Megafanoftennis100
Professional
People very often bring up the argument "post-prime 30+ year old Federer beat Djokovic, so why would a younger version do any worse?" to prove that Federer surpasses Djokovic at their peaks.
Now, since I am a fan of both players, whoever is better than the other does not matter too much to me, but I can already notice some flaws in the argument. Let's delve into the most notable losses (or "near-losses") one by one:
2011 Roland Garros - This was easily one of, if not, the best match Federer ever played on clay, perhaps tied with Rome 2006 final. For the whole year, I agree that he was not at his peak, but on clay, he was definitely very close to it. For analogy, Nadal played at a higher level OVERALL in 2010 than in 2008, but when it comes to his level on grass only, then his 2008 campaign was definitely better. As a matter of fact, the 2011 RG final was when he was the most competitive against Nadal in the final and looked like a legitimate threat, even after blowing away that 5-2 lead in the 1st set. Also, in 2004 (one of Federer's peak years), he got straight-setted by Gustavo Kuerten who never won a GS title or reached the top of the rankings at any point after 2004 (more than enough evidence to assert that Kuerten was far past his prime here). On the other hand, Federer won 4 Grand Slams after 2011 and became World #1 in 2012 and 2018. Honestly, I would rather lose to Roger Federer himself than to Kuerten or Soderling if I was forced to choose one player to bring about a (clearly) inevitable end to an incredible 43-match-winning streak!! Losses are inevitable in tennis and honestly, losing to the 2nd greatest tennis player of all time at his peak on clay is not shameful in any way.
2012 Wimbledon - This was very impressive on Federer's part and I do give him full credit for that. Some Nole fans would use the excuse that "Djokovic's grandfather passed away that year, so he was emotionally and mentally fragile", but honestly, this does not sound too valid of an argument, because 1. the death happened in April, 3 months before the Wimbledon match and 2. Djokovic has proven time and time again that he is very competent at moving on from losses and setbacks.
Maybe I am underestimating the impact of a loss of family member here, but idk, the excuse does not seem too valid.
However, here is the thing - in this match, I don’t think that either player was at their grass-peak. Now, of course, OVERALL throughout 2012, Djokovic was playing at his peak level, but on grass specifically, no, and I think people can agree here. It’s similar to Nadal’s case in 2010 when compared to 2008. Djokovic‘s grass peak was in 2014/2015 after he hired Boris Becker to develop his game on grass. Federer’s grass peak was during 2003-2007 (2003 is not considered one of his “peak” years overall, but his grass-peak definitely started here).
Besides, grass is Federer’s very best surface, whereas it is “only“ the 2nd best for Djokovic, so again, no shame in losing to Federer here, especially considering that neither player peaked on grass that year.
2012 Cincinnati - Everyone goes through losses at Masters 1000s, it is even more inevitable than in Grand Slams. Federer in 2004 lost to an 18-year-old Nadal (who was only a clay-court specialist back then) in straight sets in Miami of all tournaments. A 31-year-old experienced Federer is undoubtedly better than teenage Nadal on hard courts.
2019 ATP Finals - Federer in 2007 lost to Fernando Gonzalez of all people, who has never made more than one GS final in his whole career. Compare that to losing to a 20-time GS champion, who was ranked World #3 for most of the year and won 4 titles that season (Dubai, Miami, Halle, Basel) as well as advanced to the Wimbledon final.
Now, moving onto the two most notable "almost-losses":
2011 US Open & 2019 Wimbledon - There is a difference between "almost" and "completely". Yes, Federer was one point away from winning the match on both occasions, but closing out the match at a given opportunity is a part of your ability as a tennis player. He was outplaying Djokovic for most of the match in 2019, but not at the most crucial points. A win is a win. For Nole, it never mattered how he would win but only whether or not he would. Also, Federer in 2006 (his absolute peak year) was down 7-5, 5-3 against Marcos Baghdatis in the AO final, but does that mean that he was getting outplayed? No, of course not. We all knew that Federer would win that match eventually, it was clear as day, even to the Cypriots in the crowd lol. Fed was just having a sloppy start, which happens with any ATG or GOAT player. Besides, Pete Sampras at only 29 years of age (3 years younger than Djokovic was in 2019 July) lost to a 19-year old Federer who was way pre-prime. I think we can all agree that 2019 Federer played better than 2001 Federer on grass.
Furthermore, in 2011, even before the US Open, Djokovic was already having an unbelievable season. As he was coming into the US Open, he had already won 5/9 Masters (a record at that time), 2/4 Grand Slams (including Wimbledon, which he always dreamed of winning), was ranked World #1 and achieved a 43-match winning streak, all of this while competing against some of the toughest next-gen players as well as prime Nadal and a near-prime Federer. Honestly, I am seriously surprised that he did not get burnt out sooner, as any other normal human would. I am pretty sure that even Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Borg, or any of the all-time legends in their primes, would have gotten burnt out if they were in Djokovic's position in 2011. Even without winning the US Open, Djokovic's 2011 season would still go down as one of the best of all time. For him, it was no longer "life and death" big of a deal at this point. I mean, look at his attitude after hitting the "lucky shot" return at 40-15. He was laughing and waving at the crowd, rather than trying to focus on the next point. This does not look "desperate" to me. Novak did not have much at stake, so why would he be?
On the other hand, Federer was arguably much more desperate to win the match, because if he did not win this US Open, it would be the first time since 2002 that he had a slam-less season. And since he did not have any crazy 40+ match winning streak or “destroying-prime-Rafa-6-consecutive-times-agenda” at any point throughout 2011, he couldn’t have possibly been burnt out neither physically nor mentally, at least, nowhere near as much as Djokovic was.
So there is my analysis. Sorry if it is too long of a read, but I would like to hear your opinions on this. Would you agree? Or not?
Now, since I am a fan of both players, whoever is better than the other does not matter too much to me, but I can already notice some flaws in the argument. Let's delve into the most notable losses (or "near-losses") one by one:
2011 Roland Garros - This was easily one of, if not, the best match Federer ever played on clay, perhaps tied with Rome 2006 final. For the whole year, I agree that he was not at his peak, but on clay, he was definitely very close to it. For analogy, Nadal played at a higher level OVERALL in 2010 than in 2008, but when it comes to his level on grass only, then his 2008 campaign was definitely better. As a matter of fact, the 2011 RG final was when he was the most competitive against Nadal in the final and looked like a legitimate threat, even after blowing away that 5-2 lead in the 1st set. Also, in 2004 (one of Federer's peak years), he got straight-setted by Gustavo Kuerten who never won a GS title or reached the top of the rankings at any point after 2004 (more than enough evidence to assert that Kuerten was far past his prime here). On the other hand, Federer won 4 Grand Slams after 2011 and became World #1 in 2012 and 2018. Honestly, I would rather lose to Roger Federer himself than to Kuerten or Soderling if I was forced to choose one player to bring about a (clearly) inevitable end to an incredible 43-match-winning streak!! Losses are inevitable in tennis and honestly, losing to the 2nd greatest tennis player of all time at his peak on clay is not shameful in any way.
2012 Wimbledon - This was very impressive on Federer's part and I do give him full credit for that. Some Nole fans would use the excuse that "Djokovic's grandfather passed away that year, so he was emotionally and mentally fragile", but honestly, this does not sound too valid of an argument, because 1. the death happened in April, 3 months before the Wimbledon match and 2. Djokovic has proven time and time again that he is very competent at moving on from losses and setbacks.
Maybe I am underestimating the impact of a loss of family member here, but idk, the excuse does not seem too valid.
However, here is the thing - in this match, I don’t think that either player was at their grass-peak. Now, of course, OVERALL throughout 2012, Djokovic was playing at his peak level, but on grass specifically, no, and I think people can agree here. It’s similar to Nadal’s case in 2010 when compared to 2008. Djokovic‘s grass peak was in 2014/2015 after he hired Boris Becker to develop his game on grass. Federer’s grass peak was during 2003-2007 (2003 is not considered one of his “peak” years overall, but his grass-peak definitely started here).
Besides, grass is Federer’s very best surface, whereas it is “only“ the 2nd best for Djokovic, so again, no shame in losing to Federer here, especially considering that neither player peaked on grass that year.
2012 Cincinnati - Everyone goes through losses at Masters 1000s, it is even more inevitable than in Grand Slams. Federer in 2004 lost to an 18-year-old Nadal (who was only a clay-court specialist back then) in straight sets in Miami of all tournaments. A 31-year-old experienced Federer is undoubtedly better than teenage Nadal on hard courts.
2019 ATP Finals - Federer in 2007 lost to Fernando Gonzalez of all people, who has never made more than one GS final in his whole career. Compare that to losing to a 20-time GS champion, who was ranked World #3 for most of the year and won 4 titles that season (Dubai, Miami, Halle, Basel) as well as advanced to the Wimbledon final.
Now, moving onto the two most notable "almost-losses":
2011 US Open & 2019 Wimbledon - There is a difference between "almost" and "completely". Yes, Federer was one point away from winning the match on both occasions, but closing out the match at a given opportunity is a part of your ability as a tennis player. He was outplaying Djokovic for most of the match in 2019, but not at the most crucial points. A win is a win. For Nole, it never mattered how he would win but only whether or not he would. Also, Federer in 2006 (his absolute peak year) was down 7-5, 5-3 against Marcos Baghdatis in the AO final, but does that mean that he was getting outplayed? No, of course not. We all knew that Federer would win that match eventually, it was clear as day, even to the Cypriots in the crowd lol. Fed was just having a sloppy start, which happens with any ATG or GOAT player. Besides, Pete Sampras at only 29 years of age (3 years younger than Djokovic was in 2019 July) lost to a 19-year old Federer who was way pre-prime. I think we can all agree that 2019 Federer played better than 2001 Federer on grass.
Furthermore, in 2011, even before the US Open, Djokovic was already having an unbelievable season. As he was coming into the US Open, he had already won 5/9 Masters (a record at that time), 2/4 Grand Slams (including Wimbledon, which he always dreamed of winning), was ranked World #1 and achieved a 43-match winning streak, all of this while competing against some of the toughest next-gen players as well as prime Nadal and a near-prime Federer. Honestly, I am seriously surprised that he did not get burnt out sooner, as any other normal human would. I am pretty sure that even Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Borg, or any of the all-time legends in their primes, would have gotten burnt out if they were in Djokovic's position in 2011. Even without winning the US Open, Djokovic's 2011 season would still go down as one of the best of all time. For him, it was no longer "life and death" big of a deal at this point. I mean, look at his attitude after hitting the "lucky shot" return at 40-15. He was laughing and waving at the crowd, rather than trying to focus on the next point. This does not look "desperate" to me. Novak did not have much at stake, so why would he be?
On the other hand, Federer was arguably much more desperate to win the match, because if he did not win this US Open, it would be the first time since 2002 that he had a slam-less season. And since he did not have any crazy 40+ match winning streak or “destroying-prime-Rafa-6-consecutive-times-agenda” at any point throughout 2011, he couldn’t have possibly been burnt out neither physically nor mentally, at least, nowhere near as much as Djokovic was.
So there is my analysis. Sorry if it is too long of a read, but I would like to hear your opinions on this. Would you agree? Or not?
