Imagine 2014-16 fedr without peaking young ATG

[HetTheGreaterer]

4 slams (wimby 2014-15, uso 15, ao16)
6 masters (IW 2014-15, Cincy 2014-15, Rome 2015, shanghai 2014)
2 WTF back to back
Bunch of 500s & 250s
2 YE#1
But peak younger ATG (Novak Djokovic) stopped it.....

Nadal's 2017-18 is similar to what fed's 2014-16 would have been without nole.....grandpa ATG fed still stopped him somehow in 2017 but now, no capable young ATG level or even good level talent (mury, roddick, wawrinka, hewitt, safin, nalbandian, delpo type) is rising...
Thats why he is vulturing so much titles here....

Comparision (3 slams, 4 masters, some 500s, YE#1 and counting)


Note :- This is not a nadal hate thread, I am just trying to prove how good these ATGs can be in absence of peaking young players

 

[Sport]

Now imagine Federer in 2003-2007 with peak Djokovic and peak Nadal. What's the point of your post? Sometimes you are lucky, sometimes you are not. I agree that Federer was extremelly unlucky to compete with Djokovic in 2014-2016, but he was also lucky not to compete with peak Djokovic in 2003-2007.

Also, if Nadal is in a supposed weak era, Federer would also have won 3 Grand Slams in a weak era since 2017. (The fact that Federer is older doesn't justify a double standard logic, since Nadal is also in his 30s and post-peak).

Personally, I don't think we are in a weak era. The Big 3 is just too good even in their 30s. It's not the fault of the next gen. Only young Sampras could have stopped the Big 3 at Wimbledon 2017 or Wimbledon 2018. But I don't see young Agassi, young Laver, young Rosewall or young Borg winning any Grand Slam in 2017-2018 against the Big 3.

 

[Sport]

Nadal's 2017-18 is similar to what fed's 2014-16 would have been without nole.....grandpa ATG fed still stopped him somehow in 2017 but now,

Yes, because Nole didn't stop Nadal at Wimbledon.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Now imagine Federer in 2003-2007 with peak Djokovic and peak Nadal. What's the point of your post? Sometimes you are lucky, sometimes you are not. I agree that Federer was extremelly unlucky to compete with Djokovic in 2014-2016, but he was also lucky not to compete with peak Djokovic in 2003-2007.

Also, if Nadal is in a supposed weak era, Federer would also have won 3 Grand Slams in a weak era since 2017. (The fact that Federer is older doesn't justify a double standard logic, since Nadal is also in his 30s and post-peak).

Personally, I don't think we are in a weak era. The Big 3 is just too good even in their 30s. It's not the fault of the next gen. Only young Sampras could have stopped the Big 3 at Wimbledon 2017 or Wimbledon 2018. But I don't see young Agassi, young Laver, young Rosewall or young Borg winning any Grand Slam in 2017-2018 against the Big 3.

If 2003-2007 was a weak era today is an even weaker era.

Try and justify Kevin Anderson, Marin Cilic and other mugs making it deep in slams. You can't.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Yes, because Nole didn't stop Nadal at Wimbledon.

First time Nadal made it past the fourth round in 6 years lol. Who knows, maybe Kevin Anderson would've beaten him LOL.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Now imagine Federer in 2003-2007 with peak Djokovic and peak Nadal. What's the point of your post? Sometimes you are lucky, sometimes you are not. I agree that Federer was extremelly unlucky to compete with Djokovic in 2014-2016, but he was also lucky not to compete with peak Djokovic in 2003-2007.

Also, if Nadal is in a supposed weak era, Federer would also have won 3 Grand Slams in a weak era since 2017. (The fact that Federer is older doesn't justify a double standard logic, since Nadal is also in his 30s and post-peak).

Personally, I don't think we are in a weak era. The Big 3 is just too good even in their 30s. It's not the fault of the next gen. Only young Sampras could have stopped the Big 3 at Wimbledon 2017 or Wimbledon 2018. But I don't see young Agassi, young Laver, young Rosewall or young Borg winning any Grand Slam in 2017-2018 against the Big 3.

Don't destroy TTW's delusions that Federer in 2003-07 would have been flawless against peak Djokovic and Nadal like he was against the opponents he had.

 

[Sport]

If 2003-2007 was a weak era today is an even weaker era.

Try and justify Kevin Anderson, Marin Cilic and other mugs making it deep in slams. You can't.

Federer and Djokovic have stopped old Nadal from winning 2 Grand Slams in 2017-2018. 31-year-old Djokovic and 35-year-old Federer are tougher opponents than Roddick, Hewitt, Baghdatis and Phillippoussis. Specially when Federer was at his peak in 2003-2007, and in 2017-2018 Nadal is old and has to still face the Big 3.

Cilic is an extremelly dangerous player by the way, there is no way he is a "weak" rival. He almost beat Federer at the Australian Open 2018, beated Djokovic at Queens and was a hell rival for Nadal in Montreal. A player who plays so great against the Big 3 is not "weak". Cilic also defeated Federer at the US Open 2014. Roddick never defeated Federer in a Grand Slam.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Don't destroy TTW's delusions that Federer in 2003-07 would have been flawless against peak Djokovic and Nadal like he was against the opponents he had.

Wouldn't have been flawless but that doesn't make 2003-2007 a "weak era".

I mean you can do the same to Nadal and Djokovic too. Nadal wouldn't be winning the US Open or Wimbledon during '03-'07 and Djokovic wouldn't be winning the French, Wimbledon or the US Open having to compete against them both peak for peak.

Works both ways to be honest.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Federer and Djokovic have stopped Nadal from winning 2 Grand Slams in 2017-2018. 31-year-old Djokovic and 35-year-old Federer are tougher opponents than Roddick, Hewitt, Baghdatis and Phillipppoussis.

Cilic is an extremelly dangerous player by the way. He almost beat Federer at the Australian Open 2018, beated Djokovic at Queens and was a hell rival for Nadal in Montreal. A player who plays so great against the Big 3 is not "weak". Cilic also defeated Federer at the US Open 2014. Roddick never defeated Federer in a Grand Slam.

Can you stop grouping Roddick and Hewitt with mugs like Baggy and Scud? Jesus Christ.

Might as well group Andy Murray with David Ferrer. Freaking LOL.

Cilic is a worse player than Andy Roddick or Lleyton Hewitt and wouldn't be touching peak Federer.

Yes, Cilic is a weak era mug. It's time to accept it. Mentally weak and with a stronger Big 3 he wouldn't be making it past the SF/QF of a major.

He's a bigger mug than the players you make fun of LOL.

 

[Red Rick]

Every Fed hater would have been permabanned for participating in weak era threads

 

[ak24alive]

don't imagine

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Now imagine Federer in 2003-2007 with peak Djokovic and peak Nadal. What's the point of your post? Sometimes you are lucky, sometimes you are not. I agree that Federer was extremelly unlucky to compete with Djokovic in 2014-2016, but he was also lucky not to compete with peak Djokovic in 2003-2007.

Also, if Nadal is in a supposed weak era, Federer would also have won 3 Grand Slams in a weak era since 2017. (The fact that Federer is older doesn't justify a double standard logic, since Nadal is also in his 30s and post-peak).

Personally, I don't think we are in a weak era. The Big 3 is just too good even in their 30s. It's not the fault of the next gen. Only young Sampras could have stopped the Big 3 at Wimbledon 2017 or Wimbledon 2018. But I don't see young Agassi, young Laver, young Rosewall or young Borg winning any Grand Slam in 2017-2018 against the Big 3.

You are totally idiot if you belive that having djokodal in 2003-07 would have impact on fed's slam count or achievements....
It would have rather helped him...
Yes he would have surely lost one or two slams and some other events where he was not strong say ao2006.... ...otherwise no chance
But then, as they all would have reached 28-29....boom.... Fed would have been dominating both due to his longetivity and better aging, 2010-16 all would be multi slam years for fed..

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

The fact that Federer is older doesn't justify a double standard logic, since Nadal is also in his 30s and post-peak

That does justify the logic because it is true
..
A 35.5 - 36.5 player is not supposed to win slams in any era.....
And btw, fed has faced far tougher draw than nadal even in this pathetic field