Will Djokovic now have a career like Federer?

Will Djokovic now go on and have seasons like Federer in 2004, 2006 and 2007 and win the AO, Wimbledon, USO treble again this year like last year and have a career similar to Federer's?

I dont think he will, its weird to say but at 25 I think he's already too old to have 3 or 4 dominant season after last year. I believe a lot of tournaments he won last year purely riding a wave, this year he's losing these matches. He will end up on around 8/9 slams though I'm sure

I don't know where Novak will end up CAS's analysis is pretty sound 8 or 9 sounds like a fair figure. I will caution that those that think is best run is behind him that in some subtle areas he is still improving and I do think he has the ability to put on another 2011 type run again. But that being said the competition is extremely tough among the top guys in today's tennis and it will be hard to be so dominant like 2011. So it may happen it may not. Interestingly, when Novak won his first slam I said he would be a 3-6 slam winner, it seems I may have underestimated him by smidge. Funny at the time on old 606 some of the same characters said he only won the AO because Fed had mono, funny some of the same characters are spouting the same nonsense 4 grandslam titles later.

I think Djoko's 2011 is looking like something of a one-off in terms of almost total domination of his main rival and the rest of the field, but I also think that this year shows that Djoko clearly has more slams left in him.

The next two slams are on surfaces which progressively favour Nadal less than at RG and we'll be in a much better position to appraise where the two of them are come September.

I think Wimbledon is finely balanced; I think Nadal faces less danger getting to the final than Djoko does, but if they face one another in the final I see Djoko as the marginal favourite.

I think Djoko could nick the next two slams, but to me he looks more vulnerable than Federer did in his heyday, perhaps more like Fed 2007, which was obviously a superb year but one when Fed showed a few cracks and caused his fans to sweat a good deal more than in the three preceeding years

Good post barry, now the surface advantage over the course of the season will shift to Novak. Nadal basically held serve on clay and he needs to win some major trophies off of clay. The good news for him is that he is playing his best tennis at the right time and seems healthy. I agree with you that this wimbeldon is wide open right now between the top guys.

Also Barry, and here is where some people won't like what I have to say it bears mentioning. Maybe Djoko is more vulnerable than fed in 2005 and 2006 because the top 3 and 4 guys today are much more competitive than what Fed was facing in 05 and 06. Just saying that there is a qualitative advantage fed had in playing pre-prime Nadal and pre-prime Djoko and Murray at that stage which Novak doesn't have the luxury of. Although it can be argued that fed himself is much less of a challenge to Djoko today than he was earlier in Djoko's career as well.

I'm pleased that you acknowledge the double-edged nature of indicating that Fed at 30 is arguably a greater challenge to the No. 1 than Fed himself faced 6-7 years ago.

There's something in what you say, but Djoko's main difficulties have been vs. Nadal on clay, off the clay in matches that matter his problem has not really been the rest of the top 4.

There's the hardy perenial of how much Fed's dominance was down to his brilliance too.....

socal1976 wrote:
Also Barry, and here is where some people won't like what I have to say it bears mentioning. Maybe Djoko is more vulnerable than fed in 2005 and 2006 because the top 3 and 4 guys today are much more competitive than what Fed was facing in 05 and 06. Just saying that there is a qualitative advantage fed had in playing pre-prime Nadal and pre-prime Djoko and Murray at that stage which Novak doesn't have the luxury of. Although it can be argued that fed himself is much less of a challenge to Djoko today than he was earlier in Djoko's career as well.

Yes I agree Djokovic faces an incredible challenge. He has to face Federer, who although not at his prime, has played some stunning tennis (remember his run from post USO-IW). Murray who is arguably one of the greatest players not to have won a slam, and Rafael Nadal, one of the fiercest competitors in the history of men's tennis.
It all makes it quite fun doesn't it! Even last year to early this year when Djokovic was playing simply sublime tennis he was being tested- beaten by a dazzling Fed display in the FO, had to save 2 match points in the USO semi, and this year AO took 11 hours to finally fend of his SF and F opponents!

It's an incredibly competitive time. Djokovic will have to be on his toes to defend Wimbledon.

barrystar wrote:I'm pleased that you acknowledge the double-edged nature of indicating that Fed at 30 is arguably a greater challenge to the No. 1 than Fed himself faced 6-7 years ago.

There's something in what you say, but Djoko's main difficulties have been vs. Nadal on clay, off the clay in matches that matter his problem has not really been the rest of the top 4.

There's the hardy perenial of how much Fed's dominance was down to his brilliance too.....

Yes, barry I mean people always take my belief that the competition at the very top is higher now than it was a few years ago as a knock on fed. I don't see it that way, I mean to some extent Agassi to benefitted from his talented contemporaries ageing and not being replaced by equivalent talent. And obviously Roger would win a large and the most slams in probably any era. But I do disagree in that Novak has lost most of his big grandslam losses to either Nadal or Fed. Why do you think I get so upset when Novak gets Roger's half virtually everytime for 5 years, that is as bad a draw for a world #3 that exists in history and he gets it every time. So it has impacted the number of slams Novak has won. If you go through Novak's career most of his big grandslam losses have come to Roger and Rafa late in slams. He lost his first final at the USO to Roger, he lost his second final of the USO to Rafa, he has lost in the semis of RG a couple of times to Roger and a couple of times early on in grandslam semis to RAfa.

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:
Also Barry, and here is where some people won't like what I have to say it bears mentioning. Maybe Djoko is more vulnerable than fed in 2005 and 2006 because the top 3 and 4 guys today are much more competitive than what Fed was facing in 05 and 06. Just saying that there is a qualitative advantage fed had in playing pre-prime Nadal and pre-prime Djoko and Murray at that stage which Novak doesn't have the luxury of. Although it can be argued that fed himself is much less of a challenge to Djoko today than he was earlier in Djoko's career as well.

Yes I agree Djokovic faces an incredible challenge. He has to face Federer, who although not at his prime, has played some stunning tennis (remember his run from post USO-IW). Murray who is arguably one of the greatest players not to have won a slam, and Rafael Nadal, one of the fiercest competitors in the history of men's tennis.
It all makes it quite fun doesn't it! Even last year to early this year when Djokovic was playing simply sublime tennis he was being tested- beaten by a dazzling Fed display in the FO, had to save 2 match points in the USO semi, and this year AO took 11 hours to finally fend of his SF and F opponents!

It's an incredibly competitive time. Djokovic will have to be on his toes to defend Wimbledon.

Exactly IMBL, I think a lot of people are complaining and moaning about the style and the dominance of the top 4 are really not on the right page with their logic. By its very nature tournament tennis requires that a top heavy, or top loaded draw makes winning slams tougher and more competitive. As you mentioned look at the semi and final of the AO this year. 11 hours of top notch tennis with the matches both hanging on a knife's edge the whole time to decide the Australian. I don't think Fed had one match that tough in his first 10 or so slams. That is why I believe this years wimbeldon is very wide open among the top guys.

socal1976 wrote:

barrystar wrote:I'm pleased that you acknowledge the double-edged nature of indicating that Fed at 30 is arguably a greater challenge to the No. 1 than Fed himself faced 6-7 years ago.

There's something in what you say, but Djoko's main difficulties have been vs. Nadal on clay, off the clay in matches that matter his problem has not really been the rest of the top 4.

There's the hardy perenial of how much Fed's dominance was down to his brilliance too.....

Yes, barry I mean people always take my belief that the competition at the very top is higher now than it was a few years ago as a knock on fed. I don't see it that way, I mean to some extent Agassi to benefitted from his talented contemporaries ageing and not being replaced by equivalent talent. And obviously Roger would win a large and the most slams in probably any era. But I do disagree in that Novak has lost most of his big grandslam losses to either Nadal or Fed. Why do you think I get so upset when Novak gets Roger's half virtually everytime for 5 years, that is as bad a draw for a world #3 that exists in history and he gets it every time. So it has impacted the number of slams Novak has won. If you go through Novak's career most of his big grandslam losses have come to Roger and Rafa late in slams. He lost his first final at the USO to Roger, he lost his second final of the USO to Rafa, he has lost in the semis of RG a couple of times to Roger and a couple of times early on in grandslam semis to RAfa.

I was talking about right now, not when Djoko was no. 3. I think the main occasion on which having Fed in his side of the draw truly screwed Djoko was RG 2011 when Nadal was, relatively speaking, there for the taking. Otherwise as No. 3 he was always going to have to beat Fed in the SF or the F, and from 2007 onwards mostly Nadal too, it being merely a matter of when he got Fed, and then who he got first (which is currently Fed's dilemma).

I completely disagree. Again you saw it again at RG where Novak had Roger, Berdy, Tsonga, and Del PO all in his half at the outset. Meanwhile Nadal can sit back and wait to pick off Djoko like he did in USO 2010 after Novak had spent himself against Fed. I mean why is it fair for Nadal to only be required to win a slam with one top 3 win, while Novak needs 2 top 3 wins to win each slam. In short, with Novak's draw it is almost 100 percent harder to win a slam than with Nadal's draw.

socal1976 wrote:I completely disagree, Novak has to beat both Fed and Rafa to win a slam. The tournament directors have decided that Nadal only has to beat one of the top 3 to win a slam. The draw discrimination of getting Fed everytime has already cost Novak a slam or two in the least. Again you saw it again at RG where Novak had Roger, Berdy, Tsonga, and Del PO all in his half at the outset. Meanwhile Nadal can sit back and wait to pick off Djoko like he did in USO 2010 after Novak had spent himself against Fed. I mean why is it fair for Nadal to only be required to win a slam with one top 3 win, while Novak needs 2 top 3 wins to win each slam. In short, with Novak's draw it is almost 100 percent harder to win a slam than with Nadal's draw.

socal1976. To be fair if you look at who Djokovic and Nadal have faced in the final to get their slam Wins I don't think you can say Nadal has had it easy.

In Nadal's 11 slam wins he has beaten Federer 6 times and Djokovic twice (the other finals were against Berdych, Soderling and who was it he beat in the 2005 FO?). So 8 of his 11 slam wins were against another in the top three.

In Djokovic's 5 slam wins he has beaten Nadal 3 times (the other finals were against Murray and Tsonga). 3 of Djokovics 5 slam wins were against another in the top three although he has never beaten Federer in a slam final.

You alway's give good reasonable arguments so I can't understand why you think "they" fix the draws to hinder Novak. I'm sure if you can make that date with me, Virginia Wade, Peter Flemming and Neil Harman we could persuade you otherwise. Ha ha...

Too be fair do the comparison of who Djokovic has played in the semi against who Nadal has played in the semis of their slams and not just the ones they won, the more pertinent ones are the ones they have lost. That is what we are talking about hawkeye, nice try to change the subject to the finals. WHAT I WAS CLEARLY TALKING ABOUT WAS DJOKOVIC'S DRAW IN HIS HALF TILL THE SEMI. Clearly, the practical effect regardless of the fixing intent or non-intent of the slams is that Novak has to usually beat 2 top 3 players to win a slam and Nadal has to beat one and some stiff in the semi when murray fails to make it. Take a look at how many grandslam semis Federer put Djokovic out of tournaments especially on hardcourt where Novak could beat or have a better shot against everyone else in the draw. That is the real analysis that I am talking about. In an era where the top 3 are loads better than everyone else having to beat 2 of them to win a slam as opposed to one is a big, big advantage. And whether by malicious intent or sheer Nadalesque luck Rafa has had the benefit of the more cupcake semi throughout their entire careers. Eventhough throughout this period novak has been #3, 2, or 1 and should have had 50 percent chance of drawing fed.

Nice try though in trying to change the subject to the finals when I was clearly talking about the draw for THEIR HALF OR THE SEMI.

Okay... I was only giving my opinion. To win a slam is difficult and you will probably have to play the best players. Djokovic has proven that he's capable of doing it. He is good enough not to require the top players to lose early to enable him to do it or to get an easy draw. But so is Nadal! There is no "Nadalesque luck" or "fixed cup cake sem's" he doesn't need them either.

Thats what makes it exciting for us to watch and tough for all the players.

Socal, if Djokovic had avoided Federer until the final in those hardcourt slams then surely he would have just lost then instead so I don't see how that 'cost' him slams. As he was #3 for so long then it stands to reason he would have to beat 2 of the top 3, i.e the other two.

Granted, he has been unlucky since being in the top two but you can't really stretch it any further than that. Perhaps he would have ascended to #2 earlier with kinder draws, but last year he showed himself capable of beating whoever was put in front of him. Maybe he wasn't quite good enough before that?

Positively 4th Street wrote:Socal, if Djokovic had avoided Federer until the final in those hardcourt slams then surely he would have just lost then instead so I don't see how that 'cost' him slams. As he was #3 for so long then it stands to reason he would have to beat 2 of the top 3, i.e the other two.

Granted, he has been unlucky since being in the top two but you can't really stretch it any further than that. Perhaps he would have ascended to #2 earlier with kinder draws, but last year he showed himself capable of beating whoever was put in front of him. Maybe he wasn't quite good enough before that?

It probably cost him RG 2011 when he was playing his best and it took an inspired Fed to beat at that time Nadal was very much questioning himself. Could argue it damaged for the 2010 final as well i don't know if he wins that either way. Regardless it is pretty good to have Nadalesque luck that is for sure. Guaraneteed of getting the cupcake semi over your nearest rival in most every slam is a nice benefit to have and tough obstacle to overcome. None of your Djoko fans but if you were his fans or if you were actually fairminded you would see how unfair it has been over the years and at this point they can't just even it out.

hawkeye wrote:Okay... I was only giving my opinion. To win a slam is difficult and you will probably have to play the best players. Djokovic has proven that he's capable of doing it. He is good enough not to require the top players to lose early to enable him to do it or to get an easy draw. But so is Nadal! There is no "Nadalesque luck" or "fixed cup cake sem's" he doesn't need them either.

Thats what makes it exciting for us to watch and tough for all the players.

I am sure it makes it exciting for you as a fedal myopic Djoko hater to force Djokovic to have the tougher semi draw in every grandslam for the most part when compared to nadal. Did you watch poor little david at 150 pounds trying to fend off Nadal he was lucky to win games. The funny thing is that you won't address that issue because even you know who has the tougher semi in the grandslams. Now whether this comes from the nefarious intentions of fedal final rigging conspiracy or whether it is just like I said Nadalesque good luck the practical effect is that over the course of their careers Nadal has gotten the cupcake semi the vast majority of the the time. Let me see would I rather play fed or ferrer in a grandslam semi?

socal1976

I do rate Federer and Nadal higher than Djokovic. That is hardly contraversial as numbers speak for themselves. So because I don't think Djokovic is the best player I am a Djokovic hater? That is ridiculous! Anyway I think he is a great player and has a good personality.

Nadal can sometimes make his opponants look "poor" even the best but that is because he is capable of playing so well. Particuarly on clay.

This may be throwing the cat amongst the pigeons but if Djokovic had beaten Federer in last years RG he may not have beaten Nadal in the final. This is often talked of as if it was a certainty but of course it wasn't. This is Nadal's best surface and over 5 sets and he would have had a good chance to get a win over Djokovic and stop the rot of 4 losses. If he had done that? Who knows he could have regained confidence and Wimbledon might have gone a different way as could the next two slams...

I don't think people are going to understand how good Federer was until they've seen their favourite player knocking on 31. I mean, since the USO Federe has gained the most points of any player; that doesn't make him the #1 but it sure as Hell suggests this current, significantly sub-peak Federer a contender for that position.

I seriously doubt whether his current contemporaries will be able to do the same. At that point folk may revise their opinion of the 2005 grpoup of players, and the basically impossible job they had to stop him winning everywhere except finals on clay.

bogbrush wrote:

I seriously doubt whether his current contemporaries will be able to do the same. At that point folk may revise their opinion of the 2005 grpoup of players, and the basically impossible job they had to stop him winning everywhere except finals on clay.

Conversely, it could be argued that Federer made hay when the sun-shined from 2003 until 2007 before Nadal and Djokovic had really emerged and blossomed. When did Fed's conveyor belt of slams really dry up? Twelve of his slam wins came between 2003 and the end of 2007 when the slam contenders were Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Baghdhatis to name the main ones and from 2006/2007 onwards is when Djokovic and Nadal began to exert themselves and blossom and Federer then won four further slams from 2008 onwards. It does not take rocket science to ascertain that Nadal and Djokovic are a far greater challenge to Federer. Wait until Roger's book comes out and who do you think he will say was his toughest opponents to face? Safin and Roddick or Nadal and Djokovic?

The one thing I will say on Federer, least he hasn't ducked his least favoured surfaces to increase his chances on winning on his much favoured ones. Imagine if he decided to not participate in Clay events or dare I say it tank Clay events to freshen him for Wimbledon or US Open? He could've easily yielded more Slam success had he gone the Sampras route in managing his schedule around favoured events.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

I seriously doubt whether his current contemporaries will be able to do the same. At that point folk may revise their opinion of the 2005 grpoup of players, and the basically impossible job they had to stop him winning everywhere except finals on clay.

Conversely, it could be argued that Federer made hay when the sun-shined from 2003 until 2007 before Nadal and Djokovic had really emerged and blossomed. When did Fed's conveyor belt of slams really dry up? Twelve of his slam wins came between 2003 and the end of 2007 when the slam contenders were Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Baghdhatis to name the main ones and from 2006/2007 onwards is when Djokovic and Nadal began to exert themselves and blossom and Federer then won four further slams from 2008 onwards. It does not take rocket science to ascertain that Nadal and Djokovic are a far greater challenge to Federer. Wait until Roger's book comes out and who do you think he will say was his toughest opponents to face? Safin and Roddick or Nadal and Djokovic?

Yeah, and it doesn't matter at all that in 2012 he will shortly be 31 and just about every player before has won the bulk (if not all) of their Slams by 27. I mean, forget that bit and concentrate on ramping the era by all means.

As for Fed's purported book, I think it'll feature Sampras, Hewitt, Nalbandian and Djokovic but mostly Nadal. I don't think you'll find him dissing the older guys.

No and neither am I. Fed will probably earmark Nadal above the Hewitt's, Nalbandian's and Safin's as I would agree with and purely alone that tells you that the here and now is the more difficult time to win slams. I'd guess if you cornered Fed and asked him to choose we all know what spell he'd say was most difficult to win slams - heck even the stats tell us that.

I think when Federer releases a book he will be able to run through many names of players who he has defeated.

Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Del Potro. I can't think of a player who can boast victories over these Slam winning players.

I would say Federer would be extremely gracious in his book, despite the types of players it has taken to de-throne him which is not highly attractive to some tennis fans.

No because he is not as good as Federer.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

I seriously doubt whether his current contemporaries will be able to do the same. At that point folk may revise their opinion of the 2005 grpoup of players, and the basically impossible job they had to stop him winning everywhere except finals on clay.

Conversely, it could be argued that Federer made hay when the sun-shined from 2003 until 2007 before Nadal and Djokovic had really emerged and blossomed. When did Fed's conveyor belt of slams really dry up? Twelve of his slam wins came between 2003 and the end of 2007 when the slam contenders were Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Baghdhatis to name the main ones and from 2006/2007 onwards is when Djokovic and Nadal began to exert themselves and blossom and Federer then won four further slams from 2008 onwards. It does not take rocket science to ascertain that Nadal and Djokovic are a far greater challenge to Federer. Wait until Roger's book comes out and who do you think he will say was his toughest opponents to face? Safin and Roddick or Nadal and Djokovic?

CaledonianCraig wrote:No and neither am I. Fed will probably earmark Nadal above the Hewitt's, Nalbandian's and Safin's as I would agree with and purely alone that tells you that the here and now is the more difficult time to win slams. I'd guess if you cornered Fed and asked him to choose we all know what spell he'd say was most difficult to win slams - heck even the stats tell us that.

And above Djokovic, and Hewitt, Nalbandian and Safin will be rated above Murray - essentially because they either stopped him winning important things, or won those things themselves.

You continue to run a blind eye to the effect of his age, and the fact that in 2008/9 he reached/passed the age where almost all champions stop winning Slams. I can't imagine why you do that..........

I think Bogbrush makes a good point that age is a factor.

However if Nadal and Djokovic both retired from tennis from 2008, I still think Federer would have cleaned up the Slam Titles like he had done before. Who would have stopped him?

Anyway that's just my opinion.

It Must Be Love wrote:I think Bogbrush makes a good point that age is a factor.

However if Nadal and Djokovic both retired from tennis from 2008, I still think Federer would have cleaned up the Slam Titles like he had done before. Who would have stopped him?

Anyway that's just my opinion.

Berdych, Tsonga, Del Potro & Soderling for a start.

Well he would have lost a few of course.
I still think he would have won 2-3 slams every year.

Yawn. I'd agree that Murray is probably the best player not yet to win a slam, but I don't think he'd have got one between 2003-now either.

* It's chiefly difficult to win slams now because you've got to beat Nadal and/or Djoko and that's not been possible for anyone outside that duopoly since AO 2010.

* From 2004-2007 you'd have to have beaten Fed away from RG (and at RG - no slouch on clay) and Nadal at RG from 2005 onwards (and increasingly away from RG - no slouch away from clay). Nobody managed that between RG 2005 and USO 2007, and again from RG 2008 to USO 2009.

* I don't think Murray, or a 30-yr-old former No. 1, would have broken through the Fedal duopoly in the slams between 2004-2007 any better than they are able to do it now - you can't exactly say that Fed or Murray has stopped a potential slam winner in his tracks since 2010 except possibly Djoko at RG 2011.

* If you want to count a 30-yr-old Fed as one of the big hurdles against winning a slam now, it kind of puts his period of dominance >5 years ago into perspective

* After 2007 Fed has so far won a career slam and made 5 other slam finals, spent 70 odd weeks at No. 1 and picked up 5 TMS and 2 WTF at a w/l of 80% odd and dropping out of the top 3 to No. 4 only briefly - comparable with the entire career achievements of Jim Courier

* This graph will tell you about slam winners after the age of 27 for most of the open era, they don't grow on trees http://www.tennis28.com/charts/winner_age.GIF

It Must Be Love wrote:Well he would have lost a few of course.
I still think he would have won 2-3 slams every year.

Those are just the ones he did lose. Had he been without Djokovic/Nadal he'd have played other leading players in their stead and potentially would have lost some to them too.

My gut feel is that he'd be perhaps 2-4 Slams better off over 3/4 years, but I don't think the run to 2008 could have carried on. If nothing else, the mono problem saw him losing to players he previously owned anyway (such as James Blake at the Olympics (!!!!) and Andy Roddick). I agree he'd have won another French, maybe in 2011, and perhaps one more Wimbledon in 2008, plus probably one more USO either in 2010 or 2011 but he's been vulnerable since 2008/9 to the second tier of players who previously he had no problems with. Remember how he barely scraped the 2009 Wimbledon when Nadal was absent and Djokovic exiting early?

This is the players Federer has lost to since beginning of 2008:
Nadal x5
Djokovic x5
Soderling x1
Berdych x1
Tsonga x1
JDMP x1

So 10 out of 14 to Nadal and Djokovic (He's won the other 4). If they hadn't been playing Federer really would have dominated and probably won 13-14 GS out of the possible 18 since start of 2008.
But then again you can argue the other way and claim Federer was lucky that someone mentally strong didn't turn up 2003-2007 who's playing style was suited to the slightly faster conditions.

It Must Be Love wrote:This is the players Federer has lost to since beginning of 2008:
Nadal x5
Djokovic x5
Soderling x1
Berdych x1
Tsonga x1
JDMP x1

So 10 out of 14 to Nadal and Djokovic (He's won the other 4). If they hadn't been playing Federer really would have dominated and probably won 13-14 GS out of the possible 18 since start of 2008.
But then again you can argue the other way and claim Federer was lucky that someone mentally strong didn't turn up 2003-2007 who's playing style was suited to the slightly faster conditions.

Or you could argue he was lucky to have been born with great hand-to-eye co-ordination, or that Rafa was lucky Djoko V2 didn't show up until 2011, or that Sampras was lucky Agassi went AWOL, or that Agassi was lucky Sampras retired earlier, or that Borg was lucky Connors never played the FO, or that Connors and McEnroe were lucky Borg retired early etc etc

It Must Be Love wrote:This is the players Federer has lost to since beginning of 2008:
Nadal x5
Djokovic x5
Soderling x1
Berdych x1
Tsonga x1
JDMP x1

So 10 out of 14 to Nadal and Djokovic (He's won the other 4). If they hadn't been playing Federer really would have dominated and probably won 13-14 GS out of the possible 18 since start of 2008.
But then again you can argue the other way and claim Federer was lucky that someone mentally strong didn't turn up 2003-2007 who's playing style was suited to the slightly faster conditions.

So if he'd not played Djokovic or Nadal he'd have had a bye in the round(s) and not faced the players they knocked out?

He wouldn't have had a bye BB, no.
But he still would have gone on to win the majority of them IMHO.

That's my opinion anyway.

Sorry but stats don't lie and neither would Fed if asked. 2003 to 2007 - Federer won twelve slams and 2008 to present day he has won four slams. Why? Now you can argue about age all you want but lets remember his fans are keen to point out how competitive he still his and besides his last slam win came around two years ago now when he was still in his late 20's. The emergence of Nadal and Djokovic has eaten away into the dominance he once had and that is something Hewitt, Safin, Roddick or anyone else circa 2003 to 2007 could manage to do. Was Federer really playing so much better then or were the key opposition not as strong as Nadal and Djokovic are now. Ask Federer and he'd be honest enough to say who his greatest opponents he has faced are. Just as Murray himself has said he hasn't won slams because of what is in front of him. Nothing wrong with that statement as is perfectly correct. Murray's slam final defeats have come against Federer (twice) and Djokovic (once). The day he loses a slam final against someone ranked lower than him in rankings is the day I will truly give up hope of him ever winning a slam.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry but stats don't lie

But they are open to all kinds of interpretations - usually ones which fit own own pre-existing ideas.

Jurgen Zopp vs Murray in round 1 plz, Zopp will Mopp the moping Scott.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Jurgen Zopp vs Murray in round 1 plz, Zopp will Mopp the moping Scott.

Good rhyme

Not too sure about the logic...

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry but stats don't lie and neither would Fed if asked. 2003 to 2007 - Federer won twelve slams and 2008 to present day he has won four slams. Why? Now you can argue about age all you want but lets remember his fans are keen to point out how competitive he still his and besides his last slam win came around two years ago now when he was still in his late 20's. The emergence of Nadal and Djokovic has eaten away into the dominance he once had and that is something Hewitt, Safin, Roddick or anyone else circa 2003 to 2007 could manage to do. Was Federer really playing so much better then or were the key opposition not as strong as Nadal and Djokovic are now. Ask Federer and he'd be honest enough to say who his greatest opponents he has faced are. Just as Murray himself has said he hasn't won slams because of what is in front of him. Nothing wrong with that statement as is perfectly correct. Murray's slam final defeats have come against Federer (twice) and Djokovic (once). The day he loses a slam final against someone ranked lower than him in rankings is the day I will truly give up hope of him ever winning a slam.

Sorry, but here's another stat that doesn't lie.

Federer reached the age of 27 in 2008.

And here's another one;

Most champions dry up winning Slams after 27.

Rather than your rambling efforts to justify Murray those are proper facts. I know you're desperately refusing to look at them but it won't make them go away.

So Federer reached 27 in 2008 and.....? Most champions dry up but not everyone. After all we have seen slam winners at 30+ and remember we are talking about the GOAT here where we come to expect the unbelievable which no other mere mortals can do as we have seen in other sports through time. Ask yourself why Federer may not win a slam in his 30's yet Ken Rosewall, Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras, Arthur Ashe, Rod Laver, John Newcombe, Petr Korda and Jimmy Connors to name but a few managed it. And a heck of a lot more have won slams beyond the age of 28 so why not Federer? It is not just age-related - face it as I am sure Federer will even allude to.

So trends established over many years don't matter?

May I remind you that Federer didn't stop in 2008; he won 2 in 2009 and another in 2010. The rate of win has followed a fairly classic declining curve, pretty much as anyone would expect. Just as his rate of reaching finals has declined behind that.

So the one piece of undisputable data - his age - gets to be ranked in validity behind what you're decided must be right about relative skills across periods. Do you see how perverse that looks?

CC- I hear what you say - up to a point - but I really don't think harking as far back as the sixties and seventies to the era of Rosewall, Laver, Newcombe (great though they all were) and winning Slams in their thirties, is really much of an indication to what can happen today. Tennis is after all almost a different sport, with an entirely different, more punishing schedule and hence a whole new set of physical demands ; in fact in many ways a different world. (we only have to look at some of the old footage .... )

Even if we consider a more recent, but still very long spell - say a span covering the last 30 years way back to 1982 : in that time there have only been 3 Slams ever won by players older than Federer is now. So that's 3 Slams out of a total of 120, or in percentage terms the chances are just 2.5%. Not great I'd say. (and it so happens none of those 3 came at Wimbledon).

So all in all, I think bogbrush has put things in clear perspective as regards the significance of the age factor ; the reality being that the Slams do start drying up once players hit their late 20's and, more often than not, stop totally after 30.

You said earlier CC that Federer fans often mention how well he is playing even at his current age. Well I guess that's true as regards the 'normal' tournaments over one week Bo3, but I don't imagine many of those fans are convinced that he will win more Slams. Sure there's a chance - but maybe that 2.5% stat tells us something.......

I think you know how much I admire Murray's achievements to date but I'm nevertheless somewhat bemused at your frequent 'reliance' on Federer as some sort of weapon in your discussions about Andy's prospects in the Slams. I find myself saying in all these debates that Federer's work on the Tour is largely done and as such I personally don't see him as part of the 'Murray equation' from hereon in. I think Murray's main opposition is now the group of players who will most likely still be around for the next 5 years or so, most notably Nadal and Djokovic of course, and they're the guys he needs to worry about long-term. Not Federer.

lags72 wrote: Well I guess that's true as regards the 'normal' tournaments over one week Bo3, but I don't imagine many of those fans are convinced that he will win more Slams.

It's Nadal and Djokovic who deserve a lot of credit for this. Especially Nadal.

When Federer was cleaning up the tour it took someone with real, real mental strength to even believe they could beat Federer. Most people would be intimidated by Federer's ruthless accumulation of records and bow down but Nadal didn't.
He showed incredible mental strength, force and determination to stand up against the Swiss giant. Mental strength that the likes of Roddick simply didn't posses.

And I'm sorry but to the Federer fans who just say Nadal was lucky Federer aged, and do not give him any credit, well to you I say

There's a lot in what you say there IMBL, although I'm not sure to what extent Roddick et al should be characterised as lacking in mental strength. He's caused a lot of players a lot of trouble over the years (hence why he was part of the Top 10 fixtures & fittings for so very long) but I imagine that deep down he just accepts that his overall career record remains so far behind Fed simply because his tennis was, ultimately, just never of the same stratospheric quality. You're setting an incredibly high benchmark once you start to measure any player against Federer......

However in the case of Nadal it is undeniable that mental strength has played as much a part as outright talent - quite possibly even more so - in standing up so well to Federer. During Federer's prime, Nadal was of course the only guy who managed to do so consistently. Although now in the Federer twilight years, Djokovic is also equal to the task, much more than in the past.

Fortunately for our interest as fans of the sport, nothing stays the same ; as illustrated last year when even Nadal's mental (and physical) strength was impressively surpassed by Djokovic six times on the bounce. Towards the end of that spell, Nadal was seen as almost a broken man.

I happen to think the tables are turning once more and that this year overall will prove better for Nadal than it will for Djokovic. And Nadal is my own favourite for Wimbledon.

Murray is a more skilled arteest than Djokovic is you know, but skill wins you nothing in the semi finals and finals!

Murray needs to start playing like a ball bashing idiot as the top 2, to finally get his rewards. Could also do with manicuring his finger nails for wind resistance. Needs to get in touch with Colin Firth about the acting art too.

lags .. the last three matches between Nole & Rafa has played a very important
part in the psychological shift between the two players .. given that Rafa was three times runner-up and twice winner of Wimbledon ..against Nole´s one time winner (albeit only last year) .. (grass being neutral territory so to speak.. clay is definitely Rafa´s turf as hc is to Nole).. I think opinions will be divided as to the outcome if they should meet again in the final of Wimbledon this year.. but I cant help but think that Nole will be the one under the greatest pressure and like you Rafa is my favourite.

hawkeye wrote:socal1976

I do rate Federer and Nadal higher than Djokovic. That is hardly contraversial as numbers speak for themselves. So because I don't think Djokovic is the best player I am a Djokovic hater? That is ridiculous! Anyway I think he is a great player and has a good personality.

Nadal can sometimes make his opponants look "poor" even the best but that is because he is capable of playing so well. Particuarly on clay.

This may be throwing the cat amongst the pigeons but if Djokovic had beaten Federer in last years RG he may not have beaten Nadal in the final. This is often talked of as if it was a certainty but of course it wasn't. This is Nadal's best surface and over 5 sets and he would have had a good chance to get a win over Djokovic and stop the rot of 4 losses. If he had done that? Who knows he could have regained confidence and Wimbledon might have gone a different way as could the next two slams...

No that is precisely why I am ticked off we will never know because for whatever reason the grandslam committees have decided that Novak needs to beat both Roger and Rafa to deserve a slam and Rafa only needs to beat one of the top 3 guys. It is a massive structural advantage handed to Nadal that you can chalk to whatever you like, good fortune or whatever.

As for Nadal making his opponents look bad well I agree he does that on clay. But are you going to seriously posit here that David Ferrer is as tough a semi as Roger federer regardless of the surface. Weren't you guys the ones telling us that Roger has been to five finals and such at RG.

Whatever the cause maybe winning a Novak slam draw with Tsonga, Berdy, Del Po, and Fed in your half is about 100 percent harder than winning a slam with Ferrer, Murray, and Almagro in your section. And this unfortunately has been a reoccurring theme throughout their careers. Like I said as a Nadal fan I am sure your ecstatic about the resulting fedal protection that Nadal benefitted from especially at RG 2011 and at USO 2010

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry but stats don't lie and neither would Fed if asked. 2003 to 2007 - Federer won twelve slams and 2008 to present day he has won four slams. Why? Now you can argue about age all you want but lets remember his fans are keen to point out how competitive he still his and besides his last slam win came around two years ago now when he was still in his late 20's. The emergence of Nadal and Djokovic has eaten away into the dominance he once had and that is something Hewitt, Safin, Roddick or anyone else circa 2003 to 2007 could manage to do. Was Federer really playing so much better then or were the key opposition not as strong as Nadal and Djokovic are now. Ask Federer and he'd be honest enough to say who his greatest opponents he has faced are. Just as Murray himself has said he hasn't won slams because of what is in front of him. Nothing wrong with that statement as is perfectly correct. Murray's slam final defeats have come against Federer (twice) and Djokovic (once). The day he loses a slam final against someone ranked lower than him in rankings is the day I will truly give up hope of him ever winning a slam.

Craig great post, unfortunately I feel that it will be wasted on those who will not see anything that disagrees with their black and white view of the world. Is Roger a specatacular champion who probably would be a dominant figure if not the dominant figure in any era? Of course he is. But do we have to maintain the charade and the sheer logical farce that players like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, and Ferrerro are tough competition when compared to Novak, Andy, and nadal? That is what the fed apologist must maintain. They can't admit the obvious that these players weren't just getting beat by Roger. This generation of stars of the early fed years were quickly overran in their physical peaks by the Nadal, Gasquet, Djoko, Murray, Berdy, Tsonga, and Del PO generation of stars. It is not like Safin or Hewitt were only losing to Roger at the slams. And the crucial thing all these guys were supplanted AT THEIR PHYSICAL PEAKS IN TERMS OF AGE. In short, nothing can ever be allowed to take away from fed's lustre everything fed accomplished is superior to everyone else's accomplishments. And no era fed dominated can be considered weaker only those his contemporary rivals dominate is inferior or at best equal with transitional stars of the early 2000s. To live in bizarro fed worshipper world you must agree that (Hewitt, Safin, Ferrerro, Nalby, and Roddick) are as tough as (Nadal, Murray, and Djoko) and you must believe that there is no drop off between the transitional guys and the stars that came before either (Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, and Courier). Of course anyone who hasn't overdosed on the Kool Ade can tell you that the transitional guys are obviously less consistent and accomplished than both their immediate predecessors and their immediate successors.