Who is the better grass court player, Roddick or Djokovic?

[Hitman]

7 is enough

Lets make it 9 so we don't have to talk about it anymore. Let him win this one to tie the record, and then one more for the standalone. It's only another year and a bit, after that we can all move on and start looking at new champions.

 

[Nadal_Django]

On another note, I've been watching the 2009 Wimbledon final off and on for the last few weeks (I have never seen the entire match and I don't know why it's taking me so long to get through this one) and if Roddick had a better return of serve and more belief in himself, he would have beaten that Federer.

Yeah pretty subpar performance that from Federer but still according to our resident eye test experts that is the 6th best Wimbledon version of Federer and that version is still better than the best Wimbledon version of Djokovic.

 

[RS]

Yeah pretty subpar performance that from Federer but still according to our resident eye test experts that is the 6th best Wimbledon version of Federer and that version is still better than the best Wimbledon version of Djokovic.

Bit of a dig

 

[RS]

Lets make it 9 so we don't have to talk about it anymore. Let him win this one to tie the record, and then one more for the standalone. It's only another year and a bit, after that we can all move on and start looking at new champions.

If Nadal finishes with 17-18 RG's or the USO record I can accept it

 

[Hitman]

If Nadal finishes with 17-18 RG's or the USO record I can accept it

Nadal can keep winning those RG titles, it's fine.

He won't get the USO record now.

So it's agreed.

 

[RS]

Seems like a decent trade

 

[NoleFam]

Yeah pretty subpar performance that from Federer but still according to our resident eye test experts that is the 6th best Wimbledon version of Federer and that version is still better than the best Wimbledon version of Djokovic.

Roddick with 21% return points won made it that close but peak Djokovic would be crushed according to the experts. Lol.

 

[abmk]

7 is enough

Its an absolute disgrace Djokovic has 7 Wimbledons when he won only 4 at prime or prime-ish level. Last 3 inflation ones the weakest in open era save for the boycott 73 Wim. He should be at 4-5, nothing more in half-decent field.

Both Djokovic and Nadal have won more than enough in this dark inflation era of 16-22. More than about time youngesters take over.

 

[NoleFam]

Its an absolute disgrace Djokovic has 7 Wimbledons when he won only 4 at prime or prime-ish level. Last 3 inflation ones the weakest in open era save for the boycott 73 Wim. He should be at 4-5, nothing more in half-decent field.

Both Djokovic and Nadal have won more than enough in this dark inflation era of 16-22. More than about time youngesters take over.

 

[abmk]

the arrogant delusions of the mega-greedy ********* who will shamelessly want this dark inflation era to go on and on so that their favorite keeps on winning slams at the expense of the level of tennis game itself.
and FTR, I was satisfied when federer had won AO 17 in that epic fashion.

 

[NoleFam]

the arrogant delusions of the mega-greedy ********* who will shamelessly want this dark inflation era to go on and on so that their favorite keeps on winning slams at the expense of the level of tennis game itself.
and FTR, I was satisfied when federer had won AO 17 in that epic fashion.

 

[abmk]

that arrogance/delusions will be punctured when DJokovic starts losing more in slams and many of your fellow ********* will run away from here.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Roddick with 21% return points won made it that close but peak Djokovic would be crushed according to the experts. Lol.

Yes, the "experts" who dodge direct questions, create nonsensical criteria for strength on surfaces, and its all due to their collective dream of the so-called "Golden Eagle" being some would-be GOAT--

--only now, they're joining him in only one act:

 

[RS]

Mods delete

 

[Mainad]

Yes Roger dearly wished to add this, wishing is not a bad thing, but realistically there should be a win there, sadly there wasn't, he had no chance even if he was playing Raonic that day.

- London Olympics was held just 2 weeks after Wimbledon 2012
- Roger was already tired, he would not even be in the final if the tournament was a best of 5 sets every 7 rounds like a Slam.
- On top of being tired, in the SF he was further drained by Del Potro in that energy sapping 4.5 hours semi final

This is why Murray could beat a carcass of Roger in straight sets, had this been a proper slam tournament with enough rest, enough testing in earlier rounds to reach second week, Roger in the final would destroyed Murray in 3-4 good sets. Thats why saying Murray beat Roger at Wimbledon is a very wrong statement even though venues are same, there is no way Murray can beat Roger Federer at an actual wimbledon. We saw what happened in 2015, didn't we? That is how things roll.

But he DID beat Roger in straight sets at Wimbledon no matter how much you prefer to twist it and try to disparage the achievement and nobody else has ever been able to do that no matter how "tired" Roger was. The 2015 semi was a bit of a revenge mission for that, Roger certainly didn't forget it (he mentioned it ahead of that match). Of course, if we want to pile on excuses, then 2015 was post back surgery for Murray (he never beat Federer again after that).

 

[RS]

Its an absolute disgrace Djokovic has 7 Wimbledons when he won only 4 at prime or prime-ish level. Last 3 inflation ones the weakest in open era save for the boycott 73 Wim. He should be at 4-5, nothing more in half-decent field.

Both Djokovic and Nadal have won more than enough in this dark inflation era of 16-22. More than about time youngesters take over.

How do these 10 matches series go and how many each end?

1. Fed RG 05 vs Nadal RG 18
2. Fed Wim 11 vs Nadal Wim 06
3. Ferrero RG 03 vs Djokovic RG 08

 

[The Fedfather]

Roddick with 21% return points won made it that close but peak Djokovic would be crushed according to the experts. Lol.

First, haven't seen anyone apart from the person you were replying to say peak Djokovic would be crushed or easily defeated by Federer 2009.

Second, the Wimby 2009 final specifically famously was a serve-dominant match, with many strong holds and not many BP opportunities. You point to the return stat as though that was the main indicator of level of performance, while not even mentioning the serve part of the equation. Federer's 1st serve won% in Wimby 2009 (the whole tournament) was 86.9% with a 17.1% of aces. For comparison, Dokovic's average 1st serve won % in 2015 - widely considered to be his peak - was 76.6% with 10.5% of aces. Quite the difference, don't you think? Federer in 2012 had Djokovic at 25% RPW with about the same 1st serve in% (even a bit smaller) than the one against Roddick. And in 2012 Federer's average Wimby 1st serve won was 78%, so significantly smaller than in 2009. So yeah, let's talk about context please.

 

[RS]

09 Fed would be able to get into 11 Djokovic service games the way he couldn't vs Roddick which may make up for it. Someone would a certain POV could use this to make a case he beats Djokovic easier than Roddick just as vise versa.

Not interested in the who wins debate but

 

[Kralingen]

How do these 10 matches series go and how many each end?

1. Fed RG 05 vs Nadal RG 18
2. Fed Wim 11 vs Nadal Wim 06
3. Ferrero RG 03 vs Djokovic RG 08

Who cares

 

[NoleFam]

First, haven't seen anyone apart from the person you were replying to say peak Djokovic would be crushed or easily defeated by Federer 2009.

Second, the Wimby 2009 final specifically famously was a serve-dominant match, with many strong holds and not many BP opportunities. You point to the return stat as though that was the main indicator of level of performance, while not even mentioning the serve part of the equation. Federer's 1st serve won% in Wimby 2009 (the whole tournament) was 86.9% with a 17.1% of aces. For comparison, Dokovic's average 1st serve won % in 2015 - widely considered to be his peak - was 76.6% with 10.5% of aces. Quite the difference, don't you think? Federer in 2012 had Djokovic at 25% RPW with about the same 1st serve in% (even a bit smaller) than the one against Roddick. And in 2012 Federer's average Wimby 1st serve won was 78%, so significantly smaller than in 2009. So yeah, let's talk about context please.

I've seen that said on here numerous times over the years.

What is the relevance of this next part? To prove Federer has a better serve than Djokovic? Everybody knows that. What's the point in this or Federer's 1st serve points won in 2012 versus 2009 when he's playing better returners in 2012? What's the point in bringing up Djokovic's return points won in 2012 like that was peak returning Djokovic? What was his return points won in 2014 and 2015?

 

[RS]

NatF is coming soon. I can feel it.

 

[RS]

Who cares

Nobody cares about these anymore tbh. It had a good run.

 

[Kralingen]

Does 2014 Djokovic even get a set from peak Fed?

would he even get to a measly tiebreak?

 

[RS]

Flashback all the years. Thread derail.

 

[RS]

Its an absolute disgrace Djokovic has 7 Wimbledons when he won only 4 at prime or prime-ish level. Last 3 inflation ones the weakest in open era save for the boycott 73 Wim. He should be at 4-5, nothing more in half-decent field.

Both Djokovic and Nadal have won more than enough in this dark inflation era of 16-22. More than about time youngesters take over.

Do you rate any slam levels from Wim 16 to USO22 as good enough or better? Doesn't just have to be a winner. You can throw in the YEC too.

 

[The Fedfather]

I've seen that said on here numerous times over the years.

What is the relevance of this next part? To prove Federer has a better serve than Djokovic? Everybody knows that. What's the point in this or Federer's 1st serve points won in 2012 versus 2009 when he's playing better returners in 2012? What's the point in bringing up Djokovic's return points won in 2012 like that was peak returning Djokovic? What was his return points won in 2014 and 2015?

You don't see how Federer's serve quality will be relevant to why Roddick's RPW was that low? How much better though? Considering you implied Djokovic wasn't near his best. The serve won % difference for Federer is a whole 8%.

Not talking about peak Djokovic's returning. You can check his RPW in 2014 and 2015 yourself, I think. Although in your post you mentioned the peak version specifically, your wording made it more about Roddick's RPW in the match being low and him still making it close. I'm pointing out that you completely ignored the aspect of the game that actually allowed Roddick to make it that close. Why only mention Djokovic from the point of his much better return but not from the point of Novak's considerably worse serve (compared to Roddick)?

 

[NatF]

NatF is coming soon. I can feel it.

I'm going to try and resist chiming in lol. Most don't even address the fact that the conditions that year at Wimbledon were incredible conducive to serve dominance so what's the point.

 

[NoleFam]

You don't see how Federer's serve quality will be relevant to why Roddick's RPW was that low? How much better though? Considering you implied Djokovic wasn't near his best. The serve won % difference for Federer is a whole 8%.

Not talking about peak Djokovic's returning. You can check his RPW in 2014 and 2015 yourself, I think. Although in your post you mentioned the peak version specifically, your wording made it more about Roddick's RPW in the match being low and him still making it close. I'm pointing out that you completely ignored the aspect of the game that actually allowed Roddick to make it that close. Why only mention Djokovic from the point of his much better return but not from the point of Novak's considerably worse serve (compared to Roddick)?

Federer's serve quality got better in his later years. Roddick played a super long match, with many more service games than the 2012 match, and his return points won remained dire. Not just because Federer has a great serve but because he's not a great returner. That is obvious.

You're getting lost in the weeds. We already know why Roddick made it close which is of course because of his serve.

 

[Nadal_Django]

First, haven't seen anyone apart from the person you were replying to say peak Djokovic would be crushed or easily defeated by Federer 2009.

Second, the Wimby 2009 final specifically famously was a serve-dominant match, with many strong holds and not many BP opportunities. You point to the return stat as though that was the main indicator of level of performance, while not even mentioning the serve part of the equation. Federer's 1st serve won% in Wimby 2009 (the whole tournament) was 86.9% with a 17.1% of aces. For comparison, Dokovic's average 1st serve won % in 2015 - widely considered to be his peak - was 76.6% with 10.5% of aces. Quite the difference, don't you think? Federer in 2012 had Djokovic at 25% RPW with about the same 1st serve in% (even a bit smaller) than the one against Roddick. And in 2012 Federer's average Wimby 1st serve won was 78%, so significantly smaller than in 2009. So yeah, let's talk about context please.

Not that the hypothesis about how 09 Wimbledon Federer is much better than the best Wimbledon version of Djokovic, was never ever mentioned on this forum before isn't it!? What the heck your fanbase chief eye test specialist and time travel match expert, probably had tattooed than notion on his forehead by now. Remember the constant talk all over this forum how "the 7 best version of Federer is better than the best version of Djokovic"? So lets not act humble all of sudden now.

 

[RS]

Nadal Diango is on it today. I think Djokovic fans might be making too much of this though.

 

[abmk]

Federer's serve quality got better in his later years. Roddick played a super long match, with many more service games than the 2012 match, and his return points won remained dire. Not just because Federer has a great serve but because he's not a great returner. That is obvious.

You're getting lost in the weeds. We already know why Roddick made it close which is of course because of his serve.

Federer's serving from Madrid 09 till USO 2009 semi was as good as it ever was.
Roddick broke Fed twice in the first 4 sets in Wim 09 final, Djokovic broke Fed only once in Wim 12 semi (4 sets) with his better return.

 

[abmk]

Do you rate any slam levels from Wim 16 to USO22 as good enough or better? Doesn't just have to be a winner. You can throw in the YEC too.

well yeah, Wim 17, AO 19, RG 17 to name the top 3 in some order.
Djokovic has 5 inflation slams though and Nadal 4 IMO.
and weaker fields in slams when they have played well enough.
first set itself is way more than they should be. the 2 sets combined is just way too many.

 

[The Fedfather]

Federer's serve quality got better in his later years. Roddick played a super long match, with many more service games than the 2012 match, and his return points won remained dire. Not just because Federer has a great serve but because he's not a great returner. That is obvious.

You're getting lost in the weeds. We already know why Roddick made it close which is of course because of his serve.

In 2012 there was no significant difference in his serve quality compared to 2009. The later years would be from 2014 on. And Roddick isn't a great returner, particularly in comparison to Djokovic, but that's not a point I'm arguing.

If you know that Roddick made it close because of his amazing serve on the day, 75% first serves, why not give that context while citing the 21% RPW stat?

Perhaps I have to clarify that I'm not saying Roddick in 2009 was nearly as tough a challenge as peak Djokovic at Wimbledon. But there's definitely a difference between saying that vs making a snide comment that highlights a single underwhelming stat of Roddick's play, no context, making it seem like Federer struggled to beat a very poorly playing opponent. The latter is what I responded to.

 

[RS]

well yeah, Wim 17, AO 19, RG 17 to name the top 3 in some order.
Djokovic has 5 inflation slams though and Nadal 4 IMO.
and weaker fields in slams when they have played well enough.
first set itself is way more than they should be. the 2 sets combined is just way too many.

Would you rate 1 non inflation slam as more impressive over 4 inflation or 5 inflation slams by your metric?

 

[The Fedfather]

Not that the hypothesis about how 09 Wimbledon Federer is much better than the best Wimbledon version of Djokovic, was never ever mentioned on this forum before isn't it!? What the heck your fanbase chief eye test specialist and time travel match expert, probably had tattooed than notion on his forehead by now. Remember the constant talk all over this forum how "the 7 best version of Federer is better than the best version of Djokovic"? So lets not act humble all of sudden now.

Literally never saw this being said before your post and apparently I've been active on this forum longer than you. But of course I might've missed something. Constant talk though? Yeah, sure. Fighting against invisible persecution again, are we?

 

[RS]

I'm going to try and resist chiming in lol. Most don't even address the fact that the conditions that year at Wimbledon were incredible conducive to serve dominance so what's the point.

Too repetitive these disscusions lol. I suspect you will chim in if the thread extends past the 15/16 page mark though.

 

[abmk]

Would you rate 1 non inflation slam as more impressive over 4 inflation or 5 inflation slams by your metric?

I haven't exactly thought of exact equivalence , this isn't a math equation, but no, 4 or 5 slams is too much to be equated to 1 slam (of any type)

 

[RS]

I haven't exactly thought of exact equivalence , this isn't a math equation, but no, 4 or 5 slams is too much to be equated to 1 slam (of any type)

I was thinking you would say 2 but fine.

 

[NatF]

Too repetitive these disscusions lol. I suspect you will chim in if the thread extends past the 15/16 page mark though.

Nah cba. All been said before. Fed 2009 and Djokovic 2015 are probably similar caliber players at Wimbledon, not going to say more than that.

 

[RS]

Federer Wim 2009 final vs Djokovic Wim 2011 final?

:unsure:

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Wim 2009 final vs Wim 2015 final?

Which slam final was better quality?

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

 

[RS]

If I believed in inflation slams I would say 3 would be a mine in comparsion to 4

 

[RS]

Nah cba. All been said before. Fed 2009 and Djokovic 2015 are probably similar caliber players at Wimbledon, not going to say more than that.

Yeah some matches have just been used up too much like those 2.

 

[The Fedfather]

Federer Wim 2009 final vs Djokovic Wim 2011 final?

:unsure:

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Wim 2009 final vs Wim 2015 final?

Which slam final was better quality?

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Lmfao

Do you get paid for instigating forum fights?

 

[RS]

Lmfao

Do you get paid for instigating forum fights?

It's just to help with the discussions. It's pretty much all covered.

 

[NatF]

If I believed in inflation slams I would say 3 would be a mine in comparsion to 4

Which ones would they be?

 

[The Fedfather]

It's just to help with the discussions. It's pretty much all covered.

How do you think that's going to help? It's pouring gasoline on fire type of thing.

 

[RS]

How do you think that's going to help? It's fire on gasoline type of thing.

I won't bump it up. It might help so people can see the posts.

 

[duaneeo]

Stan is so horrible on grass that he would never reach the wimbledon SF/F to reach Nole, even if he did he would be comprehensively beaten by peak Nole.

You're still not getting it. Djokovic is miles superior than Stan on all surfaces. Wawrinka is not a player who peak/prime Djokovic should lose to at the Australian Open, or Roland Garros, or Wimbledon, or the US Open. But guess what? Peak/prime Djokovic lost to Stan at the Australian Open, and Roland Garros, and the US Open...two of those losses in finals. All evidence points towards a Nole loss had they met at Wimbledon.

Why isn't it Djok's fault that he didn't reach Nadal at WIM08 and WIM10?
Why isn't it Djok's fault that he didn't reach Murray at WIM12 and WIM16?

I said peak/prime Djokovic (2011-2016). But yes about Murray.

 

[The_Order]

I said peak/prime Djokovic (2011-2016). But yes about Murray.

So a guy who apparently has Sampras' grass prowess isn't able to reach Nadal in 08 and 10? LOL

I guarantee you if he had the 21 and 22 draw in 08 and 10 he'd have won them both and everybody would say his prime started there....

 

[Razer]

Its an absolute disgrace Djokovic has 7 Wimbledons when he won only 4 at prime or prime-ish level. Last 3 inflation ones the weakest in open era save for the boycott 73 Wim. He should be at 4-5, nothing more in half-decent field.

Both Djokovic and Nadal have won more than enough in this dark inflation era of 16-22. More than about time youngesters take over.

Number of ATG rivals for Roger Federer born between 1 September 1971 and 1st June 1986 = 0 Great Rivals in 15 years
Number of ATG rivals for Novak & Rafa born between 1987 & 2002/2003 = 0 Great Rivals in 15-16 years

The dearth of talent to face Roger between birth years of Pete & Rafa was balanced by the dearth of talent between Novak & Sinner/Alcaraz.

God is never unfair, you thought you could get away with all those years when your hero butchered the field like there was no tomorrow, nature countered it with the Serbian and the Spaniard butchering some fields of their own. In the end all those MPs dropped in crucial situations and the late racquet change has really cost Roger dearly, sorry, can't help it.... Justice has been done fair and square.

7 is enough

8 is enough, let them level. 9 would be a bit too much, that I agree, 8 is fine, he should anyway be on 8 now since wimbledon 2020 was cancelled.