Toni said yesterday, "Fed is the best ever, but it's more difficult to play against Djokovic"

[BeatlesFan]

I guess Toni is always right

Young Toni was somethin' else!

 

[BeatlesFan]

Novak is more complete than his two great rivals, or equally complete, but more balanced - from wing to wing. For example, you rarely see him run around his BH to hit a forehand - not the case for Roger or Rafa.

That's because Novak has a spectacular BH and his FH is the weaker shot by a significant margin. We never saw Edberg running around to hit FH's either, for the same reason. Fed and Nadal have arguably the greatest FH's in the history of tennis, so of course they will do anything to do a FH, especially Rafa.

 

[King No1e]

Toni pretty much lays out the value of match-ups. Nadal is simply a more difficult match-up for Federer than he is for Djokovic. No shame in admitting that. If Djokovic was raised to play with a one-hander, this discussion wouldn't even take place.

Fed was simply unlucky to have his worst match-up turn out to be an ATG himself, which is unique in tennis history. Djokovic's worst match-up, Stan, did not turn out to be an ATG.

So Nadal would tell you it is easier to play Federer, while someone like Stan would tell you it is easier to play Djokovic.

19-6.
Djokovic's worst matchup (as far as Slam contenders go) is Federer.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

@TheGhostOfAgassi

Grand Slam matches won against players younger than them:

Djokovic 94.17% (best ever)
Nadal 89.58% (second best)
Federer 84.97% (8th best)

Have the current youngsters not tailored their game enough to beat Djokovic and Nadal?

If you listen to Tonis Ted talk you will understand what I am talking about and also how these players train to beat the best to win big.

 

[mike danny]

19-6.
Djokovic's worst matchup (as far as Slam contenders go) is Federer.

Nah, Fed and Djoker are evenly matched.

What you said just proves my point, though. Stan is inconsistent and that's why he has lost most of the time against Djoker. But when he did bring it, he was Djoker's nightmare in slams on a consistent basis.

Basically, if Stan were an ATG, the H2H with Djoker would look a lot different. As it stands, he has denied Djoker 3 slams and Djoker is fortunate that only 3. More than any non-ATG has denied an ATG, though.

Because what other explanation to Djoker losing 3 slams to Stan is other than a bad match-up?

 

[mike danny]

I - internally and externally - debate whether Novak is more complete than his two great rivals, or equally complete, but more balanced - from wing to wing. For example, you rarely see him run around his BH to hit a forehand - not the case for Roger or Rafa. To me, this is one of the reasons that his game looks more clinical, and not as spectacular.

As a baseliner, Novak is probably the most complete ever.

As an overall package though, it is Fed in my book. There is more to tennis than just not having any weaknesses from the baseline.

 

[flutzingitaway]

H2H since 2011 when Djokovic peaked:
13-2 hc
2-0 grass
7-8 clay

and you think Nadal was peak that whole period?

 

[maratha_warrior]

Djokovic is 19-6 overall and 4-4 in slams versus Wawrinka .
And Wawrinka is toughest matchup for Novak ??
The Peak years for Stan are 2013-2016 and H2H during 2013-2016 is 3-3 for Stan Novak .

Fed has beaten novak 6 times and Nadal has beaten 9 times at slams .
Fedal are the toughest matchup for Novak .
Come-on .

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Nah, Fed and Djoker are evenly matched.

What you said just proves my point, though. Stan is inconsistent and that's why he has lost most of the time against Djoker. But when he did bring it, he was Djoker's nightmare in slams on a consistent basis.

Basically, if Stan were an ATG, the H2H with Djoker would look a lot different. As it stands, he has denied Djoker 3 slams and Djoker is fortunate that only 3. More than any non-ATG has denied an ATG, though.

Because what other explanation to Djoker losing 3 slams to Stan is other than a bad match-up?

Federer is a reasonable candidate too, considering he stopped the CYGS in 2011 despite being 6 years older, and also had MPs over him again at the USO in Djokovic’s best year level wise, not to mention the other very close matches they’ve played in Fed’s twilight, or some of the beatdowns given in B03. The age gap makes the matchup kind of difficult to assess.

 

[flutzingitaway]

Nah, Fed and Djoker are evenly matched.

What you said just proves my point, though. Stan is inconsistent and that's why he has lost most of the time against Djoker. But when he did bring it, he was Djoker's nightmare in slams on a consistent basis.

Basically, if Stan were an ATG, the H2H with Djoker would look a lot different. As it stands, he has denied Djoker 3 slams and Djoker is fortunate that only 3. More than any non-ATG has denied an ATG, though.

Because what other explanation to Djoker losing 3 slams to Stan is other than a bad match-up?

Yeah not sure why any Djokovic would even want to deny Stan being a bad match up for Djokovic. If he isn't, and still had that success, Djokovic should be eliminated from any tedious GOAT debates period then.

 

[megamind]

Yes, it is hard playing against really good pushers like ***** ********

 

[mike danny]

Djokovic is 19-6 overall and 4-4 in slams versus Wawrinka .
And Wawrinka is toughest matchup for Novak ??
The Peak years for Stan are 2013-2016 and H2H is 3-3 for Stan Novak .

Fed has beaten novak 6 times and Nadal has beaten 9 times at slams .
Fedal are the toughest matchup for Novak .
Come-on .

Fedal are GOAT candidates, that's why they have beaten him so many times in slams.

Wawrinka is not even an ATG and yet he has managed to deny Novak 3 slams, more than any non-ATG has denied an ATG.

What other explanation is there other than a bad match-up?

Novak is 19-6 because Stan is wildly inconsistent and not an ATG.

But given the vast disparity in their levels, Novak should not be 3-3 with Stan in slams during his best years. That's indicative of a match-up issue.

Even at the AO, Murray, Nadal and Fed were never able to beat Novak after 2008, but Stan did it. What more evidence do you need?

 

[mike danny]

Federer is a reasonable candidate too, considering he stopped the CYGS in 2011 despite being 6 years older, and also had MPs over him again at the USO in Djokovic’s best year level wise, not to mention the other very close matches they’ve played in Fed’s twilight, or some of the beatdowns given in B03. The age gap makes the matchup kind of difficult to assess.

Fed is a GOAT candidate. He is expected to trouble Djoker. Different case here.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Even at the AO, Murray, Nadal and Fed were never able to beat Novak after 2008, but Stan did it. What more evidence do you need?

Stan was robbed in 2013 too, should have done it twice.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Fed is a GOAT candidate. He is expected to trouble Djoker. Different case here.

Matchups aren’t irrelevant amongst GOAT candidates. This whole thread was opened about matchups between the big 3

 

[mike danny]

Yeah not sure why any Djokovic would even want to deny Stan being a bad match up for Djokovic. If he isn't, and still had that success, Djokovic should be eliminated from any tedious GOAT debates period then.

Should be eliminated as the most complete player ever from the start going by that logic.

I don't understand why Djoker fans can't accept that Djoker is not perfect and even he has his bad match-ups? Otherwise, what other explanation is there? Because Stan is clearly not Djoker's equal like Fed and Nadal are.

One time you could argue Stan was just on fire. When it happens 6 times and Stan takes 3 of those, it's no longer just coincidence.

 

[mike danny]

Stan was robbed in 2013 too, should have done it twice.

Yeah, Novak fans will not admit this though.

Stan could have challenged, true, but it doesn't change the fact that he did receive a bad call which helped Novak.

 

[Steve0904]

Stan was robbed in 2013 too, should have done it twice.

Stan should've challenged that call. Only has himself to blame.

 

[mike danny]

Matchups aren’t irrelevant amongst GOAT candidates. This whole thread was opened about matchups between the big 3

True, but these guys are all GOATS. Even if there isn't perfect balance in their styles, them losing to each other so often is attributed more to them being equal in ability more than just being problematic match-ups.

 

[mike danny]

Stan should've challenged that call. Only has himself to blame.

It was still a bad call that favored Djoker, so the luck part isn't excluded.

 

[maratha_warrior]

Fedal are GOAT candidates, that's why they have beaten him so many times in slams.

Wawrinka is not even an ATG and yet he has managed to deny Novak 3 slams, more than any non-ATG has denied an ATG.

What other explanation is there other than a bad match-up?

Novak is 19-6 because Stan is wildly inconsistent and not an ATG.

But given the vast disparity in their levels, Novak should not be 3-3 with Stan in slams during his best years. That's indicative of a match-up issue.

Even at the AO, Murray, Nadal and Fed were never able to beat Novak after 2008, but Stan did it. What more evidence do you need?

1.You are basically saying that Novak is lucky that Stan is not an ATG and Fed is Unlucky that Nadal is ATG ,when Fedal themselves are ATG whom Novak had to face throughout career .
See , noone is lucky or unlucky here .
Toni is talking abt 3 GOAT players and hence he made that comparison . Stan doesn't even come into the picture .

2. Why has Stan has taken 3 slams versus Novak When Novak was guaranteed those slams , in the same way Safin , Delpo and Cilic took 3 slams away from Fed where he was guaranteed those slams .

Also , Let's be bit fair to Novak at USO 16 . Did he really deserve to enter finals ,looking at his form and illness and toe injury ??? It's like Fed's loss at AUS 2008 .
Murray Fed Rafa etc would have definately beaten Novak of 2016 USO .

At AO 2014 and RG 2015 , Stan beat Novak . And it happens . It doesnt mean Stan is toughest matchup for Novak . Stan also beat Rafa at AO 14 .
Andy Murray has beaten Rafa 2 times at slams just like he beat Novak .

And Stan can never be ATG when he peaks for 1 slam in 1 year and his prime was just 3-4 years .
How is Novak lucky or unlucky that Stan is not an ATG .
Murray is not an ATG bcoz of Djokodal too . How is Fed unlucky when Djoko Nadal Murray are all closer in age to each other ?.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

True, but these guys are all GOATS. Even if there isn't perfect balance in their styles, them losing to each other so often is attributed more to them being equal in ability more than just being problematic match-ups.

Disagree, the Fedal rivalry was quite one sided for a while, and even as a Nadal fan I’d never claim that reflected ability

 

[Sysyphus]

«If I wasn't the uncle nor the coach of Rafael, I would want Federer to win all the matches.»

Always knew Toni was a gentleman, scholar and connoisseur.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

1.You are basically saying that Novak is lucky that Stan is not an ATG and Fed is Unlucky that Nadal is ATG ,when Fedal themselves are ATG whom Novak had to face throughout career .
See , noone is lucky or unlucky here .
Toni is talking abt 3 GOAT players and hence he made that comparison . Stan doesn't even come into the picture .

2. Why has Stan has taken 3 slams versus Novak When Novak was guaranteed those slams , in the same way Safin , Delpo and Cilic took 3 slams away from Fed where he was guaranteed those slams .

Also , Let's be bit fair to Novak at USO 16 . Did he really deserve to enter finals ,looking at his form and illness and toe injury ??? It's like Fed's loss at AUS 2008 .
Murray Fed Rafa etc would have definately beaten Novak of 2016 USO .

At AO 2014 and RG 2015 , Stan beat Novak . And it happens . It doesnt mean Stan is toughest matchup for Novak . Stan also beat Rafa at AO 14 .
Andy Murray has beaten Rafa 2 times at slams just like he beat Novak .

And Stan can never be ATG when he peaks for 1 slam in 1 year and his prime was just 3-4 years .
How is Novak lucky or unlucky that Stan is not an ATG .
Murray is not an ATG bcoz of Djokodal too . How is Fed unlucky when Djoko Nadal Murray are all closer in age to each other ?.

Fed and Djokovic are both lucky in the sense that they got some time where they were prime or peak and their rivals weren’t. Nadal only had 3/4 of 2010 where this applied, so I would say that relative to the others he was unlucky.

 

[maratha_warrior]

Fed and Djokovic are both lucky in the sense that they got some time where they were prime or peak and their rivals weren’t. Nadal only had 3/4 of 2010 where this applied, so I would say that relative to the others he was unlucky.

Agree .
Nadal and Murray(for his inhuman consistency ) are unlucky, in my opinion .
Federer and Djokovic can never be called "unlucky " .

 

[maratha_warrior]

Toni is complimenting both Fed and Djoker here and there is nothing to fight on this statement..

Also , Djoker plays a bit better with Rafa simply because of 2 handed backhand ,that's it ..

But , Both fan bases are fighting like crazy now..

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Toni is complimenting both Fed and Djoker here and there is nothing to fight on this statement..

Also , Djoker plays a bit better with Rafa simply because of 2 handed backhand ,that's it ..

But , Both fan bases are fighting like crazy now..

I think it’s impossible for any person in the tennis business saying something, even the mildest thing, without crazy fans finding something to argue about.

 

[Steve0904]

Federer is a decent candidate to be a "bad matchup" to Djokovic prime for prime IMO. For one thing, prime Federer would most definitely get the better of him at Wimbledon by a fair margin, (i.e not go 0-3 against him in finals, lol) and most likely the USO as well. Djokovic's big edge is at the AO, and RG is probably 50/50, maybe 55/45 in Djokovic's favour or something close to that.

In essence I think he's pushed Djokovic hard enough in his mid-late 30's to convince me that he would be a bad matchup for Djoker prime for prime. Djokovic would get his wins obviously, but Federer would lead the H2H, and would never relinquish it due to age difference.

 

[AceSalvo]

Its more difficult to play against Djokovic, especially when age and fitness is not on your side. LOL.

 

[mike danny]

Disagree, the Fedal rivalry was quite one sided for a while, and even as a Nadal fan I’d never claim that reflected ability

Fair enough.

 

[RaulRamirez]

That's because Novak has a spectacular BH and his FH is the weaker shot by a significant margin. We never saw Edberg running around to hit FH's either, for the same reason. Fed and Nadal have arguably the greatest FH's in the history of tennis, so of course they will do anything to do a FH, especially Rafa.

There's probably an interesting discussion to be had with this sub-point, as to more complete v. more balanced. That was the context in which I was replying to someone - questioning out loud whether Novak is more complete, or simply more balanced.

Agree that Fed and Rafa may have the best two FHs...ever? I think Novak's FH is quite good, but not quite to "Fedal" level, and not nearly as spectactular. You just don't see him "go for broke" with it quite as often. But, he's hardly Gasquet-like in that regard - who has an amazing BH, and a pedestrian FH. If I were to (off the top of my head) assign values out of 100 to Rafa and Fed off both wings, I might give both their FHs a 99, and their BHs somewhere around an 87. Novak would be more like 93 - 93. The numbers are meaningless, but that's kind of where I see it - that both wings are about equally potent. But, most players (not Edberg) are very forehand-dominant, even if not possessing the forehands of Fed or Rafa. (To some extent, although not nearly as great as Novak, both Zverev and Medvedev are also balanced from both wings...actually, perhaps, they both have better BHs than FHs?)

But, each of The Big 3 have all the shots needed, with some differential in abilities, but their winning formulas lead them to execute different game-plans. Fed may be the best improviser, although Rafa may be equally resourceful, with god-like touch and instincts.

I'd never argue vociferously against someone that says Fed is the most complete player, but I think that they all have a case for that. Okay, maybe the single weakest shot is Novak's overhead - but it really is not that bad, a few bad misses over the years notwithstanding.

 

[maratha_warrior]

Federer is a decent candidate to be a "bad matchup" to Djokovic prime for prime IMO. For one thing, prime Federer would most definitely get the better of him at Wimbledon by a fair margin, (i.e not go 0-3 against him in finals, lol) and most likely the USO as well. Djokovic's big edge is at the AO, and RG is probably 50/50, maybe 55/45 in Djokovic's favour or something close to that.

In essence I think he's pushed Djokovic hard enough in his mid-late 30's to convince me that he would be a bad matchup for Djoker prime for prime. Djokovic would get his wins obviously, but Federer would lead the H2H, and would never relinquish it due to age difference.

Just like Djokovic is a bad match for Rafa , Fed is a bad matchup for Novak .
Lot many people refuse to acknowledge this .
Fed had chances in WB 14 , US 15 and WB 19 to beat Novak .
It was just a matter of converting few points .

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

I see nothing wrong here. Federer is the GOAT as of today, he has most of the important tennis records rn. end of discussion.

Also why is the age difference between Nadal and Djokovic important here? They are pretty much the same age, calling Novak younger as if they are from different generations. And no, Djokovic doesn't have an age advantage over Nadal for f's sake.

 

[Sysyphus]

That's because Novak has a spectacular BH and his FH is the weaker shot by a significant margin.

In absolute terms, absolutely not.

Novak trades plenty of backhands forehands anyways.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Federer is also a bad matchup for Djokoviv, just like you consider Wawrinka to be one.

 

[Steve0904]

Just like Djokovic is a bad match for Rafa , Fed is a bad matchup for Novak .
Lot many people refuse to acknowledge this .
Fed had chances in WB 14 , US 15 and WB 19 to beat Novak .
It was just a matter of converting few points .

Yes, and those few points are the difference in the story. Most of us would probably freely admit that Federer is a bad matchup for Novak today, age difference and all, if Federer had just converted a MP or two, lol. But as it is, Federer didn't complete the job and that's on him. I've no problem admitting that.

 

[mike danny]

1.You are basically saying that Novak is lucky that Stan is not an ATG and Fed is Unlucky that Nadal is ATG ,when Fedal themselves are ATG whom Novak had to face throughout career .
See , noone is lucky or unlucky here .

Fed is unlucky because Nadal is the bane of one handers and he so happens to also be Fed's equal in terms of ability. There is no one else who has a technical match-up issue against someone in tennis history as far as I know.

Novak is a bit lucky that Stan is not an ATG because then Stan would have taken away more slams from him, certainly more than old Fed did in 2014-2016.

Toni is talking abt 3 GOAT players and hence he made that comparison . Stan doesn't even come into the picture .

Toni pretty much suggested the important aspect of match-ups. Stan belongs in this conversation because he finds playing Djoker easier than Fedal.

2. Why has Stan has taken 3 slams versus Novak When Novak was guaranteed those slams , in the same way Safin , Delpo and Cilic took 3 slams away from Fed where he was guaranteed those slams .

But Fed wasn't denied 3 slams by the same lesser opponent, it was just 3 different guys playing the matches of their lives.

Also , Let's be bit fair to Novak at USO 16 . Did he really deserve to enter finals ,looking at his form and illness and toe injury ??? It's like Fed's loss at AUS 2008 .
Murray Fed Rafa etc would have definately beaten Novak of 2016 USO .

Fed wasn't even in the draw at that USO and Rafa went out early too. Murray too lost before the semis. So, with no one left there to take out Novak, yeah, Djokovic would have USO 2016 without Stan.

At AO 2014 and RG 2015 , Stan beat Novak . And it happens . It doesnt mean Stan is toughest matchup for Novak . Stan also beat Rafa at AO 14 .
Andy Murray has beaten Rafa 2 times at slams just like he beat Novak .

Rafa was injured at AO 2014.

Andy Murray didn't deny Rafa any slams, he just beat him. Stan not only beat Novak, he outright denied him 3 slams that he would have won otherwise.

I don't know what else to tell you. During Novak's prime years, he either played a 5 setter against Stan in slams or he lost in 4. In 4 of their 6 slam matches, Novak was down 1-2 to Stan. The evidence is right there, don't know what is so hard to understand.

And Stan can never be ATG when he peaks for 1 slam in 1 year and his prime was just 3-4 years .
How is Novak lucky or unlucky that Stan is not an ATG .
Murray is not an ATG bcoz of Djokodal too . How is Fed unlucky when Djoko Nadal Murray are all closer in age to each other ?.

Fed is unlucky because he was denied a lot of slams by them thanks to the age difference. He would have been better off having them the same age as him.

 

[mike danny]

Federer is also a bad matchup for Djokoviv, just like you consider Wawrinka to be one.

Fed is a GOAT. Stan isn't. Novak should not struggle so much with someone like Stan every time.

 

[SonnyT]

Fed was simply unlucky to have his worst match-up turn out to be an ATG himself, which is unique in tennis history. Djokovic's worst match-up, Stan, did not turn out to be an ATG.

So Nadal would tell you it is easier to play Federer, while someone like Stan would tell you it is easier to play Djokovic.

Correction. Federer's two worst match-ups, by far! And since 2011, Djokovic is by far Federer's worst match-up!

If Federer were the GOAT, he'd have figured out ways to counter Djokovic and Nadal, in spite of the age difference. Jordan didn't need to make any excuses!

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Federer is a decent candidate to be a "bad matchup" to Djokovic prime for prime IMO. For one thing, prime Federer would most definitely get the better of him at Wimbledon by a fair margin, (i.e not go 0-3 against him in finals, lol) and most likely the USO as well. Djokovic's big edge is at the AO, and RG is probably 50/50, maybe 55/45 in Djokovic's favour or something close to that.

In essence I think he's pushed Djokovic hard enough in his mid-late 30's to convince me that he would be a bad matchup for Djoker prime for prime. Djokovic would get his wins obviously, but Federer would lead the H2H, and would never relinquish it due to age difference.

Would agree to most parts but not completely. If both were the same age, Djokovic would have been the better player at the younger age from 18-23. Also Djokovic is performing better in the late stages of their career post 30. I can agree that between 23-29 it could go to Roger, but overall it's dead even, maybe slightly tilting to Djokovic.

 

[flutzingitaway]

Fed is a GOAT. Stan isn't. Novak should not struggle so much with someone like Stan every time.

Well in best of 3 he pretty much crushes him everytime, but many think Stan half asses the non slams most of the time.

Stan's constant maulings at the hands of Federer and Nadal other than being decently competitive with Fed on clay, and Nadal occasionaly on a faster court, do make Djokovic never doing better than a 5 set win in something like their last 7 slam matches now alarming. It is not that Stan isn't really good, he does legitimately rival Murray in their head to head (and I don't think he is a bad match up for Murray) and pretty much owns everyone beneath him, he won his last 7 matches vs Berdych for instance. And it is not like he never occasionaly has his moments vs Fedal too, either an odd win or a great match in losing. But of the 3 GOATs the only one he gives anywhere near that much trouble to is Djokovic.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Fed is a GOAT. Stan isn't. Novak should not struggle so much with someone like Stan every time.

A 'Match-up' isn't defined by greatness lol. For example Davydenko was a pretty bad matchup for Nadal, even though he was nowhere near great.

 

[mike danny]

A 'Match-up' isn't defined by greatness lol. For example Davydenko was a pretty bad matchup for Nadal, even though he was nowhere near great.

You just proved my point. Stan isn't great and yet he still troubles Novak every time when they play in slams.

 

[mike danny]

Fed and Djokovic are both lucky in the sense that they got some time where they were prime or peak and their rivals weren’t. Nadal only had 3/4 of 2010 where this applied, so I would say that relative to the others he was unlucky.

Nadal has had 2010 and 2017-present. He has reaped the rewards.

 

[maratha_warrior]

Yes, and those few points are the difference in the story. Most of us would probably freely admit that Federer is a bad matchup for Novak today, age difference and all, if Federer had just converted a MP or two, lol. But as it is, Federer didn't complete the job and that's on him. I've no problem admitting that.

As a Novak Fan , I would have liked Novak to avoid Fed at all slams and WTF and Hardcourt masters aswell , if both were equal in age .
How is it so difficult to understand this for Fans ??

Infact , Novak beat Fed in those close matches ( WB 14 , US 15 , WB 19 )more because of his Mental genius, than his tennis abilities .

If Fed is an Artist then Djokodal are Mental Giants in Sports, not just tennis but all of sports . And tennis fans should proud of this ,instead of fighting on mundane things .
We don't see such a Trio in any other Sporting event , in my opinion .
Uncle Toni seems to suggest that only by complimenting All three in this Comment..

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

You just proved my point. Stan isn't great and yet he still troubles Novak every time when they play in slams.

Millman isn't great not nearly as a 3 time slam champion like Wawrinka, yet he is a 'bad matchup' for Fed.

Ps: In before the age excuse is presented.

 

[Steve0904]

Would agree to most parts but not completely. If both were the same age, Djokovic would have been the better player at the younger age from 18-23. Also Djokovic is performing better in the late stages of their career post 30. I can agree that between 23-29 it could go to Roger, but overall it's dead even, maybe slightly tilting to Djokovic.

Ages 18 and 19 don't really matter since Djoker didn't win a slam until he was 20. So it's a very slim difference if any IMO. Plus, Fed's breakout year was 22-23 (3 slams). Djoker's happened a year later than that.

And re: post 30 I think it's pretty even tbh. Not in absolute terms for sure, Djoker's won many more slams, but competition wise he's had it much easier beating Thiem etc... than having to deal with 25 year old versions of Nadal and Djokovic, plus Murray.

 

[mike danny]

Would agree to most parts but not completely. If both were the same age, Djokovic would have been the better player at the younger age from 18-23. Also Djokovic is performing better in the late stages of their career post 30. I can agree that between 23-29 it could go to Roger, but overall it's dead even, maybe slightly tilting to Djokovic.

I'm not sure if Djoker is really performing significantly better in his 30's. He just played 2 pretty bad slam finals in a row and you could argue he would have lost them against a younger ATG like himself.

 

[mike danny]

Millman isn't great not nearly as a 3 time slam champion like Wawrinka, yet he is a 'bad matchup' for Fed.

Ps: In before the age excuse is presented.

Well, exactly. Millman is a bad match-up for old Fed, not prime Fed. Stan was a bad match-up for prime Djoker.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Ages 18 and 19 don't really matter since Djoker didn't win a slam until he was 20. So it's a very slim difference if any IMO. Plus, Fed's breakout year was 22-23 (3 slams). Djoker's happened a year later than that.

And re: post 30 I think it's pretty even tbh. Not in absolute terms for sure, Djoker's won many more slams, but competition wise he's had it much easier beating Thiem etc... than having to deal with 25 year old versions of Nadal and Djokovic, plus Murray.

If you bring weak competition, Fed had a weak competition form 2004-2007 too, in his prime. Djokovic and Nadal are getting a weaker competition in their older stage of their careers, which is not as advantageous.