For 4 hours and 57 minutes on Sunday—the longest-ever men’s final at Wimbledon, nine minutes longer than Federer vs. Nadal in 2008—Federer was the better player by pretty much every metric. The 20-time Grand Slam champion had more aces, fewer double faults, and a better first-serve percentage; won more points on his first and second serves; won a higher percentage of net points; converted more break points; had more winners and a better ratio of winners to errors; and won both more games (36 vs. 32) and more points (218 vs. 204) than his opponent.
This match was far too close to draw any conclusions about the relative strength between these two rivals. No one has ever profited from writing off Roger Federer prematurely, and there is nothing about his current play or the field of competition that suggests he will fall from his perch. All you can do is point at the fact that he turns 38 next month. And now, all that separates Federer’s 20 majors from Djokovic’s 16 is a solid season-and-a-half of present Djokovic.
At 32, Djokovic might already be the greatest men’s tennis player of all time, but the case should be bulletproof by the time he reaches the age Federer is now.
I honestly had no idea Djokovic had gotten to 16. Incredible how these three have sucked all the oxygen out of the room from everyone else for such a long stretch (15 years).