D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Thanks for responding. I'll wait to see what others have to say before chiming in further.
Have Nadal and Djokovic had greater competition in slams than Federer?
- Thread starter RS
- Start date
Thanks for responding. I'll wait to see what others have to say before chiming in further.
D
Deleted member 779124
Guest
Murray had a higher peak on clay and HC so he is the better player overall this is just grass i am talking of.
Sunny014
Legend
Murray is nothing? He's won the same number of Wimbledon titles as Nadal & Edberg! Get a grip Machan, seriously!
Federer is Djokovic's daddy on grass?
Doesn't matter, even Thiem has won the US Open but thats doesnt make him better than Safin who is a 1 time champion.
Nd yes, Federer is Djokovic's daddy on Grass even if he has lost 3 close finals, so dont give silly arguments.
RS
Bionic Poster
Why do Federer fans disagree?
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
mike danny
Bionic Poster
And Djokodal haven't since 2016? Add Nadal's 2010 year and his 2013 USO to the mix.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Murray RG 2016 > Roddick Wimb 2009 confirmed. Because ranking is everything, right?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
You mean the same Murray and Stan whom Fed made a mockery off at 34?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Sunny014
Legend
Arguably every era can be made to look weak.
90s can be said to a period when Pioline type fellows made the finals, 27 ranked Goran made the final on Grass, best rival of Sampras on a fast court is a baseliner named Agassi .... so how deadly would Pete be in the modern era against Andre ? ..... serious questions on Sampras's dominance.
Then somebody will say Federer didn't have rivals in his peak but those same rivals made Sampras retire and stopped Andre from winning slams after mid 03, plus Nadal despite winning clay slams from 05 and making wimbledon finals from 06 could not make any HC final until 09, that means the HC field was too strong, isn't it ?????
Then somebody says 08-13 is a strong period which is true, but from Nadal's perspective he feasted some non clay slams between transition period of Federer-Djokovic when 1 champion ATG was leaving his peak and another champion ATG was yet to enter his peak, raises questions on Nadal's calibre too because before 08 and after 11 he has nothing to show except that US open 2013 which was a worthy win over Novak.... just 1 win. .... So talks of Nadal winning it all strong also goes out of the window
But then if you ask me then I would say that Federer, Nadal, Hewitt, Murray etc etc all had it tough.
TRUTH IS ..... Only time we never had an actualy weak era was in the last 4 years when these instagram punks with weak mental conditioning reduced Tennis to a mockery
2020 USO Final was the peak of mockery, every champion of the past who was a bit unlucky in his time (Like Goran, Roddick, Rafter etc etc ) would be thinking "Damn ... wish I was playing in this period.... even I could have taken home 1-2 cheap slams"
Sunny014
Legend
The type of Tennis which Nick Kyrgios is playing now is what he should have been playing in 2015 and should have hired a great coach and focused on challenging the big 3 in coming years with a disciplined focus, but he was too busy talking trash on social media.
Thiem has been a loser for many years now, he should have started winning slams as early as 2015-2016.
Dimitrov for ages has been touted as Baby Fed but he was crap
Medvedev has come up but still mentally a midget.
Tsi-Sascha are as unpredictable as ever.
This is what enabled Novak to go from 6 Slams on his 27th Birthday to 18 slams at 33.
Thiem has been a loser for many years now, he should have started winning slams as early as 2015-2016.
Dimitrov for ages has been touted as Baby Fed but he was crap
Medvedev has come up but still mentally a midget.
Tsi-Sascha are as unpredictable as ever.
This is what enabled Novak to go from 6 Slams on his 27th Birthday to 18 slams at 33.
Nadal and Djokovic had to contend with each other and players who could easily contend for No. 1: Murray and Federer, mostly because they were all-surface players.
Who did Federer have to contend with? No one. He was the only player in his generation that routinely made the semis and finals of all of the slams....not just one or two surfaces. Whereas the Big 4 generation were mainstays and challenged each other everywhere. One slip up, and the No. 1 ranking was lost. Just look at 2016. Federer's era of players could only play on one or two surfaces, so there was no danger in Federer ever losing the No. 1 ranking to anyone.
Who did Federer have to contend with? No one. He was the only player in his generation that routinely made the semis and finals of all of the slams....not just one or two surfaces. Whereas the Big 4 generation were mainstays and challenged each other everywhere. One slip up, and the No. 1 ranking was lost. Just look at 2016. Federer's era of players could only play on one or two surfaces, so there was no danger in Federer ever losing the No. 1 ranking to anyone.
Last edited:
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
This thread has convinced me that it is not particular eras that are weak, but tennis as a sport itself for men. Must be a sport played by non-athletes while the serious athletes are playing football, American football, basketball, baseball, rugby etc.
Crazy Finn
Hall of Fame
This is a very narrow view of things. From 2003-2005, Federer had Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin as fellow slam winners to contend with. He generally beat them, but they were previous slam winners, and Safin even beat Federer in at a slam. Starting in 2006, Agassi was essentially done, but Federer had Nadal to contend with at both Wimbledon and the French. Starting in 2007, Novak made the finals of the USO and won the AO the several months later.
At that point they have the same field to deal with. The big advantage of Rafa and Djokovic is that they're younger than Federer and they don't have to play against themselves. So, you're basically saying that Federer had it easier from 2003-2006. I would say that that's probably true to a degree, as he didn't have prime Rafa or Novak to deal with for a couple of years. Of course, Rafa and Novak have had a couple of years recently were they have only had each other and a bunch of guys that haven't done anything either - a pretty weak field other than each other - and occasionally Federer. In my mind, they kind of cancel each other out.
Novak's competition in 2018: Rafa, old Federer, Zverev, DelPo, Anderson, Cilic, Thiem, Nishikori, Isner (year end ATP top 10)
Rafa's competition in 2019: Novak, old Federer, Thiem, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Zverev, Berrettini, Agut, Monfils
Federer's competition in 2004: Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Moya, Henman, Coria, Agassi, Nalbandian, Gaudio
Rafa arrives at #2 by the end of 2005.
steenkash
Hall of Fame
Well, Federer was a great player till around age 35, so why not, that reinforces my point, Novak had to deal with players like Federer and Nadal who were beating top athletes like Wawrinka and Murray. Before Djokdal Federer was facing against bums.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well, if they're dominated by a 34 year old whom Hewitt/Roddick/Agassi played closer when he was younger, it doesn't support your point.
I was talking about athletic ability, speed and power combined, so I don't think Roddick can be compared to the younger generation now
NatF
Bionic Poster
The next gen aren't even great athlete's tbh.
Yeah maybe. But again I didn't think Roddick was a great athlete either.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Roddick was a good athlete for most of his career. Don't think next gen have any advantages there at all.
Sunny014
Legend
Roddick if born 10-12 years would be having a more all round game and better running power and hitting power, he was built like a bull even back then, he would have been genuinely lethal in the modern era. His game was built in the 90s and thats why he wasn't that great in the modern era, give him the chance to grow up in the 00s and then he would surely be better than every one of these awkward tall players who are weak mentally.
Same with Hewitt, he would have been more dangerous of born 10-15 years later than he was. They were all sufferers of growing in the 90s and then finding themselves along with Federer in the 00s.
duaneeo
Legend
2012: Nadal a non-factor at Wimbledon and absent from USO; no strong Next-Gens.
2013: Nadal absent from the AO; injured Federer has worst ever season; NSNG.
2014: Nadal again a non-factor at Wimbledon and absent from USO; past-prime Federer suffers from slamidous; NSNG.
2015: Injured Nadal a non-factor; see above about Federer; NSNG.
2016: Injured Nadal and Federer absent for most of the season; NSNG.
2017-present: All Big-3 are in their 30s and still NGNG.
Yes, Djokovic has clearly faced greater competition.
2013: Nadal absent from the AO; injured Federer has worst ever season; NSNG.
2014: Nadal again a non-factor at Wimbledon and absent from USO; past-prime Federer suffers from slamidous; NSNG.
2015: Injured Nadal a non-factor; see above about Federer; NSNG.
2016: Injured Nadal and Federer absent for most of the season; NSNG.
2017-present: All Big-3 are in their 30s and still NGNG.
Yes, Djokovic has clearly faced greater competition.
RS
Bionic Poster
Ouch.
P
PETEhammer
Guest
You forgot 2011
2012- Nadal played one of the greatest matches ever, a match that Djokovic *won*, unlike Federer's long list of failed comebacks/wins in great matches against his competition. Of course Rafa at RG. Rafa was the same non-factor at Wimbledon as he was at RG the only time Roger won it, and unlike Roger, Novak didn't get the trophy so his resume wasn't inflated. USO he lost to Murray, so again no inflation.
2013 - So now Nadal being absent the AO is a mark against Novak, when his presence in one of the greatest matches ever doesn't count for him? Novak played another epic against Rafa at RG, where he put up a far better fight against him than Roger ever did. Of course Murray played great that year who is better competition than Roddick.
2014- Lost RG final to Nadal who I think counts as great competition there. Federer played excellent tennis at Wimbledon and simply lost to the better player who won a tight match. Even if we accept the line that Federer was "post-prime" (which contradicts him btw) he was still much tougher competition than Roddick, baby Nadal, and ancient Agassi
2015 - See above (Federer was so good this year he won 44 consecutive sets against non-Djokovic players, and also said he was a better player than ever before), crushed Nadal at RG, lost to smokin' Stan in the final
2016 - Federer was brilliant at AO, and Novak just got the better of him (again), once again lost to a smokin' Stan in the USO final
All in all, his competition of Federer, Nadal, Murray, Stan was clearly better than a who's who of Roddick, Hewitt (who was a non-factor after 2005) ancient Agassi (who was a factor at exactly 2 slams), and baby Nadal (only played him at 2 slams off-clay),...so basically Roddick was his only consistent competition off-clay in slams for the entire 04-07 period of his dominance.
cLeArLy StRoNkEr
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 779124
Guest
You are such a meme at this point lol.You forgot 2011
2012- Nadal played one of the greatest matches ever, a match that Djokovic *won*, unlike Federer's long list of failed comebacks/wins in great matches against his competition. Of course Rafa at RG. Rafa was the same non-factor at Wimbledon as he was at RG the only time Roger won it, and unlike Roger, Novak didn't get the trophy so his resume wasn't inflated. USO he lost to Murray, so again no inflation.
2013 - So now Nadal being absent the AO is a mark against Novak, when his presence in one of the greatest matches ever doesn't count for him? Of course Murray played great that year who is better competition than Roddick and Philippousis.
2014- Federer played excellent tennis at Wimbledon and simply lost to the better player who won a tight match. Even if we accept the line that Federer was "post-prime" (which contradicts him btw) he was still much tougher competition than Roddick, baby Nadal, ancient Agassi, Baghdatis and so on
2015 - See above (Federer was so good this year he won 44 consecutive sets against non-Djokovic players, and also said he was a better player than ever before)
2016 - Federer was brilliant at AO, and Novak just got the better of him (again).
All in all, his competition was clearly better than a who's who of Roddick, Philippousis, Baghdatis, ancient Agassi, Kiefer, baby Nadal, Hewitt, Safin, and baby Novak (if you want to even count him).
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
can we stop bumping this thread lol
let it die
let it die
P
PETEhammer
Guest
So is your lack of Counter-Argument
D
Deleted member 779124
Guest
I and others have done so many times but your narrative remains the sameSo is your lack of Counter-Argument
P
PETEhammer
Guest
As does yours. The difference is I provide logic and reasoned argumentationI and others have done so many times but your narrative remains the same
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
Bump.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
alexio
G.O.A.T.
barton, welcome back
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
Check my signature. You should put something similar in yours.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
I really love the convo in my sig tho
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
Lol mike Danny posted some garbage (again) if you go to the first page of this thread
D
Deleted member 779124
Guest
Yes Federer played great and at prime level in every loss to Djokovic in 14-16 reasonedAs does yours. The difference is I provide logic and reasoned argumentation
P
PETEhammer
Guest
1 - Re-read (or rather *read* my post)Yes Federer played great and at prime level in every loss to Djokovic in 14-16 reasoned
2 - His words, not mine
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
Thanks. I resized it a bit. Now it looks better than before. I think that I am now ready to post more rubbish.barton, welcome back
D
Deleted member 779124
Guest
Yes and those statements repeated is not part of a agenda.
P
PETEhammer
Guest
My original post which you couldn't have read too closely allowed for the view that Federer was post-prime. Maybe (re)read it.
D
Deleted member 779124
Guest
I saw it but i just wanted to point this out.
P
PETEhammer
Guest
Then you willingly scare-crowed my post...and you talk to me about agendas/honesty?
D
Deleted member 779124
Guest
Yes.
P
PETEhammer
Guest
I'm confused. You originally responded to my post by saying "Federer clearly played prime tennis '14-'16" as though I had said it when I didn't, I pointed it out to you, you say you saw it but wanted to "point out" something I never said...so who's agenda driven here?
D
Deleted member 779124
Guest
Because you were bringing down Nadal on clay and grass earlier in this thread now you big up AO 16 Federer for example so it would make Djokovic look a lot better. I have a agenda sometimes but not to bring another player down.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
You will agree that Roddick also won his one and only Slam without facing any member of the Big 3. Roddick was also merely 13 weeks #1 in the pre-Big 3 era, when Federer wasn't at his overall prime yet.
I don't see any relevant difference between Thiem and Roddick in terms of strength.
P
PETEhammer
Guest
I did not, I merely stated my views about each player's level. Even Fedfans have noted here how out of sorts Nadal was on the surface and mentally in the 06 Wimbledon match. Don't think I ever brought Rafa down on clay.
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
I don’t tolerate rubbish on these boards.
P
PETEhammer
Guest
Then you must have an agenda
Similar threads
