Would Prime Federer really destroy Prime Djokovic on all surfaces so easily or would the matches be closer?

[Racquet_smash]

Sorry Prime Fed loses to prime Djokovic more often than he wins.

Saw great post the other day from a self confessed Fan who summed Roger, Rafa & Novak up nicely.

Let's remember that the mythical pime Fed had a big losing record against prime Rafa, heck Rafa managed to even score wins against prime Fed at slams on Fed's favourite surface. However, Roger could not even push prime Rafa to a 5th set, let alone win against him at RG.

Prime Novak managed to beat Rafa way more on clay than prime Roger.

That's a very poor argument. Fed matched up much worse against Nadal than Djokovic. Neither of them could really stand much of a chance at RG anyway, Djokovic lost all matches in 2006-2014 just like Federer did.

If you want to take a more realistic look at an hypothetical RG meetings between them obviously the 2011 semifinal is a much better benchmark.

 

[paolo2143]

Fed fans desperately trying to discredit Novak, as they know they are safe now that age has caught up with him., so trying to talk his achievements down.

https://www.leeabbamonte.com/random/world-sport/who-is-the-greatest-mens-tennis-player-of-all-time.html

This self confessed Fed fan sums it up nicely.

 

[SonnyT]

We have to consider mental makeup of Federer and Djokovic. Djoko wins!

 

[thrust]

I hear so many people on this forum saying that Federer of 20 years ago (i.e. the prime Federer) would "destroy" Jannik Sinner "easily on all surfaces."

But then, that implies that prime Federer would destroy prime Djokovic with absolutely no real effort on all surfaces too, because, let's be real, the current version of Sinner is undoubtedly BETTER than prime Djokovic.
In fact, on Mens Tennis Forums, I have heard numerous tennis fans claim that if the Djokovic of 2011-2015 played today, he would become Sinner's pigeon, even more so than what Federer was to Nadal on clay (yes, seriously, look it up yourself on MTF if you don't believe me).
And I, being a Sinner fan, agree with them. They are right. No rational tennis fan would disagree with them.

But if prime Federer can so easily destroy prime Sinner, who is clearly superior to prime Djokovic, then does this imply that Federer's prime is really astronomically higher than Djokovic's prime to the point where all of their matches would be like the RG 2008 final in Roger's favor?

Sinner, today, is NOT superior to prime Djokovic. Neither was Federer.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Sinner, today, is NOT superior to prime Djokovic. Neither was Federer.

their H2H says otherwise!

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Prime or not, Djokovic being humiliated so badly in five consecutive matches against Sinner suggests that the gap between them is far too astronomical...

 

[Tennfan123]

Very easy defeats. No sets lost. Games, even. You wouldn’t believe how easy those defeats would be. Federer would crush him.

 

[RaulRamirez]

A. They played each other 50 times -- these actual human beings did. Legend has it they were both trying to win these matches.
B. I know, I know, Fed is close to 6 years older, but not 15, 25, 50 years older
C. Repeat Part A, and Part B as needed.

 

[helterskelter]

Poor ol’ Feddy the Teddy has a bit of a jack of a trades, master of none problem when you really think about it.

Seemed to have a good case to be AO goat when counting only stronk era Level, but this is stymied by him losing the AO goat decider against Safin. Ergo Safin is AO goat and FtT is second.

At RG, Feddy is #2 of all time obvs.

At WI and the USO, he is way beyond all more recent players but still marginally behind PETE on true fast courts.

Feddy the Teddy is second best at every slam.

Novak Djokovic failed to come an atg, also by a very narrow margin. Jannik Sinner would make a decent 5.5, depending on how much Clostebol They gave him.

 

[NoleFam]

Sinner didn't beat Djokovic until he was 36 and a half, and even that was a match where Djokovic had 3 match points. Sinner is just not the athlete prime Djokovic was which is why he will never reach his achievements on clay and I doubt on grass either. It would just be another head to head Djokovic would win contrary to what the OP is talking about.

 

[7thKingSlam]

This is probably trolling but:

When you have two all-time greats with that similar of a resume (Djokovic actually having the clearly better resume) and similar surface preferences, literally anything could happen in the matchup. I think if we took 2006 Federer vs 2011 Djokovic, Djokovic wins on slow courts while Federer wins on fast courts. Even split down the middle there.

Now if we used 2015 Djokovic (who imo had a higher floor but a lower ceiling than 2011 Djoko; also more surface versatile), I’d give Federer the edge on grass/clay, Djokovic the strong edge on slow hard, fast hard 50/50. Might be crazy here though. Also I think that best of 5 in general would favor both versions of Djokovic.

As for current Sinner vs those two, idk. I think they’re still better on natural surfaces, but he can give them a good 50/50 match on fast hard.

 

[CoolCoolCool]

Prime or not, Djokovic being humiliated so badly in five consecutive matches against Sinner suggests that the gap between them is far too astronomical...

We really can tell how miserable he made you by winning so much lol.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

We really can tell how miserable he made you by winning so much lol.

Who?
Sinner or Djokovic?

 

[Third Serve]

For a dude who I regard as one of the most sensible on this site sometimes you show you also have biases like we all do.
And that's ok.
You are also human.

*takes troll mask off*

Here’s what I actually think: the two are close enough in ability that I think most matches between them at their peak would be close, but obviously it depends on the tournament since they’re better in different conditions. All the big tournaments:

AO: Djokovic wins this, moderate margin. The one thing that makes me pause here is Fed’s 2007 run which stands up with some of Djokovic’s best matches at the AO.

IW: Federer, slight margin

Miami: Djokovic, heavy margin

Monte-Carlo: Djokovic, moderate margin

Madrid/Hamburg: It depends on if we choose to equate Madrid with Hamburg (the Masters it replaced on the calendar). Fed was excellent at Hamburg, better than Djokovic has been at Madrid, so I’d take him here if we did that. If not, Djokovic.

Rome: Djokovic, slight margin. This would be a much bigger margin if Rome 2006 didn’t exist.

RG: Gonna say 50/50, slight edge to Fed. Djokovic has been better at the tournament in the long run, but we’re talking prime vs prime here. Fed had some great performances in 2009 and 2011 that can stand up to Djokovic’s best matches in 2013, 2015, and 2016. Djokovic matches up better against Nadal but between the two I might go Fed slightly.

Wimbledon: Fed, moderate margin. I really don’t think prime Djokovic ever came that close to prime Fed on grass. Fed’s game at his peak was just perfectly built for the post-2000 surface.

Canada: Djokovic, moderate margin

Cincinnati: Fed, heavy margin

U.S. Open: Fed, moderate margin. Djokovic has had a number of great performances here, but he’s had struggles with form at some point in almost all of his runs, even the very best one in 2011 (he had an injury in the final and didn’t serve well). Fed on the other hand consistently delivered the goods in his prime. You can poke holes at 2005 and 2007 maybe but 2004 and 2006 were pretty much perfect displays (outside of the wind in the Agassi QF)

Shanghai: Djokovic, moderate margin

Paris: Djokovic, heavy margin. Fed has never been that good here. I mean he was good, but he never really delivered the kinds of masterclasses Djokovic was known to have in his prime.

YEC: Fed, slight margin. Again, Djokovic had great results at this tournament, but so many of Fed’s very finest matches happened here.

So basically I think Djokovic mostly outdoes Fed in the Masters and the AO, but Fed can just bank on a big advantage at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. RG is pretty much a tie in their primes.

 

[paolo2143]

their H2H says otherwise!

No it doesn't as all of Sinner's wins and especially since 2024 have came against a Novak who wouldn't win a set against a prime version of himself.

 

[GoatNo1]

of course he would without any doubt. hypotethetical fed is much better player than hypothetical nole!
it is completely oposite in real life!

 

[paolo2143]

From 1985 onwards lendl destroyed Connors including thrashing him twice in 85 and 87 at us open. He won all 7 meetings between 87 and 88 with loss of only 1 set.

However, up until end of 83 Us prime Connors has beaten lendl 11 out of 14 .meetings including 82 and 83 us open and 83 Wimbledon . He also won their first 8 clashes in a row in straight sets between 79 and 81.

Difference was in later matches, lendl was in his absolute prime and Connors further and further away from his. Likewise, in earlier matches Connors in his prime and Lendl about 3 or 4 yrs from start of his.

The point I am making is you can tell absolutely nothing from matches when one player his in his prime and the other way before or past theirs.

The only 2 years they crossed over a bit was 82 and 83 where lendl won 4-3 in their 7 meetings, which in reality , reflects much more how close they rank historically .

Going back to Novak and Sinner , Novak won first 3 meetings up until Wimbledon 23 and two of those in straight sets. Novak was little past his peak by 2022 and Sinner about 18 months before hitting his.

Sinner has won last 5 meetings and in the four since Aussie open 2024 he has won 2 in straights sets, both this year as Novak .over further and further from his prime.

They never met once when Novak was at absolute peak, closest being 2021 where he crushed Sinner at .Monte Carlo.

As I said matches played when one in prime and other way past his peak really tell you nothing about prime v prime match ups.

Also at least in Connors and Lendl's case there was only 7.5 yrs age difference and not 15 like Jannik and Novak.

 

[Daniel Andrade]

*takes troll mask off*

Here’s what I actually think: the two are close enough in ability that I think most matches between them at their peak would be close, but obviously it depends on the tournament since they’re better in different conditions. All the big tournaments:

AO: Djokovic wins this, moderate margin. The one thing that makes me pause here is Fed’s 2007 run which stands up with some of Djokovic’s best matches at the AO.

IW: Federer, slight margin

Miami: Djokovic, heavy margin

Monte-Carlo: Djokovic, moderate margin

Madrid/Hamburg: It depends on if we choose to equate Madrid with Hamburg (the Masters it replaced on the calendar). Fed was excellent at Hamburg, better than Djokovic has been at Madrid, so I’d take him here if we did that. If not, Djokovic.

Rome: Djokovic, slight margin. This would be a much bigger margin if Rome 2006 didn’t exist.

RG: Gonna say 50/50, slight edge to Fed. Djokovic has been better at the tournament in the long run, but we’re talking prime vs prime here. Fed had some great performances in 2009 and 2011 that can stand up to Djokovic’s best matches in 2013, 2015, and 2016. Djokovic matches up better against Nadal but between the two I might go Fed slightly.

Wimbledon: Fed, moderate margin. I really don’t think prime Djokovic ever came that close to prime Fed on grass. Fed’s game at his peak was just perfectly built for the post-2000 surface.

Canada: Djokovic, moderate margin

Cincinnati: Fed, heavy margin

U.S. Open: Fed, moderate margin. Djokovic has had a number of great performances here, but he’s had struggles with form at some point in almost all of his runs, even the very best one in 2011 (he had an injury in the final and didn’t serve well). Fed on the other hand consistently delivered the goods in his prime. You can poke holes at 2005 and 2007 maybe but 2004 and 2006 were pretty much perfect displays (outside of the wind in the Agassi QF)

Shanghai: Djokovic, moderate margin

Paris: Djokovic, heavy margin. Fed has never been that good here. I mean he was good, but he never really delivered the kinds of masterclasses Djokovic was known to have in his prime.

YEC: Fed, slight margin. Again, Djokovic had great results at this tournament, but so many of Fed’s very finest matches happened here.

So basically I think Djokovic mostly outdoes Fed in the Masters and the AO, but Fed can just bank on a big advantage at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. RG is pretty much a tie in their primes.

That's the stuff

 

[SonnyT]

Prime or not, Djokovic being humiliated so badly in five consecutive matches against Sinner suggests that the gap between them is far too astronomical...

Djokovic is 14 years older than Sinner, which is more than double the age difference, 6 years, between Federer and Djokovic. Which makes sense since Federer and Djokovic met 40 times (the third most during open era), but Djokovic and Sinner met about 10 times.

 

[7thKingSlam]

*takes troll mask off*

Here’s what I actually think: the two are close enough in ability that I think most matches between them at their peak would be close, but obviously it depends on the tournament since they’re better in different conditions. All the big tournaments:

AO: Djokovic wins this, moderate margin. The one thing that makes me pause here is Fed’s 2007 run which stands up with some of Djokovic’s best matches at the AO.

IW: Federer, slight margin

Miami: Djokovic, heavy margin

Monte-Carlo: Djokovic, moderate margin

Madrid/Hamburg: It depends on if we choose to equate Madrid with Hamburg (the Masters it replaced on the calendar). Fed was excellent at Hamburg, better than Djokovic has been at Madrid, so I’d take him here if we did that. If not, Djokovic.

Rome: Djokovic, slight margin. This would be a much bigger margin if Rome 2006 didn’t exist.

RG: Gonna say 50/50, slight edge to Fed. Djokovic has been better at the tournament in the long run, but we’re talking prime vs prime here. Fed had some great performances in 2009 and 2011 that can stand up to Djokovic’s best matches in 2013, 2015, and 2016. Djokovic matches up better against Nadal but between the two I might go Fed slightly.

Wimbledon: Fed, moderate margin. I really don’t think prime Djokovic ever came that close to prime Fed on grass. Fed’s game at his peak was just perfectly built for the post-2000 surface.

Canada: Djokovic, moderate margin

Cincinnati: Fed, heavy margin

U.S. Open: Fed, moderate margin. Djokovic has had a number of great performances here, but he’s had struggles with form at some point in almost all of his runs, even the very best one in 2011 (he had an injury in the final and didn’t serve well). Fed on the other hand consistently delivered the goods in his prime. You can poke holes at 2005 and 2007 maybe but 2004 and 2006 were pretty much perfect displays (outside of the wind in the Agassi QF)

Shanghai: Djokovic, moderate margin

Paris: Djokovic, heavy margin. Fed has never been that good here. I mean he was good, but he never really delivered the kinds of masterclasses Djokovic was known to have in his prime.

YEC: Fed, slight margin. Again, Djokovic had great results at this tournament, but so many of Fed’s very finest matches happened here.

So basically I think Djokovic mostly outdoes Fed in the Masters and the AO, but Fed can just bank on a big advantage at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. RG is pretty much a tie in their primes.

What versions of each of them are you using? I'd guess 2006 Fed, but 2011 or 2015 Novak? I think that changes a lot here.

Also conditions of the tournament matter, most notably with USO. Federer won all of his when it was faster, but it slowed down a lot around 2011 before speeding back up in like 2019 or so. And as far as Madrid/Hamburg, I think I'd take Fed either way. He played well at Madrid regardless until he started to age, and even as he aged he was quite good, like the match points over Thiem in 2019 for example.

 

[Third Serve]

What versions of each of them are you using? I'd guess 2006 Fed, but 2011 or 2015 Novak? I think that changes a lot here.

Also conditions of the tournament matter, most notably with USO. Federer won all of his when it was faster, but it slowed down a lot around 2011 before speeding back up in like 2019 or so. And as far as Madrid/Hamburg, I think I'd take Fed either way. He played well at Madrid regardless until he started to age, and even as he aged he was quite good, like the match points over Thiem in 2019 for example.

I’m not using an exact year, just the best for each tournament.

For example, I think Djokovic was better in the 2012 YEC than the 2015 YEC even though 2015 was a peak season for him.

AO would be like 2007 vs 2011, Wimbledon would be like 2003/05/06 vs 2015, and so on.

 

[GoatNo1]

Djokovic is 14 years older than Sinner, which is more than double the age difference, 6 years, between Federer and Djokovic. Which makes sense since Federer and Djokovic met 40 times (the third most during open era), but Djokovic and Sinner met about 10 times.

feds biggest rival was nole, not 40 but 50 times (+WO), 2nd biggest rivarly. fed played most matches with noles peers. most vs nole, 50+1 (WO) 2nd most vs rafa 40+1, then muzza, wawa, potro, berdych and gasquet that all are in 10 biggest feds rivalries together with only 3 players that are peers with fed (hewit, ,rodick and denko). so 7 out of his 10 biggest rivarlies are peers with nole inclusive 3 biggest.

nole has played sinner 10 times and 20+ times he played: rafa 60, fed 50+1, muzza 37, berdych 27, wawa 27, tsonga 24, cilic 22, nishikori 22, ferrer 21, potro 20, monfils 20. so more than 10 pllayers nole played at least double so many matches as vs sinner. while fed played clearly most vs nole (25% more than vs rafa on second place or as many more times, 10, as nole played vs sinner)!

juicy sinner is only player that has positive h2h vs nole with double digit played matches!

 

[GabeT]

What I meant is that I am hearing some very contradictory statements here and there.
TTW users: prime Federer >>> prime Sinner
Objective fact: prime Sinner >>>>> prime Djokovic
TTW users again: prime Federer > prime Djokovic

In what universe is it an “objective fact” that prime sinner is so much better than prime Djokovic? Are you assuming that the Novak of the last few years is his prime version?

If so we need better trolls

 

[Ray Mercer]

I will take Federer on anything other than slow hard. Djokovic would likely win the Australian, Miami and Canada.

 

[NoleFam]

Some Federer fans will do this dance until the sun burns out. The reality will never set in for them. Lol.

 

[Ray Mercer]

Some Federer fans will do this dance until the sun burns out. The reality will never set in for them. Lol.

How does it feel to see Djokovic getting beaten like a drum by Sinner consistently? Are you at the point where you won't bother watching because he's not even making it competitive? Are you going to be off the board soon?

 

[NoleFam]

How does it feel to see Djokovic getting beaten like a drum by Sinner consistently? Are you at the point where you won't bother watching because he's not even making it competitive? Are you going to be off the board soon?

Djokovic is the absolute King of tennis and I enjoyed that crazy ride he sent us all on. Seeing him getting making 3 straight SFs at 37 and 38 is amazing in itself, and seeing him getting beaten by a much younger player is the natural order of things because you see, we as humans just get older and are no longer as good as we once was. How does it feel for you that you are so desperate for some semblance of satisfaction after watching him crush every record of your fave, that you had to wait until he was 38 to gloat? LoL. Even then, it's empty gloating because once again Djokovic owns all the records in tennis.

Also, I watched tennis before Djokovic and will for many years afterwards.

 

[junior74]

I think it’s close. Top tier, both. Same high level as Nadal, Sampras, Borg.

 

[helterskelter]

Seeing him getting making 3 straight SFs at 37 and 38 is amazing in itself, and seeing him getting beaten by a much younger player is the natural order of things because you see, we as humans just get older and are no longer as good as we once was.

Agreed with this - he's done very well this year. Someone wins every major that is played. But it is very rarely the case that a 38-year-old makes back-to-back semis.

(By the way, on your final sentence, this is about sports and other physical endeavors. In most careers, 38 would be an age advantage over 23!)

 

[RS]

In what universe is it an “objective fact” that prime sinner is so much better than prime Djokovic? Are you assuming that the Novak of the last few years is his prime version?

If so we need better trolls

This is also the eye test though.

 

[NoleFam]

Agreed with this - he's done very well this year. Someone wins every major that is played. But it is very rarely the case that a 38-year-old makes back-to-back semis.

(By the way, on your final sentence, this is about sports and other physical endeavors. In most careers, 38 would be an age advantage over 23!)

Well it's the 1st time in history it's happened in tennis for anyone to make 3 straight Slam SFs in a season at his age.

Yea just sports in general and any physical activity. 23 and 24 olds just will always have a significant advantage over a 38 year old.

 

[Hitman]

This is also the eye test though.

But prime or peak Novak also played every single big event, and if he didn't win it, he would make the semis or final.

Novak openly saying his body cannot do that anymore, hence why he is more selective of what he is playing is telling loud and clear that he is no longer at this peak. No eye test needed.

 

[messiahrobins]

I hear so many people on this forum saying that Federer of 20 years ago (i.e. the prime Federer) would "destroy" Jannik Sinner "easily on all surfaces."

But then, that implies that prime Federer would destroy prime Djokovic with absolutely no real effort on all surfaces too, because, let's be real, the current version of Sinner is undoubtedly BETTER than prime Djokovic.
In fact, on Mens Tennis Forums, I have heard numerous tennis fans claim that if the Djokovic of 2011-2015 played today, he would become Sinner's pigeon, even more so than what Federer was to Nadal on clay (yes, seriously, look it up yourself on MTF if you don't believe me).
And I, being a Sinner fan, agree with them. They are right. No rational tennis fan would disagree with them.

But if prime Federer can so easily destroy prime Sinner, who is clearly superior to prime Djokovic, then does this imply that Federer's prime is really astronomically higher than Djokovic's prime to the point where all of their matches would be like the RG 2008 final in Roger's favor?

The average IQ of posters on MTF is single digits so I wouldn't take much notice of what's there tbh.

I'd say Prime Federer beats Prime Novak at 3 of the 4 slams..FO W USO. USO maybe a coin toss though

 

[Third Serve]

The average IQ of posters on MTF is single digits so I wouldn't take much notice of what's there tbh.

I'd say Prime Federer beats Prime Novak at 3 of the 4 slams..FO W USO. USO maybe a coin toss though

I would say RG is more of a coin toss than USO

 

[Mr. Friscus]

From 2004 to beginning of 2010 Federer:
- won 15 out of 25 majors
- won 3 out of 4 majors in a year 3 times (04, 06, 07)
- made 23 out of 25 major finals
- won 5 straight US Opens and 4 straight wimbledons

That Federer is the best tennis player we’ve ever seen. That’s the GOAT

 

[BauerAlmeida]

, because, let's be real, the current version of Sinner is undoubtedly BETTER than prime Djokovic.
In fact, on Mens Tennis Forums, I have heard numerous tennis fans claim that if the Djokovic of 2011-2015 played today, he would become Sinner's pigeon, even more so than what Federer was to Nadal on clay (yes, seriously, look it up yourself on MTF if you don't believe me).
And I, being a Sinner fan, agree with them. They are right. No rational tennis fan would disagree with them.

 

[legcramp]

Can't even beat baby fed.

 

[RS]

But prime or peak Novak also played every single big event, and if he didn't win it, he would make the semis or final.

Novak openly saying his body cannot do that anymore, hence why he is more selective of what he is playing is telling loud and clear that he is no longer at this peak. No eye test needed.

It was tongue in cheek because Gabe doesn't like hypotheicals. I wasn't being real.

 

[UnderArmServeOP]

I think you mean well but got it a bit off in the beginning.

People claim that Prime Fed beats current Jannik any day BUT that doesn't mean he does the same with Prime Djoko. Even Jannik isn't beating Prime Djoko. What we have now (current Djoko) is nothing compared to the Djoker 2011/2015.

Prime Federer vs Prime Djokovic is going to be a tough match. The kind that could come down to the most minute things like weather, previous match length and even court surface (although thats not very minute).

In conclusion, Prime Djoko and Prime Fed >> current Sinner and current Djoko BUT Prime Federer + Prime Djokovic = Epic match but mostly equally matched.

 

[Winners or Errors]

From 2004 to beginning of 2010 Federer:
- won 15 out of 25 majors
- won 3 out of 4 majors in a year 3 times (04, 06, 07)
- made 23 out of 25 major finals
- won 5 straight US Opens and 4 straight wimbledons

That Federer is the best tennis player we’ve ever seen. That’s the GOAT

5 straight Wimbledon titles

 

[UnderArmServeOP]

Pretty good rage bait but I don't think anyone falls for it today.

 

[TMF]

Federer has a highest ceiling of all.

Is Sinner's ceiling equal his rival(Alcaraz) ?

 

[The Sinner]

Sinner didn't beat Djokovic until he was 36 and a half, and even that was a match where Djokovic had 3 match points. Sinner is just not the athlete prime Djokovic was which is why he will never reach his achievements on clay and I doubt on grass either. It would just be another head to head Djokovic would win contrary to what the OP is talking about.

Age is just a number. Nole himself was saying he’s playing close to his best, not to mention experts and analysts too were saying the same thing. Then he gets smashed and all the excuses come rolling in. If not for Sinner (and Alcaraz), Djoko would be sitting on 30 slams.

 

[NoleFam]

Age is just a number. Nole himself was saying he’s playing close to his best, not to mention experts and analysts too were saying the same thing. Then he gets smashed and all the excuses come rolling in. If not for Sinner (and Alcaraz), Djoko would be sitting on 30 slams.

Playing close to his best this year? No one is saying that and if they are they are, they are clearly trolling. He was smashing Sinner and Alcaraz at 36 years old. However, no human body can stay at that level indefinitely. It's just idiotic or either gaslighting to suggest otherwise when it's clear his body is breaking down with injuries, and his movement is significantly slower than even 2 years ago. There's no excuses needed for Djokovic. He's the most successful player in history.

 

[duaneeo]

It's time for these Big-3 threads to be moved to the Former Pro Player forum.

 

[TMF]

5 straight Wimbledon titles

It's easy to miscount since Federer has SO many amazing streaks

 

[helterskelter]

Well it's the 1st time in history it's happened in tennis for anyone to make 3 straight Slam SFs in a season at his age.

Yea just sports in general and any physical activity. 23 and 24 olds just will always have a significant advantage over a 38 year old.

But a significant disadvantage in many other types of activity. A 38-year-old's brain is fully cooked, which is not true of a 23 or 24-year-old. Thus, 38-year-olds tend to make (for example) better politicians, better lawyers, better teachers, better researchers, better journalists, better doctors, better dentists, better writers, etc. than do 23 or 24-year-olds. I only commented because 38 is far from being old overall and the claim that human decline is inevitable by 38 (while true in most sports) is far from true in most human endeavors.

Anyway, yes, on tennis. Federer was only a set away from three straight SFs at the same age but lost in five versus Dimitrov in the 2019 US Open QFs. Assuming no butterfly effect, he'd have made four in a row at the 2020 AO. Perhaps Novak will complete all four at the US Open. I think he has a less than 50% chance at this moment, though, because there's a 50% chance he'll draw either Sinner or Alcaraz in the QF.

 

[jackson vile]

The biggest issue for Federer is the fact he has a weak backhand while comparatively Novak has the strongest backhand possibly in tennis history.

Not only that, Novak has possibly the strongest return game in the history of tennis which neutralizes Federer’s serve.

Federer’s forehand, while a great attacking weapon, is also a huge liability as he experiences high pressure he starts to shank the ball more and more often.

At best Federer could hope for 50/50, but in reality I don’t even see that happening.

Now if Federer were to use his large racket it will solve his back hand issues and forehand shanking issue, however his accuracy starts declining forcing him to play more conservatively due to larger racket head size being less accurate.

Federer is by far the most elegant, looking player in history, but certainly not the best and for those reasons above could not create lasting records.

Novak’s records will last significantly longer because he’s a significantly better tennis player.

The idea of peak Federer that would dominate Novak only lives in fantasy and nostalgia of seeing him pick apart lesser players while Novak was able to defeat stronger players far more often.

Really break down Federer’s main competitors

2004

1 CH	SUI	Roger Federer
2	USA	Andy Roddick
3	AUS	Lleyton Hewitt
4 CH	GBR	Tim Henman
5	ARG	Guillermo Coria
6	ESP	Carlos Moya
7	USA	Andre Agassi

[td width="100px"]

6760​

[/td]​

[td width="100px"]

3770​

[/td]​

[td width="100px"]

3055​

[/td]​

[td width="100px"]

2825​

[/td]​

[td width="100px"]

2820​

[/td]​

[td width="100px"]

2670​

[/td]​

[td width="100px"]

2140​

[/td]​

2003

1 CH	USA	Andy Roddick
2	SUI	Roger Federer
3	ESP	Juan Carlos Ferrero
4	USA	Andre Agassi
5	ARG	Guillermo Coria
6	GER	Rainer Schuettler
7	ESP	Carlos Moya

[th width="65px"]

Rank​

[/th][th width="85px"]

Country​

[/th][th width="150px"]

Name​

[/th]​

[th width="100px"]

Points​

[/th]​

[td width="100px"]

4535​

[/td]​

[td width="100px"]

4375​

[/td]​

[td width="100px"]

4205​

[/td]​

[td width="100px"]

3425​

[/td]​

[td width="100px"]

3330​

[/td]​

[td width="100px"]

CH 3205​

[/td]​

[td width="100px"]

2280​

[/td]​

 

[GabeT]

This is also the eye test though.

Really? We need an eye test to decide if a 38 year old player (any 38 year old player) can be described as prime?

 

[RS]

Really? We need an eye test to decide if a 38 year old player (any 38 year old player) can be described as prime?

It was tongue in cheek but seriously when Nadal fans or Fed fans said they were past there primes at a similar age to Djokovic now it was seen as just a excuse.