NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
I refer you to my friend @alexio’s post , he has provided the stats.It was your claim, so you need to provide them. You have stated them to the single number. Where do you know that from?
Federer 11-1 in Wimbledon finals without Djokovic?
- Thread starter Lew II
- Start date
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Thanks for those stats, so first 4 sets Federer had a better win - ufe ratio overall and in 3/4 sets. No idea what that guy’s point was then
You said that Federer was better "for the first 4 sets".
Now, you may want to look again at those numbers.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
And he was in almost every stat. I have no idea what you’re talking about? I suspect you’re trolling or think you’re being clever.You said that Federer was better "for the first 4 sets".
Now, you may want to look again at those numbers.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
And he was in almost every stat. I have no idea what you’re talking about? I suspect you’re trolling or think you’re being clever.
The numbers provided by Alexio say something else and exactly about the stat you brought up.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
set1 18-20 vs 12-9(djo)..set2 9-5 vs 2-12 set3 13-12 vs 8-11 set4 14-10 vs 9-9The numbers provided by Alexio say something else and exactly about the stat you brought up.
Set 1 edge to Djokovic - wins in tiebreak
Set 2 huge margin to Federer, easy win with breaks
Set 3 - edge to Federer but loses tiebreak
Set 4 - clear edge to Federer wins set
So 3/4 sets where Fed was statistically the better player in terms of points won and winners, and 1 set to Djokovic. Proves my point perfectly, thanks
I can name theme by one, no problem:
Nastase, born 46
Connors born 52
Connors
Tanner born 51
McEnroe born 59
For Sampras
Courier born 70
Ivanisevic 71
Becker 67
Pioline 69
Ivanisevic 71
Agassi70
Rafter 72
You are so disingenuous, it's pathetic.
Speaking of Connors, how many of his slams are devalued because of his slam opponents? None. Exactly. You need to find a new hobby.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
set1 18-20 vs 12-9(djo)..set2 9-5 vs 2-12 set3 13-12 vs 8-11 set4 14-10 vs 9-9
Set 1 edge to Djokovic - wins in tiebreak
Set 2 huge margin to Federer, easy win with breaks
Set 3 - edge to Federer but loses tiebreak
Set 4 - clear edge to Federer wins set
So 3/4 sets where Fed was statistically the better player in terms of points won and winners, and 1 set to Djokovic. Proves my point perfectly, thanks
Did you forgot how you told me that Federer was dominant in the first 4 sets?
Here:
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
So the weak era is present all around.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Actually this is what I said:Did you forgot how you told me that Federer was dominant in the first 4 sets?
Can’t use age excuse when he has match points and has dominated the most of the match
Key word here being “most”. 3/4 qualifies as most of the match by definition.
Try again bud
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Actually this is what I said:
Can’t use age excuse when he has match points and has dominated the most of the match
Key word here being “most”. 3/4 qualifies as most of the match by definition.
Try again bud
No, I quoted you above.
You have no excuse for lying.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
My original quote refers to “most” of the match. IE when I say dominated the first 4 sets, it’s implied I am following my original stance that he dominated “most” of them. Your problem if you misinterpret my wordsNo, I quoted you above.
You have no excuse for lying.
If Fed had any balls he would’ve won the match in 4 but he lost every clutch moment in the first 4 sets, then once again in the final set after breaking back
What is the matter, you don't like what you see?
I'm loving what I'm seeing. The fact that you can't answer the question proves how futile and pathetic your attempts to devalue a slam are.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
My original quote refers to “most” of the match. IE when I say dominated the first 4 sets, it’s implied I am following my original stance that he dominated “most” of them. Your problem if you misinterpret my words
If Fed had any balls he would’ve won the match in 4 but he lost every clutch moment in the first 4 sets, then once again in the final set after breaking back
It is as clear as day. I quoted you. You offered two different versions.
I don't "misinterpret" anything. Next time try not to lie (and watch the match).
Tennis_Hands
Banned
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Where exactly have I "devalued a slam"?
Quote me.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Also “dominated first 4 sets” can be open to interpretation. It can mean he dominated each of the 4 sets of the 4 sets overall.No, I quoted you above.
You have no excuse for lying.
When did I lie? Please provide quotes, thanks.It is as clear as day. I quoted you. You offered two different versions.
I don't "misinterpret" anything. Next time try not to lie (and watch the match).
My original post is my view on the match. Federer dominated the first 4 sets overall, you tried to be pedantic to win a random argument but ended up looking like a fool
Tennis_Hands
Banned
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Yes it can. I meant it to say he dominated the match in the first 4 sets. If you’re too stupid or pedantic to understand the point then that’s your problem.No, it can't. You are not very good at lying.
Haven’t lied so again you’re talking garbage bud.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Where exactly have I "devalued a slam"?
Quote me.
Don't be dumb. This entire exchange occurred because you called it a "weak era" due to the age of the slam opponents.
At no point at any time in the history of tennis has the age of an opponent been used in consideration for the "strength" of a slam (as seen with the Connors example you continue to dodge). But for some reason you think you can make the age argument stick now. It's futile and pathetic.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Yes it can. I meant it to say he dominated the match in the first 4 sets. If you’re too stupid or pedantic to understand the point then that’s your problem.
Haven’t lied so again you’re talking garbage bud.
So, you still haven't looked at the stats alexio provided?
Tennis_Hands
Banned
There is no "slam devaluation" in the statement that younger ATGs generally beat older ATGs, what are you smoking? It is a fact from the tennis history, including in the cases of the players you yourself picked.
You thought that you can get a free pass. Not here.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I am. I never group guys like Murray with guys like Ferrer LOL like you did with Roddick and Phillippoussis.If am not different to any fed hater then How are you different than any Djokovic hater then ?
The moment you are shown the same mirror you are showing to Djoker fanbase day in day out ,you call others hater lol
Atleast be consistent .
At the same time someone like Murray is elevated to ATG status and slams won against him are considered strong while slams won vs Hewitt/Roddick are considered weak like you just did.
Well, can't blame non-Djokodal fans for getting frustrated at Djokodal winning everything even deep into their 30's.
The truth is Thiem and Medvedev are extremely easy opponents to have in your 30's compared to having Djokovic. If you think that is disrespect, then I'm sorry. That's the cold hard truth.
Never once said that, you're just projecting.
Sad that you can't admit Djoker has had it easy at his pet slam in his 30's, so you have to pull off opponents from Fed's best years when it didn't matter as much anyway. It's sad that you can't see the difference between being in your best years and being in your 30's.
The Fed hate is through the roof anyway, so don't see why you're complaining. This thread was started as a mean to denigrate Fed and prop up Djokovic, yet you're complaining about other fanbases. Rich.
Last edited:
There is no "slam devaluation" in the statement that younger ATGs generally beat older ATGs, what are you smoking? It is a fact from the tennis history, including in the cases of the players you yourself picked.
You thought that you can get a free pass. Not here.
You called it a "weak era." Maybe you are unfamiliar with the words you are using, but in most English-speaking countries, "weak" is devaluation.
When nobody stopped Ken Rosewall from winning a slam at 38, who called it a weak era? No one. But when an older winner wins today, it's weak? Why? Because you say so? Under who's authority? Certainly no one's but your own.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
OK so you can’t read, as well as being a pedantic troll. Pointless carrying on with you.So, you still haven't looked at the stats alexio provided?
Well done on owning yourself bud
Tennis_Hands
Banned
OK so you can’t read, as well as being a pedantic troll. Pointless carrying on with you.
Well done on owning yourself bud
Come back when you have watched the match and know what you are talking about.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Weak era refers to the level of competition. It doesn't "devalue a slam".
The understanding that not all competitions provide a similar strength is a universal one, so there is no language barrier to be overcome.
Ken didn't dominate the field as great as he was, so your example is irrelevant. BTW, at the time that happened the competition was getting a sort of weak too. Thank God that first Connors and then Borg saved the day.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Come back when you learn how to readCome back when you have watched the match and know what you are talking about.
Weak era refers to the level of competition. It doesn't "devalue a slam".
The understanding that not all competitions provide a similar strength is a universal one, so there is no language barrier to be overcome.
Ken didn't dominate the field as great as he was, so your example is irrelevant. BTW, at the time that happened the competition was getting a sort of weak too. Thank God that first Connors and then Borg saved the day.
The slam involves the competitors. If you devalue the competition, you're devaluing the slam. You can't separate the two.
And whether Ken "dominated" is irrelevant. What does that have to do with anything? An older winner won, just like today....and no one considered it weak.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
They'll never admit it, man. They'll just refer to 2003-2007 because that's all they're capable of doing.
Did you express the same level of distraught when Federer did it? No? OK then.
duaneeo
Legend
When exactly did Federer do it?
P
PETEhammer
Guest
Nole had/has to play Fedal (and Murray/Wawa in the past) to win his trophies as part of his "current Gen". Federer's "current gen" included Roddick, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, and Hewitt. Mighty obstacles to his path to 12 majors from 03-07 indeed.
Yeah I would keep the competition argument quiet if I were you.
When did Federer win a slam 13+ years after he won his first one? Um.....2017?
duaneeo
Legend
Lets compare.
Federer:
NextGen Nadal slowed Federer's Wimbledon run in 2008...5 years after Roger's first Wim.
NextGen DelPotro stopped Federer's USO run in 2009...5 years after Roger's first USO.
NextGen Djokovic slowed Federer's AO run in 2008...4 years after Roger's first AO.
NextGen Nadal slowed Federer's RG run in 2005...4 years before Roger's first RG.
Djokovic:
13 years after Djokovic won his first AO, we're still waiting for a NextGen to slow his run.
9 years after Djokovic won his first Wimbledon, ditto.
9 years after Djokovic won his first USO, ditto.
Hey, we got one: NextGen Thiem slowed Djokovic's RG run in 2017...1 year after Nole's first RG.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
So, what you are saying is that all competitions in all Majors (slam is something else, btw, since you are hellbent on respecting "the slams") have been the same?
It is not "irrelevant" as one Major can be an exception. A whole era of Majors won by oldies is something else. Whether someone considered it weak or not .... apparently some do, and more and more will do in the future.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
The assumption here is that Fed, without Joker, would have won everything he lost to Joker by evading him. But this also assumes that changing one factor changes nothing else. That's the flaw.
So, what you are saying is that all competitions in all Majors (slam is something else, btw, since you are hellbent on respecting "the slams") have been the same?
It is not "irrelevant" as one Major can be an exception. A whole era of Majors won by oldies is something else. Whether someone considered it weak or not .... apparently some do, and more and more will do in the future.
No. Not all competition is not the same. It obviously varies from slam to slam.
And if you're going to classify an era as weak, then you can be even more specific and classify the slams that made up the era as weak. Because that's where it starts; you can't have a weak era without weak slams. And since no one called that one weak, it's hypocritical to just start classifying slams/eras as weak just because the same thing happened, but with a player you don't like.
And more to the point: competition is not defined by age. It's defined by....competition (or form/level of play). If the older players couldn't move, could barely serve, couldn't hit blistering winners, couldn't stay fit, and still won, it would be fair to devalue the competition. But since that's not the case, you can't question their wins just because they're older and not losing.
Firstly, Djokovic and Nadal weren't just "next gen" players. They were future all-time greats. Are you actually expecting a new crop of 18-plus slam winners to emerge just because it happened after Federer? That just shows how much this golden era has spoiled you. Djokovic is an all-time great. For all we know, Thiem/Zverev/Kyrgios/Rublev/etc are just average next-gen players, not other all-time great. An all-time great doesn't just lose to average players. Otherwise, they wouldn't be who they are. So expecting another all-time great to just magically appear and slow Djokovic down is unreasonable.
Secondly (and on that note of all-time greats), while Djokovic may not have had "younger" all-time greats to slow him down (like Federer did), he had to deal with better than average older players who stopped him during his run: Nadal & Federer (and Murray and Wawrinka to a lesser degree). Federer in his early and mid-30s is probably better than 99% of the tennis players who have ever lived. Same for Nadal on clay. So clamoring for a "next gen" is pointless when Djokovic had identical competition in Federer and Nadal. They were just older.
Lastly, Federer got to compile multiple slams in a short span with zero resistance except from Nadal. Who consistently made the semi-finals and the finals of a slam as often as Federer did? No one. It was a revolving door of random players that Federer had to play who had zero experience. So forgive me if I'm not joining in on Federer's pity party but he benefited early in his career just like how Djokovic may be benefiting now.
P
PETEhammer
Guest
Well said. Essentially the same point I made a few posts above but more thoroughly expounded. Bravo.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
So, you agree that there can be weak Majors, and you only disagree with me, just because not more people called a particular Major "weak"? Is that it?
I classify the Majors as they are played. The overarching trend that signifies that era as opposed to all others is that the oldies reign over it with unprecedented frequency. On one side you don't want separate Majors to be called "weak" like you do here, taking offence from the fact that I do, on the other you don't want people to talk about weak eras in general, without mentioning separate Majors. It looks like you simply don't want that being said at all, more than anything.
Competition on the highest level (the very top as tennis is extremely top heavy sport when it comes to competition) is defined by the developments of the older vs the younger generational ATGs, so you are simply wrong that the competition is not defined by age. The current situation will be viewed for what it is when new generations rise to the top. It will be found out, as it will be the anomaly, not the rule.
There is no expectation that every new generation has a "18 Majors winner", so you question whether I expect that or not is misplaced and a straw man. The generations of Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Edberg, Sampras were doing just fine with a lot less, which didn't prevent them form establishing themselves in their own right against the older generations. I used you own picks to illustrate that, but you didn't like it at all for some reason.
Federer hasn't stopped Djokovic from anything once he went out of his best years (regardless of the BS thrown around about "peak 2015 Federer"), so you are wrong about that. He is certainly great enough to give himself chances, but in general that has not been the case, and even the (in)famous W2019 wouldn't have changed the overall trend in their rivalry in the last 7-8 years. Nadal and Djokovic also haven't been the road blocks for each other that one might think when seeing that they are from the same generation. They have met in Majors finals 3 times in the last seven years and another couple of times in previous stages. Not nearly enough to say that. We are witnessing compartmentalisation of the tennis competition with each player working to maximise on his smallest advantage vs his ATG rival ... because these two players have no one else to worry about. Djokovic beats Nadal like a drum on HC. Nadal beats Djokovic on clay like a drum. That is not a competition, it is a hilarity.
As for Fed, I like you pushback, but you are misinformed. Nadal made 3 Wimbledon finals in a row, and won RG 4 times in a row, so that is 2 out of the four Majors right there with serious competition on top. Agassi was also there for three years, so, for someone like you, who is waxing poetic about the "strong" competition from the oldies it is a curious oversight to just ignore him. Add to that a couple of guys like Hewitt and Roddick, former #1s and Major winners, and that was the competition for Federer. Obviously, young Djokovic was also there stopping Federer in one Major and playing another final, so little by little there is no room for "weak" talk: all contemporaries of Federer with a nice mix of older ATGs and younger ATG prodigy or even de facto ATGs.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 779124
Guest
Well it exposes Sampras fans more.Yeah, the proverbial shoe is on the other foot now
maratha_warrior
Hall of Fame
Talking about weak eras is something that should be avoided avoided because then it's an unending discussion , but their inconsistency and absurd logic cannot be tolerated when they say Novak didn't face young ATG . Lol
Federer faced Rafa at RG in 2005 , Novak faced Rafa at RG in 2006 .
Faced on grass in 2007 and hardcourt in 2010 . Got bagelled by Rafa at RG in 2020 few months back ...
Rafa and Djokovic have faced ATG their entire career ..
Any person who reads the name of Opponents Novak faced in semifinals/finals will laugh like a mad person if someone says Novak didn't face ATGs .
-First they said Fed was old In 2008-09 but fed won 3 slams in 09-10 ,so they rejoiced .
-Second they said Fed was old in 2011- but fed won Wimbledon 12 ,so they rejoiced .
-Then they said fed was old in 14-15 , but fed again proved them wrong n won 3 slams in 17-18 . Then they rejoiced .
- fed was on the verge of against winning in 2019 ,but lost . So now they are stuck in circular logic of weak-era/ Old age .
Fcck man ,if any player is old and can't compete ,then sit at home and don't play . Don't do a favour on others..
If Djokovic and Nadal gets old then they can sit at home , their fans doesn't have the right to laugh at other players to face old Nadal and Novak....
abmk
Bionic Poster
umm, no. Djokovic wasn't prime level. That's why Thiem took him to 5 sets. Just as Cilic did so to Fed in AO 2018 final.
Secondly Thiem wasn't the only guy to take djoko to 5 sets at AO in last 3 years. Fritz did so at AO 2021.
Thriller
Hall of Fame
How remarkable and praiseworthy is it that 15 years after winning a first French Open, and 13 years after winning a first AO title, Nadal and Djokovic are still too strong for the following generations!
They have achieved something that even the great Roger Federer could never do, which tells you just how next level their greatness is and why they will deservedly go down in history as the two greatest male players of all time.
Last edited:
AceSalvo
Legend
It obvious that since 2015 there was 0 competition from the next-gen. Thats how Murray was even able to get to #1 with the help of Stan.
- We were told Nishikori/Raonic/Dimitrov/Thiem were stronger players than Hewitt/Roddick/Safin. The rest is history. Thiem was able to scrap one when there was no Big3.
- We were told Zverev/Tsitsipas/Medvedev/Shpolavov were the next young GS winners. One guy is busy hitting DF's while another guy pee's his pants when there is a Big 3 on the other side.
- We are now told NAdal and Djoko are too tough for youngsters. Then why are Murray/Safin/Becker are constantly calling out the weak competition???????
Jan, 2020
‘Young players lack the guts to topple Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal (insert Djokovic),’ says Boris Becker
Weak next-gen competition in tennis is about as established as a fact like the earth is round. There will always be deniers with tinfoil hats.
Last edited:
duaneeo
Legend
Idiot.
Unless they retired early, ALL past ATGs had their slam runs ended by their NextGens. Players of Connors generation had their slam runs slowed and eventually ended by players of Borg/Lendl/McEnroe's generation...whose slams runs were slowed by Willander/Edberg/Becker's generation...whose runs were slowed by Agassi/Sampras' generation....whose runs were slowed by Hewitt/Safin/Federer's generation...whose runs were slowed by Nadal/Djokovic/Muray's generation.
Since that time, thanks to the Lost Generations that has since followed, the slowing down of slam runs by NextGens has come to a screeching halt. Am I expecting a new crop of 18-plus slam winners?? LOL! How about 1-plus!! The multiple generations of NextGens that Djokovic has faced can't even achieve that! More than anything else, this is why your boy is now at 18 slams.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
Draws change too much for that type of projection. Take 2014 for example, Cilic was up 2-1 against Novak in the Quarterfinal and we all know what he did at the USO that year so how does a Cilic vs. Federer final play out? Roger would also be seeded 3rd and might face Dimitrov and then Cilic before even the final getting Raonic or Wawrinka. Then you have to address 2011 and 2018 chokejobs by Fed. In 2011 in particular against Tsonga, if he beat him he would have faced Novak which I'm not saying is the reason he choked but 2011 Novak is a beast (although Fed should have beat him at USO so who the hell knows) but again the draw changes slightly. Hard to account for butterfly effect. Although I pick 2011 Federer over Nadal at Wimbledon (and USO).
I will say he's definitely above 8 titles,, probably 10 but not an 11-1 ratio. I have this feeling it would have been 10-2 or 12-3. As crazy as him making 3 additional finals might seem. Not having Novak is a massive butterfly effect.
I will say he's definitely above 8 titles,, probably 10 but not an 11-1 ratio. I have this feeling it would have been 10-2 or 12-3. As crazy as him making 3 additional finals might seem. Not having Novak is a massive butterfly effect.
Ask me if I care how past ATGs had their slam runs ended. Go ahead. Ask me.
Fact is, nothing I said was untrue and you just sound bitter. Novak's career trajectory isn't going how you anticipated (or rather wanted) and now you're panicking. You wish a new crop of players would stop Djokovic. Fact is that he is still too good. Djokovic (and Federer and Nadal) are tiers above Willander/Edberg/Becker/Agassi/Sampras. The sooner you recognize this, the better for your mental health.
I also really like how you use the past to make these supposed guaranteed projections how Djokovic's career should be going. Tell me: did the past project that Federer would win 3 slams in his late-30s? But...but....but...the past says that you're supposed to stop winning slams that late in your career!
Last edited:
P
PETEhammer
Guest
btw a cursory and I mean 15 second search of "Backassi" reveals a user using the term a full SIX MONTHS before your night phantom Petros joined the forum...LOL
Last edited by a moderator:
So, you agree that there can be weak Majors, and you only disagree with me, just because not more people called a particular Major "weak"? Is that it?
I classify the Majors as they are played. The overarching trend that signifies that era as opposed to all others is that the oldies reign over it with unprecedented frequency. On one side you don't want separate Majors to be called "weak" like you do here, taking offence from the fact that I do, on the other you don't want people to talk about weak eras in general, without mentioning separate Majors. It looks like you simply don't want that being said at all, more than anything.
Competition on the highest level (the very top as tennis is extremely top heavy sport when it comes to competition) is defined by the developments of the older vs the younger generational ATGs, so you are simply wrong that the competition is not defined by age. The current situation will be viewed for what it is when new generations rise to the top. It will be found out, as it will be the anomaly, not the rule.
There is no expectation that every new generation has a "18 Majors winner", so you question whether I expect that or not is misplaced and a straw man. The generations of Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Edberg, Sampras were doing just fine with a lot less, which didn't prevent them form establishing themselves in their own right against the older generations. I used you own picks to illustrate that, but you didn't like it at all for some reason.
Federer hasn't stopped Djokovic from anything once he went out of his best years (regardless of the BS thrown around about "peak 2015 Federer"), so you are wrong about that. He is certainly great enough to give himself chances, but in general that has not been the case, and even the (in)famous W2019 wouldn't have changed the overall trend in their rivalry in the last 7-8 years. Nadal and Djokovic also haven't been the road blocks for each other that one might think when seeing that they are from the same generation. They have met in Majors finals 3 times in the last seven years and another couple of times in previous stages. Not nearly enough to say that. We are witnessing compartmentalisation of the tennis competition with each player working to maximise on his smallest advantage vs his ATG rival ... because these two players have no one else to worry about. Djokovic beats Nadal like a drum on HC. Nadal beats Djokovic on clay like a drum. That is not a competition, it is a hilarity.
As for Fed, I like you pushback, but you are misinformed. Nadal made 3 Wimbledon finals in a row, and won RG 4 times in a row, so that is 2 out of the four Majors right there with serious competition on top. Agassi was also there for three years, so, for someone like you, who is waxing poetic about the "strong" competition from the oldies it is a curious oversight to just ignore him. Add to that a couple of guys like Hewitt and Roddick, former #1s and Major winners, and that was the competition for Federer. Obviously, young Djokovic was also there stopping Federer in one Major and playing another final, so little by little there is no room for "weak" talk: all contemporaries of Federer with a nice mix of older ATGs and younger ATG prodigy or even de facto ATGs.
1. I don't care if you call the competition in Majors "weak." They just better have some substance to it other than "x-player was old." (and no one -- other than people on an Internet forum -- called any of those Majors weak).
2. And no, competition is not defined by age. Period. A younger player is not automatically more competitive than a younger player. More often than not, a younger player will be more competitive than an older player, but it is not automatic. Take Federer from 2011-2015. No one thinks that he was less competitive than all of the younger players he played.
Yes, it's an anomaly that the older guys are dominating the older guys. But it's only an anomaly of "concern" when someone other than Federer is doing it. Why is that? Why is Federer's longevity "celebrated" but everyone else's is questioned?
3. You call my suggestion of you expecting an 18-time slam winner to stop Djokovic a straw man. My response? Call it whatever you want. Thiem/Zverev/etc aren't living up to your own personal expectations. You think it's all about them, apparently. You fail to recognize that they're playing a No. 1, 18-time slam winner. During the 2008 Australian Open, who stopped then-No. 1, and 12-time major winner Federer? Was it Berdych or Tipsarevic? No. It was Djokovic....a player who would go on to win 18-slams. Evidently, it takes a future all-time legend to convincingly stop a present all-time legend. From all accounts, Thiem and co. aren't future legends (maybe it's too early to predict, who knows?) so you want more from them, which leads me to believe that you're expecting them to be legends. And they probably won't be, meaning that they aren't good enough to stop Djokovic.
4. Federer never stopped Djokovic? 2011 RG? 2012 Wimbledon? He very nearly beat him in several other slam matches which could have easily gone his way.
And I have no idea why you are limiting Nadal and Djokovic's rivalry to just the last 7 years. And yes, Djokovic beats Nadal on HC and Nadal beats Djokovic on clay. No one complained when Federer was beating everyone everywhere except for grass. But all of a sudden, everyone pearl clutches when Djokovic starts to dominate.
5. As for Federer's competition: I already mentioned Nadal. Hewitt and Roddick? They weren't competition. At all.
Similar threads
- Poll
