A post Nadal, Djokovic, Federer era will resemble 2001-2003...but WORSE

[RS]

2002 stronger winner at 2 majors and YEC than every year 2016-present. And as said, the other two majors were a fluke, Agassi was injured at AO, Haas got injured (surely wouldn't have pulled a Safin in the final) and Safin took a few too many liberties, at RG Ferrero just choked, being a big favorite for his first slam (Safin also mugged up the semi against him bigly).

Yeah I forgot that.

Also 2009 strongest year and 2004-09 slam winning level >> 2011-16.

 

[tennis_pro]

I actually forgot to subtract his slams from the period, as a simple calculation would reveal. Don't give me any ideas.

So Djokovic has more Slams than Nadal?

 

[Herald]

So Djokovic has more Slams than Nadal?

Is that what you are contending?

 

[tennis_pro]

Is that what you are contending?

You mean telling your fat a** that you can't eat your cake and still have it?

 

[Herald]

You mean telling your fat a** that you can't eat your cake and still have it?

I absolutely can have my cake and eat it, as my fat a** proves.

 

[topspin_forehand]

Brooksby

 

[mike danny]

"Wouldn't have managed it otherwise". Untestable, therefore irrelevant.

That's equally untestable as saying "Medvedev would have achieved the #1 against Roddick in 2003", or "Roddick would have never been #1 if he were 1 year older because Federer would have stopped him".

Roddick didn't compete against peak Novak, nor did he compete against Novak for the #1. Easier field in the pre-Big 3 era.

Med didn't compete with peak Novak either.

Yes, Med wouldn't have managed otherwise considering that Djokovic would have defended his AO and Wimb titles, thus not dropping 4000 points. And taking into account Med's sub par season this year.