TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, @NatF's reductio ad absurdum earlier on pretty much kicked that dead horse up the arse.
To Fed fans who talk about weak opponents for Djokovic
- Thread starter Lew II
- Start date
NatF
Bionic Poster
From 25-38 isn't a sudden decline...
Again you have no idea about bio mechanics. Athletic abilities do decline as you age, what age that starts to happen is debatable but your notion of practice solving all is divorced from reallity.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Didn't read the thread OP, but let me guess: Lew suggested something stupid again?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Previously you've argued that weeks at #1 are just as important as YE #1, why now is YE #1 the measure of peak? Fed is the oldest number one to date after his stint in 2018 - not that I think that makes him peak then...
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
He was #1 just 25 weeks since june 2010.
NatF
Bionic Poster
What relevance does that have to what I said?
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
You talked about weeks to determine the peak. I told you that the peak of weeks at #1 for Federer was still in the 5 years timespan 2004-09.
JoelSandwich
Hall of Fame
It doesn’t matter how well you hit the ball if you can’t get to the ball
2012-2014 Djokovic was better than he is now he just faced significantly better competition than he did today
Any version of Djokovic at the AO from 2012-2014 would’ve beaten Thiem this year and a lot faster
And yeah Nadal lost to Murray and Tsonga playing some of the best tennis of their lives in those 2008 semis... Those weren’t bad losses really
That Nadal still needed great opponents to put him away and none of the next gen are capable of performances like that
2012-2014 Djokovic was better than he is now he just faced significantly better competition than he did today
Any version of Djokovic at the AO from 2012-2014 would’ve beaten Thiem this year and a lot faster
And yeah Nadal lost to Murray and Tsonga playing some of the best tennis of their lives in those 2008 semis... Those weren’t bad losses really
That Nadal still needed great opponents to put him away and none of the next gen are capable of performances like that
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
If doesn't matter how fast you can reach the ball if you can't hit the ball.
NatF
Bionic Poster
So? What does this have to do with you arguing for weeks at #1 in one thread and then in this one defaulting to years when it's convenient for you?
I don't think any of these guys are peak regardless of how they may inflate their weeks or years totals at #1...
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Years at #1 was just easier to check.
JoelSandwich
Hall of Fame
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic already won 11 slams at the age Federer declined LOL
NatF
Bionic Poster
Ok fair enough.
Fed in 2012 had more ranking points than the 2018/2019 YE #1, even slamless 2014 Fed had more ranking points than 2018 Djokovic...these things don't take place in a vaccum.
NatF
Bionic Poster
What age did I say Fed declined? I was repeating RF-18's mid 20's spiel, it should be obvious at the very least that at some point between 25 and 38 Federer declined.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
A 34yo cannot be peak while a player who was the same age of Zverev/Tsitsipas (like 2006-08 Nadal) was peak?
I hope Zverev/Tsitsipas have already reached their peak then. It would mean that they will not be a trouble for Djokovic.
LOL you never stop digging. Weakest era confirmed again. To think those are the best players younger than Djokovic that didn’t get crippled 2 years into their career (JMDP)
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
You can always improve. Sure you lose stuff but you weigh that out with adding things to your game.
But you are talking about a 25 year old Federer suddenly just ending his peak. It's very convenient also that it did in a period when he started winning less and getting beaten more. Very convenient. Nothing to do with protecting his invincibilty.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Federer's peak didn't end at 25. Now you're just making stuff up.
You can't weigh everything out, though. Djokodsl don't have this problem because the younger ones are inept.
Jaitock1991
Hall of Fame
Prove it with stats(such as average height of top 10, number of GS champions etc) or that's just anecdotal opinion.
Enga
Hall of Fame
It's pretty amazing that the Big 3 still maintain their advantage at the top of the game. It is a testament to their skills. Though I think part of their continued domination comes from them all still being around. If one of them retired, the other 2 would become more vulnerable. And to say they're better than ever is a bit disingenuous. Most of these younger guys have only managed to play the Big 3 a few times. They haven't really figured out the matchup.
They compete among themselves a lot too. The opponents are somewhat strong, I think strong enough to beat Djokovic and the others, but having to beat 2 or 3 of them in one tournament is probably too much to ask. When it comes down to the thinnest margins, it makes a difference.
Thiem had to beat Nadal to face Djokovic, 2 players he has only faced a handful of times. Djokovic had to beat Federer to face Thiem, someone he has faced 50 times. I think it's pretty clear that inexperience, being in the final against Djokovic for the first time at the AO costed him. He lost only by the smallest of margins.
I believe Thiem is already better than Djokovic and the Big 3, but he hasn't had the time to develop good strategies for facing them. He has speed, he has power, he has youth. But he believes he needs to take "risks", as he mentioned in an interview before the match. I don't agree. I think it's Djokovic who has to take risks, not Thiem. I believe Thiem is the stronger player. So yeah, it comes down to strategy, but Thiem just doesn't have the confidence yet to play freely. I think with more repetitions he will have the matchup in the bag.
They compete among themselves a lot too. The opponents are somewhat strong, I think strong enough to beat Djokovic and the others, but having to beat 2 or 3 of them in one tournament is probably too much to ask. When it comes down to the thinnest margins, it makes a difference.
Thiem had to beat Nadal to face Djokovic, 2 players he has only faced a handful of times. Djokovic had to beat Federer to face Thiem, someone he has faced 50 times. I think it's pretty clear that inexperience, being in the final against Djokovic for the first time at the AO costed him. He lost only by the smallest of margins.
I believe Thiem is already better than Djokovic and the Big 3, but he hasn't had the time to develop good strategies for facing them. He has speed, he has power, he has youth. But he believes he needs to take "risks", as he mentioned in an interview before the match. I don't agree. I think it's Djokovic who has to take risks, not Thiem. I believe Thiem is the stronger player. So yeah, it comes down to strategy, but Thiem just doesn't have the confidence yet to play freely. I think with more repetitions he will have the matchup in the bag.
Last edited:
vex
Legend
Uh no I'm not. That **** used to be repeated ALL THE TIME. Just because you might not have said it doesn’t mean it wasn’t a thing.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
When you have been at the top of the game for so long, it doesn't matter who you are, whether you are Djokovic, Nadal, Federer or even Sampras, you are going to go through different periods of competition. Nobody has it brutally difficult the entire time, and nobody has it super easy the entire time either. Players sometimes who may not be big names can play out of their skin and put in performances that rival those of the ATGs. Djokovic has had plenty of tough competitors that have given him hell and pushed him to the brink, and he has pushed back many times....only when you are beaten doesn't mean you have tough competition.
vex
Legend
Well I’m glad you guys are no longer claiming that Fed declined so early.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
Which young great broke through in the last 10 years?
Hitman
Bionic Poster
You do know that when Djokovic came onto the season, he had peak Federer dominating the game with an iron fist, and Nadal was about to start his Godly dominance on the clay. He was thrown to the wolves from day one as a young upstart, and then also had decent players like Hewitt, Davydenko, Safin, Roddick around, plus his own class of players such as Murray, Tsonga, Wawrinka, Berdych etc. He had probably the toughest start of any of the all time greats, it has been only recently in relative to his career that the competition dropped a level...however the younger guys are making their move and getting closer and closer. Thiem is 2-2 against him in slams, Medvedev has caused him all kinds of problems. People think Djokovic has had it easy, far from it.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
Which great young player broke through in the last 10 years? Which other sport failed to produce a star in the past 10 years?
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Not at the AO he wouldn't. But that's pretty much all he would win.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Before I answer your question, explain to me how you think your question challenges the point that I made that all the ATG have had to deal with periods of both intense competition and periods where there hasn't been any? Almost the entire first decade of his career, not only did he deal with peak Federer, but had to deal with the entire prime-peak career of Nadal, plus others. Yes, the competition has dropped in recent years, I am not denying that, what I am saying is that it is painted out that Djokovic has had any easy time a lot of his career by many, and that is not true.
Now, as for answering your question, after I made my point above, right now no one new has been established as an ATG, that doesn't mean that the competition is crippled. Players likes Tsitsipas, Shapovalov, are only now getting started. Remember, Federer didn't become a world beater until he was 22, Djokovic didn't become the legend he is until he was 23. Everyone is different.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
tiny peak of 4 years lol, didn't think @vex would stoop to such skullduggery. Next would be a tiny prime of 6 years I guess, sure as Djokovic keeps winning that automatically means he must be at peak/prime level because. A peak of 4 straight years is very long and a prime of 6 years is average, Djokovic's own was shorter/same (0,75+1,5 and 6).
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
So you agree that there has been no great player to break through in the past 10 years. This is an unprecedented void in sport, not just tennis.
The inflation era has benefited all of the big 3, but Nole the most since he’s the youngest and broke through the latest.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
And after reading your hilarious post, they might wanna do the same to you...
mike danny
Bionic Poster
You think he is losing a Wimb final to Anderson or a USO final to Delpo?
Hitman
Bionic Poster
I agree that we don't have an established ATG at the moment.
If the inflation era benefited Nole the most, then understand he also had the tougher start to his career dealing with the peaks of Federer, Nadal and a whole range of great players that were there at the time. So it is swings and roundabouts.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
Federer had 1 peak year before Nadal arrived on the scene, Nole arrived 2 years later. Both Nadal and Djokovic benefited heavily from the fact that no real challenger has emerged more than a decade later. Nadal is my slightly preferred player of the 3, but I can acknowledge that his accomplishments are overvalued in the later years. Apparently self awareness is too much to ask for.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Federer still had a period of tennis where there wasn't super ATG at their peaks roaming around. He came when Sampras was ending his time at the top and Agassi was really the only one with at the tail end of his. If he didn't do anything during that time, that is on him, and this comes to the saying that everyone peaks differently. Regardless, he had several years where the players were not levels above, the way Djokovic had to deal with players being levels above him when he first came. And as I said, Djokovic had to deal with prime Roddick, Safin, in form Hewitt was still around, plus Nalbandian, then his bunch including Tsonga, Berdych, Murray etc. Novak had the toughest introduction into the tennis world than the other two ATG IMO, and it comes from the fact he was indeed younger as you said. And it is credit to Novak that he started to become a force so quickly, meaning at such a young age, he was already beating peak forms of Federer and Nadal.
Now, while I do agree that the challengers are few and far between, it is still fair to say that they all benefited at different times.
vex
Legend
K.
Djokovic has been in his prime since mid/late 2010 and he’s just now showing signs of fading out of it now.
Last edited:
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
What younger ones? Wich younger ones did Fed have?
Federer isn't 15 years older than Novak and Rafa, it's roughly a 5 year difference. This is also something that has been blown out of proportion with age difference like Federer is their granddad or something.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
LOL
such prime in 2017
such prime in 2018 outside WB+USO+Shanghai
Such prime in 2019 after AO
LOL at the idea of prime Djokovic getting pwned by Zverev at the YEC
LOL at the idea of prime Djokovic not even reaching QF at the Sunshine Double
LOL at prime Djokovic not creating a single BP on old bones serve for 3.5 sets
LOL at prime Djokovic playing two subpar sets in big matches in four consecutive GS events and counting
etc.
Laaaaaaaaaaaewwwwwwwwwwwwl. Honestly your dullusion is becoming disgusting.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Does he beat Nadal in SF to get to the final? Nadal was playing at another level, probably his best level on grass.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
6 years is a big difference when 2 guys are ATG. But, of course, in the era of inept younger players, it doesn't seem that much to you.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
You can't prove he wouldn't. 2018 Nadal wasn't invincible.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
Three posts in a row of boring cope. Of course Novak initially faced strong comp. Try defending any of the actual claims in question throughout this thread
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
It's not 6 years exactly.
It's not that much. But good job convincing people through the years that it's such a astronomical difference.
Federer has been competing with Rafa and Novak almost his whole career, except for a few years in the beginning. Federer met Nadal already in early 2004 for the first time. He met Djokovic in 2006. They have played in the same era. But sure, Fed is like their granddad age wise.
vex
Legend
Well
Considering you’re viewed as a joke on these forums, I welcome your opinion! Notice how most posters don’t even bother responding to you?
you also seem to be struggling with the distinction between peak and prime.
Last edited:
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Heh. Djoker's played unremarkable tennis for about 3 and a half years now but for a handful of standout performances. But yeah, he's still peak so ageing is overstated and Fed is sucks.
vex
Legend
Similar threads
