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

[Eren]

1-3..0-3..its still a beatdown however you analyse it.

It's about talking crap out of your ass and presenting lies as facts.

8-5 in titles is a worse beatdown IMO.

I don't think Federer is the GOAT, but Djokovic is no great player because of beating an old weak era inflater. I mean what's the argument? "Djokovic is amazing for beating a weak era inflater."

Naah, doesn't work like that. His wins against the weak era king are worth nothing, he's down against Murray on grass (0-2 in H2H, 0-5 in sets played), 2-2 against Nadal. Not good.

That's being down 2-4 on grass against guys of his own generation.

 

[Lew II]

Federer is obviously much much much better #3, but the tour is much much much weaker.

Now you can go back to thinking how you can troll with more lewberries.

If the tour was so strong why did it allow Ljubicic to be #3?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

If the tour was so strong why did it allow Ljubicic to be #3?

Because he played and won a ton of small tournaments (in 2006 he won Chennai, Zagreb, Vienna and was in the Finals in Bangkok) and because of his monstrous run at RG.

 

[Lew II]

Because he played and won a ton of small tournaments (in 2006 he won Chennai, Zagreb, Vienna and was in the Finals in Bangkok) and because of his monstrous run at RG.

Monstrous run beating zero seeded players

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Monstrous run beating zero seeded players

I have never said that the clay field was strong. Quite the opposite, actually, which is why Nadal is currently holding 12 RGs. His biggest competition have been two players whose games are best suited for HC and grass.

You fell in your own trap.

 

[Pantera]

It's about talking crap out of your ass and presenting lies as facts.

8-5 in titles is a worse beatdown IMO.

I don't think Federer is the GOAT, but Djokovic is no great player because of beating an old weak era inflater. I mean what's the argument? "Djokovic is amazing for beating a weak era inflater."

Naah, doesn't work like that. His wins against the weak era king are worth nothing, he's down against Murray on grass (0-2 in H2H, 0-5 in sets played), 2-2 against Nadal. Not good.

That's being down 2-4 on grass against guys of his own generation.

GFederer had the weakest era of all time 2003-2005..whats your point?

 

[AceSalvo]

Slams gained during the Great Weak Era of 2003-2007

Lol.

Fed had Nadal during 2005-2007 on grass/clay and he had valid competition from his Gen. Djoko was a valid threat in 2007 reaching two SF and F. So no, 2003-2007 was not a weak era.

Post 2014 is definitely career inflation/weak era because no one from Djoko's Gen was a valid threat because they have become a bunch of oldies. And Djoko did not have any Next gen pose as a threat.

 

[dnguyen]

All current gen players are still weaker. Old men like Nadal, RF, And Djoker can beat them.

The answer is yes - weakest era. The death of S&V and birth of emo players like Kyrgios.

 

[Eren]

GFederer had the weakest era of all time 2003-2005..whats your point?

Point is, Djokovic is beating a weak era king. How does that make Djokovic a good player? I don't understand. He only had weak competition, Federer (LOL), Murray (come on), Wawrinka (oops), Nadal off clay (LOL).

Again, don't come with BS: "But Federer lost to Nadal off clay" We already established, Federer is weak competition and counts as such. To whom he did lose does not matter for Djokovic.

 

[Pantera]

Point is, Djokovic is beating a weak era king. How does that make Djokovic a good player?

Djokovic is only player with more than 20 wins v Nadal and multiple wins on clay v nadal and a win at RG v nadal…..thtas what makes Djokovic so great.

 

[tennis_pro]

Djokovic is only player with more than 20 wins v Nadal and multiple wins on clay v nadal and a win at RG v nadal…..thtas what makes Djokovic so great.

So why do you keep bringing this Federer guy in context of Djokovic's greatness? If Djokovic is so much better than him he shouldn't be counting on flukes to beat him in a Wimbledon final?

 

[Eren]

Djokovic is only player with more than 20 wins v Nadal and multiple wins on clay v nadal and a win at RG v nadal…..thtas what makes Djokovic so great.

Nadal after '14 is a former shell of himself who has found redemption though. Even Thiem has multiple wins against Nadal on clay. So even if I would go along with this, he is good on clay because he won one RG against Murray who is even weaker than Federer lol.

How does this make Djokovic good on HC or Grass.

 

[Pantera]

So why do you keep bringing this Federer guy in context of Djokovic's greatness? If Djokovic is so much better than him he shouldn't be counting on flukes to beat him in a Wimbledon final?

Flukes? please explain...….

 

[Pantera]

Nadal after '14 is a former shell of himself who has found redemption though. Even Thiem has multiple wins against Nadal on clay. So even if I would go along with this, he is good on clay because he won one RG against Murray who is even weaker than Federer lol.

How does this make Djokovic good on HC or Grass.

Nadal has a USO, 2 Canadian opens, runner up in Australia, they are not clay. Thiem is a top clay court player and but for nadal would already have 2 FO's.

Djokovic has beat Nadal on grass twice, the same Nadal who beat prime Federer in a Wimbledon final. Djokovic beat the goat of USO this era Nadal in 2011 in a USO final.

What more do you want from Djokovic lol?

 

[tennis_pro]

Flukes? please explain...….

2014 Wimbledon, Fed has BP i the 5th set at 3-3, nets an easy smash that would've given him 15-40.
2019 Wimbledon - serving for the match at 40-15, impossible to break without luck

Flukes all around against a 6 years older player. He should be beating him in straight sets instead. Not to mention the 2012 loss.

 

[Pantera]

2014 Wimbledon, Fed has BP i the 5th set at 3-3, nets an easy smash that would've given him 15-40.
2019 Wimbledon - serving for the match at 40-15, impossible to break without luck

Flukes all around against a 6 years older player. He should be beating him in straight sets instead. Not to mention the 2012 loss.

So the opponent not good enough to put the ball away makes a win flukey? Ok...…….

 

[Eren]

Nadal has a USO, 2 Canadian opens, runner up in Australia, they are not clay. Thiem is a top clay court player and but for nadal would already have 2 FO's.

Djokovic has beat Nadal on grass twice, the same Nadal who beat prime Federer in a Wimbledon final. Djokovic beat the goat of USO this era Nadal in 2011 in a USO final.

What more do you want from Djokovic lol?

Nadal is even worse than Federer on grass, we already established that Federer was a weak opponent. Nadal is even weaker on grass lol. So Djokovic is great because he beat a Weak Era King and Nadal who built his legacy beating this weak era king.

Only one strong HC win does not make you great on HC. Remember Safin and Hewitt beat Sampras and they're not great on HC, though definitely good. One win is only one win.

 

[tennis_pro]

So the opponent not good enough to put the ball away makes a win flukey? Ok...…….

Why did Djokovic even allow an inferior 6-years older player to get to such position in the first place?

38 years old, this should've been 6-2 6-3 6-4 based on what you say

 

[UnderratedSlam]

The #3 in the world is a 20 time Grand Slam winner playing at the peak of his abilities.

That's a weak era? LOL.

You know what I find bizarre?

That we are the ones telling RF fanatics that RF is playing great right now, and yet his "fans" claim that his current form is nothing special.

Very ironic. Shouldn't it be the other way round? Shouldn't RF fans be telling others that he's great right now?

Of course, they want to diminish his achievements and level of play in recent years just so they can argue that this is a weak era. That is absolutely ludicrous logic.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

You Nadal fans are so funny. Tennis requires multiple short efforts and the ability to recover between them, not continuous strenuous exertion. Guess which athletes that reminds you of (hint: it is not cyclists). Precisely that is the reason why Nadal needs more time between points and breaks the rules constantly.

You might be surprised to know that skinny Korda (190 cm and 72 kilos, BMI under 20) and skinny Rusedski were the most prominent dopers caught in the last 20 years. Cilic also wasn't exactly Superman material either.

Nadal's build isn't your typical tennis build. Because tennis isn't weight-lifting. It's kinda different form that.

So yes, it's the skinny pros that require doping more, if anything.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Why did Djokovic even allow an inferior 6-years older player to get to such position in the first place?

38 years old, this should've been 6-2 6-3 6-4 based on what you say

Yes, but... considering that ALL slam-winning champs in recent years are 30 or over 30, then RF being 38 is like Agassi being 31 in 2002.

I.e., being 38 nowadays is NOT comparable to Connors being 38 at the USO in 1992, for example. Back in 1992 most slam champs were in their early 20s.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

You have to look at overall record not just how much was won. Federer is 0-3 on grass v Djokovic, a 5 time champion. Djokovic was not around when Federer won his first 4 Wimbledons.

People pick and choose facts that suit them, because they are biased.

RF fans swear religiously on the number of slams as the ONLY measuring stick, simplifying henceforth the GOAT debate to a level of a toddler. However, if RF's 20 ever get overtaken by Nadal or Djokovic then they will start using other measuring sticks.

All three fan bases need to be objective, otherwise everyone just ends up sounding like crazed fanboys more interested in hero worship than the game itself.

I'd have no problems saying RF is GOAT... but I can't because facts speak against it.

 

[The_Order]

2014 Wimbledon, Fed has BP i the 5th set at 3-3, nets an easy smash that would've given him 15-40.
2019 Wimbledon - serving for the match at 40-15, impossible to break without luck

Flukes all around against a 6 years older player. He should be beating him in straight sets instead. Not to mention the 2012 loss.

You mean, just like peak Federer should've beaten 11 years older Agassi in straights at the US Open and instead needed 5 sets and luck to do it?

 

[UnderratedSlam]

You mean, just like peak Federer should've beaten 11 years older Agassi in straights at the US Open and instead needed 5 sets and luck to do it?

Yes, somehow that doesn't count.

Nor does anyone take into consideration under what pain Agassi played his last few years, he was constantly struggling with back pains, taking tons of injections. And yet he offered some resistance to a young RF. In his mid-30s, and hurting, a lot. But no, that doesn't count.

 

[tennis_pro]

You mean, just like peak Federer should've beaten 11 years older Agassi in straights at the US Open and instead needed 5 sets and luck to do it?

In tornado like conditions? Anything can happen.

 

[tennis_pro]

Yes, but... considering that ALL slam-winning champs in recent years are 30 or over 30, then RF being 38 is like Agassi being 31 in 2002.

I.e., being 38 nowadays is NOT comparable to Connors being 38 at the USO in 1992, for example. Back in 1992 most slam champs were in their early 20s.

Yeah of course the platoon of 38-year olds dominating tennis now.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Yeah of course the platoon of 38-year olds dominating tennis now.

I gave you facts. You can choose to ignore them, it's your choice....

An age shift has happened, and every serious tennis fans has noticed it.

 

[tennis_pro]

I gave you facts. You can choose to ignore them, it's your choice....

An age shift has happened, and every serious tennis fans has noticed it.

Where are all the 38-year olds outside of Federer? Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero - where are they? Long retired. Your huge sample size of 1 to support your argument is not enough, I think.

 

[Tennisbg]

You might be surprised to know that skinny Korda (190 cm and 72 kilos, BMI under 20) and skinny Rusedski were the most prominent dopers caught in the last 20 years. Cilic also wasn't exactly Superman material either.

Nadal's build isn't your typical tennis build. Because tennis isn't weight-lifting. It's kinda different form that.

So yes, it's the skinny pros that require doping more, if anything.

This poster does not follow logic, he is being exposed by a lot of people but he lives in this forum 24-7 for pointless discussions. He is going to reply to everyone and in all threads that involve the BIG 3 every 3rd post is his. He is half of the activity on this forum.

 

[Noleberic123]

Where are all the 38-year olds outside of Federer? Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero - where are they? Long retired. Your huge sample size of 1 to support your argument is not enough, I think.

Which means Federer is magic

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Where are all the 38-year olds outside of Federer? Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero - where are they? Long retired. Your huge sample size of 1 to support your argument is not enough, I think.

I never stated that everyone is 38. You are posing childish non-arguments, trying hard to ignore the fact that being 38 among 30somethings who dominate isn't the same at all as being 38 among 20somethings that dominate. Big difference.

I could try drawing it...

How about if you looked at the 90s and analyzed how old the slam champs were back then? Or the 70s, 80s. THEN get back to me.

I opened a thread...

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/no-20somethings-with-slam-titles-first-time-in-the-history-of-mens-tennis.650883/#post-13643391

... just for you.

 

[NatF]

You mean, just like peak Federer should've beaten 11 years older Agassi in straights at the US Open and instead needed 5 sets and luck to do it?

Luck? What luck did Federer need? If anything he's unlucky he couldn't ride the momentum of winning the 3rd set and had to conclude the match the next day in hurricane like winds.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

This poster does not follow logic, he is being exposed by a lot of people but he lives in this forum 24-7 for pointless discussions. He is going to reply to everyone and in all threads that involve the BIG 3 every 3rd post is his. He is half of the activity on this forum.

So your argument is...

... that I post a lot hence I must be wrong.

Well done. You will win many debate championships using that... great logic.

And thanks for conducting a poll on TTW on me. Clearly you now have the authority and the right to speak on everyone's behalf about me, because the poll showed that I am exposed and a fraud... or whatever.

(Btw, I hadn't posted anything in half a year almost... I only started again yesterday... So much for your power of observation.)

 

[RS]

[

Yes, somehow that doesn't count.

Nor does anyone take into consideration under what pain Agassi played his last few years, he was constantly struggling with back pains, taking tons of injections. And yet he offered some resistance to a young RF. In his mid-30s, and hurting, a lot. But no, that doesn't count.

He played well in USO 2004 and AO 2004 it wasn’t a factor in those tournaments. He was fully fit in IW 2004 as well when he pushed Federer. I think his health was bigger issue in 2005.

 

[Tennisbg]

So your argument is...

... that I post a lot hence I must be wrong.

Well done. You will win many debate championships using that... great logic.

(Btw, I hadn't posted anything in half a year almost... I only started again yesterday... So much for your power of observation.)

I mean the user Tennis Pro who you quoted

 

[Pantera]

People pick and choose facts that suit them, because they are biased.

RF fans swear religiously on the number of slams as the ONLY measuring stick, simplifying henceforth the GOAT debate to a level of a toddler. However, if RF's 20 ever get overtaken by Nadal or Djokovic then they will start using other measuring sticks.

All three fan bases need to be objective, otherwise everyone just ends up sounding like crazed fanboys more interested in hero worship than the game itself.

I'd have no problems saying RF is GOAT... but I can't because facts speak against it.

Spot on. I say nadal as i'm a Nadal fan, but I could make an argument for Djokovic, Borg and Sampras in Open Era, and Agassi to an extent. Agassi ultimately won a Golden Career slam plus WTF, nobody else has done that. I fail to see what argument can be made for Federer though as like you say, the facts are not on his side.

 

[tennis_pro]

I mean the user Tennis Pro who you quoted

I just came back like a couple of days ago after a monthly break, strike and miss again.

 

[Pantera]

Why did Djokovic even allow an inferior 6-years older player to get to such position in the first place?

38 years old, this should've been 6-2 6-3 6-4 based on what you say

38 isn't even old, not nowadays with how sports science is. its not like it was in the 80s. Players now have oxygen tanks, 20 physios, nutritionists..if they have the motivation there is no reason not to play until 40 at one's peak. After 40, the body will start to decline.

 

[tennis_pro]

38 isn't even old, not nowadays with how sports science is. its not like it was in the 80s. Players now have oxygen tanks, 20 physios, nutritionists..if they have the motivation there is no reason not to play until 40 at one's peak. After 40, the body will start to decline.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[NatF]

[

He played well in USO 2004 and AO 2004 it wasn’t a factor in those tournaments. He was fully fit in IW 2004 as well when he pushed Federer. I think his health was bigger issue in 2005.

Most of this thread is people just making empty statements based on the slimmest of knowledge to bait other fanbases. The GPPD is absolute trash atm.

Agassi was superb at the AO and USO in 2004, he was also in top form in Cincy. Had good/great showings at IW/Madrid as well (Stockholm too but that's a smaller event). Guy was playing a much reduced schedule compared to what the present Big 3 are playing, he had obviously lost effectiveness on clay/grass but he was still operating at a high level on HC. Even in 2005 he had a lot of good showings and mostly just lost to Federer. His peak was end of 94-95, but his most consistent period of tennis was 99-03 - so his career trajectory was quite different to Federer's.

 

[NatF]

38 isn't even old, not nowadays with how sports science is. its not like it was in the 80s. Players now have oxygen tanks, 20 physios, nutritionists..if they have the motivation there is no reason not to play until 40 at one's peak. After 40, the body will start to decline.

1976 posts in and you're still just pulling **** out your ass

No reason to not be peaking even at 40 years old you say

 

[UnderratedSlam]

[

He played well in USO 2004 and AO 2004 it wasn’t a factor in those tournaments. He was fully fit in IW 2004 as well when he pushed Federer. I think his health was bigger issue in 2005.

Read his book. The health was a big issue pretty much since around 2002.

 

[tennis_pro]

Read his book. The health was a big issue pretty much since around 2002.

Which affected his consistency, not his level.

 

[RS]

Read his book. The health was a big issue pretty much since around 2002.

I haven’t read it. But he was still able to play fine in certain matches. He was more inconsistent though.

 

[Pantera]

1976 posts in and you're still just pulling **** out your ass

No reason to not be peaking even at 40 years old you say

Explain why all the best athletes around the world are mid 30's then? But hey, don't let facts get in the way of excuse making for Federer losses.

 

[tennis_pro]

1-3..0-3..its still a beatdown however you analyse it.

6-3 3-6 6-4 6-3 - loss
6-7(7) 6-4 7-6(4) 5-7 6-4 - win
7-6(1) 6-7(10) 6-4 6-3 - win
7-6(5) 1-6 7-6(4) 4-6 13-12(3) - win

Dude if those are beatdowns to you you should expand your vocabulary because your dictionary is more limited than that of a 3-year old.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Which affected his consistency, not his level.

And because consistency affects level...

 

[Pantera]

6-3 3-6 6-4 6-3 - loss
6-7(7) 6-4 7-6(4) 5-7 6-4 - win
7-6(1) 6-7(10) 6-4 6-3 - win
7-6(5) 1-6 7-6(4) 4-6 13-12(3) - win

Dude if those are beatdowns to you you should expand your vocabulary because your dictionary is more limited than that of a 3-year old.

3-1= beatdown and ownership.

 

[RS]

Most of this thread is people just making empty statements based on the slimmest of knowledge to bait other fanbases. The GPPD is absolute trash atm.

Agassi was superb at the AO and USO in 2004, he was also in top form in Cincy. Had good/great showings at IW/Madrid as well (Stockholm too but that's a smaller event). Guy was playing a much reduced schedule compared to what the present Big 3 are playing, he had obviously lost effectiveness on clay/grass but he was still operating at a high level on HC. Even in 2005 he had a lot of good showings and mostly just lost to Federer. His peak was end of 94-95, but his most consistent period of tennis was 99-03 - so his career trajectory was quite different to Federer's.

The Safin match was so amazing and Agassi was unlucky to run into Safin in that kind of form. The USO was good but Federer was worse than his usual standards IMO.

 

[Thierry Champion]

a