Why is Djokovic so much better at 27/28 than Federer was?

[InjuredNo?]

Djokovic is a tad older than Federer was during the 2009 season, yet he's on track to dominate this season the way Federer did in 2004-2007. He's also 4 years removed from his first dominant season - 2011. Federer was 4 years removed from his first dominant season (2004) in 2008. That was the year he started losing left and right.

One would think Federer's game would be sustainable for longer since he has the serve to win the cheap points more than Djokovic.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Djokovic is a tad older than Federer was during the 2009 season, yet he's on track to dominate this season the way Federer did in 2004-2007. He's also 4 years removed from his first dominant season - 2011. Federer was 4 years removed from his first dominant season (2004) in 2008. That was the year he started losing left and right.

One would think Federer's game would be sustainable for longer since he has the serve to win the cheap points more than Djokovic.

I think a lot of it has to do with the success that players have at different times. Federer was far more accomplished by the same age, whereas for Djokovic, his current time is still retribution for being shut out for so long by Fedal. Also, we should probably just take it slightly easy. Djokovic still has to win the Slams. After all, in the period you speak of for Federer, he did go ahead and reach all 4 finals—winning 2 of them—and then made it 3 out of 4 of the last held Slams in winning the 2010 AO, which could've been 4 in a row.

 

[veroniquem]

Fed had his best years consecutively in his mid-twenties: 22 to 26 and that stretch was probably the most dominant one had ever seen in tennis. So, although he still won big after that, 4 peak years is already huge for a tennis player, new competition and a certain amount of wear and tear, there is only so long somebody can stay at the top.
Djoko's current peak reflects the general trend on the tour of succeeding at a later age and also he's only had 1 truly peak year in the past: 2011, so he still has some in the tank for a second one at 27/28 (Nadal had his last one at 26/27).

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Both previous posts are right.

Federer had acheived the bulk of his accomplishments by then and was at the zenith or approaching it already to be considered a GOAT/legend etc...

Also, the game has become more athletic, fitness has improved and I think the age of peak performance in tennis will probably shift/is in the process of shifting to other sports'...25-29.

 

[jg153040]

Djokovic is a tad older than Federer was during the 2009 season, yet he's on track to dominate this season the way Federer did in 2004-2007. He's also 4 years removed from his first dominant season - 2011. Federer was 4 years removed from his first dominant season (2004) in 2008. That was the year he started losing left and right.

One would think Federer's game would be sustainable for longer since he has the serve to win the cheap points more than Djokovic.

Federer was mostly stopped by Nole-Rafa past his peak and they had 5-6 years on him.

Who does Nole have from next generation that are close to Nole-Rafa level?

Also, let Djokovic make finals of next 4 slams at least, before we say he is much better than Federer.

 

[OddJack]

Nadal was better than them both at 21. Different people peak at different ages.

 

[Tennisknowledge99]

I think a lot of it has to do with the success that players have at different times. Federer was far more accomplished by the same age, whereas for Djokovic, his current time is still retribution for being shut out for so long by Fedal. Also, we should probably just take it slightly easy. Djokovic still has to win the Slams. After all, in the period you speak of for Federer, he did go ahead and reach all 4 finals—winning 2 of them—and then made it 3 out of 4 of the last held Slams in winning the 2010 AO, which could've been 4 in a row.

Good post!

 

[jg153040]

Both previous posts are right.

Federer had acheived the bulk of his accomplishments by then and was at the zenith or approaching it already to be considered a GOAT/legend etc...

Also, the game has become more athletic, fitness has improved and I think the age of peak performance in tennis will probably shift/is in the process of shifting to other sports'...25-29.

Also Fed had to deal with strong clay era, not like Djokovic in his weak clay era, when Berdych is making clay finals . Right?

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Also Fed had to deal with strong clay era, not like Djokovic in his weak clay era, when Berdych is making clay finals . Right?

Wrong, both had to deal with Nadal.

Give it a rest, bub.

 

[JanowiczJ]

Both previous posts are right.

Federer had acheived the bulk of his accomplishments by then and was at the zenith or approaching it already to be considered a GOAT/legend etc...

Also, the game has become more athletic, fitness has improved and I think the age of peak performance in tennis will probably shift/is in the process of shifting to other sports'...25-29.

I just did this two weeks ago:

Nadal, then Fed, then Nole/Murray changed the complexity of the game. The rest of the tour had to follow and now everyone or almost everyone in the top10 is a great athlete. A lot are amazing athletes. Novak always had the talent but he couldn't keep up with the big2 and he was forced to adapt.

Another good example of this is a brazilian guy named João Souza. Tall guy, big serve and clay specialist. Was a fringe top200 guy with ups and downs his whole career. Last year he decided to follow Nole's diet. He also found his body was intolerant to lactose. He cut gluten and milk and its' sub-products from his diet. Focused on his physical fitness, had deep runs at challengers in a row, reached top70 and a month or so ago broke the Davis Cup record of longest match in he Davis Cup, almost reaching 7 hours of outdoor play in South American summer.

Tennis became a war of attrition! Being great at hitting shots alone wont take you past the top200 anymore. Unless you are a big server. You need the whole package nowadays and a byproduct of this is that YES after those guys retire we'll have a weak era. Almost a whole generation was lost because they were trained their whole lifes to do one thing and then entered the tour and it was totally different. Some will reach their peaks very late, others will just stop.

Anyways, tennis is not a game of youngsters anymore and awaited this for more than a decade.

 

[jg153040]

Wrong, both had to deal with Nadal.

Give it a rest, bub.

But Rafa is way past his clay prime.

 

[Charlemagne]

Have you seen Novak's competition? Who really consistently challenges him at this age? *******? Nadal? Tsonga?

 

[RanchDressing]

Fed had his best years consecutively in his mid-twenties: 22 to 26 and that stretch was probably the most dominant one had ever seen in tennis. So, although he still won big after that, 4 peak years is already huge for a tennis player, new competition and a certain amount of wear and tear, there is only so long somebody can stay at the top.
Djoko's current peak reflects the general trend on the tour of succeeding at a later age and also he's only had 1 truly peak year in the past: 2011, so he still has some in the tank for a second one at 27/28 (Nadal had his last one at 26/27).

I dissagree.

His individual success has more to do with his game than it does his opponents.

During 2008 he had physical problems on until 2011, when everything sort of clicked. But once that year long high wore off, his serve once again dropped percentage noticeably, and he wasn't all that comfortable shortening up points moving in.

Now his game has peaked, not because his opponents have lessened, but because he's basically maximized his game. I would agree he's winning tournaments though because of his opponent's drop in play. But he would be competing for titles regardless what level FEDAL was competing at.

He uses tremendous diversity on his ground game, incredibly effectively, for both offense and defense. His movement is still top tier from age, but he doesn't rely on it to win nearly as much as he did in 2011 etc. His serve both first and second are top tier as-well, one thing that wasn't there. He's got a fantastic mental game, and the coaching is helping. His volleys and strategies have improved quite a bit as-well.

That's much like Federer during prime. Incredible movement (for offense and defense), attacking tennis that is high percentage, amazing ground game with lot's of diversity; simply put a "complete game". I'd argue Fed had more offensive options, naturally, but djokovic definitely has more defensive ones. But, during Fed's prime, offense was favored with the courts/balls, now defense has a better chance.

In short I just see it as Djokovic finally reaching his full potential. He's always been really talented. That's rare to have any player reach their FULL potential. Federer has always been such an incredible talent, he reached his full potential quite quickly, mentally and physically, and that's a great statement.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Have you seen Novak's competition? Who really consistently challenges him at this age? *******? Nadal? Tsonga?

That doesn't take away from his consistency though at this stage in constantly reaching finals.

Federer definitely had a good year in 2009 though...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer_career_statistics

He reached 3 out of the first 4 Masters semis but lost them to a mixture of 2009 Murray and Djokovic.

Is 2009 Murray and Djokovic as good as Fed has been generally in the last year?

Fed's race position is looking kind of bleak for the moment, though.

Surely, 2015 Nole defeating 2015 Nadal is at least equally as impressive as a 2009 Federer beating 2009 Murray at Indian Wells (except that he lost).

 

[RanchDressing]

Have you seen Novak's competition? Who really consistently challenges him at this age? *******? Nadal? Tsonga?

Federer has kept all their recent matches quite close, at least closer than anyone else.

Nadal is totally slipping.

Djokovic's game just has too many questions that players can't answer.

That return hurts everyone big time. He might not win every point on return, but when he get's a look at it, he puts players on neutral terms or worse. Then he's too fast to hit through (unless you go crazy, and that's not going to happen most days of the year), and his serve is now a true weapon. Combined with a great ground game, he's going to be at least as good as anyone, and better in a few rather unique areas of the game. It really isn't that his opponents are bad. He's just performing so well in so many areas of the game, he's a monster to beat.

 

[jg153040]

I think a lot of it has to do with the success that players have at different times. Federer was far more accomplished by the same age, whereas for Djokovic, his current time is still retribution for being shut out for so long by Fedal. Also, we should probably just take it slightly easy. Djokovic still has to win the Slams. After all, in the period you speak of for Federer, he did go ahead and reach all 4 finals—winning 2 of them—and then made it 3 out of 4 of the last held Slams in winning the 2010 AO, which could've been 4 in a row.

Murray = Djokovic 1.0

 

[RanchDressing]

Murray = Djokovic 1.0

Murray's second serve and mental game are like boat anchors on a sprinter.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I just did this two weeks ago:

Nadal, then Fed, then Nole/Murray changed the complexity of the game. The rest of the tour had to follow and now everyone or almost everyone in the top10 is a great athlete. A lot are amazing athletes. Novak always had the talent but he couldn't keep up with the big2 and he was forced to adapt.

Another good example of this is a brazilian guy named João Souza. Tall guy, big serve and clay specialist. Was a fringe top200 guy with ups and downs his whole career. Last year he decided to follow Nole's diet. He also found his body was intolerant to lactose. He cut gluten and milk and its' sub-products from his diet. Focused on his physical fitness, had deep runs at challengers in a row, reached top70 and a month or so ago broke the Davis Cup record of longest match in he Davis Cup, almost reaching 7 hours of outdoor play in South American summer.

Tennis became a war of attrition! Being great at hitting shots alone wont take you past the top200 anymore. Unless you are a big server. You need the whole package nowadays and a byproduct of this is that YES after those guys retire we'll have a weak era. Almost a whole generation was lost because they were trained their whole lifes to do one thing and then entered the tour and it was totally different. Some will reach their peaks very late, others will just stop.

Anyways, tennis is not a game of youngsters anymore and awaited this for more than a decade.

Excellent work. Thanks for this!

 

[spinovic]

Djokovic is a tad older than Federer was during the 2009 season, yet he's on track to dominate this season the way Federer did in 2004-2007. He's also 4 years removed from his first dominant season - 2011. Federer was 4 years removed from his first dominant season (2004) in 2008. That was the year he started losing left and right.

One would think Federer's game would be sustainable for longer since he has the serve to win the cheap points more than Djokovic.

It remains to be seen if Djokovic achieves more.

In 2008, Federer made the SF of Australia, the F of RG and Wimbledon and won the USO. In 2009, he made all 4 finals, won RG and Wimbledon, and lost the other two in 5th sets. Not bad for a guy losing left and right.

Those years are as good or better than anything Djokovic did in 2012-14, so one could just as easily ask wht Federer was better at that age than Djokovic was at 25-27?

 

[coloskier]

Djokovic is a tad older than Federer was during the 2009 season, yet he's on track to dominate this season the way Federer did in 2004-2007. He's also 4 years removed from his first dominant season - 2011. Federer was 4 years removed from his first dominant season (2004) in 2008. That was the year he started losing left and right.

One would think Federer's game would be sustainable for longer since he has the serve to win the cheap points more than Djokovic.

His main competition wasn't older than him.......

 

[sbengte]

Agree with the posters who talked about mileage and when the players peaked.

Additionally, in Fed's case I think he was never the same after he had mono. It officially was the end of prime Federer. He also had the family situation (travelling with infant twins) which disrupted his career further and put him on an accelerated decline path.

 

[spinovic]

Accelerated path to decline? He's had the most gradual decline I've ever seen.

 

[SLD76]

Fed had to deal with beast mode Rafa, god mode Delpo and up and comer Djoker. All of whom are younger than him.

Who from the next generation is a threat to Djoker ???

Djoker is cleaning as his rivals are either injured, recovering from injury, old and physically declining and the youngsters are nowhere near talented enough.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Fed had to deal with beast mode Rafa, god mode Delpo and up and comer Djoker. All of whom are younger than him.

Who from the next generation is a threat to Djoker ???

Djoker is cleaning as his rivals are either injured, recovering from injury, old and physically declining and the youngsters are nowhere near talented enough.

Exactly. Someone please come save tennis.

 

[SLD76]

Exactly. Someone please come save tennis.

I don't know if tennis needs saving per se....but until he starts declining himself I see no stopping off the Djoker Express.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I don't know if tennis needs saving per se....but until he starts declining himself I see no stopping off the Djoker Express.

Not "saving" but at least a story. Right now the only story is Novak is a T1000 and everyone else is at a Steak n Shake somewhere.

Wonder what Dimitrov is having?

 

[sbengte]

Accelerated path to decline? He's had the most gradual decline I've ever seen.

Up until AO 2010, he made 18/19 slam finals.
After AO' 10, 2/19 slam finals.
'Nuff said.

 

[SLD76]

Not "saving" but at least a story. Right now the only story is Novak is a T1000 and everyone else is at a Steak n Shake somewhere.

Wonder what Dimitrov is having?

Sounds like someone is hungry lol.

Also, things even out. Lendl finally had his day after the 80s era greats got old and before the 90s era greats came of age. In Djoker ' s case it will be more about him declining than a new Era taking over.

Yes I am comparing Lendl to Djoker.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Novak and Nadal have benefitted from there being basically a gap generation.

Federer would've dominated until his 30s if the 'next generation' was Nishikori, Raonic, and Dimitrov.

 

[Gary Duane]

I just did this two weeks ago:

Nadal, then Fed, then Nole/Murray changed the complexity of the game. The rest of the tour had to follow and now everyone or almost everyone in the top10 is a great athlete. A lot are amazing athletes. Novak always had the talent but he couldn't keep up with the big2 and he was forced to adapt.

Another good example of this is a brazilian guy named João Souza. Tall guy, big serve and clay specialist. Was a fringe top200 guy with ups and downs his whole career. Last year he decided to follow Nole's diet. He also found his body was intolerant to lactose. He cut gluten and milk and its' sub-products from his diet. Focused on his physical fitness, had deep runs at challengers in a row, reached top70 and a month or so ago broke the Davis Cup record of longest match in he Davis Cup, almost reaching 7 hours of outdoor play in South American summer.

Tennis became a war of attrition! Being great at hitting shots alone wont take you past the top200 anymore. Unless you are a big server. You need the whole package nowadays and a byproduct of this is that YES after those guys retire we'll have a weak era. Almost a whole generation was lost because they were trained their whole lifes to do one thing and then entered the tour and it was totally different. Some will reach their peaks very late, others will just stop.

Anyways, tennis is not a game of youngsters anymore and awaited this for more than a decade.

That's an interesting chart, and I don't know why it has gotten so little attention.

We all know it is true though. The only question is: will it stay this way?

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Average age of top 10 players: 29
Average age of top 11-20 players: 29.4

Jesus Christ. Even the young players are getting old.

edit: Just realized you had calculated the average. We will more than likely see it break 30.

 

[spinovic]

Up until AO 2010, he made 18/19 slam finals.
After AO' 10, 2/19 slam finals.
'Nuff said.

It's actually 3/20.

He's 34 years old.

He's also made 16/20 QF in that time. 11/20 SF.

This all just happens to coincide with him hitting his 30s and guys like Djokovic and Murray coming into their primes.

An accelerated decline doesn't entail of 5-year stretch of:

-making 80% of major QF
-making 55% of major SF
-making a major final, much less winning one
-returning to #1 in the world
-finishing #2 in the world at age 33
-going 22-19 in tournament finals

At least, that's not how I would define it. That is a gradual decline.

 

[smoledman]

The way things are going on the ATP, Djokovic is probably going to be #1 for the next 100+ consecutive weeks easily.

 

[jg153040]

Ok, Djokovic is doing great, but can we at least wait till 2016 to claim he is doing SO MUCH BETTER than Federer?

He still has to back it up, but if he does, sure it will be amazing, he gets the credit.

 

[D.Nalby12]

It has lot to with competition. Federer had two ATGs and bunch of good tier two players like Murray, Del potro, Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling etc from young generation pushing him in his fall years. Djokovic have Dimitrov and Raonic.

Credit to Djokovic keeping him in top physical shape and mentally focused in late twenties. He's playing much better and consistent Tennis than Federer did at the same age.

 

[spinovic]

To answer the question, there could be many explanations.

For starters, every player doesn't develop at the same rate nor follow the same exact career arc. Injuries, ebbs and flows in competition, etc., can also play a role.

 

[jg153040]

It has lot to with competition. Federer had two ATGs and bunch of good tier two players like Murray, Del potro, Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling etc from young generation pushing him in his fall years. Djokovic have Dimitrov and Raonic.

Credit to Djokovic keeping him in top physical shape and mentally focused in late twenties. He's playing much better and consistent Tennis than Federer did at the same age.

Also, it's not like Fed was doing terribly lol. He lost by a hair at AO vs Nadal. Nadal was god mode there.

He won FO and W and lost by a hair vs on fire Delpo. Then he dominated AO 10.
So, Federer made last 5 GS finals, won 3 and lost 2 by a hair. That isn't terrible lol.

Plus, I can't see how OP can make claims when we don't even know how Djokovic will do in the next 4 slams.

 

[above bored]

Djokovic is a tad older than Federer was during the 2009 season, yet he's on track to dominate this season the way Federer did in 2004-2007. He's also 4 years removed from his first dominant season - 2011. Federer was 4 years removed from his first dominant season (2004) in 2008. That was the year he started losing left and right.

One would think Federer's game would be sustainable for longer since he has the serve to win the cheap points more than Djokovic.

All players have different career arcs because all players are different and the circumstances in which they play are different.

To recreate Federer's circumstances for Djokovic, he would need to have completely dominated the sport for 4.5 of the past 6 years, contracted mono about a year and a half ago, suffered back problems 8 months ago and be in the process of recovering full functionality as two hungry future all-time greats, 5 and 6 years younger and in the top 3, are just entering their primes. That just takes care of some, not all, of the circumstances. How close are Djokovic's circumstances to these?

 

[spinovic]

All players have different career arcs because all players are different and the circumstances in which they play are different.

To recreate Federer's circumstances for Djokovic, he would need to have completely dominated the sport for 4.5 of the past 6 years, contracted mono about a year and a half ago, suffered back problems 8 months ago and be in the process of recovering full functionality as two hungry future all-time greats, 5 and 6 years younger and in the top 3, are just entering their primes. That just takes care of some, not all, of the circumstances. How close are Djokovic's circumstances to these?

And, as I asked, how do we explain how Federer's years at that age were as good or better than Djokovic when he was 25-27 (1-3 years younger)?

 

[jg153040]

And, as I asked, how do we explain how Federer's years at that age were as good or better than Djokovic when he was 25-27 (1-3 years younger)?

Maybe mono really sped up his decline a lot. He just wasn't the same after mono.

Not saying that it is an excuse, just explanation.

 

[sbengte]

It's actually 3/20.

He's 34 years old.

He's also made 16/20 QF in that time. 11/20 SF.

This all just happens to coincide with him hitting his 30s and guys like Djokovic and Murray coming into their primes.

An accelerated decline doesn't entail of 5-year stretch of:

-making 80% of major QF
-making 55% of major SF
-making a major final, much less winning one
-returning to #1 in the world
-finishing #2 in the world at age 33
-going 22-19 in tournament finals

At least, that's not how I would define it. That is a gradual decline.

It's one way of looking at it , but then compared to the standards he had previously set, suddenly not being able to make slam finals anymore after making so many in a row routinely, is a tell tale sign of decline. Of course he did have some brilliant stretches here and there (the time when he grabbed the slam and became #1 in 2012) but there was a very specific turning point in his career after which the earlier consistency was gone.

It didn't have much to do with Djoko, Murray hitting their primes because he started losing in slams to Del potro, Soderling, Berdych in 2010 , his SF streak was gone too the same year and with it his aura of invincibility.

 

[spinovic]

It's one way of looking at it , but then compared to the standards he had previously set, suddenly not being able to make slam finals anymore after making so many in a row routinely, is a tell tale sign of decline. Of course he did have some brilliant stretches here and there (the time when he grabbed the slam and became #1 in 2012) but there was a very specific turning point in his career after which the earlier consistency was gone.

It didn't have much to do with Djoko, Murray hitting their primes because he started losing in slams to Del potro, Soderling, Berdych in 2010 , his SF streak was gone too the same year and with it his aura of invincibility.

I agree with all of that. I just think he's been in a gradual decline since 2007, maybe even 2006.

Look at it this way, with this progression:
2003 - breakthrough major win
2004-06 - peak, was winning nearly everything he played
2007 - started to suffer a few losses outside of majors that wasn't happening the previous 3 seasons
2008-09 - continues making major finals, but begins to lose more of them than previously
2010-present - more QF and SF than anything else

Consider the average number of matches he wins per major since 2009:
2010 = 5 (20-3)
2011 = 5 (20-4)
2012 = 4.75 (19-3)
2013 = 3.25 (13-4)
2014 = 4.75 (19-4)

He's holding pretty steady, as 2013 was more a result of the back than anything else. He could have easily matched his 20-3 mark from 2010 had he managed to pull out the W final.