Vote in poll.Of course
Really?Well, Federer won 16 Slams without facing the true younger ATG or the ATG from his own generation.
I have voted even. But I believe that the weaker overall shall win the poll.About equal really.
Only delusional people will say tougher after the last 5 years.
And, of course, the usual suspects vote stronger overall
Nah, not after the last 5 years.Slightly tougher to me.
No I meant Federer had it slightly tougher forgot to edit.Nah, not after the last 5 years.
About equal really.
Only delusional people will say tougher after the last 5 years.
And, of course, the usual suspects vote stronger overall
And that's not even including 2010 for Nadal among others.I was going to say something like "if you exclude 2016-2020 then maybe"
You are a objective Djokovic fan. It’s fine to pick Djokovic and Nadal but sure thing it is not a big difference which ever way you turn.I have voted even. But I believe that the weaker overall shall win the poll.
I just read the bolded part. Half of Nadal's Slams were weak.Normally the guys you grow up with face the same challenges as well as advantages as you do, so if you are more talented you will win.
How many times did Agassi stop Pete from winning Wimbledon or the US open ? How many times could Nadal stop Djokovic from wining the Aus open? How many times could Djokovic stop Nadal from winning the French Open ?
All this is either 0 or 1 time... negligible.
So there is no way that Safin/Roddick could have stopped Federer more than on 1 occasion at max. even if they were a bit more talented.
Main challenge comes from people who are 5-6 years below you.
In this common sense says that Federer has 2 ATGs who were 5-6 years below him and 1 of those ATGs happened to be a teenage prodigy which means he faced him at a high level earlier than required on Clay, that ruined his clay chances too.
In the case of Nadal-Djokvic they have Thiem-Dimitrov below them at 5-6 years younger.
That tells us that Novak had it the easiest.
I just read the bolded part. Half of Nadal's Slams were weak.
Why?Of course.
They had each other as competition as well.1970-1974
- Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Bruguera & Kafelnikov
1975-1979
- Kuerten, Moya, Rios, Blake, Haas, Costa & Gaudio
1980-1984
- Federer, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Ferrero & Nalbandian
1985-1989
- Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic, Berdych, Tsonga & Nishikori
1990-1994
- Thiem, Raonic, Dimitrov, Goffin, Sock, Pablo Carreño Busta
1995-1999
- Kyrgios, Medvedev, Zverev, Stefanos, Shapovalov, Rublev, De Minaur & Berretinni
2000-2004
- Felix, Sinner, Carlos Alcaraz
Generation responsible for weak era in Tennis 2016-2020
Who? Djokodal? Please let's not get into that, we've seen the effect of them having each other in the last 5 years.They had each other as competition as well.
They have stopped each other winning slams so yes it still counts.Who? Djokodal? Please let's not get into that, we've seen the effect of them having each other in the last 5 years.
Doesn't make it less of a vacuum.They have stopped each other winning slams so yes it still counts.
I was including Federer in that too.
It would be worst without them so.....Doesn't make it less of a vacuum.
It's still bad even with them. Just that instead of them trashing a Next Genner, they trash each other.It would be worst without them so.....
Not saying it was the best period ever but the post was a bit harsh.It's still bad even with them. Just that instead of them trashing a Next Genner, they trash each other.
Big improvement, I'll say....
They had each other as competition as well.
I mean you could say it's subjective but statistically speaking Fed had in essence faced:
Hewitt (former #1, 2 time champ)
Safin (same as above)
Roddick (former #1, 1 slam but 4 finals)
Nadal & Djokovic (ATG 5 & 6 years younger, hitting stride 2008 onwards)
Wawrinka, Del Potro, Murray, Cilic as also rans
With Nadal or Novak you essentially have the following downgrades:
Lesser ATG for the time (Fed 4 slams after 2010 AO)
Less 3 former #1s (still in prime) with Slam titles
So I don't know how you legitimately argue for Rafa/Nole. Even if you're putting Thiem in there he only won a Slam literally by default when guys are 33 & 34 (Fed turned 34 after 2015 Wimbledon).
Nadal does not really come into the picture as his totals are largely clay based for the most part where there is no competition for him.
I can understand Fed fans argument that it is better to have weak eras when you are older than when you are at your peak.
At the end of the day it is nitpicking. Both Fed and Djokovic have won against very tough players all through their career.
Nadal has had 2010, 2013 USO and 2017-present.Before 2016 you could probably say yes. Now the last five years have closed the gap and, in my opinion, reversed it.
Very objective.Nadal does not really come into the picture as his totals are largely clay based for the most part where there is no competition for him.
I can understand Fed fans argument that it is better to have weak eras when you are older than when you are at your peak.
At the end of the day it is nitpicking. Both Fed and Djokovic have won against very tough players all through their career.
You have to be out of your mind to lump in 14-15 with 17-present . People also always forget to mention that Federer should've had looks to win slams in 00-02 but just developed later than Nadovic and of course had the weakest hard/grass generation ever (yes including Lost Gen) as the Gen that proceeded him. No one says that these last few years haven't been weak but the slam count from 17-present is Djokovic-5 Nadal-6 Federer-3. So it's only a 2-3 slam gap in this weaker era. I think it's still safe to say Nadovic have had it harder. The degree to which that's still true is up for debate but I think it's borderline impossible to make a good case for Fed having it tougher.Nadal has had 2010, 2013 USO and 2017-present.
Djokovic has had 2014-present.
People really need to be out of their minds to still cling on to 2003-2007.
Not doing that. Just pointing out that Djokovic had it pretty easy in 2014 and 2015 too, even if those 2 years were better than 2016-present.You have to be out of your mind to lump in 14-15 with 17-present .
Only 2002 was a lost year for Federer. In 2001 his draws at Wimb and USO were incredibly difficult and young Djokodal wouldn't have done any better in his place in that scenario.People also always forget to mention that Federer should've had looks to win slams in 00-02 but just developed later than Nadovic
We've been through this. Collectively, the 1975-1979 generation achieved more on HC/grass than the 1989-1995 generation. So, not the weakest ever.and of course had the weakest hard/grass generation ever (yes including Lost Gen) as the Gen that proceeded him.
Nadal also won slams in 2005-2007, but people don't assign these years to him.No one says that these last few years haven't been weak but the slam count from 17-present is Djokovic-5 Nadal-6 Federer-3. So it's only a 2-3 slam gap in this weaker era.
It's not safe to say, that's the point. And I also think it's borderline impossible to make a case for Djokodal after what has happened in the last 5 years, not even including their other weaker years.I think it's still safe to say Nadovic have had it harder. The degree to which that's still true is up for debate but I think it's borderline impossible to make a good case for Fed having it tougher.
EwI think Fedal, Murray, Wawrinka, Thiem, and Tsitsipas are stronger than Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and Baghdatis, but hey blow me away with your truth.
Thiem is stronger than Safin because he shows up more consistently, and Tsitsipas is def. stronger than Baggy
Federer faced those guys well so this is just letting Federer your dislike probably because he passed Sampras get to you.I think Fedal, Murray, Wawrinka, Thiem, and Tsitsipas are stronger than Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and Baghdatis, but hey blow me away with your truth.
He already won 12 majors by the time Nadal matured off of clay though, and was at 16 by the time Nole entered his prime. Djokodal both had to fight through him (and each other) to get to where they are.Federer faced those guys well so this is just letting Federer dislike get to you.
Djokovic won lots of slams when Federer can be said to have declined as well so it’s a double sword and Nadal many of them on the weakest surface on the other two so it is a double sword.He already won 12 majors by the time Nadal matured off of clay though, and was at 16 by the time Nole entered his prime. Djokodal both had to fight through him (and each other) to get to where they are.
Djokovic had it easy in 14/15? Really? Wawrinka at AO? Nadal at RG? Tsonga/Cilic/Dimi/Fed at W? USO was easy but he lost. Murray/Wawrinka at AO? Nadal(Bad as he was)/Murray/Wawa at RG? Fed at W/USO? That's easy? I'm sorry but calling that easy is trolling. That's nothing like the last couple years.Not doing that. Just pointing out that Djokovic had it pretty easy in 2014 and 2015 too, even if those 2 years were better than 2016-present.
Only 2002 was a lost year for Federer. In 2001 his draws at Wimb and USO were incredibly difficult and young Djokodal wouldn't have done any better in his place in that scenario.
Djokovic also didn't blossom at 19 and underperformed in 2009 and 2010 when he was 22-23. Fed at those ages won majors, Djokovic didn't.
We've been through this. Collectively, the 1975-1979 generation achieved more on HC/grass than the 1989-1995 generation. So, not the weakest ever.
Nadal also won slams in 2005-2007, but people don't assign these years to him.
Obviously, Djokodal have won more in the last 5 years since they are a generation younger than Fed. But you also omit how much Fed missed out on in his 30's because of tougher competition than Djokodal.
It's not safe to say, that's the point. And I also think it's borderline impossible to make a case for Djokodal after what has happened in the last 5 years, not even including their other weaker years.
You have to be out of your mind to lump in 14-15 with 17-present . People also always forget to mention that Federer should've had looks to win slams in 00-02 but just developed later than Nadovic and of course had the weakest hard/grass generation ever (yes including Lost Gen) as the Gen that proceeded him. No one says that these last few years haven't been weak but the slam count from 17-present is Djokovic-5 Nadal-6 Federer-3. So it's only a 2-3 slam gap in this weaker era. I think it's still safe to say Nadovic have had it harder. The degree to which that's still true is up for debate but I think it's borderline impossible to make a good case for Fed having it tougher.