In 7 of 9 finals he beat his biggest rivals. How is that weak competition?
He lost 2 semis to Fed too, not his fault the draws were pro Fedovic semis. Fed actually had more slam wins over Djoker in 2011-2012 than the rest of the players.
Fed was worse than in 2011-2012 and Nadal fell off a cliff.
Apprently only when it concerns Djokovic.
Djokovic fans easily jumped on the weak era train alongside Nadal fans to denigrate Fed. They didn't care that Nadal was actually a top player for years in 2005-2007, that Djokovic was a top player in 2007 or that Agassi was playing well in 2004-2005. They were quick to mention that they were babies and old.
It's not so great when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?
Well, he didn't face 2007-2012 in any of his slam finals post 2013 anyway.
You were adamant in claiming Fed had it easier for the same reasons.
Except Djokodal fans for years have veen poking fun at Federer's competition. We're just fighting back now.
1.) It has gotten easier, but arguably not as easy as Fed had it in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Even today, the "also rans" are as consistent as Federer's top competition in those years, and both Fed and Nadal in the last few years have gotten better results than Fed's competition did in that period.
It's hilarious you even think Djokovic's post 2014 slams are even on the same level as Nadal's AO 2009 win.
1. Not even close. 2004 and 2005 were much stronger years than the last few years. 2006 was weaker, but at least you didn't see two 30+ year olds dominating.
Well spotted! I meant USO. I've edited it
Just to scratch the surface, in 2004 Lleyton Hewitt, one of Federer's two main rivals and one who ended the year ranked 3 in the world, made the quarter finals at most 7 times in big events. Three of those times he advanced beyond the quarterfinals. In 2018, Marian Cilic, a second tier player, made it to the quarters of big events at least eight times, surpassing the quarterfinals three times. He ended the year ranked seven in the world. If 2014 is the year Djokovic's competition got weaker, then there are ample examples to indicate the competition he faced since then have been more reliable than what Federer faced in his early years of dominance. In my book, that consistency/reliability is the best indicator of overall ability.
1.) Hewitt was my favorite player. Even if the three you listed were better for age than the young players of today, young players today are not the only ones comprising the top 20.
He was 6-7 before Wimbledon 2014 actually. To go from that to 9-2 requires a massive performance improvement on the biggest stages, and I find it amusing to say the least that the usual suspects are still insisting that weaker competition is the main or sole reason for that instead. I'd rather be thankful that Novak was converting poorly before if I was in their place.
I did say "big" titles.
I did say "big" titles.
Safin had a far higher peak but how relevant is that when the stats indicate that on average you stood a better chance beating him than you did beating Ferrer? Since the beginning of the Federer era, Safin was great literally for only several tournaments.
Loved him!But Hewitt was your favorite player ? Ok.
Yes and playing in a tougher era had no impact on Cilic's inferior ability to make "big" finals.
Their results, as a number 3 vs number 7 ranked player, are comparable. That's the point.But hey, Hewitt is your favorite player and Hewitt 2004 was no better than Cilic 2018.
Yes and playing in a tougher era had no impact on Cilic's inferior ability to make "big" finals.
Okay. You clearly know my life.lol, no one sane believes your BS.
