Major finals at 25 = 14
You should also show how Djokaristas pull things out of their rear ends, like you are, when facts and stats prove them wrong.
Decline does not equal death. 8 Slams in 11 years is a decline compared to 11 Slams in 4 years. This should be understandable enough for even a kindergartener like you. Jojo.
I may not be making the point I want to make. Djokovic is without any doubt one of the greatest players we've ever seen. I'm not debating that. But because of the nature of present competition he's not facing anyone dangerous at this time who is on the level I believe he was on at his peak. I don't believe he is as good as he was when he was absolutely on top. You may disagree. But because of the nature of competition right now, there is no one who can stop him other than Nadal on clay, if Nadal stays healthy and gets more movement back. I'm not knocking Novak in any way. I'm just saying that right now he has no competition from younger players. I'm saying he is taking advantage of current weak competition.
Major finals at 25 = 14
Major finals at 26 = 8
Major finals at 27 = 9
There is a decline from 25 to 26/27.
Either way, we're talking about Federer's decline in 2008, which was in the 2000s. Let's look at the data for that decade, which is more relevant than the data from this decade.
In the 2000s:
Major finals at 22: 12
Major finals at 23: 12
Major finals at 24: 12
Major finals at 25: 9
Major finals at 26: 12
Major finals at 27: 7
Major finals at 28: 4
Federer was 26 in 2007 and declined in 2008, the year he turned 27. And as you can see from the data from the 2000s, there is a decline from 26 to 27. Case closed. Jojojojo!
No, they don't. You're kind of dumb, eh?
Djokovic won 11 Slams over a joke of a field in 2011-2016. In the strong era of 2004-2009, he won a grand total of 1 Slam. Like I said, I can play this circular argument game too! Jojojojojo
These are false figures. We're talking about Federer in 2008, which was in the 2000s, right? In the 2000s, here are the stats:
So 2004 was so strong that Djokovic couldn't even get on tour. Jojojojojo!
These are false figures. We're talking about Federer in 2008, which was in the 2000s, right? In the 2000s, here are the stats:
Finals up to the age of 26: 78
Finals past the age of 26: 22
As you can see, a vast decline in the numbers. Why are you considering 2010s stats for something that happened in the 2000s? Shouldn't you be considering 2000s stats for something that happened in the 2000s? Jojojojojojojo!
So 2004 was so strong that Djokovic couldn't even get on tour. Jojojojojo!
We were talking about Federer declining past the age of 26, which happened in 2008. 2008 was in the 2000s.
So, wait, Djokovic can be too young to be in his prime, but Federer can't be too old to be in his prime? Jojojojojojo
So, wait, Djokovic can be too young to be in his prime, but Federer can't be too old to be in his prime? Jojojojojojo
Is your butt sore from all the kicking it just got? Jojojojojo!This is ridiculous even for your standards.
Let's assume Federer's prime to be 2003 WTF - 2010 AO (a stretch of 25 Slams) and Djokovic's prime to be 2011 AO - 2016 FO (a stretch of 22 Slams). Note that I am actually being generous to Djokovic by considering a shorter window as favorable to him.
We were talking about Federer declining past the age of 26, which happened in 2008. 2008 was in the 2000s.
Careful, you might hurt your back moving all those goalposts
I wasn't even using the H2H argument to say Djokovic is better than Fedr. 20>15, and it's pretty clear cut at the moment
I would agree with that. You probably don't know anything about me. I was bored out of my mind during Fed's peak. It was Fed, Fed, Fed, and the only change was when Nadal won on clay.
Last 10 slam winners had an average age of 32 years and 8 months.Here are the stats for Tennis:
Looks like players, in general, do decline past the age of 25. Jojojojo
) should clearly attest to it, but too many are caught in the old-fed-is-peak-fed thinking. It's not as big as the Fedal matchup though, for sure. In the end we have a rock-paper-scissors balance, which adds to the spice
Old Federer solved Nadal's and Murray's puzzle though.Don't see Djole fans admit that often, nice of you. The way Federer constantly gave trouble to Djokovic despite the latter's nearly always better form since 2011 onwards (of course they didn't meet when Novak was busy playing tosh
People started reading and returning my serve better when I got older.
I see three winners over age 31. Where do get 4 from? I must have an error.
[/quote]
"Old Fed is peak Fed" is such a dumb assessment, even though Fedr always says "i'm better than ever" doesn't mean the stats bear it out. people saying he was better in 2015 than 2005, just to prop up djokovic, smh. Fed at 34 beat Nole 3 times, in straight sets, in 2015, and that says everything you need to know about Federer.Don't see Djole fans admit that often, nice of you. The way Federer constantly gave trouble to Djokovic despite the latter's nearly always better form since 2011 onwards (of course they didn't meet when Novak was busy playing tosh
Yes, they are.
Actually, Fed has been good in his 30's. It's just that he has had genuine younger competition to play against instead of Zverev, Tsitispas and co.
Fed had a losing H2H against the top 10 in 2008. Yet Nadal and Djokovic were responsible for his poor performances that year
What about Federer in 2015? The only one outside Djokovic to reach multiple slam finals and he was 34 years old...
He was just all over the place that year. He had decent-ish form in the slams and bizarrely during the clay season but outside of that, he was well below par. Not even a single hard court masters final and a RR loss at the YEC? Peak Fed, for sureFed had a losing H2H against the top 10 in 2008. Yet Nadal and Djokovic were responsible for his poor performances that year
Mind you, 2008 was the only year outside 2013,2016 and 2018 in which Fed had a losing record against the top 10. This tells you something
Which is irrelevant, because we're talking about 45 Slams ago when Federer first started declining.
Looks like either you don't know how a curve works, or you don't understand it. Federer got better from 22/23 until he was 24/25 and then started getting worse. The point is that he started to decline a little from the age of 25. Not that he declined from 22/23. The only one failing is your brain in understanding kindergarten math. Jojo!Since you are talking about Federer making Slam finals though let's have a look.
21- 1 final
22- 2 finals
23- 2 finals
24- 4 finals
25- 4 finals
26- 3 finals
27- 4 finals
28- 2 finals
29- 1 final
Well let's see. Federer made 3 more finals at 26 and 27 than he did at 22 and 23 but he supposedly had a massive physical decline after 25. Federista logic and excuses never fail to amaze. 21-24 = 9 grand slam finals. 26-29 = 10 grand slam finals. Fail. Jaja!
