All these threads about Fed’s weak-era slam competition

GhostOfNKDM

Professional
Boil down to the same hypocritical circular logic-

Fed such a mug.. made hay beating chumps at slams

Followed by

Novak so great he had to beat the likes of Roger in slams

So Roger a mug for his own resume’ but tough competition on Novak’s.

Got it.
 

GhostOfNKDM

Professional
Not to mention all the times Roger beat Novak in their early encounters...

Oh but Nole wasn’t the beast he was to become later”

But bringing up a post-prime Fed’s age is an ‘excuse’?

The hypocrisy is off the charts.
 
Last edited:
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Another Feddy pity party.

Let's take about 5 seconds to take down the scarecrow argument.

The argument is actually quite simple: Federer is a great player with an INFLATED RESUME because he puffed it up in a VACUUM ERA where Amun-Ragassi, Baby Dal, and D3: The Mighty Roddick were his greatest threats - off clay.

Now, Djokovic by contrast has had to play two of the greatest players of all time in numerous finals to win his slams.

This should be quite a simple argument to follow as it's the same one Fedfans use against Nole - minus Fed having great competition of course.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GhostOfNKDM

Professional
Nole did play tennis before 2011? Thought his career started in 2011 since most Nole fans start their posts with "since 2011".
Most of them disappear too after his slam losses like roaches scamper when the light is turned on.

It was like the staff room in here after RG2020 with the kids out for recess - only grown ups talking.

The rest of the time they gloat and brag like there is no tomorrow.

Biggest bandwagoner fanbase.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Federer is an amazing player but yes his career totals are inflated by the vacuum era of 04-07. It’s no coincidence that the slams and weeks at number 1 dried up once Nadal and Djokovic fully matured, besides the occasional vulturing like 2009 and 2017.

4 consecutive YE#1... then his only YE#1 since comes in 2009 with Nadal injured for half of it.

Nadal YE#1 in 2008 and 2019
Djokovic YE#1 in 2011 and 2020

Shortpeakerer
 

Winner

Semi-Pro
Iconic image. Fed destroyed his own legacy by bottling those MPs. If he’s won that he would always have a GOAT claim by defeating the big2 back to back and defending his home turf.
Instead he is known as a talented but mentally weak choker who got owned by his main rivals.
Nadal owns a Boat.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
Lol I love the oversimplification and strawmanning and then calling out other people for being inconsistent and using logical fallacies. The funniest thing is that even your original premise is flawed. No Djokodal fans think prime Fed was a mug we just think that his slam wins were easier because he didn't face that tough of competition. I can spin just an anti Fed narrative without nuance and context just as easily:

Fed fans constantly say that players with lower ranking and inferior resumes were stronger competition than the players Djokodal faced who were higher ranked and accomplished more based on eye test. When these players play Fed they are peaky gods any other time they're mediocre. Fed fans constantly fly in the face of results for their favorite eye test. Roddick a 0 time W champ a far better grass player than Murray the 2 time champ ad nauseum. Constantly third and 4th tier players play way above themselves when playing Federer and do pretty much nothing else. James Blake a man who never made a slam semifinal is built up as strong, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Roddick, Hewitt, Ancic, Safin, Ferrero, Phillipousis, Baghdatis, Haas etc. are often claimed to be better than Djokodal when they faced eachother, Federer, Wawrinka, Murray etc. All of this is claimed on the basis that their eyes, eyes that are fans of Federer, tell them that the inferior players who played Federer were nearly always better or equal to the superior players that played Djokodal. And we're the delusional hypocrites. Sure thing buddy.
 
Last edited:

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
Most of the weak era arguments are dumb but this isn't a good counterpoint to bring up because many of the people who espouse that theory don't actually believe this (tl;dr strawman argument).

They believe that Fed is a great player... but that he "feasted on a weak era". That is to say that he himself isn't weak but he thrived in a weak era meaning he's worse than the other great players like Nadal and Djokovic yada yada yada.

Make fun of those posters for their shallow analysis but don't resort to even weaker arguments pls and thank u
 

celito

Semi-Pro
Iconic image. Fed destroyed his own legacy by bottling those MPs. If he’s won that he would always have a GOAT claim by defeating the big2 back to back and defending his home turf.
Instead he is known as a talented but mentally weak choker who got owned by his main rivals.
Yet an old overrated mug should never gotten that close to beaten someone so "superior" .... :unsure:
 

Robert F

Professional
I'm sure many of us Fed Fans are waxing nostalgic.
Obviously the big 3 are legends. It seems all 3 have benefited from a relatively weak era at one point or another. You might argue Nadal has had it worse since he had Peak Fed and Peak Djoker.

I think what appeals more about Fed's journey compared to Djokers, is that mugs he played got more hype and to some extent lived up to it since they could make it farther in tourney's since they mainly had to face Fed and to some extend Nadal.
Plus it was the start of the big 3 dynasty. We weren't fatigued with the Big 3 owning everything. We thought we had a few golden years that would never be repeated with Fed's domination and then rivalry with Nadal. The expectation is that Fed should fade, and Nadal a few years later. Instead Nadal strengthened, Djoker emerged and Murray and Federer continued to be factors.

But with Djoker's "weak era," the more the Big 3 take the more fatigued we are and the more we feel tennis is dead. Fed had Djoker and Nadal to take over. The natural changing of the guard happened with Fed to some extent--which makes you feel it couldn't have been that weak of an era. But now we are struggling to find an all time great to replace Djoker. "It's gotta happen..." Yet it hasn't. Every year we have 2-3 guys we see play a good tourney and know "this kid's the real deal." Only for him to flounder in the top 20.

Ironically what might help Djoker is to have a new rival in the big arenas. Imagine if Djoker lost the USO in a 5 setter this year to Sinner. Then they meet in the semifinal of 2022 AO, and Djoker wins in 4. Then they meet in Monte Carlo for a great 3 setter. It's an irony, that Djoker might have to lose on the big stage to the new rival whoever it may be to give Djoker's resume of opponents more strength.

For all 3 it's the odd curse of being so great. If you win everything, is it because you are great or everyone else is a mug? It's probably a little bit of both.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Most of them disappear too after his slam losses like roaches scamper when the light is turned on.

It was like the staff room in here after RG2020 with the kids out for recess - only grown ups talking.

The rest of the time they gloat and brag like there is no tomorrow.

Biggest bandwagoner fanbase.
That contrast is getting slimmer every year though. Since his comeback in 2018, only 2 of his 6 wins came against Fed/Rafa in the final.

The argument still holds weight, but it's getting seemingly weaker with each trophy lift.
I see what you're saying, and I hear it. The thing is though, of his first 12 major wins, Nole won every single one of them by beating Fed, Nadal or Murray. By contrast Fed only beat a near prime ATG once in his first 12 major wins, Rafa at W 07.

Nothing will ever change that Novak had to smash through the Fedal wall to establish himself, which is exponentially harder than beating the Saibamen and Mummies of the 03-06 era
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Federer is a greater champion, most iconic tennis player of his generation, more popular athlete, wealthier,..

His salty haters are tired of hearing his name so they have to denigrate the man. And the best strawman argument they can find is 'weak era'
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Lol I love the oversimplification and strawmanning and then calling out other people for being inconsistent and using logical fallacies. The funniest thing is that even your original premise is flawed. No Djokodal fans think prime Fed was a mug we just think that his slam wins were easier because he didn't face that tough of competition. I can spin just an anti Fed narrative without nuance and context just as easily:

Fed fans constantly say that players with lower ranking and inferior resumes were stronger competition than the players Djokodal faced who were higher ranked and accomplished more based on eye test. When these players play Fed they are peaky gods any other time they're mediocre. Fed fans constantly fly in the face of results for their favorite eye test. Roddick a 0 time W champ a far better grass player than Murray the 2 time champ ad nauseum. Constantly third and 4th tier players play way above themselves when playing Federer and do pretty much nothing else. James Blake a man who never made a slam semifinal is built up as strong, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Roddick, Hewitt, Ancic, Safin, Ferrero, Phillipousis, Baghdatis, Haas etc. are often claimed to be better than Djokodal when they faced eachother, Federer, Wawrinka, Murray etc. All of this is claimed on the basis that their eyes, eyes that are fans of Federer, tell them that the inferior players who played Federer where nearly always better or equal to the superior players that played Djokodal. And we're the delusional hypocrites. Sure thing buddy.
Beautifully said.

This should be framed and pinned. I believe we can end the thread now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Federer is a greater champion, most iconic tennis player of his generation, more popular athlete, wealthier,..

His salty haters are tired of hearing his name so they have to denigrate the man. And the best strawman argument they can find is 'weak era'
of course wealthiest is the most important factor in this discussion.
 
I love how the weak era magically ended in '08.

Hypothetical, but lets say Fed never gets mono, surely he would win either AO or W in 08. Despite zero changes in his competition, the weak era cutoff would have been moved to at least 09 then, right?

But even if that was a strong era, then how does a guy coming off mono still make 3 straight slam finals, (on every surface) and winning one?
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
I love how the weak era magically ended in '08.

Hypothetical, but lets say Fed never gets mono, surely he would win either AO or W in 08. Despite zero changes in his competition, the weak era cutoff would have been moved to at least 09 then, right?

But even if that was a strong era, then how does a guy coming off mono still make 3 straight slam finals, (on every surface) and winning one?
He would win neither. Nole would beat him the same, and the loss at Wimbledon had nothing to do with mono which ended in March at the latest.

His health was not a concern at the Open in '08.
 

fundrazer

Legend
Lol I love the oversimplification and strawmanning and then calling out other people for being inconsistent and using logical fallacies. The funniest thing is that even your original premise is flawed. No Djokodal fans think prime Fed was a mug we just think that his slam wins were easier because he didn't face that tough of competition. I can spin just an anti Fed narrative without nuance and context just as easily:

Fed fans constantly say that players with lower ranking and inferior resumes were stronger competition than the players Djokodal faced who were higher ranked and accomplished more based on eye test. When these players play Fed they are peaky gods any other time they're mediocre. Fed fans constantly fly in the face of results for their favorite eye test. Roddick a 0 time W champ a far better grass player than Murray the 2 time champ ad nauseum. Constantly third and 4th tier players play way above themselves when playing Federer and do pretty much nothing else. James Blake a man who never made a slam semifinal is built up as strong, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Roddick, Hewitt, Ancic, Safin, Ferrero, Phillipousis, Baghdatis, Haas etc. are often claimed to be better than Djokodal when they faced eachother, Federer, Wawrinka, Murray etc. All of this is claimed on the basis that their eyes, eyes that are fans of Federer, tell them that the inferior players who played Federer where nearly always better or equal to the superior players that played Djokodal. And we're the delusional hypocrites. Sure thing buddy.
I dunno of anybody who's hyping up James Blake.

Dunno anybody who's claiming that the rest of the guys you mentioned are better than Nadal or Djokovic either. When they're playing well they are more than capable of winning against Nadal and Djokovic, and we've seen that, but that's about as far as it goes. Also comes down to matchups too. Fed handled Davydenko well, but Nadal struggled with him a lot, especially on hard courts. Novak has a few relatively poor losses to Haas and Roddick.

What I would say however, is that most of the guys in that list are better players than the supporting cast we have today, barring some exceptions. Somebody like Ancic is maybe not on that level overall, but on grass for example I'd probably 100% take him against most of the tour, especially the next gen guys on grass. Last thing I'll say on this note is that we have too many cookie cutter baseliners right now, and most of them are all western grip + heavy topspin. It's an aggressive form of grinding, when a lot of the guys above were shotmakers that were better able to hit winners, imo.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
This one always gets me.

Age is always an excuse for Fed, but never for Nadal and Novak when they're "babies".
Yeag, they were babies in diapers when they lost to Fed, especially Novak who had also the gluten problem, apologists do their best with the excuses, don't give credit to the winner and that exposes their flawed narratives.Don't forget that Fed is always peak, it's that his rivals reach another level.
 
Last edited:

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
I love how the weak era magically ended in '08.

Hypothetical, but lets say Fed never gets mono, surely he would win either AO or W in 08. Despite zero changes in his competition, the weak era cutoff would have been moved to at least 09 then, right?

But even if that was a strong era, then how does a guy coming off mono still make 3 straight slam finals, (on every surface) and winning one?
They would have extended the weak era for as long as it would have been necessary.No respect for the sport whatsoever.Just imagine that Fed should have won his 6th consecutive Wimbledon when nobody in the OE has won a slam for 6th consecutive times.Nadal has yet to do it while Djokovic has never been close to that.The way Fed dominated actually is in his favor in the GOAT debate.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Fed fans constantly say that players with lower ranking and inferior resumes were stronger competition than the players Djokodal faced who were higher ranked and accomplished more based on eye test.
You clearly don't understand this part.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Most of the weak era arguments are dumb but this isn't a good counterpoint to bring up because many of the people who espouse that theory don't actually believe this (tl;dr strawman argument).

They believe that Fed is a great player... but that he "feasted on a weak era". That is to say that he himself isn't weak but he thrived in a weak era meaning he's worse than the other great players like Nadal and Djokovic yada yada yada.

Make fun of those posters for their shallow analysis but don't resort to even weaker arguments pls and thank u
But then why do Djokodal fans build their entire legacies on wins over Fed if he is worse than them?
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Not to mention all the times Roger beat Novak in their early encounters...

Oh but Nole wasn’t the beast he was to become later”

But bringing up a post-prime Fed’s age is an ‘excuse’?

The hypocrisy is off the charts.
They are in a quest of dissing the competition in order to somehow make Fed look inferior to the other 2, which obviously exposes their agenda and even my grandma would notice that.They thought that the 2007-2013 period will be the new norm but oopsy, not so fast.Not to mention that a good part of detractors were 4-5 years old when Fed started dominate, they just spin the same old things read from others.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
I dunno of anybody who's hyping up James Blake.

Dunno anybody who's claiming that the rest of the guys you mentioned are better than Nadal or Djokovic either. When they're playing well they are more than capable of winning against Nadal and Djokovic, and we've seen that, but that's about as far as it goes. Also comes down to matchups too. Fed handled Davydenko well, but Nadal struggled with him a lot, especially on hard courts. Novak has a few relatively poor losses to Haas and Roddick.

What I would say however, is that most of the guys in that list are better players than the supporting cast we have today, barring some exceptions. Somebody like Ancic is maybe not on that level overall, but on grass for example I'd probably 100% take him against most of the tour, especially the next gen guys on grass. Last thing I'll say on this note is that we have too many cookie cutter baseliners right now, and most of them are all western grip + heavy topspin. It's an aggressive form of grinding, when a lot of the guys above were shotmakers that were better able to hit winners, imo.
The hilarity of accusing people of constructing a straw man argument, and having a post full of them?

That is an everyday business in the Fed-hateland.

And it still changes nothing.

:giggle:
 

ElisRF

Professional
Lol I love the oversimplification and strawmanning and then calling out other people for being inconsistent and using logical fallacies. The funniest thing is that even your original premise is flawed. No Djokodal fans think prime Fed was a mug we just think that his slam wins were easier because he didn't face that tough of competition. I can spin just an anti Fed narrative without nuance and context just as easily:

Fed fans constantly say that players with lower ranking and inferior resumes were stronger competition than the players Djokodal faced who were higher ranked and accomplished more based on eye test. When these players play Fed they are peaky gods any other time they're mediocre. Fed fans constantly fly in the face of results for their favorite oeye test. Roddick a 0 time W champ a far better grass player than Murray the 2 time champ ad nauseum. Constantly third and 4th tier players play way above themselves when playing Federer and do pretty much nothing else. James Blake a man who never made a slam semifinal is built up as strong, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Roddick, Hewitt, Ancic, Safin, Ferrero, Phillipousis, Baghdatis, Haas etc. are often claimed to be better than Djokodal when they faced eachother, Federer, Wawrinka, Murray etc. All of this is claimed on the basis that their eyes, eyes that are fans of Federer, tell them that the inferior players who played Federer where nearly always better or equal to the superior players that played Djokodal. And we're the delusional hypocrites. Sure thing buddy.
Federer fans also say that 2011/2012 was stronger than 2003-07. And guess who won most in 2011/2012. Djokovic fans bash the Federer era so much as well and in recent times clearly more than vise versa.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
Federer fans also say that 2011/2012 was stronger than 2003-07. And guess who won most in 2011/2012. Djokovic fans bash the Federer era so much as well and in recent times clearly more than vise versa.
Congrats on admitting something incredibly obvious. Some of you also claim 07-09 was stronger than 11-12 lol so don’t pretend you’re the paragons of objectivity.

As far as the second claim lol. Maybe they don’t trash the first Djokovic era much but the 2018-present era gets insane treatment from you guys. You guys treat every single younger player like extreme Djokodal fans treat Roddick. It definitely goes both ways get of your high horse.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
That contrast is getting slimmer every year though. Since his comeback in 2018, only 2 of his 6 wins came against Fed/Rafa in the final.

The argument still holds weight, but it's getting seemingly weaker with each trophy lift.
This is true but at the same time he only needs two more trophy lifts. Also, he still has won 13/18 beating one of Fedal and 2 more beating the Wawrinka/Murray double.
 

ElisRF

Professional
Congrats on admitting something incredibly obvious. Some of you also claim 07-09 was stronger than 11-12 lol so don’t pretend you’re the paragons of objectivity.

As far as the second claim lol. Maybe they don’t trash the first Djokovic era much but the 2018-present era gets insane treatment from you guys. You guys treat every single younger player like extreme Djokodal fans treat Roddick. It definitely goes both ways get of your high horse.
Yes it does go both ways but not of late. I haven’t seen lots of Federer fans say 2007-2009 was stronger than 2011-2012.....

Okay fair enough I shouldn’t have been so defensive in the response.
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
Yes it does go both ways but not of late. I haven’t seen lots of Federer fans say 2007-2009 was stronger than 2011-2012.....

Okay fair enough I shouldn’t have been so defensive in the response.
Might not be stronger but the two are certainly comparable at the very least. I wouldn't believe anyone who says there's a significant difference between the two.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
Have you factored in the mental age of the majority of the paritcipants?

:unsure:
No evidence of that to be fair but by their own admissions they only followed tennis since 2011 so being new to the sport relatively speaking compared to us seasoned observers they should be afforded some latitude for perhaps not being as aware of the players in the noughties.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
This one always gets me.

Age is always an excuse for Fed, but never for Nadal and Novak when they're "babies".
Federer rightfully defeated peak Nadal at Wimbledon 2006. As a Nadal fan, I'm not gonna make excuses for "baby" Nadal. In part, because it would be denying his talent. You need a lot of talent to peak that soon and Nadal was a tennis teenage prodigy.
 
Top