Best GS Tournament Run Ever?

[beltsman]

Here are my rankings(included olympics because it is a big tournament as well):
1. Evert 1976 US. Open (83.4% games won)
2. Borg 1978 RG (79.87% of games won) (Credit to Lew II for Stat)
3. Serena Olympics 2012 (83% of games won)
4. Nadal 2008 RG (75.60% games won(credit Lew II)) , Graf 1988 RG (81% of games won)
5. Navratilova 1983 US Open (81.6% games won)
6. Mcenroe 1984 Wimbledon
7. Djokovic AO 2011
8. Nadal RG 2017 (76.82% games won)
9. Federer AO 2007 (64.7% games won)

1. Evert 1976 US. Open
Evert beats Stevens 6-1 6-0
Evert beats Coles 6-0 6-0
Evert beats Barker 6-1 6-0
Evert beats Chmyreva 6-1 6-2
Evert beats Jausovec 6-3 6-1
Evert beats Goolagong 6-3 6-0

2. Borg 1978 RG
Borg beats Deblicker 6-1 6-1 6-1
Borg beats Fagel 6-0 6-1 6-0
Borg beats Bertolucci 6-0 6-2 6-2
Borg beats Tanner 6-2 6-4 7-6 (5)
Borg beats Ramirez 6-3 6-3 6-0
Borg beats Barazzutti 6-0 6-1 6-0
Borg beats Vilas 6-1 6-1 6-3

3. Serena Olympics 2012
Serena beats Jankovic 6-3 6-1
Serena beats Radwanska 6-2 6-3
Serena beats Zvonareva 6-0 6-1
Serena beats Wozniacki 6-0 6-3
Serena beats Azarenka 6-1 6-2
Serena beats Sharapova 6-0 6-1

4. Nadal 2008 RG
Nadal beats Belucci 7-5 6-3 6-1
Nadal beats Devilder 6-4 6-0 6-1
Nadal beats Nieminen 6-1 6-3 6-1
Nadal beats Verdasco 6-1 6-0 6-2
Nadal beats Almagro 6-1 6-1 6-1
Nadal beats Djokovic 6-4 6-2 7-6 (3)
Nadal beats Federer 6-1 6-3 6-0

5. Graf 1988 RG
Graf beats Guerree 6-0 6-4
Graf beats Reis 6-1 6-0
Graf beats Sloane 6-0 6-1
Graf beats Tauziat 6-1 6-3
Graf beats Fulco 6-0 6-1
Graf beats Sabatini 6-3 7-6(3)
Graf beats Zvereva 6-0 6-0


Edit: I am missing some of Evert's and King's best runs, so feel free to post them along with the draw and I will add them.



Discuss...

Where is Sampras?

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Ten little lectures of wisdom on why you can't say words in a clearly historical context still.

Gary rarely makes his grievances public - that's very nice of him and I respect that, but I don't care for shutting up at this point. I used to be nicer and did it help stop the rot, not a bit. How can one discuss nicely if the trolls are sure to come and smear everything with their verbal diarrhea?

but why are you being fooled by them, on the contrary, you are even feeding them with your reaction, thus they thrive and feel themselves even more in freedom, better not to react to that, smart ones here will understand anyway who is who, who is a troll and who is not, and wasting your efforts and energy on them is not a wise decision, all the more so they won't stop 100 percent in any case, plus you play against yourself when being angry at them, and then starting to throw away your anger at decent users,

 

[JaoSousa]

Where is Sampras?

To my knowledge, he never won a slam without dropping a set. He had some truly epic runs over the course of his career, but nothing close to the first 6 items on the list. If you have a specific tournament in mind, I will add it to the poll.

 

[The Guru]

Similar not same. Put it this way, a 90/80 atk/def player is better than a 80/90 atk/def player even if the sum of their attributes is the same at 170.

Fair enough. I think that I agree but it's just hard to know what exactly that means and what 80 atk/90 def looks like. It's hard to know what that means with no frame of reference. Maybe give me examples for what that looks like.

Again, no forehand, no party. Federer became more aggressive because his defence declined more than his attack (as is the norm) but his attack very much declined too. He wasn't on the same level as peak Djokovic yet pushed him well often, what does this tell us. I already told you Agassi pushing peak Federer speaks great of Agassi - Sampras is still better of course, well his level on faster surfaces may have been better than anyone's.

Djokovic has been 10-2 against Fed in slams since turning 23. That's pretty good. The closeness of some of their matches I think can be explained in many ways that aren't Fed is the more aggressive player. First, Federer has a matchup advantage against Djokovic. Djokovic's main form of aggression is hitting deep in the court and one of Fed's biggest strength's is timing and taking the ball early. He's also vulnerable to slices which is something Fed does very well. I think that's something that's often overlooked in their rivalry. Another aspect which I think was present in the Fed-Agassi rivalry too is that great players often find a way to play up to competition. Fed has adapted his game to his declined movement better than anyone before him and he has found a way to play up to his competition even when his level is worse. A prime example of that is W 14. Djokovic was at a way better level but Fed found a way to hang around despite being the far worse player.

Again I already said, aggression is far from just winners. Anything good enough to make the opponent uncomfortable (by its own merit, pure UEs excluded) counts as aggressive intent, whether it comes from an attacking or defensive position. Defence-to-attack is so significant it has its own style name, counterpunching. Nadal's prime ability to make aggressive gets from defensive positions was unparalleled; passing shots make a textbook example of an aggressively-minded shot from a defensive position and Nadal's peak superiority in this aspect is indusputable. Nadal was more aggressive against Federer than you give him credit for, he was never anything like a Simon grinder type (and while peak Simon was no slouch I'm confident that if peak Fed happened to play Simon in every slam Gilles would be fortunate to get two sets in four matches) and raised his attacking game specifically to fight Fed when the usual stuff wasn't enough. Fred at his best still wins off clay (and maybe Miami and Canada as well, minor point though), when he wasn't and Nadal was matches still went five sets with Federer statistically near-equal.

Fair enough but I still think you are underrating retrieving and consistency.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Fair enough. I think that I agree but it's just hard to know what exactly that means and what 80 atk/90 def looks like. It's hard to know what that means with no frame of reference. Maybe give me examples for what that looks like.

It's all approximations since we've no exact science at out disposal, I don't think I could generate a non-controversial example. At an ATG level I think of Sampras-Agassi, although Sampras was also better mentally which isn't a given for a better attacker vs better defender match-up... and that's also why Federer's success against Djokovic is not what it should be even despite the age, huehue.

Djokovic has been 10-2 against Fed in slams since turning 23. That's pretty good. The closeness of some of their matches I think can be explained in many ways that aren't Fed is the more aggressive player. First, Federer has a matchup advantage against Djokovic. Djokovic's main form of aggression is hitting deep in the court and one of Fed's biggest strength's is timing and taking the ball early. He's also vulnerable to slices which is something Fed does very well. I think that's something that's often overlooked in their rivalry. Another aspect which I think was present in the Fed-Agassi rivalry too is that great players often find a way to play up to competition. Fed has adapted his game to his declined movement better than anyone before him and he has found a way to play up to his competition even when his level is worse. A prime example of that is W 14. Djokovic was at a way better level but Fed found a way to hang around despite being the far worse player.

Djokovic let that happen though, should've been over in four sets. Djo is an ATG too so there's no significant class/skill advantage for Federer, if he can still make matches close against his age that speaks to his favour, and yeah the matchup exists, but Federer had a bad one with Nadal and still made matches close besides RG too... the champ of making it close almost everywhere even when outmatched at this point, which is as close to the manifestation of overall superiority as he got in direct matchups - sigh! if only he had Samprasian clutch mentality so there'd be no ugly goat battles and the trollery around them. I'm most annoyed not at the losses themselves but at the trolling, mocking and disrespect that happens as a result.

Fair enough but I still think you are underrating retrieving and consistency.

Federer-Murray 5-1 in slams, with Federer dropping two sets total in his five wins and stealing two tiebreaks in the lone 2013 loss despite Murray being in clearly better physical form, isn't good evidence?

 

[Moose Malloy]

Does anyone have good suggestions for any dominant runs outside of Slams? I am thinking of making a new thread.

Seles 1995 Canadian Open
Pierce 2000 Family Circle Cup
Graf 1987 Miami

 

[mike danny]

So you can't be a good guy if you aren't a Federer supporter? I don't find my assertions to be "ugly". They're just my interpretations of what I see. I don't think Federer sucks. I just think he's worse than most do. I think Nadalovic are better. I don't think that's so crazy.

You didn't justify why.

 

[The Guru]

You didn't justify why.

Justify why what?

 

[mike danny]

Justify why what?

Why Nadalovic are better.

 

[The Guru]

Why Nadalovic are better.

I think that they would've achieved more in Fed's shoes and Fed would've achieved less in theirs. I think that they've achieved almost as much against tougher competition and that's more impressive to me. I'm not about to write an essay (which is what it would take) justifying my viewpoint, at least not right now. I won't use the term "GOAT" because I think it's silly to compare the wood era to the graphite era to the poly era. The game has just changed too much to compare imo, but I think Nadalovic are the greatest of the poly era. Why do you think Federer is better? I assume it's for the same reason as me except in reverse.

 

[mike danny]

I think that they would've achieved more in Fed's shoes and Fed would've achieved less in theirs. I think that they've achieved almost as much against tougher competition and that's more impressive to me. I'm not about to write an essay (which is what it would take) justifying my viewpoint, at least not right now. I won't use the term "GOAT" because I think it's silly to compare the wood era to the graphite era to the poly era. The game has just changed too much to compare imo, but I think Nadalovic are the greatest of the poly era. Why do you think Federer is better? I assume it's for the same reason as me except in reverse.

Djokovic hasn't won in a tougher era as far as I'm concerned. Since 2015 he has won most of his majors and that's when the competition level decreased.

Djokodal's records now are inflated because of terrible back to back younger generations. That's why they are close to 20.

Fed achieving less in their shoes is false, IMO. I don't see any reason to suggest that. Unless you think beating an old Fed is really the ultimate proof, in which case I disagree.

 

[The Guru]

Djokovic hasn't won in a tougher era as far as I'm concerned. Since 2015 he has won most of his majors and that's when the competition level decreased.

Djokodal's records now are inflated because of terrible back to back younger generations. That's why they are close to 20.

Fed achieving less in their shoes is false, IMO. I don't see any reason to suggest that. Unless you think beating an old Fed is really the ultimate proof, in which case I disagree.

I find it extraordinarily odd that people draw the line at 2015. Why 2015? Basically everyone was better in 2015 than 2014 except Nadal. Djokovic, Murray, Fed, Stan all much better in 15.

I think Fedalovic and to a lesser extent the rest of gold gen (Stan Murray etc.) drove each other to such insane heights because they are three of the greatest ever peaking all near each other and they each are searching for ways to beat each other that they reached ridiculous levels and when they came down they were still better than everyone else.

Lost Gen sucks no doubt. Jury's still out on Next Gen. I highly doubt they end up as bed as transition gen. Third Serve and I went through each slam and came to the conclusion that 2011-2015 Djokovic wins 15 slams in 03-07 and Fed of course won 12 in that period. I think beating Old Fed is a good achievement. Old Fed was a good player. I think beating Old Fed is more impressive than most of the people Fed beat in his prime. I don't really want to have this debate right now but since you've asked a few times now I figured I'd give you the shell of my answer.

 

[mike danny]

I find it extraordinarily odd that people draw the line at 2015. Why 2015? Basically everyone was better in 2015 than 2014 except Nadal. Djokovic, Murray, Fed, Stan all much better in 15.

Because that's when Djoko started dominating again. And that's when he suddenly started to improve his slam finals record.

The same reason people always draw the line at 2004-2007.

Lost Gen sucks no doubt. Jury's still out on Next Gen. I highly doubt they end up as bed as transition gen.

They are already less impressive than transition gen. We don't even know if they are better than Tsonga/Berdych. Them accomplishing more in the future because of a lack of Big 3 won't make them better.

Transition gen was sure a heck of a lot better than anyone born in the 90's so far.

Assuming by transition gen you refer to Fed's gen.

Third Serve and I went through each slam and came to the conclusion that 2011-2015 Djokovic wins 15 slams in 03-07 and Fed of course won 12 in that period.

Ok, then I have come to the conclusion that 2004-2007 Fed would win 11 slams in 2014-2016 and we all know Djokovic won 6 in that period.

I think beating Old Fed is a good achievement. Old Fed was a good player. I think beating Old Fed is more impressive than most of the people Fed beat in his prime.

Sure, they were impressive wins. Just like the wins over old Agassi, young Nadal, young Novak, 2005 USO Hewitt and 2004/2009 Roddick were.

At the end of the day, old Fed is no match for a peak ATG. If that's the guy you think would put a dent in Fed's slam count in 2004-2007, then your case is not really solid.

I don't really want to have this debate right now but since you've asked a few times now I figured I'd give you the shell of my answer.

And I will give you the shell of mine: the notion that only Fed has had it easier and not Djokodal too is erroneous. At the end of the day, competition has evened out for all 3 of them.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Here are my rankings(included olympics because it is a big tournament as well):
1. Evert 1976 US. Open (83.4% games won)
2. Borg 1978 RG (79.87% of games won) (Credit to Lew II for Stat)
3. Serena Olympics 2012 (83% of games won)
4. Nadal 2008 RG (75.60% games won(credit Lew II)) , Graf 1988 RG (81% of games won)
5. Navratilova 1983 US Open (81.6% games won)
6. Mcenroe 1984 Wimbledon
7. Djokovic AO 2011
8. Nadal RG 2017 (76.82% games won)
9. Federer AO 2007 (64.7% games won)

1. Evert 1976 US. Open
Evert beats Stevens 6-1 6-0
Evert beats Coles 6-0 6-0
Evert beats Barker 6-1 6-0
Evert beats Chmyreva 6-1 6-2
Evert beats Jausovec 6-3 6-1
Evert beats Goolagong 6-3 6-0

2. Borg 1978 RG
Borg beats Deblicker 6-1 6-1 6-1
Borg beats Fagel 6-0 6-1 6-0
Borg beats Bertolucci 6-0 6-2 6-2
Borg beats Tanner 6-2 6-4 7-6 (5)
Borg beats Ramirez 6-3 6-3 6-0
Borg beats Barazzutti 6-0 6-1 6-0
Borg beats Vilas 6-1 6-1 6-3

3. Serena Olympics 2012
Serena beats Jankovic 6-3 6-1
Serena beats Radwanska 6-2 6-3
Serena beats Zvonareva 6-0 6-1
Serena beats Wozniacki 6-0 6-3
Serena beats Azarenka 6-1 6-2
Serena beats Sharapova 6-0 6-1

4. Nadal 2008 RG
Nadal beats Belucci 7-5 6-3 6-1
Nadal beats Devilder 6-4 6-0 6-1
Nadal beats Nieminen 6-1 6-3 6-1
Nadal beats Verdasco 6-1 6-0 6-2
Nadal beats Almagro 6-1 6-1 6-1
Nadal beats Djokovic 6-4 6-2 7-6 (3)
Nadal beats Federer 6-1 6-3 6-0

5. Graf 1988 RG
Graf beats Guerree 6-0 6-4
Graf beats Reis 6-1 6-0
Graf beats Sloane 6-0 6-1
Graf beats Tauziat 6-1 6-3
Graf beats Fulco 6-0 6-1
Graf beats Sabatini 6-3 7-6(3)
Graf beats Zvereva 6-0 6-0


Edit: I am missing some of Evert's and King's best runs, so feel free to post them along with the draw and I will add them.



Discuss...

Did Graf double bagel Zverev’s mom?

 

[JaoSousa]

Did Graf double bagel Zverev’s mom?

No, it was Zverev. The loss took her out for 26 years. Then she evolved and reincarnated as Zverev, hoping for better luck on the men's tour.

 

[The Guru]

Because that's when Djoko started dominating again. And that's when he suddenly started to improve his slam finals record.

The same reason people always draw the line at 2004-2007.

Exactly. Which is why it's stupid and biased. You literally just admitted to calling 2015 weak because that's when Djokovic started dominating again. Btw I don't draw the line from 04-07. 07 should not be lumped in with the rest because it was better (after the AO). I think more accurate lines were competition picked up are after AO 07 and dropped off after AO 16. Obviously fluctuations in between but I think it's crazy that people lump 2015 in with like 2018.

They are already less impressive than transition gen. We don't even know if they are better than Tsonga/Berdych. Them accomplishing more in the future because of a lack of Big 3 won't make them better.

Transition gen was sure a heck of a lot better than anyone born in the 90's so far.

Assuming by transition gen you refer to Fed's gen.

American Gen = Agassi, Sampras, Courier, Chang, Ivanisevic etc.
Transition Gen= Kuerten, Haas, Enqvist, Rios, Moya etc.
New Balls Gen= Fed, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin etc.
Gold Gen= Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic etc.

Point was that while Fed had to deal with a strong gen succeeding him he had an extraordinarily weak gen preceding him. If Sampras/Agassi were born 5 years later New Balls Gen would've had a lot tougher time getting their feet under them. That's something that is never brought up because it doesn't fit the narrative. I will maintain though that it's much too early to judge Next Gen. It's possible they end up being a solid gen. It's possible that they'll suck too. We'll see.

Ok, then I have come to the conclusion that 2004-2007 Fed would win 11 slams in 2014-2016 and we all know Djokovic won 6 in that period.

Unfair comparison. We were comparing the best 4 year stretches of their career. While Fed 04-08 is probably better we did 03-07 because some one else (I don't remember who) chose that instead. Here you are comparing Fed's 4 best years too 3 Novak years of varying quality.

Sure, they were impressive wins. Just like the wins over old Agassi, young Nadal, young Novak, 2005 USO Hewitt and 2004/2009 Roddick were.

At the end of the day, old Fed is no match for a peak ATG. If that's the guy you think would put a dent in Fed's slam count in 2004-2007, then your case is not really solid.


And I will give you the shell of mine: the notion that only Fed has had it easier and not Djokodal too is erroneous. At the end of the day, competition has evened out for all 3 of them.

I think generally Old Fed was better than those players. There's been matches where he hasn't been like AO 2020 but generally he beats out those guys except W 07 Nadal who was a beast and clearly of a different level than the other guys you listed and Old Fed.

If your last claim is true then even you have to admit that Rafa is basically even with Fed then. Their accomplishments are very similar and while you may feel Fed's slams aren't a product of his time you must admit his weeks certainly are. If Rafa was born in 1981 he's probably number 1 from 2001 (at the latest) through 2006 before he has to battle it out with himself lol.

 

[Enceladus]

Because that's when Djoko started dominating again. And that's when he suddenly started to improve his slam finals record.

This was not due to weaker competition, Nole had in 2015 very good competition, eg Fed's level of play was as strong as in 2017. Nole began to dominate again, because thanks triumph in Wimbledon 2014 he got rid of mental scars that disrupted his mental power. His mental tenacity returned to the 2011 level. There were also manifested positive aspects of cooperation with Becker - improvement of service and, to a lesser extent, improvement of net game.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Mac 1984 Wimbledon.

As Connors so famously said, "I was playing really well too, but he was in another dimension that day."

A moderately close second would be Rafa 2008 FO.

 

[mike danny]

This was not due to weaker competition, Nole had in 2015 very good competition, eg Fed's level of play was as strong as in 2017. Nole began to dominate again, because thanks triumph in Wimbledon 2014 he got rid of mental scars that disrupted his mental power. His mental tenacity returned to the 2011 level. There were also manifested positive aspects of cooperation with Becker - improvement of service and, to a lesser extent, improvement of net game.

That post was simply addressed to all the Djokovic fans who think only Fed had it easy and never their player.

 

[mike danny]

Exactly. Which is why it's stupid and biased. You literally just admitted to calling 2015 weak because that's when Djokovic started dominating again. Btw I don't draw the line from 04-07. 07 should not be lumped in with the rest because it was better (after the AO). I think more accurate lines were competition picked up are after AO 07 and dropped off after AO 16. Obviously fluctuations in between but I think it's crazy that people lump 2015 in with like 2018.

2005-2005 were better than 2006 too, don't see why they have to get lumped in with 2006, by far one of the weakest years ever.

2017-2018 were obviously a level below 2015 in terms of competition.

I just don't see anything to suggest 2015-2016 were stronger years than 2004-2005. The competition definitely decreased after 2013, don't see what's so controversial about that.

American Gen = Agassi, Sampras, Courier, Chang, Ivanisevic etc.
Transition Gen= Kuerten, Haas, Enqvist, Rios, Moya etc.
New Balls Gen= Fed, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin etc.
Gold Gen= Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic etc.

Point was that while Fed had to deal with a strong gen succeeding him he had an extraordinarily weak gen preceding him. If Sampras/Agassi were born 5 years later New Balls Gen would've had a lot tougher time getting their feet under them. That's something that is never brought up because it doesn't fit the narrative.

Perhaps they would have a harder time, but I could still see them being fairly successful.

I will maintain though that it's much too early to judge Next Gen. It's possible they end up being a solid gen. It's possible that they'll suck too. We'll see.

They are already unimpressive given that they are not even losing to the Big 3 that often, but to the field instead and they aren't putting a single dent into the Big 3 dominance. 38 year old Fed was closer than any of the 90's guys to winning a slam in the last 16 months. And Djokovic was able to win last year's Wimb and this year's AO with his B or even C game.

Unfair comparison. We were comparing the best 4 year stretches of their career. While Fed 04-08 is probably better we did 03-07 because some one else (I don't remember who) chose that instead. Here you are comparing Fed's 4 best years too 3 Novak years of varying quality.

Ok, then what are Novak's 4 best years? 2011, 2015-2016 and then what? I didn't consider 2011 because that was legitimately the strongest 3 slam year out of the Big 3 or even anyone else. So what other years are there? In 2015-2016, I still see prime Fed ending up with 8 slams instead of 5 like Novak did, so my point still stands.

I think generally Old Fed was better than those players.

Perhaps, but not enough to beat a peak ATG, which is all that matters in this discussion.

There's been matches where he hasn't been like AO 2020 but generally he beats out those guys except W 07 Nadal who was a beast and clearly of a different level than the other guys you listed and Old Fed.

There are individual matches or periods in which Fed's players were better or at least not worse than old Fed like 2004-2005 Agassi on HC, 2004/2009 Wimb finals Roddick and 2005 USO SF Hewitt just to name a few.

If your last claim is true then even you have to admit that Rafa is basically even with Fed then. Their accomplishments are very similar and while you may feel Fed's slams aren't a product of his time you must admit his weeks certainly are. If Rafa was born in 1981 he's probably number 1 from 2001 (at the latest) through 2006 before he has to battle it out with himself lol.

Yes, that may be true. That's why competition has evened out for all 3 of them. Fed would have also had many more weeks and years at no.1 after 28 years of age if he had had Djokodal's competition after they were 27-28 years of age.

 

[JaoSousa]

Mac 1984 Wimbledon.

As Connors so famously said, "I was playing really well too, but he was in another dimension that day."

A moderately close second would be Rafa 2008 FO.

I think he lost a set in the first round though. Still, despite that, the next 6 rounds were absolutely brutal. I was a huge Connors fan back then, but Mac just destroyed him.

 

[The Guru]

2005-2005 were better than 2006 too, don't see why they have to get lumped in with 2006, by far one of the weakest years ever.

2017-2018 were obviously a level below 2015 in terms of competition.

Agreed. They weren't as good as 2007 though either.

I just don't see anything to suggest 2015-2016 were stronger years than 2004-2005. The competition definitely decreased after 2013, don't see what's so controversial about that.

Yeah I disagree for sure with that one. While I do agree the competition decreased from 2013 it decreased from the highest point I think it's ever been in the history of the game (11-13) so it didn't just go to crap. I think the period from 2015 AO to 2016 AO was very solid. After that it declines into the 2017/18 period which had a couple good slams but mostly sucked. Conversely 03-05 is coming from probably the weakest period in tennis history (00-02) so it didn't just all the sudden become super competitive. It was better than before but not as good as what Novak dealt with.

Perhaps they would have a harder time, but I could still see them being fairly successful.

Point is everyone talk about how easy Nadalovic had it because Lost Gen sucked but Fed and Co lucked out because there wasn't a single legit non-clay specialist talent born in the 10 years before they were. From 1971-80/81 there was basically nothing. Fed got just as lucky with Transition Gen being bad. He didn't have to really push anyone out (he kinda did with Agassi but Agassi probably only gets one more slam without Fed). I think it's disingenuous to **** all over Lost Gen all the time and say how easy it was for Nadalovic without also mentioning that Transition Gen was basically as bad

They are already unimpressive given that they are not even losing to the Big 3 that often, but to the field instead and they aren't putting a single dent into the Big 3 dominance. 38 year old Fed was closer than any of the 90's guys to winning a slam in the last 16 months. And Djokovic was able to win last year's Wimb and this year's AO with his B or even C game.

I think we will see a trend of people blooming later (like Thiem) nowadays because I think there is some truth to the age shift theories. It's still way too early to judge. You can't judge 20-23 year olds on what they'll be for their whole career. How would that've worked for Wawrinka or even Fedovic who were both lateish bloomers. Way too early to judge Next Gen.

Perhaps, but not enough to beat a peak ATG, which is all that matters in this discussion.

There are individual matches or periods in which Fed's players were better or at least not worse than old Fed like 2004-2005 Agassi on HC, 2004/2009 Wimb finals Roddick and 2005 USO SF Hewitt just to name a few.


Yes, that may be true. That's why competition has evened out for all 3 of them. Fed would have also had many more weeks and years at no.1 after 28 years of age if he had had Djokodal's competition after they were 27-28 years of age.

Yeah I just completely disagree here unless you're talking 19/20 Fed then fair enough. No way am I taking any of those over old Fed. I don't think old Fed beats Peak Fed but if they play 12 times (like Djokovic has since turning 23) I think Peak Fed loses a couple matches to old him like Djokovic does. It's like if Djokovic had played in another era you'd say no way he ever loses to Murray he's a way better player but in reality we know that Murray beat him 2 out of 10 times despite being a worse player. If someone is consistent enough at a level just below a peak ATG (like 10s Fed) they're bound to snatch a couple matches.

If you're saying Nadal hasn't gotten completely screwed in the weeks race then I want whatever you're smoking. Djokovic and Federer have both had some luck and it more or less evened out (I'd say Djokovic had it harder because Young Djok gets weeks in 00-03 where Fed didn't and had it harder in prime but had way way way easier post-prime) but Nadal has gotten so ****ed. He has been number 2 for so long it's ridiculous. Nadal being more than a full year behind Lendl/Connors is proof enough of his outrageously bad luck in the weeks race.

I have a question and it's for curiosity not as a gotcha. If one of Nadalovic overtakes Fed in the slam count would you put them as the best of this era? Which one(s) would you not put over Fed and why not?

 

[mike danny]

Agreed. They weren't as good as 2007 though either.

Of course.

Yeah I disagree for sure with that one. While I do agree the competition decreased from 2013 it decreased from the highest point I think it's ever been in the history of the game (11-13) so it didn't just go to crap.

That's a bit of a hyperbole, IMO. I don't think it was the strongest it has ever been in the history of the game.

I think the period from 2015 AO to 2016 AO was very solid.

It was solid, just like the 2004-2005 period was. I don't think one is weaker than the other. I have always maintained they are about even in terms of competition strength. Whoever says otherwise is just trying to argue for his guy and nothing more, IMO.

Conversely 03-05 is coming from probably the weakest period in tennis history (00-02) so it didn't just all the sudden become super competitive. It was better than before but not as good as what Novak dealt with.

Sure, but the new balls generation still had to overcome Sampras/Agassi to get where they were. They didn't really have to deal with the Transition Gen that much. That's like judging the Next Gen just because they have come after the Lost Gen.

I just disagree that Novak dealt with tougher competition in 2015-2016 than in 2003-2005. I don't see any reason why that would be. Djokovic's guys are not taking any slams away from Fed in 2004-2005 (his actual peak period, not 2003), so I don't think it makes a difference.

Point is everyone talk about how easy Nadalovic had it because Lost Gen sucked but Fed and Co lucked out because there wasn't a single legit non-clay specialist talent born in the 10 years before they were. From 1971-80/81 there was basically nothing. Fed got just as lucky with Transition Gen being bad. He didn't have to really push anyone out (he kinda did with Agassi but Agassi probably only gets one more slam without Fed). I think it's disingenuous to **** all over Lost Gen all the time and say how easy it was for Nadalovic without also mentioning that Transition Gen was basically as bad

Sure, but regarding the Transition Gen, that was just one bad gen. Nadalovic have had both the Lost Gen AND the Next Gen being useless. It is unprecedented to have back to back terrible generations.

Federer already proved himself anyway with wins over Sampras and Agassi. He didn't wait for them to go out. And the Next Gen hasn't dealt with anyone after the Big 3 either.

I think we will see a trend of people blooming later (like Thiem) nowadays because I think there is some truth to the age shift theories.

Ok, where are all the incredible 24-26 year olds?

It's still way too early to judge. You can't judge 20-23 year olds on what they'll be for their whole career. How would that've worked for Wawrinka or even Fedovic who were both lateish bloomers. Way too early to judge Next Gen.

Fed won his first slam a month just shy of his 22nd birthday. Djokovic won his first slam at 20. Not super late bloomers.

I am just disproving the myth that the Next Gen are so unlucky to be dealing with the 3 GOATS when they aren't even losing to the 3 GOATS that often and lose mostly to the field.

Yeah I just completely disagree here unless you're talking 19/20 Fed then fair enough. No way am I taking any of those over old Fed. I don't think old Fed beats Peak Fed but if they play 12 times (like Djokovic has since turning 23) I think Peak Fed loses a couple matches to old him like Djokovic does. It's like if Djokovic had played in another era you'd say no way he ever loses to Murray he's a way better player but in reality we know that Murray beat him 2 out of 10 times despite being a worse player.

Well, I am only talking about the Federer of 2014-present. That Fed doesn't beat peak Fed at any slams, just like he hasn't beaten Djokovic.

If you're saying Nadal hasn't gotten completely screwed in the weeks race then I want whatever you're smoking.

Where did I say he hasn't?

Nadal has gotten so ****ed. He has been number 2 for so long it's ridiculous. Nadal being more than a full year behind Lendl/Connors is proof enough of his outrageously bad luck in the weeks race.

Nadal has simply never been consistent or healthy enough to stay number 1 for a prolonged period of time. 2010-2012 could have been the only time, but that was about it.

And Nadal hasn't got completely screwed. He never had to deal with both Fedovic at their peaks at the same time. I think if all 3 of them were of the same age, Nadal would be the most affected in the no.1 race. But that wasn't the case. Fed was actually royally screwed having both Djokodal at their peaks at the same time.

I have a question and it's for curiosity not as a gotcha. If one of Nadalovic overtakes Fed in the slam count would you put them as the best of this era? Which one(s) would you not put over Fed and why not?

Whoever surpasses Fed's slam count is the best of this era in my book no matter what other stuff Fed has. But at the end of the day, competition has evened out for all 3 of them, so whoever does won't have competition in his favor, IMO.

Nadal and Novak wouldn't have got to 20 with actual prime/peak ATG chasing them. Just like Fed wouldn't have got to 20 with both Nadal and Djokovic as his age peers. However, contrary to popular belief, Djokodal being the same age as Federer would have helped him massively and assuming he keep his longevity, would have got close to 20 eventually.