Can we have an era worse than 2020-2023 where Finalists are Casper Ruud, Berettini, Kyrgios , Stefanos ?

[fedfan24]

Thiem playing great.




Medvedev had a great run and people were giving him huge odds of winning. And he is obviously not a bad player.




Bringing up a slam where he beat Nadal at Roland Garros lol.




Weakish draw, yeah



Kyrgios playing great, beat Sinner too.



Not a great draw but not too bad either and had some great performances.



Alcaraz.



Medvedev having a great run and a great year.




I'm sure Federer's and Nadal's 20/22 slams were facing ATGs...



Poor Djokovic, what a fool. Should have dropped some sets on purpose to make the competition better.

Choking next gen, x1, x2, x3, x4, injured Nadal, cramping Alcaraz followed by Ruud, choking Medvedev who couldn’t bag a set or convert any advantage. 2023 AO “not a bad draw” lol. That one was on par with something like 2003 AO.

At best you can praise Thiem for taking it to 5 and dominating some parts of the match but he inevitably collapsed and it’s not as if Djokovic raised his level, he played his same old keep the ball in play and watch the nextgens implode and DF/UFE everything away.

You can’t have been watching much tennis in recent years if you can’t recognise how dreary and predictable tennis has been for years now. One ATG playing an ok C-B game level and endless choking from the most inept generation of all time. Finally we’re coming out of the dark age with the emergence of Alcaraz and now sinner as slam winners.

 

[NoleFam]

Okay let's discount pre 2011 for your liking and take 2011-2014 even though he was in his physical peak way before 2011. Answer me one thing


Why he had only one multi slam year in 4 years when a player is supposed to be in his peak and why freaking 3 slams a season and many multiple slams season post 2014 ?? That's point out something changed drastically and no he didn't become a better player .

Years that Djokovic made at least 3 Slam finals in a season — 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2021, 2023 (2020*, 2022* - played 2 or less Slams)
Years that Nadal made at least 3 Slam finals in a season — 2010, 2011, 2017, 2019 (2020*, 2021*, 2023* - played 2 or less Slams)

Multi Slam years before 2017
Djokovic - 3
Nadal - 3

Multi Slam years after 2017
Djokovic - 4
Nadal - 3

Nadal was at his physical peak way before 2010 right since you believe Djokovic was before 2011? Why didn't he have more multi Slam years then? Why did it take him until 2010 to make at least 3 Slam finals in a season? What's good for the gander is good for the goose. You're just throwing stuff at the wall at this point and hoping something sticks because you can't accept that given the same opportunities, Djokovic just did it better than Nadal. Yet you don't apply the same standards to Nadal that you do to Djokovic. I wonder why.

 

[mike danny]

Thiem playing great.

But he's not prime Djokovic now, is he? This is the guy Fed lost to at 2014 Wimb while not playing worse than Djokovic.

Medvedev had a great run and people were giving him huge odds of winning. And he is obviously not a bad player.

But he stunk in the final. Against a Djokovic carrying an injury.

Kyrgios playing great, beat Sinner too.

It was still a very weak draw. Sinner capitulated after the first 2 sets and Nick was a gimme who didn't even deserve to be in the final.

Not a great draw but not too bad either and had some great performances.

Was carrying an injury and still destroyed everyone.

Alcaraz.

Who cramped after 2 sets.

Medvedev having a great run and a great year.

Doesn't mean he didn't play a bad final.

Poor Djokovic, what a fool. Should have dropped some sets on purpose to make the competition better.

It's ok, he's dropped actual matches for that

 

[3loudboys]

My point is not him losing to old Djokodal in final but him losing very badly in final and unable to win even a single set, that's very mugesque if you ask me. He's a hard working player but a mug.

Agree to disagree on Mug

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Which was not great for his standards. I can easily see Fed do better than that.

Yeah, Federer wouldn't lose to Nishikori but you can find also certain other cases of players that Federer lost to that Djokovic wouldn't at the same stage in his career.

 

[NeutralFan]

Agree to disagree on Mug

That's okay my friend, hope you like my threads keep contributing.

 

[RS]

What threads to come in March I wonder.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Okay let's discount pre 2011 for your liking and take 2011-2014 even though he was in his physical peak way before 2011. Answer me one thing

He was at his physical peak??!?!? Have you actually seen pre-2011 Djokovic lol, he was retiring constantly and running out of breath.

Why he had only one multi slam year in 4 years when a player is supposed to be in his peak and why freaking 3 slams a season and many multiple slams season post 2014 ?? That's point out something changed drastically and no he didn't become a better player .

Everyone knows he was in a slump mentally and choking left and right between late 2012 and mid-2014. Why did Nadal have one-slam season in 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2014?

Are you supposed to be winning 3 slams per year all the time? He had 3-slam season in 2011, 2015, 2021 and 2023. You are actually acting as if he had 0 before 2019 and then he had three slams in 2019, 2021 and 2023. Now that would be stranger. 2011, 2015, 2021 and 2023? Not that crazy really, they're kinda evenly spread. But you have no problem with Federer having 3 slam years in 4 years and never before or after? And after having only 2-slam seasons twice from 2008 to 2019, and in many cases not winning any? Or Nadal not having ONCE won multiple slams in consecutive years? Djokovic is the only one with "anomalies" apparently.

And I agree 2023 was a weaker year, but Medvedev, Alcaraz, Zverev and Sinner were around so not as weak as some would like to pretend. Until 2022 Nadal was around, so except for the second half of 2021 were he was out he was always around, if he lost earlier and couldn't make it to Djokovic it's not the latter's problem. But I wonder why was Nadal losing to Thiem, Tsitsipas, etc. if the 90s player are so terrible.

 

[fedfan24]

He was at his physical peak??!?!? Have you actually seen pre-2011 Djokovic lol, he was retiring constantly and running out of breath.




Everyone knows he was in a slump mentally and choking left and right between late 2012 and mid-2014. Why did Nadal have one-slam season in 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2014?

Are you supposed to be winning 3 slams per year all the time? He had 3-slam season in 2011, 2015, 2021 and 2023. You are actually acting as if he had 0 before 2019 and then he had three slams in 2019, 2021 and 2023. Now that would be stranger. 2011, 2015, 2021 and 2023? Not that crazy really, they're kinda evenly spread. But you have no problem with Federer having 3 slam years in 4 years and never before or after? And after having only 2-slam seasons twice from 2008 to 2019, and in many cases not winning any? Or Nadal not having ONCE won multiple slams in consecutive years? Djokovic is the only one with "anomalies" apparently.

And I agree 2023 was a weaker year, but Medvedev, Alcaraz, Zverev and Sinner were around so not as weak as some would like to pretend. Until 2022 Nadal was around, so except for the second half of 2021 were he was out he was always around, if he lost earlier and couldn't make it to Djokovic it's not the latter's problem. But I wonder why was Nadal losing to Thiem, Tsitsipas, etc. if the 90s player are so terrible.

If you put 2012-2014 Djokovic into 2021-2023 he probably wins 10 or 11/12 slams, increase from 3 to 10-11.

OTOH 2021-2023 Djokovic maybe wins 1-2 slams in 2012-2014. 0 in 2012. 0-1 in 2013 (slim chance at W), 0-1 in 2014 (either W or USO). Decrease from 7 to 1-2.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

And who benefitted more in the end? Djokovic or Federer? And don't forget that only 3 of Djokovic's last 18 slams have come against Nadal despite being the same age as him. Just because they're the same age doesn't mean their rivalry hasn't been scarce after 2013/2014.

And don't forget how no ATG was born at least 14 years after Djokovic.

Did he now? He had Agassi in 2003-2005 and Nadal from 2005 and Djokovic from 2007.

The Raonic loss was in 2016 and we know the story about that one.

I don't see how the Cilic loss was bad when Djokovic lost to Nishikori that same tournament.

Millman and Tsitsipas came after Djokovic's current age. Let's wait and see how his season unfolds first.

Djokovic's competition was tougher in his prime, but overblown in some instances. USO 2012, Wimb 2013, AO 2014 and USO 2014 were all winnable and he won none.

Also I disagree with Djokovic's competition in 2014-2016 being tougher than Federer's.

You could say Djokovic benefited a bit more, but he also did achieve more in the end. I agree Djokovic wouldn't dominate 2004-2007 to the extent Djokovic did, but he would compensate by winning more pre-prime (not losing to Mirnyi, Horna, etc) and post-prime (not losing to Gulbis, Seppi, etc). And yes, Federer would have won many more slams in his 30s with no Djokovic around, but not as much as Djokovic. Djokovic hardly had bad losses outside the period we know about. It's Thiem on clay, Medvedev on hard, Sinner, Alcaraz, etc at worst.

I agree Agassi was a worthy rival in 2004-2005 but so was Federer at that age for Djokovic. In fact, old Federer was a stronger rival than old Agassi.

The Cilic loss was bad and the Nishikori loss was bad, not mutually exclusive.

Yes, Djokovic had tougher competition and the weakness of Federer's rivals is sometimes overblown indeed, for sure, but so is the case in the past few years when Djokovic had to face Nadal, Alcaraz, Sinner, Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev but people act as if he only faced Ruud, Shelton, Paul and Norrie.

I agree about Millman and Tsitsipas. We'll see how Djokovic does this year, but I can bet his losses will be to guys like Sinner, Alcaraz and Medvedev, not Millman and the likes.

 

[The Guru]

@The Guru

The fact that your endorsing this post is just sad. It's littered with obvious accuracy errors like claiming Agassi was born within 5 years of Federer when they're over 10 years apart. Even Djokovic and Murray are more than 5 years from Federer. Almost half the players listed are more than 5 years apart. Then it also goes on to cite players like Sampras Rafter Coria Ivanisevic Rios and Guga who played Federer 3 times or less as his significant competition. It also lists a bunch of irrelevant mediocre players like Robredo Gasquet and Youzhny. It's an obviously terrible argument and you're stamping it clearly showing what we all already know.

You don't know ball.

 

[RS]

The fact that your endorsing this post is just sad. It's littered with obvious accuracy errors like claiming Agassi was born within 5 years of Federer when they're over 10 years apart. Even Djokovic and Murray are more than 5 years from Federer. Almost half the players listed are more than 5 years apart. Then it also goes on to cite players like Sampras Rafter Coria Ivanisevic Rios and Guga who played Federer 3 times or less as his significant competition. It also lists a bunch of irrelevant mediocre players like Robredo Gasquet and Youzhny. It's an obviously terrible argument and you're stamping it clearly showing what we all already know.

You don't know ball.

Got a thread for you about Hewitt AO 2005

 

[fedfan24]

I agree Agassi was a worthy rival in 2004-2005 but so was Federer at that age for Djokovic. In fact, old Federer was a stronger rival than old Agassi.

Over BO3 sure but at slams, not really. Both equally as effective at winning H2H. 0% win rate.

 

[NeutralFan]

The fact that your endorsing this post is just sad. It's littered with obvious accuracy errors like claiming Agassi was born within 5 years of Federer when they're over 10 years apart. Even Djokovic and Murray are more than 5 years from Federer. Almost half the players listed are more than 5 years apart. Then it also goes on to cite players like Sampras Rafter Coria Ivanisevic Rios and Guga who played Federer 3 times or less as his significant competition. It also lists a bunch of irrelevant mediocre players like Robredo Gasquet and Youzhny. It's an obviously terrible argument and you're stamping it clearly showing what we all already know.

You don't know ball.

I didn't endorse this post I asked you to contribute lol. What sad is you getting triggered and attacking me for no reason.

 

[The Guru]

Did he now? He had Agassi in 2003-2005 and Nadal from 2005 and Djokovic from 2007.

If this is the standard Djokovic never had a year without a competitive ATG. Federer was a top player from start of his career to 19 outside of 13. Nadal fills the 13 gap and from 19 to 22. Carlos from 22 to whenever he retires.

 

[RS]

Weakest ever is a broad term but since 2003/2004 or so we are probably in the weakest. If it was 2014-2019 I would say no because we still had the big 3 members in great form and a bit of Wawrinka and Murray too.

2007-2013 is clearly the best though. Nothing comes even close.

 

[The Guru]

I didn't endorse this post I asked you to contribute lol. What sad is you getting triggered and attacking me for no reason.

Lmao not even your own mother would believe that you didnt tag that to me like a gotcha

 

[Phenomenal]

Before 2011 he was not that good. In 2011 he dominated. In 2012-2014 he won one slam per year in a competition that included Federer, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer, Soderling, del Potro, etc. Who won more during that period? Only Nadal and it was ONE more slam but with no YECs.

Nadal also had one-slam years in 2011, 2012, 2009 and 2014 during his prime (and you can include 2007 too).

A valid point is also Federer winning one slam between AO 2010 and AO 2017.

You can't say both. If you say Nadal and Djokovic just 1 year apart so they should be in their prime same time. Nadal doesn't need to be in his prime since 2007 to now.
One of the worst arguments i always hear from Djokovic fans. Either you will accept btw 2007 to 2011 or this argument is completely invalid.

Nadal winning more slam than Djokovic btw 2012-2014 shows his greatness. Nadal won 1 more slam without playing 3 slam during this period.

I'm not including 2015. Djokovic can have his prime year at that age sure eventhough i think competition was worse than prior years but it's not his fault. It's not his fault now too just think he was better.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

If this is the standard Djokovic never had a year without a competitive ATG. Federer was a top player from start of his career to 19 outside of 13. Nadal fills the 13 gap and from 19 to 22. Carlos from 22 to whenever he retires.

Exactly. It's funny how the standards of competition are stronger for Djokovic. Only ATG count as strong rivals. And only at their peak.

But not the case for Federer (or Nadal), were merely very good players count as strong competition.

Also, if Nadal was around for Federer in a particular year but they only met at one slam it counts as competition, if Nadal faces Djokovic only once, it doesn't count.

 

[3loudboys]

That's okay my friend, hope you like my threads keep contributing.

Always mate

 

[Phenomenal]

Reality is both. Djokovic is still good but competition is worse too. IMO competition from 2021 to 2023 is bad. One big reason is other than Next gen being worse it's because Nadal. Related with Thiem aswell if you look 2019-2020.
We all see time and time again when Nadal plays post 2020 he is still only second to Novak. He almost doesn't have any complete season since 2020.


Do people think Djokovic from 2008 will not win these slams? I think he will.
Also does people think Nadal from 2015-16 is better than pre 2011 Djokovic? Djokovic himself wasn't better in few seasons after 2011 than his 2008.

I think Nadal would still win many more slams post 2020 and would have similiar numbers to Djokovic had he be healthy.
That's why i say Nadal's health played quite a role in Slam race since day1.

 

[3loudboys]

You could’ve put a cardboard cutout on the other side of the court and the finals would play out the same. He’s basically a walkover for any half decent ATG playing their C+ game. No weapons, not a great serve.

Lol

 

[NeutralFan]

Lol

Lmao I have been suffering with high BP lately but ttw helps me cope up well with humor and laughter.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

You can't say both. If you say Nadal and Djokovic just 1 year apart so they should be in their prime. Nadal doesn't need to be in his prime since 2007 to now.
One of the worst arguments i always hear from Djokovic fans. Either you will accept btw 2007 to 2011 or this argument is completely invalid.

Everything Nadal achieved from 2007 to 2011 is valid, it was Djokovic's problem if it took him longer to enter his prime.

Nadal winning more slam than Djokovic btw 2012-2014 shows his greatness. Nadal won 1 more slam without playing 3 slam during this period.

One more slam, and that's ignoring the year before and the year after, in which both cases Djokovic had a three-slam season. And Djokovic also won 3 YEC in that period.

I'm not including 2015. Djokovic can have his prime year at that age sure eventhough i think competition was worse than prior years but it's not his fault. It's not his fault now too just think he was better.

I don't see much of a difference in competition between 2014 and 2015. Nadal was worse but Federer was better, Murray was better and Wawrinka about the same.

 

[TMF]

Djokovic pretty much won his last 12 slams vs 90s gen + ancient Federer and post prime Nadal.

Federer lost to Tsitsipas aged 37. 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018 AO forms doesn’t lost there in a million years. He also had 15+ average to high level runs in his 30s and was stopped by some very good players. Of course he has a few bad defeats but they’re irrelevant in the overall picture.

Nothing beat s the career inflation era, the weakest era of all time.

 

[Unseeded Player]

The list of quality players with an age advantage born 5 years after Djokovic is very short and disappointing lol.

Same goes for players born 5 years before Fed

 

[fedfan24]

I don't see much of a difference in competition between 2014 and 2015. Nadal was worse but Federer was better, Murray was better and Wawrinka about the same.

If we compare directly

AO
2014 Stan > 2015 Stan. 2014 Nadal + Federer > 2015 Murray

RG
2014 Nadal > 2015 Stan

W
Cilic+ Dimitrov > Anderson + Gasquet

2014 Federer > 2015 Federer. Better serving, better stamina, more competitive.

USO
2014 Cilic > 2015 Federer. Cilic blitzed a flat and probably exhausted 2014 Federer in straights. At best you can call it a wash because 2015 was better.

2014 I think was clearly more competitive at slams. Djokovic was a clear favourite at all 4 in 2015 where as in 2014 he had more contenders at each slam. There was more suspense. We pretty much knew who was going to win everything in 2015, apart from the RG final which was a bit of an upset.

 

[The Guru]

Not a fair comparison because you're comparing guys who won slams to the runners up. Even in this unfair comparison I still think 2015 comes out on top.

 

[fedfan24]

Not a fair comparison because you're comparing guys who won slams to the runners up. Even in this unfair comparison I still think 2015 comes out on top.

Isn’t it comparing who Djokovic strongest possible opponents were? AO and RG at very least were tougher for him in 2014. W and USO about the same level maybe edge to 2014 for depth.

 

[The Guru]

Isn’t it comparing who Djokovic strongest possible opponents were? AO and RG at very least were tougher for him in 2014. W and USO about the same level maybe edge to 2014 for depth.

Even through that lens slight edge to 2015 imo

 

[junior74]

From 2020 to 2013, tennis was actually evolving

 

[NeutralFan]

From 2020 to 2013, tennis was actually evolving

From Ruud and Stef to Fedal in finals what a disgrace.

 

[fedfan24]

Even through that lens slight edge to 2015 imo

2015 Djokovic probably wins the same slams in 2014, although I think Federer lasts longer in the final with that serving and he might lose the AO to Stan. Toss up.

 

[The Guru]

2015 Djokovic probably wins the same slams in 2014, although I think Federer lasts longer in the final with that serving and he might lose the AO to Stan. Toss up.

I think Fed was better in 15 honestly. 14 is the least competitive 5 set final I've ever seen. 15 was a closer match scoreline withstanding.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Fedfans trying so hard to devalue Djokovic's competition that they have to argue their own GOAT fell off so hard he wasn't even playing at an ATG level in his early-mid 30s?

 

[NeutralFan]

@StrongRule your take , son!

 

[NeutralFan]

Lmao not even your own mother would believe that you didnt tag that to me like a gotcha

Lmao , you're such a sad case , son! you're offended over nothing, asked you to contribute and the you're coming after me like a rabid dog lol. you're better than a brain dead Djokovic b 0 t, don't be one. I keep tagging people to ask for their views , you can ask @Razer and other posters i tagged .

 

[mike danny]

If this is the standard Djokovic never had a year without a competitive ATG. Federer was a top player from start of his career to 19 outside of 13. Nadal fills the 13 gap and from 19 to 22. Carlos from 22 to whenever he retires.

Sure, but then it's also fair to say that Fed never had years without an ATG if everything counts.

 

[mike danny]

You could say Djokovic benefited a bit more, but he also did achieve more in the end. I agree Djokovic wouldn't dominate 2004-2007 to the extent Djokovic did, but he would compensate by winning more pre-prime (not losing to Mirnyi, Horna, etc) and post-prime (not losing to Gulbis, Seppi, etc). And yes, Federer would have won many more slams in his 30s with no Djokovic around, but not as much as Djokovic. Djokovic hardly had bad losses outside the period we know about. It's Thiem on clay, Medvedev on hard, Sinner, Alcaraz, etc at worst.

Fair enough.

I agree Agassi was a worthy rival in 2004-2005 but so was Federer at that age for Djokovic. In fact, old Federer was a stronger rival than old Agassi.

It depends. Federer was just as competitive in GS in 2015-2016 against Djokovic as Agassi in 2004-2005 against Fed. Although, yes, Fed was on 2 surfaces, compared to just one for Andre.

The Cilic loss was bad and the Nishikori loss was bad, not mutually exclusive.

Yes, Djokovic had tougher competition and the weakness of Federer's rivals is sometimes overblown indeed, for sure, but so is the case in the past few years when Djokovic had to face Nadal, Alcaraz, Sinner, Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev but people act as if he only faced Ruud, Shelton, Paul and Norrie.

Fair enough.

I agree about Millman and Tsitsipas. We'll see how Djokovic does this year, but I can bet his losses will be to guys like Sinner, Alcaraz and Medvedev, not Millman and the likes.

Sure, but losing badly to the likes of Sinner isn't exactly that much better either.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah, Federer wouldn't lose to Nishikori but you can find also certain other cases of players that Federer lost to that Djokovic wouldn't at the same stage in his career.

I suppose Fed would do better vs Murray (in slams) and Stan than Djoko, while Djoko would do better vs Nadal and Delpo.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I suppose Fed would do better vs Murray (in slams) and Stan than Djoko, while Djoko would do better vs Nadal and Delpo.

Reasonable take. Fed already destroyed Murray even post prime. No way he loses two slam finals against him when being the same age. Stan lol. Fed is 23-3 against him, he would not go 5-4 against him at slams.

 

[mike danny]

Reasonable take. Fed already destroyed Murray even post prime. No way he loses two slam finals against him when being the same age. Stan lol. Fed is 23-3 against him, he would not go 5-4 against him at slams.

Also, Fed would start to make more serious inroads against Nadal after they both turn 28 assuming they're the same age and keep their same longevity.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Also, Fed would start to make more serious inroads against Nadal after they both turn 28 assuming they're the same age and keep their same longevity.

I am not 100% sold on Djoko doing necessarily better against Nadal than Federer if all were the same age.

 

[Chopin]

Writing a long response is a waste of my time, but I wonder if many of (or any) of the posters disparaging the pros and calling them "mugs" actually play tennis themselves. I suspect not many ...

It's always been something of an elephant in the room with these boards: do the most critical fans even play tennis and if they do, how many have play at even an advanced amateur level? In my experience, better players are the ones respecting the pros, learning from them and not disparaging them.

 

[Silentchimera]

The fact that your endorsing this post is just sad. It's littered with obvious accuracy errors like claiming Agassi was born within 5 years of Federer when they're over 10 years apart. Even Djokovic and Murray are more than 5 years from Federer. Almost half the players listed are more than 5 years apart. Then it also goes on to cite players like Sampras Rafter Coria Ivanisevic Rios and Guga who played Federer 3 times or less as his significant competition. It also lists a bunch of irrelevant mediocre players like Robredo Gasquet and Youzhny. It's an obviously terrible argument and you're stamping it clearly showing what we all already know.

You don't know ball.

It is not littered with the inaccuracies you proclaim. I clearly stated that these were the players born 5 years either side of Federer OR competing in the field during Federer's peak 2003-2007 and before his peak during 2000-2002. The 90's generation could only dream of having depth like this where a player like Robredo has that many greater players than him.

Try again next time before spreading (inaccurate) misinformation that falsely misrepresents what i wrote in a very weak attempt to discredit me as a poster. I could have made errors considering it was a post I wrote quickly off the top of my head but you are totally wrong on this one. What a "gotcha!" lol.

 

[Silentchimera]

Lmao , you're such a sad case , son! you're offended over nothing, asked you to contribute and the you're coming after me like a rabid dog lol. you're better than a brain dead Djokovic b 0 t, don't be one. I keep tagging people to ask for their views , you can ask @Razer and other posters i tagged .

He is wrong anyway lol. He misrepresented what I wrote. See my previous post.

 

[The Guru]

Lmao , you're such a sad case , son! you're offended over nothing, asked you to contribute and the you're coming after me like a rabid dog lol. you're better than a brain dead Djokovic b 0 t, don't be one. I keep tagging people to ask for their views , you can ask @Razer and other posters i tagged .

It bothers me that you hide behind other people or avoid direct questions when I ask them if you want me to take you seriously act like a serious person. You could've just tagged me and asked my opinion but instead u quoted it and tagged me under it which is a clear sign of endorsement. If you think I'm crazy ask anyone else to interpret what that post meant. Sometimes I say dumb **** and am wrong just look at the hewitt/murray thread I ****ed up twice and admitted it immediately instead of backing off and pretending I never said those things. That's what serious people do instead of hurling dumb ad-hominems and calling people brain dead *********.

 

[The Guru]

It is not littered with the inaccuracies you proclaim. I clearly stated that these were the players born 5 years either side of Federer OR competing in the field during Federer's peak 2003-2007 and before his peak during 2000-2002. The 90's generation could only dream of having depth like this where a player like Robredo has that many greater players than him.

Try again next time before spreading (inaccurate) misinformation that falsely misrepresents what i wrote in a very weak attempt to discredit me as a poster. I could have made errors considering it was a post I wrote quickly off the top of my head but you are totally wrong on this one. What a "gotcha!" lol.

My bad I and others saw that you said all these players were born within 5 years and didn't see the or as an addendum. Either way the argument is still awful. Half those players were less relevant to Federer's career than even late 90s guys like Tsitsipas and Zverev.

 

[Silentchimera]

It bothers me that you hide behind other people or avoid direct questions when I ask them if you want me to take you seriously act like a serious person. You could've just tagged me and asked my opinion but instead u quoted it and tagged me under it which is a clear sign of endorsement. If you think I'm crazy ask anyone else to interpret what that post meant. Sometimes I say dumb **** and am wrong just look at the hewitt/murray thread I ****ed up twice and admitted it immediately instead of backing off and pretending I never said those things. That's what serious people do instead of hurling dumb ad-hominems and calling people brain dead *********.

When people have continuously diminished Federer's era and his generation for almost 20 years the record is going to be set straight. These are the facts that are very uncomfortable for those who have disrespected Federer for far too long. Lesson is not to dish it out if you can't even handle the truth.

 

[The Guru]

When people have continuously diminished Federer's era and his generation for almost 20 years the record is going to be set straight. These are the facts that are very uncomfortable for those who have disrespected Federer for far too long. Lesson is not to dish it out if you can't handle it yourself.

Wth are you talking about lol