Originally Posted by Cup8489
I dont know why people consider 04-07 weaker than 08 on. Djokovic has been in, what, 9 finals? winning 5 of them?
During 04-07, Nadal made 5 major finals, winning 3. Roddick made 3 finals in this period, and played Federer no less than 5 times in majors, including all three finals.
Hewitt ALSO played Federer 5 times in majors, including a final and a few semifinals. Like Roddick, he lost to Federer each time. This is not surprising considering Federer is..well, Federer. The only reason Nadal didn't lose as much to Federer is because of the 4 finals they played during this period, half were on clay, Nadal's EASILY best surface. It's not surprising that one of the best ever on that surface won both finals against Federer, but was not able to beat him at Wimbledon until 2008.
Who's to say that Hewitt and Roddick, despite being excellent players in their own right capable of beating past champions, were simply not a match for a man better than them on the surfaces he played them on?
I mean we've discussed this ad nauseum, that Roddick could have won 4 or more majors without Federer around. Djokovic won 4 of 5 majors after Federer turned 28, and began slowing down. Is it not possible that he was helped out in this way, that Roddick too could have had a career similar to Djoke's at this point had it not been for Federer?
Why is that so hard to understand as a possibility? But nooo, you all assume "hey, Federer won alot during these years." The simplest explanation is that he was just that much better than everyone during this period (kinda like Djoke in 2011, maybe?), but nooooo, you have to go argue "well obviously the vast majority of players were just weaker for this one random section of time, but once Djoke and Rafa got big wins, the era suddenly became stronger".
It's dumb logic, and overly complex given the situation.