The main reason Nadal and Djokovic still win slams is lack of competition

[robthai]

Seriously, how much longer are Nadal and Djokovic fans going to use old Fed as their main competition to prop up their era?
Where are the younger guys??? Its 2018 and there hasn't been a slam winner born in the 1990s.
Nadal and Djokovic are not as good as when they were 25/26 but yet their results have been somewhat similar to those years. 6-7 years ago Federer was their main competition and today nothing has changed.
I find it ironic how some people say Feds slam count is inflated because he didnt face Djokodal for a majority of his peak years.
What if Federer was 30 and Djokodal are 35/36 and Feds main competition is this pathetic loss gen?
In hindsight I think Djokovic and Nadal are more fortunate. Their window of weaker competition is going to last much longer than Feds 03-07 window which was 4-5 years. Since Djokovic won his first slam in 2008, 10 years later there have been no slam winners from next generation. 10 years and counting vs 4-5 years.
I think its embarrassing for Djokodal era that Federer at 36 can still win slams.

 

[robthai]

if a player as good as Djokovic/Nadal/Federer was born in the 1990s, then the big 3 can kiss their glory days goodbye.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, Thiem and etc. are as good as the big 3 were back in the day but that level isn't good enough to win majors anymore.

 

[robthai]

Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, Thiem and etc. are as good as the big 3 were back in the day but that level isn't good enough to win majors anymore.

yeah if this is the case then it means that the big 4 are most likely all doping because they have so much more money and resources, while the rest of the tour have to rely on naturally produced testosterone.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

yeah if this is the case then it means that the big 4 are most likely all doping because they have so much more money and resources, while the rest of the tour have to rely on naturally produced testosterone.

No the sport has simply evolved

 

[robthai]

No the sport has simply evolved

In what way has it evolved? luxilon strings are still the same, rackets are still the same. Aside from slowing down of surfaces what has changed drastically?

 

[aman92]

Whatever you say... Djokodal aren't at their prime so whatever advantage they can take of this weak era is limited. Federer however coasted during the weak era of 2004-07 when he was in his peak. Huge difference there.

 

[OhYes]

Seriously, how much longer are Nadal and Djokovic fans going to use old Fed as their main competition to prop up their era?
Where are the younger guys??? Its 2018 and there hasn't been a slam winner born in the 1990s.
Nadal and Djokovic are not as good as when they were 25/26 but yet their results have been somewhat similar to those years. 6-7 years ago Federer was their main competition and today nothing has changed.
I find it ironic how some people say Feds slam count is inflated because he didnt face Djokodal for a majority of his peak years.
What if Federer was 30 and Djokodal are 35/36 and Feds main competition is this pathetic loss gen?
In hindsight I think Djokovic and Nadal are more fortunate. Their window of weaker competition is going to last much longer than Feds 03-07 window which was 4-5 years. Since Djokovic won his first slam in 2008, 10 years later there have been no slam winners from next generation. 10 years and counting vs 4-5 years.
I think its embarrassing for Djokodal era that Federer at 36 can still win slams.

What is totally embarrassing is that Federer was on 17 Slam count until Djokovic and Murray didn't get injuries. So, Novak wins 1 Slam after that playing against great opponent and is called vulture, but Federer wins 3 and everything is ok ?
More and more I think of Novak Slams, I cant remember when was the last time he had to just show up to win it.

 

[robthai]

What is totally embarrassing is that Federer was on 17 Slam count until Djokovic and Murray didn't get injuries. So, Novak wins 1 Slam after that playing against great opponent and is called vulture, but Federer wins 3 and everything is ok ?
More and more I think of Novak Slams, I cant remember when was the last time he had to just show up to win it.

let me refresh your memory to Wimbledon final. All Novak had to do was show up against Anderson. I dont recall Novak having to do anything special. Where did I mention anything about vulturing titles? Stop making things up.

 

[robthai]

Whatever you say... Djokodal aren't at their prime so whatever advantage they can take of this weak era is limited. Federer however coasted during the weak era of 2004-07 when he was in his peak. Huge difference there.

4 years vs 10 and on going where there are no younger players of the calliber of Fed, Djokovic, Nadal.
So you think its easier to play all time greats when you are outside of your prime? How many slams do current Djokovic and Nadal win in 04-07 against a younger all time great when they themselves are outside of their prime? Imagine Agassi didnt have Federer and continued to win slams in 04-05. This is a similar situation for Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[OhYes]

let me refresh your memory to Wimbledon final. All Novak had to do was show up against Anderson. I dont recall Novak having to do anything special. Where did I mention anything about vulturing titles? Stop making things up.

He had to show up against Nishikori and Nadal too right ? And Anderson is bad matchup for him but he got freezed in the final.
Lack of competition means vulturing.

 

[Plamen1234]

What is totally embarrassing is that Federer was on 17 Slam count until Djokovic and Murray didn't get injuries. So, Novak wins 1 Slam after that playing against great opponent and is called vulture, but Federer wins 3 and everything is ok ?
More and more I think of Novak Slams, I cant remember when was the last time he had to just show up to win it.

The last 3 Slams Federer won were AO 17,Wimby 2017 and AO 18.Djokovic played in all of them but he wasn't good enough to reach Federer.Injury is not the reason why he lost to Istomin.

 

[robthai]

He had to show up against Nishikori and Nadal too right ? And Anderson is bad matchup for him but he got freezed in the final.

Well duh you have to beat whoever is in front. But dont consider them as tough competition. When in the past 5 years have Nadal and Nishikori been relevant on grass?

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

What is totally embarrassing is that Federer was on 17 Slam count until Djokovic and Murray didn't get injuries. So, Novak wins 1 Slam after that playing against great opponent and is called vulture, but Federer wins 3 and everything is ok ?
More and more I think of Novak Slams, I cant remember when was the last time he had to just show up to win it.

Why do you mention Murray? He beat Fed once five years ago.

 

[OhYes]

The last 3 Slams Federer won were AO 17,Wimby 2017 and AO 18.Djokovic played in all of them but he wasn't good enough to reach Federer.

Djokovic carried injury from Olympics, he played in UO final injured.

 

[OhYes]

Why do you mention Murray? He beat Fed once five years ago.

He is part of big 4 right ?

 

[OhYes]

Well duh you have to beat whoever is in front. But dont consider them as tough competition. When in the past 5 years have Nadal and Nishikori been relevant on grass?

If Nadal won very tight semi, he would be relevant...

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

He is part of big 4 right ?

So? The last time he beat any of the big 3 in slams was in 2013.

 

[OhYes]

So? The last time he beat any of the big 3 in slams was in 2013.

Just imagine then Murray playing while big 3 are injured.

 

[robthai]

Djokovic born 1987, aged 20/21 in 07/08, Feds younger rival already reached all 4 slam semis, won the Australian Open, won the year end championships, multiple masters titles vs peak Fed and Rafa. Considered to be a one slam wonder.
Alexander Zverev born 1997, aged 20/21 in 2017/18, Novak/Rafas younger rival, no semis at slams only 1 quarter final, multiple masters against injured Fed and an out of sorts Novak. Considered by many to be the next all time great.
If you are an older player who would you rather be facing as you approach 30? I know who id rather face.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Just imagine then Murray playing while big 3 are injured.

Second half of 2016?

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Djokovic winning his first title of any kind in just over a year already makes it similar to his results when he was 25/26. Where the hell were you not so long ago when Fed won 3 out of 5 Slams which actually is similar to some of his results in his prime?

Annoyed that older Federer is used to prop up this so called Djokodal era? Well imagine how cringy it looks seeing all those Federer's punching bags from the previous decade getting praised every day while so many players and matches from this decade get criticized. Moaning about weak era accusations yet clearly being so desperate to throw them in the other direction is really something.

 

[robthai]

Djokovic winning his first title of any kind in just over a year already makes it similar to his results when he was 25/26. Where the hell were you not so long ago when Fed won 3 out of 5 Slams which actually is similar to some of his results in his prime?

Annoyed that older Federer is used to prop up this so called Djokodal era? Well imagine how cringy it looks seeing all those Federer's punching bags from the previous decade getting praised every day while so many players and matches from this decade get criticized. Moaning about weak era accusations yet clearly being so desperate to throw them in the other direction is really something.

Main reason why Fed is winning slams these days is because there are no younger players in early-mid 20s to expose him. This applies to Fed too. Not just Nadal and Djokovic. But Fed is 36, his career is almost finished.

 

[robthai]

Winning slams in your 30s vs lost gen or winning slams in your 30s against prime Djokodal and Murray.
Which is harder?

 

[KINGROGER]

Seriously, how much longer are Nadal and Djokovic fans going to use old Fed as their main competition to prop up their era?
Where are the younger guys??? Its 2018 and there hasn't been a slam winner born in the 1990s.
Nadal and Djokovic are not as good as when they were 25/26 but yet their results have been somewhat similar to those years. 6-7 years ago Federer was their main competition and today nothing has changed.
I find it ironic how some people say Feds slam count is inflated because he didnt face Djokodal for a majority of his peak years.
What if Federer was 30 and Djokodal are 35/36 and Feds main competition is this pathetic loss gen?
In hindsight I think Djokovic and Nadal are more fortunate. Their window of weaker competition is going to last much longer than Feds 03-07 window which was 4-5 years. Since Djokovic won his first slam in 2008, 10 years later there have been no slam winners from next generation. 10 years and counting vs 4-5 years.
I think its embarrassing for Djokodal era that Federer at 36 can still win slams.

This. Also I think today’s competition is much weaker than 03-07. I’d fancy 2006 Roddick’s chances vs 2017 USO Nadal. Likewise 2004 Roddick or 2006-2007 Nadal vs 2018 Djokovic at Wimbledon etc.

 

[Plamen1234]

The younger competition of Nadal and Djokovic is people like Thiem,Zverev and co.Federer younger competition for most of his years as tennis player is Nadal and Djokovic.This says everything.One one side you have Next gen nobodies,on the other side you have ATG.Federer needed to face 2 younger than him ATG.But yeah let some people keep believing that Nadal and Djokovic are having it hard right now.

 

[Fabresque]

Lol. Couldn’t we also say Federer vultured 3 slams because peak Djokovic and peak 2016 Murray weren’t there to stop him?

 

[zverev2018]

Alexander Zverev is our savior, just wait until the 2018 USO or at the latest 2019 AO. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself Patience, it's gonna happen in the next few months. The rise of a new All-time great, probably the best of them all... The rise of ZVRV.

 

[Fabresque]

Well duh you have to beat whoever is in front. But dont consider them as tough competition. When in the past 5 years have Nadal and Nishikori been relevant on grass?

Nadal was on course to win Wimbledon and track down Roger. Most Nadal fans on this forum wrote off Djokovic before the semi final even started, some even said it would be a straight set Nadal win. I of course don’t agree with underestimating opponents, but Nadal was playing well that Wimbledon, and even last year he played pretty good, just ran into a serve and volleyer playing the best he’s ever played (Muller). That’s pretty much a done deal on grass courts.

 

[ABCD]

If Nadal, Djokovic and Murray lived in an era of real tennis giants, as Federer did, they would probably be slamless. They inflate their number of slams by playing each other.

 

[Deleted member 369227]

let me refresh your memory to Wimbledon final. All Novak had to do was show up against Anderson. I dont recall Novak having to do anything special. Where did I mention anything about vulturing titles? Stop making things up.

Laughable claim. What about epic elimination of his arch-rival (Nadal) earlier, before that finals? Nole simply teleported directly to the final match?

As an example, I would call Federer’s one and only French Open title classic vulturing - since he didn’t beat Nadal on the way to the finals, and then took the title against a player with zero GS titles.

Actually, if I recall correctly, Fed NEVER beat Rafa on clay in a best-of-five match, in any circumstances, taking title or not.

 

[Checkmate]

The younger competition of Nadal and Djokovic is people like Thiem,Zverev and co.Federer younger competition for most of his years as tennis player is Nadal and Djokovic.This says everything.One one side you have Next gen nobodies,on the other side you have ATG.Federer needed to face 2 younger than him ATG.But yeah let some people keep believing that Nadal and Djokovic are having it hard right now.

But 03-07 were Baby Nadal and puppy Djokovic, no ?

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Laughable claim. What about epic elimination of his arch-rival (Nadal) earlier, before that finals? Nole simply teleported directly to the final match?

As an example, I would call Federer’s one and only French Open title classic vulturing - since he didn’t beat Nadal on the way to the finals, and then took the title against a player with zero GS titles.

Actually, if I recall correctly, Fed NEVER beat Rafa on clay in a best-of-five match, in any circumstances, taking title or not.

Novak beat Murray (who took care of Stan for him) for his, lol

 

[Sport]

This. Also I think today’s competition is much weaker than 03-07. I’d fancy 2006 Roddick’s chances vs 2017 USO Nadal. Likewise 2004 Roddick or 2006-2007 Nadal vs 2018 Djokovic at Wimbledon etc.

LOL. 2017 Nadal and 2018 Djokovic would demolish any version of Roddick. Del Potro is better than Roddick, so if Nadal destroyed Del Potro at the US Open 2017 go figure with Roddick.

Del Potro >>>> Roddick.

Roddick just vultured 1 GS in the pre-Big 3 era, he was lucky to face only one member of the BIg 3. Del Potro was way more complete than Roddick and was stopped from winning 5 GS by the Big 3:

1. Federer stopped Del Potro at RG 2009 SF.
2. Djokovic stopped Del Potro at WB 2013 SF.
3. Nadal stopped Del Potro at the USO 2017 SF.
4. Nadal stopped Del Potro at the RG 2018 SF.

Roddick only won 1 US Open against Ferrero (a clay specialist) and was #1 only 13 weeks in the pre-Fedal era. Those days his maximum rival was Ferrero, the previous #1 from whom he took the #1. Federer won his first Wimbledon but was still a baby on HC.

Meanwhile, the legendary Del Potro utterly destroyed peak Nadal 3-0 at the US Open 2009. Then he beated a healthy 28-year-old Federer in the final. Roddick could only dream of doing that.

Del Potro "almost" beated Federer at the 2012 Olympics on grass (4 hours and a half). Then he defeated peak Djokovic at the 2012 Olympics SF to win the Bronze Medal. Roddick has 0 Olympic Medals.

In 2016, Del Potro defeated Djokovic and Nadal to reach the Olympics final. Subsequently, he won the Silver Medal. Again, Roddick could only dream of doing so.

In 2018, Del Potro defeated Federer in the IW final. How many times has Roddick beated Federer in a final? ZERO.

Roddick has more Masters 1000 than Delpo (4>1). But Roddick just "vultured" in the pre-Fedal era his 3 first Masters 1000, winning all of them on HC against Coria (a clay specialist) and Fish (a nobody). The only one meritory is his 2010 Miami, where he beated Nadal in the SF.

In addition, Olympic Medals >>>>> Masters 1000. Olympic games are played every four years, meaning a player can only participate there 3 or 4 times at most. But a player can participate like 15 or 16 times in a particular Master 1000. It is much more difficult to win an Olympic Medal than a Master 1000. An Olympic Silver Medal (which Del Potro has) is equally relevant as a final at the WTF (which Roddick lacks).

 

[Sport]

So Federer won the Australian Open 2017, Wimbledon 2017 and the Australian Open 2018 due to a lack of competition. Fine. If we add the 12 GS of the 2003-2007 weak era... it means that Federer won 15 GS in a weak era.

So 20 - 15 = 5.

Federer won 5 GS in a non-weak era. Not bad.

 

[KINGROGER]

LOL. 2017 Nadal and 2018 Djokovic would demolish any version of Roddick. Del Potro is better than Roddick, so if Nadal destroyed Del Potro at the US Open 2017 go figure with Roddick.

Del Potro >>>> Roddick.

Roddick just vultured 1 GS in the pre-Big 3 era. Del Potro was way more complete than Roddick and was stopped from winning 5 GS by the Big 3:

1. Federer stopped Del Potro at RG 2009 SF.
2. Djokovic stopped Del Potro at WB 2013 SF.
3. Nadal stopped Del Potro at the USO 2017 SF.
4. Nadal stopped Del Potro at the RG 2018 SF.

Roddick only won 1 US Open against Ferrero (a clay specialist) and was #1 only 13 weeks in the pre-Fedal era. Those days his maximum rival was Ferrero, the previous #1 from whom he took the #1. Federer won his first Wimbledon but was still a baby on HC.

Meanwhile, the legendary Del Potro utterly destroyed peak Nadal 3-0 at the US Open 2009. Then he beated a healthy 28-year-old Federer in the final. Roddick could only dream of doing that.

Del Potro "almost" beated Federer at the 2012 Olympics on grass (4 hours and a half). Then he defeated peak Djokovic at the 2012 Olympics SF to win the Bronze Medal. Roddick has 0 Olympic Medals.

In 2016, Del Potro defeated Djokovic and Nadal to reach the Olympics final. Subsequently, he won the Silver Medal. Again, Roddick could only dream of doing so.

In 2018, Del Potro defeated Federer in the IW final. How many times has Roddick beated Federer in a final? ZERO.

Roddick has more Masters 1000 than Delpo (4>1). But Roddick just "vultured" in the pre-Fedal era his 3 first Masters 1000, winning all of them on HC against Coria (a clay specialist) and Fish (a nobody). The only one meritory is his 2010 Miami, where he beated Nadal in the SF.

In addition, Olympic Medals >>>>> Masters 1000. Olympic games are played every four years, meaning a player can only participate there 3 or 4 times at most. But a player can participate like 15 or 16 times in a particular Master 1000. It is much more difficult to win an Olympic Medal than a Master 1000. An Olympic Silver Medal (which Del Potro has) is equally relevant as a final at the WTF (which Roddick lacks).

Do you have this entire post saved as a template?

Del Potro isn’t better than Roddick. He wouldn’t beat Murray at 2013 Wimbledon or Thiem at 2018 RG. 2017 USO, 2009 RG, sure.

Take away Federer and Roddick is favourite for:

03, 04, 09 Wimbledon
06 USO

50/50 shot at:

05 Wimbledon
07 AO, USO

Olympics isn’t relevant to anything.

As for masters titles, Roddick beat Federer at Rogers cup 2003, Nadal 2010 Miami and has serveral wins over both Nadal and Djokovic.

I’ll take Del Potro’s peak USO level slightly over Roddick’s, but for career consistency, titles and overall level I’m going with Roddick. The numbers support this rather than your subjective opinion.

 

[KINGROGER]

So Federer won the Australian Open 2017, Wimbledon 2017 and the Australian Open 2018 due to a lack of competition. Fine. If we add the 12 GS of the 2003-2007 weak era... it means that Federer won 15 GS in a weak era.

So 20 - 15 = 5.

Federer won 5 GS in a non-weak era. Not bad.

Nadal’s weak slams:

10/11 French opens (2013 counts as strong since Djokovic gave him a good match)
2010 Wimbledon
2010 USO (pre peak Djokovic following cakewalk draw)

4/17 slams won in a non-weak era. Not bad.

 

[Sport]

Do you have this entire post saved as a template?

Yes, I do. And I will use it anytime a Fed fan tries to convince the world that Roddick was a strong player. He was not.

 

[KINGROGER]

Yes, I do. And I will use it anytime a Fed fan tries to convince the world that Roddick was a strong player. He was not.

Roddick > Del Potro fact.

 

[upchuck]

As long as Federer is winning slams and winning +80% of his matches in a season there's nothing embarrassing about having him as major competition for Djokovic and Nadal. Quality of play is what matters, not age, especially in an era when the rules relating to age are being re-written.

The saving grace for Nadal and Djokovic (and Federer) right now is they still have each other, next generation be damned. If one or two of them is inactive then the remaining person would have space to get away with a lot because it's true the field has weakened since 2016, but if they have a fellow ATG in their path that's at least no worse than Federer beating up his punching bags in 04-06.

 

[Tony48]

Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, Thiem and etc. are as good as the big 3 were back in the day but that level isn't good enough to win majors anymore.

You’re joking, right?

 

[Sport]

Roddick > Del Potro fact.

No. Del Potro >>>> Roddick. Stop with the propaganda. Roddick has 0 Olympic Medals, 0 victories in a final against Federer, 0 victories against Nadal or Djokovic in the Olympics. He is nothing compared to Del Potro.

Del Potro is also more complete than Roddick. Roddick was nothing on clay, while Del Potro is a GS semifinalist on clay, hard courts and grass.

 

[TMF]

So Federer won the Australian Open 2017, Wimbledon 2017 and the Australian Open 2018 due to a lack of competition. Fine. If we add the 12 GS of the 2003-2007 weak era... it means that Federer won 15 GS in a weak era.

So 20 - 15 = 5.

Federer won 5 GS in a non-weak era. Not bad.

Let me know when you can list a 35/36 player winning multiple slams and reach world #1 in 2003-2007.

 

[Sport]

Let me know when you can list a 35/36 player winning multiple slams and reach world #1 in 2003-2007.

Double standard logic? Either there is a weak era for everybody or there is no weak era.

If a 35-year-old Federer wins a GS playing against Justin Bieber, Donald Trump and Stephen Hawking... is it meritory? The level of the competition is always relevant regardless of the age of Federer.

Also, Djokovic and Nadal are also in their 30s and past their prime, so it's not like Federer is the only one with longevity. And Federer doesn't have the longest longevity by the way. Ken Rosewall won GS at age 37, Federer has 0 GS at age 37.

 

[TMF]

No. Del Potro >>>> Roddick. Stop with the propaganda. Roddick has 0 Olympic Medals, 0 victories in a final against Federer, 0 victories against Nadal or Djokovic in the Olympics. He is nothing compared to Del Potro.

Del Potro is also more complete than Roddick. Roddick was nothing on clay, while Del Potro is a GS semifinalist on clay, hard courts and grass.

Roddick is 5-4 against Djokovic.
Del Potro is 4-14 against Djokovic.

Stop forcing your biased opinion on others, especially to the ones who have followed Roddick's entire career.

 

[Sport]

Roddick is 5-4 against Djokovic.
Del Potro is 4-14 against Djokovic.

Stop forcing your biased opinion on others, especially to the ones who have followed Roddick's entire career.

Del Potro faced peak Djokovic, Roddick didn't for the most part.

Also, Del Potro leads Roddick 4>1.

 

[TMF]

If a 35-year-old Federer wins a GS playing against Justin Bieber, Donald Trump and Stephen Hawking... is it meritory? The level of the competition is always relevant regardless of the age of Federer.

So age doesn't matter for Roger. LOL
He must be the only player on the planet to found the fountain of youth.

Also, Djokovic and Nadal are also in their 30s and past their prime, so it's not like Federer is the only one with longevity. And Federer doesn't have the longest longevity by the way. Ken Rosewall won GS at age 37, Federer has 0 GS at age 37.

You just proving my point. Since Roger won slams in his 35/36, no player since Rosewall in 1972(46 years ago!) have won slams at a VERY late age. Not to mention Roger also reach world #1 at 36. No player has done this during 2003-2007.

 

[TMF]

Del Potro faced peak Djokovic, Roddick didn't for the most part.

Also, Del Potro leads Roddick 4>1.

Nole has match up problem with Roddick.
Roddick was a shadowed of himself when he met peak Del Potro in all of the meetings.

 

[ABCD]

Del Potro faced peak Djokovic, Roddick didn't for the most part.

Also, Del Potro leads Roddick 4>1.

I have made algorithm using data for pre- and post-2011 Djokovic to predict H2H with different players. Algorithm was good as predicted well H2H with Murray, Federer, Nadal etc. Based on this, my prediction for H2H Djokovic-Roddick in post-2011 period would be something like 20:12 for Djokovic. Djokovic has dramatically improved H2H with any player in post-2011 period.

 

[NoleFam]

Roddick is 5-4 against Djokovic.
Del Potro is 4-14 against Djokovic.

Stop forcing your biased opinion on others, especially to the ones who have followed Roddick's entire career.

Del Potro played Djokovic 15 times after 2011. Roddick, 1 time.