NatF
Bionic Poster
Lame.
It's all relative. Fed at 80% might still be good enough to beat the field but that doesn't mean he's not at a significant disadvantage against a younger ATG in a BO5 match
Was Federer at a age/form disadvantage in his H2H vs Djokovic overall?
- Thread starter RS
- Start date
Lame.
It's all relative. Fed at 80% might still be good enough to beat the field but that doesn't mean he's not at a significant disadvantage against a younger ATG in a BO5 match
RS
Bionic Poster
The problem is this isolates form individual matches. Federer had a lot of good/prime level performances in matches vs Djokovic even when last his best years probably more so than the other way around.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
This is an opinion.Lame.
It's all relative. Fed at 80% might still be good enough to beat the field but that doesn't mean he's not at a significant disadvantage against a younger ATG in a BO5 match
He was in good enough form to reach those matches --> fact
Nadal_Django
Legend
Djokovic abusing poor helpless elderly citizen. 
And that dude have won the humanitarian award one year. 
How does he even sleep at night.
And that dude have won the humanitarian award one year. How does he even sleep at night.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Obviously he was good enough. But you draw a distinction between other players who reach major finals and the Big 3/4 so obviously you're aware that form is relative and just reaching a slam final doesn't mean you're not at a disadvantage in terms of age.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Perhaps fair to say comparing Djokovic in 2006-2010 to Federer in 2011-2019, that in their h2h matches Fed maybe showed relatively better form outside his own best years. But enough to balance out the 11 additional matches in the second period? No.
You think Federer and Murray ineffective at Slam level?
RS
Bionic Poster
I voted a disadvantage for Federer over Djokovic btw but not by the lot option.
I would also add that USO11-Cincy 12 was a period for Federer were he was better than Djokovic btw.
Last edited:
Because he can't? Whether it's mental or physical, the trend is clear. I was actually surprised it was so lop-sided as I looked more closely at their head-to-head. Prior to 2013, Federer won 11 matches against Djokovic that extended beyond two sets. Since then, just one. If Fed was the fitter player in last year's Wimbledon final, that's the one massive exception to an otherwise pretty obvious trend. I mean, I'm not a statistician, I don't know how meaningful these sample sizes are, etc., but I think it's pretty clear Fed faded physically in the 2014 and 2015 Wimbledon finals and just didn't have the physicality to keep up with Djokovic in baseline rallies in other long matches (even if he didn't get noticeably tired at the end). That doesn't diminish Djokovic's accomplishments in my opinion – Fed was still playing tremendous tennis in a lot of those matches. But I think it does speak to some level of age disadvantage when he's playing a younger ATG at the height of his physical prowess (which obviously doesn't apply to last year's Wimbledon final, but rather to earlier matches in 2014-2016). Just my two cents.
Also, Fed rarely looks tired, but that doesn't mean he isn't tired. Djokovic was physically off in last year's Wimbledon final from set 2, so I don't think we can say Novak was more tired than Federer. Something else was bothering him.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Aren't the win rates/performance levels* related more to the conclusion rather than the premise? Any time they performed decently when well outside historical prime ages should really be seen as overcoming disadvantages, not annulling them.
*Implicitly within the context of a transient field, of course.
Pheasant
Legend
It’s called evolution, folks. When Fed went to 23 straight slam semis, it wasn’t because he was better then. It’s because he was playing against Neanderthals that were all under 5 feet tall.
Federer today is substantially faster, stronger, and taller than he was 15 years ago. Guys like Millman today are a foot taller than Safin. Millman would slug peak Safin off of the courts. Donskoy would easily win consecutive calendar slams 15+ years ago.
The Federer of the last 8 years that was getting dumped out of slams by guys like Millman, Dimitrov, Roberto, and many others that never won a slam would triple bagel the 5 ft 2 inch version of Federer from 2004-2006. Lrw has proven all of this beyond all reasonable doubt.
if John McEnroe came back at age 60 and somehow made it to semi of a tourney, then that would prove that he was at his peak. Connors was definitely at his peak when he made the USO semis at age 39. Why? Because he was in good enough form to get there. So that means that he was definitely at his peak.
Federer today is substantially faster, stronger, and taller than he was 15 years ago. Guys like Millman today are a foot taller than Safin. Millman would slug peak Safin off of the courts. Donskoy would easily win consecutive calendar slams 15+ years ago.
The Federer of the last 8 years that was getting dumped out of slams by guys like Millman, Dimitrov, Roberto, and many others that never won a slam would triple bagel the 5 ft 2 inch version of Federer from 2004-2006. Lrw has proven all of this beyond all reasonable doubt.
if John McEnroe came back at age 60 and somehow made it to semi of a tourney, then that would prove that he was at his peak. Connors was definitely at his peak when he made the USO semis at age 39. Why? Because he was in good enough form to get there. So that means that he was definitely at his peak.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
This is all so implicit it's just annoying. Fed is argued to have performed better outside of his best years than Djokovic, and that means Djokovic overcame a better opponent overall i.e. when one was peak and one wasn't... But that doesn't change the fact that they weren't his best years, and whose fault is it that one opponent sucked more outside of his prime within this particular scenario? And that's to say nothing of the numerous, nebulous variables associated with the notion of overcoming age trends and biological disadvantages.
Pheasant
Legend
Practice makes perfect. I am pretty sure that had Laver continued to play regularly, then he would destroy peak Federer, even at age 80.
But here’s where I am confused. If being old is such a massive advantage, then why is Federer the oldest player ranked in the top 100?
Wait. I just figured it out. There’s a higher league and I actually saw matches live in that league a few years back. I got to see Peak Todd Martin, Peak Agassi, Peak McEnroe, and Peak Michael Chang a few years ago. They called it the Powershares series back then. Those players were insanely good, especially McEnroe. My wife laughed at how slow they were. But I quickly corrected her and told her that her own eyesight means nothing. Lew has proven statistically that their extra practice made them better then ever.
But here’s where I am confused. If being old is such a massive advantage, then why is Federer the oldest player ranked in the top 100?
Wait. I just figured it out. There’s a higher league and I actually saw matches live in that league a few years back. I got to see Peak Todd Martin, Peak Agassi, Peak McEnroe, and Peak Michael Chang a few years ago. They called it the Powershares series back then. Those players were insanely good, especially McEnroe. My wife laughed at how slow they were. But I quickly corrected her and told her that her own eyesight means nothing. Lew has proven statistically that their extra practice made them better then ever.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Federer went toe-to-toe for six sets basically at Wimbledon, with it being 13-12 in the fifth. Federer can go for sure, but conditions have to be more suited to his game than before. For instance, I don't see Federer hanging with Djokovic at RG anymore.
wangs78
Legend
Physically they were about even from 2008-2012. After that Djokovic had the advantage.
Federer is the better player, which is why he's beaten Djokovic even after that time period or pushed Djokovic to 5 sets in so many of their epic clashes. The reason he has lost so many of these epics is mental.
Federer is the better player, which is why he's beaten Djokovic even after that time period or pushed Djokovic to 5 sets in so many of their epic clashes. The reason he has lost so many of these epics is mental.
In 2014-2016: yes.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
What matters then?
Ranking? Nope.
Win percentage? Nope.
Reaching the final, usually dropping 0/1 sets? Nope.
These are the usual ways to determine the form of a player. The ATP uses the ranking to make the draws, for example.
You just discredit what I write because it doesn't suit you.
I admitted that they met more in Djokovic's best years than in Federer's , that was a valid point. Just admit that I have valid points too.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Federer won more sets/games/points in the rivalry. In Slams he won just 0.2% less points but trails 6-10 in wins-losses.
It's not even about level of play, Djokovic has a mental edge over him.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Are you enjoying Djokodal winning much more than Federer at 28-33?
If they need to, they will be better than Federer at 38 too, don't worry.
Pheasant
Legend
Nadal and Djoker are aging better than Fed did. I will give you that. But it’s far from guaranteed that this will continue, since it could change on a dime. I also believe that Fed’s competition during his 30s is substantially tougher than what Nadal and Djoker are facing now. But since that cannot be proven, we are left with their results. Djoker’s and Nadal’s results past the age of 30 are ahead of Federer’s at this time.
It's crazy to me that Fed leads 73-70 in sets, but Djokovic leads 26-23 in matches. Fed definitely wilts in the big moments against Novak. Also I think we've just had a lot more instances of Fed being on fire against a flat Djokovic than vice versa, which would account for some of the discrepancy.
Start da Game
Hall of Fame
fraud was taken to the cleaners on hardcourts as early as in 2007, 2008 by an immature 20 year old brat from serbia who was still developing his game.......so as it panned out later, everything evened out and both had their fair share of wins.......no excuses when you have fraud winning slams in his mid-late 30s.......we have been hearing this bull---- about fraud's age from the time when he was 25, those two losses against canas spring to mind........fraudsters were blowing everyone's years with how he is gotten old and finished at age 25, just surreal nonsense........
Just a gentle reminder:
“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practiced for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.” (August, 2015)
Question:
In 2003 you won your first title in Dubai. How much chances would the Federer of 2003 have against the Federer of today?
Answer from Federer:
Not many chances I believe. The game has extremely changed. It is more dynamic, faster and has become somewhat ruthless. The players are more athletic and the material makes the game faster. I myself have become better. In fact, I had to become better because I had new opponents and new challenges. Tennis on this level doesn’t allow you stagnancy. (March, 2019)
“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practiced for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.” (August, 2015)
Question:
In 2003 you won your first title in Dubai. How much chances would the Federer of 2003 have against the Federer of today?
Answer from Federer:
Not many chances I believe. The game has extremely changed. It is more dynamic, faster and has become somewhat ruthless. The players are more athletic and the material makes the game faster. I myself have become better. In fact, I had to become better because I had new opponents and new challenges. Tennis on this level doesn’t allow you stagnancy. (March, 2019)
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Let's say Player A is GOAT, with a peak level of 95. When he is at peak level, he beats everyone else, except Player B on clay, who is 100 on that surface.
When Player A gets a bit older, he falls to a level of 90 which is still better than virtually every other player. Player C however is at level 93. So Player A often gets through to face Player C (especially because young players' level is 75 at best), but loses to him more often than not.
The fact that Player A regularly reaches finals and semis to face Player C proves even his diminished level is still great. The fact that Player C has a winning record against Player A in this scenario doesn't prove that Player C had a higher level at his best.
What do you say to this?
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
I say that's it a mind contorsionism just because you don't accept that Federer lost a lot of times to Djokovic when he was in good form.
If there are matches that indicate a good form and full motivation, those are the finals/semifinals of big events.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
A little bit.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
And I'm going to say this yet again, he said the same thing in 2013 when he lost to the likes of Daniel Brands, Sergiy Stakhovsky, and Federico Delbonis.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I expected a better counter-argument from you than this, Lew. It sounds like you don't have a decent argument against what I said.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Matches in years Djokovic won <80%: 14
Matches in years Federer won <80%: 3
Matches in years Djokovic won 80-85%: 9
Matches in years Federer won 80-85%: 22
Matches in years Djokovic won 85-90%: 13
Matches in years Federer won 85-90%: 22
Matches in years Djokovic won >90%: 13
Matches in years Federer won >90%: 2
Djokovic never met a bad Federer. He met him only in years he had >80% of wins except for autumn 2013 when he was getting back to a good form, and 2016 AO when he was still in his 2015 form.
On the other hand Federer played a lot Djokovic in his best years 2011 and 2015, while Djokovic played only twice Federer in 2004-06.
It's a balanced situation overall.
Matches in years Federer won <80%: 3
Matches in years Djokovic won 80-85%: 9
Matches in years Federer won 80-85%: 22
Matches in years Djokovic won 85-90%: 13
Matches in years Federer won 85-90%: 22
Matches in years Djokovic won >90%: 13
Matches in years Federer won >90%: 2
Djokovic never met a bad Federer. He met him only in years he had >80% of wins except for autumn 2013 when he was getting back to a good form, and 2016 AO when he was still in his 2015 form.
On the other hand Federer played a lot Djokovic in his best years 2011 and 2015, while Djokovic played only twice Federer in 2004-06.
It's a balanced situation overall.
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
Talk Tennis Guru
Fed has been at a disadvantage no doubt. Not as much as it has been portrayed though. He's done great to keep it competitive but let's not forget that Djokovic narrowed the H2H deficit to a minimum back when Federer was younger than Djokovic is now, back when they played more matches before 2011 than since then. Something that is rarely mentioned. Probably because it doesn't support Federer's hypothetical match dominance...
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
It's not something that is provable via statistics - neither are a great number of things in this world. However, you didn't have an argument to counter how a player could be in good form, but still lose vs. a player who was slightly lesser than him, because that player is at peak but the former player is old/past peak.
Lew, there are a number of things which exist in the real world which can't be quantified.
There are also a number of things which exist and can be quantified, which are nevertheless lies/deceptions: the percentage of votes won by communist governments, for instance.
I won't take you seriously until you stop relying 100% on statistics (pun intended).
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
I don't. If you believe someone can straight set your opponents to the final without being peak, ok. I disagree.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Are you suggesting Fed would have preferred to face peak Novak and Nadal years before he actually did?Yep this. It's a simple math, really. No matter how talented you are, no matter how hard you train, If you're born even just slightly earlier than your competition, you're toast.But what can you do... You can't go against the law of physics. Life is not fair sometimes. Roger is way the better player, way the more talented, more handsome, more smarter... But those 6 years.
Jeez, why oh why he had to be born earlier than Djokovic. Damnit...
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
The Fedovic rivalry has always been the closest of the Big 3, with few of the big swings you see with Nadal-Fed or Nadal-Djokovic.
fed won 4 matches in a row at the very beginning of their rivalry (and that was peak Fed vs teenaged Nole) but would never again manage that. Novak beat Fed 5 times in a row but that was at the tail end of Fed’s career. Their matchup has always been close.
fed won 4 matches in a row at the very beginning of their rivalry (and that was peak Fed vs teenaged Nole) but would never again manage that. Novak beat Fed 5 times in a row but that was at the tail end of Fed’s career. Their matchup has always been close.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Nastase at 1976 Wimbledon probably wasn't peak. It can happen.
Murray was YE1 in 2016.
Mivic
Hall of Fame
Yes, after their match at the year end championships in 2013 the head to head stood 16-15 in favour of Federer, with Federer barely 32 years old at that stage, 5 months younger than Djokovic (who is still capable of near-peak level performance) of today. After their 2012 RG semi it stood 14-12 (5-5 in slams) in favour of Federer, who was 30 at the time. The head to head has always been relatively even since Djokovic started playing his best tennis and overcame his physical issues. Even early on after their first four meetings he was making it very difficult for Federer. Acting as though the age disparity has benefitted Federer massively is disingenuous, especially given that a raw Djokovic had to overcome a significant mental barrier in their early matchups, which any young player has to face when taking on an experienced multi grand slam champion.
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm impressed looking back at how early Djokovic made the match-up pretty dang close. After those four early losses before Djokovic was 20 or even ranked in the top 10, he went 6-9 against Fed, 2-3 in slams, before 2011. And then took control of the rivalry since then.
Definitely wish Federer could have converted a few more of his match points against Djokovic.
Jaitock1991
Hall of Fame
Connors was 0-17 vs Lendl?? Wow. Crazy to think that such a mental giant and one of the greatest players in the history of tennis could ever have a record like that vs anyone. Says a lot about how age differences simply cannot be ignored, no matter how much people want it to be.
Yet won only a set in both slam meetings vs Djokoivc. Weak opponent.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
9-2 at slams though...
Who is 9-2?
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic 9-2 in the last 11 slam matches
He beat Djokovic in W 2016 didnt he? Has he not won 2 Majors beating Djokovic?
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Connors was 0-17 vs Lendl.
Nastase in 1976 reached the Wimbledon final without dropping a set.
Both relevant and interesting statistics mentioned in this thread. You would think that @Lew II , the supposed master of statistics, would have something to say about them.
It's almost as if he's not really interested in statistics per se, or tennis per se, but only about proving that Novak Djokovic is supposedly greater than Federer.
I think - and hope - he's a teenage boy who idolises Novak Djokovic. It would be truly pathetic if a grown man were doing this.
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
Equal. All day every day!
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Murray beat Djokovic in USO 2012 and W 2013 finals. They didn't play at W 2016, Djokovic lost much earlier on.
Who did Murray beat in 2016? I have forgotten.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Deleted member 798069
- General Pro Player Discussion
