2003-2007

[BringBackSV]

I was just conveying the point the OP was trying to make. This isn't my argument.

But yeah, it's so sad that people who try to use weak era argument, don't apply this to clay.

Yeah, you raise a good point. He wasn't winning on HC as a baby, he was only winning on clay as a teen.

And Djokovic wasn't a teen in 2008. His prime started in 2008.

Novak's prime did not start in 2008.

 

[Tony48]

All this is just hyperbole.

Fact remains Fed did not lose to any player other than Nadal when he won those 11 majors in 4 years and that too just on clay. He was just that invincible.

A fact that no one disputes. The issue is whether or not Djokovic WOULD HAVE beaten Federer had he been one of Federer's peers in his era.

And since I'm explaining the point of contention again and since you have neither 1) refuted any of the points that I have made nor 2) even acknowledged them, I guess this is a futile post as well.

:roll::roll::roll: You even used the word "reasonable". lol

Very persuasive. I guess I have to retract everything I said now.

 

[BringBackSV]

The issue is that some people want to act like it's either option A or option B. Fed is a better all surface player than Novak or Rafa, obviously. There are things he did which the other two wouldn't accomplish, even if they were dropped into the same era in which he amassed most of his records. Fed also without a doubt, benefited from great timing in that he didn't have to play another great player on any surface but clay through the easy pickings years.

 

[AssaultJoker]

Novak's prime did not start in 2008.

LOL at Djokovic's prime starting in 2008 just because he won a major:lol::lol: Double standards by biased Fed fans who aren't willing to accept that Fed was in his prime in 2012 by their own logic:lol::lol:

 

[abmk]

So I guess the rest of my post doesn't matter then? You're just going to ignore the extremely strong correlation between beating Federer in a Masters final and having success against him overall?

Djokovic beat Federer the very next year at the Australian Open. Coincidence?

Nadal beats Federer almost every time they play. Coincidence?

How many times has Hewitt, Roddick, Blake, Ljubicic, etc ever beaten Federer in a slam? Never mind 2004-2007. EVER? A combined zero times. Never. Not past his peak. Not during his peak. Not before his peak. Never. And what do they all have in common? They never beat Federer in a Masters final.

Yet almost everyone that has managed to beat Federer in a Masters final has beaten him in a slam as well. Nadal, Murray, Nalbandian, Djokovic, etc. Coincidence? And since a Masters final is right up there with slam-level contention, it's pretty reasonable to conclude that Djokovic would have most certainly beaten Federer if he got to play him a bunch of times like Roddick did or Hewitt did.

After all I have explained, if you still don't think that a Masters final serves as a strong indicator as to how a player would fare against Federer overall (including slams), then I don't know what to say.

And I don't know why you're using Djokovic's "early bloomer" status as something against him. That makes absolutely NO sense. Djokovic was the less experienced one. Why you're using that to slight him while he was playing the most experienced player of all time is absurd. The fact that he was an early bloomer and STILL able to beat Federer in a Masters final says a lot.



OK? What does that have to do with this discussion? The topic is Federer vs. other players, not Djokovic vs other players.

yeah, I'm sure murray was thrilled with beating federer in masters finals from 2008-12 and getting a grand total of 1 set in 3 grand slam matches :roll:

while hewitt may not have beaten federer in a masters final, he did beat him @ the Davis Cup in 2003, which was a far more pressure situation

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

LOL at Djokovic's prime starting in 2008 just because he won a major:lol::lol: Double standards by biased Fed fans who aren't willing to accept that Fed was in his prime in 2012 by their own logic:lol::lol:

prime is not peak.

nole`s prime started in 2006 until now.

but his peak was 2011.

fed`s prime was since 2003 to 2010 and 2012 was a second prime like this year.

but peak was 2004-2007

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

the top-20 os 2003-2007 were much better than the top-20 of this last years....

after 2008 we have a most better top-3.

but the rest of the field not good until this year in where the youngers started to rise.

ferrer was a solid nº3 or 4 in this years and he is a player of fed`s era.

robredo and many others are still here.

players like hewitt , safin , roddickk , coria , gaudio , davydenko , ancic , gronsjean , old agassi , nalbandia and many more players were better players than the top 20 of this last years

 

[tennisaddict]

A fact that no one disputes. The issue is whether or not Djokovic WOULD HAVE beaten Federer had he been one of Federer's peers in his era.

And since I'm explaining the point of contention again and since you have neither 1) refuted any of the points that I have made nor 2) even acknowledged them, I guess this is a futile post as well.



Very persuasive. I guess I have to retract everything I said now.

He won a major the first month of 2008, he was number 3 in all of 2007 and was consistent in reaching late stages.

Why couldn't he translate that to a win at a major in 2007?

If you are talking about the NOVAK of 2011 in 2003-07, sure enough he would have chances. We have seen time and time again all other versions of NOVAK are just not consistent, like how Fed was at that time.

You simply cannot correlate masters victory with majors performance for top players like Fed and Nadal.

 

[AssaultJoker]

the top-20 os 2003-2007 were much better than the top-20 of this last years....

after 2008 we have a most better top-3.

but the rest of the field not good until this year in where the youngers started to rise.

ferrer was a solid nº3 or 4 in this years and he is a player of fed`s era.

robredo and many others are still here.

players like hewitt , safin , roddickk , coria , gaudio , davydenko , ancic , gronsjean , old agassi , nalbandia and many more players were better players than the top 20 of this last years

Better than Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, DelPotro, Berdych, Soderling, Ferrer, Wawrinka, Tsonga?

 

[AssaultJoker]

prime is not peak.

nole`s prime started in 2006 until now.

but his peak was 2011.

fed`s prime was since 2003 to 2010 and 2012 was a second prime like this year.

but peak was 2004-2007

So Nole's prime started when he was 18 yo and Fed's prime started when he was 21 yo? Double standards at its best.

 

[sliceroni]

So Nole's prime started when he was 18 yo and Fed's prime started when he was 21 yo? Double standards at its best.

Federer was a late bloomer, that's old news.

 

[Algo]

So Nole's prime started when he was 18 yo and Fed's prime started when he was 21 yo? Double standards at its best.

can anyone really be that ignorant?
There are Early/Late (ish, 21 is still young) bloomers.

 

[AssaultJoker]

Federer was a late bloomer, that's old news.

So was Djokovic. It's just biased Fed fans who try to discredit Djokovic by saying that he was in his prime since 2008 to make him look inferior to Fed during the next two season while he was losing even to Roddick and playing average tennis before Nole really matured physically in 2011.

 

[AssaultJoker]

can anyone really be that ignorant?
There are Early/Late (ish, 21 is still young) bloomers.

 

[RF20Lennon]

Because he got old. Novak and Andy lucked out big time.

 

[AssaultJoker]

Because he got old. Novak and Andy lucked out big time.

As if they were not beating Federer when Roger was in his prime:lol:

 

[Deleted member 307496]

So Nole's prime started when he was 18 yo and Fed's prime started when he was 21 yo? Double standards at its best.

Novak's prime started: August 2007 when he was 20 years old.
Federer's prime started: July 2003 when he was 21 years old.

What's the big difference?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

As if they were not beating Federer when Roger was in his prime:lol:

Murray is gonna beat prime Federer in majors when the only year he could do it was 2013? :lol:

Djokovic, probably, but not outside the AO.

 

[Tony48]

He won a major the first month of 2008, he was number 3 in all of 2007 and was consistent in reaching late stages.

Why couldn't he translate that to a win at a major in 2007?

Well, have you considered who he was playing? Roger Federer? The No. 1 seed? The 3-time defending champion? The greatest tennis player of all time? I'd say that those were pretty sizable obstacles for any tennis player to face. It was also Djokovic's first final.

The question you pose implies that Djokovic is the greatest tennis player of all time, and not Federer.

If you are talking about the NOVAK of 2011 in 2003-07, sure enough he would have chances. We have seen time and time again all other versions of NOVAK are just not consistent, like how Fed was at that time.

Well Ferrer is arguably one of the most "consistent" players of all time, yet has not even once managed to beat Federer out of like 17 meetings or something. In this instance, it's not about consistency; it's about skill level, and Djokovic has the skill level capable of beating Federer. He doesn't have to be super consistent.

Take Nadal for example. He skips slams; loses to low-ranked, unseeded players; yet beats Federer almost every time they play....because he possesses a high enough skill level capable of beating Federer.

You simply cannot correlate masters victory with majors performance for top players like Fed and Nadal.

I'm not simply correlating Masters "victories" with major performances. I'm correlating Masters finals victories with slam performance....which turns out to be an incredibly strong indicator as to whether or not one achieved success against Federer in a slam.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

So this thread is allowed but my thread about 2010 being the weakest year ever, which is true, isn't? Right. Clearly the mods here are Nadal lovers. Soderling, Berdych and a Djoker who had his first top 10 win in December and served a million double faults? Roger floundering, Murray floundering, Del Po and Tsonga out. Facts are facts.

Just proof of how little knowledge some tennis fans have when they try and say Roger played in a weak era. Unless anyone genuinely thinks having Melzer as a semi final opponent is a tough deal. What next? Rogef has it easy at wimbledon, while poor Rafito has to deal with injured Darcis and baby Kyrgios?

OP you are a Djoker fan and that's cool. His 2011 was arguably the best year ever, alongside Roger's 2006. Novak has always had to face at least one of the big 4 to win his slams, and swept peak Nadal aside. But Roger has 17 slams and earned them all. Not the person to attack if you want to talk about luck and weak draws.

2010 > 1996-1998.

Sampras had to contend with, who? Pioline? Kafelnikov on clay? Rafter? Don't make me laugh, all three of these players pale in comparison to Murray, Djokovic and Federer; even in 2010.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Washington in a slam final.

 

[BringBackSV]

Murray is gonna beat prime Federer in majors when the only year he could do it was 2013? :lol:

Djokovic, probably, but not outside the AO.

Novak could beat Roger at RG, AO and potentially the USO, though less likely than the other two. The only GS where I really don't give him much of a chance is at Wimbledon.

Murray on a good day might beat Fed, I think that's pretty reasonable honestly. Fed is not unplayable.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Novak could beat Roger at RG, AO and potentially the USO, though less likely than the other two. The only GS where I really don't give him much of a chance is at Wimbledon.

Murray on a good day might beat Fed, I think that's pretty reasonable honestly. Fed is not unplayable.

I doubt it, Federer was unplayable in 2004-2007 unless your name was Nadal or Djokovic.

Djokovic might beat him at the French Open, I highly doubt he would at the USO seeing as how close he was to losing to Federer in 2011 there.

 

[BringBackSV]

Novak's prime started: August 2007 when he was 20 years old.
Federer's prime started: July 2003 when he was 21 years old.

What's the big difference?

Because he made a GS final? He looked pretty green to me in that final. If he had more seasoning, he'd have won in my opinion. The fact is that Novak didn't really become consistent until 11 and I think that it was closer to August 2010 when Novak really hit his prime.

 

[BringBackSV]

I doubt it, Federer was unplayable in 2004-2007 unless your name was Nadal or Djokovic.

Djokovic might beat him at the French Open, I highly doubt he would at the USO seeing as how close he was to losing to Federer in 2011 there.

I'd make Fed the favorite at USO but that doesn't mean Novak couldn't best him.

Murray's shown an ability to beat Fed already so I don't find it a stretch. Roger would certainly be favored but Andy has at points, really put it together.

 

[Djokovic2011]

2010 > 1996-1998.

Sampras had to contend with, who? Pioline? Kafelnikov on clay? Rafter? Don't make me laugh, all three of these players pale in comparison to Murray, Djokovic and Federer; even in 2010.

What about Pete's competition from '93-'95 Saby?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Because he made a GS final? He looked pretty green to me in that final. If he had more seasoning, he'd have won in my opinion. The fact is that Novak didn't really become consistent until 11 and I think that it was closer to August 2010 when Novak really hit his prime.

GS final, 2 semifinal runs at Roland Garros and Wimbledon, and then a GS win at the AO in 2008. That isn't prime Novak?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

What about Pete's competition from '93-'95 Saby?

Certainly stronger, which is why I don't include it.

 

[The_Order]

So this thread is allowed but my thread about 2010 being the weakest year ever, which is true, isn't? Right. Clearly the mods here are Nadal lovers. Soderling, Berdych and a Djoker who had his first top 10 win in December and served a million double faults? Roger floundering, Murray floundering, Del Po and Tsonga out. Facts are facts.

Just proof of how little knowledge some tennis fans have when they try and say Roger played in a weak era. Unless anyone genuinely thinks having Melzer as a semi final opponent is a tough deal. What next? Rogef has it easy at wimbledon, while poor Rafito has to deal with injured Darcis and baby Kyrgios?

OP you are a Djoker fan and that's cool. His 2011 was arguably the best year ever, alongside Roger's 2006. Novak has always had to face at least one of the big 4 to win his slams, and swept peak Nadal aside. But Roger has 17 slams and earned them all. Not the person to attack if you want to talk about luck and weak draws.

2006 was weaker than 2010.

34 yr old Bjorkman in Wimbledon sf is worse than Melzer in RG sf.

Hewitt floundering, Roddick floundering, Agassi retired. Ljubicic and Blake in top 4 rankings when they can't go deep in the majors.

FYI, Roddick didn't beat ANY top 10 opponents in 2006, including until the US Open final, his first and only top 10 victory all year was against #4 Ljubicic in the YEC :lol:

His best victory was against 11th ranked Fernando Gonzalez on grass :lol:

 

[jg153040]

2006 was weaker than 2010.

34 yr old Bjorkman in Wimbledon sf is worse than Melzer in RG sf.

Hewitt floundering, Roddick floundering, Agassi retired. Ljubicic and Blake in top 4 rankings when they can't go deep in the majors.

FYI, Roddick didn't beat ANY top 10 opponents in 2006, including until the US Open final :lol:

His best victory was against 11th ranked Fernando Gonzalez on grass :lol:

I looked up weak era in a dictionary.

Weak Era = excuse when people can't handle the truth

 

[The_Order]

I looked up weak era in a dictionary.

Weak Era = excuse when people can't handle the truth

Funny how you don't respond with this to acesampras (aka revenant, mayonnaise). Maybe because reading his post got you all excited.

I'm sick of this whole Novak couldn't beat a top 10 opponent in 2010 until the US sf where he beat Federer, when in 2006 Roddick beat ZERO top ten players even to reach the USO final. Double standard hypocrites.

 

[jg153040]

Funny how you don't respond with this to acesampras (aka revenant, mayonnaise). Maybe because reading his post got you all excited.

I'm sick of this whole Novak couldn't beat a top 10 opponent in 2010 until the US sf where he beat Federer, when in 2006 Roddick beat ZERO top ten players even to reach the USO final. Double standard hypocrites.

Because we are friends and I respond mostly to friends here. I care if my friends don't know the truth . Me and mayo aren't that close.

But, I responded to Natf that he is doing the same nonsense just to elevate Fed, saying Fed's era was tougher. You guys are really funny.

Why this weak era is a fallacy is because tennis is a game of matchups. People on both sides just use matcups that favor them. I mean I can use Davy or Roddick h2h vs Rafa and Nole to prove that Fed's era was strong, or I can use Rafa's h2h vs Federer to prove Fed's era was weak. It's so funny you people don't see this.

Also Fed and Nole and Rafa aren't the same age. In Fed's era they were losing cuz they were developing. But now Fed is losing because he is past his prime. So, it's really crazy.

 

[The_Order]

Because we are friends and I respond mostly to friends here. I care if my friends don't know the truth . Me and mayo aren't that close.

But, I responded to Natf that he is doing the same nonsense just to elevate Fed, saying Fed's era was tougher. You guys are really funny.

Why this weak era is a fallacy is because tennis is a game of matchups. People on both sides just use matcups that favor them. I mean I can use Davy or Roddick h2h vs Rafa and Nole to prove that Fed's era was strong, or I can use Rafa's h2h vs Federer to prove Fed's era was weak. It's so funny you people don't see this.

Also Fed and Nole and Rafa aren't the same age. In Fed's era they were losing cuz they were developing. But now Fed is losing because he is past his prime. So, it's really crazy.

Ok, you believe what you want. If you want to believe that every field in every generation is exactly the same, go ahead, I'm not going to try and stop you. Just sounds absolutely preposterous.

 

[jg153040]

Ok, you believe what you want. If you want to believe that every field in every generation is exactly the same, go ahead, I'm not going to try and stop you. Just sounds absolutely preposterous.

Yes, it's the same, because everybody is playing under the same conditions. If there is something that makes Fed's era weak, that same force is affecting Federer too, doesn't it?

I'm not saying every field it the same, I'm saying it's the same relative to each other. If some era has less technology, this is affecting everyone, so in that sense the field is the same.

The problem is we can compare players only vs each other. So, is Djokovic really that great, or is Rafa worse letting him win majors. I mean, why doesn't Rafa keep Nole from winning slams?

 

[The_Order]

Yes, it's the same, because everybody is playing under the same conditions. If there is something that makes Fed's era weak, that same force is affecting Federer too, doesn't it?

I'm not saying every field it the same, I'm saying it's the same relative to each other. If some era has less technology, this is affecting everyone, so in that sense the field is the same.

The problem is we can compare players only vs each other. So, is Djokovic really that great, or is Rafa worse letting him win majors. I mean, why doesn't Rafa keep Nole from winning slams?

Nadal has kept him from winning slams though. RG12-14 and US13. That's 4 majors he stopped him from winning.

 

[jg153040]

Nadal has kept him from winning slams though. RG12-14 and US13. That's 4 majors he stopped him from winning.

Yeah, but how many majors did Fed stop Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Ferrero?
Federer also stopped Djokovic and Murray from a lot of majors.

Also Fed stopped them so much he destroyed their belief. Rafa didn't crush Novak early enough, so Novak got some confidence.

Novak and Murray are afraid of Federer even now. They still struggle vs him when he can barely play.

 

[mike danny]

Novak could beat Roger at RG, AO and potentially the USO, though less likely than the other two. The only GS where I really don't give him much of a chance is at Wimbledon.

Murray on a good day might beat Fed, I think that's pretty reasonable honestly. Fed is not unplayable.

Sorry not buying it. Murray couldn't beat Fed in a major untill he was 31. And they played 3 times in slams untill then.

Even after he beat won 4 of his last 6 matches vs Fed in 2008-2009 at one point, he still couldn't beat Fed in AO 2010, a major.

Even after Murray reached his peak in 2012 undel Lendl, he still failed to beat Fed in a major despite outplaying him for 2 sets.

Even in 2013, Fed's worst season since 2001, despite being the better player, Murray still needed 5 sets to beat him. And I repeat against a pretty old Fed in his worst season since 2001, with Murray being at his peak.

All this suggest that Murray wouldn't have much of a chance against Fed in a GS.

The only players who could beat peak Fed are Nadal and Djokovic, though the latter mostly at AO. At RG it would be even and at the others the edge goes to Fed. At the USO Djokovic always had to come from behind and even pull a Houdini twice to win. He never won the first set in all their 5 meetings and had to save a MP twice against a past prime Fed. This indicates Fed has the edge at the USO

 

[Wynter]

Big 4 of 2012 or so > Big 4 of 05

Yet in saying that the big 4 of 05 would tear everyone apart as of this year and I'd be tempted to say 2013 as well.

In January Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Fed looked lethal, and all played beautiful tennis.

If they were to go up against the Big 4 now? Djokovic is the only one who'd consistently bag wins outside of Rafa on clay.

Murray back from injury and still not 100%, Fed is practically a complete shadow of himself barring his serve and can barely hit a BH winner, Nadal can't play on grass and Djokovic still seems to be consistent at not actually winning majors but getting to the business stages. 1 major win in 2 years now yet all of them he's made SFs barring Stan?

If you threw them in a Hardcourt RR tomorrow 05 would probably win handily.

Then we reach the rest of the top 10.

Nalbandian, Davydenko, Haas, Nadal, Gonzalez, Coria

vs

Wawrinka, Raonic, Dimitrov, Nishikori, Ferrer, Berdych

Barring Wawrinka do you see any of these guys consistently beating those above? Even then being the headcase Wawrinka can be it'd be interesting to see how good he would go.

The argument repeats itself

Fed Nadal and Djoko > Hewitt, Safin, Roddick at their peaks

05 Fed > Current Nadal and Djoko

YET

The Top 20 of the 03-07 era would slaughter the Top 20 we have now.

 

[AssaultJoker]

Big 4 of 2012 or so > Big 4 of 05

Thank you.