Is Djokovic Winning his Majors in a Weak Era?

[edmondsm]

The only strong era in the history of tennis was the week that Brad Gilbert won Cincy. Brad Gilbert is the GOAT.

[New Era UK]

Wawrinka would have dominated 2004-2007 with that quarter final performance.

[Magnus]

Pretty weak yeah.

[New Era UK]

I think Federer would have prefered Roddick, Hewitt, Blake or Baghdatis anytime over Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Berdych and Del Potro or even Tsonga.

[Bryan Swartz]

It's a completely unknowable question to answer. It's impossible to know how good players from the past would have been if they grew up in the environment of today -- we don't even know with any significant degree of confidence what the environment will be like once, say, Djokovic and Murray retire in 5-8 years. All one can do is appreciate what players do in the era they are in. Anything else is speculation.

[Fedex]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Those are just "Mards"

Murray can't beat Nole on the big stage unless Nole lays a big egg like he did in the USO finals

What the fck is a mard you ******** prck! Most of those so called mards were non Murray supporters.

Tired injured Murray still nearly beat peak fresh Djokovic if you want to play that stupid game.

What is wrong with so many of you negative fckers?

I can see so many of you have really sad lives and need to deride and mock people who are far more successful to make yourselves feel better and get the poison out.

So tell me what do you do for a living mate? Unemployed, shelf stacker, fast food worker, no money, spotty and ugly maybe. Must be something.
Sit behind your computer taking your frustrations out on people who can't defend themselves. Very brave of you you sad prck.

Feel free to email me and we can carry this on. I'd be glad to talk or meet you and tell you face to face what a sad failure you are over and over.

Let's do it. My email is here. prck!

[Feather]

Originally Posted by The-Champ

In my opinion

Federer's peak/prime years 2003-2008
Nadal's peak/prime years 2005-2010

Novak 2008-2013
Murray 2012-2017

anything they win after those 6 years is a bonus.

Just out of curiosity, I think Murray and Novak is of the same age. Why do you think Murray will be in his peak till age 30 and Djokovic ONLY till age 26?

[robbo1970]

I think if you look at who the players are that consistently make the semis of the major tournaments, it does seem to always be the top 4 players, but I think that is more a case of a gulf in talent between them and the next 4 or 5 players.

I think with Nadal being out, it does weaken the competition and you can more or less select the winner from the top 3. Federer is obviously getting older (arent we all), but until he came up against an on-form Murray, he rarely broke sweat in any game. Similar to Murray really.

And some of the tennis the top 3 play is quite brilliant really, so I dont think its a weak era as such, I just think they are so much better than the rest, they make it look weak.

[rajah84]

Originally Posted by OddJack

Yeah yeah yeah, he's good, with all the stats, the 2011 season and all that.

No Nadal, only Old Fed who used to stop him in majors...

I know he won majors when Nadal and Fed were around, but they are both past their primes now and for the next 10 majors there will be no real rival for him.

Murray has only recently has made a move and even now its obvious he cant keep up with him physically.

If he swipes the majors this year it's because of a perfect timing when a weak era has emerged.

I wouldn't base Murray's chances on this last match, if that's what you're doing. Roger at his best would have a hard time beating Novak right now. In my opinion the Novak that showed up against Stan would own the h2h against a prime Federer. But I do agree this is a weak era, but then it was even weaker years ago when Roger was gathering up slams before the Spanish Winter.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by OddJack

Yeah yeah yeah, he's good, with all the stats, the 2011 season and all that.

No Nadal, only Old Fed who used to stop him in majors...

I know he won majors when Nadal and Fed were around, but they are both past their primes now and for the next 10 majors there will be no real rival for him.

Murray has only recently has made a move and even now its obvious he cant keep up with him physically.

If he swipes the majors this year it's because of a perfect timing when a weak era has emerged.

Disagree, Fed is still a tough player to beat, his level of play is still very high and Murray has always been a terrific player and is that much more dangerous since his slam final mental block is gone.

We also don't know how much Nadal will be in the mix this year so too early to tell but he was playing great tennis in 2011 and 2012 (until FO) when Novak was facing him on the big stages.

The depth outside the big 4 is very lacking but as a trade-off you have a great top 4 (well great top 3 at the moment but I believe Nadal will return).

Originally Posted by rajah84

I wouldn't base Murray's chances on this last match, if that's what you're doing. Roger at his best would have a hard time beating Novak right now. In my opinion the Novak that showed up against Stan would own the h2h against a prime Federer. But I do agree this is a weak era, but then it was even weaker years ago when Roger was gathering up slams before the Spanish Winter.

Dude, he doesn't own Fed even now, since the start of Novak's domination in 2011 he's 3-2 in slams against Fed and had to save 2 MPs in one of those wins, that's certainly not ownage against Fed who isn't as good as he was in his best years.

Also Stan was zoning but his best level isn't as potent as Fed's best level, jeez.

[rajah84]

Originally Posted by zagor

Disagree, Fed is still a tough player to beat, his level of play is still very high and Murray has always been a terrific player and is that much more dangerous since his slam final mental block is gone.

We also don't know how much Nadal will be in the mix this year so too early to tell but he was playing great tennis in 2011 and 2012 (until FO) when Novak was facing him on the big stages.

The depth outside the big 4 is very lacking but as a trade-off you have a great top 4 (well great top 3 at the moment but I believe Nadal will return).



Dude, he doesn't own Fed even now, since the start of Novak's domination in 2011 he's 3-2 in slams against Fed and had to save 2 MPs in one of those wins, that's certainly not ownage against Fed who isn't as good as he was in his best years.

Also Stan was zoning but his best level isn't as potent as Fed's best level, jeez.

The h2h is misleading. Novak lost a few of those early in his career. I still think a prime Novak defeats a prime Fed on the average. Novak is mentally stonger and Rog would fold under the pressue which Djokovic is more immune to. It's not always about the game.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by rajah84

The h2h is misleading. Novak lost a few of those early in his career. I still think a prime Novak defeats a prime Fed on the average. Novak is mentally stonger and Rog would fold under the pressue which Djokovic is more immune to. It's not always about the game.

I wasn't talking about their overall H2H.

My point was that since the start of the best period of his career (2011+) Novak hasn't been able to dominate 29-31 year old Fed on the biggest stages (slams), he's gone 3-2 against him in slams with one win being a very narrow one.

If he couldn't dominate a past his prime Fed (if you agree that 29-31 year old Fed is/was past his prime) by what logic would he dominate (or own the H2H) best version of Fed (say 2004-2007)? Now he might narrowly lead the H2H (though I personally don't believe it) but it would be close either way.

[tudwell]

Originally Posted by rajah84

The h2h is misleading. Novak lost a few of those early in his career. I still think a prime Novak defeats a prime Fed on the average. Novak is mentally stonger and Rog would fold under the pressue which Djokovic is more immune to. It's not always about the game.

Prime Federer beat Djokovic three straight times at the U.S. Open for the loss of just one set. After his level dropped, he still had match points in his two U.S. Open losses to Djokovic. I've no doubt that at the U.S. Open, prime Federer would beat prime Djokovic more often than not.

Way past his prime Federer beat Djokovic at Wimbledon just last year. I've no doubt that prime Federer would beat prime Djokovic at Wimbledon more often than not, possibly never losing to him.

A not-quite-as-far-past-his-prime Federer beat Djokovic at the French in 2011. This would probably be a really good match-up if they were both at their respective peaks at the same time. I think they're both of a similar level on clay and their games match up well. I imagine they'd split the meetings about 50-50.

So the only slam where Djokovic would beat prime Federer "on the average" would be the Australian Open, where he is king.

[mariecon]

I'll be surprised if Nadal wins another title off clay.

[Fiji]

Originally Posted by OddJack

Yeah yeah yeah, he's good, with all the stats, the 2011 season and all that.

No Nadal, only Old Fed who used to stop him in majors...

I know he won majors when Nadal and Fed were around, but they are both past their primes now and for the next 10 majors there will be no real rival for him.

Murray has only recently has made a move and even now its obvious he cant keep up with him physically.

If he swipes the majors this year it's because of a perfect timing when a weak era has emerged.

Yep. Djokovic won most of his slams when Fedal were past it.

If he had kept on winning them regularly since 2008 I would have been more impressed.

Originally Posted by GoodVibrations

I love that Murray suddenly "just isn't good enough" when about 40% of this board predicted that he'd win the AO.

We found out Murray's fitness is questionable. Nadal in 2009 and Djokovic in 2012 did what he couldn't do yesterday. Win the AO after a long SF. Murray's stamina and endurance is a big question mark. If he is going to be exhausted after playing 5 setters in the sf, then he will struggle to win like Djokovic does.... ADV Djokovic.

[Devilito]

Problem is not the top 4. Top 4 are as good now as in any other generation. The problem is the depth of field. At this point the top 4 might as well start every slam from the Semis. Fed is getting older so he’s more at risk but you get the point. Back in the 90s you could actually get some rough first round matches and get booted out early. Top 10 could be all Slam winners. Top 20 were all dangerous. More aggressive play style and faster courts meant a lot more unpredictable matches. The slower the court, the more predictable the match is. It’s like MMA. Heavyweights will always be more unpredictable due to their power. Even a total mismatch could end in one lucky shot. The lighter weight you are the less likely one lucky shot will end a fight so the best fighter usually always wins. Some people like this, for me, I find it boring and uninteresting. I like excitement to my sport, not a math formula where the match is so predictable it’s not even worth playing.

[Federer20042006]

It is kind of funny that you could make a similar argument about this era that you could make of the early Federer domination years.

Olderer is like today's Agassi. Andy Murray could be Lleyton Hewitt, if you really wanted to reach.

If there's no Nadal around, there's no doubt this is every bit as "weak" on paper as any era Federer was winning slams in.

[tennisaddict]

TTW logic is - one has to win a major slugging out 5 setters or lose in early rounds of French open or be inconsistent at majors . That makes it a more competitive field.

But if the top 2 or 3 raise their level above the field in ways not done before, it is a weak field. No credit to the top 3 for having raised their level.

[5555]

Originally Posted by tudwell

After his level dropped, he still had match points in his two U.S. Open losses to Djokovic.

Djokovic played with injured shoulder in that match.

Way past his prime Federer beat Djokovic at Wimbledon just last year.

Djokovic's grandfather died in April last year. It's likely that Novak was still grieving during the 2012 Wimbledon.

A not-quite-as-far-past-his-prime Federer beat Djokovic at the French in 2011.

Djokovic received walkover into the semifinal (Fognini), which means he did not play 5 days after his match in the 4th round. It's sensible to say that Novak lost rhythm by the time he played against Federer.

[mariecon]

Originally Posted by 5555

Djokovic played with injured shoulder in that match.



Djokovic's grandfather died in April last year. It's likely that Novak was still grieving during the 2012 Wimbledon.



Djokovic received walkover into the semifinal (Fognini), which means he did not play 5 days after his match in the 4th round. It's sensible to say that Novak lost rhythm by the time he played against Federer.

OMG I've never heard such a load of crap excuses in my life. Maybe we should just asterisk every loss Djoker has ever had!