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

[AO13]

What a completely delusional, farcical, ridiculous statement!!
Current Sinner would absolutely destroy any version of Djokovic on all surfaces. It is undeniable.
Even lots of the users on Mens Tennis Forums confirmed this!

Can't wait to see your reactions to 38 or 39 year old Djokovic beating Sinner in a Grand Slam match for one last time.

 

[btsjungkook]

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.

Fedovic matches have always been pretty close tight setters, even when Federer was in his prime and Djokovic pre prime. I think Federer at prime would beat prime Djokovic more than not but it wouldn't be a blow out.

 

[UnderArmServeOP]

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

Djoker.

 

[GoatNo1]

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.

yes he owns all MAIN records. and yes he is not longer the best player, and he lose more oftenand wins lesser and lesser. but even in last 2 years that was worst in his career he made some outstanding things. completed tennis becoming greater than his 2 main rivals at every tier on big titles. this season he reached 3x100 milestone. so he do not lose his records and still improves some lines in his CV. the only main record that he can lose by losing matches is his W% record but not even that if he continue to play SFs.

 

[GabeT]

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.

Ok, fair enough.

I don’t think I’ve ever said that old Fed (Nadal is the same age as Novak so age difference arguments don’t apply there) was prime. All of them were capable of very high levels for short bursts (which could be a match or a tournament) but surely we agree that none of them were prime at age 36 and above

 

[GabeT]

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

Absolutely. But the whole purpose of these threads is to start a fan war and you get more traction in GPPD

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

Not the AO but whatever else. Yes Fed destroys Djokovic. Djokovic has nothing to hurt prime Fed off slow hards unless he's sick or injured. He isn't good enough to drop him on clay as 2011 RG showed. Wimbledon is out of the question and so is the North American hardcourt swing

 

[TripleATeam]

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.

Who on earth claims Nadal 2024 is prime Nadal?

 

[GabeT]

Not the AO but whatever else. Yes Fed destroys Djokovic. Djokovic has nothing to hurt prime Fed off slow hards unless he's sick or injured. He isn't good enough to drop him on clay as 2011 RG showed. Wimbledon is out of the question and so is the North American hardcourt swing

You understand Novak began beating Fed when Fed was 26 years old, right? That Fed beat teenaged Novak in the first four matches they played but after that (and starting when Novak was 20 years old) their rivalry was very very close. Of the following 20 matches after the first four each of them won 10 each

 

[NoleFam]

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.

Oh yea for sure. Sports is different than everything else in life and you are better in those areas in your 30s than in your 20s. Most people are more successful in life in their 30s than their 20s. Sports and physicality are totally different though. In my 20s, I didn't have to work out and was naturally athletic, and was full of endless energy. Now I have to drag myself out of bed at 5:30 in the morning to get to the gym to get into decent shape and drink creatine so I have the energy to do it. Lol.

Yea this is true and Federer did very well at 38 as well and played better at Wimbledon than Djokovic.

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

You understand Novak began beating Fed when Fed was 26 years old, right? That Fed beat teenaged Novak in the first four matches they played but after that (and starting when Novak was 20 years old) their rivalry was very very close. Of the following 20 matches after the first four each of them won 10 each

He beat him the AO when Fed had mono. By the time Djoker started gaining any real traction Fed was already 30 plus

 

[GabeT]

He beat him the AO when Fed had mono. By the time Djoker started gaining any real traction Fed was already 30 plus

Winners win. Losers come up with excuses

He first beat him in the Canada finals six months earlier. A practically teenaged version of Novak, very far away from his best level, had set points on two different sets in the USO final. What do you think a peak Novak would have done?

Oh and the Canada win is particularly relevant in the context of your “can’t beat him in the North American swing” arguments

All you really do is troll, huh?

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Not the AO but whatever else. Yes Fed destroys Djokovic. Djokovic has nothing to hurt prime Fed off slow hards unless he's sick or injured. He isn't good enough to drop him on clay as 2011 RG showed. Wimbledon is out of the question and so is the North American hardcourt swing

Canada 2007 was not the NA swing, Fed wasn't in his prime, he had mono, the court was too slow, which one is it? Miami 2009? Rome 2009? Basel 2009?

He beat him the AO when Fed had mono. By the time Djoker started gaining any real traction Fed was already 30 plus

In the matches Djokovic won in 2011 before the USO Federer was 29, so not 30, let alone 30 plus. That's Dubai, Indian Wells and AO which Djokovic went 7-1 in sets.

 

[TMF]

He beat him the AO when Fed had mono.

Exactly. Fed played like 50% of himself in 2008 AO. Some Djoker fans doesn't know that since they only start watching tennis in 2011

By the time Djoker started gaining any real traction Fed was already 30 plus

By the time Fed recovered from mono illness, healthy Fed beat Nole at the 2008 USO, and then again in 2009 USO

 

[paolo2143]

The main reason why prime Novak would beat prime Roger more often than he would lose is between the ears.

Time and time again he proved it in their matches. There were several matches between the two where Roger was technically the better player for most of match but ended up losing.

This happened both in peak era and out of peak era. Even their classic 2019 Wimbledon final. Roger was the better player throughout each set except when it came to the tiebreaker.

Every single tie break the nerves got to Roger and he made 3 or 4 wild forehands which he would never have missed earlier, whereas, Novak was absolutely clutch in every breaker.

Prime ovak would be good enough to hang with Federer more often than not and if match gets close then Novak wins the majority.

 

[Match_Point]

Recency bias is strong in this thread, and maybe they only started watching tennis within the last 10 years..

People forget Roger was a bad matchup for Novak. Federer in his peak years had the consistency in his shots and was rarely on his backfoot being bullied at the baseline which was apparent in his later years due to the loss of movement.

If you watch Fed vs Nole encounters from 2014 onwards, you can see the dynamic shifted slightly to Djokovic who would command the baseline rallies most of the time and is probably the reason why Nole won all the GS finals in those years. Its also the reason why their H2H flipped as Fed slowed down. If you give Federer even a portion of his prime level, Federer would've won a couple due to filling in that baseline/consistency gap.

Technically i would say that if tennis player A (attacking style) vs tennis player B (defensive style) at the same level, the attacking tennis wins everytime and its on their racket. This is why to me, a peak Fed that has all his games clicking vs a peak Nole the same, Federer will most likely win more often than not because he is the one dictating the game (redlining etc)

 

[Match_Point]

Forgot to mention that the courts/ball types would then play a role in whats already a game of razor thin margins between two of the greatest of all time. Slow HC adv Nole, Fast HC adv Fed, Grass Fed, Clay a toss up imo although..

Rome '06 Rog vs Djokovic '11 best of 10? @RS

 

[cortadew]

"the current version of Sinner is undoubtedly BETTER than prime Djokovic"

Only if you believe current Djokovic is in his prime lol. I doubt current sinner would be 10-1 against Fed and Nadal, also considering the times Sinner played old nadal he couldn't take even a set from him

 

[junior74]

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.

All athletes are past prime at 38. It’s biology.

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

Winners win. Losers come up with excuses

He first beat him in the Canada finals six months earlier. A practically teenaged version of Novak, very far away from his best level, had set points on two different sets in the USO final. What do you think a peak Novak would have done?

Oh and the Canada win is particularly relevant in the context of your “can’t beat him in the North American swing” arguments

All you really do is troll, huh?

He couldn't even beat 29-30 year old Fed on clay at RG when he was the absolute PEAK of his career in 2011 FFS (And almost lost US Open that same year to Djokovic where Fed had 2 match points. And then lost to him again a year late in 2012 when Fed was almost 31 at Wimbledon. . /thread. . The whole argument is stupid

Djokovic wins nowhere against prime Fed except Slow hards. If you barely getting by 30 year old grandpa Fed than you aint winning much against peak prime Fed of 04-07. Most of Djokers wins against Fed when Fed was already in a nursing home by 2014/2015/2019 etc.

Its the same argument people try and make now that Sinner is beating Djokovic. Dude had to wait until he was 37 to do it LOL

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

Canada 2007 was not the NA swing, Fed wasn't in his prime, he had mono, the court was too slow, which one is it? Miami 2009? Rome 2009? Basel 2009?






In the matches Djokovic won in 2011 before the USO Federer was 29, so not 30, let alone 30 plus. That's Dubai, Indian Wells and AO which Djokovic went 7-1 in sets.

How about all those Old man Fed wins over PEAK/Prime djokovic? (2011 French Open, Almost 2011 US Open win over him, 2012 Wimbledon, almost lost 2019 Wimbledon to grandpa 38 year old Fed, How about indoors where grandpa Fed demolished him?). Yet I'm supposed to believe outside of slow hards, Djokovic has any chance at all against 04-07 Federer when he lost and struggled so much against grandpa?


Again 2011 tells me all I need to know. 30 year old Fed should have taken 2 slams from absolute peak Career Djokovic. Logic dictates, Nole has no shot against 2004-2007 Fed at all outside of Slow early season hards. None whatsoever

 

[bw114]

Can't even beat baby fed.

Lmfao

 

[BauerAlmeida]

How about all those Old man Fed wins over PEAK/Prime djokovic?

Those would be relevant if someone claims that peak Djokovic would destroy peak Federer, but I haven't seen someone claiming that, it was you claiming the opposite.

But let's see.

(2011 French Open,

"Old man" before turning 30, an age where some players like Wawrinka, Ferrer and Agassi are playing the best tennis of their careers or pretty close to it at worst.

Almost 2011 US Open win over him

A match he lost and had just turned 30? Is Djokovic supposed to win in straights against a top 3 player of all time because he just turned 30?

, 2012 Wimbledon,

Great win, yes. But it's his best surface and not Djokovic's and he had just turned 31. Hardly ancient.

almost lost 2019 Wimbledon to grandpa 38 year old Fed,

Yes, Federer was ancient. But Djokovic was "old" too, given he was older than some of the matches where Federer was supposedly old before.

Yet I'm supposed to believe outside of slow hards, Djokovic has any chance at all against 04-07 Federer when he lost and struggled so much against grandpa?

You must have missed the part were Djokovic actually beat Federer in 2007, the part you conveniently left out when you replied. And also had multiple set points in the first two sets of the USO final, actually serving 40-0 for the first before he choked because of the pressure of his first slam final.

Federer struggled against old Agassi in Indian Wells 2004, USO 2004 and USO 2005. I'm sure that means he wouldn't have a shot against peak Agassi because he struggled against an old version . And this was 34/45yo Agassi, actually old, not 29/30.

Again 2011 tells me all I need to know.

Djokovic going 4-1 against 29/recently turned 30 Federer, including two straight-set wins, tells you he would have no shot against a Federer a few years younger. Okay lol.

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

No one is saying Djoker would never beat him. Its just that Djoker would never post a single win off slow hardcourts is all prime for prime. And theres ample proof for that. (RG loss in 2011, Almost losing US Open 2011 and then before that in 2008/2009?), Struggles against old Fed at Wimbledon, and indoors). There's no proof anywheres that shows Djokovic can beat Fed off slow hards prime for prime

 

[TheFifthSet]

Yet he keeps getting 100+ replies (which I’m contributing to).

Come on dudes and gals

 

[Dropshot777]

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.

AO - Novak in 5
RG - Federer is an extremely underrated clay courter (remember 2011 RG semi) Fed wins in 5
WB - Federer in 3 or 4
USO - Federer in 3 or 4

 

[Racquet_smash]

AO - Novak in 5
RG - Federer is an extremely underrated clay courter (remember 2011 RG semi) Fed wins in 5
WB - Federer in 3 or 4
USO - Federer in 3 or 4

Yeah i think the same more or less. Federer would take it on Rebound Ace and Djokovic on Plexi.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

AO - Djokovic in 4
RG - Djokovic in 5
W - Federer in 4
USO - Federer in 5

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

AO - Djokovic in 4
RG - Djokovic in 5
W - Federer in 4
USO - Federer in 5

Why do you think Djoker in 5 at RG, if he lost to Federer in 2011?

 

[Match_Point]

Why do you think Djoker in 5 at RG, if he lost to Djokovic in 2011?

Exactly. Imagine '06 Fed (Rome) vs that Djokovic

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Why do you think Djoker in 5 at RG, if he lost to Djokovic in 2011?

Because he also won in straights in 2012, and beat him in Rome in 2009.

+ One match is no sample size to judge a rivalry. That match could have easily gone Djokovic's way, he served for the 4th and IIRC for the 1st as well. He was carrying a 43-match winning streak and had to lose eventually, obviously, if they play multiple times both at their peak Federer would get a win/wins too, depending on the number of times they play. Same for Djokovic at the USO.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Exactly. Imagine '06 Fed (Rome) vs that Djokovic

Federer in Rome was a whisker away from losing to Nalbandian (whom he was also trailing a set and a break at RG) but Djokovic wouldn't be able to win at all?

Why does every argument against Djokovic start with an "imagine".

 

[Sport]

Federer is the hypothetical GOAT. No point on creating these threads, he's gonna always win.

 

[zakopinjo]

Hypothetical GOAT Federer and a routine victory 6:0 6:0 6:0.

 

[Vincent-C]

Federer is the hypothetical GOAT. No point on creating these threads, he's gonna always win.

Some of us big Fredfans do recognize the greatness of the other members of the Big 3- and those great players who came before.

 

[CoolCoolCool]

No one is saying Djoker would never beat him. Its just that Djoker would never post a single win off slow hardcourts is all prime for prime. And theres ample proof for that. (RG loss in 2011, Almost losing US Open 2011 and then before that in 2008/2009?), Struggles against old Fed at Wimbledon, and indoors). There's no proof anywheres that shows Djokovic can beat Fed off slow hards prime for prime

This isn't proof.

 

[Match_Point]

Fed wins the hypotheticals isnt a coincidence. If all aspects of his attacking tennis game clicks for the entire match, not many can beat him unless that gets neutered by specific matchup issues e.g. Nadal or court type (slow courts)

 

[Razer]

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.

Prime Novak would have been Nadal's Pigeon if he was aged 5 years younger. Federer did beat Nadal so many times on Grass as he should have despite a disadvantage in age, you put Novak there and he loses to Nadal on Grass everytime.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Prime Novak would have been Nadal's Pigeon if he was aged 5 years younger.

Based on what, exactly? In any case, he matches up worse against Federer than against Nadal.

From the beginning of 2011 to mid-2014, that is where they coincided in their primes, Djokovic was 12-7 against Nadal. Even in 2007-2009, when Nadal was in his prime and Djokovic wasn't, the latter was having huge success on hard courts, even if he was losing every clay match.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Federer in Rome was a whisker away from losing to Nalbandian (whom he was also trailing a set and a break at RG) but Djokovic wouldn't be able to win at all?

Why does every argument against Djokovic start with an "imagine".

To be fair, 2006 Nalbandian was an extremely underrated clay court player. That version of him would've destroyed even 2017 Nadal at RG.

 

[TheFifthSet]

*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.

Nice breakdown. Only one I'm really bothered to disagee with is Shanghai, that one is even for Fed at worst imo. He was awesome in '06 Madrid (the original tourney in that slot), beat Djoko in a Peak Fall Year for him in '14 and had a great Old Man run in '17, definitely comparable to Djoko's '18.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

To be fair, 2006 Nalbandian was an extremely underrated clay court player. That version of him would've destroyed even 2017 Nadal at RG.

Nalbandian was unlucky to lose in Rome and to get injured at RG, I think he deserved to win one of them. He actually matches up better against Nadal than Federer does and given how close Federer came in Rome 2006 I think Nalbandian could have troubled Nadal in RG more than Federer did (not in Rome because Federer came as close as you can come without winning). But given that Nadal himself mentioned how much he hated to face Nalbandian and that in 2006 he wasn't yet the beast we saw in 2008, 2010 or 2012, Nalbandian could have given Nadal a serious scare in RG, even if the Spaniard would have ended up winning. But if Mathieu could win one set and seriously push him in the others, I can see Nalbandian doing even better.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

How the hell is prime Sinner "worse" than prime Djokovic??
Seriously, in what world??
I thought we all (not just MTF users but TTW users and Tennis Twitter too) agreed that the current version of Sinner is an upgraded version of prime Djokovic.
So if prime Federer would have a hard enough time as to even lose Grand Slam matches to prime Djokovic, then what on Earth makes y'all believe that prime Sinner would do any worse??

 

[Vincent-C]

How the hell is prime Sinner "worse" than prime Djokovic??
Seriously, in what world??
I thought we all (not just MTF users but TTW users and Tennis Twitter too) agreed that the current version of Sinner is an upgraded version of prime Djokovic.
So if prime Federer would have a hard enough time as to even lose Grand Slam matches to prime Djokovic, then what on Earth makes y'all believe that prime Sinner would do any worse??

trollbot

 

[BauerAlmeida]

I thought we all agreed that the current version of Sinner is an upgraded version of prime Djokovic.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Exactly. Imagine '06 Fed (Rome) vs that Djokovic

TBF RG 2013 version of Djokovic was better than 2011 Djokovic.

I think the very best version of Djokovic at RG was 2013 (especially considering SF), and his 2nd best version was 2016 (maybe 2011 is equal).
For Federer, his very best form at RG was 2009 (especially considering the final), and his 2nd best version was 2006. 2011 comes close though.

But yeah, a match between 06 Fed from Rome and 13 Djokovic from RG would be nothing short of EPIC!

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Here is my take on prime Federer vs prime Djokovic:
AO: Djokovic in 4/5 (2011 Djokovic vs 2007 Federer)
RG: Federer in 5 (2013 Djokovic vs 2009 Federer)
WB: Federer in 4 (2015 Djokovic vs 2003 Federer)
USO: Federer in 4/5 (2011 Djokovic vs 2004 Federer)

Federer-Djokovic: 3-1

Now, prime Federer vs prime Nadal:
AO: Nadal in 5 (2009 Nadal vs 2007 Federer)
RG: Nadal in 3/4 (2008 Nadal vs 2009 Federer)
WB: Federer in 5 (2008 Nadal vs 2003 Federer)
USO: Nadal in 5 (2010 Nadal vs 2004 Federer)

Nadal-Federer: 3-1

Now, prime Djokovic vs prime Nadal
AO: Djokovic in 4/5 (2011 Djokovic vs 2009 Nadal)
RG: Nadal in 4 (2013 Djokovic vs 2008 Nadal)
WB: Djokovic in 5 (2015 Djokovic vs 2008 Nadal)
USO: Nadal in 4/5 (2011 Djokovic vs 2010 Nadal)

Djokovic-Nadal: 2-2

Honestly, the Big 3 match-ups feel like rock-paper-scissors.

 

[BigThreeForever]

Because he also won in straights in 2012, and beat him in Rome in 2009.

+ One match is no sample size to judge a rivalry. That match could have easily gone Djokovic's way, he served for the 4th and IIRC for the 1st as well. He was carrying a 43-match winning streak and had to lose eventually, obviously, if they play multiple times both at their peak Federer would get a win/wins too, depending on the number of times they play. Same for Djokovic at the USO.

What people fail to realize, biased by one singular match, anything can happen over one match no matter who it is, you would need a series to actually determine how it would go consistently. Djokovic dominated second serve points in the match, showing how it probably would go if they went through a series on 2011 clay and highly unlikely Federer serves up a storm everytime where he gets an unreturned serve percentage of 40+% everytime.

 

[Razer]

Based on what, exactly? In any case, he matches up worse against Federer than against Nadal.

From the beginning of 2011 to mid-2014, that is where they coincided in their primes, Djokovic was 12-7 against Nadal. Even in 2007-2009, when Nadal was in his prime and Djokovic wasn't, the latter was having huge success on hard courts, even if he was losing every clay match.

Ok maybe you are right, he would not be pigeon but Nadal prob wins more wimbledons than Novak in this scenario.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Ok maybe you are right, he would not be pigeon but Nadal prob wins more wimbledons than Novak in this scenario.

I disagree. imo Novak's peak has at Wimbledon has always been higher than Nadal's, but it's just that Nadal did better against prime Federer there than Djokovic would've, simply due to the huge match up advantage he had over Roger. Take that away and Nadal is firmly below Roger on grass.

Comparing the top 5 best versions of Djokodal at Wimbledon,
2015 Djokovic > 2008 Nadal at Wimbledon
2011 Djokovic > 2007 Nadal at Wimbledon
2014 Djokovic ≥ 2010 Nadal at Wimbledon
2018 Djokovic ≥ 2011 Nadal at Wimbledon
2022 Djokovic < 2018 Nadal at Wimbledon