Where do Federer's 2004 and 2006, Djokovic's 2011 and 2015 rank in the best years of the Open Era

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
He didn’t that’s on him. Just like it’s in Federer for not working on his game to beat Nadal on clay, Djokovic at AO, etc
He could have beaten Djokovic at the AO if he had bothered to show up in 2009-2010 instead of losing one match before both times.

Federer did beat Nadal on clay, just not at RG. But neither did Djokovic really. 2015 Nadal was a shadow if his former self, Djokovic needed no adapting to beat that shell of a player.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Other players could have also benefited
well, jeez, guess what ? Djokovic benefitted the most.

Yes ofc, but it’s his responsibility to work on his clay game.

If Djokovic couldn’t adapt, that’s on him
still isn't going to be anywhere near as successful on clay as on slow(slow-medium) HC ...because that's not his game.

Then they can improve their game and try to beat Djokovic. Like Stan did in several matches
getting better as a whole is one thing. adapting is another.
 
He could have beaten Djokovic at the AO if he had bothered to show up in 2009-2010 instead of losing one match before both times.

Federer did beat Nadal on clay, just not at RG. But neither did Djokovic really. 2015 Nadal was a shadow if his former self, Djokovic needed no adapting to beat that shell of a player.
Sadly he had opportunities in 11, 16, 12, etc

And Djoko hasn’t, that’s on him
 
well, jeez, guess what ? Djokovic benefitted the most.



still isn't going to be anywhere near as successful as on slow(slow-medium) HC ...because that's not his game.



getting better as a whole is one thing. adapting is another.
Maybe, but he could easily make it 10x better lol, just like any other player
 
average opponent ranking (geometric mean):

2011 Djokovic - 15.3
2015 Djokovic - 15.9
2006 Federer - 21.7
Why not use the arithmetic mean? What sense does it make to multiply n numbers and take the n-root of it instead of summing n variables and divide it by n (most people intuitively think about that when they hear average).
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Why not use the arithmetic mean? What sense does it make to multiply n numbers and take the n-root of it instead of summing n variables and divide it by n (most people intuitively think about that when they hear average).
Because a single low ranked opponent would ruin the stat.

Let's say someone meets 9 times the no.1, and 1 time the no.100 (who could even be an ATG coming back from an injury):

The arithmetic average is 10.9.
The geometrice mean is 1.6, which is much more fair IMO.
 
yes, because 34.5 years of age and coming out rusty vs Djokovic as a result isn;t something that happened. oh wait , it did.

if only Djokovic has an ATG 5/6 years older than ...oh wait, no , he has th sh*tgen (Raonic, Nishi, Dimi gen) following him and no one in the new gen ready to break out at the slams yet.
Excuses galore. That’s all I see
 
Why does he need to prove anything on slow courts? He is not as good on slow courts as on faster ones, so what? It doesn't mean he hasn't adapted on them.

Fed almost beat Novak in 2011 USO, so you act like he can't play for sh*t on slow courts :-D

Fed has won 4 AO's, 5 IW titles and 3 Miami titles, all on slow courts. He doesn't need to prove jack to a guy with an agenda like you.
But he didn’t

Hypocrisy at its finest.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
What's the myth?

It's hilarious the argument that Fed won more titles is based on winning Tokyo when Djokovic won 6 masters 1000s to Feds 4 and they are tied in slams and YECs. Djokovic broke the masters record in a season.
Tokyo is really the only title, Federer didn't need to win. But that's just one tournament.

I admit Djokovic's 2015 season is superior to Federer's 2006, but let's not start spreading fake facts now that Fed padded his stats with 250's.
 
Also in 2015 Novak defeated 3 defending slam champions and a slam finalist in the tournament he himself was defending. Don't remember anyone else doing that.
 
I see you were of full of sh*t BSing that federer couldn't play on slower courts.

Fed's beaten Djokovic in AO 07 and 4 times on clay (incl. RG 2011).
And Djokovic has beat Federer on fast courts plenty of times, does that make him the better fast court player?

He’s won Shanghai more times than Fed for example, is Djokovic the better fast court player?
 
Because a single low ranked opponent would ruin the stat.

Let's say someone meets 9 times the no.1, and 1 time the no.100 (who could even be an ATG coming back from an injury):

The arithmetic average is 10.9.
The geometrice mean is 1.6, which is much more fair IMO.
This is a very valid point.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
And Djokovic has beat Federer on fast courts plenty of times, does that make him the better fast court player?

He’s won Shanghai more times than Fed for example, is Djokovic the better fast court player?
when did the talk turn to be about who is the better slow court or fast court player ?

pay attention >> you were the one BSing that federer couldn't play on slower courts. I just contradicted that bullsh*t post of yours.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
But he didn’t

Hypocrisy at its finest.
He was one point away from doing it, so don't act like he got his ass handed to him on slow courts.

Federer doesn't have anything to prove on slow courts as he has won a lot on them. So I really don't know where you get this sh*t from that he is not adaptable.
 
Tokyo is really the only title, Federer didn't need to win. But that's just one tournament.

I admit Djokovic's 2015 season is superior to Federer's 2006, but let's not start spreading fake facts now that Fed padded his stats with 250's.
Didn't say he padded his stats with 250s, just that it isn't enough to put his season over Djokovic's. Tokyo was a 500 btw.
 
when did the talk turn to be about who is the better slow court or fast court player ?

pay attention >> you were the one BSing that federer couldn't play on slower courts. I just contradicted that bullsh*t post of yours.
Yes you definetly 100% did. In your head maybe sure.
 
He was one point away from doing it, so don't act like he got his ass handed to him on slow courts.

Federer doesn't have anything to prove on slow courts as he has won a lot on them. So I really don't know where you get this sh*t from that he is not adaptable.
But he didn’t :( and btw Djoko was leading in points anyway

Can’t do it against actual good players sadly
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Yes you definetly 100% did. In your head maybe sure.
------------

Federer has won 3 AOs on slow-medium rebound ace, 1 on slow-medium plexi
has won IW 5 times, Miami 3 times
has won RG once, has more finals there than your boy Djokovic, won 4 Hamburg on slow/low clay, made 4 finals each at Monte Carlo and Rome ....

------------

not in my head. ..in reality.
but hey , you can continue to stay in la la land where FEderer isn't excellent on slower courts and others will just have a big laugh at your expense.
 
------------

Federer has won 3 AOs on slow-medium rebound ace, 1 on slow-medium plexi
has won IW 5 times, Miami 3 times
has won RG once, has more finals there than your boy Djokovic, won 4 Hamburg on slow/low clay, made 4 finals each at Monte Carlo and Rome ....

------------

not in my head. ..in reality.
but hey , you can continue to stay in la la land where FEderer isn't excellent on slower courts and others will just have a big laugh at your expense.
How many times did he beat Djoko winning those? And Djoko has more Miami titles and more clay masters wins

btw do you legitimately believe 2017-19 are the same AO courts as before? If so, k
 
Because a single low ranked opponent would ruin the stat.

Let's say someone meets 9 times the no.1, and 1 time the no.100 (who could even be an ATG coming back from an injury):

The arithmetic average is 10.9.
The geometrice mean is 1.6, which is much more fair IMO.
Yeah, I know the arithmetic mean is the highest of the three Pythagorean means and the harmonic mean is the lowest, but essentially you're minimising the rank and making it closer to the lowest value.

The geometric mean barely reflects the no.100 match if at all. But I get your reasons though. IMO, the arithmetic mean at least reflects everything better.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
But he didn’t :( and btw Djoko was leading in points anyway

Can’t do it against actual good players sadly
Yes, he can. Beat Rafa at IW 2012 and 2017. Novak is the master of slow courts, so not beating him is no shame. Federer also has wins over Safin, Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, Murray on slow courts, all of them actual good players.

Like I said, Federer has won 4 AO titles, 5 IW titles and 3 Miami titles. So he hasn't just adapted to slow courts, he has had extraordinary success on them.

Novak never won the USO before it got slow. And hasn't won the AO on the faster courts of 2017-2018. Neither has Rafa.

I don't see how slow courts represent the litmus test here. I guess you are trying to find new ways to sh*t on Fed and then disappear once Novak starts playing worse again.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
How many times did he beat Djoko winning those? And Djoko has more Miami titles and more clay masters wins
I already pointed out he's beaten Djokovic 5 times (1 AO and 4 on clay). Djokovic isn't the only measure.
FEderer has beaten tons of other good players on slow HC/clay including Nadal, Agassi, Safin, Murray etc.

And so what if Djokovic has more Miami titles and more clay masters ?
Doesn't change that federer is also excellent on slow HC and clay.

btw do you legitimately believe 2017-19 are the same AO courts as before? If so, k
when did I say that ? I mentioned the 3 on rebound ace (04, 06,07) and the the 10 one ... pay some attention.

tennis didn't start in 2011 >> maybe for you it did. not for others.
 
I already pointed out he's beaten Djokovic 5 times (1 AO and 4 on clay). Djokovic isn't the only measure.
FEderer has beaten tons of other good players on slow HC/clay including Nadal, Agassi, Safin, Murray etc.

And so what if Djokovic has more Miami titles and more clay masters ?
Doesn't change that federer is also excellent on slow HC and clay.



when did I say that ? I mentioned the 3 on rebound ace (04, 06,07) and the the 10 one ... pay some attention.

tennis didn't start in 2011 >> maybe for you it did. not for others.
Still not as good as Djoko’s tally
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Yes, he can. Beat Rafa at IW 2012 and 2017. Novak is the master of slow courts, so not beating him is no shame. Federer also has wins over Safin, Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, Murray on slow courts, all of them actual good players.

Like I said, Federer has won 4 AO titles, 5 IW titles and 3 Miami titles. So he hasn't just adapted to slow courts, he has had extraordinary success on them.

Novak never won the USO before it got slow. And hasn't won the AO on the faster courts of 2017-2018. Neither has Rafa.

I don't see how slow courts represent the litmus test here. I guess you are trying to find new ways to sh*t on Fed and then disappear once Novak starts playing worse again.
If we're talking only about slow HC, fed also beat Nadal at Miami 05 and Miami 17.
 
Every other post? :-D I only mentioned it once. But let's not use it because it doesn't suit your agenda. Let's just agree that Fed sucks majorly hard on slow courts, because that seems to be the better truth.

How can I take you seriously when you sh*t on Fed with every chance you get?
Sucks majorly hard in comparison. Wins against players who aren’t good

People don’t have to think highly of Fed’s achievements :)
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
How many times did he beat Djoko winning those? And Djoko has more Miami titles and more clay masters wins

btw do you legitimately believe 2017-19 are the same AO courts as before? If so, k
It's incredible how everything has to revolve around Djokovic in your arguments. News flash: slow courts capability doesn't have anything to do with Novak. Basically, in your view, because Fed can't beat Novak on slow courts it means he sucks on them. That's your argument. Now you see why I can't take you seriously?
 
Federer is great on any surface and conditions. When it comes to slow HC IMO Djokovic is better but that doesn't mean Fed sucks on it. He has one of the best slow HC resumes.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
Sucks majorly hard in comparison. Wins against players who aren’t good

People don’t have to think highly of Fed’s achievements :)
Except Fed's achievements speak for themselves. He is not in Djokovic's league on slow courts, but he is still the second best slow court player of this era. He doesn't need to beat Djokovic on slow courts to prove anything. Slow courts aren't the only playing conditions.
 
Top