Weak Era - where did it go?

J

Jonas78

Legend
It just struck me that there has been very little weak era talk sinse AO.

It is a well known fact that "Weak Era" is simply defined by that a player you dont like is dominating.

Shouldnt we expect a sh1tstorm after AO?

But...Djoker-fans have no interest in this because Djoker just dominated vs the same field 2014-2016. The Vamos-brigade just watched their man reach a very tight slam-final and have no interest in calling it weak. Murray is world nr1, needs no further explanation. Federer won AO, needs no further explanation.

So what is this, the perfect "truce"? :D
 
Noelan

Noelan

Legend
fedfanboys to busy with digging old threads, beauty of swiss Alps, future No1,8W , 2RG, Basel...
OP acts to be naive:oops:
 
Jackuar

Jackuar

Hall of Fame
It's just lurking in the darkness because the beacon of light from Fed's AO trophy reflected across the swiss alps has kept darkness at bay, for now. And the celebrations aren't finished yet. And let's be happy for that. For when its done and dusted, the army of weak-era-ists will be back in their place spewing theories, polls and their in-depth analysis once again.
 
J

Jonas78

Legend
Sambuccashake said:
I think AO pretty much finalized the weak era presence since #nextgen was completely annihilated by the old guard.
So the reason no one is talking abo.ut it is that there is nothing left to talk about. The small linger of hope was mercilessly vanquished.
Click to expand...
So the forum is in apathy rather than rage? :D.

I dont know if you are right or wrong, but im pretty sure at least the Ultronians and Murray fan-base disagree with you;)
 
Last edited:
J

Jonas78

Legend
Jackuar said:
It's just lurking in the darkness because the beacon of light from Fed's AO trophy reflected across the swiss alps has kept darkness at bay, for now. And the celebrations aren't finished yet. And let's be happy for that. For when its done and dusted, the army of weak-era-ists will be back in their place spewing theories, polls and their in-depth analysis once again.
Click to expand...
Still - in another situation, wouldnt it be the perfect scenario for the other fan-bases to go all-in Weak era? But doing that now would be like:
AAEAAQAAAAAAAAQOAAAAJDFiNTYxYWI5LTI3YWYtNDYwNS05YWQ0LThiZDc5MTc1MDFiNA.jpg
 
Kalin

Kalin

Legend
Sambuccashake said:
I think AO pretty much finalized the weak era presence since #nextgen was completely annihilated by the old guard.
So the reason no one is talking about it is that there is nothing left to talk about. The small linger of hope was mercilessly vanquished.
Click to expand...

+1

Very well said. And, to drive it home, just look at the next big tournament - effing Tsonga wins it and Birdman makes it all the way into the semis. Even when the (old) top guns aren't there, the second-string old timers are still too strong for the very best young pretenders. Bloody dispiriting, if you're a strong-era believer ;) Luckily, I ain't one of 'em.
 
Dope Reign

Dope Reign

Banned
Kalin said:
+1

Very well said. And, to drive it home, just look at the next big tournament - effing Tsonga wins it and Birdman makes it all the way into the semis. Even when the (old) top guns aren't there, the second-string old timers are still too strong for the very best young pretenders. Bloody dispiriting, if you're a strong-era believer ;) Luckily, I ain't one of 'em.
Click to expand...

Nobody believes this is a strong era. The past couple of years have been weaker than the preceding 8, but that's the nature of sport. There's ebb and flow, but that doesn't mean whenever there's ebb, it's the weakest of all time. Weak era arguments are just weak arguments.

In the past 3 years Raonic has made a final, 2 semis, and 3 quarters. Those numbers are on par with Safin's slam account, not much off Hewitt and a little further behind Roddick. The only difference* really is that they all won their 1st slam final.

Nishikori has 3 quarters, a semi, a final. That's not that far off from passafinable. Likewise Cilic, 3 quarters, a semi, a title.

It feels like you guys are just looking at Fedalovicay's slam numbers and judging if you're not comparable to that then you're a weakeramug. Those of you, that is, who aren't just banging a drum to a particular beat. ;)


*the only difference other than they were all at the top of the ranking tree while Nishikori, Raonic, and Cilic have all been consistently further down, and have never cracked into the top 2. ;)
 
J

Jonas78

Legend
Dope Reign said:
Nobody believes this is a strong era. The past couple of years have been weaker than the preceding 8, but that's the nature of sport. There's ebb and flow, but that doesn't mean whenever there's ebb, it's the weakest of all time. Weak era arguments are just weak arguments.

In the past 3 years Raonic has made a final, 2 semis, and 3 quarters. Those numbers are on par with Safin's slam account, not much off Hewitt and a little further behind Roddick. The only difference* really is that they all won their 1st slam final.

Nishikori has 3 quarters, a semi, a final. That's not that far off from passafinable. Likewise Cilic, 3 quarters, a semi, a title.

It feels like you guys are just looking at Fedalovicay's slam numbers and judging if you're not comparable to that then you're a weakeramug. Those of you, that is, who aren't just banging a drum to a particular beat. ;)


*the only difference other than they were all at the top of the ranking tree while Nishikori, Raonic, and Cilic have all been consistently further down, and have never cracked into the top 2. ;)
Click to expand...
Weak era/strong era put aside, there is a huuuge difference between Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, and Nishikori, Raonic, Cilic; Slam-titles, Masters titles, titles, nr1 rank etc. The only possible way to justify putting these players in the same category, is by claiming Roddicks/Safins/Hewitts era was very weak compared to current era.
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Jonas78 said:
Weak era/strong era put aside, there is a huuuge difference between Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, and Nishikori, Raonic, Cilic; Slam-titles, Masters titles, titles, nr1 rank etc. The only possible way to justify putting these players in the same category, is by claiming Roddicks/Safins/Hewitts era was very weak compared to current era.
Click to expand...
No chance. Nishikori-Raonic-Dimitrov is the weakest generation of all time. Putting them in the same tier as Safin-Hewitt-Roddick is ridiculous. At best, they are in the Gonzalez tier.

I mean the best player of this generation (Raonic or Nishikori) is virtually as good as Gonzalez, the weakest in the Federer generation. That speaks volumes.

Anyway, people attributing Fed's success exclusively to a weak era only make themselves look silly nowadays.
 
J

Jonas78

Legend
mike danny said:
No chance. Nishikori-Raonic-Dimitrov is the weakest generation of all time. Putting them in the same tier as Safin-Hewitt-Roddick is ridiculous. At best, they are in the Gonzalez tier.

I mean the best player of this generation (Raonic or Nishikori) is virtually as good as Gonzalez, the weakest in the Federer generation. That speaks volumes.

Anyway, people attributing Fed's success exclusively to a weak era only make themselves look silly nowadays.
Click to expand...
Dont know what you read into my post, but of course i totally agree with you:). No way Nishi/Raonic belongs in the same category as Hewitt/Roddick/Safin.
 
J

Jonas78

Legend
NatF said:
I hope Federer cements this as the weakest era of all time by winning another 2 slams this season :p
Click to expand...
Well that was sort of the reason for the thread:). Even if Rog wins Wimby and USO it will be hard to find passengers on the Weak Era train, because if the other fan-bases call this era weak they pretty much cut off the branch they are sitting on:)
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Jonas78 said:
Well that was sort of the reason for the thread:). Even if Rog wins Wimby and USO it will be hard to find passengers on the Weak Era train, because if the other fan-bases call this era weak they pretty much cut off the branch they are sitting on:)
Click to expand...

I will enjoy the beautiful chaos.
 
S

SinjinCooper

Hall of Fame
Sambuccashake said:
I think AO pretty much finalized the weak era presence since #nextgen was completely annihilated by the old guard.
So the reason no one is talking about it is that there is nothing left to talk about. The small linger of hope was mercilessly vanquished.
Click to expand...
Well, yes and no.

Federer obviously squashed any talk that nextgen had any hope of catching up with him any time soon, but even those clowns are now leaving Djokovic and Murray in their dust.

Grinders just don't age well.
 
Russeljones

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Jonas78 said:
It just struck me that there has been very little weak era talk sinse AO.

It is a well known fact that "Weak Era" is simply defined by that a player you dont like is dominating.

Shouldnt we expect a sh1tstorm after AO?

But...Djoker-fans have no interest in this because Djoker just dominated vs the same field 2014-2016. The Vamos-brigade just watched their man reach a very tight slam-final and have no interest in calling it weak. Murray is world nr1, needs no further explanation. Federer won AO, needs no further explanation.

So what is this, the perfect "truce"? :D
Click to expand...
This era is so bad, "weak" is no longer adequate to describe it. Look at the 1st-time tournament winners. Look at the AO finals, men and women. It's depressing.
 
PDJ

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
I'm not sure if I agree with the term 'weak era', but I do think the mens game is in a better position than the womens. No one seems capable of stepping up for either gender, but at least with the men there are three or four that consistently go deep. The women have Serena Williams and... Yup, covers it.
You could argue Kerber had a great 2016 (she did) but can barely string wins together this year. The WTA has a part time player at no.1. Great for Williams, but how can that be good for the womens game?
 
J

Jonas78

Legend
mike danny said:
I was agreeing with you. Probably wrong choice of words at the beginning of my post :)
Click to expand...
I still put Tsonga and Birdman ahead of Nishi/Raonic, they are underestimated because of the "golden generation" 85-88. Still they managed to win Master titles. This can change though, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" comes to mind regarding the 89-92 generation...
 
ZiggyStardust

ZiggyStardust

Professional
PDJ said:
I'm not sure if I agree with the term 'weak era', but I do think the mens game is in a better position than the womens. No one seems capable of stepping up for either gender, but at least with the men there are three or four that consistently go deep. The women have Serena Williams and... Yup, covers it.
You could argue Kerber had a great 2016 (she did) but can barely string wins together this year. The WTA has a part time player at no.1. Great for Williams, but how can that be good for the womens game?
Click to expand...

The Wimbledon 2012, was one of the last women's grand slam finals I watched start to finish. In that tournament, Serena Williams, 30 nearly 31, won her fourteenth grand slam. At the same tournament, Roger Federer, almost exactly the same age, won his seventeenth. Notice that at this point, Federer was well ahead of every male player ever in terms of grand slam achievements. Serena otoh, was well behind Evert, Navratilova, Graf and Court.

In the next 5 years, Federer won one grand slam. Serena won nine! And nearly every loss she has had has seemed like a huge upset with the winner rarely if ever able to make any impact following the victory. If this is not the weakest era of anything ever I don't know what is.
 
Urkezi

Urkezi

Semi-Pro
Dope Reign said:
Nobody believes this is a strong era. The past couple of years have been weaker than the preceding 8, but that's the nature of sport. There's ebb and flow, but that doesn't mean whenever there's ebb, it's the weakest of all time. Weak era arguments are just weak arguments.
In the past 3 years Raonic has made a final, 2 semis, and 3 quarters. Those numbers are on par with Safin's slam account, not much off Hewitt and a little further behind Roddick. The only difference* really is that they all won their 1st slam final.
Nishikori has 3 quarters, a semi, a final. That's not that far off from passafinable. Likewise Cilic, 3 quarters, a semi, a title.
It feels like you guys are just looking at Fedalovicay's slam numbers and judging if you're not comparable to that then you're a weakeramug. Those of you, that is, who aren't just banging a drum to a particular beat. ;)
*the only difference other than they were all at the top of the ranking tree while Nishikori, Raonic, and Cilic have all been consistently further down, and have never cracked into the top 2. ;)
Click to expand...

Ah, come on now! Raonić is light years from Hewitt - Lleyton's three best years have been 2 W, 2 SF's and 1 QF with 2 Year end no. 1's and 15 titles (2 masters cups as well)! That's almost twice as much as RaoMug has in his whole career, which is 8 titles and only one of them an ATP 500.

If a combined Niši's and Rao's career even matches up to Safin's alone, I'll be shocked. But you passing them off as some sort of equals - with the only difference being their rankings - is just laughable.
 
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
Strength of an era can't drastically change over one tournament.

There are exceptions of course. For example, 2014 French Open was strong era that suddenly became weakest ever at Wimbledon. :mad:
 
Dope Reign

Dope Reign

Banned
Urkezi said:
If a combined Niši's and Rao's career even matches up to Safin's alone, I'll be shocked. But you passing them off as some sort of equals - with the only difference being their rankings - is just laughable.
Click to expand...

As is your reading ability. I didn't pass off anything. I didn't make a single comment about masters results, total titles won, etc.

I know some of you guys find it difficult to deal with simple facts because you're emotionally invested in fairy tales.

Nishi, Raonic, and Cilic's slam results across a 3 year stretch are not dramatically dissimilar to Hewitt, Safin, and Roddicks. Stamping your feet, and jerking yourself off won't change that.
 
C

Charlie

Guest
Maybe Djoker fans are just bigger people since they aren't trying to ruin Fed fans' celebrations, which is what they were doing all the time in 2014-16 when Djoker was having great results. ;)

Unfortunately I have to mention that I am only joking so I wouldn't get killed.
 
Urkezi

Urkezi

Semi-Pro
Dope Reign said:
As is your reading ability. I didn't pass off anything. I didn't make a single comment about masters results, total titles won, etc.
I know some of you guys find it difficult to deal with simple facts because you're emotionally invested in fairy tales.
Nishi, Raonic, and Cilic's slam results across a 3 year stretch are not dramatically dissimilar to Hewitt, Safin, and Roddicks. Stamping your feet, and jerking yourself off won't change that.
Click to expand...

Nope, I understood you just fine and so have others. First of all, you are wrong on all counts - the three guys from this era are mugs compared to the ones you've tried comparing them. Damage control by limiting yourself to GS's only (why would you that anyway?) is a poor try, cause we all know what you were really trying, you said it yourself in your last sentence "*the only difference other than they were all at the top of the ranking tree while Nishikori, Raonic, and Cilic have all been consistently further down, and have never cracked into the top 2" - and you backed it up with a strong smiley! The only difference? Just LOL, buddy, MEGA LOL.

So, a very poor attempt from someone who knows jack **** about tennis history. But let's play your game "I only compared their GS results in a 3 year stretch".
So your guys combined best 3 years are: 1 W, 2 F, 4 SF, 8 QF,
The other guys combined best 3 years are: 4 W, 3 F, 7 SF, 5 QF

So how much did you have to stomp your feet and jerk yourself off that this made it look similar? I imagine your father is still putting the tiles in place and your mother has used hundreds of gallons of stain removal :D
 
PDJ

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
ZiggyStardust said:
The Wimbledon 2012, was one of the last women's grand slam finals I watched start to finish. In that tournament, Serena Williams, 30 nearly 31, won her fourteenth grand slam. At the same tournament, Roger Federer, almost exactly the same age, won his seventeenth. Notice that at this point, Federer was well ahead of every male player ever in terms of grand slam achievements. Serena otoh, was well behind Evert, Navratilova, Graf and Court.

In the next 5 years, Federer won one grand slam. Serena won nine! And nearly every loss she has had has seemed like a huge upset with the winner rarely if ever able to make any impact following the victory. If this is not the weakest era of anything ever I don't know what is.
Click to expand...
Succinctly put.
I didn't realise she'd won that many majors in such a short space of time. And not stopping any time soon.
 
D

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Jonas78 said:
Well that was sort of the reason for the thread:). Even if Rog wins Wimby and USO it will be hard to find passengers on the Weak Era train, because if the other fan-bases call this era weak they pretty much cut off the branch they are sitting on:)
Click to expand...

They're just gonna brazen it out and start afresh. Already, there's talk that Fedal lucked out because they didn't have to play either of Djokovic or Murray. Yeah, totally Fedal's fault that nos. 1 and 2 lost to weaklings, huh.
 
J

Jonas78

Legend
Dolgopolov85 said:
They're just gonna brazen it out and start afresh. Already, there's talk that Fedal lucked out because they didn't have to play either of Djokovic or Murray. Yeah, totally Fedal's fault that nos. 1 and 2 lost to weaklings, huh.
Click to expand...
No way they can talk themselves out of this. Federer won 4 matches vs top10 players and had no walkovers. Fedal reached the final in the same landscape as Murray and Djoker have been playing in for the last years.
 
D

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Jonas78 said:
No way they can talk themselves out of this. Federer won 4 matches vs top10 players and had no walkovers. Fedal reached the final in the same landscape as Murray and Djoker have been playing in for the last years.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter as long as he didn't beat them. I mean, if they had accepted this logic, we wouldn't have had a weak era debate in the first place because in the years that Nadal was beating Fed at RG, he could not get to Fed at the two HC slams and somehow that's supposed to be Fed's fault and not Nadal's. Likewise, the fact that Fed beat Djoko and Murray in back to back matches at Wimbledon 2012 (the strongest year of the strong era) should have closed the debate but it hasn't. 'They' love to talk about vulturing but when you look at it, they are the real vultures, scavenging for any Fed loss that could be used to discredit his achievements. How many Fed fans have questioned Djokovic's greatness just because he lost to Istomin? And just to be clear, I am not playing holier than thou but on the weak era debate, I think Fed fans are more consistent (perhaps by virtue of having to 'defend' their idol) than the fanbases of Nadal/Djokovic who keep dreaming up new strategies to pull down Fed. Nevermind that nobody actually talks up or pulls down the achievements of a great tennis player by arguing on the internet.
 
D

Deleted member 733170

Guest
PDJ said:
I'm not sure if I agree with the term 'weak era', but I do think the mens game is in a better position than the womens. No one seems capable of stepping up for either gender, but at least with the men there are three or four that consistently go deep. The women have Serena Williams and... Yup, covers it.
You could argue Kerber had a great 2016 (she did) but can barely string wins together this year. The WTA has a part time player at no.1. Great for Williams, but how can that be good for the womens game?
Click to expand...

The paradox is that if Serena Williams did not exist people would be labelling it a strong era!

I don't buy the weak era talk in the men's game either. The fact is that due to the slowdown in the rate of technological change the men's game has plateaued at an extremely high level from 2008 onwards. When the Big 4 finally hang up their rackets then we can say the weak ea has arrived. Increased professional, nutrition, training regimes and the general entourage surrounding the top guys has allowed them to push their careers into the mid 30's. All these people hoping for a Djokovic decline could be in for a rude surprise. I see no reason, beyond desire and hunger, while he still won't be contesting GS finals into his mid 30's too.
 
V

Vrad

Professional
When Federer was 30 the next generation was Djokovic and Murray (Nadal was an early bloomer closer to Federer's generation despite age). With Novak and Murray at 30 the next gen is Raonic, Kei.

I suspect when this generation is closer to their 30s, they will be getting beat by the tennis players in their mid 20s. It's truly gonna be a lost generation.
 
J

Jonas78

Legend
Dolgopolov85 said:
How many Fed fans have questioned Djokovic's greatness just because he lost to Istomin? And just to be clear, I am not playing holier than thou but on the weak era debate, I think Fed fans are more consistent (perhaps by virtue of having to 'defend' their idol) than the fanbases of Nadal/Djokovic who keep dreaming up new strategies to pull down Fed. Nevermind that nobody actually talks up or pulls down the achievements of a great tennis player by arguing on the internet.
Click to expand...
This!! This is the worst thing about the Fed-haters. Im the first one to say that Djokers game significantly dropped after FO16. His loss to Istomin was far from peak-Djoker. Even if Federer played Djoker at AO and won i would admit he wasnt facing peak-Djoker. But when it comes to Federer there are no excuses whatsover. He still is in his prime and the only reason he won so much in 2004-2007 is because of weak competition. The only reason he just won 3 titles 2010-2017 is because of strong era, he hasnt declined a bit.
 
Russeljones

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
PDJ said:
I'm not sure if I agree with the term 'weak era', but I do think the mens game is in a better position than the womens. No one seems capable of stepping up for either gender, but at least with the men there are three or four that consistently go deep. The women have Serena Williams and... Yup, covers it.
You could argue Kerber had a great 2016 (she did) but can barely string wins together this year. The WTA has a part time player at no.1. Great for Williams, but how can that be good for the womens game?
Click to expand...
Kind of a dubious statement. You are basing your judgement on comparative analyses. A,B,C & D are stronger, comparatively, than the field, ergo the whole group is stronger than the second group where there is only an equivalent of A. I disagree that this is logical or applicable. If anything, the disproportionate number of events and points won by people in obvious decline is a sure sign of an overall weakening of the group.
 
mikeeeee

mikeeeee

Professional
35 year old player won the AO (yay!) and the #1 and #2 players in the world got beat down by less than stellar opponents. Seems pretty weak to me.
 
D

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Russeljones said:
Kind of a dubious statement. You are basing your judgement on comparative analyses. A,B,C & D are stronger, comparatively, than the field, ergo the whole group is stronger than the second group where there is only an equivalent of A. I disagree that this is logical or applicable. If anything, the disproportionate number of events and points won by people in obvious decline is a sure sign of an overall weakening of the group.
Click to expand...

Well said. There are more players capable of getting to a slam final in the WTA. Far fewer capable of beating Serena in a slam final. Long term (or I should say medium term) it's still the ATP that's looking at falling off the cliff. Of course, it's possible that the public may not be enthused about watching WTA after Serena retires but their preferences don't determine the intra-field competitiveness. Ergo, I am not saying it's easier in terms of absolute tennis level to get to an ATP final than a WTA one but that the gap in competition is less in the WTA. With no.1 and 2 out, AO 2017 was the perfect tournament for the young ones, heck the mid 20 pack whom we have now accepted as 'young ones', to step up and instead two guys coming off a long break reach the final, both taking out fancied mid-20s opponents en route. When the Big Four retire, the situation may be similar to a Serena-less WTA but the Big Four are unlikely to all retire at the same time so some of them will still get to cash in on the gap between them and the rest.
 
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
Jonas78 said:
This!! This is the worst thing about the Fed-haters. Im the first one to say that Djokers game significantly dropped after FO16. His loss to Istomin was far from peak-Djoker. Even if Federer played Djoker at AO and won i would admit he wasnt facing peak-Djoker. But when it comes to Federer there are no excuses whatsover. He still is in his prime and the only reason he won so much in 2004-2007 is because of weak competition. The only reason he just won 3 titles 2010-2017 is because of strong era, he hasnt declined a bit.
Click to expand...
Don't be selective, buddy. ;) A lot of people have said that Djokovic made no improvements whatsoever in 2015-16 and that it was just other guys' declines that got him better results compared to the previous 3 years. Not to mention that a good part of his wins over Fed and Rafa "don't count" but all of theirs over him are "legit".
 
T

Tennis_Hands

Banned
mike danny said:
No chance. Nishikori-Raonic-Dimitrov is the weakest generation of all time. Putting them in the same tier as Safin-Hewitt-Roddick is ridiculous. At best, they are in the Gonzalez tier.

I mean the best player of this generation (Raonic or Nishikori) is virtually as good as Gonzalez, the weakest in the Federer generation. That speaks volumes for what Federer has done to his generation.

Anyway, people attributing Fed's success exclusively to a weak era only make themselves look silly nowadays.
Click to expand...

FTFY

:cool:
 
D

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil said:
Don't be selective, buddy. ;) A lot of people have said that Djokovic made no improvements whatsoever in 2015-16 and that it was just other guys' declines that got him better results compared to the previous 3 years. Not to mention that a good part of his wins over Fed and Rafa "don't count" but all of theirs over him are "legit".
Click to expand...

It's contextual, right? When a well known Djokovic fan on here (posing as a Fed fan) says upcoming Wimbledon final will feature Fed at his best v/s Djoko at his best, obviously Fed fans will react by discounting the win. It's sad that the over-enthusiasm of some Djokovic fans mars what a great match it was, well, at least for the first two and a half sets. I am the first to say that (2015 W) version of Djokovic would trouble any version of Fed, but when a very intellectually dishonest argument is put forth and not one Djokovic fan will call him out on it (because apparently it's all for the cause!), I cannot be expected to quietly nod.
 
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
Dolgopolov85 said:
It's contextual, right? When a well known Djokovic fan on here (posing as a Fed fan) says upcoming Wimbledon final will feature Fed at his best v/s Djoko at his best, obviously Fed fans will react by discounting the win. It's sad that the over-enthusiasm of some Djokovic fans mars what a great match it was, well, at least for the first two and a half sets. I am the first to say that (2015 W) version of Djokovic would trouble any version of Fed, but when a very intellectually dishonest argument is put forth and not one Djokovic fan will call him out on it (because apparently it's all for the cause!), I cannot be expected to quietly nod.
Click to expand...
Well I will be among the first to say that Federer is the superior player at a good part of events if we compare his and Novak's best forms. However one guy's claim that both Federer and Djokovic were at their best in the Wimbledon final (or at any point in time) could not trigger the discounting of many Djoker's wins that's been going on for years now. If that poster never existed it would have still been the same excuses, Fed is 80 years old. And you will hardly ever find fans of the same player calling each other out. I have hardly ever seen anyone do that among Fed's or Nadal's group either so I don't see the point of bringing that up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
The weak era - july 2012 to current .
2
Replies
67
Views
6K
abmk
abmk
robthai
Did the field catch up to Djokovic, or was it a weak era and Djokovic simply declined?
4 5 6
Replies
289
Views
9K
robthai
robthai
O
Weak era ? No, you just won't admit it.
2
Replies
79
Views
4K
DolgoSantoro
DolgoSantoro
P
Faced with a REAL weak era (2016), I don't see how it's possible to say 2008-2015 was weak
Replies
42
Views
2K
ABCD
A
M
There is a certain irony in the whole "weak era" concept
2 3 4
Replies
150
Views
5K
Chanwan
Chanwan
Top