Davydenko: The top players of the younger generation are not that good technically.

[Aabye5]

There are a combination of factors: matches contested, competitiveness and player achievements on the year. Agassi and Federer may have played the most, but Nadal ended the year #2 and challenged Federer more than Agassi did, with three of their four matches being routine. If sheer matches played are the only factor then Ferrer was as much Nadal's rival as Djokovic was in 2013.

Is Rafa or Nole the biggest rival of Alcaraz? Are they the biggest rival of FAA or Sinner or Ruud?

I know you know the history, but the state of mind was different. In 2004, Federer beat his 3 most important contemporaries in 3 Slam finals - Marat, Lleyton, Andy. If Tsitsipas had beaten Med at the AO, Ber at W, and Zed at the USO in 2021, that is perhaps the only way the size of this shift can be understood in today's terms.

I'm not trying to lecture you, just reminding you that in 2004 this was mind-blowing!


Yes, there was talk about the new wunderkid Rafa (as there would be talk about Carlitos, even if Tsitsipas had won 3 Slams in 2021). But it was still told in terms of Federer. After his tear in 2004, Roger was missing one Slam and he turned his attention to Roland Garros. The wunderkid stamped his dominance on the tournament by defeating...Fed.

Rafa was good, very very good. But mainly on clay. Or, at least, that was what people thought.

 

[duaneeo]

Nothing wrong with the Federer losses for Djokovic.

I agree, but peak Federer is better than peak Djokovic and past-prime Federer.

 

[Aabye5]

Henman made SF of RG and USO as well.
won Paris masters as well

the only place Ruud's better than Ljubicic is clay.

Henman and Ljubicic were both early rounds.
Henman would've SnVed Med's a** off the court for one.
Also Henman was the only one to beat Roddick in summer American HC swing.

The question is whether you watched tennis at that time. Please stop making a fool out of yourself by exhibiting more and more ignorance.

Ljubicic has a career that consists of a Slam quarterfinal and semifinal, and one M1000. Ruud has a career that consists of one Slam final, and one M1000 final.

James Blake makes these guys look like journeyman. And he went to college and had a horrible injury.

 

[Aabye5]

I agree, but peak Federer is better than peak Djokovic and past-prime Federer.

That's true. But past-prime Djokovic is better than past-prime Federer.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

So in essence we’re looking at the two, surface wise:

Roddick:
HC: Good
Clay: Bad
Grass: Good

Safin:
HC: Great
Clay: Average
Grass: Below Average

This is far more accurate to their respective levels on the surfaces and it shows Roddick was not all that far behind Safin.

I can see that you’ve begun to lose your grip on reality with the mug comment though. Probably not a fruitful discussion moving forward.

Yet Safin somehow beat a 6-time Wimbledon champ on grass

 

[mike danny]

Yet Safin somehow beat a 6-time Wimbledon champ on grass

Random run and Djokovic was hardly an elite grass player back then.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Is Rafa or Nole the biggest rival of Alcaraz? Are they the biggest rival of FAA or Sinner or Ruud?

Not analogous whatsoever. Federer and Nadal were 23/24 and 19/20 in 2005, with the latter being a very early bloomer.

I know you know the history, but the state of mind was different. In 2004, Federer beat his 3 most important contemporaries in 3 Slam finals - Marat, Lleyton, Andy. If Tsitsipas had beaten Med at the AO, Ber at W, and Zed at the USO in 2021, that is perhaps the only way the size of this shift can be understood in today's terms.

I'm not trying to lecture you, just reminding you that in 2004 this was mind-blowing!


Yes, there was talk about the new wunderkid Rafa (as there would be talk about Carlitos, even if Tsitsipas had won 3 Slams in 2021). But it was still told in terms of Federer. After his tear in 2004, Roger was missing one Slam and he turned his attention to Roland Garros. The wunderkid stamped his dominance on the tournament by defeating...Fed.

Which only further lends credence to Nadal as Federer's rival.

Rafa was good, very very good. But mainly on clay. Or, at least, that was what people thought.

It isn't what I thought...and beyond that, who cares? If public consensus/optics at the time is what matters to you, how is this a demerit against Federer? Nadal ended up proving conclusively that he was his main rival and that 2005 wasn't a one-off. You can place any label you want on Nadal, he was still, in actuality, the biggest thorn in Federer's side in 2005.

What you seem to be implying is that the actual quality of Federer's opponents matter less than some myopic label you'd like to place on them, based on totally arbitrary criteria, with the ones not meeting this criteria being hand-waved away as non-rivals.

 

[duaneeo]

Murray and Wawrinka are both better than Hewitt.

That's your opinion. Still, if Murray and Wawrinka had played 2004-2007, you today would be referring to them as mugs. Past-prime Federer had few issues with them at the slams; a peak Federer would've humiliated them.

 

[mike danny]

Murray and Wawrinka are both better than Hewitt.

Sure, but a big part of that is because Djokovic turned them into great players.

They would probably be slamless if they peaked in 2004-2007.

 

[Aabye5]

Sure, but a big part of that is because Djokovic turned them into great players.

They would probably be slamless if they peaked in 2004-2007.

Hewitt did not win a Slam from 2004 to 2007. He won his in 2002 and 2003.

The question is not whether Murray and Wawrinka are better than Federer, but whether they are better than Hewitt. Marat is better than all of them, but still not an ATG (I think he had the potential...), and he beat Federer.

 

[Aabye5]

That's your opinion. Still, if Murray and Wawrinka had played 2004-2007, you today would be referring to them as mugs. Past-prime Federer had few issues with them at the slams; a peak Federer would've humiliated them.

Again, the question is not whether Murray and Wawrinka after better than Federer, but whether they are better than Hewitt. Hewitt did not win his Slams during that timeframe, he won his Slams in 2001 and 2002.

Marat beat Federer, but then I think he's better than Murray, Wawrinka and Hewitt.

 

[abmk]

Ljubicic has a career that consists of a Slam quarterfinal and semifinal, and one M1000. Ruud has a career that consists of one Slam final, and one M1000 final.

James Blake makes these guys look like journeyman. And he went to college and had a horrible injury.

that slam final in big part due to lopsided draw in inflation era.
Ljubicic also helped his country win DC in 05.

also you call Berr as some sort of threat to Djoko in frickin QF of a slam, but Ljubicic not a threat in early round?

 

[abmk]

Hewitt did not win a Slam from 2004 to 2007. He won his in 2002 and 2003.

The question is not whether Murray and Wawrinka are better than Federer, but whether they are better than Hewitt. Marat is better than all of them, but still not an ATG (I think he had the potential...), and he beat Federer.

Please stop.
Hewitt won his slams in 2001 and 2002. 03 was a down year for him.
His prime years were 01-02, 04-05. He was more consistent in slams in 04-05, only losing to the eventual winner of the slams in the 7 slams he played (5x Fed, Safin, Gaudio)

 

[Aabye5]

Not analogous whatsoever. Federer and Nadal were 23/24 and 19/20 in 2005, with the latter being a very early bloomer.

Alcaraz is an early bloomer!

Age is just a number. You think it's important, but I don't.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Again, the question is not whether Murray and Wawrinka after better than Federer, but whether they are better than Hewitt. Hewitt did not win his Slams during that timeframe, he won his Slams in 2001 and 2002.

Marat beat Federer, but then I think he's better than Murray, Wawrinka and Hewitt.

safin is not better than murray, murray overall better (thru all surfaces), beating fed in one great match doesn't mean he became automatically super great

 

[Aabye5]

Which only further lends credence to Nadal as Federer's rival.




It isn't what I thought...and beyond that, who cares? If public consensus/optics at the time is what matters to you, how is this a demerit against Federer? Nadal ended up proving conclusively that he was his main rival and that 2005 wasn't a one-off. You can place any label you want on Nadal, he was still, in actuality, the biggest thorn in Federer's side in 2005.

What you seem to be implying is that the actual quality of Federer's opponents matter less than some myopic label you'd like to place on them, based on totally arbitrary criteria, with the ones not meeting this criteria being hand-waved away as non-rivals.

They did not play enough matches in 2005. People thought maybe he could be a potential rival. It was not until 2006 that he actually became a rival.

Maybe FAA will use his great runs in the past 3 Slams to do something special. We don't know yet. He shows promise, great promise, but ATG promise?



You are trying to retcon the past to fit your narrative. The truth is that in 2005, Rafa was a thorn in Federer's side on clay.

 

[Aabye5]

safin is not better than murray, murray overall better (thru all surfaces), beating fed in one great match doesn't mean he became automatically super great

Safin is better than Murray. He not only beat Federer, he also beat Sampras and Andre.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Safin is better than Murray. He not only beat Federer, he also beat Sampras and Andre.

hewitt also did it (sampras) so

 

[Aabye5]

hewitt also did it (sampras) so

When did Lleyton beat peak Federer at a Slam?

Edit: I know he never beat Agassi at a Slam.

 

[Aabye5]

that slam final in big part due to lopsided draw in inflation era.
Ljubicic also helped his country win DC in 05.

also you call Berr as some sort of threat to Djoko in frickin QF of a slam, but Ljubicic not a threat in early round?

Is this a joke?

Ljubicic was not a threat. He never took a set off the big 3 at Slams. He never even faced Federer at a Slam.

 

[duaneeo]

But past-prime Djokovic is better than past-prime Federer.

2011-2016 Djokovic: 11/24 (45.8%) slams won.

2018-2022 Djokovic: 8/16 (50%) slams won.

The numbers show that either past-prime Djokovic is better than peak/prime Djokovic, or (as Davydenko states) the younger generation is not that technically good.

 

[Aabye5]

2011-2016 Djokovic: 11/24 (45.8%) slams won.

2018-2022 Djokovic: 8/16 (50%) slams won.

The numbers show that either past-prime Djokovic is better than peak/prime Djokovic, or (as Davydenko states) the younger generation is not that technically good.

No, we have to look at win rates at ALL Slams. Federer chose to skip the one he was bad at. What's the average of 0% and 50%?

I was great...except at the ones I skipped because I don't like them.

 

[Aabye5]

Please stop.
Hewitt won his slams in 2001 and 2002. 03 was a down year for him.
His prime years were 01-02, 04-05. He was more consistent in slams in 04-05, only losing to the eventual winner of the slams in the 7 slams he played (5x Fed, Safin, Gaudio)

Don't be an idiot. He was not winning the French Open. After all he lost to Gaudio...who also should not have been winning that year.

He won his Slams in 2001 and 2002. Murray and Wawrinka could have done the same or better.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Alcaraz is an early bloomer!

Age is just a number. You think it's important, but I don't.

.....then more reason it's apt to have Federer and Nadal as rivals. I wrongly assumed you were making the comparison since there's a perceived generational gap between Fedal. Regardless, ridiculous comparison.

Perception and age (as you say) don't matter here. Nadal troubled Federer the most out of anyone in 2005 and was the second-best player in the world. Roddick was #3 and got pasted in two finals. Whether there's a lag in public perception or not, it's irrelevant to the actual product on the court, which is how you determine the strength of the era.

 

[Third Serve]

if you’re making a competition argument why does public perception enter the discussion?

 

[mike danny]

Hewitt did not win a Slam from 2004 to 2007. He won his in 2002 and 2003.

The question is not whether Murray and Wawrinka are better than Federer, but whether they are better than Hewitt. Marat is better than all of them, but still not an ATG (I think he had the potential...), and he beat Federer.

Sure, Hewitt won no slams in 2004-2007 because of Fed which exactly what would happen to Murray and Stan.

Yes, the latter 2 are better than Hewitt as of now, but they didn't play the same ATG.

 

[mike danny]

No, we have to look at win rates at ALL Slams. Federer chose to skip the one he was bad at. What's the average of 0% and 50%?

I was great...except at the ones I skipped because I don't like them.

Fed was almost 35 when he skipped the French for the very first time. Give him a break.

 

[duaneeo]

No, we have to look at win rates at ALL Slams. Federer chose to skip the one he was bad at. What's the average of 0% and 50%?

I'll accept that past-prime Djokovic is better than past-prime Federer. But as the earlier numbers I posted show, past-prime Djokovic is also better than peak-prime Djokovic.

 

[Aabye5]

.....then more reason it's apt to have Federer and Nadal as rivals. I wrongly assumed you were making the comparison since there's a perceived generational gap between Fedal. Regardless, ridiculous comparison.

Perception and age (as you say) don't matter here. Nadal troubled Federer the most out of anyone in 2005 and was the second-best player in the world. Roddick was #3 and got pasted in two finals. Whether there's a lag in public perception or not, it's irrelevant to the actual product on the court, which is how you determine the strength of the era.

The comparison is this. Agassi was an ATG who played Federer. There may be some ATG playing now against Nole and Rafa.

Safin was a bigger threat to Federer in 2005 than Rafa. He beat Fed on one of hard courts and he had played him close the year before. We could not predict then how serious the injury he faced was.

 

[davidbowie103]

if you’re making a competition argument why does public perception enter the discussion?

This thread seems far too diverted from the original topic to me. All I see is 'WEAK ERA'. LoL

 

[Aabye5]

I'll accept that past-prime Djokovic is better than past-prime Federer. But as the earlier numbers show, past-prime Djokovic is also better than peak-prime Djokovic.

Hmm....yes and no. Peak-prime Djokovic faced peak Rafa and old Fed and oft-injured Delpo. That's harder than Roddick, young Rafa, and old Agassi.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I'll accept that past-prime Djokovic is better than past-prime Federer. But as the earlier numbers I posted show, past-prime Djokovic is also better than peak-prime Djokovic.

Djokovic should have averaged atleast 2 majors a year the 2012-2014 period he settled for only 1 a year. The field was still pretty good at this point, but given his level and dominance in 2011, 2015, a lot of 2016, there was no excuse to go down to winning only 1 major a year. That definitely hurts his career, and his case in these silly GOAT debates unless he really seperates numbers wise.

That and that he lost in majors to Murray and Wawrinka so often. Excellent players and definitely worthy multi slam champions (if either had the great luck to peak today they each could probably win 7 or 8 majors, lol), but neither were winning their majors by beating Federer or Nadal hardly ever, only by beating Djokovic.

 

[duaneeo]

This thread seems far too diverted from the original topic to me. All I see is 'WEAK ERA'. LoL

lol! I tried to get back on topic by mentioning Davydenko's comment:

The numbers show that either past-prime Djokovic is better than peak/prime Djokovic, or (as Davydenko states) the younger generation is not that technically good.

 

[davidbowie103]

lol! I tried to get back on topic by mentioning Davydenko's comment:

Yeah. You know, once weak era talk starts, it only stops after the thread gets deleted.

 

[TheFifthSet]

The comparison is this. Agassi was an ATG who played Federer. There may be some ATG playing now against Nole and Rafa.

Safin was a bigger threat to Federer in 2005 than Rafa. He beat Fed on one of hard courts and he had played him close the year before. We could not predict then how serious the injury he faced was.

yes, and Agassi was one of Fed’s rivals. Just not his main one. Not complicated.

bottom sentence invites the same question: why does it matter? If the actual tennis is disregarded in favour of labels that seemed relevant at the time, we’re no longer able to judge the quality of the era. Whether you want to call Nadal Fed’s main rival at the time or not, the quality of the tennis remains the same.

 

[merwy]

His backhand is a weakness. In fact, I would say it's a bigger weakness than his mentality.

I think his backhand is fine. Both of his groundstrokes could use more sting but I don't think his forehand/backhand strength is unbalanced. I mean, Berretini made a slam final with his backhand.

 

[Born_to_slice]

They're not that good by any stretch.

How did Murray, Stan and Safin managed to win 7 slams off these guys?

Safin took 1 slam off Federer. With Djokovic and Nadal at their best in that same tournament, he'd probably not win it. Murray basically played at very high level (worth 7-8 slams in an easier era) for a long time and scored when Djokovic finally blinked. Wawrinka achieved big 3 level for a while, very late in his career (none of 'next gen' is that old yet).

Still, my guess is next gen still wins far more than all of them combined.

 

[mike danny]

Safin took 1 slam off Federer. With Djokovic and Nadal at their best in that same tournament, he'd probably not win it.

But the Next Gen don't have to deal with the Big 3 at their best, just with one of these oldies at a time.

Murray basically played at very high level (worth 7-8 slams in an easier era) for a long time and scored when Djokovic finally blinked.

Sure, but no such player even on this level.

Wawrinka achieved big 3 level for a while, very late in his career (none of 'next gen' is that old yet).

Wawrinka didn't have a prime, that's why he had success at a later age. The Next Gen all blossomed in their early 20's.

Still, my guess is next gen still wins far more than all of them combined.

The field will have to fall off a cliff for them to win more than all those guys combined.

And I forgot to mention Delpo who also won a slam against Nadal and Federer.

 

[Born_to_slice]

But the Next Gen don't have to deal with the Big 3 at their best, just with one of these oldies at a time.

Those oldies still kick ass. Fitness wise, they are not far away from their best and there's more to tennis than sprinting and hitting hard.

Sure, but no such player even on this level.

"Even" That's a very high level, especially in terms of consistency. Not too many such players in history. Some of the players, like Medvedev, will probably have similar ir greater success.

Wawrinka didn't have a prime, that's why he had success at a later age. The Next Gen all blossomed in their early 20's.

Wawrinka's 'prime' came at a later stage. He was pretty useless in terms of slams before and after it. And you don't have the perspective of what next gen will do until their careers end.

The field will have to fall off a cliff for them to win more than all those guys combined.

And yet, I think it's inevitable that it will happen. Thiem and Medvedev already got 2...or 1, if you don't want to count Thiem.

And I forgot to mention Delpo who also won a slam against Nadal and Federer.

It just shows how tough it was to win a slam. He's definitely worth much more in an era without big 3.

 

[netlets]

Do you think Alcaraz might be one of the better ones ? Not being gigantic probably probably helps.

Absolutely. Alcaraz is excellent technically.

 

[mike danny]

Those oldies still kick ass. Fitness wise, they are not far away from their best and there's more to tennis than sprinting and hitting hard.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Physically they are away from their best since they can't play a full-schedule anymore.

Anyway you brought up that Safin didn't have to face all of the Big 3 at their best, but neither have Next Gen and they haven't even come close to what Safin did.

"Even" That's a very high level, especially in terms of consistency. Not too many such players in history.

In terms of consistency sure, but I was talking in terms of overall ability. Murray isn't a bridge too far in terms of overall ability that others shouldn't be able to match, yet we don't even have someone like him.

Some of the players, like Medvedev, will probably have similar ir greater success.

Even if he does, that won't mean anything in my book. Just number padding without the level to back it up.

Wawrinka's 'prime' came at a later stage. He was pretty useless in terms of slams before and after it. And you don't have the perspective of what next gen will do until their careers end.

Point is that the Next Gen have more mileage than Stan did at their ages and will have more mileage when they reach 28. It doesn't mean they'll have a Stan-like career later on just because Stan did. Stan may not have managed that much success later in his career if he'd blossomed at 22 instead of 28. Mileage sometimes is more important than the age itself.

And yet, I think it's inevitable that it will happen. Thiem and Medvedev already got 2...or 1, if you don't want to count Thiem.

You mean to say they've barely managed 2. We're talking about an entire decade of players who've only managed 2 measly slam titles after all this time.

It just shows how tough it was to win a slam. He's definitely worth much more in an era without big 3.

Yes, agreed. And there is still no one like him today.

 

[Roddickulous1]

Henman made SF of RG and USO as well.
won Paris masters as well

the only place Ruud's better than Ljubicic is clay.

Henman and Ljubicic were both early rounds.
Henman would've SnVed Med's a** off the court for one.
Also Henman was the only one to beat Roddick in summer American HC swing.

The question is whether you watched tennis at that time. Please stop making a fool out of yourself by exhibiting more and more ignorance.

Guy 100% didn't watch tennis at the time yet he's out here talking with so much conviction.

Like you said, Henman was the only player to beat Roddick other than Federer during his 37-2 run from Queens-USO that year. Factoring in Henman's level of play and the fact that he wasn't a easy match up for Roddick, there's no doubt he was a very tough 1st round match up.

 

[Born_to_slice]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Physically they are away from their best since they can't play a full-schedule anymore.

Djokovic and Nadal are still very close to their best in slams. Actually, saving themselves for slams probably makes things even more difficult for competition. Imagine Djokovic 2012-2014 saving himself for slams...

 

[mike danny]

Djokovic and Nadal are still very close to their best in slams. Actually, saving themselves for slams probably makes things even more difficult for competition. Imagine Djokovic 2012-2014 saving himself for slams...

Wouldn't say they're close to their best even in slams. Djokodal normally wouldn't need to come back from 0-2 down to beat Tsitsipas and Medvedev in major finals.

Djokovic 2012-2014 did underperform at slams but not because of tiredness. He could afford to give his best anywhere because he was still in his mid 20's. The field was also extremely different back then and Djokovic of back then would have 0 issues with the Next Gen.

 

[Robert C]

Their level is fine, it's the inconsistency and choking, and mental midgetry on big points.

nonsense. They simply don’t win enough points - their level is not fine. If they were winning 54% of points they would be at the top but they’re nowhere near it.

 

[Aabye5]

I think his backhand is fine. Both of his groundstrokes could use more sting but I don't think his forehand/backhand strength is unbalanced. I mean, Berretini made a slam final with his backhand.

He was a lot cleaner off of both wings in his first ATP final. Now, forehand and backhand can be shaky. Not sure if it's the strings, but he definitely gets too close on the backhand. Again, I think this is because he has not adjusted enough for his height.

When he is playing well, he has one of the very best forehands in the game today, and his backhand is a weapon. On the bad days, he does not look like a top 10 player.

Just look at his match with Rafa at the FO --- great tennis. Then look at his match against Korda a few weeks before...the less said the better.

 

[MichaelNadal]

nonsense. They simply don’t win enough points - their level is not fine. If they were winning 54% of points they would be at the top but they’re nowhere near it.

 

[TheNachoMan]

9 pages. lol
#22 hit some pretty hard, bud.

 

[Aabye5]

yes, and Agassi was one of Fed’s rivals. Just not his main one. Not complicated.

bottom sentence invites the same question: why does it matter? If the actual tennis is disregarded in favour of labels that seemed relevant at the time, we’re no longer able to judge the quality of the era. Whether you want to call Nadal Fed’s main rival at the time or not, the quality of the tennis remains the same.

He was the main one...from a certain point of view. Rafa could also be the main one...from a certain point of view. Neither is arguably a contemporary, and Rafa would only get better.

Marat was arguably the biggest threat during that year, but Rafa played Roger in 4 finals during the period and Roddick played him in 3 finals during that period.

 

[Aabye5]

I mean, think about making the counterpoint to this argument.

You'd have to argue that the younger generation are technically advanced. lol. Yes, the guys known for 65mph 2nd serves, flubbed volleys, wristy FHs, and a 25% success rate on putaways against Djokodal, along with basically zero grass success and some very questionable statistics on return, are as sound technically as can be.

So let's say they are technically perfect.

Then what would explain their lack of success? These physical beasts, equipped with 23 year old legs and energy, and technical mastery of the game, somehow keep losing to mid-30s players because... because why exactly?

Lack of generational talent. Height does not equal talent. Just ask Isner.