It is flawed.
You can’t only be old to one person and not old to the others. Age excuse always comes up when losing to Djokovic but never seems to matter when winning against Nadal and Murray in the last decade. Hypocrisy!Baby Nadal - the matchup, Baby Murray- Fed disinterested, not motivated enough.. You see everything can be explained in the Fed cult la la land.
CBA to have this discussion again to busy enjoying this thread.
Nope, not all. Federer was perfectly fine aged merely 29. Without facing Nadal and/or Djokovic, Federer would have won 3 Slams in a row aged 29 (USO 2010, USO 2011 and RG 2011). Clearly, the problem wasn't his age. 29 years old Federer would have destroyed Philippoussis, Hewitt or Baghdatis. His problem was the opposition. Nadal and Djokovic had a higher peak than Federer, and that explains Federer's losses to them aged 29. And 28. And 27. And 26. And so on.Yeah, all the big 3 declined at 29, but people still insist it's a peak age for a tennis player
Rate Nadal slam final wins out of 10 in terms of his level.
29 year old Djokovic lost to Querrey and Istomin at slams.
Djokovic’s 2011 >>>> anything that Federer has displayed in his entire career. Unfortunately, Federer can only dream of beating a prime Nadal in 7 finals in a row across three different surfaces.
How would you compare 2004 and 2005 and 2007 to 2011 strength wise?
You didn't address the flaw that an argument about beating players of high rank doesn't dispel the claim that it's a weak era. That's a fatal flaw.
prime prime peak meh all wins are legit.
It’s possible for any of them that’s why millions debate it.
2015 Nadal ended no.5 in 2015, but people still bring up Ljubicic who was better than 2015 Nadal at least
True, just like Djokovic could only dream of being undefeated vs Stan off clay
How did Nadal play in 2015 compared to his usual standard?Top 5:
2015- Djokovic, Federer, Murray, Wawrinka, Nadal
2006- Federer, Baby Nadal, Ljubicic, Robredo, Bobinagis
LOL
Edit: How can anyone say 2015 is weak with the Big 5 all finish in the YE Top 5, is really beyond me.
I see Agassi as a great, but not an all time great. I would say the top 10 greatest players of all time are ATGs, and I don't see Agassi in the top 10.
His results kind of point out to it ending after that.
Circular logic
I mean, Fed did have a prime-ish (but not prime) stretch from 2011 USO until 2012 Cincy, but that doesn't mean he was in his prime.
Which is why I said prime-ish.
Do you think he would have won against a more experienced slam winner/finalist? He won only because Zverev choked when the moment presented itself. Against a more experienced player, Thiem would have surely lost. If and when Thiem plays his next slam final, he’ll be much more composed and ready to play his best in the Big moments. I’m so sure of that.
Grandpa Fed.
Which is exactly my point. In his 4th slam final Thiem played like he had never reached one before.
Fed wasn't too old.
Well, there's also the fact that 2012 Fed shouldn't have even been in the RG semis. Lucked out with Delpo's injury.
