Imagine if Federer retired after 2015.

MichaelNadal · Feb 12, 2019

When he cried at Wimbledon that was the moment I thought, well it looks like he's realized his day has passed, etc.
Had he rode off into the sunset then (understandable as he was already 33-34), Nadal would have passed him, and Djokovic would be within a rock's throw of the slam record also. Even now, we are still considering this scenario. That's the beautiful thing about tennis though, you really never know. Hell he may even still win more slams, stranger things have happened. In a way it would be weird to me if one of Djokodal passes him because until a year or so ago it seemed so foreign.

BGod · Feb 12, 2019

Look, Nadal wouldn't be ahead of him with a 1-11-2-3-0 spread and less YE.

Novak maybe.

tennisaddict · Feb 12, 2019

MichaelNadal said:
When he cried at Wimbledon that was the moment I thought, well it looks like he's realized his day has passed, etc.
Had he rode off into the sunset then (understandable as he was already 33-34), Nadal would have passed him, and Djokovic would be within a rock's throw of the slam record also. Even now, we are still considering this scenario. That's the beautiful thing about tennis though, you really never know. Hell he may even still win more slams, stranger things have happened. In a way it would be weird to me if one of Djokodal passes him because until a year or so ago it seemed so foreign.

The real pity is the next gen not stepping up and Fed having to play until 38 to protect his records.

GabeT · Feb 12, 2019

tennisaddict said:
The real pity is the next gen not stepping up and Fed having to play until 38 to protect his records.

That’s just elder abuse!

GabeT · Feb 12, 2019

BGod said:
Look, Nadal wouldn't be ahead of him with a 1-11-2-3-0 spread and less YE.

Novak maybe.

Without Fed I think Nadal wins 2017 AO and today has more slams than Fed and the dual career slam.

ohiostate124 · Feb 12, 2019

tennisaddict said:
The real pity is the next gen not stepping up and Fed having to play until 38 to protect his records.

This. Imagine how tennis would look if Nadal and Djokovic also had some all time greats that were 5 years younger nipping at their heels. Theyve been pretty lucky that the next gens have all been a joke so far.

tennisaddict · Feb 12, 2019

ohiostate124 said:
This. Imagine how tennis would look if Nadal and Djokovic also had some all time greats that were 5 years younger nipping at their heels. Theyve been pretty lucky that the next gens have all been a joke so far.

Folks here take a dump on Fed saying 2004-07 was weak . Even if you take that at face value, look at how long of a reign Djokovic is given - 2014 - 2019 and counting.

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil · Feb 12, 2019

^So when 2017 is finally (and barely) acknowledged as a year where youngsters were as subpar as they have been in any other year, it's actually considered part of Novak's reign. I mean, this is now beyond pathetic.

NoleFam · Feb 12, 2019

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil said:
^So when 2017 is finally acknowledged as a year where youngsters were as subpar as they have been in any other year, it's actually considered part of Novak's reign. I mean, this is now beyond pathetic.

Not only did the youngsters disappoint but so did the entire top 5 from 2016 that year. Novak won diddly squat that year, and same for Murray, but Novak somehow reigned in 2017 and half of 2018?

alexio · Feb 12, 2019

tennisaddict said:
Folks here take a dump on Fed saying 2004-07 was weak . Even if you take that at face value, look at how long of a reign Djokovic is given - 2014 - 2019 and counting.

the problem is djoko won less titles in this period)

tennisaddict · Feb 12, 2019

alexio88 said:
the problem is djoko won less titles in this period)

Even after the extra 2 year cushion.

tennisaddict · Feb 12, 2019

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil said:
^So when 2017 is finally (and barely) acknowledged as a year where youngsters were as subpar as they have been in any other year, it's actually considered part of Novak's reign. I mean, this is now beyond pathetic.

Should it be Federer's reign at age 35 ?

Djokovic2015 · Feb 12, 2019

ohiostate124 said:
This. Imagine how tennis would look if Nadal and Djokovic also had some all time greats that were 5 years younger nipping at their heels. Theyve been pretty lucky that the next gens have all been a joke so far.

Imagine how tennis would look if Federer also had some all time great that was 5 years older, consistently beating him in his first few forays into slam SF/F instead of coming into an era void of a top star. He was pretty lucky that the previous gen was a joke.

tennisaddict said:
Folks here take a dump on Fed saying 2004-07 was weak . Even if you take that at face value, look at how long of a reign Djokovic is given - 2014 - 2019 and counting.

How is AO 2017 - FO 2018 being factored into Djokovic's reign when it was Federer benefiting from the weak era there to take 3 slams?

alexio · Feb 12, 2019

tennisaddict said:
Even after the extra 2 year cushion.

1 year, and he has more dispersed reign periods

tennisaddict · Feb 12, 2019

Djokovic2015 said:
How is AO 2017 - FO 2018 being factored into Djokovic's reign when it was Federer benefiting from the weak era there to take 3 slams?

The weak era was provided to Djokovic. He failed to benefit from that. Djoker, being 6 years younger at age 29, had the advantage over Fed at 35.

In effect, if Fed had 4 years of so called weak era, Novak has 6 and in spite of that is a full 5 majors short.

tennisaddict · Feb 12, 2019

alexio88 said:
1 year, and he has more dispersed reign periods

Dispersed reign periods is his own fault.

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil · Feb 12, 2019

tennisaddict said:
Should it be Federer's reign at age 35 ?

He won 3/5 Slams in that same period when Djokovic was non-existent yet you want to call even that a part of Djokovic's reign, simply because Fed was 35?! That makes no sense and is just gross.

I wonder at what point will Djokovic reach that late career stage when just stepping on the court is a win for him. Apparently Fed got there a very very long time ago.

MeatTornado · Feb 12, 2019

I can imagine it all too well. After each big loss in 2014-15, I was always convinced that was his final shot and would be stuck on 17 forever, and that Novak passing him was just a matter of time.

Hopefully, 2017-18 bought him enough wiggle room.

tennisaddict · Feb 12, 2019

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil said:
He won 3/5 Slams in that same period when Djokovic was non-existent yet you want to call even that a part of Djokovic's reign, simply because Fed was 35?! That makes no sense and is just gross.

I wonder at what point will Djokovic reach that late career stage when just stepping on the court is a win for him. Apparently Fed got there a very very long time ago.

Djokovic thumped by mugs does not change that the fact that he was in prime position to take advantage of the weak era.

TheAssassin · Feb 12, 2019

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil said:
He won 3/5 Slams in that same period when Djokovic was non-existent yet you want to call even that a part of Djokovic's reign, simply because Fed was 35?! That makes no sense and is just gross.

I wonder at what point will Djokovic reach that late career stage when just stepping on the court is a win for him. Apparently Fed got there a very very long time ago.

I have read lots of garbage here, but the period when Federer and Nadal were the ones sweeping Majors being called part of "Djokovic's weak era" is right up there. Asterisking titles is not enough anymore, now posters need to asterisk the player for not winning the titles that they would have put an asterisk on anyway.

GabeT · Feb 12, 2019

Of all the many obsessions at TTW none makes less sense, nor are posters less equipped to discuss with real data, than the obsession with weak eras.

Jonas78 · Feb 12, 2019

I think the majority of people (including myself) thought Fedal was done winning slams when Federer got injured post AO16 and Nadal retired from FO16. After that AO16 R1 loss from Rafa and then pulling out of FO, i felt both of them were close to retirement. Then they won 6 more. Just shows how hard it is to predict things in tennis.

If you take each year and see how it ended up, and compare that with what most people thought would happen, i think most years are pretty surprising.

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil · Feb 12, 2019

tennisaddict said:
Djokovic thumped by mugs does not change that the fact that he was in prime position to take advantage of the weak era.

And instead of being grateful he "gave" your Gramps an opening for over a year, you're not just counting it against him when he did "take advantage" but also when he didn't, not taking into consideration that he had a monstrous run before and also suffered an injury (which I guess was his fault again). On the other hand, Rog winning three Majors in the exact same absence of great youngsters is to his credit for rising to the occasion or whatever because he is 86 yo. It would be interesting to see if you would ever say something like that for Novak in the future, but given how damaging mid-2018-present has been, I dread to think what excuses any future Majors will bring. You'll be probably saying he is in prime position to win a lot in 2024 as well, just for the sake of putting down whatever he's accomplished. Which would be the biggest circus ever.

KINGROGER · Feb 12, 2019

Weak era: 2014 - present. 1 and half years for Fedal, 4 and a half years for Djokovic if we discount 17/18.

2006 and 2010 were fairly weak too so that’s 2 and a half years for Fedal.

Dilexson · Feb 12, 2019

Guy makes a thread about appreciating an ATG and his own fanbase ruins it..

Some of ya'll have invested too much in these things.

Dilexson · Feb 12, 2019

MichaelNadal said:
When he cried at Wimbledon that was the moment I thought, well it looks like he's realized his day has passed, etc.
Had he rode off into the sunset then (understandable as he was already 33-34), Nadal would have passed him, and Djokovic would be within a rock's throw of the slam record also. Even now, we are still considering this scenario. That's the beautiful thing about tennis though, you really never know. Hell he may even still win more slams, stranger things have happened. In a way it would be weird to me if one of Djokodal passes him because until a year or so ago it seemed so foreign.

i swear i saw you saying something different a while back though.. :')

BGod · Feb 12, 2019

GabeT said:
Without Fed I think Nadal wins 2017 AO and today has more slams than Fed and the dual career slam.

And still no defended Slams outside the French.

Lew II · Feb 12, 2019

Not unhappy with it, he produced beautiful tennis and proved once more that he wasn't old at all in 2014-16 (or in 2008-12... some think his peak ended in 2007

).

Lew II · Feb 12, 2019

GabeT said:
Without Fed I think Nadal wins 2017 AO and today has more slams than Fed and the dual career slam.

Wawrinka was in great form, Nadal not at his best IMO.

50-50

falstaff78 · Feb 12, 2019

Djokovic2015 said:
Imagine how tennis would look if Federer also had some all time great that was 5 years older, consistently beating him in his first few forays into slam SF/F instead of coming into an era void of a top star. He was pretty lucky that the previous gen was a joke.

Imagine how tennis would look if Djokovic also had an all time great that was 5 years younger, consistently beating him after he turned 30 in his forays into slam SF/F, instead of coming into an era void of a top star. He is pretty lucky that the subsequent gen is a joke.

Sputnik Bulgorov · Feb 12, 2019

Lew II said:
Not unhappy with it, he produced beautiful tennis and proved once more that he wasn't old at all in 2014-16 (or in 2008-12... some think his peak ended in 2007 ).

He was old in 2014-2016, by his own standards and by the standards of all ATGs. He only won slams in 2017-2018 because of a weak era.

Lew II · Feb 12, 2019

Sputnik Bulgorov said:
He was old in 2014-2016, by his own standards and by the standards of all ATGs. He only won slams in 2017-2018 because of a weak era.

Not of his contemporaries, who matter the most. Djokovic and Nadal lost only to each other in 3 of the last 4 slams at 31-32.

Weak era argument can be perfectly reverted to 2003-07.

guanzishou · Feb 12, 2019

Imagine this

Lew II · Feb 12, 2019

He would have retired with 6 consecutive Slam finals/semi lost to Nadal and 4 consecutive lost to Djokovic

Not that 1-6 and 0-4 is much better though...

Sputnik Bulgorov · Feb 12, 2019

Lew II said:
Not of his contemporaries, who matter the most. Djokovic and Nadal lost only to each other in 3 of the last 4 slams at 31-32.

Weak era argument can be perfectly reverted to 2003-07.

2003-2007, 2015-2019 are all weak. It's not mutually exclusive. Federer was almost 33 when Wimbledon 2014 happened. Djokovic isn't even 32. Let's not forget Djokovic's losses to Chung, Wawrinka, Querrey, Checcinato at 30-31 and Nadal's losses to Muller, Pouille, Del Potro and Verdasco at 30-31. They also have an easier time making it to slam finals precisely because the era is so weak.

Sputnik Bulgorov · Feb 12, 2019

Lew II said:
He would have retired with 6 consecutive Slam finals/semi lost to Nadal and 4 consecutive lost to Djokovic

Not that 1-6 and 0-4 is much better though...

When you're playing ATGs 5-6 years younger than you, it's not surprising. He played his early 30's in a much stronger era.

Krish872007 · Feb 12, 2019

Fred really protected himself well there with 2017-18, chalked up some very important wins at the expense of his rivals. But really, if the now Lost Gen had actually stepped up and proved their worth a few years' back he wouldn't have needed any of these wins quite as much.

Lew II · Feb 12, 2019

Sputnik Bulgorov said:
2003-2007, 2015-2019 are all weak.

Basing on this: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/goat-points-by-year.634341/

top5 + top10 points:

1) 2015 - 460 (greatest year of all)
2) 2016 - 405
3) 2007 - 387
4) 2018 - 371
5) 2006 - 369
6) 2005 - 363
7) 2004 - 360
8) 2017 - 342
9) 2003 - 337

2019 has just started.

Sputnik Bulgorov · Feb 12, 2019

Lew II said:
Basing on this: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/goat-points-by-year.634341/

top5 + top10 points:

1) 2015 - 460 (greatest year of all)
2) 2016 - 405
3) 2007 - 387
4) 2018 - 371
5) 2006 - 369
6) 2005 - 363
7) 2004 - 360
8) 2017 - 342
9) 2003 - 337

2019 has just started.

It's easy for top players to accumulate GOAT points in a weak era.

Lew II · Feb 12, 2019

Sputnik Bulgorov said:
It's easy for top players to accumulate GOAT points in a weak era.

Do you have any objective criteria to determine level of years, like the one I posted?

Sputnik Bulgorov · Feb 12, 2019

Lew II said:
Do you have any objective criteria to determine level of years, like the one I posted?

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-won-by-top-2-10-11-20-from-2009-2015.632444/

junior74 · Feb 12, 2019

Lew II said:
Basing on this: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/goat-points-by-year.634341/

top5 + top10 points:

1) 2015 - 460 (greatest year of all)
2) 2016 - 405
3) 2007 - 387
4) 2018 - 371
5) 2006 - 369
6) 2005 - 363
7) 2004 - 360
8) 2017 - 342
9) 2003 - 337

2019 has just started.

2011 was a poor year for top tennis?
And 2016 was second greatest?

As a spectator of tennis, I would say the opposite was true.

Lew II · Feb 13, 2019

Sputnik Bulgorov said:
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-won-by-top-2-10-11-20-from-2009-2015.632444/

ATP points of top players is a good method, which sees 2011-16 on top with 2009 (exactly like the method I posted above), but excluding the no.1 has no sense, for the reasons I told you in the topic.

Lew II · Feb 13, 2019

junior74 said:
2011 was a poor year for top tennis?
And 2016 was second greatest?

As a spectator of tennis, I would say the opposite was true.

I was listing only the years I was talking about with Sputnik (2003-07 and 2015-18).

This are all years since 2003 ranked (top5 + top10 points):

2015 - 460
2012 - 456
2011 - 439
2009 - 424
2013 - 422
2014 - 406
2016 - 405
2008 / 2010- 396
2007 - 387
2018 - 371
2006 - 369
2005 - 363
2004 - 360
2017 - 342
2003 - 337

MichaelNadal · Feb 13, 2019

Firstservingman said:
Lol, OP makes a nice, good-spirited thread, and it goes to sh*t in no time.

Fed fans, I love you, but shut tf up

Exactly, all im referencing is how great they all are and that the cool thing about tennis is never say never. I don't think Fed gets enough credit for how epic his comeback was. Venus made 3 epic finals (2 slams and wtf) but couldn't convert. Respect

RS · Feb 13, 2019

Sputnik Bulgorov said:
2003-2007, 2015-2019 are all weak. It's not mutually exclusive. Federer was almost 33 when Wimbledon 2014 happened. Djokovic isn't even 32. Let's not forget Djokovic's losses to Chung, Wawrinka, Querrey, Checcinato at 30-31 and Nadal's losses to Muller, Pouille, Del Potro and Verdasco at 30-31. They also have an easier time making it to slam finals precisely because the era is so weak.

2007 was very strong year. It is amazing the amount of people calling it weak.

abmk · Feb 13, 2019

Sputnik Bulgorov said:
2003-2007, 2015-2019 are all weak. It's not mutually exclusive. Federer was almost 33 when Wimbledon 2014 happened. Djokovic isn't even 32. Let's not forget Djokovic's losses to Chung, Wawrinka, Querrey, Checcinato at 30-31 and Nadal's losses to Muller, Pouille, Del Potro and Verdasco at 30-31. They also have an easier time making it to slam finals precisely because the era is so weak.

2004, 05, 07 were hardly weak.
03 wasn't either.
only 06 was relatively weak - on par with 15. .....06 had Nadal cutting off clay and excellent depth, but not very top heavy as opposed to 15 having a consistent Murray, Fed,Stan -- but with Murray's top level not being high, Fed not able to sustain it for long in slam matches and Stan being inconsistent outside of slams.

16-current is clearly weaker than anything we've had from 2003-15.

Julian Houston · Feb 13, 2019

tennisaddict said:
The weak era was provided to Djokovic. He failed to benefit from that. Djoker, being 6 years younger at age 29, had the advantage over Fed at 35.

In effect, if Fed had 4 years of so called weak era, Novak has 6 and in spite of that is a full 5 majors short.

Novak had 10 yrs to be fair, to Federer's 4 yrs.

2011-2020 weak era.

He had himself to blame losing to Wawrinka and Chung.

Sputnik Bulgorov · Feb 13, 2019

Lew II said:
ATP points of top players is a good method, which sees 2011-16 on top with 2009 (exactly like the method I posted above), but excluding the no.1 has no sense, for the reasons I told you in the topic.

You know my reasons for excluding no. 1. Based on this, it's my opinion that 2015 onwards shouldn't be lumped in with 2011-2014. Let's agree to disagree.

Red Rick · Feb 13, 2019

Julian Houston said:
Novak had 10 yrs to be fair, to Federer's 4 yrs.

2011-2020 weak era.

He had himself to blame losing to Wawrinka and Chung.

2011-2013 were the strongest years lol.

Imagine if Federer retired after 2015.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Professional

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Professional

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Semi-Pro

Professional

Bionic Poster

Similar threads