A 38-year old player is the world no 3. Weak era?

[AceSalvo]

All the babies that were crying about 2004-2007 being a weak era have stuffed pacifiers in their mouth in the last 12 months.

 

[Pantera]

I have not seen a better tennis player than federer

I have..Nadal, Djokovic, Borg and Sampras.

 

[OhYes]

Wow! This is so pathetic! Are you Srdjan?

The officials you are referring to have done everything in their power to screw over Fed. The court speeds have been dropped in favor of Nadal & Djokovic.......Federer is still ranked # 3 in spite of this.

Federer always had to face tough competition not only from his peers but also a great younger generation....Who does Djokovic have to face? Peak Dimitrov, Raonic, Nishikori? LMAO! Not just one but two and now possibly three generations behind Djokovic and Nadal have been absolute duds.

Ok. This has to be Srdjan!

Omega 7000 has spoken
You don't even have to bother. Everybody knows that from big 3 Novak had it toughest and Fed had it easiest. No question about it.
ANd now he has to pay Kyrgios to badmouth Djokovic, he has to join the council to protect his business and money flow, he can choose the surface of tournaments, time of play, he can add wins and trophies from exhibitions to his official ATP stats. And he can be fresh as a daisy after Nadal semi and Djokovic final. Nothing works though.

 

[Pantera]

Federer fans are comedy gold. Federer was being schooled by Djokovic and Nadal from 2008 onwards more often than not and not been YE1 since 2009. It appears to them the last decade has been a weak era yet the era of Phillipousis, Henman, Roddick, Baghdatis, Gonzales and Ferrero was the truly tough era.

That W2019 has sent so many Federer fans over the edge, and it really is great comedy reading such threads. Entertainment value 10/10.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Omega 7000 has spoken
You don't even have to bother. Everybody knows that from big 3 Novak had it toughest and Fed had it easiest. No question about it.
ANd now he has to pay Kyrgios to badmouth Djokovic, he has to join the council to protect his business and money flow, he can choose the surface of tournaments, time of play, he can add wins and trophies from exhibitions to his official ATP stats. And he can be fresh as a daisy after Nadal semi and Djokovic final. Nothing works though.

Same challenge to you: point me at a period of three consecutive years where Nadal's performance on clay and grass combined is better than in the 2006-2008 period.

 

[helterskelter]

I think so. Agassi was considered a fossil in 2003-2005 at the age of 33-35 when he was ranked in the top 10. Well, there is a player who's 38 years old and is in the top 3. This must be a super weak era.

A 38-year old had several match points against the world no 1 and holder of 3 Slams too btw.

I'm sorry but neither part of this post is correct. Your mistake is underestimating the great age of the man who is ostensibly your favorite player. In fact, this is somewhat reminiscent of those Nadal fans who fail to appreciate Bull's moral invincibility and start talking about his "losses", not realizing how utterly hollow the opponent's "victories" were given that Bull was both injured at the time and being cheated by the tournament organizers making him play on dangerous surfaces that are as fast as an ice-rink.

So, first of all, the player who is in the top three to whom I think you are referring is at least 1,000 years old. Secondly, he was nearing 950 at the time that he had match points about the world #1, and that rounds up, so he was basically 1,000 then, too. What makes this moral victory even more impressive is that the world #1 was a spring chicken of 29 at the time, and so was basically still in his peak!

 

[OhYes]

Same challenge to you: point me at a period of three consecutive years where Nadal's performance on clay and grass combined is better than in the 2006-2008 period.

Injuries.

 

[Pantera]

LOL!

No he isn't! Can we all please stop going along with that media fabricated fantasy, when it's now very clear that he will be surpassed by two players in same era in the most importing metric of the game ( grand slam titles).

Fed is a great player. Probably the greatest Grass Court player ever. But he will end up as the third best player of his era. The sooner Maestronians start accepting this, these less tragic the grief stage will be.

Fed is lasting longer at the top of the game because medical advancements and nutrition allow it. It's happening in all sports (look at Cristiano Ronaldo). Nadal and Djokovic will probably still be top 5 players at 38 because of this. Federer is not some sort of Unicorn.

Federer isn't even top 3 of all time and definitely not the best on grass, Sampras and Djokovic both better on grass.

Truly great players do not get owned by their peers the way Federer has been. I have Federer 5th of open era behind Nadal and Djokovic, Borg and Sampras.

Federer literally stopped winning regularly the moment Nadal and Djokovic hit adulthood.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Injuries.

Don't sell that to me. I asked you about actual performances. If you cannot answer to me with years your point is rebuked.

 

[helterskelter]

Same challenge to you: point me at a period of three consecutive years where Nadal's performance on clay and grass combined is better than in the 2006-2008 period.

I'm late to the conversation, so let me ask why you're not including hard courts? Overall, Nadal's best three-year period was 2008 to 2010. And both 2011-2013 and 2012-2014 were both superior to 2006-08, too, if only marginally.

 

[OhYes]

Don't sell that to me. I asked you about actual performances. If you cannot answer to me with years your point is rebuked.

I am not a fan of Nadal so I don't track his results, but I do know he was more on court in his early years than in his late 20s bcs of injuries.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I'm late to the conversation, so let me ask why you're not including hard courts? Overall, Nadal's best three-year period was 2008 to 2010. And both 2011-2013 and 2012-2014 were both superior to 2006-08, too, if only marginally.

I am taking into account that he had slightly diverging peaks on clay/grass and HCs. The claim is that he didn't meet an ATG during his best years, so I am putting question mark on that statement related to clay and grass.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I am not a fan of Nadal so I don't track his results, but I do know he was more on court in his early years than in his late 20s bcs of injuries.

Don't use as arguments things that you don't know.

 

[OhYes]

Don't use as arguments things that you don't know.

Oh and you know without using your subjectibity ? Give me a break.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Oh and you know without using your subjectibity ? Give me a break.

You don't make a difference between being subjective and not using facts. You are comparing yourself to me, when you accuse me of the first and do the second. If it is easer to accept what I am saying, we are both subjective in our opinion, but you don't use facts.

 

[Username_]

Tomic is goat
He just don't show it

 

[Omega_7000]

Omega 7000 has spoken
You don't even have to bother. Everybody knows that from big 3 Novak had it toughest and Fed had it easiest. No question about it.
ANd now he has to pay Kyrgios to badmouth Djokovic, he has to join the council to protect his business and money flow, he can choose the surface of tournaments, time of play, he can add wins and trophies from exhibitions to his official ATP stats. And he can be fresh as a daisy after Nadal semi and Djokovic final. Nothing works though.

LMAO! Who was Novak's biggest challenge on surfaces other than clay? A 38 year old Federer?

 

[tennis_pro]

Federer isn't even top 3 of all time and definitely not the best on grass, Sampras and Djokovic both better on grass.

Truly great players do not get owned by their peers the way Federer has been. I have Federer 5th of open era behind Nadal and Djokovic, Borg and Sampras.

Federer literally stopped winning regularly the moment Nadal and Djokovic hit adulthood.

If Federer sucks so much doesn't it mean that Djokovic (and Nadal) are building their legacy on beating someone mediocre who is also 5-6 years older than them? What kind of an achievement is that LMAO? I mean Djokovic should be beating this sucker blindfolded instead he loses to a 31-year old Fed when he's at his peak at the age of 25 and then gets pushed to the absolute limit by Fed aged 33 and needs a miracle to beat him when Fed's 38. So basically Djokovic is building his legacy on beating a worse player who's 38 years old, sounds like this Djokovic guy is pretty overrated. What exactly am I missing here, Jessica?

Or maybe, just maybe you sound like the loser who wants to have the cake and eat the cake. The world doesn't work like, you should know this at 41.

 

[OhYes]

You don't make a difference between being subjective and not using facts. You are comparing yourself to me, when you accuse me of the first and do the second. If it is easer to accept what I am saying, we are both subjective in our opinion, but you don't use facts.

No, I am just waging what is the topic that I am willing to talk with you. Currently I am not keen to have long discussions on anything, in most of cases any discussion at all with you here.

 

[OhYes]

LMAO! Who was Novak's biggest challenge on surfaces other than clay? A 38 year old Federer?

Guy you call GOAT that pulls all kinds of strings behind curtains, was only at Wimby 2019. Nadal (Wimby 2018, AO 2019).

 

[tennis_pro]

Guy you call GOAT that pulls all kinds of strings behind curtains, was only at Wimby 2019. Nadal (Wimby 2018, AO 2019).

Who was Djokovic's biggest rival in mid 2014 to early 2016 again?

Djokovic is building his legacy on beating a crappy old player, is this what you're trying to say?

Or what? Djokovic is GOAT because he's beating the GOAT (Federer)? LMAO. Logic massacre

 

[OhYes]

If Federer sucks so much doesn't it mean that Djokovic (and Nadal) are building their legacy on beating someone mediocre who is also 5-6 years older than them? What kind of an achievement is that LMAO? I mean Djokovic should be beating this sucker blindfolded instead he loses to a 31-year old Fed when he's at his peak at the age of 25 and then gets pushed to the absolute limit by Fed aged 33 and needs a miracle to beat him when Fed's 38. So basically Djokovic is building his legacy on beating a worse player who's 38 years old, sounds like this Djokovic guy is pretty overrated. What exactly am I missing here, Jessica?

Or maybe, just maybe you sound like the loser who wants to have the cake and eat the cake. The world doesn't work like, you should know this at 41.

Fed was no different than regular Joes to Novak at his prime. He could lose a match or two here and there, but in most cases Novak was victorious.

 

[OhYes]

Who was Djokovic's biggest rival in mid 2014 to early 2016 again?

Djokovic is building his legacy on beating a crappy old player, is this what you're trying to say?

Or what? Djokovic is GOAT because he's beating the GOAT (Federer)? LMAO. Logic massacre

He is beating everyone. Old, young, acomplished or not. If big 3 or 4 is any kind of measurement for quality, Novak is on top even there. If Federer is so bad now, why doesn't he retire and spare you from torture ?

 

[tennis_pro]

Fed was no different than regular Joes to Novak at his prime. He could lose a match or two here and there, but in most cases Novak was victorious.

What? Federer was the ONLY player who actually beat Djokovic in a Slam in 2011, had match points in another meeting. Beat him again in 2012. Was his biggest rival in 2014-2016 (won half of their matches at the time LMAO) and as of 2019 he's still challenging him for the biggest titles. This is ALL Federer in his 30s. If their ages were reversed there wouldn't be a single Djokovic fan here because Federer would be laying one beatdown after another the minute he gained an age advantage. Imagine a 26-year old Federer against a 32-year old Djokovic on any surface LMAO, MURDER.

Djokovic's main rival has pretty much always been an old man. That means he sucks too because not only is the era weak because it allows a grandpa to be Djokovic's main rival but because his rival was actually old. What's so impressive about Djokovic's titles if he gets them by beating a mediocre player who's also 6 years his senior, huh?

 

[tennis_pro]

He is beating everyone. Old, young, acomplished or not.

Well, mostly not looking at pretty much any player who was born after 1989 LMAO. No new Beckers, Edbergs, Agassis. Instead we have a platoon of millennials who are more interested in their iphones than improving their games. The generations of Raonic/Dimitrov/Nishikori and Zverev/Thiem/Tsitsipas/Kyrgios or whoever.

If big 3 or 4 is any kind of measurement for quality, Novak is on top even there.

Yeah beating a 38-year old Federer in a Wimbledon final surely builds his GOAT legacy. Why do the younger generations even allow such a fossil to reach the final of the most prestigious tournament in the world? These are reputedly DJOKOVIC'S YOUNGEST RIVALS. Where are they? They suck. Federer never had this luxury of having 2-3 younger generations all suck, he'd be sitting on 25+ Slams with absolute ease if he had Djokovic's younger generations instead of Djokovic (and Nadal, Murray, Del Potro) himself.

 

[Tennis Life Magazine]

I don't think this is necessarily a weak men's era, it's just that at the ripe young age of 38, Federer is still a huge force to be reckoned with. Federer's physical conditioning and mad tennis skills aside, there's much to say about his mental game. Most players aspire to be No. 1 and/or the money, but Federer has admitted in past interviews that doesn't care about that (no doubt because he's been there, done that). IMO, without such expectations, he's able to just go out there and play his game on his own terms, and that makes him tough to beat.

 

[OhYes]

What? Federer was the ONLY player who actually beat Djokovic in a Slam in 2011, had match points in another meeting. Beat him again in 2012. Was his biggest rival in 2014-2016 (won half of their matches at the time LMAO) and as of 2019 he's still challenging him for the biggest titles. This is ALL Federer in his 30s.

Djokovic's main rival has pretty much always been an old man. That means he sucks too because not only is the era weak because it allows a grandpa to be Djokovic's main rival but because his rival was actually old. What's so impressive about Djokovic's titles if he gets them by beating a mediocre player who's also 6 years his senior, huh?

Their h2h from 2011 to 2016 is 19-9. That is almost as h2h against mug Murray who you like to call weak era opponent.

 

[Third Serve]

I don't agree, Federer isn't your average 38 year old tennis player, he's the best player to have ever picked up a racket.

Also I think from 2000-2003 was the weakest era, when the likes of Alexander Popp makes Quarters of Wimbledon twice then something is not right lol.

This "weak era" carried over into some parts of 2004 as well, but then 2005 came and that era ended quickly.

 

[Noleberic123]

I don't think this is necessarily a weak men's era, it's just that at the ripe young age of 38, Federer is still a huge force to reckon with. Federer's physical conditioning and mad tennis skills aside, there's much to say about his mental game. Most players aspire to be No. 1 and/or the money, but Federer has admitted in past interviews that doesn't care about that (no doubt because he's been there, done that). IMO, without such expectations, he's able to just go out there and play his game on his own terms, and that makes him tough to beat.

You're too smart for this forum. Leave now.

 

[OhYes]

Well, mostly not looking at pretty much any player who was born after 1989 LMAO. No new Beckers, Edbergs, Agassis. Instead we have a platoon of millennials who are more interested in their iphones than improving their games. The generations of Raonic/Dimitrov/Nishikori and Zverev/Thiem/Tsitsipas/Kyrgios or whoever.


Yeah beating a 38-year old Federer in a Wimbledon final surely builds his GOAT legacy. Why do the younger generations even allow such a fossil to reach the final of the most prestigious tournament in the world? These are reputedly DJOKOVIC'S YOUNGEST RIVALS. Where are they? They suck. Federer never had this luxury of having 2-3 younger generations all suck, he'd be sitting on 25+ Slams with absolute ease if he had Djokovic's younger generations instead of Djokovic (and Nadal, Murray, Del Potro) himself.

Federer had all the luxury he could get - 2003-2007, then he had 2017-2018. Djokovic had Federer, Nadal and Murray.
Young players missing certainly doesn't help Federer to achieve some late successes right ?

 

[tennis_pro]

Their h2h from 2011 to 2016 is 19-9. That is almost as h2h against mug Murray who you like to call weak era opponent.

Very impressive for the supposed GOAT at his peak against a mediocre player aged 30-38.

Still pretty funny that they played 2 matches in 2013, 1 match in 2016, 2 matches in 2018 but NONE in 2017 and early 2018 LMAO.

 

[Tennisbg]

I'll help you instead:

"No, you tell me the reason a person aged 38 is better than Nadal at Wimbly and almost beat the world no 1 in a final that lasted 6 sets (wot) while at the same time he was fresher than his 6 year younger colleague after the match (after the match?)
It has to be a weak era.

1 word - doping

 

[Noleberic123]

This "weak era" carried over into some parts of 2004 as well, but then 2005 came and that era ended quickly.

These arguments are ridiculous. TT should ban weak era talk. There is no such thing. Sure Federer didn't have any GOATs to play against in 04-07 but he is clearly as good as Djokodal and the same applies for Djokodal. Plus people are disrespecting half of the players in history. First 04-07 was weak. Then 2014-present then 1998-2003. Then the early 90s weren't that good. Maybe tennis just sucks then?

 

[AceSalvo]

“38 yr old Fed is still a force to reckon with” nonsense.

On the same logic, 34-36 yr old Agassi was still a force to reckon with and was beaten by his Next Gen. on top of that there was a 19 yr old beast on clay to reckon with as well. That concludes 2004-2007 was ver very far from “weak”.

No one can pick and choose weak era based on their personal preference.

 

[OhYes]

Very impressive for the supposed GOAT at his peak against a mediocre player aged 30-38.

Still pretty funny that they played 2 matches in 2013, 1 match in 2016, 2 matches in 2018 but NONE in 2017 and early 2018 LMAO.

I have to correct you, it is 29-35 not 30-38. We are talking about 2011-2016 period, remember ?

 

[tennis_pro]

Federer had all the luxury he could get - 2003-2007, then he had 2017-2018.

Federer had the luxury of 2017-2018, I am DEAD. Yeah those 4 wins against Nadal who won multiple majors at the same time were absolutely gifted to him.
Enough with this BS, Federer had an age advantage until 2007, neutral years 2008-2009 and Djokovic has had the age advantage since 2010. Now please do the math and quit whining that your Château le Blanc '68 is a tad too warm. Djokovic has had so many more years with an age advantage over old Fed it's not even funny and it's not over yet because both are active and very much relevant (thanks to Djokovic's epic young rivals)

Djokovic had Federer, Nadal and Murray.
Young players missing certainly doesn't help Federer to achieve some late successes right ?

Djokovic had an OLD Federer, Nadal MOSTLY ON CLAY and MURRAY who's basically Djokovic 0,9. Federer has had ALL OF THEM for over a decade while being 5-6 years older. See the difference? Don't criticize Fed for taking full advantage in 2004-2007, Djokovic has had far worse competition in some of his seasons.

 

[RS]

These arguments are ridiculous. TT should ban weak era talk. There is no such thing. Sure Federer didn't have any GOATs to play against in 04-07 but he is clearly as good as Djokodal and the same applies for Djokodal. Plus people are disrespecting half of the players in history. First 04-07 was weak. Then 2014-present then 1998-2003. Then the early 90s weren't that good. Maybe tennis just sucks then?

1990 -1995 is considered to be a very strong era. 1996-1999 is considered weak. Then 2000-2002 and 2003-2006/07 were considered weak. As was 2010 and 2014/15 to now. That leaves left 2008/2009 and 2011/2012/2013 which are nearly always considered strong.

 

[Noleberic123]

1990 -1995 is considered to be a very strong era. 1996-1999 is considered weak. Then 2000-2002 and 2003-2006/07 were considered weak. As was 2010 and 2014/15 to now. That leaves left 2008/2009 and 2011/2012/2013 which are nearly always considered strong.

That means most of the past 30 years have been weak. Which is ridiculous, am I right?

 

[Third Serve]

These arguments are ridiculous. TT should ban weak era talk. There is no such thing. Sure Federer didn't have any GOATs to play against in 04-07 but he is clearly as good as Djokodal and the same applies for Djokodal. Plus people are disrespecting half of the players in history. First 04-07 was weak. Then 2014-present then 1998-2003. Then the early 90s weren't that good. Maybe tennis just sucks then?

I'm a Federer fan and I have no difficulty accepting the fact that he won some of his titles in a weak era (who hasn't?). The problem I have with these arguments, however, is that people are rating players based on their opponents and not the actual level said player is producing. You don't get to be called better if you beat tougher opponents. You don't get to be rated higher or lower because you happened to be born at a certain time.

I think we can acknowledge stronger and weaker eras for what they are. The problem is when we start applying this to GOAT debates.

 

[RF-18]

Federer is not playing like he is a 38 year old you ostrich. Nowhere near of that. So don't look at age only or the number.

 

[RS]

That means most of the past 30 years have been weak. Which is ridiculous, am I right?

Yes.

 

[tennis_pro]

Federer is not playing like he is a 38 year old you ostrich. Nowhere near of that. So don't look at age only or the number.

I'm looking at the number and it says 38.

 

[Noleberic123]

I'm a Federer fan and I have no difficulty accepting the fact that he won some of his titles in a weak era (who hasn't?). The problem I have with these arguments, however, is that people are rating players based on their opponents and not the actual level said player is producing. You don't get to be called better if you beat tougher opponents. You don't get to be rated higher or lower because you happened to be born at a certain time.

I think we can acknowledge stronger and weaker eras for what they are. The problem is when we start applying this to GOAT debates.

The problem is we only like superstars and we disrespect players that aren't. Who gives a crap Federer has won 20 slams, Djokovic has won 16. They talk about homogenization yet Laver won his CYGS by winning 3 slams on grass. Like Laver gives a ****. He is the only one to do that in the open era

 

[OhYes]

Federer had the luxury of 2017-2018, I am DEAD.
Enough with this BS, Federer had an age advantage until 2007, neutral years 2008-2009 and Djokovic has had the age advantage since 2010. Now please do the math and quit whining that your Château le Blanc '68 is a tad too warm. Djokovic has had so many more years with an age advantage over old Fed it's not even funny and it's not over yet.

Djokovic had an OLD Federer, Nadal MOSTLY ON CLAY and MURRAY who's basically Djokovic 0,9. Federer has had ALL OF THEM for over a decade while being 5-6 years older. See the difference? Don't criticize Fed for taking full advantage in 2004-2007, Djokovic has had far worse competition in some of his seasons.

In normal world Federer shouldn't be feasting on 2017-2018 period. But he did. We should ask ourselves why.
Djokovic also had advantage with hostile crowds at 2 Slams ? Then constant provocations and accusations in presses that Fed never had to face.
Everything was set before and during big tournaments in Federer's favor, while Djokovic was clearly reminded how unwanted he is. Federer would never endure such pressure year after year.
Murray is not good matchup for Novak you know that well. Sometimes even though he won against Murray, that particular match wore him out more than needed for a final or maybe for next tournament.

 

[RF-18]

I'm looking at the number and it says 38.

I'm looking at Federers movement and level of play and that says he is not playing like a 38 year old. Not even Close. So Federer is not really 38 out there on court, thus it is completely understandable he is still at the top of the game.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I'm looking at Federers movement and level of play and that says he is not playing like a 38 year old. Not even Close. So Federer is not really 38 out there on court, thus it is completely understandable he is still at the top of the game.

Please refer us to the criteria you are using for your estimate for a "38 years old".

 

[tennis_pro]

In normal world Federer shouldn't be feasting on 2017-2018 period. But he did. We should ask ourselves why.

Well he owned the best players from Djokovic's younger generation at the age of 35-36 like they were nothing. Without the injury Djokovic would be competing for titles against an old Federer AGAIN.

Djokovic also had advantage with hostile crowds at 2 Slams ? Then constant provocations and accusations in presses that Fed never had to face.

Maybe if his style of play wasn't so reminiscent of mashed potatoes he'd get more love from the crowd.

Everything was set before and during big tournaments in Federer's favor, while Djokovic was clearly reminded how unwanted he is. Federer would never endure such pressure year after year.

That's the price he has to pay for being consistent and boring at the same time. It is HIS fault that he's not as loved as Federer - nobody forces him to play the way he does. Why do you think someone like Monfils gets bigger crowds than Bautista-Agut? Should RBA whine too?

Murray is not good matchup for Novak. you know that well. Sometimes even though he won against Murray, that particular match wore him out more than needed for a final or maybe for next tournament.

Murray would be another Roddick for Fed if he was in his prime in 2004-2007, he got most of his wins against Federer in BO3 set matches on HC in 2008-2010 when Federer was all about the Slams.

 

[Pantera]

If Federer sucks so much doesn't it mean that Djokovic (and Nadal) are building their legacy on beating someone mediocre who is also 5-6 years older than them? What kind of an achievement is that LMAO? I mean Djokovic should be beating this sucker blindfolded instead he loses to a 31-year old Fed when he's at his peak at the age of 25 and then gets pushed to the absolute limit by Fed aged 33 and needs a miracle to beat him when Fed's 38. So basically Djokovic is building his legacy on beating a worse player who's 38 years old, sounds like this Djokovic guy is pretty overrated. What exactly am I missing here, Jessica?

Or maybe, just maybe you sound like the loser who wants to have the cake and eat the cake. The world doesn't work like, you should know this at 41.

Djokovic has been beating Federer his whole career lol as has Nadal, any excuses?

 

[jklos]

No. It's just abnormal talent.

 

[J B]

so before we call this the weak era have we decided that the top 3 are that mediocre? Because in a world of HOF guys the rest of the field would not be mediocre.