Hood_Man
G.O.A.T.
Federer could, being the true GOAT and all.
Novak would say he would, ask Pospisil to help him, make a press statement saying it's coming, and then nothing happens for 5 years.
Age gap argument is the most useless argument ever
- Thread starter gamelovergold
- Start date
Novak would say he would, ask Pospisil to help him, make a press statement saying it's coming, and then nothing happens for 5 years.
FedForGOAT
Professional
Don’t know if I should dignify this thread with a response. However:
Federer won 16 of his 20 slams before Djokovic had won his second. if that doesn’t convince you that they are not the same era, I don’t know what will.
Oh! And even if you remove Djokovic from the picture completely, Federer would not have won 16 more slams.
Federer won 16 of his 20 slams before Djokovic had won his second. if that doesn’t convince you that they are not the same era, I don’t know what will.
Oh! And even if you remove Djokovic from the picture completely, Federer would not have won 16 more slams.
Last edited:
Not to mention Djokovic was fortunate to win his 1st against a mono Federer in 2008. Without this slam Djokovic wins nothing in 2000s while Federer won 16
GoatNo1
Hall of Fame
fed actually improved his record vs rafa after his era (04-09). upp to 09 he had 7-13 (35%) vs rafa and 9-11 (45%) from 2010 and on. rafa and nole are born inside a one year period so they are the same generation as close as it can bee. nole had even muzza who is only one week older. another player who had positive h2h vs fed i fed era, 6-4 (60%) and (33%), 5-10, in 2010 and after.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Roger Fedrer
Clay lover
Legend
Jokes aside, I think it would be hard for people who actually followed tennis in the 00s to pretend the age gap DID NOT exist - Federer's decline was quite apparent in late 00s - and Djokovic's longevity is more of an outlier than the norm so we can't hold Federer accountable for not staying in his prime for longer than six years before Djokovic inevitably catches up.
That said - I'm not going to give Federer a free pass just because of the age gap - he could've come into his own prime earlier, found a way to solve Nadal on clay while he was still in his prime in 05-07 etc. etc., not to mention it all evens out as he accumulated the majority of his slams in the period Djokodal weren't in their prime and the tour was perceived to be not as strong.
That said - I'm not going to give Federer a free pass just because of the age gap - he could've come into his own prime earlier, found a way to solve Nadal on clay while he was still in his prime in 05-07 etc. etc., not to mention it all evens out as he accumulated the majority of his slams in the period Djokodal weren't in their prime and the tour was perceived to be not as strong.
Last edited:
I agree that he could’ve figured Nadal out on Clay. The matchup was too strong though. Like, Fed figures Nadal out by 2017. I don’t think he wins if he plays Rafa on Clay. And Nadal after 2017 by Fed is as figured out as he gets.
That said, the tour wasn’t as strong as 2008-2013, but it was way stronger than 2018-2023.
Federer won when he was Peak Federer. Djokovic won in his 30s against absolute garbage competition.
How do I justify this? Sinner and Alcaraz. Djokovic isn’t here fighting for slams. Not in 2024. See the USO. Djokovic lost in R3. The next gen couldn’t even put up a half-decent fight against Sinner. If Djokovic’s “better than Peak Federer” level was the only thing preventing them from winning, why can’t they even make it competitive now?
What happens if you reverse the ages? Once Federer hits 23 it’s absolutely over for Djokovic, and Federer would’ve trashed the next gen so badly that they’d still be hurting. Nobody stops 2011 or 2012 Federer from winning all 4 slams if Djokovic is gone in 2018.
Clay lover
Legend
Fair point with good nuances
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
Grammar. Don't worry, 70% of people spell that word incorrectly.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yes, but we’re talking strictly about the Fedovic match-up.
And I’d say we’re past the evening out part.
Last edited:
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
I am having a bit of an indigestion.
I will try an antiacid.
Clay lover
Legend
You mean the Djokodal matchup was the OP's point? Sorry I don't quite get it
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Sorry, I meant Fedovic match-up. Edited.
Biotic
Hall of Fame
It's obviously not useless. 5-6 years is not negligible. That said, age gap also shouldn't be ABUSED regularly as a go-to argument by Fed brigade. Somehow it does.
Now you can say that Djoko and Nadal were considerably better than Alcaraz and Sinner at the same age (which is mostly true in the case of Nadal and mostly FALSE for Djoko), but there is still a small matter of not 5, but 15 years age gap. Despite it, Djoko came through in very important moments such as 2024 Olympics F and OBLITERATED both of them in 2023 YES SF + F, not even mentioning some big wins that came earlier at slams.
So yeah, IMO beating a (much) younger great player is hard, but doable. Certainly not something that only Federer could have done ever.
Now you can say that Djoko and Nadal were considerably better than Alcaraz and Sinner at the same age (which is mostly true in the case of Nadal and mostly FALSE for Djoko), but there is still a small matter of not 5, but 15 years age gap. Despite it, Djoko came through in very important moments such as 2024 Olympics F and OBLITERATED both of them in 2023 YES SF + F, not even mentioning some big wins that came earlier at slams.
So yeah, IMO beating a (much) younger great player is hard, but doable. Certainly not something that only Federer could have done ever.
zakopinjo
Professional
Federer won so much in his prime because he did not have a quality field against him.
Hewitt is a shadow after 2003, Safin does not exist anywhere except on AO04/05, not to mention the service bot Rodik. His biggest rivals were babies Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. When Nadal entered the prime, it was all over for Federer, he managed to win 3 more slams, but after Novak's prime only 1.
The period 2004-2007 is a huge inflation because nobody but Federer is in the prime in that interval.
2004-2007
prime Federer 11 slams
Nadal 2
2008-2010
prime Federer 4
prime Nadal 6
Djokovic 1
2011-2014
Federer 1
prime Nadal 5
prime Djokovic 6
Murray 2
2015-2016
prime Djokovic 5
prime Murray 1
prime Wawrinka 2
Mustard
Bionic Poster
One can make a case that 2004-2005 was Hewitt's best tennis level. Hewitt was only losing to eventual champions at the majors in that period.
ForehandCross
G.O.A.T.
For a thread that is attacking Fraud fans logic to substantiate superiority of Djokovic you literally have no idea how much similar your description of carlos vs Novak is to Fraud vs Novak.
zakopinjo
Professional
you mean the period from Cincinnati04 to IW05?
Mustard
Bionic Poster
I mean 2004-2005, the entire calendar years.
Hewitt only finished 2004 at number 3 because he started the year at number 17, and thus met Federer earlier in events than when Roddick did.
NatF
Bionic Poster
In terms of consistent level at the slams it was. Probably his two peaks periods were USO 2001 to Wimbledon 2002 and Wimbledon 2004 to IW 2005. You could extend it or shrink it each way a little but those were roughly his best patches of form.
Turning Pro
Hall of Fame
100% starting from the Ao 04 where he lost to eventual winner 6-8 times in slams in succession i think.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
I think Hewitt was playing better at 2005 Wimbledon than at 2004 Wimbledon. Unfortunately for him, so was Federer.
There was a bit of a seeding controversy at 2005 Wimbledon, because Hewitt was world number 2 and yet seeded at number 3 despite being 2002 Wimbledon champion, and Hewitt ended up on the same side of the draw as Federer, so met Federer in the semi final instead of the final. Roddick was world number 4 at 2005 Wimbledon, yet got seeded at number 2, and met Federer in the final. And unlike Hewitt and Federer, Roddick was definitely playing worse at 2005 Wimbledon than at 2004 Wimbledon.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Maybe? It's pretty close. I consider the first set by Fed in 2004 QF one of the best sets anyone has ever played on grass so it's hard to judge Hewitt's level there. Probably 2005 doesn't throw in a weak 3rd set though.
soldat
Semi-Pro
What do you mean? There is no age thing between Djokovic and Alcaraz, and no age thing between Federer and Djokovic.
I don’t view Federer as a fraud, he is simply in third place. Djokovic is superior to Federer, simple as that.
I also prefer to look at a players actual performance, and not their purported decline just because they got a year older. If you do detect a decline, then you need to analyze deeper to find whether it’s because of age or some other reasons.
Dominic & Andrey
Legend
Claiming that age has no impact on athletes' performance is fatuous. There's really no point in bothering to argue against such a premise. A sports forum presupposes a baseline understanding of human physiology.
Based on the huge age difference between Alcaraz and Djokovic, and the smaller but significant age difference between Djokovic and Federer, we would expect to see (based on our observation of the impact of age on many other tennis players before them, and on athletes in other sports) a large, possibly dispositive age-related impact in the first case, and a smaller but real age-related impact in the second case.
Of course, what we would expect to see and what we actually do observe are not necessarily the same. Or, even if our expectations are generally satisfied over time, they may not be satisfied in every single individual case (for tennis, this means a match). The obvious problem is that while age differences are easy to calculate, age-related impacts on performance are notoriously controversial, and probably impossible to quantify. But measurement difficulty does not imply nonexistence.
Yep. As a Djokovic fan, it's sad that I have to admit Roddick is better than Djokovic, and Alcaraz is be better than Djokovic on grass.
Winners or Errors
Legend
All day long without poly in their racquets, Hewitt would have beaten current Sinner.
I’ve replied to you about this. Sufficient to say that I think that this is utter garbage.
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
Would should, yeah!! And even with Poly Hewitt was being Hewitt
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Age gaps are irrelevant until they aren’t. Like it is relevant between Djokovic and Alcaraz now all of a sudden
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
They want their fairytale narrative: the game has evolved but Djokodal are just too good
RS
Bionic Poster
Fed up of the Hewitt bashing?
RS
Bionic Poster
It's a good argument the posters should address it.
RS
Bionic Poster
I still have not used the ignore.
RS
Bionic Poster
How many on your list?I didn't for ages, but...
zakopinjo
Professional
Someone here is stupid. The group that says that Federer benefited because his prime happened at the time of inflation or the group that says that Novak benefited because his 30s came at the time of inflation.
I'll just ask one question. What is more difficult, to win the Slams in the prime in the period of inflation or to win the Slams in the 30s in the period of inflation?
I just disagree with the premise that Federer’s time was inflation.
zakopinjo
Professional
Obviously he is, he doesn't have any prime material against him.
As you can see, when two prime materials coincide, the slams are divided as in the period 2008-2010 and 2011-2014.
In the period 2004-2007, Federer's prime does not coincide with any, that is why he won 11 slams.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Yes, RG 2019 proves Federer never figured out Rafa on clay.
Plus, in 2017 Federer figured out a slower version of Nadal outside clay (I know Federer was even older and also slower, but Nadal's main strength against Roger eas always his impeccable defense, while Roger' game needed less of physicality and was less physically demanding). In other words, in 2017 Federer didn't figure out peak Nadal, the one who gave Roger nightmares, the one who could run like a rabit all day non-stop and reach impossible shots with an A+ defense and velocity.
RS
Bionic Poster
Can imagine
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Solving Nadal on clay isn't exactly the easiest thing in the world here. Even Djokovic only racked up his biggest wins when Nadal had lost much of what made his clay court game so great in the 2000's and early 2010's, particularly the incredible footspeed and high topspin (he flattened out the FH a bit after 2015/16).
You win either way. It's better to have the inflation in your 30s because ATG B or C game will still win majority of slams vs mugs like Tsitsipas, Berretini, Ruud, Krygios, Norrie etc.
