Big3 post-prime/ in their early 30s - Federer had it the toughest?

Who had it the toughest?

  • Total voters
    54
wang07

wang07

Semi-Pro
There has been some lengthy debates over longevity lately, so I took a closer look at what exactly the Big3 had to deal with at Slams between the ages of 29 and 33. Djokovic just turned 34 so obviously I had to stop right there.

Slam SF/F opponents (29-33)

Federer:

Djokovic 8x
Nadal 3x
Murray 3x
Cilic
Raonic

Nadal:

Djokovic 3x
Federer 3x
Thiem 3x
Del Potro 3x
Tsitsipas
Anderson
Dimitrov
Berrettini
Schwartzman
Medvedev
Wawrinka

Djokovic:


Nadal 3x
Thiem 3x
Federer 2x
Wawrinka
Del Potro
Anderson
Karatsev
Medvedev
Murray
Monfils
Tsitsipas
Pouille
Nishikori
Bautista Agut


Discuss!
 
ForehandCross said:
Djokovic 2011-16 is probably the best player in history.

So there's that.
Click to expand...
2011 is absolutely one of the 3 highest level alongside federer's 2005-06 and Nadal's 2008-09 stretch.
2012&14 were decent. 2013 had higher highs but way lower lows.
2015 was brutally consistent and intelligent, albeit a very weak year.
2016 was scary for initial month, up there with 2011, but then armour started to show cracks, however he held himself together till RG and then collapsed.
 
Up through age 25: Fed clearly had it the easiest, Novak the toughest.
25-30: Pretty darn even. This was essentially 2007-2011 for Fed – some of Nadal's best years, one of Novak's, and both guys in formidable form otherwise (plus Murray, Delpo, etc.). Nadal and Djokovic of course had each other, older Fed, Murray, Wawrinka, etc.
30+: Fed clearly had it toughest. Nadal and Djokovic essentially the same.

Overall, I'd say their competition has fairly well evened out. Fed was more dominant at his peak, in part helped by not-so-insane levels of competition as Novak and Nadal sometimes had to navigate, but those two have been more prolific later in their careers since they have not-so-insane levels of competition now compared to Fed at the same age.
 
PilotPete said:
The only reason Djokodal are even close to Federer in slams is because of the age gap. All at the same age, and they wouldn't even be close.
Click to expand...
This got a laugh from me

Nadal at age 17 beat 23-yr old Roger in Miami, then won nearly every non-Wimbledon match against him from 2006-2009. Young Nadal is probably the most dominant tennis athletic peak ever. It took Roger to age 21 to win his first major.. Nadal had 3 RGs by then. I think Nadal would still have at least 10 RGs even if Roger was his age.

If anyone suffers in slam count it would probably be Djokovic, but who knows? The 2011 season he had against Big 2 who were still very close to their best would be laughed out of here if suggested as a hypothetical, but it actually happened. Djokovic's mental edge over Federer started at a young age as well. So who knows?
 
Monsieur le Federer had it by far the toughest. Like the RG '08 final, no contest.
 
Fed obviously, but this will be the new narrative now that the “Fed plays stress free elegant tennis so his longevity will be superior to Djokodal” has been destroyed
 
Fed had it easier to start, but soon after Nadal and Djoker made it much more difficult. As Fed declined, he was still a force and Nadal/Djoker playing tug of warn. So it is pretty damn even in my book.
Oddly as the Big 3 continue to dominate, with it becoming a big #2, it starts to make Fed's path the hardest.

If these kids and now journeymen don't stand up, Rafa and Djoker will pick up 3-6 slams without credible challengers except for each other. Not their fault, but just how their legacy will play out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vex
This has been discussed over and over. It is clear (by the majority at least), that Djokovic had it the toughest early on in his career (i.e. 2007-2011), while Federer had it the easiest early on (i.e. 2003-2006). Later on in their careers, clearly it was Fedr who had it toughest with two younger hungrier lions chasing him and history. These guys have been dominating for such an extended period, they would have been through easy, medium and tough slams throughout. Evens out at the end, though this extended period (2016+) with no younger ATG emerging, is really helping Djokodal beef up their resumes.
 
Federer has the toughest competition, the most natural talent, the most aesthetic brand of tennis, the biggest unfair turn of fate of having two younger ATGs follow him right after, the unfair challenge of tennis courts being slowed down just as he started winning (actually he started winning only after courts were slowed 5 years into his career, but let’s not let facts stand in the way), the unfairness of his coaches teaching him a 1HBH (didn’t they know it doesn’t stand up to topspin from a lefty FH), the tragedy of catching mononucleosis in his prime, unfairly juiced opponents (I mean just look at the size of Nadal’s biceps or Djokovic’s robotic endurance in spite of his scrawny frame), the tragedy of being young enough to make it to 4 Slam finals against Djokovic in 2014-2019 but somehow old enough to lose them, being good enough to win all hypothetical matchups but lose the head-to-head against two other players etc. Still good enough to be the GOAT, right?
 
socallefty said:
Federer has the toughest competition, the most natural talent, the most aesthetic brand of tennis, the biggest unfair turn of fate of having two younger ATGs follow him right after, the unfair challenge of tennis courts being slowed down just as he started winning (actually he started winning only after courts were slowed 5 years into his career, but let’s not let facts stand in the way), the unfairness of his coaches teaching him a 1HBH (didn’t they know it doesn’t stand up to topspin from a lefty FH), the tragedy of catching mononucleosis in his prime, unfairly juiced opponents (I mean just look at the size of Nadal’s biceps or Djokovic’s robotic endurance in spite of his scrawny frame), the tragedy of being young enough to make it to 4 Slam finals against Djokovic in 2014-2019 but somehow old enough to lose them, being good enough to win all hypothetical matchups but lose the head-to-head against two other players etc. Still good enough to be the GOAT, right?
Click to expand...
Your Fed hating speech is complete, congrats (y) :D
 
tudwell said:
Up through age 25: Fed clearly had it the easiest, Novak the toughest.
25-30: Pretty darn even. This was essentially 2007-2011 for Fed – some of Nadal's best years, one of Novak's, and both guys in formidable form otherwise (plus Murray, Delpo, etc.). Nadal and Djokovic of course had each other, older Fed, Murray, Wawrinka, etc.
30+: Fed clearly had it toughest. Nadal and Djokovic essentially the same.

Overall, I'd say their competition has fairly well evened out. Fed was more dominant at his peak, in part helped by not-so-insane levels of competition as Novak and Nadal sometimes had to navigate, but those two have been more prolific later in their careers since they have not-so-insane levels of competition now compared to Fed at the same age.
Click to expand...
Agree overall, but don't see how Murray and Stan would have affected Fed's dominance.
 
PilotPete said:
The only reason Djokodal are even close to Federer in slams is because of the age gap. All at the same age, and they wouldn't even be close.
Click to expand...
This is true but not for the reason you think lol

You don’t want Nadal and Federer the same age. Nadal was born clay GOAT but he improved dramatically on Hard and Grass into his 20s just like Federer improved from 18-23. While Nadal isn’t necessarily a better player than Fed, he is a bad matchup for him. Matching ages would have messed up Fed’s 2003-2007 period.

Now you can certainly cite to 2015, 2017 and argue that when all three were post prime that Fed was the best post-prime player and he’d win more slams in that period but so far Djokovic still looks great on hard and grass and Rafa looks great at RG. So we’ll have to see how they hold up thru age 37. But Nadal and Djokovic would definitely make 2003-2007 a mess.
 
Last edited:
Druss said:
This has been discussed over and over. It is clear (by the majority at least), that Djokovic had it the toughest early on in his career (i.e. 2007-2011), while Federer had it the easiest early on (i.e. 2003-2006). Later on in their careers, clearly it was Fedr who had it toughest with two younger hungrier lions chasing him and history. These guys have been dominating for such an extended period, they would have been through easy, medium and tough slams throughout. Evens out at the end, though this extended period (2016+) with no younger ATG emerging, is really helping Djokodal beef up their resumes.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don’t know what this keeps getting discussed. It’s not some complicated thing
 
Federer won his first 12 slams without beating any prime ATGs. Djokovic won 16/18 slams facing big 4, usually peak versions.

There is no doubt Djokovic had the tougher competition his whole career
 
socallefty said:
Federer has the toughest competition, the most natural talent, the most aesthetic brand of tennis, the biggest unfair turn of fate of having two younger ATGs follow him right after (while they had no ATGs following them at all), the unfair challenge of tennis courts being slowed down just as he started winning (actually he started winning only after courts were slowed 5 years into his career, but let’s not let facts stand in the way), the unfairness of his coaches teaching him a 1HBH (didn’t they know it doesn’t stand up to topspin from a lefty FH), the tragedy of catching mononucleosis in his prime, unfairly juiced opponents (I mean just look at the size of Nadal’s biceps or Djokovic’s robotic endurance in spite of his scrawny frame), the tragedy of being young enough to make it to 4 Slam finals against Djokovic in 2014-2019 but somehow old enough to lose them, being good enough to win all hypothetical matchups but lose the head-to-head against two other players etc. Still good enough to be the GOAT, right?
Click to expand...

The starting bit is entirely right, it's your djokodal bias that prevents you from seeing the truth.
 
NoleIsBoat said:
Federer won his first 12 slams without beating any prime ATGs. Djokovic won 16/18 slams facing big 4, usually peak versions.

There is no doubt Djokovic had the tougher competition his whole career
Click to expand...

socallefty said:
Federer has the toughest competition, the most natural talent, the most aesthetic brand of tennis, the biggest unfair turn of fate of having two younger ATGs follow him right after
Click to expand...

You know, I agree with both of these statements: i.e. the 2004-2007 Federer opponents are a little underrated, but then again, clearly none of them are ATG level aside from maybe Agassi in 2004, but definitely not Agassi in 2005. Djokovic had to cut his teeth playing prime Federer and peak athletic Nadal and 2008-2010 were some of the toughest competitive years in tennis history. So no comparison in terms of their early career, clearly Djokodal had it tougher (even the most biased Fed fan would admit this).

But then Djokovic/Nadal had the lost gen and guys like Thiem, Medvedev, and Zverev in GS finals from ages 28-33, while Federer had the 2 greatest HC and Clay court players in the open era+ Murray & Wawrinka in their prime. So no comparison in terms of their 28-33 career (even the most biased Djokodal fan would admit this).

For me though tie break has to go to the guy who actually beat Big 4 players in Slams, even if they were slightly declined. You can only do so many hypotheticals
 
NoleIsBoat said:
Federer won his first 12 slams without beating any prime ATGs. Djokovic won 16/18 slams facing big 4, usually peak versions.

There is no doubt Djokovic had the tougher competition his whole career
Click to expand...
Djokovic won 1/3 of his slams (6 out of 18) since Wimbledon 2018. There are no peak versions of any ATG in that period. I'm not saying he didn't earn those wins. Just saying there were no prime ATGs. Since 2017 Nadal has also won 6 slams, but has 2 more overall.
Federer won 6 slams between 2003 and 2005. In 2006 beat Nadal in Wimbledon, in 2007 was beating Nadal and Djokovic for slams. Anyway, let's not forget that without Federer, Roddick would be an ATG. He could be comparable to Murray, it's just that Djokovic wasn't as dominant at his peak at Federer was.

Anyway, as many have said, it more or less evens out, given that their careers have been so long.
 
Kralingen said:
You know, I agree with both of these statements: i.e. the 2004-2007 Federer opponents are a little underrated, but then again, clearly none of them are ATG level aside from maybe Agassi in 2004, but definitely not Agassi in 2005. Djokovic had to cut his teeth playing prime Federer and peak athletic Nadal and 2008-2010 were some of the toughest competitive years in tennis history. So no comparison in terms of their early career, clearly Djokodal had it tougher (even the most biased Fed fan would admit this).

But then Djokovic/Nadal had the lost gen and guys like Thiem, Medvedev, and Zverev in GS finals from ages 28-33, while Federer had the 2 greatest HC and Clay court players in the open era+ Murray & Wawrinka in their prime. So no comparison in terms of their 28-33 career (even the most biased Djokodal fan would admit this).

For me though tie break has to go to the guy who actually beat Big 4 players in Slams, even if they were slightly declined. You can only do so many hypotheticals
Click to expand...
Ummm, 2010 wasn't one of the most competitive years. It was a weak year in the middle of several strong ones.

Young Nadal and Old Agassi were certainly ATG level. If 2013 USO F Djokovic counts as ATG level, then so does 2005 USO F Agassi. And 2007 Wimb Nadal was certainly ATG level besides his obvious clay prowess already. Even 2006 Wimb Nadal played very well in the middle 2 sets in the final and arguably played a more solid final than his 2011 self.

Beating Big 4 players in slams shouldn't be the tiebreaker, that's just a shallow line of reasoning. Why does beating Murray count, but not beating Hewitt/Roddick? Why is 2015 Fed automatically a tougher opponent on grass than 2004/2009 Roddick?
 
socallefty said:
Federer has the toughest competition, the most natural talent, the most aesthetic brand of tennis, the biggest unfair turn of fate of having two younger ATGs follow him right after, the unfair challenge of tennis courts being slowed down just as he started winning (actually he started winning only after courts were slowed 5 years into his career, but let’s not let facts stand in the way), the unfairness of his coaches teaching him a 1HBH (didn’t they know it doesn’t stand up to topspin from a lefty FH), the tragedy of catching mononucleosis in his prime, unfairly juiced opponents (I mean just look at the size of Nadal’s biceps or Djokovic’s robotic endurance in spite of his scrawny frame), the tragedy of being young enough to make it to 4 Slam finals against Djokovic in 2014-2019 but somehow old enough to lose them, being good enough to win all hypothetical matchups but lose the head-to-head against two other players etc. Still good enough to be the GOAT, right?
Click to expand...
A laughably off-base attempt at capturing the plethora of circumstances and performances arousing such suspicions.
 
Djokovic had the hardest competition at the start of his career when he was trying to break through (had to compete with Fedal and his own peers like Murray and Delpo)

Nadal probably had the toughest during the middle of his career (his prime stretch between 2008-2013 coincided with prime Fed then prime Novak)

Fed’s had the toughest comp since turning 30 (having to play guys like Nadal and Djokovic over age 30 is pretty unparalleled among any player)


On the flip side:

Federer had the easiest competition at the beginning of his career when he really had no true challengers to his throne

No one had the weakest comp during the middle of their careers as the field was stacked asf in the late 00s/early 10s era

Djoker has had the smoothest path to slams post 30 as he’s the youngest member of the big 3 and no one younger than him has won multiple slams
 
Last edited:
clout said:
Djokovic had the hardest competition at the start of his career when he was trying to break through (had to compete with Fedal and his own peers like Murray and Delpo)

Nadal probably had the toughest during the middle of his career (his prime stretch between 2008-2013 coincided with prime Fed then prime Novak)

Fed’s had the toughest comp since turning 30 (having to play guys like Nadal and Djokovic over age 30 is pretty unparalleled among any player)


On the flip side:

Federer had the easiest competition at the beginning of his career when he really had no true challengers to his throne

No one had the weakest comp during the middle of their careers as the field was stacked asf in the late 00s/early 10s era

Djoker has had the smoothest path to slams post 30 as he’s the youngest member of the big 3 and no one younger than him has won multiple slams
Click to expand...
Ummm, Djoker has had the smoothest path post 27.

And I wouldn't call Murray and Delpo challengers to Fed's throne in 2004-2007.
 
TheNachoMan said:
“Fed plays stress free elegant tennis so his longevity will be superior to Djokodal” has been destroyed
Click to expand...
How has it been "destroyed?" We have no way of knowing if Djokovic or Nadal will be active players at almost 40, nor if they will win 3 slams past the age of 35.5 or be #1 at age 37. He has had greater longevity than Rafa or Djokovic at this point in time, that's simply a fact.
 
mike danny said:
Ummm, Djoker has had the smoothest path post 27.

And I wouldn't call Murray and Delpo challengers to Fed's throne in 2004-2007.
Click to expand...
I’m breaking down each path of their careers.

Fed had it easiest early in his career (2003-2007) but the toughest to finish his career

All of them had tough comp in the middle of their careers but I gave the edge to Rafa cuz he’s born in the middle

Novak had it easiest later in his career (2015-present) being the youngest of the three and having no ATG competitor younger than him but had it toughest when breaking through (pre-2011)
 
clout said:
I’m breaking down each path of their careers.

Fed had it easiest early in his career (2003-2007) but the toughest to finish his career

All of them had tough comp in the middle of their careers but I gave the edge to Rafa cuz he’s born in the middle

Novak had it easiest later in his career (2015-present) being the youngest of the three and having no ATG competitor younger than him but had it toughest when breaking through (pre-2011)
Click to expand...
Nadal is just a year older than Djokovic. I think you mean he peaked earlier than Novak, and his peak overlapped with those of both Federer and Djokovic. Otherwise, you're spot on.
 
Pablo1989 said:
LOL

Nadal destroyed Federer so many times when he was a KID and Roger was at his absolute best.
Click to expand...
He didn't destroy him.

And it's because they played so many times on clay. The guy was very much in his clay prime when he was young, so age is irrelevant.
 
I've done an age by age breakdown in terms of competition and level (because if you suck, it doesn't matter what competition you face) and here is my hierarchy from strongest to weakest:

Age 19: Nadal and the others are irrelevant really.

Age 20: Djokovic - Nadal - Federer (it's close with Fed as his Wimb and USO draws were nightmares)

Age 21: Djokovic - Nadal - Federer(Fed close to irrelevant)

Age 22: Nadal - Djokovic - Federer (2003 Fed's level was higher at 2 tournaments than Djoker's all year long, but was wildly inconsistent)

Age 23: Nadal - Federer - Djokovic (Djokovic sucked too much, so we have to take that into account. Fed was the only one to play at a consistently high level in 2004, but Nadal truly earned his wins the hard way in 2009 until his level dropped, so it's him. )

Age 24: Djokovic - Federer - Nadal

Age 25: Djokovic - Nadal - Federer

Age 26: Djokovic - Federer - Nadal (Nadal skipped the second half of the year, so you don't deserve to be ranked higher if you don't face your competition)

Age 27: Federer - Nadal - Djokovic

Age 28: Federer - Djokovic - Nadal

Age 29: Djokovic (by a hair due to his level dropping a bit later than Fed's) - Federer - Nadal

Age 30: Federer and the others are irrelevant

Age 31: Federer - Djokovic - Nadal

Age 32: Nadal - Djokovic - Federer

Age 33: Federer - Nadal - Djokovic

Age 34: Federer - Djokovic - Nadal

The rest is to be pending.

It may not be perfect, but the results in terms of the number of times all 3 were in 1st place is: Federer and Djokovic tied at 6 and Nadal is at 4.
 
mike danny said:
I've done an age by age breakdown in terms of competition and level (because if you suck, it doesn't matter what competition you face) and here is my hierarchy from strongest to weakest:

Age 19: Nadal and the others are irrelevant really.

Age 20: Djokovic - Nadal - Federer (it's close with Fed as his Wimb and USO draws were nightmares)

Age 21: Djokovic - Nadal - Federer(Fed close to irrelevant)

Age 22: Nadal - Djokovic - Federer (2003 Fed's level was higher at 2 tournaments than Djoker's all year long, but was wildly inconsistent)

Age 23: Nadal - Federer - Djokovic (Djokovic sucked too much, so we have to take that into account. Fed was the only one to play at a consistently high level in 2004, but Nadal truly earned his wins the hard way in 2009 until his level dropped, so it's him. )

Age 24: Djokovic - Federer - Nadal

Age 25: Djokovic - Nadal - Federer

Age 26: Djokovic - Federer - Nadal (Nadal skipped the second half of the year, so you don't deserve to be ranked higher if you don't face your competition)

Age 27: Federer - Nadal - Djokovic

Age 28: Federer - Djokovic - Nadal

Age 29: Djokovic (by a hair due to his level dropping a bit later than Fed's) - Federer - Nadal

Age 30: Federer and the others are irrelevant

Age 31: Federer - Djokovic - Nadal

Age 32: Nadal - Djokovic - Federer

Age 33: Federer - Nadal - Djokovic

Age 34: Federer - Djokovic - Nadal

The rest is to be pending.

It may not be perfect, but the results in terms of the number of times all 3 were in 1st place is: Federer and Djokovic tied at 6 and Nadal is at 4.
Click to expand...

Great post, I agree with just about everything here.
 
PilotPete said:
Roger wasn’t at his best in 2008
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know, Roger's peak finished in 2005 :-D

mike danny said:
He didn't destroy him.

And it's because they played so many times on clay. The guy was very much in his clay prime when he was young, so age is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Miami 2004, a 17 year old Rafa destroyed Roger in HARD in one of his best seasons. Check out 2006 Dubai too, in Roger's best season...
 
Pablo1989 said:
Yeah, I know, Roger's peak finished in 2005 :-D


Miami 2004, a 17 year old Rafa destroyed Roger in HARD in one of his best seasons. Check out 2006 Dubai too, in Roger's best season...
Click to expand...

If you will actually watch the match, in Miami the commentators kept saying Federer was ill, even wondered if he should have played.


As for 2006 Dubai, it was a close match not beatdown.
 
Pablo1989 said:
Yeah, I know, Roger's peak finished in 2005 :-D


Miami 2004, a 17 year old Rafa destroyed Roger in HARD in one of his best seasons. Check out 2006 Dubai too, in Roger's best season...
Click to expand...
Beat Roger when he was sick in one of Roger's not so favorable masters 1000. And that was just one single match.

Dubai 2006 wasn't a destruction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Berrettini_Fan
  • Poll Poll
Djokovic at AO vs Federer at Wimbledon
3 4 5
Replies
234
Views
4K
NoleFam
NoleFam
Lew II
Big3 played their best tennis in their 30s and that's why (ridicolous stat)
2
Replies
59
Views
3K
SonnyT
S
Lew II
Wins over top ranked Big3
2 3
Replies
107
Views
5K
Third Serve
Third Serve
N01E
Big 3 against players in their GS SF/F debut:
Replies
6
Views
581
N01E
N01E
Lew II
  • Poll Poll
Rank Big3's Slam final/semifinal opponents
Replies
26
Views
1K
Yugram
Yugram
Back
Top