Wimbledon: Djokovic 11 vs Nadal 08

Who wins?

  • Djokovic 2011

    Votes: 40 39.2%
  • Nadal 08

    Votes: 62 60.8%

  • Total voters
    102

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
I just can't see Nadal's best version on grass losing to Novak of 2011. Novak's game was the same in 2008 and Nadal beat him to submission in Queen's final in straights. Novak did not suddenly change his playing style in 2011. What changed was his level of fitness.

So because Rafa edged a very close final (7-6 (6), 7-5) winning a mere 4 points more - at Queens no less - Novak wouldn't have a chance?

Novak's forehand, backhand and serve and return were all better in 2011 than in 2008 imo (not leaps better, but better).
As well as hit fitness and mental game.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
In 2006 Robredo reached #5 in the world. In 2007 he was #8 at the end of the year. Tommy was also Fed's opponent in 2 majors in 2007. How is that utter rubbish? Obviously you don't check your facts before you post your crap.

that's because robredo isn't a threat to a top player playing well ...

LOL then you mention Bagdhatis who only played Fed in 1 more slam match and only reached a career high #8.

You also mention Ancic who only played Fed in 2 majors from 04-07 period and reached a career high #7.

Berdych, Del Potro, Tsonga, Soderling, Wawrinka and Ferrer ALL reached a slam final, if not more and if not actually won a major.

Haas, Ancic and Davydenko could never achieve this.


davydenko was stopped by federer many times when in-form ...AO 06, USO 06, RG 07 , USO 07, AO 10 ...its why he didn't reach a final

ancic of course was stopped by federer in 06 and roddick in 04 at wimbledon.

etc..

Coria and Gaudio were only clay threats, but only for 2004. Coria in 2005 didn't even play anywhere near his best against Fed in Hamburg like he did against Rafa in Rome. Gaudio is a joke, double bagel in 06 LMFAO this is the stronger depth in competition than today? :lol:

lol, the gaudio double bagel wasn't on clay, was it ? duh ! I was only counting him as part of CC competition and the double bagel match was in 05, not 06....

LOL @ coria not being at his best in hamburg 05 ... so now we've got a rule that the player has to be at his best. jeez, get real . federer was simply superior over there ....

Baggy and Gonzo were 1 slam wonders. Berdych has reached SF stage of EVERY major and final at Wimbledon. Del Potro same apart from AO where he's reached the QF. Sod was only a real contender at RG but at least still got to QF of WIM and US. Ferrer the SF of every major apart from WIM where he's made the QF. Wawrinka QF of every major, won AO and SF of USO. Tsonga has the SF of every major, with one AO final.

What's Baghdatis ever done apart from his 1 AO final? Oh yeah he got to the SF of Wimbledon beating strong era champion Hewitt in the QF only to have the 06 version of weak era king Rafa smash him in straights LOL. Even in masters he was rubbish compared to today's depth.

Same deal with Gonzo from 04-07 only AO final and QF at WIM everywhere else bundled out straight away lol didn't even get to FOURTH ROUND in any major apart from his 07AO run and his fluke QF run at WIM. If anything, he was more of a threat in majors from 2008 - 09...

point is federer stopped these guys on hot runs ....

The only tough opponent from your "others include" list is Agassi. But he was at the tail end of his career and his back injury prevented any chance for him to compete against Fed in that 05 final when the match reached the latter stages.

8 times in 3 years, including thrice at the majors and twice at the YEC.

Safin only turned up a couple of times. Nalbandian was ok but not committed enough either.

funny how you just brush these guys aside after yapping about tsonga, soderling etc etc .... :roll:


The fact that teenage Nadal was #2 through most of the 04-07 period really says it all anyway. Even winning HC Masters in 2005 against strong champion era Agassi.

yeah, and 35 year old haas was smashing djokovic on his favorite court in miami. So ? :lol:

the fact that ~31 year old federer overtook prime djokovic and prime nadal to get to #1 says it all anyways ....

TI could go on but I don't want to embarrass you too much...

oh please try, you will only provide more and more laughs ....

-----

I clearly showed a much wider range of players and much greater depth and all you got is plain rubbish ...

davydenko didn't make a final ? jeez, guess why ? because a guy called federer stopped him 5 times in QF&SF stage when he was in-form
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
When did I say that you said he always folds for Novak? You say it regarding his AO finals against him though.

he was plain mediocre in AO 11, question of folding does not arise.

2013 final, he did fold after the 2nd set ...

I like how you say that but then refuse to admit how mediocre Murray was in the 2010 final.

29 W 36 UE.

In contrast to this he hit 38W and only 25 UE against Nadal in the QF and he hit 40 W and only 29UE in the SF against Cilic.

UE aren't caused by opponent, so Fed had very little to do with Murray's UE count climbing and his W count dropping. Nadal is a better defender on plexi than Federer as well...

of course, he's going to have a much better ratio against cilic than vs federer.
the nadal match was his best slam match that year, plus nadal's injury towards the end of the 2nd set helped out those stats a bit ....

federer himself despite playing damn well had only +4 ( 46 winners to 42 UEs ) .... murray's stats were completely fine ...



Choking Murray actually played quite well, but you're so far from reality that you can't understand that. Nadal was more clutch that day but both played really well. In fact, Murray played at a similar if not better level than 2012 final, it's just that Nadal was too good not to lose a set to him whereas Federer wasn't good enough to do it in straights.

ha ha ha ha ha

wait

ha ha ha ha ha

he was choking and nervous ...the only thing he did well was serving

2012 final murray was light years and I repeat light years better ...nadal would've lost to that murray just like he did in USO 08 or AO 10 unless he was in absolute top form ....

As for Hewitt of 04/05 beating 2010 or 2013 Novak at US Open LOL, Novak only loses in slams these days against players that can keep a high level over 5 sets and have fire power to break down his defences. Hewitt doesn't have that fire power, he can go with Novak for a few sets, but not 5. Novak is the far better HC player than Hewitt and his form in 2010 and 2013 US Opens would've been too good for any version of Hewitt.

LOL, gimme a break

djokovic sprayed errors all over in sets 1 and 4 in USO 2013 ... he wasn't that sharp in the SF vs wawrinka either. So don't gimme the nadal excuse

in 2010, he barely made it past well below his best federer and was just recovering from a big slump

As for Roddick beating Novak, maybe because Novak seems to have a match up issue with him, but I'd still go for Novak. Their 2008 encounter saw Novak beat him. Novak was playing better in 2010 and certainly 2013 than 2008 at the US Open so Roddick would've struggled.

not in the last 2 rounds of USO 13 ..

and he sure as hell was playing clearly better in USO 08 than he was in USO 10 ....

I know that Novak of 2010 and 2013 would definitely have a better chance against Federer than Roddick or Hewitt though. Those guys NEVER beat Fed in a major.

yeah, he'd have about 5% chance more. duh !



Running around? LOL playing every day also takes a mental toll on you as well, but of course, you wouldn't know that because you've never played.

And no confidence Federer of 08 won both Halle and got to the Wimbledon final without losing a single solitary set!

But full confidence 2007 Federer was losing sets to Ferrero on grass LMFAO. You're excuse machine isn't working too well. And then he scrapes a win in the final against a worse Nadal.

2007 wimby final nadal > 2008 wimby final nadal.

one set lost to ferrero and you delude yourself thinking that to be a big deal

as far as mental toll is concerned ....rafa got off with djokovic retiring in the SF ....but hey, that's convenient to ignore

Full confidence Federer was losing sets in nearly every match he played in 2006 Halle, even almost losing to Rochus. Luckily for him though, he only had to face the 2006 version of Rafa at Wimbledon, everyone else was a joke especially his SF opponent who had his nose so far up Fed's *** he almost needed surgery to remove it.

Full confidence 2005 Federer lost sets to Kiefer, Soderling and Safin on grass.

LOL, 2008 was Federer's best grass season ever heading into the Wimbledon final having not lost a set to anyone. This includes the likes of Hewitt, Soderling, Kiefer and Safin all of which took sets from him in the prior years. But not 2008, Federer was on another level, he always bounces back strong from embarrassing or tough losses. 2008 RG didn't destroy Fed's confidence, it made him more determined. But 2008 Rafa just refused to lose that final.

Too good!

maybe he didn't need to be as sharp in 05, 06 @ halle ....because he knew he was the clear favorite. in wimbledon , he lost only one set each

in 08, he had a point to prove after RG final,hence blitzed through the field a bit more.... but of course the confidence level had taken a toll and at the highest level, that little bit made the difference ...
 
Last edited:

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
I think the data for Fed declining pretty hard in 2008 is there for everyone to see.
Win percentage vs. top-10, 2004-2007: 80-100 % every year.
In 2008: 41 %. And no, the difference cannot be accounted for by Rafa and Nole alone - not by a long shot.

(2009 he was up to 58 %, 2010 71 % (largely due to a great AO and an even greater fall though).

Wins over top 10 players by Fed:
2007: 17
2008: 7
2009: 15
2010: 16
2011: 10
2012: 16
I rest my case.

I've explained this point before, there #s he has continuing from 09-12 show that he was still performing at a high level throughout that period. I can concede 08 was a "valley" year for Fed, but not that it was "out of his prime Fed" the way some of his fans want to portray. That is what I mean about the decline. People want to say 11/16 slams in 04-07 followed by 4/12 is fully attributable to a hard decline.

Also, when you say Fed has never had to deal with that competition, you forget what you yourself regard as the stronger years, namely 08 to now, where Fed has played too. As you say, Fed had to beat Nole quite a few times, Murray quite a few times and was beaten by Rafa quite a few times etc. - and he's been disadvantaged by his age for a lot of this period.

And as opposed to Rafole these days (not gonna count Murray since he's done squat since last years Wimbledon), he had a capable and hungry group of youngsters chasing his tail. They haven't had so far and it may not truly happen until 2016 (though I hope we're seeing it happen right now).

Overall, Novak has certainly had it tough (Murray even tougher though) and yes, he would most likely have won more had he been born in 81 and Fed later.

I acknowledge the over-all levels might have been similar, but I am talking about the competition at the top (the guys who can fight you off for titles regularly). I'm saying Novak lost more slams in winning positions than Fed has. Take a look at some of his slam finals loses off clay: Fed, Murray, Murray, Nadal, Nadal. I would take a stronger depth field headlined by Baghdatis or Gonzales or Hewitt or Roddick or 35-Y/O Agassi vs those and expect Nole to come away with many of those titles.

But I also seriously doubt that Fed would have lost that many matches to Novak and Andy had they been older in 2004-2007.
Old Fed was able to deal with Murray at the slams and at the WTF up until AO 2013 (okay, Olympics 2012, we can count that too).
Fed was also capable of dealing with Novak up until the US Open 2010 (I don't rate the AO 2008 as high as you do as said above), where he still produced match points as he did against the better Novak in 2011.

Two points here. 1) Not saying he would have lost many, but certainly more than 1 off clay in 4 years at slams. 2) The comparison isn't about Nole and Fed in the same era, its if Nole was placed into his 20 year old form in 01 (as Fed had) and Fed was moved to his 20 year old for coming in 07.

Because of how they matches up against each other now, I would heavily favor Fed at Wimbledon and the US vs. Novak and would give him at least a 50-50 on the old AO surface and at the French (where he, again, beat the best version of Novak past his own prime). Against Murray, I would honestly favor peak Fed everywhere. Now Rafa, with the match-up problems, is a whole different story.

I would agree with you on Wimbledon and the French, but I think you underrate Novak on the hard courts. I would favor them as such:
Wimb: 75/25 Fed
FO: 50/50
USO: 55/45 Fed
AO: 66/33 Novak

Keep in mind Rebound is still a slow hard court. It merely bounces less, this doesn't hurt Novak as much as it hurt Rafa.

I'd take Fed as the favorite on all courts over Murray too, but Murray would take a slam match I'd wager as opposed to Roddick/Hewitt who never did. As you allude to, I also think prime Novak could have been a nightmare for pre-prime Rafa and even likely won that early 05 French.

But if you make them all be born in 81 instead, I think there are so many intangibles, that could make every outcome different -
Nole wouldn't have Rafa and Fed to get inspired from and learn from to the same degree.
Rafa would most likely have been the no. 1 and the top dog at an age, where he probably wasn't ready for it (and we know how much he prefers to be the underdog).
Fed would most likely have Rafa as the guy, he needed to topple, rather than the other way around. Could he, in this position, have come up with different answers?
Would Rafa's spin have been as vicious (it wasn't in 2004, early 2005)?

Etc. etc.

Fair points and I guess something we will never know, but just to run through a hypothetical with you this is what I foresee happening if you moved Roger and Novak's careers.

Novak - from 07-09 he was a force at USO only losing to prime Fed/Nadal and dropping another AO to Fed and two other FO to Nadal (both in SF, one against pure peak clay Nadal) plus the AO he won. This was all done at ages younger than Fed's 04.

From 01-03 I see Nole as a contender for the AO, USO, FO every year. I think he is favored for 1 at each court and a contender for 1 more. 3-4 slams.

From 04-07 in his prime years:
3-4 AO fav (04, 06, 07, contender vs Safin in 05)
1-2 FO (04, possible win in 05, losses to Rafa 06/07)
2-3 Wimb (1 of 2 vs Roddick in 04/05, 06, possible win in 07 vs Nadal)
2-3 USO (someone of the Hewitt/Roddick/Safin crew would take 1 at least, and might lose another)

total = 8-12 majors + 3-4 before = 11-16 by 07

In 08-09 we are still dealing with 02-03 Fed who isn't a threat anywhere save 03 Wimb and a slightly declined but still prime Nole:
08: Nole - AO, USO Nadal - FO/Wimb
09: Nole - FO, USO Nadal - AO, Fed - Wimb

I pencil Nole in for another 4 slams in that window (this would be 2015/2016 Nole so we still need to see the form, but no world beaters around and 02/03 Fed would not beat him and I'd take him over Nadal at those USOs, win the French in Nadal's injury year and still take Nole over Nadal's 08 AO form).

11-16 + 4 = 15-20.

Fed having won his 1st slam is about to hit his prime period (2010-2016 is his 2004-2010) which will go directly against peak Murray, still prime all surfaces Nadal with his matchup issue, and a past-prime Djoker who would still be a threat on plexi like current Fed on grass.

Does Fed still get to 17 slams in that scenario? We don't know what the future would look like, so I'm not sure, but he very well could. Even if he does though, I have Nole slated for 15-20 slams in that scenario, which like I said would result in similar #s to Fed.

Let me be clear here, I'm not saying if Fed and Nole swapped career chronology Fed's #s would necessarily go down. I just think Nole's would go way up and they would end up both around similar totals.

If you put them both in the same era at the same age against each other, I think Fed ends up with more, but only by a few (again partially because of the earlier start Nole would get not running into prime Fed/Nadal in the non-Wimby slams).
 
Last edited:

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Murray was non factor at every slam bar the USO really in 2008, likewise Djokovic was not a factor at Wimbledon and neither Federer or Nadal were impressive in Australia. Nadal did make the SF though at the AO. Gonzalez had to go through Hewitt, Blake, Nadal, Haas before he got to Federer. One of those on the list is a Big 4 member, I don't see how that's easier than Tsonga's draw?

Not all surface Nadal? Exaggeration, Nadal was just unlucky to run into an on fire opponent a round earlier in AO in 2007. He won IW impressively and would have been the favorite for Miami if not for Djokovic. In 2008 he got trashed in Australia and lost to Djokovic and Davydenko convincingly in IW and Miami.

Lets think about that statement. 19 year old Djokovic who was not top 5 in the world was the favorite over him for a big title and you think he was playing at the same levels as he was on hards in 08/09 when he was winning the olympics, AO, and reaching back to back USO SF? I would classify Nadal, Fed, and Tsonga at 08 AO all as stronger than anything in 07.

His level on grass was essentially the same in 07/08 both were his peak form. He was better in the Summer hard court season but the difference isn't drastic. Nadal in 2007 was better than Federer in 2008 which counters Djokovic being better IMO. I don't think Murray alone (who really emerged at the tail end of the year) brings up the level of 2008 that much compared to the greater depth.

This is just blatantly ridiculous IMO. You basically are saying then that Nadal did nothing to elevate his game to finally win Wimbledon and only won because Fed declined. Talk about giving no credit where it is due. If you want to say Nadal's level stayed the same on grass, thats fine, but then acknowledge so did Fed's.

And I disagree that Nadal in 07 was better than Fed in 08. Fed 08 was better on hard courts than Nadal in 07 to the same degree Nadal 07 was better than Fed 08 on clay and I think their grass levels were the same so its a wash. Nole + Murray is far worse than the depth considering the depth didn't cause any damage while Nole WON A SLAM.

Superior yes, but Agassi, Ferrero, Roddick and Federer playing their best tennis is a good top 4 (2003). 2011 is superior but don't forget 2004 had 7 slam champions in the top 10. It was still a good year and Federer dominated it thoroughly.

Perhaps only two >> then, but it was convincing unlike 08 which could warrant discussion which we are having hence the 1 >.

Sorry but you're very wrong on this point, in general I find you very reasonable but Federer clearly declined in 2008 due to mono. His win/loss record versus top 10 opponents was cut in half and he only lost to Djokovic once that year and no more to Nadal than he did in 2006. He had losses to players he hadn't lost to in years (and sometimes ever). Blake x2, Fish, Karlovic etc...don't beat 2006 Federer.

Federer was still semi dominant 2009, 4 slam finals (2 titles) etc...do you really think peak Federer only wins 41% of his top 10 matches? Why would the field get so strong one year then go down again the next (2009).

Let me reiterated what I said. Im fine with 08 Fed being a valley instead of a peak, but its not a "declined Fed", declined Fed means out of his prime. That happened between 2010-2012 on various surfaces. 09 as you mentioned may times had Nole playing horrible and Nadal going MIA for the natural surfaces slams. I don't have a problem with saying Fed 08 wasn't at his peak, but to just say "lulz decline" is wrong IMO. Furthermore I think by Wimbledon he was back to his best and it was his close to peak form that lost to Nadal, not a declined one. Fed was probably better at 05 or 06 Wimb, but 07/08 were equal.


He did dominate though and it wasn't it was weak competition. Djokovic had it rough in 11 and 12, but I think peak Federer would have done better - Wimbledon and USO both years, an AO title in there too. Maybe 5 slams versus 4.

So with a 2-9 slam record vs Nadal you are going to pencil him in for wins over AO 2012 Nadal, USO 2011, AND Wimb 2011? (with a better serve than the 08 go around?). Not to mention you don't think the rough wind conditions of USO 2012 that disrupted Nole's offensive baselining game would do even worse to a shot maker like Fed vs a counterpunching Murray? 5 would be a peak, but I could certainly see it going down to 3 as well.

I doubt he wins that much tbh. He wasn't good enough at Wimbledon until 2011, the AO has Agassi most years and Djokovic wasn't great in 09-10. At the USO he has Safin, Agassi, Sampras, Hewitt and later Roddick, Ferrero etc...I don't think he wins there either. At the FO he had early upsets in 09-10 anyway so unless you think he beats Kuerten I find it unlikely he does much there either.

Most of the slams in 00-03 had strong winners and tough competitors. They were not so consistent for the rest of the year maybe but for those 2 weeks they were tough.

What slams do you think he wins if he we mash up 07-00, 01-08, 02-09 and 03-10.

Does he beat Kuerten at the FO though? I don't think so. If you put 2008 Djokovic in 2002 he could quite possibly beat Ferrero and Costa. At the HC slams he still has to go through Agassi at the AO and some stiff competition at the USO. I don't know if he can do it. He certainly doesn't dominate.

I think he is a contender for all of the non-Wimby slams tbqh. I say he wins 1 of each and possibly wins a 2nd somewhere else so 3-4.


Federer's been dealing with it since 2008 where he's won only a couple of less slams than Djokovic since.

But you yourself just conceded how 2008-2010 is still not where 2011-2012 was which is where Nole has been threatened most in his peak. Fed has won 1 slam in 11-14 (I know he's old so not blaming him, but refutes your "only a couple less point")

You miss the point about he depth, he's shown consistency getting to the QF/SF arguably because the depth is lesser. The depth comes into play in those rounds not the finals. Agassi is a much tougher semi final opponent than Youzhny. He probably would have gotten through the same draws as Federer (for the most part), I just maintain it would have been harder from him up to the finals. I like Djokovic I won't be diminishing the difficulty of his runs to slams like USO 2011, AO 2012, Wimbledon 2013 etc...

I don't believe this like I said. No "depth" from the 04-07 era is stronger than Wawrinka USO 13/Wawrinka AO 13/Del Po Wimb 13 levels and Nole survived them all. He would still be making the finals at the same clip I feel and I would much rather have those finals that Fed got then having prime Murray and prime Nadal waiting at the end. Like I said take his 6 slam final loses to those guys and fill them with the draws fed got and cap it with Baghdatis, Gonzales, 35-year old Agassi, Hewitt, and Roddick twice and I can't see Nole going 0/6 like he did.

It's when Nadal fans call 04-07 a weak era that I get irritated. Because they won most of their slams in the same era.

I agree with you on that

I doubt it. Federer is just better at Wimbledon and the USO, the AO is relatively even for now (11 consecutive SF's) and likewise both have been hurt by Rafa at the FO. Would it be closer? I expect it would be but that also depends on how Djokovic declines.

I mapped out my thoughts in the Chanwan post


I don't need to acknowledge it because Djokovic isn't on his level in terms of accomplishments. I don't think peak Federer would have lost a few of the slam finals Djokovic has lost.

I've said already Djokovic has had it tough. But there's a 10 slam gap between them just for starters.

You don't need the achievements to be close to acknowledge its harder. I never understand this insecurity with Fed fans. Just because you admit the slams were easier to win doesn't mean Nole's suddenly go up in value or Fed's go down. Its still 17-7. No one is going to argue Nole>Fed because of it. Fed is still open era GOAT, and Nole is still tier 2. Fed still has many slams won outside of his 03-07 window. 12 slams from 03-07 > 6 slams 2011-2014, doesn't mean you can't acknowledge its tougher to win slams in 2011-2014.
 
Last edited:

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
You don't need the achievements to be close to acknowledge its harder. I never understand this insecurity with Fed fans. Just because you admit the slams were easier to win doesn't mean Nole's suddenly go up in value or Fed's go down. Its still 17-7. No one is going to argue Nole>Fed because of it. Fed is still open era GOAT, and Nole is still tier 2. Fed still has many slams won outside of his 03-07 window. 12 slams from 03-07 > 6 slams 2011-2014, doesn't mean you can't acknowledge its tougher to win slams in 2011-2014.

This part of your post had me smiling as soon as I read it-so so true!! It's like when Nadal fans get angry, almost offended when anyone dares to suggest that Nole would've beaten him in the 2011 RG final had he got past Fed in the semis. I end up thinking to myself "calm down guys, Nadal was still the champion that year and no one's gonna be taking his trophy away just because many people feel that he would've lost if Djokovic had reached him!". It really is amazing how defensive, almost protective, some fans can get over someone they've probably never even met! :shock:
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
You've got good points and I would certainly concede some of them. However, I also think you have a bit of a tendency to focus more on the name than the actual level of play.
Was the version of Fed that Novak played at the AO 08 really that hard? (look at the other matches he lost in that period)

Was Novak in the US Open 2010? (just having won his first truly big match in 2 years and beating his first top-10 player for the year). Or even the US Open 2013? He was for some sets, but faded out at the end, and hired Becker partly as a consequence of his inability to perform at his highest level in the biggest moments last year.

not that hard, which is why I didn't include any of them in my list of 5 HC slam wins that are clearly superior competition to any of Fed's. To me those wins still top any individual win Fed scored in HC slams from 04-07, but the depth you illuminated tops the over-all depth of those draws so they balance out.

To me, it's a bit like saying that because Murray beat Fed in the Olympics final and Novak in the Wimbledon final, those finals were incredibly tough to win even though neither Fed nor Novak brought it on the day (Murray's play certainly might have been good enough to win had they brought it though).

Ha as a staunch Novak fan I actually give Murray 100% credit for his win over Nole that day, he was too good. I actually think the Fed match is the one that deserves the * since Fed went 19-17 the day before with Del Po.

I'm admittedly not much of a Verdasco admirer (DF down MP is also not really my thing), but I seriously doubt the match would have been a 5 set classic, if Fed had been playing Verdasco and Nadal had played Roddick - I think Fed would have won in 4 max and quite possibly 3. Beating Fed in the final was pretty big though.

No question Verdasco was a mental midget, but his level in that match was outrageously good. He smacked 96 winners vs a defensive juggernaut on a fairly slow court! Thats incredible to me. Also its not just the win over Verdasco + the win over Fed each in a vacuum, its the fact he went 5 hours and then on 1 day less rest immediately turned around and outlasted the man many considered one of the fittest players in sports history in another 5-setter in the final. In terms of all time AO performances I would rank that #3 only behind Nole's obliteration of 2011, and Nole's double epics of a similar nature vs a stronger duo in 2012, outlasting an even more noted fitness icon in the final. I think it was more impressive even than Nole's 2013 run since to tbqh Ferrer gave Nole a relative breather during that Wawrinka-T-Bird-Murray run.

The level Gonzalez was playing at in that AO was crazy good as I've already stated (something like 40 winners to 5 UE in his semi iirc). That accounts for something in my book too.

Fair enough, but he produced that level vs Tommy Haas and his level in the final was not that great. One of the arguments about depth is that playing at a high level vs depth merely puts you on the level of the big 4 today.

The Baghdatis AO is Fed's easiest path imo (as I also indicated). At the same time, however, he was at the peak of the powers and I really don't see who could have taken him out - perhaps safe from Safin delivering another peak performance.

And thats precisely the point, NO ONE was there to take him out, hence a weaker field than Nole. Like I said no excuses though, Fed was supposed to whip him and he did. Full credit for the slam. We can acknowledge Fed's greatness and credit his success, but also be cognizant of Nole's draw strength (many of which you already conceded so I appreciate that man).

On a side note Chan - I really appreciate you as a Fed fan taking the time to analyze through all of my points in depth and even concede some merit to many of them. Most on here just go:

17>14>7 you mad bro?:grin:
 
Last edited:

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
First of all, I think you're overestimating Novak quite a bit (understandable as a fan of his, but nevertheless. I'm a fan too - he's just not my no. 1 favorite). We haven't seen Novak win multiple slams a year anywhere else than in 2011 and yet you have him do it year after year after year.
To me, Novak has been the best player since 2011, but he hasn't capitalized sufficiently on it, because he just hasn't been able to bring his best level in multiple of the slams (especially finals) he's lost. For whatever mental or physical reason. That didn't happen to peak Fed.

Anyhow, I'll go with you on the points below.

I've explained this point before, there #s he has continuing from 09-12 show that he was still performing at a high level throughout that period. I can concede 08 was a "valley" year for Fed, but not that it was "out of his prime Fed" the way some of his fans want to portray. That is what I mean about the decline. People want to say 11/16 slams in 04-07 followed by 4/12 is fully attributable to a hard decline.

Without mono, I would have expected Fed's reign to last a bit longer. I know this is a controversial point, but 2008 was more than a valley - it was a pretty deep valley and what happened in that valley affected his confidence going forward.
I'm not sure Fed would have lost the 08 Wimbledon final had the beatdown at RG not happened.
And I'm not sure he would have lost AO 09 had the 2008 beatings not happened as his mental state wasn't half as bad vs. Rafa in 2007 for instance.
And I'm also not sure he would have lost AO 2008 had he not been severely affected by mono.
Would he have won all of them? Perhaps not. But it certainly took it's toll on him.

All in all, the 4/12 is a mixture of the rest of the Big 4, in particular Rafa, getting better and Fed declining (losing to the Sod and Berdych in 2010 can certainly be attributed to age-related decline).

I acknowledge the over-all levels might have been similar, but I am talking about the competition at the top (the guys who can fight you off for titles regularly). I'm saying Novak lost more slams in winning positions than Fed has. Take a look at some of his slam finals loses off clay: Fed, Murray, Murray, Nadal, Nadal. I would take a stronger depth field headlined by Baghdatis or Gonzales or Hewitt or Roddick or 35-Y/O Agassi vs those and expect Nole to come away with many of those titles.

Again - as I wrote initially - we really don't know that Novak has the right mental approach to stay on top week after week after week. Lendl had, Sampras had, Fed had. But those are the only ones since Borg if I'm not mistaken.
I've posted the fields Fed went through in 04-07 - I don't think Novak would have walzed through them, certainly not on grass and also not quite at the US.

But overall, I do concede that Novak would have done (slightly) better had he been born in 81.

Two points here. 1) Not saying he would have lost many, but certainly more than 1 off clay in 4 years at slams. 2) The comparison isn't about Nole and Fed in the same era, its if Nole was placed into his 20 year old form in 01 (as Fed had) and Fed was moved to his 20 year old for coming in 07.

Well, that's your comparison. I made another:) Anyhow, probably more than 1 yes - but I also think he would be the one of the Big 4 doing better in his 30's if all of them were the same age given how relatively competitive he's been able to stay and given that he relies more on his serve and less on incredible defense. So in that sense, losing a couple more in his peakest peak would be outbalanced by being able to feast on the 2010/11-15 years, where - I presume - Rafa, Djoker and Murray would have declined more than Fed and no other serious slam contesters were present.

I would agree with you on Wimbledon and the French, but I think you underrate Novak on the hard courts. I would favor them as such:
Wimb: 75/25 Fed
FO: 50/50
USO: 55/45 Fed
AO: 66/33 Novak

Keep in mind Rebound is still a slow hard court. It merely bounces less, this doesn't hurt Novak as much as it hurt Rafa.

I'd take Fed as the favorite on all courts over Murray too, but Murray would take a slam match I'd wager as opposed to Roddick/Hewitt who never did. As you allude to, I also think prime Novak could have been a nightmare for pre-prime Rafa and even likely won that early 05 French.

I actually alluded to Rafa being a nightmare for Fed (but as I also said, even that may be a bit different if they were the same age) - but the point may be true about Novak-Rafa too though it's hard to imagine how their match-up would have been, had Novak been first out of the gate.

Murray would be tough in some matches, but I wouldn't take Murray over Fed in a slam at the same age. Fed held him off until AO 2013, where he was 31,5 years old and still took him to 5. I just don't see it, but I won't outrule it.

We have different percentages (no surprise there). I think you underestimate Fed on HC. No doubt they've been the two best HC players since Sampras and Agassi though:

Wimb: 80/20 Fed (I just think Fed is a vastly better grass-courter than Novak)
FO: 50/50
USO: 65/35 Fed (if old Fed can take peak Novak to MP twice, I would bet my money on peak Fed vs. peak Novak)
AO: 55-60/40-45, Novak (11 semis in a row ain't that shabby - and I recall Rebound as more of medium)

Fair points and I guess something we will never know, but just to run through a hypothetical with you this is what I foresee happening if you moved Roger and Novak's careers.

Novak - from 07-09 he was a force at USO only losing to prime Fed/Nadal and dropping another AO to Fed and two other FO to Nadal (both in SF, one against pure peak clay Nadal) plus the AO he won. This was all done at ages younger than Fed's 04.

From 01-03 I see Nole as a contender for the AO, USO, FO every year. I think he is favored for 1 at each court and a contender for 1 more. 3-4 slams.

I think the above is being too generous.
AO 2001, too young.
FO 2001, don't think he beats Gustavo
US 2001, wouldn't favor him vs. Hewitt, Pete, Agassi, Roddick etc. Contender sure. Favorite, no.

AO 02 - yes, that one he gets.
FO 02, decent to good chance
US 02, would favor Pete's last hurray, Novak doesn't like serves that big + Pete also had quite a bit of game to go with it.

AO 03, nah - he retired vs. Roddick in 09 and was pushed a lot before that.
FO 2003 - lost to Kohlschreiber in 09.
US 03, that's probably his best chance aside from the AO 02. But I wouldn't just give it to him - Roddick leads the h2h and this was Roddick at his best.

2004 - equal to his 2010, where he was a mess up until the US Open (AO, Tsonga, FO, Melzer), where he beat his first top-10 player that year! At most a US Open that year and that's being a little bit generous.

All in all, I wouldn't give him more than 2-3 slams in this period, prop. max. 3.
(AO 2002, yes. FO 2002, quite likely. US 04, quite likely. US 03, best chance for a 4th).

But in these scenarios, it's completely possible that he would also simply just recognize the window of opportunity and not have his 09-10 slump - or do even worse as he was the top dog from an early age. We just don't know.

From 04-07 in his prime years: 04 is 10, which I've counted above - not a prime year by any standards imo
3-4 AO fav (04, 06, 07, contender vs Safin in 05)
1-2 FO (04, possible win in 05, losses to Rafa 06/07)
2-3 Wimb (1 of 2 vs Roddick in 04/05, 06, possible win in 07 vs Nadal)
2-3 USO (someone of the Hewitt/Roddick/Safin crew would take 1 at least, and might lose another)

total = 8-12 majors + 3-4 before = 11-16 by 07

2005, AO, possibly FO, possibly Wim (could see him lose to both Hewitt and Roddick), US. Though a max of 3. There's a reason why no one wins all 4.
3 slams

2006, AO, no FO, possibly Wim, possibly US, but no certainty.
1-3 slams.

2007, AO, likely but by no means certain (again, Gonzalez was damn good that year). No FO, no Wimbledon. Possibly US.
0-2 slams.

2008: AO (it's getting tricky), but no. No FO. Possibly Wimbledon (we can't just assume Novak would be in his Rafa beating-mode as I did elsewhere in this thread as in this scenario, his career would progress ahead of Rafa's.)
0-1 slams so far.

The rest is in the future, so I won't go into detail with that as we don't know how Novak will age yet.

All in all:
2-3 + 3 + 1-3 + 0-2 + 0-1 = 6-12 slams with around 8-9 being the most likely imo.
Where Fed had 12 at this point.

Let this be said though - as much as Fedal has hurt him by winning some slams against him as much has their standards helped Novak become the player he is. There is simply no way of knowing (but I tend to go with no) that Novak would be as good a player as he is had he not had Fed and Rafa to surpass.

Same with Rafa who had Fed to take some of the pressure of him (I seriously doubt that Rafa would have dealt well with being the hunted at the age of 19).



This took a while....

Despite me believing there are fundamentally too many intangibles to consider. Would Djoko even have his two-hander had he been born six years earlier? Would he have experienced war or had a more fortunate upbringing and what would that have done to his fighter mentality? Would he ever have met his childhood coach? Would he have been able to keep himself motivated as a clear world no. 1?

Etc.

But the above is looking beyond those things and just trying to go year by year - even though I really don't believe in that approach as I doubt the Novak in 2005-2008 would have been as good as the one who turned up in 2011-2014 - partly courtesy of having to go through Fedal to get his own spot in the sunshine and courtesy of watching how they went about their business.
 
Last edited:

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
that's because robredo isn't a threat to a top player playing well ...

Yet he still managed to be ranked #5 during the "strong" era hahahahaha

davydenko was stopped by federer many times when in-form ...AO 06, USO 06, RG 07 , USO 07, AO 10 ...its why he didn't reach a final

ancic of course was stopped by federer in 06 and roddick in 04 at wimbledon.

etc..

So? Them being stopped ALL the time shows they weren't good enough. LOL

lol, the gaudio double bagel wasn't on clay, was it ? duh ! I was only counting him as part of CC competition

LMFAO what clay competition? Federer only played Gaudio on clay once from 04 onward and it wasn;t in a major.

and the double bagel match was in 05, not 06....

Oooooh sorry typo cop :lol:

LOL @ coria not being at his best in hamburg 05 ... so now we've got a rule that the player has to be at his best. jeez, get real . federer was simply superior over there ....

Yes Federer was superior, because Coria was nowhere near his best. Nadal had to play the full force Coria and he still beat him.

point is federer stopped these guys on hot runs ....

Yeah because they were never good enough to get past him. Why couldn't he stop Berdych? Was he too old at age 28>>29? Why couldn't he beat Del Potro in the US Open final? Why couldn't he stop Sod at RG10? Tsonga at WIM11 2 sets lead he still couldn't beat him.

Those guys all reached a level beyond those players you list as "deeper" competition

8 times in 3 years, including thrice at the majors and twice at the YEC.

So? He was still the toughest and most consistent opponent. Safin only played in beast mode once apart from that he wasn't playing that great against Federer in the 04-07 time frame. If Agassi was younger he'd have won the 04US Open (or does that rule only apply to Federer? :lol: )


funny how you just brush these guys aside after yapping about tsonga, soderling etc etc ....

Well that's because they didn't perform as consistently at majors as Tsonga, Sod etc did LOL.

yeah, and 35 year old haas was smashing djokovic on his favorite court in miami. So ?

He wasn't smashing him. Novak just played a terrible match which he would've lost to most players playing like that. Just happened to be Haas.

Agassi otoh, was playing well in that match against Rafa.

the fact that ~31 year old federer overtook prime djokovic and prime nadal to get to #1 says it all anyways ....

LOL Fed was a temporary #1 for only a few months while Nadal was #2 from 05-08 until he got #1.

So yeah, another fail on your part a couple of months is definitely not indicative of the strength of competition in any given era whereas a few years certainly is.

oh please try, you will only provide more and more laughs ....

-----

I clearly showed a much wider range of players and much greater depth and all you got is plain rubbish ...

davydenko didn't make a final ? jeez, guess why ? because a guy called federer stopped him 5 times in QF&SF stage when he was in-form

Because he wasn't good enough! In form Davydenko is nowhere and I repeat NOWHERE near a threat at majors. Certainly not more than Berdych, Soderling, Del Potro, Tsonga lol even Ferrer.

And what much wider range of players with much greater depth? You're as delusional as they come. You listed Gonzo, but he was getting deeper in majors in 08 and 09 than any other year apart from 1 run at the AO07 final.

Gaudio, who only played Federer on clay ONCE.

Ferrero? LOL WTF!? Where the hell was he from 04-07 in the majors?

Baggy and Gonzo one slam wonders.

Safin who was clearly exhausted in the 04 final and only turned up at the 05AO.

Agassi who was on his way to hospital after the 05USO final.

Coria who only played Fed on clay twice because he was GONE after 05.

Haas who did NOTHING in majors from 04-07.

Ancic, another one who did FA.

Nalbandian too busy eating donuts.

LOL some depth that is compared to the guys I listed who have had decent showings in EVERY major.

And the top 3 of Nadal + Roddick + Hewitt <<<<<<<<<<<<< Nadal + Djokovic + Murray

Especially considering 08+ Nadal is superior to 05-07 Nadal.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Will just reply in bold below. And right over, I appreciate your in depth responses as well! They make for the best kind of threads (but also the timeliest).

not that hard, which is why I didn't include any of them in my list of 5 HC slam wins that are clearly superior competition to any of Fed's. To me those wins still top any individual win Fed scored in HC slams from 04-07, but the depth you illuminated tops the over-all depth of those draws so they balance out.
I value some of Fed's over some of the recent HC wins like I've mentioned, but I think we've come to a place, where we shall leave it at that

Ha as a staunch Novak fan I actually give Murray 100% credit for his win over Nole that day, he was too good. I actually think the Fed match is the one that deserves the * since Fed went 19-17 the day before with Del Po.
Me too - Murray was very, very good in both finals. My only point is that a Roddick, a Hewitt, a Gonzalez could have been just as hard to beat in those finals as Fed and Djoko were - because both of them looked quite flat against a very well playing Murray. That's what I meant with your tendency to focus on the names

No question Verdasco was a mental midget, but his level in that match was outrageously good. He smacked 96 winners vs a defensive juggernaut on a fairly slow court! Thats incredible to me. Very true. But I don't think Fed's game would have given Verdasco the time to get in a position to hit those winners. It's partly Rafa's loopy game that allowed Verdasco to play as well as he did that day

Also its not just the win over Verdasco + the win over Fed each in a vacuum, its the fact he went 5 hours and then on 1 day less rest immediately turned around and outlasted the man many considered one of the fittest players in sports history in another 5-setter in the final. Too much credit to Fed here, his relatively poor record in 5th sets wouldn't suggest he's one of the fittest in tennis ever, let alone across sports

In terms of all time AO performances I would rank that #3 only behind Nole's obliteration of 2011, and Nole's double epics of a similar nature vs a stronger duo in 2012, outlasting an even more noted fitness icon in the final. I think it was more impressive even than Nole's 2013 run since to tbqh Ferrer gave Nole a relative breather during that Wawrinka-T-Bird-Murray run.
I personally think Novak's 2011 and 2012 are much more impressive than his 2013 - great Wawa, Birdman is Birdman, Ferrer is Ferrer and Murray was gassed/hampered by blisters or what not by the end of the 2nd. 2013 for me is not more impressive than Fed's 2004, rather the opposite

Fair enough, but he produced that level vs Tommy Haas and his level in the final was not that great I think Fed at his best had the ability to deconstruct his opponents game and that, alongside standing in his first slam final, was enough for Fed to beat a very hot opponent in three fairly tight sets . One of the arguments about depth is that playing at a high level vs depth merely puts you on the level of the big 4 today.
I don't buy into that - any given player that's good enough to reach a slam final can produce a level that's higher than what a big 4 member produced in a particular final or semi, where he wasn't at his best

And thats precisely the point, NO ONE was there to take him out, hence a weaker field than Nole Yes, 2006 AO was the weakest, he got. What I meant though, was that Fed's AO 2006 level was good enough to win it vs. Rafa in 2009, Novak in 2008 and 2013 and stuff like that. Or at the very least on the same level. Like I said no excuses though, Fed was supposed to whip him and he did. Full credit for the slam. We can acknowledge Fed's greatness and credit his success, but also be cognizant of Nole's draw strength (many of which you already conceded so I appreciate that man). Yes. Alas we can never know whether Fed's 04-07 level was good enough to beat 11-14 Novak more often than not (at the very least outside the AO. And FO is probably 50-50) as I would tend to think given how close he still plays him

On a side note Chan - I really appreciate you as a Fed fan taking the time to analyze through all of my points in depth and even concede some merit to many of them. Most on here just go:

17>14>7 you mad bro?:grin:

Hahaha, exactly - wayyyyy too much of that sh..! (the
17>14>7 you mad bro?:grin:) And again - same applies to you.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
Lets think about that statement. 19 year old Djokovic who was not top 5 in the world was the favorite over him for a big title and you think he was playing at the same levels as he was on hards in 08/09 when he was winning the olympics, AO, and reaching back to back USO SF? I would classify Nadal, Fed, and Tsonga at 08 AO all as stronger than anything in 07.

Djokovic shot up the rankings in 2007, he was the #2 hard court player in the world in 2007. He made the finals of IW and pushed Federer hard in Dubai.

I already outlined Nadal's results in 2008, I showed you they were not much different overall. I didn't say 2009 either, why are you putting words in my mouth? Nadal's form on hard courts before his injury in 09 was well above 2008 as well as 2007.

I don't think Nadal was much better at the AO in 2008 compared to 2007, you've done nothing to show that. He made it one round earlier before being destroyed by Tsonga instead of Gonzalez - who might I add was at a similar level to what Tsonga was IMO.

This is just blatantly ridiculous IMO. You basically are saying then that Nadal did nothing to elevate his game to finally win Wimbledon and only won because Fed declined. Talk about giving no credit where it is due. If you want to say Nadal's level stayed the same on grass, thats fine, but then acknowledge so did Fed's.

Federer's level and Nadal's level in the Wimbledon finals were about the same in both. When have I denied that? I think Federer was a little better in 2007 and Nadal a little better in 2008, which made the difference. If you look at the stats from those matches they're essentially a wash.

And I disagree that Nadal in 07 was better than Fed in 08. Fed 08 was better on hard courts than Nadal in 07 to the same degree Nadal 07 was better than Fed 08 on clay and I think their grass levels were the same so its a wash. Nole + Murray is far worse than the depth considering the depth didn't cause any damage while Nole WON A SLAM.

Nadal won more points, more titles, he was more consistent, win/loss record, more wins versus top 10 opponents and actually won 3 masters series to go along with his slam. In Slams, Masters and YEC matches Nadal went 53-11 while Federer was 47-13 - 83% versus 78%.

Djokovic would have won the USO 2007 if Federer was in the same form as he was in Australian a few months later.

Nalbandian won back to back masters series beating the #1 and #2 players both times. That's depth. What top 10-20 player other than the Big 4 could have won back to back masters in 2008?

Perhaps only two >> then, but it was convincing unlike 08 which could warrant discussion which we are having hence the 1 >.

Interestingly enough I'd say Federer's draws to his slams in 2004 were easily the equal to the equivalents in 2008 and 2011 overall. So maybe you think >> is warranted but I'm not so sure.

Let me reiterated what I said. Im fine with 08 Fed being a valley instead of a peak, but its not a "declined Fed", declined Fed means out of his prime. That happened between 2010-2012 on various surfaces. 09 as you mentioned may times had Nole playing horrible and Nadal going MIA for the natural surfaces slams. I don't have a problem with saying Fed 08 wasn't at his peak, but to just say "lulz decline" is wrong IMO. Furthermore I think by Wimbledon he was back to his best and it was his close to peak form that lost to Nadal, not a declined one. Fed was probably better at 05 or 06 Wimb, but 07/08 were equal.

He clearly 'declined' and that was due to mono. His performances in the first part of the year up until the clay season were poor for that reason. By the clay season he was playing better again I agree, though the loss in confidence clearly affected at times during the Wimbledon final and also in matches after that. His game was all over the place that year. Apart from the clay/grass season the only time he was playing close to his best was at the USO and even then he had some scares early on.

I'd rate 2003, 2005-2006 Wimbledons about equal and the rest of his wins and the 2008 final a step below.

So with a 2-9 slam record vs Nadal you are going to pencil him in for wins over AO 2012 Nadal, USO 2011, AND Wimb 2011? (with a better serve than the 08 go around?). Not to mention you don't think the rough wind conditions of USO 2012 that disrupted Nole's offensive baselining game would do even worse to a shot maker like Fed vs a counterpunching Murray? 5 would be a peak, but I could certainly see it going down to 3 as well.

He could easily dispatch Murray in 2011 for the AO I mentioned. Federer beat a better version of Nadal on grass in 2007 so why can't be beat 2011 Nadal? He'd have a hard match because he always does versus Nadal but he'd be the favorite. I don't think Nadal played any better in the 2011 final than he did in 2006.

And peak Federer at the USO should beat 2011 Nadal there. The 2010 and 2013 are more tricky due to the match up but I believe in Federer's abilities at the USO.

You think 3 and I think he could actually win more than 5 if he peaks in the right matches. He probably does better than Djokovic though IMO.

Federer is a better wind player than Djokovic IMO, plus in top form he's simply a better player on the USO hard courts. He doesn't lose to Murray anywhere at the slam level IMO.

I think he is a contender for all of the non-Wimby slams tbqh. I say he wins 1 of each and possibly wins a 2nd somewhere else so 3-4.

I don't see it. USO: He doesn't beat Safin in 2000, he might have to go through Agassi, Sampras and Hewitt in 2001, on the other side of the draw he's still got Roddick and Hewitt both playing very well also. In 2002, Hewitt, Agassi and Sampras would all stop him and in 2003 Roddick, Nalbandian, Ferrero and Agassi all have a shot against him let alone 2 in a row.

He wasn't great at the AO apart from 2008 where he'd still have to beat Agassi. Likewise apart from 2008 he did nothing at the FO and I don't think he beats Kuerten.

I think it's unlikely he wins more than a slam tbh, 2 tops. You're overestimating him and underestimating the competition IMO.

But you yourself just conceded how 2008-2010 is still not where 2011-2012 was which is where Nole has been threatened most in his peak. Fed has won 1 slam in 11-14 (I know he's old so not blaming him, but refutes your "only a couple less point")

Ok, so are we calling 11-14 a new era then and forgetting about 08-10 being separate from 04-07?

I don't believe this like I said. No "depth" from the 04-07 era is stronger than Wawrinka USO 13/Wawrinka AO 13/Del Po Wimb 13 levels and Nole survived them all. He would still be making the finals at the same clip I feel and I would much rather have those finals that Fed got then having prime Murray and prime Nadal waiting at the end. Like I said take his 6 slam final loses to those guys and fill them with the draws fed got and cap it with Baghdatis, Gonzales, 35-year old Agassi, Hewitt, and Roddick twice and I can't see Nole going 0/6 like he did.

Agassi USO 04/05 > Wawrinka USO 2013. I'd argue Blake from 05/06 was at a similar level too.

Del Potro at Wimbledon 2013 was great yes - although in terms of good grass players there were more going deep in Federer's heyday than in 2013.

Prime Murray is overrated, Roddick and Hewitt in 2004 were playing at a similar level to Murray on grass. I don't think Murray at the USO 2012 was particularly special either.

Djokovic had Tsonga which cancels out one of the Baghdatis or Gonzalez. You say 35 year old Agassi but he was playing lights out tennis at times that run, his stats in the final were equivalent of what he produced against Sampras 10 years earlier.

Djokovic has himself to blame for producing poor performances in slam finals, I don't think he gets by Hewitt USO 2005 if he plays an error filled match like what he did versus Wawrinka in 2013. Nor does he get by Roddick in 2004 if he plays so flat again like in Wimbledon 2013. Despite his tough competition he should have done better, he hasn't preformed when it's counted. Federer nearly always did which is why I think he'd out preform him no matter the era.

If you gave Djokovic Federer's draws he'd be playing Agassi (arguably the greatest wind player ever) in top form in huge winds in the quarter finals - the same stage he lost a set to old man Youzhy last year. Or he could end up playing Roddick of the USO 2007 who hit 42 winners only 24 errors in 3 sets and pushed Federer hard in the Quarter final.

It's not like Djokovic found playing Roddick easy anyway...

You think Djokovic wouldn't go 0/6 against those players - I think you're right. But then again Federer doesn't lose all those finals Djokovic lost either.

You don't need the achievements to be close to acknowledge its harder. I never understand this insecurity with Fed fans. Just because you admit the slams were easier to win doesn't mean Nole's suddenly go up in value or Fed's go down. Its still 17-7. No one is going to argue Nole>Fed because of it. Fed is still open era GOAT, and Nole is still tier 2. Fed still has many slams won outside of his 03-07 window. 12 slams from 03-07 > 6 slams 2011-2014, doesn't mean you can't acknowledge its tougher to win slams in 2011-2014.

I have no insecurities. I just disagree with you. Is it tougher to win slams in 2011 to 2014? That's a different question to whether or not Djokovic has had harder draws. Nadal's USO 2013 draw wasn't hard, neither was Murray's 2013 Wimbledon. I'd argue it's still a mixture of strong and weak draws. The only recent slam from this era that I felt had two finalists who both had a rough time getting there was the AO 2012.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
he was plain mediocre in AO 11, question of folding does not arise.

2013 final, he did fold after the 2nd set ...

of course, he's going to have a much better ratio against cilic than vs federer.
the nadal match was his best slam match that year, plus nadal's injury towards the end of the 2nd set helped out those stats a bit ....

federer himself despite playing damn well had only +4 ( 46 winners to 42 UEs ) .... murray's stats were completely fine ...

No they weren't completely fine he was clearly not playing as well as the previous rounds. Cilic had NOTHING to do with unforced errors. Muzza was hitting them more frequently in the final because he folded from the start.


ha ha ha ha ha

wait

ha ha ha ha ha

he was choking and nervous ...the only thing he did well was serving

2012 final murray was light years and I repeat light years better ...nadal would've lost to that murray just like he did in USO 08 or AO 10 unless he was in absolute top form ....

Funny, in 2010 he was hitting more winners per set (on average) and unforced errors on average per set in 2012 = 6.25 in 2010 = 6.3
1st serve % 56% in 2012, 60% in 2010 (we all know how crap the Murray second serve is so this stat is a big deal)

Yet this equates to light years better? LMFAO

Just you showing your little knowledge again. Murray was playing really well in that 2010 SF just Nadal played the important points better which he does against everyone most of the time in big slam matches.


LOL, gimme a break

djokovic sprayed errors all over in sets 1 and 4 in USO 2013 ... he wasn't that sharp in the SF vs wawrinka either. So don't gimme the nadal excuse

in 2010, he barely made it past well below his best federer and was just recovering from a big slump

Still too good for any version of Hewitt that's for sure. Djokovic >>>>>>> Hewitt on HC.

not in the last 2 rounds of USO 13 ..

and he sure as hell was playing clearly better in USO 08 than he was in USO 10 ....

Not in the 2010 final. Novak played really well in that match, stats not as good as 2011, but 2010 surface was faster and in that respect they were similar. It's just that Nadal was a lot worse in the 2011 final which also helped his 2011 stats become better than his 2010.

Of course, you need to be in denial over these facts because you can't accept them.

yeah, he'd have about 5% chance more. duh !

So your opinion is a fact once again, even manifesting into percentages now :lol:

Novak has defeated Federer on many occasions in majors. In fact he's beat him in every major now. So yeah your 5% is bs. Even if Roddick and Hewitt were at their peak playing against 37 year old Federer they still wouldn't beat him in every major.

2007 wimby final nadal > 2008 wimby final nadal.

Wrong.

one set lost to ferrero and you delude yourself thinking that to be a big deal

Yeah Ferrero on grass in a WIM QF is a big deal. Full confidence peak Federer destroys the universe so how is it possible that past his prime clay player is able to take a set off him, yet less confident mono past peak Federer is able to blitz through the likes of strong era heroes Hewitt and Safin without dropping a set?

as far as mental toll is concerned ....rafa got off with djokovic retiring in the SF ....but hey, that's convenient to ignore

What's convenient is you don't understand the mental toll of having to prepare your mind for a match EVERY SINGLE day in the latter stages of a major tournament.

Even Nadal said himself that the main reason he lost the 07 final was the mind set.

maybe he didn't need to be as sharp in 05, 06 @ halle ....because he knew he was the clear favorite. in wimbledon , he lost only one set each

In 08 he was also the CLEAR, CLEAR miles above CLEAR favorite in Halle as well.

And he didn't lose a set, despite being mono, past peak, old, no confidence Federer.

in 08, he had a point to prove after RG final,hence blitzed through the field a bit more.... but of course the confidence level had taken a toll and at the highest level, that little bit made the difference ...

What a crock of ****

He was full of confidence and more determined than ever after being humiliated on the grand stage like never before. Hence he was more aggressive than usual and showed a hell of a lot of fight. He was playing better in 08 than 07 but unfortunately for him so was Nadal and in the end Rafa was just too good. This is the reason many EXPERTS say the 08 final is the greatest match they've ever seen. (Oh I forgot they're all on the bandwagon to support Nadal and pump him up. On a side note, I wonder why no one is saying this about Novak beating Fed at WIM and that being the greatest match ever to promote Novak as the next tennis champion now that Nadal's getting older, in fact older than Fed was in 2008... )
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
It's because Federer unparalleled achievements in tennis. Some bitter Nadal and Sampras fans will continue to belittle Federer simply because their favorite players are a notch below him.

Umm, we're talking about the depth of the field. That's a whole range of players not just Nadal and Federer.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Umm, we're talking about the depth of the field. That's a whole range of players not just Nadal and Federer.

And there's no point of talking about the depth when all of these guys are competing against the same field. It's fine if you want to compare to Sampras, Borg or Laver's generation.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Has anyone actually mentioned that the fact that Nadal 08 was two points away from losing the match, in what would have probably gone down as his darkest day...From almost closing it out in three straight sets against a timid Federer, he actually blinked and allowed Federer back into that match, and allowed him to build his confidence which lead to the thrilling climax. Credit to Nadal was using every ounce of everything he had to eventually win it, but it was about to be the worst night of his professional career and one of the biggest chokes ever.

Djokovic in 11 kept Nadal down, and didn't really blink. Yes, he dropped that third set, but it was almost academic at that point as Nole was cruising to the title. It was a comfortable four set win. 08 was far from that.

So, the mental side needs to be taken into consideration. Djokovic's play in that final was very high indeed, that level in the second set was just absurd.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
To me, Novak has been the best player since 2011, but he hasn't capitalized sufficiently on it, because he just hasn't been able to bring his best level in multiple of the slams (especially finals) he's lost. For whatever mental or physical reason. That didn't happen to peak Fed.

How can you know that? His sub-best couldn't beat prime Nadal and prime Murray, but was still good enough to get to the final. Fed playing sub-best had no finals opponents off clay really at that level that could have taken advantage besides 07 Wimb Nadal.

Without mono, I would have expected Fed's reign to last a bit longer. I know this is a controversial point, but 2008 was more than a valley - it was a pretty deep valley and what happened in that valley affected his confidence going forward.
I'm not sure Fed would have lost the 08 Wimbledon final had the beatdown at RG not happened

All in all, the 4/12 is a mixture of the rest of the Big 4, in particular Rafa, getting better and Fed declining (losing to the Sod and Berdych in 2010 can certainly be attributed to age-related decline).

Fair points, but I agree its a mixture. But Fed came back from 0-2 down in the Wimb final, I think it was more about who could get it done in the Wimb final


Again - as I wrote initially - we really don't know that Novak has the right mental approach to stay on top week after week after week. Lendl had, Sampras had, Fed had. But those are the only ones since Borg if I'm not mistaken.

I would say he has more than proven that from 11-14. He has never fell beyond #2 week after week and is always going deep at every event. The times he has fallen to #2 is because there has been a chiasm between 2 and 3. No one was producing #2 levels like that in the 04-07 era.

I've posted the fields Fed went through in 04-07 - I don't think Novak would have walzed through them, certainly not on grass and also not quite at the US.

But overall, I do concede that Novak would have done (slightly) better had he been born in 81.

Its not about waltzing, I just think he would have the same level of consistency Fed did, as he has shown he is capable of. He has won or lost to a slam winner 15/16 slams now (only loss being to Federer himself who turned around and lost to Nadal, not something Fed after had to deal with during his run of 23 straight of the same variety).


Well, that's your comparison. I made another:) Anyhow, probably more than 1 yes - but I also think he would be the one of the Big 4 doing better in his 30's if all of them were the same age given how relatively competitive he's been able to stay and given that he relies more on his serve and less on incredible defense. So in that sense, losing a couple more in his peakest peak would be outbalanced by being able to feast on the 2010/11-15 years, where - I presume - Rafa, Djoker and Murray would have declined more than Fed and no other serious slam contesters were present.

We'll see, indications are Rafa and Murray might be, but Nole hasn't shown any signs yet. Like I said if you want to point to an 08 decline in over-all levels (not just a valley) that is younger than Nole is now.


I actually alluded to Rafa being a nightmare for Fed (but as I also said, even that may be a bit different if they were the same age) - but the point may be true about Novak-Rafa too though it's hard to imagine how their match-up would have been, had Novak been first out of the gate.

Murray would be tough in some matches, but I wouldn't take Murray over Fed in a slam at the same age. Fed held him off until AO 2013, where he was 31,5 years old and still took him to 5. I just don't see it, but I won't outrule it.

We have different percentages (no surprise there). I think you underestimate Fed on HC. No doubt they've been the two best HC players since Sampras and Agassi though:

Wimb: 80/20 Fed (I just think Fed is a vastly better grass-courter than Novak)
FO: 50/50
USO: 65/35 Fed (if old Fed can take peak Novak to MP twice, I would bet my money on peak Fed vs. peak Novak)
AO: 55-60/40-45, Novak (11 semis in a row ain't that shabby - and I recall Rebound as more of medium)

I think Novak is vastly under-rated on grass. He has made 6 SF there and only lost to Fed/Murray/Nadal save the 2010 loss to Berdych playing a career tournament.

I'd agree peak Fed is probably better at the USO, but old Fed taking peak Novak to MP twice? 2010 USO was not peak Novak, you yourself said he was subpar for Nadal in the final. And is 2010 USO Fed (who won AO and WTF that year) still not in his HC prime? I would say pre-prime Nole coming back to beat prime Fed, then old Fed pushing peak Nole to double match points shows this match-up would be close regardless of levels.

As for AO, we have minor differences if u go 60-40 and I go 66/33 so its w/e.

I think the above is being too generous.
AO 2001, too young.
FO 2001, don't think he beats Gustavo
US 2001, wouldn't favor him vs. Hewitt, Pete, Agassi, Roddick etc. Contender sure. Favorite, no.

AO 02 - yes, that one he gets.
FO 02, decent to good chance
US 02, would favor Pete's last hurray, Novak doesn't like serves that big + Pete also had quite a bit of game to go with it.

AO 03, nah - he retired vs. Roddick in 09 and was pushed a lot before that.
FO 2003 - lost to Kohlschreiber in 09.
US 03, that's probably his best chance aside from the AO 02. But I wouldn't just give it to him - Roddick leads the h2h and this was Roddick at his best.

2004 - equal to his 2010, where he was a mess up until the US Open (AO, Tsonga, FO, Melzer), where he beat his first top-10 player that year! At most a US Open that year and that's being a little bit generous.

All in all, I wouldn't give him more than 2-3 slams in this period, prop. max. 3.
(AO 2002, yes. FO 2002, quite likely. US 04, quite likely. US 03, best chance for a 4th).

Like I said hes a contender for both USO 01 and USO 02 as well with no prime Fed there. Put those with US 03 and we have 3 shots at a 4th plus your yes and two quite likely. I wouldn't rule out 01 FO vs Gustavo either.

But in these scenarios, it's completely possible that he would also simply just recognize the window of opportunity and not have his 09-10 slump - or do even worse as he was the top dog from an early age. We just don't know.

True, unknow for sure, we are extrapolating.

2005, AO, possibly FO, possibly Wim (could see him lose to both Hewitt and Roddick), US. Though a max of 3. There's a reason why no one wins all 4.
3 slams

2006, AO, no FO, possibly Wim, possibly US, but no certainty.
1-3 slams.

2007, AO, likely but by no means certain (again, Gonzalez was damn good that year). No FO, no Wimbledon. Possibly US.
0-2 slams.

2008: AO (it's getting tricky), but no. No FO. Possibly Wimbledon (we can't just assume Novak would be in his Rafa beating-mode as I did elsewhere in this thread as in this scenario, his career would progress ahead of Rafa's.)
0-1 slams so far.

You say there is a reason why no one wins all 4, but no one has ever gone 64-2 and won 3 slams and 5 masters. Which is what 2011 Nole did and that was with Prime Murray/Nadal and still a good Fed around and he went 12-2 against them. 2011 Nole in 2005 would have had a great chance to win the CYGS. Hewitt/Roddick 05 were no better than Nadal at Wimby and no way Agassi at the US is anywhere better than Federer was. The only one he has a chance to lose is the French IMO, but Nadal was not unbeatable yet on clay in 05 and was dropping to Gaudio types a few weeks prior.

For 07 - come on really? Gonzales who got straight setted in the final vs 13 Djokovic who beat a Wawrinka likely playing at higher levels and then took out Murray as well? And why does 13 Wimb Nole have 0 chance vs 07 Nadal Wimb? Del Po played amazing and he beat him. Murray 13 Wimb was one of the highest grass levels played as well.

Who does he lose to at AO 08 in his 14 form? Nadal 08 was not as good and Fed at this point would be in his 02 form?

The rest is in the future, so I won't go into detail with that as we don't know how Novak will age yet.

All in all:
2-3 + 3 + 1-3 + 0-2 + 0-1 = 6-12 slams with around 8-9 being the most likely imo.
Where Fed had 12 at this point.

We disagree on ranges, no way in 06/07 is 13/14 Nole having a floor
of ZERO with no Fed there.

Let this be said though - as much as Fedal has hurt him by winning some slams against him as much has their standards helped Novak become the player he is. There is simply no way of knowing (but I tend to go with no) that Novak would be as good a player as he is had he not had Fed and Rafa to surpass.

Same with Rafa who had Fed to take some of the pressure of him (I seriously doubt that Rafa would have dealt well with being the hunted at the age of 19).

True that, I guess we will never know

This took a while....

Despite me believing there are fundamentally too many intangibles to consider. Would Djoko even have his two-hander had he been born six years earlier? Would he have experienced war or had a more fortunate upbringing and what would that have done to his fighter mentality? Would he ever have met his childhood coach? Would he have been able to keep himself motivated as a clear world no. 1?

Etc.

But the above is looking beyond those things and just trying to go year by year - even though I really don't believe in that approach as I doubt the Novak in 2005-2008 would have been as good as the one who turned up in 2011-2014 - partly courtesy of having to go through Fedal to get his own spot in the sunshine and courtesy of watching how they went about their business.

Again good points, no way to know.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
again, the 2008 Queen's Club final was the best and most aggressive forms of both Nadal and Nole on grass.

and the result pretty much distills the two's competitive rivalry thus far if you could only choose one match to be such an example.

and therefore answers the question of which form of player would win of Nole 2011 vs Nadal 08 on grass...
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Ill reply in NON-bold to your bold ha! Feel free to consolidate and reply in bulk to both posts in a shorter message. We don't to keep killing virtual trees.

I value some of Fed's over some of the recent HC wins like I've mentioned, but I think we've come to a place, where we shall leave it at that

Fair

Me too - Murray was very, very good in both finals. My only point is that a Roddick, a Hewitt, a Gonzalez could have been just as hard to beat in those finals as Fed and Djoko were - because both of them looked quite flat against a very well playing Murray. That's what I meant with your tendency to focus on the names

Oh ok, I gotcha. But my point was that the reason they got to that point WAS because of depth. Del Po broke down Nole and Fed in those SF.

Very true. But I don't think Fed's game would have given Verdasco the time to get in a position to hit those winners. It's partly Rafa's loopy game that allowed Verdasco to play as well as he did that day

That's true, I think Fed likely wins easier but thats due to style. To overcome a style issue and win those is big.

Too much credit to Fed here, his relatively poor record in 5th sets wouldn't suggest he's one of the fittest in tennis ever, let alone across sports

Many have talked about how fit he is across the tour though. Playing in the 130 degree heat in the middle east during the off season. In 09, I'd say he was still there. His 5th set record I think is a bad knock people use vs him. All it shows to me is when he is off his game, he can still force it to a 5th!

I personally think Novak's 2011 and 2012 are much more impressive than his 2013 - great Wawa, Birdman is Birdman, Ferrer is Ferrer and Murray was gassed/hampered by blisters or what not by the end of the 2nd. 2013 for me is not more impressive than Fed's 2004, rather the opposite

You may have misread my post, I had Nole 11 and 12 as the top 2. I ranked Nadal 09 #3 above Nole 13.

I think Fed at his best had the ability to deconstruct his opponents game and that, alongside standing in his first slam final, was enough for Fed to beat a very hot opponent in three fairly tight sets .

I suppose this is possible. I consider Del Po vs Nole USO 12 to be a similar situation, I should go re-watch this match at some point and then get back to you.

I don't buy into that - any given player that's good enough to reach a slam final can produce a level that's higher than what a big 4 member produced in a particular final or semi, where he wasn't at his best

Eh, we'll have to agree to disagree. I feel Nole even in the slam finals he lost would have beaten many of Fed's opponents if he got them over murray/nadal.

Yes. Alas we can never know whether Fed's 04-07 level was good enough to beat 11-14 Novak more often than not (at the very least outside the AO. And FO is probably 50-50) as I would tend to think given how close he still plays him.

I would point out Nole beat him in straights handily at RG 12 and Rome 12 and was injured at MC 14. The close battle was at RG11, where I feel Fed was playing at his best ever RG levels and 2nd best clay level (below Rome 06). I'd say 50/50 is fair, but would caution vs looking at it like old Fed vs prime Nole is 2-2
 
again, the 2008 Queen's Club final was the best and most aggressive forms of both Nadal and Nole on grass.

and the result pretty much distills the two's competitive rivalry thus far if you could only choose one match to be such an example.

and therefore answers the question of which form of player would win of Nole 2011 vs Nadal 08 on grass...
That's why he lost to Safin in second round at Wimbledon?
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Ill reply in NON-bold to your bold ha! Feel free to consolidate and reply in bulk to both posts in a shorter message. We don't to keep killing virtual trees.

Short reply! I generally agree with the above - and I tend to view Fed it as a combo of Fed not being at his best is still able to get to a fifth and once there and not on top of his game, he's neither the physically nor mentally strongest competitor vs. a bunch of them.

This I don't quite get:
I'd say 50/50 is fair, but would caution vs looking at it like old Fed vs prime Nole is 2-2?

And agree with the Delpo comments - Delpo is one of my favorites and I really think it's a pity he hasn't been able to perform at his best for the vast majority of the last 4,5 years.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
That's why he lost to Safin in second round at Wimbledon?

i'm speaking specifically of that match.

please rewatch it again, i believe its on youtube.

it was definitely Nole's best grass court match as far as form goes. he was very aggressive on both the forehand and BH, and his second serve was great!
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
How can you know that? His sub-best couldn't beat prime Nadal and prime Murray, but was still good enough to get to the final. Fed playing sub-best had no finals opponents off clay really at that level that could have taken advantage besides 07 Wimb Nadal.

Fair points. I guess it's again a bit about me maintaining that not so great players can play pretty great matches. Fed went 7-0 in his first slam finals and didn't lose a slam final to anyone but Nadal and Delpo up until this years Wimbledon if I'm not mistaken. Part of that is probably competition, part of that is him being able to bring it.
Novak has been criticized and have criticized himself for losing a few slams, he should have won (and thus hired Becker) - it's not just me saying this. I basically just consider peak Fed a better closer and better at bringing his best, when it mattered (24 finals won in a row), but I guess it's somehow a subjective evaluation.

Fair points, but I agree its a mixture. But Fed came back from 0-2 down in the Wimb final, I think it was more about who could get it done in the Wimb final

That too. But I doubt Fed, who's usually a fast starter, would have gone down 0-2 in sets had it not been for mono and the resulting loss of training and that FO beatdown confidence-shaker.
Basically, my argument is that the final was still so close (Fed being 2 points away from victory) that small details like mono, the beatdown, the playing in darkness could have been deciding factors in swaying a supertight match over to Rafa.

I would say he has more than proven that from 11-14. He has never fell beyond #2 week after week and is always going deep at every event. The times he has fallen to #2 is because there has been a chiasm between 2 and 3. No one was producing #2 levels like that in the 04-07 era.

Rafa came close to that sometimes, certainly in 2007, but generally speaking, I get your point.
But don't you have a feeling, he should have won more than he has in 2012-14? I mainly read my tennis on tennis.com and both Tignor and Bodo have written something like that multiple times and Novak hired Becker for the very reason that he wasn't performing at his best in the top-top matches.

For whatever reason - competition, injury, mentality, hunger, the eye-of-the-tiger and what-not - neither Novak nor Rafa have been able to produce two consecutive career-defining seasons.

So while I wouldn't say, he's fallen from grace or anything like that, only winning the AO 13 between the AO 2012 and Wimbledon 14 didn't do justice to the levels he can produce (winning the two WTF's and a bunch of Masters in that period is rock solid though).

Its not about waltzing, I just think he would have the same level of consistency Fed did, as he has shown he is capable of. He has won or lost to a slam winner 15/16 slams now (only loss being to Federer himself who turned around and lost to Nadal, not something Fed after had to deal with during his run of 23 straight of the same variety).

Fed's 2004-2007 is the best 4-year period in tennis to my knowledge, at least in modern times. Just because Novak hasn't lost to random people and has made a lot of semis, doesn't mean he could make 18 out of 19 finals too winning the vast majority of them.
That's taking Fed-like dominance for granted (as I may have done a bit in my expectations of Novak just above).

We'll see, indications are Rafa and Murray might be, but Nole hasn't shown any signs yet. Like I said if you want to point to an 08 decline in over-all levels (not just a valley) that is younger than Nole is now.

I won't. But I do think they have a big advantage as to when their decline will start compared to Fed as they don't yet have younger, physically stronger opponents chasing their tail. To me, Fed's true decline came post AO 2010 (2008 being a valley). He played a fantastic fall in both 10 and 11, but that's as much a result of him being great indoors and the tour being tired by then. Or we could count 2010 as prime with a half year dip post the AO (he had some issues early in the year iirc). So for Novak, that would be in 2016-17 the true decline starts. After that, we'll see.

I think Novak is vastly under-rated on grass. He has made 6 SF there and only lost to Fed/Murray/Nadal save the 2010 loss to Berdych playing a career tournament.

I'd agree peak Fed is probably better at the USO, but old Fed taking peak Novak to MP twice? 2010 USO was not peak Novak, you yourself said he was subpar for Nadal in the final
.
I said so, because he was mentally and physically deflated after his first great win in 2 years. But that match was the start of Novak 2.0 imo. He didn't yet have the physique and mental power to repeat the performance in the final, but the semis was pretty close to 2.0.

And is 2010 USO Fed (who won AO and WTF that year) still not in his HC prime? I would say pre-prime Nole coming back to beat prime Fed, then old Fed pushing peak Nole to double match points shows this match-up would be close regardless of levels.

As for AO, we have minor differences if u go 60-40 (or 55-45, I'm not settled) and I go 66/33 so its w/e.

Fed played a damn fine US swing, so yes, he was still pretty close to his best despite being 29. Novak was just as close to being at his best though.
Maybe it's just 60-40, but I still give a clear edge to Fed at the US. Just as I would in Cincy.


Like I said hes a contender for both USO 01 and USO 02 as well with no prime Fed there. Put those with US 03 and we have 3 shots at a 4th plus your yes and two quite likely. I wouldn't rule out 01 FO vs Gustavo either.

Hewitt annihilated Pete in 01, I think it was tougher than you think both in 01 and 02. 07 FO Djoko vs. 01 Kuerten - I would rule that out, but maybe that's just me - it was Nole's very first great slam result, remember? Most people don't win the first time, they get to a semi - certainly not when up against a clay champ like Gustavo.

You say there is a reason why no one wins all 4, but no one has ever gone 64-2 and won 3 slams and 5 masters. Which is what 2011 Nole did and that was with Prime Murray/Nadal and still a good Fed around and he went 12-2 against them. 2011 Nole in 2005 would have had a great chance to win the CYGS. Hewitt/Roddick 05 were no better than Nadal at Wimby and no way Agassi at the US is anywhere better than Federer was. The only one he has a chance to lose is the French IMO, but Nadal was not unbeatable yet on clay in 05 and was dropping to Gaudio types a few weeks prior.

I concede all your points, but I think it's as mental as anything (and that Roddick is indeed a very tough cookie for Novak at Wimbledon in particular). Part of the reason Novak lost to Fed at that FO was all the mental pressure of the winning streak imo. Had he come into the US 2005 on the back of winning 3 slams, I honestly think he would have choked somehow - or that his body wouldn't have been able to take the toll.

For 07 - come on really? Gonzales who got straight setted in the final vs 13 Djokovic who beat a Wawrinka likely playing at higher levels and then took out Murray as well? And why does 13 Wimb Nole have 0 chance vs 07 Nadal Wimb? Del Po played amazing and he beat him. Murray 13 Wimb was one of the highest grass levels played as well.

Hmm, I only said it wasn't a complete gimmie, the Gonzalez one. I really think you underestimate his level that tournament. He was every bit as hot as this year's Wawa. And he had the kind of firepower that Wawa also has that can trouble Nole. So yeah, Novak probably takes it, I'm just not giving it as a 100 % certain.
As for Rafa vs. 2013 Nole, yeah - it's a close one, but I give the edge to Rafa. I tend to value Rafa 07 close to the 08 and Novak was flat in that final, despite Murray playing well. So sorry, but can't give that one to him.

Who does he lose to at AO 08 in his 14 form? Nadal 08 was not as good and Fed at this point would be in his 02 form?

This was strange, because he won the 08. He may have won with his 14 form, but since he didn't in 14, I figured he wouldn't in 08. Perhaps that's a mistake on my part though as Tsonga probably wouldn't be able to take him.

We disagree on ranges, no way in 06/07 (07-08 it is is 13/14 Nole having a floor
of ZERO with no Fed there.

I'm not suggesting zero, just not giving him any certainties in any specific slam. I would expect him to win at least 1 both years, especially since I apparently should have given him the AO 08.
FO 07 would be close too for sure, but I do think Rafa's clay level was slightly higher then than in 13.
 
Last edited:

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
I have no insecurities. I just disagree with you. Is it tougher to win slams in 2011 to 2014? That's a different question to whether or not Djokovic has had harder draws. Nadal's USO 2013 draw wasn't hard, neither was Murray's 2013 Wimbledon. I'd argue it's still a mixture of strong and weak draws. The only recent slam from this era that I felt had two finalists who both had a rough time getting there was the AO 2012.

We can keep going in circles here, but I think we both have better things to do, so I just want to put out one last piece of analysis and then it is what it is, fair?

I'm talking about ease of winning slams. I always have been and thats all the discussion in relation to draws was for me as far as I was concerned.

My entire point has been to say that its not fair to "compensate" top tier competition with depth is because the top is what strips you of titles and makes it tougher to win slams!

For this analysis, lets use a "Big 4" designation as follows:
Nole's window: constant Fed/Nadal/Nole/Murray
Fed's window:
04/05: Fed/Roddick/Hewitt/Safin (Nadal replaces Safin starting at clay 05)
06/07: Nadal/Davydenko/Blake (Djokovic replaces starting at clay 07)

We have discussed previously (which you have agreed to) that the Nole era Big 4 > any and all Fed era Big 4s.

Your contention is that the depth beyond that compensates to make what Fed had to deal with be "equal competition."

Lets compare Slam profiles of Fed 04-07 and Nole 10 USO - 14 Wimb:

R2 reached - Fed 16/16 = 100% Nole 16/16 = 100%
R3 reached - Fed 16/16 = 100% Nole 16/16 = 100%
R4 reached - Fed 15/16 = 94% Nole 16/16 = 100%
QF reached - Fed 15/15 = 100% Nole 16/16 = 100%
SF reached - Fed 15/15 = 100% Nole 15/16 = 94%

Fed record: 77-1 (98.7%), Nole record: 79-1 (98.8%)

The field has done nothing to bother either of these guys. They have both performed almost identically and remarkably. Fed dropped 1 match pre-SF in 16 slams, as has Nole and this across huge sample sizes.

But wait, you say? That's because the depth was better in 04-07? If the same depth was there as in 11-14, Nole's record would be far worse?

In that case how do you explain:
F reached - Fed 13/15, Nole 12/15

In the SF you are either playing Big 4 players OR "depth" players who have played well enough to reach the SF in hot form by beating a Big 4 player. We can surmise then that this round is indicative of a field level that is slightly stronger for Nole since his Big 4 is stronger and these are the best forms of depth players of this era. We see almost identical records here as well. The minor discrepancy (13-2 vs 12-3) is attributable to the minor discrepancy in the depth vs Big 4 players played in the SF round by each (8 Big 4, 7 depth for Nole vs 7 Big 4, 7 depth for Fed).

Lets delve deep into those SF matches shall we?

Nole's depth players played (7):

Tsonga (Wimb 11, high level just beat Fed in 5, only slam SF Fed missed)
Ferrer (weak player - Nadal injured)
Ferrer (weak player - Nadal injured, but universal acclaim for R16 Wawrinka's level at least on par with any "depth" player from Fed's AO era)
Del Potro (No marquee win over Big 4, but universal acclaim for level of play)
Wawrinka (USO 13, high level just beat Murray coming off Wimb win in 3)
Gulbis (FO 14, high level just beat Fed in 5, only slam SF Fed missed so far)
Dimitrov (Wimb 14, high level just beat Murray in 3, who had not lost a set)

Record: 7-0


Federer's depth players played (8):

Bjorkman
Gasquet
Henman
Grosjean
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Kiefer
Roddick
Nalbandian (retired)

Record: 8-0

How does Fed's SF composite look? Even Ferrer/Ferrer vs Kiefer/Bjorkman? Peak forms of Wawrinka/Del Po/Dimitrov/Tsonga/Gulbis vs Gasquet/Grosjean/Henman/JCF/Roddick (07)/Nalbandian(retired)? Again both players went undefeated.

Federer's Big 4 Players Played (7):
Davydenko
Hewitt
Hewitt
Davydenko
Davydenko
L to Safin and Nadal

Record: 5-2

Nole's Big 4 Players Played (8):
Federer
Federer
Federer
Murray
Federer
L to Federer, Federer, and Nadal

Record: 5-3

Both lost to Nadal when they drew him in the FO SF, both lost another match to an on-fire big 4 opponent that went on to win their lone title for the era (Fed Wimb 12, Safin AO 05), and both won 5 matches against these top guys they faced.

Nole drew 1 additional match vs a Big 4 guy: Fed (FO 11 when Fed played one of his best clay levels right under Rome 06) which accounts for the difference.

So in total:
79-1 vs 77-1 in 1st-QF matches for Nole vs Fed against depth where Fed depth > Nole depth

12-3 vs 13-2 in SF matches for Nole vs Fed against Big 4/top depth, both with the same number of wins over big 4 opponents, and undefeated vs depth players where Nole Big 4 > Fed Big 4 and Nole depth players >= Fed depth depth players

This to me is where the compensation comes into effect. Greater depth and larger traps in the 1-QF for Fed, but over-all tougher guys to face in the SF against peak level depth guys or Big 4 guys for Nole. I can call that a wash and the records are also near identical and almost unblemished (each averaging about 1 loss per year).

Where the compensation ends for me is the final level and why I feel its been much tougher for Nole to win slams and his competition is harder: Finals opponents. As I said its the main rivals who take your titles, not depth that as we have seen each produced 1 upset in 4 years, a huge sample size.

Slam Won - Fed 11/13 = 85% Nole 6/12 = 50%

This is the only place in their performance profile you see any disparity and we see why:

Big 4 opponents for Fed: Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Djokovic = 9/13

Depth opponents for Fed: Agassi, Baghdatis, Roddick, Gonzales = 4/13

What I will say is the depth compensates to be equal to a big 4 quality opponent for Fed in the 04-07 era.

Fed goes 11-2

Big 4 opponents for Djokovic: Nadal, Murray, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Murray, Murray, Murray, Nadal, Nadal, Federer = 12/12

All 12 matches come against the Big 4! There IS no depth to compensate here. We have already said Nole Big 4 >> Fed Big 4.

And this is why we see Nole at 6-6. Similarly Fed is 2-2 vs the previous era's Nadal (the only guy you could place on this tier) and 2-3 if we include the SF. Fed beat everyone else he faced in his era except for 1 slip up (Kuertan who didn't win the title), just as Nole beat everyone he faced in THIS era except for 1 slip up (Wawrinka who did win the title) except the Big 4.
 
Last edited:

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Short reply! I generally agree with the above - and I tend to view Fed it as a combo of Fed not being at his best is still able to get to a fifth and once there and not on top of his game, he's neither the physically nor mentally strongest competitor vs. a bunch of them.

Ya not as strong as Nadal or Nole probably, but in his time (before we knew what Nadal was or before Nole showed what he was) you'd be hard pressed to find someone stronger

This I don't quite get:
I'd say 50/50 is fair, but would caution vs looking at it like old Fed vs prime Nole is 2-2?

I'm saying I think prime Nole vs prime Fed would be 50/50 at RG. I would caution against thinking Fed would have an edge by looking at the 2-2 record of prime Nole vs old Fed because Nole dominated 2 of the 4 matches and the ones he lost, Fed was playing at his prime clay levels for 1 and Nole was hurt in the other.

And agree with the Delpo comments - Delpo is one of my favorites and I really think it's a pity he hasn't been able to perform at his best for the vast majority of the last 4,5 years.

Same he was the only guy I didn't mind seeing Nole lose to. Now hes been MIA AND Nole is still losing slams to Nadal off clay and Murray! grrr lol
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Ya not as strong as Nadal or Nole probably, but in his time (before we knew what Nadal was or before Nole showed what he was) you'd be hard pressed to find someone stronger



I'm saying I think prime Nole vs prime Fed would be 50/50 at RG. I would caution against thinking Fed would have an edge by looking at the 2-2 record of prime Nole vs old Fed because Nole dominated 2 of the 4 matches and the ones he lost, Fed was playing at his prime clay levels for 1 and Nole was hurt in the other.



Same he was the only guy I didn't mind seeing Nole lose to. Now hes been MIA AND Nole is still losing slams to Nadal off clay and Murray! grrr lol

Agree on everything (I believe I said 50-50 at the FO too). Nole is obviously stronger vs. Rafa on clay, but that is as much about Fed's match-up problem vs. Rafa as it is about Nole's peak on clay being higher than Fed's imo. They are about equal on it, peak for peak, I would say.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Djokovic shot up the rankings in 2007, he was the #2 hard court player in the world in 2007. He made the finals of IW and pushed Federer hard in Dubai.

I already outlined Nadal's results in 2008, I showed you they were not much different overall. I didn't say 2009 either, why are you putting words in my mouth? Nadal's form on hard courts before his injury in 09 was well above 2008 as well as 2007.

I don't think Nadal was much better at the AO in 2008 compared to 2007, you've done nothing to show that. He made it one round earlier before being destroyed by Tsonga instead of Gonzalez - who might I add was at a similar level to what Tsonga was IMO.



Federer's level and Nadal's level in the Wimbledon finals were about the same in both. When have I denied that? I think Federer was a little better in 2007 and Nadal a little better in 2008, which made the difference. If you look at the stats from those matches they're essentially a wash.



Nadal won more points, more titles, he was more consistent, win/loss record, more wins versus top 10 opponents and actually won 3 masters series to go along with his slam. In Slams, Masters and YEC matches Nadal went 53-11 while Federer was 47-13 - 83% versus 78%.

Djokovic would have won the USO 2007 if Federer was in the same form as he was in Australian a few months later.

Nalbandian won back to back masters series beating the #1 and #2 players both times. That's depth. What top 10-20 player other than the Big 4 could have won back to back masters in 2008?



Interestingly enough I'd say Federer's draws to his slams in 2004 were easily the equal to the equivalents in 2008 and 2011 overall. So maybe you think >> is warranted but I'm not so sure.



He clearly 'declined' and that was due to mono. His performances in the first part of the year up until the clay season were poor for that reason. By the clay season he was playing better again I agree, though the loss in confidence clearly affected at times during the Wimbledon final and also in matches after that. His game was all over the place that year. Apart from the clay/grass season the only time he was playing close to his best was at the USO and even then he had some scares early on.

I'd rate 2003, 2005-2006 Wimbledons about equal and the rest of his wins and the 2008 final a step below.



He could easily dispatch Murray in 2011 for the AO I mentioned. Federer beat a better version of Nadal on grass in 2007 so why can't be beat 2011 Nadal? He'd have a hard match because he always does versus Nadal but he'd be the favorite. I don't think Nadal played any better in the 2011 final than he did in 2006.

And peak Federer at the USO should beat 2011 Nadal there. The 2010 and 2013 are more tricky due to the match up but I believe in Federer's abilities at the USO.

You think 3 and I think he could actually win more than 5 if he peaks in the right matches. He probably does better than Djokovic though IMO.

Federer is a better wind player than Djokovic IMO, plus in top form he's simply a better player on the USO hard courts. He doesn't lose to Murray anywhere at the slam level IMO.



I don't see it. USO: He doesn't beat Safin in 2000, he might have to go through Agassi, Sampras and Hewitt in 2001, on the other side of the draw he's still got Roddick and Hewitt both playing very well also. In 2002, Hewitt, Agassi and Sampras would all stop him and in 2003 Roddick, Nalbandian, Ferrero and Agassi all have a shot against him let alone 2 in a row.

He wasn't great at the AO apart from 2008 where he'd still have to beat Agassi. Likewise apart from 2008 he did nothing at the FO and I don't think he beats Kuerten.

I think it's unlikely he wins more than a slam tbh, 2 tops. You're overestimating him and underestimating the competition IMO.



Ok, so are we calling 11-14 a new era then and forgetting about 08-10 being separate from 04-07?



Agassi USO 04/05 > Wawrinka USO 2013. I'd argue Blake from 05/06 was at a similar level too.

Del Potro at Wimbledon 2013 was great yes - although in terms of good grass players there were more going deep in Federer's heyday than in 2013.

Prime Murray is overrated, Roddick and Hewitt in 2004 were playing at a similar level to Murray on grass. I don't think Murray at the USO 2012 was particularly special either.

Djokovic had Tsonga which cancels out one of the Baghdatis or Gonzalez. You say 35 year old Agassi but he was playing lights out tennis at times that run, his stats in the final were equivalent of what he produced against Sampras 10 years earlier.

Djokovic has himself to blame for producing poor performances in slam finals, I don't think he gets by Hewitt USO 2005 if he plays an error filled match like what he did versus Wawrinka in 2013. Nor does he get by Roddick in 2004 if he plays so flat again like in Wimbledon 2013. Despite his tough competition he should have done better, he hasn't preformed when it's counted. Federer nearly always did which is why I think he'd out preform him no matter the era.

If you gave Djokovic Federer's draws he'd be playing Agassi (arguably the greatest wind player ever) in top form in huge winds in the quarter finals - the same stage he lost a set to old man Youzhy last year. Or he could end up playing Roddick of the USO 2007 who hit 42 winners only 24 errors in 3 sets and pushed Federer hard in the Quarter final.

It's not like Djokovic found playing Roddick easy anyway...

You think Djokovic wouldn't go 0/6 against those players - I think you're right. But then again Federer doesn't lose all those finals Djokovic lost either.



I have no insecurities. I just disagree with you. Is it tougher to win slams in 2011 to 2014? That's a different question to whether or not Djokovic has had harder draws. Nadal's USO 2013 draw wasn't hard, neither was Murray's 2013 Wimbledon. I'd argue it's still a mixture of strong and weak draws. The only recent slam from this era that I felt had two finalists who both had a rough time getting there was the AO 2012.

NatF you could've just written that you think Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and old Agassi are all equal to prime Djokovic and saved yourself a lot of time! :wink:
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
We can keep going in circles here, but I think we both have better things to do, so I just want to put out one last piece of analysis and then it is what it is, fair?

If that's the case should I bother responding? I will anyway.

I'm talking about ease of winning slams. I always have been and thats all the discussion in relation to draws was for me as far as I was concerned.

My entire point has been to say that its not fair to "compensate" top tier competition with depth is because the top is what strips you of titles and makes it tougher to win slams!

For this analysis, lets use a "Big 4" designation as follows:
Nole's window: constant Fed/Nadal/Nole/Murray
Fed's window:
04/05: Fed/Roddick/Hewitt/Safin (Nadal replaces Safin starting at clay 05)
06/07: Nadal/Davydenko/Blake (Djokovic replaces starting at clay 07)

We have discussed previously (which you have agreed to) that the Nole era Big 4 > any and all Fed era Big 4s.

Your contention is that the depth beyond that compensates to make what Fed had to deal with be "equal competition."

Lets compare Slam profiles of Fed 04-07 and Nole 10 USO - 14 Wimb:

R2 reached - Fed 16/16 = 100% Nole 16/16 = 100%
R3 reached - Fed 16/16 = 100% Nole 16/16 = 100%
R4 reached - Fed 15/16 = 94% Nole 16/16 = 100%
QF reached - Fed 15/15 = 100% Nole 16/16 = 100%
SF reached - Fed 15/15 = 100% Nole 15/16 = 94%

Fed record: 77-1 (98.7%), Nole record: 79-1 (98.8%)

The field has done nothing to bother either of these guys. They have both performed almost identically and remarkably. Fed dropped 1 match pre-SF in 16 slams, as has Nole and this across huge sample sizes.

But wait, you say? That's because the depth was better in 04-07? If the same depth was there as in 11-14, Nole's record would be far worse?

In that case how do you explain:
F reached - Fed 13/15, Nole 12/15

In the SF you are either playing Big 4 players OR "depth" players who have played well enough to reach the SF in hot form by beating a Big 4 player. We can surmise then that this round is indicative of a field level that is slightly stronger for Nole since his Big 4 is stronger and these are the best forms of depth players of this era. We see almost identical records here as well. The minor discrepancy (13-2 vs 12-3) is attributable to the minor discrepancy in the depth vs Big 4 players played in the SF round by each (8 Big 4, 7 depth for Nole vs 7 Big 4, 7 depth for Fed).

Lets delve deep into those SF matches shall we?

Nole's depth players played (7):

Tsonga (Wimb 11, high level just beat Fed in 5, only slam SF Fed missed)
Ferrer (weak player - Nadal injured)
Ferrer (weak player - Nadal injured, but universal acclaim for R16 Wawrinka's level at least on par with any "depth" player from Fed's AO era)
Del Potro (No marquee win over Big 4, but universal acclaim for level of play)
Wawrinka (USO 13, high level just beat Murray coming off Wimb win in 3)
Gulbis (FO 14, high level just beat Fed in 5, only slam SF Fed missed so far)
Dimitrov (Wimb 14, high level just beat Murray in 3, who had not lost a set)

Record: 7-0


Federer's depth players played (8):

Bjorkman
Gasquet
Henman
Grosjean
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Kiefer
Roddick
Nalbandian (retired)

Record: 8-0

How does Fed's SF composite look? Even Ferrer/Ferrer vs Kiefer/Bjorkman? Peak forms of Wawrinka/Del Po/Dimitrov/Tsonga/Gulbis vs Gasquet/Grosjean/Henman/JCF/Roddick (07)/Nalbandian(retired)? Again both players went undefeated.

Federer's Big 4 Players Played (7):
Davydenko
Hewitt
Hewitt
Davydenko
Davydenko
L to Safin and Nadal

Record: 5-2

Nole's Big 4 Players Played (8):
Federer
Federer
Federer
Murray
Federer
L to Federer, Federer, and Nadal

Record: 5-3

Both lost to Nadal when they drew him in the FO SF, both lost another match to an on-fire big 4 opponent that went on to win their lone title for the era (Fed Wimb 12, Safin AO 05), and both won 5 matches against these top guys they faced.

Nole drew 1 additional match vs a Big 4 guy: Fed (FO 11 when Fed played one of his best clay levels right under Rome 06) which accounts for the difference.

So in total:
79-1 vs 77-1 in 1st-QF matches for Nole vs Fed against depth where Fed depth > Nole depth

12-3 vs 13-2 in SF matches for Nole vs Fed against Big 4/top depth, both with the same number of wins over big 4 opponents, and undefeated vs depth players where Nole Big 4 > Fed Big 4 and Nole depth players >= Fed depth depth players

This to me is where the compensation comes into effect. Greater depth and larger traps in the 1-QF for Fed, but over-all tougher guys to face in the SF against peak level depth guys or Big 4 guys for Nole. I can call that a wash and the records are also near identical and almost unblemished (each averaging about 1 loss per year).

Where the compensation ends for me is the final level and why I feel its been much tougher for Nole to win slams and his competition is harder: Finals opponents. As I said its the main rivals who take your titles, not depth that as we have seen each produced 1 upset in 4 years, a huge sample size.

Slam Won - Fed 11/13 = 85% Nole 6/12 = 50%

This is the only place in their performance profile you see any disparity and we see why:

Big 4 opponents for Fed: Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Djokovic = 9/13

Depth opponents for Fed: Agassi, Baghdatis, Roddick, Gonzales = 4/13

What I will say is the depth compensates to be equal to a big 4 quality opponent for Fed in the 04-07 era.

Fed goes 11-2

Big 4 opponents for Djokovic: Nadal, Murray, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Murray, Murray, Murray, Nadal, Nadal, Federer = 12/12

All 12 matches come against the Big 4! There IS no depth to compensate here. We have already said Nole Big 4 >> Fed Big 4.

And this is why we see Nole at 6-6. Similarly Fed is 2-2 vs the previous era's Nadal (the only guy you could place on this tier) and 2-3 if we include the SF. Fed beat everyone else he faced in his era except for 1 slip up (Kuertan who didn't win the title), just as Nole beat everyone he faced in THIS era except for 1 slip up (Wawrinka who did win the title) except the Big 4.

I'm fairly sure my main point was always that 04-07 = 08-10 as opposed to 04-07 = 11-12, 13 was not too strong IMO.

For starters the big problem with this - as compelling as it for affirming your point about the top heavyness but doesn't really answer my question of depth. For starters depth is more likely to surface in the rounds like the 4th and Quarters rather than the SF which is where you're counting from.

To give an example Wimbledon 2006, Federer played Gasquet in the first round a player who had made a masters final and been in the top 20 the year previously. He also met (in an early round) Berdych a former masters winner and a player who would go on to be a staple in the top 10 for years and also Tim Henman - getting older but a great grass player. That's an example of depth IMO, old Bjorkman obviously cancels that out a lot.

Or for example meeting Nalbandian in the Quarter finals, or Roddick or Agassi. Or Fernando Gonzalez and Ferrero back to back in 4R and Quarter finals at Wimbledon in 2005. Or Nadal meeting Ferrer in the Quarter finals of the French Open. That's what I think of when I think of depth.

- On closer inspection you agree that this compensates up the final?

OK then, I guess you can ignore the above then:lol:

I concede that Djokovic has had generally tougher finals opponents.

Although an era is more than just one mans draws, I'm not sure it applies for every slam winner in this era. Which is maybe where we deviate so much? You're want me to acknowledge that Djokovic has had tough draws to try and win his slams? Tougher than a lot of Federer's? Yes ok, although I expect Djokovic will get easier ones mixed in as time goes on. I don't necessarily concede a vast difference over all though. The era being stronger overall doesn't mean it's still not a mixed bag and some draws in 04 will be tougher than those in 2011 onwards, even if in general it is harder since then.

You also have to take into account form. Generalizing with names is fine but if they don't preform then why is it impressive? Gonzo of 2007 put up more of a fight than Murray in 2011 - both at the AO.

Anyways, I agree with you that out of the top guys Djokovic has had the toughest roads to win his slams and sometimes tough draws to his finals appearances.

I believe I conceded that 11-12 was stronger, 08-10 was not IMO. I don't think the slam roads to victory in 2011 warrant being so far a head of some in the earlier era too. I can also name a lot of solid draws Federer had, at least 7 I expect ;)
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
NatF you could've just written that you think Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and old Agassi are all equal to prime Djokovic and saved yourself a lot of time! :wink:

I don't think that...I just think Agassi or Roddick in the Quarter finals is a lot tougher than Youzhny or Tipsarevic etc...
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Don't think you read it right then seeing as I've been talking about the depth of the field and not the top 4 the whole damn time!

I'll have to skim through it again but it was looooooooooong mate. You must be a really quick typer! :)
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Fair points. I guess it's again a bit about me maintaining that not so great players can play pretty great matches. Fed went 7-0 in his first slam finals and didn't lose a slam final to anyone but Nadal and Delpo up until this years Wimbledon if I'm not mistaken. Part of that is probably competition, part of that is him being able to bring it.
Novak has been criticized and have criticized himself for losing a few slams, he should have won (and thus hired Becker) - it's not just me saying this. I basically just consider peak Fed a better closer and better at bringing his best, when it mattered (24 finals won in a row), but I guess it's somehow a subjective evaluation.

Fair enough, but I think that whole mental thing is a bit overblown. Ya he had chances in some of those matches. In any close match the loser feels he let a chance slip away and thinks he should have won. The point is the competition level that Murray/Nadal provide creates more of these moments than anyone besides Nadal on clay was really able to do for Fed in his prime.


That too. But I doubt Fed, who's usually a fast starter, would have gone down 0-2 in sets had it not been for mono and the resulting loss of training and that FO beatdown confidence-shaker.
Basically, my argument is that the final was still so close (Fed being 2 points away from victory) that small details like mono, the beatdown, the playing in darkness could have been deciding factors in swaying a supertight match over to Rafa.

Like I said, in a close match anything could have gone either way. Imagine if this was the type of match Fed had to play in pretty much every slam final from 04-07 instead of all the straightforward ones he got. No matter what level he maintained, he would have caught a few more Ls.



Rafa came close to that sometimes, certainly in 2007, but generally speaking, I get your point.
But don't you have a feeling, he should have won more than he has in 2012-14? I mainly read my tennis on tennis.com and both Tignor and Bodo have written something like that multiple times and Novak hired Becker for the very reason that he wasn't performing at his best in the top-top matches.

I was disappointed for sure that he didn't win more slams as a fan, but objectively I never felt like he underachieved, just sad he didn't do unprecedented level things.

We are talking about trying to beat Rafa at RG in 3 of those loses, no shame in those loses and USO 13 Nadal had dominated the summer hard court series the whole way and played better the whole tournament coming into the match. I was hoping against hope he could pull out the win, but Rafa always felt like the favorite in that match.

USO 12 the deck was stacked against him with the wind conditions favoring Murray's counter punching to his offensive baselining and the SF/F back to back forcing him into 8 sets in 24 hours. Would have been great to see him overcome it, but reasonable to see why he couldn't vs a player at Murray's level? Ya

Nole has always been a step behind Murray and Fed on grass so to split the Wimbys 1 each during the 3 years seems about right.

With all the HC wars Nole has had with Wawrinka, seeing Wawrinka finally win 1 only seemed right. Of course by that token, Nole should have finally won 1 vs Nadal on clay, so I'd say the fact he let 1 HC go to Wawrinka without getting 1 on clay from Nadal = underperformance by 1 slam.

Dissappointed? sure, but performing below expectations? Very minimally


For whatever reason - competition, injury, mentality, hunger, the eye-of-the-tiger and what-not - neither Novak nor Rafa have been able to produce two consecutive career-defining seasons.

Because of the competition! Its tough to do that when you have each other in the way plus Murray and Fed hanging around. Nole 11, share the wealth 12, Nadal 13 all make sense. I'd wager pretty heavily on either Nole winning USO 14 to continue the trend OR Nadal winning it to break the trend although both missed out on a chance at AO to Wawrinka (who was at 05 Safin levels though).

So while I wouldn't say, he's fallen from grace or anything like that, only winning the AO 13 between the AO 2012 and Wimbledon 14 didn't do justice to the levels he can produce (winning the two WTF's and a bunch of Masters in that period is rock solid though).

He was always right there, someone else just was hotter at that tournament. Its the price of consistency sometimes, ask Lendl.


Fed's 2004-2007 is the best 4-year period in tennis to my knowledge, at least in modern times. Just because Novak hasn't lost to random people and has made a lot of semis, doesn't mean he could make 18 out of 19 finals too winning the vast majority of them.
That's taking Fed-like dominance for granted (as I may have done a bit in my expectations of Novak just above).

Fair enough, but I think Nole is a special player with talent levels as close to Fed as we have seen. When its all said and done I believe he will likely go down as #5 all time in the open era behind Fed, Nadal, Sampras, and Borg. If he was born in a different era (a few years later maybe), he'd have had a real great shot to pass up Borg or even Sampras I think.


I said so, because he was mentally and physically deflated after his first great win in 2 years. But that match was the start of Novak 2.0 imo. He didn't yet have the physique and mental power to repeat the performance in the final, but the semis was pretty close to 2.0.

Fed played a damn fine US swing, so yes, he was still pretty close to his best despite being 29. Novak was just as close to being at his best though.
Maybe it's just 60-40, but I still give a clear edge to Fed at the US. Just as I would in Cincy.

In any case the point is USO 10 was a similar non-peak vs non-peak level performance and Nole won. From there I think you can extrapolate peak vs peak would have been fairly close as well regularly.

The bottom line is this, they both have 4 peak (11-14 vs 04-07) years, if they played who do you think wins each slam? That's what the % comes down to.

I think we both agree:

3 - 1 Wimbledon to Fed
2 - 2 French Open
1 - 2 Australian Open to Nole
2 - 1 US Open to Fed

Our percentages are just trying to figure out where to place the 4th US/Aus. You lean towards giving them both to Fed it seems and I lean to giving them both to Nole.


Hewitt annihilated Pete in 01, I think it was tougher than you think both in 01 and 02. 07 FO Djoko vs. 01 Kuerten - I would rule that out, but maybe that's just me - it was Nole's very first great slam result, remember? Most people don't win the first time, they get to a semi - certainly not when up against a clay champ like Gustavo.

I think if Nole doesn't run into Fed at 07 AO in R4, he would have made a deep run there. He turned around to win Miami two months later. The 01 AO draw had a pretty weak 1 seed draw (Kuertan went out early and Clement played Grosjean in the SF) I think Nole could have made a SF or even F run there to get that great result and then build on that into a clay season with no Nadal monopolizing titles. Thats why I give him a shot.

Also I know Hewitt 01, Sampras 02, Roddick 03, and Agassi/Hewitt 04 would have been tough, I'm just saying I think his 07-10 form would likely have won 1 of those and would have been in play at all the others for possibly 2.


I concede all your points, but I think it's as mental as anything (and that Roddick is indeed a very tough cookie for Novak at Wimbledon in particular). Part of the reason Novak lost to Fed at that FO was all the mental pressure of the winning streak imo. Had he come into the US 2005 on the back of winning 3 slams, I honestly think he would have choked somehow - or that his body wouldn't have been able to take the toll.

Eh I dunno about that, if that was the case why didn't he choke in one of the clay finals vs Nadal of all people. I think Fed just played a better level that day.

Hmm, I only said it wasn't a complete gimmie, the Gonzalez one. I really think you underestimate his level that tournament. He was every bit as hot as this year's Wawa. And he had the kind of firepower that Wawa also has that can trouble Nole. So yeah, Novak probably takes it, I'm just not giving it as a 100 % certain.
As for Rafa vs. 2013 Nole, yeah - it's a close one, but I give the edge to Rafa. I tend to value Rafa 07 close to the 08 and Novak was flat in that final, despite Murray playing well. So sorry, but can't give that one to him.

Not asking you to give it to him, but you listed it as No instead of possible in regards to Rafa Wimb. Perhaps I am under-rating Gonzales but I really don't think he was at Wawrinka this year's level and even if he was, Nole 13 beat that Rafa.

I'm not suggesting zero, just not giving him any certainties in any specific slam. I would expect him to win at least 1 both years, especially since I apparently should have given him the AO 08.
FO 07 would be close too for sure, but I do think Rafa's clay level was slightly higher then than in 13.

Gotcha, I was just saying I didn't like your range of 6-12 by 08, because that put his 05-08 range at 4-9 and since you conceded at least 3 for 05 that left two possible 0s in that range with a 1.

My range of 11-16 was based on 3-4 pre-05 (which we discussed)
and 8-12 in the 05-08 window
(3-4 AO range, 1-2 FO range, 2-3 Wimb range, 1-3 USO range)
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
If that's the case should I bother responding? I will anyway.



I'm fairly sure my main point was always that 04-07 = 08-10 as opposed to 04-07 = 11-12, 13 was not too strong IMO.

For starters the big problem with this - as compelling as it for affirming your point about the top heavyness but doesn't really answer my question of depth. For starters depth is more likely to surface in the rounds like the 4th and Quarters rather than the SF which is where you're counting from.

To give an example Wimbledon 2006, Federer played Gasquet in the first round a player who had made a masters final and been in the top 20 the year previously. He also met (in an early round) Berdych a former masters winner and a player who would go on to be a staple in the top 10 for years and also Tim Henman - getting older but a great grass player. That's an example of depth IMO, old Bjorkman obviously cancels that out a lot.

Or for example meeting Nalbandian in the Quarter finals, or Roddick or Agassi. Or Fernando Gonzalez and Ferrero back to back in 4R and Quarter finals at Wimbledon in 2005. Or Nadal meeting Ferrer in the Quarter finals of the French Open. That's what I think of when I think of depth.

- On closer inspection you agree that this compensates up the final?

OK then, I guess you can ignore the above then:lol:

I concede that Djokovic has had generally tougher finals opponents.

Although an era is more than just one mans draws, I'm not sure it applies for every slam winner in this era. Which is maybe where we deviate so much? You're want me to acknowledge that Djokovic has had tough draws to try and win his slams? Tougher than a lot of Federer's? Yes ok, although I expect Djokovic will get easier ones mixed in as time goes on. I don't necessarily concede a vast difference over all though. The era being stronger overall doesn't mean it's still not a mixed bag and some draws in 04 will be tougher than those in 2011 onwards, even if in general it is harder since then.

You also have to take into account form. Generalizing with names is fine but if they don't preform then why is it impressive? Gonzo of 2007 put up more of a fight than Murray in 2011 - both at the AO.

Anyways, I agree with you that out of the top guys Djokovic has had the toughest roads to win his slams and sometimes tough draws to his finals appearances.

I believe I conceded that 11-12 was stronger, 08-10 was not IMO. I don't think the slam roads to victory in 2011 warrant being so far a head of some in the earlier era too. I can also name a lot of solid draws Federer had, at least 7 I expect ;)

Thank you! Ha that was all I was trying to get across across all of our debates across all of our topics. Simply that the depth enhancement compensates up through the SF (because its Big 4 vs Big 1), but the finals is left uncompensated producing the more difficult skew.

I agree in terms of over-all depth and field strength 04-07 is on par with 08-10, but as I mentioned before I believe 08 is the strongest year of that 04-10 group followed by 07, then 09, then the rest. 13 in terms of field strength over-all is weak, but still had the same issue at the top in regards to how hard it is to WIN the finals.

I agree the over-all draws that Fed got composite in 04-07 generally produce tougher paths to finals than most non-Nole draws in this era and fairly equal to some of those Nole draws as well.

And I've been on the record saying if Nadal and Murray fall off of Earth after 2014 and this generations young guns don't do anything big beyond what they have so far (creating a similar depth filled field with a void at the top) for Nole from 2015-2017 then all complaints will be revoked. :) This is merely how it is now.

I suppose I should stop using the phrase "weak era" for 04-07 and "strong era" for 08-12 and instead just say winning slams in 04-07 was easier for Fed than winning a slam for Nole has been.

I haven't looked fully into Nadal to be able to comment on him.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Fair enough, but I think Nole is a special player with talent levels as close to Fed as we have seen. When its all said and done I believe he will likely go down as #5 all time in the open era behind Fed, Nadal, Sampras, and Borg. If he was born in a different era (a few years later maybe), he'd have had a real great shot to pass up Borg or even Sampras I think.


The bottom line is this, they both have 4 peak (11-14 vs 04-07) years, if they played who do you think wins each slam? That's what the % comes down to.

I think we both agree:

3 - 1 Wimbledon to Fed
2 - 2 French Open
1 - 2 Australian Open to Nole
2 - 1 US Open to Fed

Our percentages are just trying to figure out where to place the 4th US/Aus. You lean towards giving them both to Fed it seems and I lean to giving them both to Nole.

On my way to bed and haven't got much free time on the computer the next 24 hours, so just a quick reply to the titles and one or two other things.

With regards to Nole, it's precisely because I too regard him as a pretty special player that I expect better results in the slams between AO 2012 and Wimbledon 2014.

Sure, he lost to players bringing it in that tournament and none of the losses were 'shameful' in any way. But in the matches he did lose, he failed to deliver his very best tennis in quite a few of them - in some perhaps because he was in drawn out semis - in a couple of others perhaps because he was in a tiny bit of a slump (but still good enough to get to the finals - burden of consistency).

I don't think he should be losing the US Open finals to Murray and Rafa as I regard Novak as the superior HC player, even at the US. There are factors to mitigate for it (Rafa's best HC form, the wind), but Nole's fall form of 2013 would have won him both finals. As would his 2011 form.

And I think he's been doing enough damage vs. Rafa in the best-of-3 clay tournaments to warrant him winning one at the FO as well (big ask, but yes, he is that good).

As for Wimbledon, I actually lean towards 4-0 for Fed. He beat him in 12, 14 was as tight as could be and I think if one player is a notch above, he'll tend to get the wins even though some of the matches would be tight. But yes, possibly 3-1.
FO, 2-2.
AO, 3-1 or 2-2. Best of five, I would give 3-2 to Nole though.
US, same but for Fed.

Was great discussing with you, to seldom one meets a fan of an opposing player, who's both willing and able to argue and concede points here and there - I'll most likely return to the discussion either in about 24 hours or on Thursday if you want.

Cheers!

Oh - and as for:

Fair enough, but I think that whole mental thing is a bit overblown. Ya he had chances in some of those matches. In any close match the loser feels he let a chance slip away and thinks he should have won. The point is the competition level that Murray/Nadal provide creates more of these moments than anyone besides Nadal on clay was really able to do for Fed in his prime.

Like I said, in a close match anything could have gone either way. Imagine if this was the type of match Fed had to play in pretty much every slam final from 04-07 instead of all the straightforward ones he got. No matter what level he maintained, he would have caught a few more Ls.
Sure. But here, you're essentially saying that what's regarded as the greatest match of all time was what Novak had to go through in every slam final he played for 4 years. His competition was tough, but not quite that tough:)

Not asking you to give it to him, but you listed it as No instead of possible in regards to Rafa Wimb. Perhaps I am under-rating Gonzales but I really don't think he was at Wawrinka this year's level and even if he was, Nole 13 beat that Rafa.?? Which Rafa and Nole are we talking here? I meant Nole at Wimbly 13 vs. Rafa at Wimbly 07. And what does it have to do with the AO vs Gonzalez?

Get your bold and it's true to some extent. But Rafa on grass, Agassi, Safin on HC produced some of those matches too - and some others as we've already discussed. Either way, playing a fellow big 4 member in 12 out of 12 slam finals is probably as tough as it gets, even though they didn't always produce their very best.

Night
 
Last edited:

SamprasisGOAT

Hall of Fame
For me it's nadal. He's a far better grass courter then djokovic. He beat the 2nd greatest grass courter ever in 2008. Djokovic wouldn't have won that match in one million years
 

Lawn Tennis

Semi-Pro
I didn't get into tennis until 2009 so it's hard for me to have an opinion, but I'd say Djokovic's cause his season was only challenged by JMac if I remember correctly.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
For me it's nadal. He's a far better grass courter than djokovic. He beat the 2nd greatest grass courter ever in 2008. Djokovic wouldn't have won that match in one million years


confused-o.gif
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Not to mention Djokovic was almost beaten by current Federer and past his prime Federer in 2012 took him to the cleaners..
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
On my way to bed and haven't got much free time on the computer the next 24 hours, so just a quick reply to the titles and one or two other things.

Sounds good, I'll reply feel free to reply once you come back.

With regards to Nole, it's precisely because I too regard him as a pretty special player that I expect better results in the slams between AO 2012 and Wimbledon 2014.

Sure, he lost to players bringing it in that tournament and none of the losses were 'shameful' in any way. But in the matches he did lose, he failed to deliver his very best tennis in quite a few of them - in some perhaps because he was in drawn out semis - in a couple of others perhaps because he was in a tiny bit of a slump (but still good enough to get to the finals - burden of consistency).

I don't think he should be losing the US Open finals to Murray and Rafa as I regard Novak as the superior HC player, even at the US. There are factors to mitigate for it (Rafa's best HC form, the wind), but Nole's fall form of 2013 would have won him both finals. As would his 2011 form.

This is a fair position but 2 points I would make are
1) I think Nole on fast outdoor hards is not so much better than Murray/Nadal tbh. If we compare Cincy/Canada/Shanghai/USO results they come out pretty evenly.

2) I get what you are saying about 2011 form or fall 2013 form, but those are the 2 highest peaks he has played at. Fed didn't maintain his mid-05 to mid-06 form for all 4 years you know? I think the slight dips from peak were capitalized on by the razor thin margins and conditions.

And I think he's been doing enough damage vs. Rafa in the best-of-3 clay tournaments to warrant him winning one at the FO as well (big ask, but yes, he is that good).

As for Wimbledon, I actually lean towards 4-0 for Fed. He beat him in 12, 14 was as tight as could be and I think if one player is a notch above, he'll tend to get the wins even though some of the matches would be tight. But yes, possibly 3-1.

Considering these points in tandem, I would actually have to agree with you. The gap between prime Fed and prime Nole on grass is greater than the one between prime Nadal and prime Nole on clay and Nole is 0-3 right now (and I think 08 clay Nole could count in that sphere too if you really wanted. Nole's RG 08 level wasn't too far off from the unfortunate showing he brought in RG14).

FO, 2-2.
AO, 3-1 or 2-2. Best of five, I would give 3-2 to Nole though.
US, same but for Fed.

Ya thats good

Get your bold and it's true to some extent. But Rafa on grass, Agassi, Safin on HC produced some of those matches too - and some others as we've already discussed. Either way, playing a fellow big 4 member in 12 out of 12 slam finals is probably as tough as it gets, even though they didn't always produce their very best.

Night

Perhaps a bit of hyperbole on calling Wimb 08 = to a normal Nole final lol:)
But, honestly I do think AO 12, Wimb 14, FO 13 SF, and USO 11 SF were all on that level.

And ya true but the thing is Fed lost that one to Safin on HC when he produced and same with Rafa on grass in 08 and all his clay matches with Rafa. Agassi at 05 USO was good but not at that big 4 show stealing level, he was probably like a Wawrinka USO 13 level.

I think the only time he was pushed hard, but held up in his prime was Wimb 07 vs Rafa, which shows you what I mean about how if he had those kind of matches on the reg, you might feel the same unfulfillment you have about Nole 12 - 14.

Was great discussing with you, to seldom one meets a fan of an opposing player, who's both willing and able to argue and concede points here and there - I'll most likely return to the discussion either in about 24 hours or on Thursday if you want.

You too mate same feelings, take care!
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
It's all about the match-up baby.

This:
Nadal 08 Wimb > Fed Wimb 08
Fed Wimb 08 > Nole Wimb 11

Does not necessarily mean
Nadal 08 Wimb > Nole Wimb 11

If it did, then Rome 11 Nole straight setting Nadal (which prime Fed could never do on slow clay) and then immediately losing to Fed on clay at RG followed by Rafa comfortably beating Fed in the RG final by the same 4 set scoreline he usually does would not have happened.

Also there is a whole host of reasons why Nole>Rafa at Wimbledon:
Higher Winning %
More Wins (Same of # of tournaments played)
More 2nd week appearances
More QF appearances
More SF appearances
only 1 loss to an unseeded player (and that was to Safin a former world #1 who then went to the SF of Wimb that year losing to Fed, as opposed to the numerous losses Nadal has had to players who have yet to hit a peak rank of 30 and have all lost the match right after beating him)

Only thing Rafa has is the 2 more finals appearances, which really don't outweigh all of that IMO.

Also:
Nadal beat prime Federer for his Wimbledon, Djokovic beat Grandpa-Federer for his. There's a difference.

My god, we just got Mayo banned please do not continue his legacy.
 
Top