And Federer had it easy in 2004-2005? His paths to his major titles were also as tough if not even tougher than Djokovic's in some respects. You can't have it both ways.
Sure, but he'd still have trouble winning on HC and only Wimb 2002 would be open. And I think Kuerten would be fairly difficult at RG in 2000 and 2001. But yeah, he'd do very well overall.
Obviously, transition gen was bad, but not worse than the Lost Gen on HC/grass, which is the point I was trying to make. So Federer still didn't have a generation as weak as the Lost Gen.
And besides, Federer was on the rise so he would have had an easier time adapting to the Transition Gen than Djokodal being in their 30's adapting to better younger opponents. Still, Agassi, while not from the preceding generation, was more than good enough to give Fed a challenge from a previous gen.
I did acknowledge it.
The thing is, I don't blame the Fed fans. After over a decade of weak era accusations from the Djokodal fans, it's only fair that they dish it back. Par for the course.
Well, Fed's win at AO 2017 also wasn't weak, so it's only really 2 slams for him, not 3. And if people excuse Nadal by choosing particular slams from that era that they view as strong, well, same thing can be done for Fed, but people never do it. All of his slams are thrown in the weak era dumpster by default.
Well, compare how many slams Federer won at 30-34 vs how many Djokodal have won.
You also have to take into account that it's far tougher for Federer at his age to inflate his resume the way Djokodal have. He is at a far bigger age disadvantage than Nadal in 2005-2007 and it's not even close.
Of course, Fed having to win by far the toughest slam out of all 3 of them at age 38 is also ridiculously unfair. Djokodal have won easier slams after easier slams, but Fed had to beat both at 38? I call BS on that.
In my book, they are tied in this department. This ain't 2013 anymore when it made more sense to make a case for them.