Where is Fed's best shot to beat Djoker again?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 716271
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Some have noted that Federer has a chance of finishing his H2H against the other members of the big 4 with a losing record

Currently,

Nadal 10-23
Murray 10-11
Djokovic 18-17

Many have noted that this isn't really a fair statistic because of the ages of the players involved, and while I tend to agree somewhat, I don't think that's enough to completely mitigate the statistic as being somewhat noteworthy and meaningful. But that's for a different thread.

I think even with Murray's seemingly precipitous decline, the odds are he stays in front of Fed, especially if he avoids him on clay.

Djokovic currently trails Fed by one. I can see them meeting at least 6 more times.

My question is where is Federer's best shot to beat him going forward? And has he scored his last win over the Djoker in Monte Carlo?

I think Wimbledon was his best shot at a slam win over Nole, but he'll be one year older next year, and while so will Djokovic, I think the decline is steeper over 30. I don't see Federer beating Djokovic anywhere anymore in B05.

So currently, I would say his best shot is on a fast hard court in a B03 masters. WTF seems to suit Nole quite well too, I question how truly 'fast' those courts play, the bounce seems to be a higher than you might expect.

I'd say currently Fed's best shot to score another win over Djoker is at Toronto coming up, and especially Cincy, and perhaps Dubai next year if Fed is still playing well.

What do you all think?
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_439244.jpg
 

Logic

Semi-Pro
To answer the question: Dubai or Cinci.

To ask a counter-question: which of the following do you think Fed would prefer?

1. To "score wins" (as you put it) over Nadal/Djokovic/Murray but not win tournaments (e.g. he beats them in semis but then loses finals).

2. To win tournaments but not beat Nadal/Djokovic/Murray (e.g. they get knocked out before he has to face them).

In the same vein: which do you think Fed would prefer?

1. To even his h2h with Nadal (or even over-take him) but never win another major

2. To lose another 30 times to Nadal with 0 wins, but win another major
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
To answer the question: Dubai or Cinci.

To ask a counter-question: which of the following do you think Fed would prefer?

1. To "score wins" (as you put it) over Nadal/Djokovic/Murray but not win tournaments (e.g. he beats them in semis but then loses finals).

2. To win tournaments but not beat Nadal/Djokovic/Murray (e.g. they get knocked out before he has to face them).

Thanks for answering the question at least

I really don't want to get into this inane argument again that isn't going to change anyone's mind and leaves me shaking my head at some Fed fans stupidity, but obviously #2.

However, that doesn't mean # 1 isn't valuable, and the 2 scenarios are more often than not correlated, certainly more so than they are inverse to eachother as in the scenario you presented.
 

Logic

Semi-Pro
Thanks for answering the question at least

I really don't want to get into this inane argument again that isn't going to change anyone's mind and leaves me shaking my head at some Fed fans stupidity, but obviously #2.

However, that doesn't mean # 1 isn't valuable, and the 2 scenarios are more often than not correlated, certainly more so than they are inverse to eachother as in the scenario you presented.

The point is, players don't care about h2h.

They don't go into matches thinking "I need to beat X so that I improve my h2h against him".

They think "I need to beat X to progress in the tournament so that I can win the title".

h2h is just a stat that only fans even know (and commentators look up to get some pre-match conversation topics).
I bet if you asked the Big Four their h2h against each other they wouldn't have a clue. But if you ask them how many times they've won a certain title, they'll be able to tell you.
 
Last edited:

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Irrelevant. Novak is junior by 6 years.

How so:

pre-prime Nole vs prime-Fed:
13-6 in favor of Fed

prime-Nole vs post-prime Fed:
11-5 in favor of Nole

Nole was dominated early and has dominated late as expected. I agree h2h should be one of the last criteria in judging greatness, but irrelevant?
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
The point is, players don't care about h2h.

They don't go into matches thinking "I need to beat X so that I improve my h2h against him".

They think "I need to beat X to progress in the tournament so that I can win the title".

h2h is just a stat that only fans even know (and commentators look up to give some pre-match conversation topics).
I bet if you asked the Big Four their h2h against each other they wouldn't have a clue. But if you ask them how many times they've won a certain title, they'll be able to tell you.

Listen buddy, this thread isn't about that and I didn't want to get it into it because I know what your illogical arguments are anyway. And yeah, they know their H2H. Fed references it himself quite a bit.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
How so:

pre-prime Nole vs prime-Fed:
13-6 in favor of Fed

prime-Nole vs post-prime Fed:
11-5 in favor of Nole

Nole was dominated early and has dominated late as expected. I agree h2h should be one of the last criteria in judging greatness, but irrelevant?

But with the 13-6, you are counting up until the end of 2010 right? Where Fed was 29,5 and Novak 23,5? In general, you would presume the 23,5 year old to be more in his prime at that point.
Especially if said player won his first slam as a 20 year old and had been a mainstay in the top-3/4 in more than 3 years at the time.
 

Logic

Semi-Pro
Listen buddy, this thread isn't about that and I didn't want to get it into it because I know what your illogical arguments are anyway. And yeah, they know their H2H. Fed references it himself quite a bit.

OK, I'll make a separate thread, with a logical argument therein.

Instead of calling me "stupid" and calling my arguments "illogical" without any logic of your own, why don't you logically demonstrate where my arguments, in your opinion, are faulty?

Indeed, I invite you to do so, if you so wish, in the other thread.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
How so:

pre-prime Nole vs prime-Fed:
13-6 in favor of Fed

prime-Nole vs post-prime Fed:
11-5 in favor of Nole

Nole was dominated early and has dominated late as expected. I agree h2h should be one of the last criteria in judging greatness, but irrelevant?

Novak 2.0 started well after Fed ended his peak , his prime. We dont need yet another thread to discuss that.

Fed has won 1 major and has come awfully close in 3 others. That is proof enough to show how they would have fared if they were the same age.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
OK, I'll make a separate thread, with a logical argument therein.

Instead of calling me "stupid" and calling my arguments "illogical" without any logic of your own, why don't you logically demonstrate where my arguments, in your opinion, are faulty?

Indeed, I invite you to do so, if you so wish, in the other thread.

Because we already had this arugment for pages and pages before
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
OP,

I think Fed vs. Nole will remain tightly contested matches for at least another year or so. In fact, to my eye, the two of them still produces the best matches because of the contrast in styles coupled with the fact that the outcome is hardly certain beforehand.

I do think Novak is the favorite going forward (obviously), but I doubt that Fed has won his last match vs. him.
Cinci and Dubai are obvious choices, Wimbledon and US Open are his best (and probably only) chances in the best-of-5 (though again, Nole will be favored - certainly at the US).
Indoors Fed is still competitive as well though Novak is certainly more than capable too.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
OP,

I think Fed vs. Nole will remain tightly contested matches for at least another year or so. In fact, to my eye, the two of them still produces the best matches because of the contrast in styles coupled with the fact that the outcome is hardly certain beforehand.

I do think Novak is the favorite going forward (obviously), but I doubt that Fed has won his last match vs. him.
Cinci and Dubai are obvious choices, Wimbledon and US Open are his best (and probably only) chances in the best-of-5 (though again, Nole will be favored - certainly at the US).
Indoors Fed is still competitive as well though Novak is certainly more than capable too.

Totally agree, at least until date.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Novak 2.0 started well after Fed ended his peak , his prime. We dont need yet another thread to discuss that.

Fed has won 1 major and has come awfully close in 3 others. That is proof enough to show how they would have fared if they were the same age.

Novak 2.0 ended well after Fed's peak yes, but that doesn't change the stats I presented.

Prime Fed: 04-10
Post-prime Fed: 11-14
Peak Fed: Wimb 05 - AO 07

Pre-prime Nole: 07-10
Prime Nole: 11-14
Peak Nole: AO 11 - AO 12


Peak Federer vs pre-prime Nole 1-0
Prime Federer vs pre-prime Nole 12-6

Peak Nole vs post-prime Fed 4-1
Prime Nole vs post-prime Fed is 7-4

Awfully close stats

Fed has 1 major post-prime in prime Nole's era and lost 2 other finals (1 to Nole, 1 to Nadal), Nole has 1 major pre-prime in prime Fed's era and lost 2 other finals (1 to Fed, 1 to Nadal).

I don't think there is any proof to support either position about how the head to head would have gone over-all if they were the same age.

I think prime vs prime would be:
75/25 Fed grass
55/45 Fed on fast outdoor hards
50/50 indoors
50/50 clay
70/30 Nole on slow outdoor hards

But much higher volume happening on slow outdoor vs grass. Could have gone either way.
 

dh003i

Legend
Well, Fed has beaten Djokovic this year, so it isn't like something that can't happen, and Nadal was hardly great on grass, so if they were to meet on grass again, I'd favor Federer. As for Murray, great player, but not of Federer's calibur, even when healthy, and just recently beat him for the first time at a Major. Best of 3, of course, Murray is far better vs. Federer than best of 5.

I'd say Federer's best shot at a Major of beating Djokovic is again at Wimbledon, then the USO.

I'd also say that if they all stick around long enough, that gives Federer a good chance to even the H2H, as the % age difference will decline, and Djokovic/Nadal/Murray's level may drop off faster than Federer's from this point going forward. (Unless they all change their games significantly, I can't see them playing as good as Federer in their 30s).

That may oddly give Federer a better shot at winning a Major at an even older age, but that's assuming the next generation doesn't step up.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
But with the 13-6, you are counting up until the end of 2010 right? Where Fed was 29,5 and Novak 23,5? In general, you would presume the 23,5 year old to be more in his prime at that point.
Especially if said player won his first slam as a 20 year old and had been a mainstay in the top-3/4 in more than 3 years at the time.

I count Federer's prime as starting at the start of 04 (readying his first season of domination and first stint at #1) and extending until 10 (the end of his 20s).

Similarly

I count Nole's prime as starting at the start of 11 (readying his first season of domination and first stint at #1) and extending until 16 (the end of his 20s).

I think thats a fair comparison. Fed in 2010 was still clearly in his prime on hard courts (winning AO and WTF with ease and only losing to Nole at USO) and thats the only place they met that year.

Nole clearly was on a different level in 2011 than 2010 and while he has come down, he has maintained a level above his 2010 level for the entirety of 2011-2014.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
I count Federer's prime as starting at the start of 04 (readying his first season of domination and first stint at #1) and extending until 10 (the end of his 20s).

Similarly

I count Nole's prime as starting at the start of 11 (readying his first season of domination and first stint at #1) and extending until 16 (the end of his 20s).

I think thats a fair comparison. Fed in 2010 was still clearly in his prime on hard courts (winning AO and WTF with ease and only losing to Nole at USO) and thats the only place they met that year.

Nole clearly was on a different level in 2011 than 2010 and while he has come down, he has maintained a level above his 2010 level for the entirety of 2011-2014.

I see your points, but I still think it's cutting Novak a bit too much slack to call him pre-prime, when he was a mainstay in the top-3 except for a few weeks here and there from the end of 2007, was an early bloomer and was 23,5 by the end of 2010.

But sure, he raised his level from late 2010, early 2011 - no question about it.
 
Top