Why do some rank Djokovic ahead of Federer at Australian Open

[McEnroeisanartist]

Why do some rank Djokovic ahead of Federer in terms of Australian Open achievements?

Is it because Wimbledon and the U.S. Open are Federer's, The French Open is Nadal's, So people have to give the Australian Open to Djokovic?

While Federer hasn't won 3 consecutive Australian Opens like Djokovic, he has won the same amount - 4.

Federer has reached 5 finals there to Djokovic's 4. He has reached 10 consecutive semifinals there to Djokovic's 3.

Federer once won 30 consecutive sets at the Australian Open compared to Djokovic's longest streak of 26 consecutive sets.

Federer has won an Australian Open without losing a set.

Is it because Djokovic is 2-1 versus Federer at the Australian Open?

 

[Graf=GOAT]

Federer is 32 years old.

 

[tennisaddict]

I think it is a tie now , but we know that Novak has at least 2 more majors there. And Novak's wins at AO have all been pretty emphatic.

 

[granddog29]

Djokovic has won 3 in a row which nobody in the Open Era eer has, is 26 and already has 4 titles like Federer is retired with, and is 2-1 vs Federer there, both wins emphatic straight set beatdowns. The end.

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Stay tuned for next week's episode, where McEnroeisanartist will pose the question "Why do some rank Nadal ahead of Federer at Roland Garros?".

 

[Morj]

Djokovic is likely to win at least one more slam there and I don't think Fed will. Also, Fed won them over a long period of time, whereas Djokovic has been winning his back-to-back which shows a little more dominance.

Finally, Fed only had real competition at the AO during '04 where he had to go through the likes of Hewitt and Safin. The other years he didn't really face a challenge, unless you want to count 2010 where he played mentally weak Murray.

Djokovic on the other hand has been able to handle pretty much any challenge he has had to face to win the AO titles. In 2008 he took down world no. 1 and defending champion Federer. In 2011 he beat defending champion Federer as well as the previous year's finalist, Murray. In 2012 he of course got through back-to-back 5 set epics and still beat Murray and Nadal (Fed was never able to beat Nadal at AO) and 2013 was less of a challenge but he still had to beat Murray, who was coming off a USO and Olympics win.

 

[granddog29]

I dont think either one should rank over Agassi. Agassi won 4 of 9 Australian Opens entered, despite playing only 4 Australian Opens before turning 30.

Emerson also has to be recognized for winning 6 times despite not facing the best competition.

I would rank them Agassi > Emerson > Djokovic > Federer

 

[tennisaddict]

I dont think either one should rank over Agassi. Agassi won 4 of 9 Australian Opens entered, despite playing only 4 Australian Opens before turning 30.

Emerson also has to be recognized for winning 6 times despite not facing the best competition.

I would rank them Agassi > Emerson > Djokovic > Federer

And in other news, Nadal should be higher than Federer , since he beat him in the finals there.

Finals H2H is what counts.

 

[timnz]

And in other news, Nadal should be higher than Federer , since he beat him in the finals there.

Finals H2H is what counts.

I just don't believe that davydenko is better than Nadal. I just don't. Stop insisting that he is based on his superior H2H!

 

[The_Order]

It's because of the quality of opponents Djokovic has beaten at AO.

Since Novak became a top player, he is undefeated against Federer, Murray and Nadal.

Fed could only dream of going undefeated against Novak, Nadal and Murray. Most of Fed's title winning draws were against opponents ranked outside the top 4.

 

[90's Clay]

Hes taken Fed out TWICE at the AO (once around Fed's peak) and he also managed more back to back AO titles

 

[Backspin1183]

Hes taken Fed out TWICE at the AO (once around Fed's peak) and he also managed more back to back AO titles

This.

Federer is better than Djokovic in 3 other slams but not in Melbourne.

 

[10is]

Djokovic would never have won the AO were the surface still Rebound Ace.

Considering Federer is the only individual to have won the AO an equivalent number of times albeit on both Rebound Ace and Plexicushion (and the latter when he was past his prime) definitely elevates him above Djokovic.

 

[RNadal]

Who ranks him above old Rog? That is nonsense.

 

[Tony48]

Djokovic has never lost a final there, won 3 in a row, and has 4 titles there, and likely to claim a 5th.

 

[90's Clay]

Not to menton, who Nole has downed at the AO has probably been more impressive than who Fed was beating from 04-10 there

 

[Finesse4sum]

It's because of the quality of opponents Djokovic has beaten at AO.

Since Novak became a top player, he is undefeated against Federer, Murray and Nadal.

Fed could only dream of going undefeated against Novak, Nadal and Murray. Most of Fed's title winning draws were against opponents ranked outside the top 4.

Well thats blatantly false since Fed is 1 - 2 against Djoker because of R16 in 2007. Murray is the only other one he's successfully beaten time and time again on the post AO 07 surface and only has one meeting with Nadal. Top player can be construed as anyone inside the top 20.

Not to menton, who Nole has downed at the AO has probably been more impressive than who Fed was beating from 04-10 there

To complement that Cvac has been "downed" by Tsonga, Roddick, Federer which are the same male players that seem to enhance enhance his gs count and wins over great players overall.

Djoker is 2 - 1 over Murray at Miami
Djoker is 1 - 0 over Murray at Indian Wells
Djoker is 3 - 0 over Murray at Australian Open

Nadal has done more in ONE match against Djoker at AO than Murray has done in 3 straight matches over 3 straight years. Murray according to fans here is supposed to be a bad match up for Djoker while Nad/Djok is supposed to be more even keel.

 

[timnz]

There is no good reason

for people to rank Djokovic ahead of Federer at the Australian Open.

They have won the same number of titles, but Federer has reached more finals, hence he should be rated higher.

Now some have said that they expect Djokovic to win more - that is why they rate him higher. But this shouldn't be allowed. Rate players on their achievements not their potential achievements. If/when Djokovic wins more than Federer - give him the rating then, until then Federer is ahead.

 

[timnz]

Federer is 32 years old.

Not sure how this is relevant. If he was 92 his achievements would still be the same.

 

[Mainad]

Djoker is 2 - 1 over Murray at Miami
Djoker is 1 - 0 over Murray at Indian Wells
Djoker is 3 - 0 over Murray at Australian Open

Nadal has done more in ONE match against Djoker at AO than Murray has done in 3 straight matches over 3 straight years. Murray according to fans here is supposed to be a bad match up for Djoker while Nad/Djok is supposed to be more even keel.

Grand Slam Finals:

Djokovic 2 - 2 Murray

Masters Finals:

Murray 3 - 2 Djokovic

Total Finals:

Murray 5 - Djokovic 4

I'd say that's a pretty even match-up between them, wouldn't you?

 

[NEW_BORN]

They don't call him Plexicushionovic for nothing.

At this point i rank Federer just a touch higher, because of him winning on both Rebound Ace and Plexicushion.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Because Djokovic has a winning streak that spans longer than 2 seasons.

 

[PCXL-Fan]

They need to hype up and gush about the top players somehow, in order to hype up tennis. McEnroe always always always hypes up the top mens players in order to hype up tennis. And the average viewer buys into it.

 

[anantak2k]

And in other news, Nadal should be higher than Federer , since he beat him in the finals there.

Finals H2H is what counts.

Yea Nadal should definitely be ahead of Federer at the AO. Isn't he 2-0 H2h vs Federer there?

 

[Finesse4sum]

Grand Slam Finals:

Djokovic 2 - 2 Murray

Masters Finals:

Murray 3 - 2 Djokovic

Total Finals:

Murray 5 - Djokovic 4

I'd say that's a pretty even match-up between them, wouldn't you?

Thats the thing. Djoker and Murray is truly the only duo to seemingly play enough times at different venues that suit each of them.

Murray is dominant at Cinci for fast
Djoker is pretty much dominant at IW and Miami for slow
Murray takes Wimbledon
Djoker takes the hypothetical FO (saying this based on results and movement)
Murray takes USO
Djokovic is just a bit higher than Murray at AO (the 5 setter could have gone either way)

If Nadal/Djoker and Nadal/Federer were more evenly distributed matches wise I'd say it would look a lot like this.

 

[NEW_BORN]

Yea Nadal should definitely be ahead of Federer at the AO. Isn't he 2-0 H2h vs Federer there?

What a r.e.t.a.r.d.e.d statement.

Arnaud Clement is also 2-0 Vs Federer at the Australian.

Why don't we put him above Fed too.

 

[papertank]

Djokovic has won 3 back to back and equalled the record and he's only 26. By the end of his career he'll doubt be the best AO player ever, so might as well start ranking him as so now.

 

[granddog29]

Trying to lowball Djokovic since he won his Australian Opens all on Plexicushion is ridiculous. Should he have been expected to win the Australian Open aged 17-19 on rebound ace. What the heck was Federer doing at that event on rebound ace at those ages, heck up until turning 22. Meanwhile Agassi didnt even bother to play the tournament on rebound ace until almost 25.

 

[timnz]

No never

Djokovic has won 3 back to back and equalled the record and he's only 26. By the end of his career he'll doubt be the best AO player ever, so might as well start ranking him as so now.

We should never rate players on their potential achievements, only their actual ones to date. Otherwise why don't we rate Dimitrov above both Djokovic and Federer at the AO? After all it is theoretically possible that he COULD perform better than both.

So to date, in the open era, Federer has amassed the best record at the AO, hence he is the top guy.

Again, happy to give Djokovic the top mark when/if he achieves it. No credit is given for what he might achieve, only what he actually achieves. No-one in these forums can predict the future winners of slams with absolute certainty. Hence, no way should anyone be given credit for something that they may or may not achieve in the future.

This ranking guys on potential rather than achievement is what has created this latest Nadal GOAT discussions when he is 5 slams away from achieving the record. Again, lets give him the credit if/when he achieves it but not before then. Anything can happen going forward.

 

[5555]

Djokovic would never have won the AO were the surface still Rebound Ace.

Is it a fact or an opinion?

 

[oscar_2424]

Federer is miles ahead of Djokovic in any department.

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Is it a fact or an opinion?

 

[Finesse4sum]

Is it a fact or an opinion?

If we only discussed in terms of facts like "A circle is round and has no edges" and "A square has 4 sides and no arcs"

Then there shouldnt be discussion of any kind at all anywhere on the internet.

Me saying that Battleship is a great movie in any sense of of the word is a valid opinion but it doesnt make it a "good" one. You need conjecture to judge things that cant be rated in black and white.

 

[RF20Lennon]

Hes taken Fed out TWICE at the AO (once around Fed's peak) and he also managed more back to back AO titles

OH RIGHT! you mean the point when Fed had mono right!


Also I would put them on par with each other but also just an interesting thing, Fed is the only player to have won the Aussie on Rebound Ace and Plexicushion.

 

[Fiji]

Djokovic would never have won the AO were the surface still Rebound Ace.

Considering Federer is the only individual to have won the AO an equivalent number of times albeit on both Rebound Ace and Plexicushion (and the latter when he was past his prime) definitely elevates him above Djokovic.

This..............

 

[5555]

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/entry12/english/en06opin/images/en06opin-e2-f-is-that-a-fact-592x838.jpg

My question was not directed to you.

If we only discussed in terms of facts like "A circle is round and has no edges" and "A square has 4 sides and no arcs"

How you came to the conclusion that I think we should only discuss that way? Elaborate.

 

[ilovetennis212]

Why do some rank Djokovic ahead of Federer in terms of Australian Open achievements?

Is it because Wimbledon and the U.S. Open are Federer's, The French Open is Nadal's, So people have to give the Australian Open to Djokovic?

While Federer hasn't won 3 consecutive Australian Opens like Djokovic, he has won the same amount - 4.

Federer has reached 5 finals there to Djokovic's 4. He has reached 10 consecutive semifinals there to Djokovic's 3.

Federer once won 30 consecutive sets at the Australian Open compared to Djokovic's longest streak of 26 consecutive sets.

Federer has won an Australian Open without losing a set.

Is it because Djokovic is 2-1 versus Federer at the Australian Open?

djokovic will win at least two or three more titles in Aussie open. I think it's up to nadal or murray.
Slow hard court suit him good.
Djokovic can have the goat at Aussie open.

 

[Magnetite]

It's the 3 in a row, and Djokovic winning the AO is fresh in people's memories.

Also, a lot of people remember Federer crying at the AO in 2009.

 

[TheF1Bob]

Novak is better than Federer.

 

[NEW_BORN]

It's the 3 in a row, and Djokovic winning the AO is fresh in people's memories.

Also, a lot of people remember Federer crying at the AO in 2009.

People who have a problem with men crying are usually homophobes...just saying.

Real men are not afraid to show their emotions to the world.

 

[Tenez101]

The main reason is Djokovic has overcome much tougher competition (especially in semis/finals) to gain his AO titles.

 

[timnz]

The cult of the present champion

A lot of fans always go on the cult of the present champion.

Hence, always present champions are always regarded as better as past champions. They think that because they believe the myth that athletes are always improving (even though there is only very weak evidence of this).

I remember in the late 80's Newcombe showing how ridiculous this cult is. He said that in 1987 Connors was number 4 in the world. He said...you can't tell me that, even though he is ranked so high, that he is better than he was in 1974/1975. People were suffering from the cult of the present champion then, and saying players were so much better in the late 80's than mid-1970's, and Newcombe was pointing out that the evidence was showing that to be false.

That is why players such as Rosewall and Tilden are so important. They are players who kept playing at a high level for so long. Tilden, at over 50 was still pushing World number 1's to 5 sets. Rosewall got to number 2 in the world at 40. Now in both cases - they were much better players when they were 2 decades younger.....however, they were still being competitive. This showed that standards hadn't changed that much over time.

Today, many suffer from the cult of the present champion. Hence, Djokovic - being a more recent winner at the AO than Federer - automatically gets the vote. It doesn't bear any analysis however.

You can only go on historical achievement. And on that standard Federer is top, in the open era, because he has achieved the most.

 

[ibbi]

Calibre of opponents was generally higher, won it 3 times in a row, and yes, still has strong potential to win it more times.

 

[10is]

A lot of fans always go on the cult of the present champion.

Hence, always present champions are always regarded as better as past champions. They think that because they believe the myth that athletes are always improving (even though there is only very weak evidence of this).

I remember in the late 80's Newcombe showing how ridiculous this cult is. He said that in 1987 Connors was number 4 in the world. He said...you can't tell me that, even though he is ranked so high, that he is better than he was in 1974/1975. People were suffering from the cult of the present champion then, and saying players were so much better in the late 80's than mid-1970's, and Newcombe was pointing out that the evidence was showing that to be false.

That is why players such as Rosewall and Tilden are so important. They are players who kept playing at a high level for so long. Tilden, at over 50 was still pushing World number 1's to 5 sets. Rosewall got to number 2 in the world at 40. Now in both cases - they were much better players when they were 2 decades younger.....however, they were still being competitive. This showed that standards hadn't changed that much over time.

Today, many suffer from the cult of the present champion. Hence, Djokovic - being a more recent winner at the AO than Federer - automatically gets the vote. It doesn't bear any analysis however.

You can only go on historical achievement. And on that standard Federer is top, in the open era, because he has achieved the most.

VERY Well Said! Kudos!

 

[Egoista]

Because the hardcourt there is slow as hell

 

[5555]

If we only discussed in terms of facts like "A circle is round and has no edges" and "A square has 4 sides and no arcs"

Then there shouldnt be discussion of any kind at all anywhere on the internet.

Me saying that Battleship is a great movie in any sense of of the word is a valid opinion but it doesnt make it a "good" one. You need conjecture to judge things that cant be rated in black and white.

How you came to the conclusion that I think we should only discuss that way? Elaborate.

Finesse4sum, if you do not reply you will lose the argument.

 

[Finesse4sum]

Finesse4sum, if you do not reply you will lose the argument.

There is no argument to win. I read a hell of a lot of posts before I started posting here and honestly it goes a lot like this many times.

Poster 1 - Presents facts with slight embellishment in detail or perception

Poster 2 - Presents conjecture with a certain spin to it against the facts


Poster 1 - Presents conjecture that can support the original stated facts although not absolutely.

Poster 2 - Presents negative conjecture that can be perceived through association but not entirely sound causation.


The forum is a place constant praise or blame to suit whatever deity they may make offerings to or hold above all else.

Fact or opinion stuff at the same time is merely a cop out and is extensively used on IMDB and many other discussions.

 

[5555]

There is no argument to win.

Yes, there is. I disagree with the statement that you made in the post #33.

I read a hell of a lot of posts before I started posting here and honestly it goes a lot like this many times.

Poster 1 - Presents facts with slight embellishment in detail or perception

Poster 2 - Presents conjecture with a certain spin to it against the facts


Poster 1 - Presents conjecture that can support the original stated facts although not absolutely.

Poster 2 - Presents negative conjecture that can be perceived through association but not entirely sound causation.


The forum is a place constant praise or blame to suit whatever deity they may make offerings to or hold above all else.

Fact or opinion stuff at the same time is merely a cop out and is extensively used on IMDB and many other discussions.

The reason why I often ask other posters "Is it a fact or an opinion?" is not because I want to discuss strictly in terms of facts but because they put burden of proof on themselves if they make an allegation of fact (you do not put burden of proof on yourself if your statement is just opinion).

 

[5555]

Finesse4sum, if you do not reply you will lose the argument.

 

[ripitup]

To the thread question there is a poll on the first or second page of this forum of best Australian Open Player and Federer is way ahead of Djokovic. So apparently not many do (atleast not here).