Agassi
Ferrero
Gaudio
Nalbandian
Davydenko
Henman
Grosjean
Blake
Baghdatis
Kiefer
Bjorkman


2012-14 Djokovic's Slam + YEC final/semifinal opponents

Nadal x6
Federer x5
Murray x4
Wawrinka x2
Del Potro x2
Ferrer x2
Nishikori x2
Dimitrov
Gulbis
That's why I've always been saying that Fed has a huge hole with his record versus his main rivals and he can't be the goat. But why did it take you so long to finally show those stats? Your other stats are fake, but those stats are real. Couldn't you show these stats the first time?
 
D

Deleted member 743561

Guest
Man, the last few years have been rather unsightly.

Verging on putrid, if we're completely honest about the thing. (n):sick:
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
2004-06 Federer's Slam + YEC final/semifinal opponents

Nadal x4
Hewitt x4
Roddick x3
Safin x3
Agassi
Ferrero
Gaudio
Nalbandian
Davydenko
Henman
Grosjean
Blake
Baghdatis
Kiefer
Bjorkman


2012-14 Djokovic's Slam + YEC final/semifinal opponents

Nadal x6
Federer x5
Murray x4
Wawrinka x2
Del Potro x2
Ferrer x2
Nishikori x2
Dimitrov
Gulbis
vs ATGs:

2004-06 Federer 5/25 (20%)
2012-14 Djokovic 15/25 (60%)
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
vs ATGs:

2004-06 Federer 5/25 (20%)
2012-14 Djokovic 15/25 (60%)

buddy, are you saying that GS shall change the qualification criteria?
instead of top 100 ranked pro players, they should admit only TTW qualified ATGs?
do I understand you correctly?
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
buddy, are you saying that GS shall change the qualification criteria?
instead of top 100 ranked pro players, they should admit only TTW qualified ATGs?
do I understand you correctly?
No if it's a weak era they should vulture as much as possible.
 
Top