Well rounded game but never made it past QFs of Wimbledon.
Roddick would have won 3 wimbledons if not for peak Fed.
Why is the weak era generally associated with Federer's opponents?
- Thread starter Oceans II
- Start date
Roddick would have won 3 wimbledons if not for peak Fed.
2019 is stronger ...except thiem None of the NextGem were up to the mark with consistency.
All the 4 slams went to 33 year olds...and you call it stronger.
People who call 2004-7 as weak because they can't digest the fact that how dominant Federer was.
A player vulturing slams in last 3 years with Next Gen mugs in not weak but a player beating his competition in his prime is weaker.
Height of stupidity and absurdity is unparalleled with Djoko fanbase.
Competition started weakening from 2015 and it went downhill in 2018 and today it is Nonexistant.
Sunny014
Legend
Ohh yeah man, Nadal didn't come of age in 2005 with 11 titles, he came of age in 2010. Plus Fed at 29 in 2010 should not have dropped off a cliff, he should have won everything in his 30s as well since Novak and Nadal are not ATGs in their mid 20s, they themselves are mugs .???? Right ????
Do you even read your posts dude? They are so biased
Last edited:
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
I don't disagree with you in principle, but the same does apply to you lol
Sunny014
Legend
lol .....I try not to go overboard 99 times out of 100 and only as a retaliation at times I call Novak a vulture, that's because I see Noleisboat and some others resort to weak era talks which is baseless
Plus unlike these people who always undermine Fed I give the appropriate credit to Novak, if you've noted I never said that Fed would win over Novak always at the AO, I have Novak the edge there, these fellows on the other are ready to even call Novak a grass BOAT of the modern era or something like that.
So I still try to be fair more often than not.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
NoleisBoat is just a garden variety troll trying to get a rise out of you and others. Same with Gore. It's not even a given that they actually believe some of the stuff they write. I'd recommend paying less attention to them unless you like a good laugh every now and then.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
2019 is much stronger than years like 2004 and 2006, yes. Djokovic defeated prime Nadal and Federer for both slams
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
2019 is much stronger than years like 2004 and 2006, yes. Djokovic defeated prime Nadal and Federer for both slams
Neither was in their prime in 2019. That said, yes it was better than 2004.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Thiem and Tsitsipas wins over big 3 in slams - 5
Roddick and Hewitt wins over big 3 in slams - 4
Sunny014
Legend
2019 is much stronger than years like 2004 and 2006, yes. Djokovic defeated prime Nadal and Federer for both slams
2019 is only stronger because of Nadal vs Thiem that is clearly greater than Gaudio vs Coria.
But otherwise 04 was a stronger year with a stonger field.
The champions of 2004 Outside clay would beat the champions of 2019 outside if they face each other. Maybe Novak can beat 04 Rodgi at the AO or make it really close (50-50) but Wimbie and USO 04 Fed would take, he would crush the 2 finalists at the wimbledon 2019 and also the 2 fellows at the 2019USO
Thiem tsitsipas played Past prime Big 3 in their late 30s still can't beat them.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
When I hear someone having a hole in their game, my instant thought is a part of their game wich the opponent can target and make them uncomfortable. I don't see that glaring hole in these guys. They do most things, from a modern day standpoint, very well. That's why I'm saying their base and core are strong. Take Berrettini as an example, he is about the same height as these guys even a tad shorter, but his holes in his game and athleticism is so apparent we don't even have to mention it. There are so many strings you can pull with him to lock him up. Already now we can evaluate how much this guy is gonna win. That BH of his will never get to a respectable level where it's a solid and unbreakable shot. His movement won't get that much better either. His ceiling isn't as high.
Medvedev is almost 6.5 or 6.6 ft and he is moving and defending like he is a smaller guy. And it isn't just that he covers the court so well, but he can actually shift from defense to offense at times, despite being a giraffe. His FH, although not the greatest shot, is still very solid and he can depend on that shot, still room for improvement. His BH already is great, and he can do alot of good things with it. On top of all this, he has a very tough serve. This is where the scary part comes in with these guys.
Zverev is very much similar to Medvedev when it comes to FH and BH (but his BH is probably even better), and has a serve wich he can clock 230 km/h. If he is on, he is literally unbreakable while having a baseline game of his own, much like Med but maybe not as solid as he is, but still a tough player from the baseline who can do most things well and defend from the back court.
Tsitsipas, sure his BH can be targeted, but I wouldn't call it a weakness. It's a good shot, with still room for improvement. This guy is also moving extremely well and able to defend, very athletically gifted, and has a very good serve aswell that serves its purpose. And his FH is already a top tier shot. His ceiling is sky high, and he can only improve, wich he is doing year by year.
The scary factor with these guys are that they are so tall and powerful and at the same time having powerful serves while being such competent movers and baseliners for their height where they can hold their own against anyone.
Last edited:
Let me see, since Wim '14, Federer and Nadal are 1-10 against Djokovic in Slams. The young guns already have 2 slams wins against Djokovic, both courtesy of Thiem at RG.
So if the youngsters are worthless mugs, then, to be fair all around, so are Federer and Nadal. (And remember, for most of the time since '14, Federer and Nadal were in top 3 and still outstanding players. If Djokovic didn't stop them, Federer would have 5 more majors in that period, and Nadal 3 more.)
And let's admit, it's mainly Djokovic who's stopping the young guns now at slams, not Nadal and most definitely not Federer. Since '19, Djokovic beat 4 young guns in slam finals, while Nadal got beat by 2 young guns in Slams.
So if the youngsters are worthless mugs, then, to be fair all around, so are Federer and Nadal. (And remember, for most of the time since '14, Federer and Nadal were in top 3 and still outstanding players. If Djokovic didn't stop them, Federer would have 5 more majors in that period, and Nadal 3 more.)
And let's admit, it's mainly Djokovic who's stopping the young guns now at slams, not Nadal and most definitely not Federer. Since '19, Djokovic beat 4 young guns in slam finals, while Nadal got beat by 2 young guns in Slams.
Last edited:
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Thiem and Tsitsipas have 5 wins in completed matches over big 3 at slams.
vex
Legend
Without a doubt. Put any of the big 3 into an era alone and they annihilate the slam record
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
This just makes me want to post some Greek names.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
How?
Yes because he recently just lost it. He was getting passed, not closing the gap. That's like saying the track stars were "right next" to Usain Bolt a second after the race starts.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
What are you talking about? I’m talking about NextGen when Djokovic retires
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
Fedal only played 1 match in 2015-2016. It was on an indoor HC in Ol' Rog's backyard that went the distance despite RAFA being at this worst while in his worst conditions.
Your poast is just further proof of how bad #NextGen is.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Wish they’d played more often in 2015
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
Same, there was no neo-backhand in 2015 and the mental scars were very much present stillWish they’d played more often in 2015
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
You mean Ned’s 2015 mental scars?Same, there was no neo-backhand in 2015 and the mental scars were very much present still
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
Yes, the one's he gave Ol' Rog that had accumulated over the years into 2015
D
Deleted member 771911
Guest
Indeed. That is your p.o.v. Lol. Opelka as a sign of a strong era.
You may also not like how it really is, which is quite different from the way you have described it, imo, but that is just how it is, after all, imo.
Starting in 2015, Federer owns a 6-1 record against Nadal, with that loss coming in RG, that's why I start counting from that year.
I don't understand, what does poast mean?
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
2004 - The AO was interesting as was the Agassi-Federer match a the USO, and the year ends with a masterful performance from Federer at the USO. However, I'd argue that it wasn't the best of the Roddick-Federer matches at Wimbledon and let's not talk about RG. And the Olympics...
Meanwhile in 2019, two of the big 3 (Federer and Nadal) are trying to show they are relevant, and you see the emergence of Medvedev. The big 3 are ranked fittingly 1, 2 and 3, with the Slam count perched at 14-17-20, even as they lose a step or two. It starts with some fun -- Federer versus Serena -- before we get down to business. In the first major of the year a young pup grabs a win over Federer establishing himself as a threat before going down with hardly a whimper in the semis to Nadal (but note the dramatic forshadowing). Djokovic brushes aside Nadal in the AO like he's a gnat, also putting himself in front of Sampras -- the Slam race is now down to 3 (15-17-20). Young Thiem is taking names, with wins over Federer and Djokovic in the first half of the year. Then Nadal looks significantly weaked on clay and wins only one title, but he regains his composure to do what he usually does -- takes the cup at RG (15-18-20), with a win over Federer along the way. Your move, Mr. Federer. And although he's in the later part of his 30s, he not only knocks out Nadal in four decisive sets, he also proves he can still put a fight against his younger rivals on the grass. Djokovic adds one to his collection (16-18-20). Monsieur Med is quietly moving up the rankings by reaching at least semifinal on every surface, before beating Novak and going on to win his first Masters. And now, with the USO approaching, the Slam race and the race to #1 is on the line. The year before (2018), Novak had relegated his rivals to one Slam a piece. Could he do the same in 2019? No. Nadal snaps up the title with a win over Monsieur Med in the final (16-19-20) which soon after leads to the number 1 ranking.
Every Slam had so much at stake, but the Big 3 raised their levels as necessary. That is why it's better than 2004.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
You didn’t say starting in 2015. You said in between 2015-2016. In 2015-2016 Fedal only played 1 match which Ol’ Rog barely won.
Poast = post.
Now that's a proper rebuttal.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Winner's level:
AO 04>=19
WB 04>19
USO 04>19
YEC 04>19
Second best player's level:
AO 04>19
WB 04>19
USO 04>19
YEC 04>=19
Proper rebuttal, my arse.
AO 04>=19
WB 04>19
USO 04>19
YEC 04>19
Second best player's level:
AO 04>19
WB 04>19
USO 04>19
YEC 04>=19
Proper rebuttal, my arse.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
Are you kidding? Hewitt was no way near as good as Medvedev in that final, even if '04 Fed was way better than '19 Nadal. That's a joke.
And if you want to compare Roddick to Federer, be my guest, but personally I think you are rightfully drawing the wrath of Fedfans.
Only the one and only Safin from 2004 could compare with this competition. I also notice that you forgot to mention the lousy '04 RG.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Second best player at 2004 USO is Agassi. I didn't say finalist, not always the same.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
Fair enough, the second best player at the '19 USO was Andreescu, and her level was way better than Agassi in that '04 tournament.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Comparing men and women level-wise? Ridiculous.
Now that's picking straws out of..
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Comparing best levels is basically the gist of it, considering.
Because low-ranked players were consistently reaching higher stages of grand slams. If Federer wasn't around to win slams, they could've been won by literally anyone (e.g. Philippoussis)
Current era is not weak by any means; Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Thiem, Zverev have won great titles (except GS) and more or less consistently reach higher stages of GS tournaments. People say they're weak just because they haven't been winning grand slams, but that's fallacious logic. They haven't won slams because they had to consistently play against two of the three GOAT players still playing at a crazy high level.
I would even argue that current next gen is at least as good as Delpo and Wawrinka were in the last decade
Current era is not weak by any means; Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Thiem, Zverev have won great titles (except GS) and more or less consistently reach higher stages of GS tournaments. People say they're weak just because they haven't been winning grand slams, but that's fallacious logic. They haven't won slams because they had to consistently play against two of the three GOAT players still playing at a crazy high level.
I would even argue that current next gen is at least as good as Delpo and Wawrinka were in the last decade
zvelf
Hall of Fame
Roddick and Safin were better than Medvedev, Tsitsipas, and Zverev, at least up to this point in their careers, but not so Nalbandian and Davydenko. Heck, Zverev and Medvedev aren't even half way through their careers but have already won more tournaments, 15 and 12, respectively, than Nalbandian won in his entire career, 11. Both Zverev and Medvedev already have 4 Masters titles, which are more than Nalbandian and Davydenko won in their entire careers.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Winner’s level:
AO 19 > 04
RG 19 > 04
W 04 > 19
USO 04 > 19
YEC 04 > 19
Runner up:
AO 19 > 04
RG 19 > 04
W 19 > 04
USO 19 > 04
YEC 19 > 04
Roddick and Safin were better than Medvedev, Tsitsipas, and Zverev, at least up to this point in their careers, but not so Nalbandian and Davydenko. Heck, Zverev and Medvedev aren't even half way through their careers but have already won more tournaments, 15 and 12, respectively, than Nalbandian won in his entire career, 11. Both Zverev and Medvedev already have 4 Masters titles, which are more than Nalbandian and Davydenko won in their entire careers.
[/QUOTE]
Thats because Big 3 aren't playing masters regularly in last 2 years.
That wasn't the case when Nalbandian and Davydenko played.
[/QUOTE]
Thats because Big 3 aren't playing masters regularly in last 2 years.
That wasn't the case when Nalbandian and Davydenko played.
Sunny014
Legend
That is what makes is a strong era.
Unpredictable, people from low ranks also able to challenge top ranked players, the era is strongest !
90s was like that, even Fed winning his slams had like that.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Sunny014
Legend
Boris Becker himself was asked about 2010s decade vs decades before it.
Boris said that same players making the top ranks and semis means era is either superstrong or superweak, there are 2 ways of seeing it and one cannot say that new faces coming to semis/finals is a bad thing or a good thing.
Boris said that same players making the top ranks and semis means era is either superstrong or superweak, there are 2 ways of seeing it and one cannot say that new faces coming to semis/finals is a bad thing or a good thing.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Fair enough, but 2019 had no peak Federer. It's extremely doubtful that Djokovic and Nadal would have won as much as they did with 2004 Federer in their path. So 2019 looks stronger because there was no ATG at the peak of his abilities.
AO in 2004 was great, better than 2019.
Wimb was also great with Hewitt and Roddick being the only ones to take sets off Fed that entire grasscourt season so it was not weak. Better level from the finalists, IMO, than in 2019, which was geezer land, but still a good Wimb definitely.
USO was great with the Federer-Agassi match and then Fed raising his level. Fed also had a more difficult draw than Nadal in 2019.
FO was bad, yeah, but the other slams were all great.
Don't think it's clear cut that 2019 is better. And Tsitsipas beating Federer is as irrelevant as it gets.
Guys were giving 2004 Fed tougher matches than they were giving old Djokodal.
Last edited:
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Though not all instances of that are equal. 2004-2007 Fed having few threats isn't quite the same as 30+yo Djoker having few threats.
Similar threads
