What are the time periods for the so called Weak Era, Strong Era & Career Inflation Era respectively ? Did they exist ?

Is there a weak era, strong era & career inflation era ?


  • Total voters
    28

Razer

Legend
Even though I don't subscribe entirely to inflations and weak phases & I consider 03-22 as one big era of big 3, I've often heard of these 3 terms.....So I've been forced to understand what are these phases which people often discuss here and their exact time period ?

So I've placed a time period just to check statistics, correct me if I am wrong.

01. Weak era - Downfall of Sampras in 2001 creating a huge power vacuum till the maturation of Djokovic & Murray to change the status quo of a 1 man or 2 man tour.
02. Strong era - Maturation of Nadal+Djokovic till the downfall of Big 3 allowing Murray to become rank 1 instead of a young ATG rising
03. Career Inflation Era - Downfall of Nole+Rise of Murray to rank 1 till present times, during this period Big 3 are playing light schedules and winning slams since youngsters are not great


Weak Era Statistics = 1st Jan 2002 till end of 2007

01. Federer
- 52 Titles (30 Big Titles - 12 Slams) - 4 Year End 1s - Win% = 87.74% [Sets Won% = 80.88%] - Win% vs Top 10 = 81.48% + Win% vs Top 5 = 76.79%
02. Nadal - 23 Titles (12 Big Titles - 3 Slams) - 0 Year End 1 - Win% = 79.32% [Sets Won% = 73.97%] - Win% vs Top 10 = 65.22% + Win% vs Top 5 = 64.29%
03. Roddick - 20 Titles (5 Big Titles - 1 Slam) - 1 Year End 1 - Win% = 76.76% [Sets Won% = 71.82%] - Win% vs Top 10 = 37.04% + Win% vs Top 5 = 31%
04. Hewitt - 14 Titles (4 Big Titles - 1 Slam)- 1 Year End 1 - Win% = 76.47% [Sets Won% = 68.23%] - Win% vs Top 10 = 49.09% + Win% vs Top 5 = 40.54%
05. Agassi - 11 Titles (6 Big Titles - 1 Slam) - 0 Year End 1 - Win% = 77.08% [Sets Won% = 71.02%] - Win% vs Top 10 = 50% + Win% vs Top 5 = 36.36%

Strong Era Statistics = 1st jan 2008 till 1st March 2016

01. Djokovic
- 54 Titles (40 Big Titles - 11 Slams) - 4 Year End 1s - Win% = 85.78% [Sets Won% = 78.18%] - Win% vs Top 10 = 71.63% + Win% vs Top 5 = 63.25%
02. Nadal - 44 Titles (30 Big Titles - 11 Slams) - 3 Year End 1s - Win% = 84.23% [Sets Won% = 78.17%] - Win% vs Top 10 = 65.43% + Win% vs Top 5 = 58.43%
03. Federer - 35 Titles (17 Big Titles - 5 Slams) - 1 Year End 1s - Win% = 82.96% [Sets Won% = 77.16%] - Win% vs Top 10 = 60.48% + Win% vs Top 5 = 49.48%
04. Murray - 31 Titles (14 Big Titles - 2 Slams) - 1 Year End 1s - Win% = 79.58% [Sets Won% = 72.46%] - Win% vs Top 10 = 54.01% + Win% vs Top 5 = 40.91%
05. Wawrinka - 12 Titles (3 Big Titles - 2 Slams) - 0 Year End 1s - Win% = 67.48% [Sets Won% = 63.4%] - Win% vs Top 10 = 38.24% + Win% vs Top 5 = 21.74%

Career Inflation Era Statistics = 1st March 2016 - Now

01. Djokovic
- 35 Titles (27 Big Titles - 13 Slams) - 3 Year End 1s - Win% = 85.81% [Sets Won% = 78.99%] - Win% vs Top 10 = 75.21% + Win% vs Top 5 = 68.33%
02. Nadal - 25 Titles (17 Big Titles - 8 Slams) - 2 Year End 1s - Win% = 84.1% [Sets Won% = 78.72%] - Win% vs Top 10 = 62.5% + Win% vs Top 5 = 62.16%
03. Federer - 15 Titles (7 Big Titles - 3 Slams) - 0 Year End 1s - Win% = 84.1% [Sets Won% = 76.29%] - Win% vs Top 10 = 56.82% + Win% vs Top 5 = 56.25%
04. Alcaraz - 12 Titles (6 Big Titles - 2 Slams) - 1 Year End 1 - Win% = 78.89% [Sets Won% = 71.25%] - Win% vs Top 10 = 61.29% + Win% vs Top 5 = 55.56%
05. Medvedev - 20 Titles (8 Big Titles - 1 Slam) - 0 Year End 1s - Win% = 71.46% [Sets Won% = 67.31%] - Win% vs Top 10 = 51.35% + Win% vs Top 5 = 35%


What do these numbers tell you ?
 
Last edited:

Razer

Legend
I don't think you can lump 2014 and 2015( especially )with 2008-2013 but nice stats none the less.

Federer was on fire in 2015, Murray and Stan were also at their peaks, and of course Djokovic at his absolute peak. If Wawrinka can stop Djokovic in a slam final and if Federer can destroy Murray in the Semis of Wimbledon like he did then we should club it in the strong era despite Nadal being in bad form. The 2016 Aus open IMO is the last slam which can be called a strong one at the tail end of the era. Federer's knee surgery in Feb probably ended the strong era.
 
Last edited:

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
Federer was on fire in 2015, Murray and Stan were also at their peaks, and of course Djokovic at his absolute peak. If Wawrinka can stop Djokovic in a slam final and if Federer was destroy Murray in the Semis like he did then we should club it in the strong era despite Nadal being in bad form. The 2016 Aus open IMO is the last slam which can be called a strong one at the tail end of the era. Federer's knee surgery in Feb probably ended the strong era.

Nadal was non factor in 2015 and Fed was on fire only in 2015 Wimbledon and 2014 Wimbledon and USO 2015, and he was far from from his prime years. I wont call it weak by any means but it's not that strong if it does have a nonexistent Nadal and off prime Fed.
 
Last edited:

Razer

Legend
Nadal was non factor in 2015 and Fed was on fire only in 2015 Wimbledon and 2014 Wimbledon and USO 2015, and he was far from from his prime years. I wont call it weak by any means but it's not that strong if it doesn't have a nonexistent Nadal and off prime Fed.

14-march 16 phase

Djoker won 20 titles
Federer won 11 titles & his win% was 85% which was clearly second best in the world

Federer defeated Djokovic at Cincinatti & Shanghai while he failed at Slams, yes you are right that Federer should have been in his prime but if you check his stats in 2015 for his serve, return and stuffs like that then you see a clear jump from some years before it, Federer himself attributed his new racquet for this jump and said he could take on his 10 years younger versions with his new racquet. Federer of US open 2015/Wimbledon would not have lost to anyone except Djokovic. Plus it is unfair to Stan and Murray as well if we just put it in inflation. I mean Stan and Murray did defeat Djokovic and if we tell them that hey guys it was a weak era and you defeated a weak champ, that would be wrong too.
 
Last edited:

Devin

Semi-Pro
2006, 2010, 2015-onwards were weak years, with 2016-onwards standing out from the rest.

2006, Federer didn't have many big challengers besides Nadal on clay. AO 2006 was a pretty weak draw. W2006 and USO2006 had potential to give him some trouble, but nobody was really able to do it in the end.
2010, Roger was basically out of his prime, and Novak was basically a non-factor until the end of the year. He still had that awful service motion at the time too.
2015 lacked depth, Nadal was a non-factor, and Federer's level in W2015 and USO2015 finals were not high relative to finalist level in 2004-2005 (Roddick W2004 > Federer W2015 by a bit, Agassi USO2005 ~ Federer USO2015).

And I don't need to get started on 2016-onwards.

ROFLMAO an era where RaoMUG is making finals is WEAK and nothing else can describe it. These pigeons are routinely making slam finals and geriatric Novak is still winning. Epitome of TRASH LMAO.
 

Razer

Legend
Federer's level in W2015 and USO2015 finals were not high relative to finalist level in 2004-2005 (Roddick W2004 > Federer W2015 by a bit, Agassi USO2005 ~ Federer USO2015).

If 34 yr old Fed and 34 yr old Agassi are same then Federer must be an Agassi level player, what is he doing on 20 slams ?

If Roddick 04 is better than Federer 2015 then why did Roddick retire ? He himself should have played into the 2010s ?
 

Razer

Legend
Points Required to be Rank 1 for the first time

Djokovic 13,285 [Year 2011]
Nadal 11,595* [Year 2008]
Murray 11,185 [Year 2016]
Federer 9,825* [Year 2004]
Medvedev 8,615 [Year 2022]
Roddick 8237 [Year 2003]
Alcaraz 6,740 [Year 2022]
 

jl809

Hall of Fame
There aren’t 3 eras, there are more

  • 2001-2003: the roflmao era - complete chaos on tour with Old Ivanisevic, Thomas Johanssen, Costa etc all winning slams

  • 2004-2006: the weak era - which isn’t that weak; it’s just weaker than what came afterwards. Fed beating up Brokeback Agassi, Baggy, Roddick, Hewitt etc was not much fun really

  • 2007-2014: the stronk era. In which an ensemble cast of ATGs smacked the crap out of each other with regularity with some great cameos from lesser lights

  • 2015-2016: the MuryGOAT era - in which Murray established himself as the greatest, and Novak Djokovic was also there

  • 2017-2019: the inflation era - in which few slams boasted more than simply one ATG past their prime absolutely mincing a bunch of chumps. Bring back 04-06!!!

  • 2020-now: the hyperinflation era. The cursed slam final era. The Casper Ruud era. The Tsitsipas era. The PCB era. The “Nadal just went 20-0 on hard courts after 6 months out” era. The “Djokovic just won 2 RGs in his mid 30s lol” era. Etc, etc
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
So broke PETE's record essentially on weak or inflation era slams. Extraordinary.
Great work, Razer, great work indeed.
 

Razer

Legend
So broke PETE's record essentially on weak or inflation era slams. Extraordinary.
Great work, Razer, great work indeed.

The burden of protecting Pete's records rested on Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, primarily on Roddick and they all failed magnificently. By the time Nadal peaked it was already too late, Nadal did enough dents on Roger but that was too late. Roger was already on 12 slams when Nadal became world number 1, only a matter of time from that point.

On the other hand, the burden of stopping Nole, rested on Federer, Nadal, Thiem, Murray, Stan, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Alcaraz etc etc .... many people, collectively they all failed but for a good reason, credit to Djoker.
 

Sputnik Bulgorov

Professional
The burden of protecting Pete's records rested on Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, primarily on Roddick and they all failed magnificently. By the time Nadal peaked it was already too late, Nadal did enough dents on Roger but that was too late. Roger was already on 12 slams when Nadal became world number 1, only a matter of time from that point.

On the other hand, the burden of stopping Nole, rested on Federer, Nadal, Thiem, Murray, Stan, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Alcaraz etc etc .... many people, collectively they all failed but for a good reason, credit to Djoker.

I thought Federer, Djokovic and Nadal were same gen? So the burden was on them too, but they failed to stop him. The burden was on Agassi too, but he failed to stop him. Sampras and Federer are also same gen according to your definition, so Sampras could have stopped Fed himself, but instead chose to retire.
 

Razer

Legend
Roddick winning a slam is your first clue that something is very, very off.

Roddick not just won a slam but also rank 1, before Roddick many others became Rank 1 too from 1998 till 2003, I guess after Pete went down then many lesser men took their turns until Federer finally took firm control of it and he had no one until Nadal peaked in 08. Teenage Nadal ranked 2 in 05-07 speaks volumes of what Federer's same aged guys were doing at that time.

It is amazing that Fed needed 9K points to be ranked 1, Nadal needed 11K points to be ranked 1 and Nole needed freakin 13000 points to be ranked 1 for the first time, what a mountain to climb and Nole did climb it.... amazing !

I thought Federer, Djokovic and Nadal were same gen? So the burden was on them too, but they failed to stop him. The burden was on Agassi too, but he failed to stop him. Sampras and Federer are also same gen according to your definition, so Sampras could have stopped Fed himself, but instead chose to retire.

A generation is 10 years in Tennis, always has been as per the players.

A player is normally growing up in his teens, in his primes in his 20s and past his prime in his 30s, so when an athlete is 30 and someone 20 arrives, that is your next generation

Agassi was 11 years older, what burden did have? Nothing, he himself was on fumes. Unlike Agassi, Federer was red hot in 2010s too, in the mid 2010s he smooked Murray at wimbledon, he stomped the tour in 2017, and you are comparing him with some geratric geezer like Andre ?

Great age shift is very real, Andre's 04-05 status was only reached by Federer in 2018-2019 when Federer was 37-38, thats why Roger's 38 is Andre's 34.
 

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
Points Required to be Rank 1 for the first time

Djokovic 13,285 [Year 2011]
Nadal 11,595* [Year 2008]
Murray 11,185 [Year 2016]
Federer 9,825* [Year 2004]
Medvedev 8,615 [Year 2022]
Roddick 8237 [Year 2003]
Alcaraz 6,740 [Year 2022]
Alcaraz was not world number 1. The ranking was sham.

Even this year after Nole is done in YEC, we will see if this young lad can become number 1. Nole will not give up the ranking easily.
 

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
Also clearly shows Nole had to go to the highest peak as first time number 1. Nothing that Carlito would understand at age 19. He wouldn't have been number 1 if not for pandemic. Fake number 1
 

GoatNo1

Professional
There aren’t 3 eras, there are more



  • 2015-2016: the MuryGOAT era - in which Murray established himself as the greatest, and Novak Djokovic was also there
2015-2016
2015-2016MuzzaNo1e
GSs15 (No1eslam)
WTFs11
OGs10
Masters510
big titles816
all titles718
YE#1s11
YE (points)2 (8945; -7640), 1 124101 (16 585; YE record), 2 (11780; -630)
weeks @ #1896
h2h39
ATP points2135528365 (ATP record 16950)
 
Last edited:

Sputnik Bulgorov

Professional
Roddick not just won a slam but also rank 1, before Roddick many others became Rank 1 too from 1998 till 2003, I guess after Pete went down then many lesser men took their turns until Federer finally took firm control of it and he had no one until Nadal arrived.

It is amazing that Fed needed 9K points to be ranked 1, Nadal needed 11K points to be ranked 1 and Nole needed freakin 13000 points to be ranked 1 for the first time, what a mountain to climb and Nole did climb it.... amazing !



A generation is 10 years in Tennis, always has been as per the players.

A player is normally growing up in his teens, in his primes in his 20s and past his prime in his 30s, so when an athlete is 30 and someone 20 arrives, that is your next generation

Agassi was 11 years older, what burden did have? Nothing, he himself was on fumes. Unlike Agassi, Federer was red hot in 2010s too, in the mid 2010s he smooked Murray at wimbledon, he stomped the tour in 2017, and you are comparing him with some geratric geezer like Andre ?

Great age shift is very real, Andre's 04-05 status was only reached by Federer in 2018-2019 when Federer was 37-38, thats why Roger's 38 is Andre's 34.

So considering that, Fed's gen mates Nadal, Djokjovic, Murray, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Wawrinka couldn't stop him from breaking Pete's record, no?

And Agassi has the best win% in your stats outside big 4 and Alcaraz. If he's a geriatric geezer, then Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Zverev, Thiem whose burden it was to stop Djokovic must truly be mugs since they weren't able to win as much as the old geezer on fumes with a broken back, even at a much younger age.
 

Razer

Legend
Also clearly shows Nole had to go to the highest peak as first time number 1. Nothing that Carlito would understand at age 19. He wouldn't have been number 1 if not for pandemic. Fake number 1

But it is not Alcaraz's fault that Pandemic rules kept Novak out. His rank 1 is a bit asterisked but we should still give him credit, he has won 2 slams at 20, so we can forgive him for being 1 at that time. Not to mention Alcaraz himself became 1 ahead of many losers who were older to him and still could not become 1.

Plus inflations are very real

Look at Roger having 81% vs Top 10 in weak and then dropping to 60% vs top 10 in Strong era, now Fedfans might say there was no weak era but these percents are not a lie, nobody can have 81% vs top 10 in a strong era of multiple ATGs and hall of famers. Plus Nole's 75% in CIE is also due to no young players playing great, otherwise even 75 is a bit tough to maintain for someone in his 30s.
 

Razer

Legend
So considering that, Fed's gen mates Nadal, Djokjovic, Murray, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Wawrinka couldn't stop him from breaking Pete's record, no?

And Agassi has the best win% in your stats outside big 4 and Alcaraz. If he's a geriatric geezer, then Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Zverev, Thiem whose burden it was to stop Djokovic must truly be mugs since they weren't able to win as much as the old geezer on fumes with a broken back, even at a much younger age.

Yes Federer's gen mates Nadal, Djokovic also could not stop but who gets more blame? Roddick & Hewitt, isn't it ?

Look when you are in 10th Grade then you cannot expect a student in 2nd/3rd grade to beat you in a fistfight, but that 2nd/3rd grade kid is also of your generation, isn't it ? He will grow up and when he is 18 and you are 26, then lets have the fist fight.

So here Nole is the kid in 2nd grade, Nadal is the kid in 3rd grade while Federer and Hewitt/Roddick were students in 10th grade, so the question is what was Federer's classmates doing to protect Pete's records ? I would say nothing, LOL
 

GoatNo1

Professional
top8elo.jpg
 

GoatNo1

Professional
Does it pain you to see that Djokovic leads both Strong era as well as Inflation era ? Your fav champ Nadal has no era of his own ? Is that the reason why you joked?
rafa has a season (2010) between feds and noles eras!
 

Razer

Legend
rafa has a season (2010) between feds and noles eras!

Rafa was super strong in 08, 10 and in 13, but in general IMO we should not classify eras based on 1 player.
2011 onwards should not be called Nole's era alone and even 2000s should not be called Federer's era alone or 1990s as Pete's era, that kind of classification is not fair to the field.
Eras are always built collectively by all the players involved. These 3 classifications (weak, strong, inflation) yet make more sense than giving eras to 1 player alone you know.
 

GoatNo1

Professional
Rafa was super strong in 08, 10 and in 13, but in general IMO we should not classify eras based on 1 player.
2011 onwards should not be called Nole's era alone and even 2000s should not be called Federer's era alone or 1990s as Pete's era, that kind of classification is not fair to the field.
Eras are always built collectively by all the players involved. These 3 classifications (weak, strong, inflation) yet make more sense than giving eras to 1 player alone you know.
i dont think so

2004-2009 is feds era
2011-now (2017*, or W16-RG18*) is noles era
 

jl809

Hall of Fame
Does it pain you to see that Djokovic leads both Strong era as well as Inflation era ? Your fav champ Nadal has no era of his own ?
No salt from me about Djoker during the strong era. 10-1 from 2011 is one of the most impressive achievements in the OE. Getting number 1 in that stacked 2012 year too. Nadal never had an era for sure, he was only healthy and good on all 3 surfaces at the same time in 3 years (2010, 2011, then sort of 2019), and his prime on grass ended almost as soon as his prime on HC started.

And inflation era, I'm not salty about it wrt to Nadal, it's for Fed whom I grieve :confused: 2011 USO, 2012 AO, 2014 AO, 2014 Wimb, 2015 Wimb, 2015 USO, 2016 AO... he still had deep runs in his 30s but got so many prime / peak Djokodals...
 

Razer

Legend
No salt from me about Djoker during the strong era. 10-1 from 2011 is one of the most impressive achievements in the OE. Getting number 1 in that stacked 2012 year too. Nadal never had an era for sure, he was only healthy and good on all 3 surfaces at the same time in 3 years (2010, 2011, then sort of 2019), and his prime on grass ended almost as soon as his prime on HC started.

And inflation era, I'm not salty about it wrt to Nadal, it's for Fed whom I grieve :confused: 2011 USO, 2012 AO, 2014 AO, 2014 Wimb, 2015 Wimb, 2015 USO, 2016 AO... he still had deep runs in his 30s but got so many prime / peak Djokodals...

Federer gained 3 in inflation which is more than he could have hoped for. He was lucky Nole was not there to block him in 2017-2018. So basically it was the strong era which blocked Fed, like you pointed out those USO and wimbledons he should have won more of them, plus look at his percents during his weak era, 81% vs top 10, is that possible in the presence of ATGs ? Fed enjoyed in his peak era, so he had to suffer in Djokodal's peaks, it was his destiny, I would say Federer unable to tame Nadal was his biggest reason why he is not goat today, that wimbledon-ao loss to young rafa and later his chokes really cost him bigtime. He got compensated by 3 slams in 17-18 but not enough. So how long do we eulogise Fed? Pointless.... I think Djoker deserves his wins because he has fought these people through his life, it was unpleasant to have Federer and Nadal in their primes before he reached his, not to mention Murray and Stan who themselves are Roddick/Hewitt/Safin level guys or better, so Djokovic totally deserves it, I have stopped eulogising Fed long ago for a reason.
 
Last edited:

Bambooman

Hall of Fame
The first and third fall on the 24 days in which Djokovic scored a slam victory.

The middle one is for Fedal's victories.
 

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
But it is not Alcaraz's fault that Pandemic rules kept Novak out. His rank 1 is a bit asterisked but we should still give him credit, he has won 2 slams at 20, so we can forgive him for being 1 at that time. Not to mention Alcaraz himself became 1 ahead of many losers who were older to him and still could not become 1.

Plus inflations are very real

Look at Roger having 81% vs Top 10 in weak and then dropping to 60% vs top 10 in Strong era, now Fedfans might say there was no weak era but these percents are not a lie, nobody can have 81% vs top 10 in a strong era of multiple ATGs and hall of famers. Plus Nole's 75% in CIE is also due to no young players playing great, otherwise even 75 is a bit tough to maintain for someone in his 30s.
Same thing that happened with Rafa's so title must be applicable for ye number 1. Both were illegitimate.
 

jl809

Hall of Fame
Federer gained 3 in inflation which is more than he could have hoped for. He was lucky Nole was not there to block him in 2017-2018. So basically it was the strong era which blocked Fed, like you pointed out those USO and wimbledons he should have won more of them, plus look at his percents during his weak era, 81% vs top 10, is that possible in the presence of ATGs ? Fed enjoyed in his peak era, so he had to suffer in Djokodal's peaks, it was his destiny, I would say Federer unable to tame Nadal was his biggest reason why he is not goat today, that wimbledon-ao loss to young rafa and later his chokes really cost him bigtime. He got compensated by 3 slams in 17-18 but not enough. So how long do we eulogise Fed? Pointless.... I think Djoker deserves his wins because he has fought these people through his life, it was unpleasant to have Federer and Nadal in their primes before he reached his, not to mention Murray and Stan who themselves are Roddick/Hewitt/Safin level guys or better, so Djokovic totally deserves it, I have stopped eulogising Fed long ago for a reason.
This is where we agree to disagree.

We’ve discussed it before. Both Fed (2003-2007) and Djokovic (2018-2023) have been criticised for weak eras, and both won 12 slams in those weak eras (tbh I think 2016 was weak too but that’s another matter).

It boils down to how I think Fed isn’t losing more than 3 or 4 of the slams from his weak era even if you put peak 2008-2015 Nadal or peak Djokovic into that era with him to make it “stronger”. Because he is just better than them at his peak at Wimbledon and the US Open. In fact I think he takes slams from them at those events too, not the other way round.

On the other hand Djokovic would lose something like 10-11 slams that he got in his “weak era” if you put someone like peak Fed into 2018-2023. I think he won AO 19 at a very impressive level and USO 18 wasn’t bad but almost every other slam has been unconvincing, battling injury in a few, being taken to 5 sets in finals by guys who are not ATG level (or are 37 lol), nearly losing to Nadal indoors, etc.. he really NEEDED the era to be lacking prime ATGs in it, unlike Fed from 04-07

Not only that, I refuse to believe that Fed aged 30+ wouldn’t have won tonnes of slams in his 30s (not just 3) if given Meddy, Loserpas etc when he was 31, 33, 34 etc, not 2014 AOdal, 2014 Wimbledon Djoker, etc… e.g. 35 year old Djoker beat Loserpas at the AO this year, and I think 2017 Fed would have done so too

I know your view on this though, that it’s time travel tennis hypothetical stuff. But that doesn’t really answer the debate
 

Razer

Legend
Same thing that happened with Rafa's so title must be applicable for ye number 1. Both were illegitimate.

But there is a difference here

Novak knew months in prior that he cannot attend US Open 2022, so he chose to not get vaccinated many months before which is entirely on him.

However AO22 is cheating, Djokovic was given an exemption by Tiley which was definitely approved by Morrison at that time but the Govt did a U Turn as protests grew, so in the end they threw Novak under the bus after the Instagram post was out.

So Nadal's title is asterisked but Alcaraz's is not.
 

Razer

Legend
This is where we agree to disagree.

We’ve discussed it before. Both Fed (2003-2007) and Djokovic (2018-2023) have been criticised for weak eras, and both won 12 slams in those weak eras (tbh I think 2016 was weak too but that’s another matter).

It boils down to how I think Fed isn’t losing more than 3 or 4 of the slams from his weak era even if you put peak 2008-2015 Nadal or peak Djokovic into that era with him to make it “stronger”. Because he is just better than them at his peak at Wimbledon and the US Open. In fact I think he takes slams from them at those events too, not the other way round.

On the other hand Djokovic would lose something like 10-11 slams that he got in his “weak era” if you put someone like peak Fed into 2018-2023. I think he won AO 19 at a very impressive level and USO 18 wasn’t bad but almost every other slam has been unconvincing, battling injury in a few, being taken to 5 sets in finals by guys who are not ATG level (or are 37 lol), nearly losing to Nadal indoors, etc.. he really NEEDED the era to be lacking prime ATGs in it, unlike Fed from 04-07

Not only that, I refuse to believe that Fed aged 30+ wouldn’t have won tonnes of slams in his 30s (not just 3) if given Meddy, Loserpas etc when he was 31, 33, 34 etc, not 2014 AOdal, 2014 Wimbledon Djoker, etc… e.g. 35 year old Djoker beat Loserpas at the AO this year, and I think 2017 Fed would have done so too

I know your view on this though, that it’s time travel tennis hypothetical stuff. But that doesn’t really answer the debate

Why will you place Peak Fed in 18-23 if Federer did not have any Peak Fed in his own peak to rival him ? .... You want Federer to eat his cake but Djokovic to not eat his ? You want to give Federer 2 cakes and keep Novak hungry, not happening

The way Federer choked on MPs and the way he did nothing against Rafa from 04 till 16 I am convinced that he was a coward with a lot of skills, thats it, he was super skilled but his cowardly nature cannot be cured, he lacked toughness and you cannot buy that in the market or teach some, it has to be developed, problem is he was too soft, he didn't have the Iron Mentality with which Rafa/Nole had.

Lets split 20s vs 30s and see who deserved what ?

Number of times Federer defeated ATGs in his 20s = 11 Times (this includes wins vs Pete, Agassi, I am being generous to Fed, maybe I shouldn't..?...)
Number of times Federer defeated ATGs in his 30s = 3 Times

Number of times Federer blocked by ATGs in his 20s = 11 Times
Number of times Federer blocked by ATGs in his 30s = 11 Times



Number of times Djokovic defeated ATGs in his 20s = 13 Times
Number of times Djokovic defeated ATGs in his 30s = 5 Times


Number of times Djokovic blocked by ATGs in his 20s = 15 Times
Number of times Djokovic blocked by ATGs in his 30s = 2 Times



Number of times Nadal defeated ATGs in his 20s = 19 Times
Number of times Nadal defeated ATGs in his 30s = 3 Times

Number of times Nadal blocked by ATGs in his 20s = 6 Times
Number of Times Nadal blocked by ATGs in his 30s = 5 Times



So what do we have here ? Federer faced ATGs 22 times in his 20s and 14 times in his 30s, which is a total of 36 times. Djokovic faced ATGs 28 times in 20s and 7 times in 20s, so this means 35 times..... Nadal faced 25 times in his 20s and 8 times in his 20s, so that is 33 times.

Djokovic faced formidable rivals almost same times as Federer did, now Federer did not face enough in his 20s and so he paid the price in his 30s and if Federer in his 20s would have faced Djokovic in Australia or Nadal on Clay or even Djokodal in USA then it would severely affect his slam count, Federer bullied roddick and hewitt, this is not same Djokodal. If Agassi old man can stretch Fed to 5 then Nadal and Djokovic can do a lot more damage. Fed's rivals were so bad that Agassi used to win in 5 vs them back to back on HCs, so no you cannot say Fed wins his titles against anyone and everyone, if he was so good then his win% vs top 10 would not have dropped from 81 to 60 in the strong era, he was not that old in the strong era, he was under 34 for most of it, the win% vs both his rivals should not have dipped so much if his peak was so godly as you are saying.
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
There aren’t 3 eras, there are more

  • 2001-2003: the roflmao era - complete chaos on tour with Old Ivanisevic, Thomas Johanssen, Costa etc all winning slams

  • 2004-2006: the weak era - which isn’t that weak; it’s just weaker than what came afterwards. Fed beating up Brokeback Agassi, Baggy, Roddick, Hewitt etc was not much fun really

  • 2007-2014: the stronk era. In which an ensemble cast of ATGs smacked the crap out of each other with regularity with some great cameos from lesser lights

  • 2015-2016: the MuryGOAT era - in which Murray established himself as the greatest, and Novak Djokovic was also there

  • 2017-2019: the inflation era - in which few slams boasted more than simply one ATG past their prime absolutely mincing a bunch of chumps. Bring back 04-06!!!

  • 2020-now: the hyperinflation era. The cursed slam final era. The Casper Ruud era. The Tsitsipas era. The PCB era. The “Nadal just went 20-0 on hard courts after 6 months out” era. The “Djokovic just won 2 RGs in his mid 30s lol” era. Etc, etc
2015-2016 was another weaker era on par with 2004-2006.
 

Razer

Legend
Wow. So much effort put on this. TTW insecurities about their idols amazes me.

It is not insecurity, these are real numbers.

Federer's numbers dropped drastically in the strong era and Novak's numbers have jumped a little bit in his 30s, so there needs to be explanation for it and this is it.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Just cause Nadal was in bad form it doesn't mean it is weak. Comparing Murray and Wawrinka with Davydenko and Blake is not possible.
That’s only one year and there’s still 2016.

Nevertheless, I have a hard time calling 2015-2016 stronger when mid 30’s Fed didn’t have any difficulty against Djoker’s competition
 

Razer

Legend
That’s only one year and there’s still 2016.

Nevertheless, I have a hard time calling 2015-2016 stronger when mid 30’s Fed didn’t have any difficulty against Djoker’s competition

It is mid 30s Federer, so he can beat the whole tour..... It is not Mid 30s James Blake/Mid 30s Mike Danny

Start respecting Federer more instead of denigrating him with a hope that it will pump his stature.

Pre 2008 it was a 1-2 man tour, comparing 2015 with that is stupidity when Murray, Stan themselves have beaten Djokovic and Federer beat them.
 
Top