Did Alcaraz defeat peak Djokovic or was this an incredibly weak era?

[Eren]

Sampras retired in 2001.

Fed beat a pretty impresive Sampras. Very few of the kids nowadays short of maybe seeing the recent performance by Eubanks have any idea how awesome Sampras was.
Imagine someone winning games the way Eubanks played for over a decade, on a surface that was far faster with faster balls and an 85 sq in racquet and gut.
By comparison, Nadal is mostly a retriever with a big net..

Yeah, I know when Sampras retired. Not in 2001. He won USO 2002 as an active player. Dude didn't play any match after that USO final.

My point was, if Pete continued to play, Fed would've smashed him on grass.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

Bizarre poll options.

The correct answer is Alcaraz defeated a prime version of Djokovic and made one impressive run to win his first Wimbledon.

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Bizarre poll options.

The correct answer is Alcaraz defeated a prime version of Djokovic and made one impressive run to win his first Wimbledon.

Djokovic is in his old prime like 2017 Federer (maybe 2019 Federer was too?) but not his young prime

 

[RS]

Lol can't believe you go to such length to have every messages. I just stated what experts and Nick stated and Fed himself said that. Don't know where's the contradiction? Did i say Fed 2014 will beat 2006 Fed?lmao .

Well you mentioned sentiment which implies it was possible in some sort of way lol.

 

[Mike Sams]

"I've never played against a player like him." -Djokovic

That sums it all up. As great as Roger and Rafa are, Alcaraz brought something different to the table which Novak had never experienced in his 18 years on the professional tour. It just shows how strong Alcaraz is.

 

[Kozzy]

"I've never played against a player like him." -Djokovic

That sums it all up. As great as Roger and Rafa are, Alcaraz brought something different to the table which Novak had never experienced in his 18 years on the professional tour. It just shows how strong Alcaraz is.

Alcaraz is awesome - but he's not yet greater than any of the All Time Greats. He will have plenty of time to show us how great he is, and I look forward to watching it, but the other reality is that Djokovic's current form has been overhyped. Recency bias is truly an amazing thing. Even in 2019, Djoker is probably winning this match, but definitely the 2014/15 version is. And prime Fed wipes the floor with Alcaraz on grass all day long. Still, for a 20yo playing his first Wimbledon, it's a big accomplishment. I can't believe he served it out on his first try. That alone speaks volumes to his ability to handle big moments, and it's probably going to just get better, which is scary.

 

[Mike Sams]

Alcaraz is awesome - but he's not yet greater than any of the All Time Greats. He will have plenty of time to show us how great he is, and I look forward to watching it, but the other reality is that Djokovic's current form has been overhyped. Recency bias is truly an amazing thing. Even in 2019, Djoker is probably winning this match, but definitely the 2014/15 version is. And prime Fed wipes the floor with Alcaraz on grass all day long. Still, for a 20yo playing his first Wimbledon, it's a big accomplishment. I can't believe he served it out on his first try. That alone speaks volumes to his ability to handle big moments, and it's probably going to just get better, which is scary.

I'm not interested in "could've, would've" bullsh*t. Reminiscing about the old days and what Djokovic might've done means nothing. He was in the form of his life and showing more confidence and mental strength than any other time leading up to this final. Had a tough draw as a matter of fact of strong grass court opposition and he brushed them aside like a bunch of nobodies. He has absolutely no excuse, nor do his supporters. Alcaraz beat him up on the court. 17 winners in the 5th set. Shows who was the stronger player. Alcaraz isn't scared of Djokovic unlike all these other clowns and fairies on the tour.

 

[NeutralFan]

Well you mentioned sentiment which implies it was possible in some sort of way lol.

Lmao stop lying , all I said was 2015 Fed was playing at a very high level and the comparison was between 2015 Djokovic and peak Fed not 2015 Fed and peak Fed ffs. Don't lie to run your propaganda, son!

 

[Lleytonstation]

Fed played more old school than modern here. He even had the old school equipment

That is a fun match. Kind of weird to watch now, but makes you miss speed tennis.

 

[Torben]

Wind, slippery conditions… lots of excuses there for the BOAT/GOAT, no?

interesting that you say that no players at their best at 36 now but before, age was an excuse .

It’s amazing what the mind will come up with when he loses. The wind was an issue for certain but this guy is 36 years old and has played in windy conditions in the past. He should’ve adjusted to that accordingly. The court was slippery for both players and once again you find this as being part of the reason why he lost. He wasn’t serving at his best. He was supposed to be a better server these days. I think the way Alcaraz returned and his overall level put increased pressure on Djokovic. We all know what happens when things don’t go his way. He is as erratic and unpredictable as Nick the Nutter.

There were a few reasons why he was feeling the pressure from Alcaraz. The 2nd set tiebreaker was another Djokovic domain that Alcaraz wrestled away regardless of the mistakes Djokovic made in the tiebreaker. The marathon game of 27 minutes that he lost was a huge moral victory for Alcaraz. It left Djokovic bewildered and dazed mentally. It’s these tense situations that you’d most assuredly say were Djokovic’s, but not today.

He was well beaten in so many areas and that was evident in his demeanour as the match wore on.

I’m just surprised that we haven’t heard the he lost due to Alacaraz’s father videotaping his practice excuse. Maybe that will come tomorrow.

 

[Razer]

This era is super weak. There are 2 ATGs and they're winning everything. One is 36 and on the way out, the other is 20 and barely starting to reach his prime/peak. That is all.

Just like the early-mid 2000s when ageing ATGs in their 30s were on their way out and punks were winning slams until 1 ponytailed guy took control of tennis and won double digits slams before his rivals hit their primes.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Federer played against TWO younger all time greats for like 13 years. Novak has for two slams.

When did Federer play an ATG who was 16 years younger? Hopefully you're not comparing a 16 year age gap to a 5/6 year age gap? That would be very silly indeed.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Alcaraz is awesome - but he's not yet greater than any of the All Time Greats. He will have plenty of time to show us how great he is, and I look forward to watching it, but the other reality is that Djokovic's current form has been overhyped. Recency bias is truly an amazing thing. Even in 2019, Djoker is probably winning this match, but definitely the 2014/15 version is. And prime Fed wipes the floor with Alcaraz on grass all day long. Still, for a 20yo playing his first Wimbledon, it's a big accomplishment. I can't believe he served it out on his first try. That alone speaks volumes to his ability to handle big moments, and it's probably going to just get better, which is scary.

The mayor of Shanksville would be obliterated by Alcaraz playing the way he did. The game has moved on from the mid 2000s, as it always does. Federer did well to evolve along with it for as long as he did.

 

[tennis_pro]

Just like the early-mid 2000s when ageing ATGs in their 30s were on their way out and punks were winning slams until 1 ponytailed guy took control of tennis and won double digits slams before his rivals hit their primes.

calm down

 

[RS]

Lmao stop lying , all I said was 2015 Fed was playing at a very high level and the comparison was between 2015 Djokovic and peak Fed not 2015 Fed and peak Fed ffs. Don't lie to run your propaganda, son!

Dunno to quote it I feel like someone has to be considering it. Maybe I was wrong.

 

[Razer]

calm down

It is a fact.

We enjoyed Federer belting roddick-hewitt-gonzales-baggy, seniors told us it is a weak era but we thought they were jealous, later we saw Djokovic+Nadal+Murray, Del P, Stan, Berdych, Tsonga all emerge in late 00s and 2010s.

Now 2010 born kids will enjoy Alcaraz belting his rivals, they will think Alcaraz is god but if later stronger players than Alcaraz will emerge then only will those kids understand than currently tennis is in a weaker era than before. This is the cycle of life.

 

[NeutralFan]

Dunno to quote it I feel like someone has to be considering it. Maybe I was wrong.

Fair enough but why ascribe fake quote to someone and then project when he meant entirely something else? You dig that deeper to go through my old posts to only fail in your propaganda? You let me down, son!

 

[RS]

Fair enough but why ascribe fake quote to someone and then project when he meant entirely something else? You dig that deeper to go through my old posts to only fail in your propaganda? You let me down, son!

Trolling mode for a few days nothing personal lol

 

[Spencer Gore]

You forgot the most massive example - Federer VS Sampras at Wimbledon, the only real example of old school vs modern player on an old school court(and Fed had to work for it):

Year	Event	Surface	RND	Winner	Result
2001	Wimbledon England	Outdoor Grass	R16	Roger Federer	767 57 64 672 75

Roger Federer VS Pete Sampras | Head 2 Head | H2H | ATP Tour | Tennis

Head to head records for players in men's professional tennis. View rivalry results and stats for matches on the ATP Tour.

www.atptour.com

The only value the term 'weak era' has is on message boards and on a bar stool. Outside of this, it is not only meaningless, but does not even exist.

It wasn't 'an old school court'. It was on the new slower grass.

 

[darthrafa]

this defeat is regarded as quite unexpected to many ppl and not many ppl think djoker can win quite a number slams. at this age majority consider djoker is still the hot favourite. not a weak era? r u kidding me?

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

It is a fact.

We enjoyed Federer belting roddick-hewitt-gonzales-baggy, seniors told us it is a weak era but we thought they were jealous, later we saw Djokovic+Nadal+Murray, Del P, Stan, Berdych, Tsonga all emerge in late 00s and 2010s.

Now 2010 born kids will enjoy Alcaraz belting his rivals, they will think Alcaraz is god but if later stronger players than Alcaraz will emerge then only will those kids understand than currently tennis is in a weaker era than before. This is the cycle of life.

Do you use razor code string?

 

[jl809]

We’re discussing Djokovic’s competition? Time for some content to come back (it is never truly gone)

Djokovic has benefitted from an amazing set of circumstances coming together to allow him to win 7 Wimbledons:

1 (a) He had the weakest competition in his prime and postprime of any grass court ATG ever. His prime was perfectly timed; it started when the 2 other ATGs’ grass primes were ending or already over, AND continued when no new ATGs on grass were coming up during his postprime. This has literally never happened to any other ATG on grass

1. Federer's prime competition: peak Nadal 2x, peak Roddick 2x, prime Nadal 1x, prime Roddick 2x
2. Nadal's prime competition: peak Federer 2x, peak Djokovic 1x, prime Federer 1x, preprime Murray 3x
3. Djokovic's prime competition: prime Nadal 1x, peak Murray 1x, and postprime Federer 3x
   
   
4. Federer's postprime competition: peak Djokovic 1x, prime Djokovic 2x, peak Murray 1x, prime Murray 1x, postprime Djokovic 1x, postprime Nadal 1x, mugs (Cilic, Raonic, Anderson)
5. Djokovic's postprime competition: (pre?)prime Alcaraz 1x, super old Federer 1x, postprime Nadal indoors (see later) 1x, mugs (Berrettini + Kyrgios)
6. Nadal's postprime competition: lol

1 (b) Djokovic needed to be born much later than Federer to (1) win more than 3 or 4 Wimbledons AND (2) stop Federer winning more than 10 Wimbledons

1. We know prime Djokovic would have been screwed vs prime Federer on grass because of how prime Djokovic could barely handle postprime Federer (lost to him in 2012, narrow win in 2014). Similarly 2019 shows us that Super Old Federer would have destroyed Super Old Djokovic on grass, given how he nearly beat postprime Djokovic.
   
   
2. 2003 Federer with 2011's competition, 2004 Federer with 2012's competition etc. could win 11 or 12 Wimbledons easily even if Djokovic was still around, because he is better than Djokovic on grass. It's a matchup issue like Nadal at RG.
   
   
3. Even if you swap 2011 Djokovic into 2003 (i.e. give him the weak era) and put 2003 Federer in 2011, Djokovic probably wins 2003, 2005, 2006 and debatably 07 before Fed arrives to start cleaning up. Again, that is 3 or maybe 4 Wimbledons, not the SEVEN we are looking at. Wow!

2. Djokovic avoided his grass daddy, Andy Murray, the last 6 times he won Wimbledon

1. You know how people used to say Murray does everything Djokovic does, but a bit worse? On grass it was the reverse. Murray never lost a set against Prime Djokovic on center court,beating him in 2012 at the Olympics and at 2013 in the Wimbledon final all in straight sets. Murray was becoming the grass version of Stan for Djokovic... but since 2013, they have never played at Wimbledon again. Djokovic's titles in 2014 and 15 and his resurgence on grass in 2018-present contained one bit of fortune we don't really talk about - no Murray

3. Djokovic needed some incredible luck with Moya-era Rafael Nadal

1. A freak Anderson-Isner match turned the first part of Nadal-Djokovic into an indoor match... then turned it into an indoor match AGAIN in broad sunlight and 30 degrees C the following day. Nadal is about 1000 times better outdoors than indoors, and given how close the match was (194 points to 190, identical winners and UEs, etc), Nadal fans will rightfully argue taking things outdoors would probably have swung things for their man. No comeback slam for Djokovic, the future looking very different, etc.
   
   
2. As clearly the only person (other than Federer) now able to beat Djokovic on grass, Nadal gets a 6-month injury in 2021, allowing Djokovic to win a Berrettini Open with an even easier draw than AO 22.
3. Then, with Djokovic's rally game looking the worst I've ever seen it, Nadal gets an ab tear that prevents him playing Djokovic in baking conditions on a worn-out, dirt-covered baseline in the 2022 final, allowing Djokovic to win Wimbledon beating - have we blotted it out yet? - Sinner, Norrie and Kyrgios.

4. Djokovic needed Federer to be injured when Djokovic's own level got muggy

1. I don't have many words to describe Djokovic's level at Wimbledon in 2021 and 2022. It made 2019 look like 2011. Who would have benefitted from facing this absolutely muggy Djokovic, even with his own level vastly declined? The 2019 Wimbledon finalist. Who was injured in both 2021 and 2022? The 2019 Wimbledon finalist.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I'm not interested in "could've, would've" bullsh*t. Reminiscing about the old days and what Djokovic might've done means nothing. He was in the form of his life and showing more confidence and mental strength than any other time leading up to this final. Had a tough draw as a matter of fact of strong grass court opposition and he brushed them aside like a bunch of nobodies. He has absolutely no excuse, nor do his supporters. Alcaraz beat him up on the court. 17 winners in the 5th set. Shows who was the stronger player. Alcaraz isn't scared of Djokovic unlike all these other clowns and fairies on the tour.

Eyyyyyy

 

[tennis_pro]

It is a fact.

We enjoyed Federer belting roddick-hewitt-gonzales-baggy, seniors told us it is a weak era but we thought they were jealous, later we saw Djokovic+Nadal+Murray, Del P, Stan, Berdych, Tsonga all emerge in late 00s and 2010s.

Now 2010 born kids will enjoy Alcaraz belting his rivals, they will think Alcaraz is god but if later stronger players than Alcaraz will emerge then only will those kids understand than currently tennis is in a weaker era than before. This is the cycle of life.

calm down

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

We’re discussing Djokovic’s competition? Time for some content to come back (it is never truly gone)

Djokovic has benefitted from an amazing set of circumstances coming together to allow him to win 7 Wimbledons:

1 (a) He had the weakest competition in his prime and postprime of any grass court ATG ever. His prime was perfectly timed; it started when the 2 other ATGs’ grass primes were ending or already over, AND continued when no new ATGs on grass were coming up during his postprime. This has literally never happened to any other ATG on grass

1. Federer's prime competition: peak Nadal 2x, peak Roddick 2x, prime Nadal 1x, prime Roddick 2x
2. Nadal's prime competition: peak Federer 2x, peak Djokovic 1x, prime Federer 1x, preprime Murray 3x
3. Djokovic's prime competition: prime Nadal 1x, peak Murray 1x, and postprime Federer 3x
   
   
4. Federer's postprime competition: peak Djokovic 1x, prime Djokovic 2x, peak Murray 1x, prime Murray 1x, postprime Djokovic 1x, postprime Nadal 1x, mugs (Cilic, Raonic, Anderson)
5. Djokovic's postprime competition: (pre?)prime Alcaraz 1x, super old Federer 1x, postprime Nadal indoors (see later) 1x, mugs (Berrettini + Kyrgios)
6. Nadal's postprime competition: lol

1 (b) Djokovic needed to be born much later than Federer to (1) win more than 3 or 4 Wimbledons AND (2) stop Federer winning more than 10 Wimbledons

1. We know prime Djokovic would have been screwed vs prime Federer on grass because of how prime Djokovic could barely handle postprime Federer (lost to him in 2012, narrow win in 2014). Similarly 2019 shows us that Super Old Federer would have destroyed Super Old Djokovic on grass, given how he nearly beat postprime Djokovic.
   
   
2. 2003 Federer with 2011's competition, 2004 Federer with 2012's competition etc. could win 11 or 12 Wimbledons easily even if Djokovic was still around, because he is better than Djokovic on grass. It's a matchup issue like Nadal at RG.
   
   
3. Even if you swap 2011 Djokovic into 2003 (i.e. give him the weak era) and put 2003 Federer in 2011, Djokovic probably wins 2003, 2005, 2006 and debatably 07 before Fed arrives to start cleaning up. Again, that is 3 or maybe 4 Wimbledons, not the SEVEN we are looking at. Wow!

2. Djokovic avoided his grass daddy, Andy Murray, the last 6 times he won Wimbledon

1. You know how people used to say Murray does everything Djokovic does, but a bit worse? On grass it was the reverse. Murray never lost a set against Prime Djokovic on center court,beating him in 2012 at the Olympics and at 2013 in the Wimbledon final all in straight sets. Murray was becoming the grass version of Stan for Djokovic... but since 2013, they have never played at Wimbledon again. Djokovic's titles in 2014 and 15 and his resurgence on grass in 2018-present contained one bit of fortune we don't really talk about - no Murray

3. Djokovic needed some incredible luck with Moya-era Rafael Nadal

1. A freak Anderson-Isner match turned the first part of Nadal-Djokovic into an indoor match... then turned it into an indoor match AGAIN in broad sunlight and 30 degrees C the following day. Nadal is about 1000 times better outdoors than indoors, and given how close the match was (194 points to 190, identical winners and UEs, etc), Nadal fans will rightfully argue taking things outdoors would probably have swung things for their man. No comeback slam for Djokovic, the future looking very different, etc.
   
   
2. As clearly the only person (other than Federer) now able to beat Djokovic on grass, Nadal gets a 6-month injury in 2021, allowing Djokovic to win a Berrettini Open with an even easier draw than AO 22.
3. Then, with Djokovic's rally game looking the worst I've ever seen it, Nadal gets an ab tear that prevents him playing Djokovic in baking conditions on a worn-out, dirt-covered baseline in the 2022 final, allowing Djokovic to win Wimbledon beating - have we blotted it out yet? - Sinner, Norrie and Kyrgios.

4. Djokovic needed Federer to be injured when Djokovic's own level got muggy

1. I don't have many words to describe Djokovic's level at Wimbledon in 2021 and 2022. It made 2019 look like 2011. Who would have benefitted from facing this absolutely muggy Djokovic, even with his own level vastly declined? The 2019 Wimbledon finalist. Who was injured in both 2021 and 2022? The 2019 Wimbledon finalist.

This is why I call him Luckovic

 

[mike danny]

We’re discussing Djokovic’s competition? Time for some content to come back (it is never truly gone)

Djokovic has benefitted from an amazing set of circumstances coming together to allow him to win 7 Wimbledons:

1 (a) He had the weakest competition in his prime and postprime of any grass court ATG ever. His prime was perfectly timed; it started when the 2 other ATGs’ grass primes were ending or already over, AND continued when no new ATGs on grass were coming up during his postprime. This has literally never happened to any other ATG on grass

1. Federer's prime competition: peak Nadal 2x, peak Roddick 2x, prime Nadal 1x, prime Roddick 2x
2. Nadal's prime competition: peak Federer 2x, peak Djokovic 1x, prime Federer 1x, preprime Murray 3x
3. Djokovic's prime competition: prime Nadal 1x, peak Murray 1x, and postprime Federer 3x
   
   
4. Federer's postprime competition: peak Djokovic 1x, prime Djokovic 2x, peak Murray 1x, prime Murray 1x, postprime Djokovic 1x, postprime Nadal 1x, mugs (Cilic, Raonic, Anderson)
5. Djokovic's postprime competition: (pre?)prime Alcaraz 1x, super old Federer 1x, postprime Nadal indoors (see later) 1x, mugs (Berrettini + Kyrgios)
6. Nadal's postprime competition: lol

1 (b) Djokovic needed to be born much later than Federer to (1) win more than 3 or 4 Wimbledons AND (2) stop Federer winning more than 10 Wimbledons

1. We know prime Djokovic would have been screwed vs prime Federer on grass because of how prime Djokovic could barely handle postprime Federer (lost to him in 2012, narrow win in 2014). Similarly 2019 shows us that Super Old Federer would have destroyed Super Old Djokovic on grass, given how he nearly beat postprime Djokovic.
   
   
2. 2003 Federer with 2011's competition, 2004 Federer with 2012's competition etc. could win 11 or 12 Wimbledons easily even if Djokovic was still around, because he is better than Djokovic on grass. It's a matchup issue like Nadal at RG.
   
   
3. Even if you swap 2011 Djokovic into 2003 (i.e. give him the weak era) and put 2003 Federer in 2011, Djokovic probably wins 2003, 2005, 2006 and debatably 07 before Fed arrives to start cleaning up. Again, that is 3 or maybe 4 Wimbledons, not the SEVEN we are looking at. Wow!

2. Djokovic avoided his grass daddy, Andy Murray, the last 6 times he won Wimbledon

1. You know how people used to say Murray does everything Djokovic does, but a bit worse? On grass it was the reverse. Murray never lost a set against Prime Djokovic on center court,beating him in 2012 at the Olympics and at 2013 in the Wimbledon final all in straight sets. Murray was becoming the grass version of Stan for Djokovic... but since 2013, they have never played at Wimbledon again. Djokovic's titles in 2014 and 15 and his resurgence on grass in 2018-present contained one bit of fortune we don't really talk about - no Murray

3. Djokovic needed some incredible luck with Moya-era Rafael Nadal

1. A freak Anderson-Isner match turned the first part of Nadal-Djokovic into an indoor match... then turned it into an indoor match AGAIN in broad sunlight and 30 degrees C the following day. Nadal is about 1000 times better outdoors than indoors, and given how close the match was (194 points to 190, identical winners and UEs, etc), Nadal fans will rightfully argue taking things outdoors would probably have swung things for their man. No comeback slam for Djokovic, the future looking very different, etc.
   
   
2. As clearly the only person (other than Federer) now able to beat Djokovic on grass, Nadal gets a 6-month injury in 2021, allowing Djokovic to win a Berrettini Open with an even easier draw than AO 22.
3. Then, with Djokovic's rally game looking the worst I've ever seen it, Nadal gets an ab tear that prevents him playing Djokovic in baking conditions on a worn-out, dirt-covered baseline in the 2022 final, allowing Djokovic to win Wimbledon beating - have we blotted it out yet? - Sinner, Norrie and Kyrgios.

4. Djokovic needed Federer to be injured when Djokovic's own level got muggy

1. I don't have many words to describe Djokovic's level at Wimbledon in 2021 and 2022. It made 2019 look like 2011. Who would have benefitted from facing this absolutely muggy Djokovic, even with his own level vastly declined? The 2019 Wimbledon finalist. Who was injured in both 2021 and 2022? The 2019 Wimbledon finalist.

Excellent post. Djokovic is good enough to be a 4 time Wimb champion, but the fact that he has 7 is just a product of the era he's been playing in.

Federer has beaten better opponents, has faced tougher competition and has had way more high level runs than Djokovic, including the ones he lost. By my estimate, it should be 12 runs for Fed (every run to the final) and 4 for Djokovic (2011, 2014, 2015, 2018).

 

[thrust]

Wind, slippery conditions… lots of excuses there for the BOAT/GOAT, no?

interesting that you say that no players at their best at 36 now but before, age was an excuse .

I said that players are not at their best past 35, CONSISTENTLY, which Novak proved in the final. From what I saw his serve and backhand was not at his present day best, due to Alcaraz and the windy and slippery court conditions. I never used age as an excuse for Novak's losing matches. Great players, even at their peak, lose every now and then.

 

[Kozzy]

The mayor of Shanksville would be obliterated by Alcaraz playing the way he did. The game has moved on from the mid 2000s, as it always does. Federer did well to evolve along with it for as long as he did.

Recency bias is a helluva drug. Keep smokin' it dude.

 

[FRV4]

Either option 2 or 3

 

[Start da Game]

yes he defeated peak djokovic who is basically targeting and upping his level at slams......but what really mattered till that wimbledon final is he owned all 128 players mentally......finally it turns out there was one player who reversed the mental situations and rose to the throne of wimbledon......mental ownage beats any peak......over the years we saw many red hot players like roddick, gonzalez, soderling etc. breezing into slam finals without even losing a set at times and lost all 3 very quickly in the final simply because they were playing their mental demon......

 

[SonnyT]

Nobody reaches his peak at 36, but Djokovic was in fine form. It's a continuing saga, to be resumed at USO.

Nobody would know when a player's prime is. So jl809 is just junk. At 33-34, Fed was close enough to his peak.

 

[SonnyT]

Excellent post. Djokovic is good enough to be a 4 time Wimb champion, but the fact that he has 7 is just a product of the era he's been playing in.

Federer has beaten better opponents, has faced tougher competition and has had way more high level runs than Djokovic, including the ones he lost. By my estimate, it should be 12 runs for Fed (every run to the final) and 4 for Djokovic (2011, 2014, 2015, 2018).

12 runs for Fed? '14-15 Fed was great, but was beaten by a better player. Yeah, he should've beaten Raonic, but that was his own fault. In '18, he just choked against Anderson.

 

[I Am Finnish]

@Lleytonstation would say the latter

 

[weakera]

Alcaraz > Djokovic > Federer > Nadal...is that what you are implying with this one match?

Why not say Medvedev, Thiem and Wawrinka are better than Djo since they beat him too

Thiem - Djokovic is vulnerable on clay
Medvedev - Pressure of CYGS
Wawrinka - Djokovic was injured

All Djokovic fan excuses, not mine

So you see, other than Nadal, Alcaraz is the first legitimate victory over Djokovic at a slam in many years

 

[Lleytonstation]

@Lleytonstation would say the latter

I didn't say he needed a latter to reach the trophy

 

[LuckyR]

Do folks here even know what an "era" is? Hint, it's not a year.

 

[I Am Finnish]

I didn't say he needed a latter to reach the trophy

You didn't ?

 

[NedStark]

The 1990s-born gen is definitely more flawed technically than the previous gens as well as the Alcaraz-Rune gen. At the same time, they play with lighter racquets than older gens, which doesn’t help them.

 

[ghostofMecir]

I said that players are not at their best past 35, CONSISTENTLY, which Novak proved in the final. From what I saw his serve and backhand was not at his present day best, due to Alcaraz and the windy and slippery court conditions. I never used age as an excuse for Novak's losing matches. Great players, even at their peak, lose every now and then.

Great players almost ALWAYS lose to younger ATGs at slams. That’s the point. This has been true since forever.

Since 1980, 30+ year olds are 7-37 when facing younger all-time greats (at least 3 years younger) in Slam QFs/SFs/Fs.

• Federer: 3W—10L
• Connors: 3W—15L
• Lendl: 1W—6L
• Agassi: 0W—3L
• McEnroe: 0W—3L
• Sampras: 0–0
• Nadal: 0-0
• Djokovic: 0-0

If you count Murray as an ATG, it’s 10 W, 38L.

• Federer: 6W—11L
• Connors: 3W—15L
• Lendl: 1W—6L
• Agassi: 0—3L
• McEnroe: 0W—3L
• Sampras: 0–0
• Nadal: 0-0
• Djokovic: 0-0

—Connors lost to McEnroe, 1980 Wimby SFs
—Connors lost to McEnroe, 1980 USO SFs
—Connors lost to Borg, 1981 USO SFs
—Connors lost to Borg, 1981 Wimby SFs
—Connors beat Lendl, 1982 USO F
—Connors beat Lendl,1983 USO F
—Connors lost to McEnroe, RG 1984 SFs
—Connors beat Lendl, 1984 Wimby SFs
—Connors lost to McEnroe. 1984 Wimby Fs
—Connors lost to McEnroe, 1984 USO SFs
—Connors lost to Edberg, 1985 RG QFs
—Connors Lost to Lendl, 1985 RG SFs
—Connors Lost to Lendl, 1985 USO SFs
—Connors Lost to Becker, 1987 RG QFs
—Connors Lost to Lendl, 1987 USO SFs
—Connors Lost to Agassi, 1988 USO QFs
—McEnroe Lost to Edberg, 1989 Wimby QF
—Connors Lost to Agassi, 1989 USO QFs
—Lendl Lost to Edberg, 1990 Wimby SFs
—Lendl Lost to Sampras, 1990 USO QFs
—McEnroe Lost to Sampras, 1990 USO SFs
—Lendl Beat Edberg, 1991 AO SFs
—Lendl Lost to Becker, 1991 AO Fs
—Connors Lost to Courier, 1991 USO SFs
—Lendl Lost to Edberg, 1991 USO SFs
—Lendl Lost to Edberg, 1992 AO QFs
—McEnroe Lost to Agassi, 1992 Wimby SFs
—Lendl Lost to Edberg, 1992 USO QFs
—Agassi Lost to Federer, 2004 USO QFs,
—Agassi Lost to Federer, 2005 AO QFs,
—Agassi Lost to Federer, 2005 USO F
—Federer Lost to Djokovic, 2011 USO
—Federer Lost to Nadal, 2012 AO
—Federer Beat Djokovic, 2012 Wimby SFs
—Federer Beat Murray, 2012 Wimby Fs (if you count Murray)
—Federer Lost to Murray, 2013 AO, SFs
—Federer Beat Murray, 2014 AO QFs (if you count Murray)
—Federer Lost to Nadal, 2014 AO SFs
—Federer Lost to Djokovic, 2014 Wimby Fs
—Federer Beat Murray, 2015 Wimby SFs (if you count Murray)
—Federer Lost to Djokovic. 2015 Wimby Fs
—Federer Lost to Djokovic, 2015 USO Fs
—Federer Lost to Djokovic, 2016 AO SFs
—Federer Beat Nadal, 2017 AO Fs
—Federer Lost to Nadal, 2019 RG SFs
—Federer Beat Nadal, 2019 Wimbledon SFs
—Federer lost to Djokovic, 2019 Wimbledon Fs
—Federer lost to Djokovic, 2020 AO SFs

 

[Spencer Gore]

Great players almost ALWAYS lose to younger ATGs at slams. That’s the point. This has been true since forever.

Since 1980, 30+ year olds are 7-37 when facing younger all-time greats (at least 3 years younger) in Slam QFs/SFs/Fs.

• Federer: 3W—10L
• Connors: 3W—15L
• Lendl: 1W—6L
• Agassi: 0W—3L
• McEnroe: 0W—3L
• Sampras: 0–0
• Nadal: 0-0
• Djokovic: 0-0

If you count Murray as an ATG, it’s 10 W, 38L.

• Federer: 6W—11L
• Connors: 3W—15L
• Lendl: 1W—6L
• Agassi: 0—3L
• McEnroe: 0W—3L
• Sampras: 0–0
• Nadal: 0-0
• Djokovic: 0-0

—Connors lost to McEnroe, 1980 Wimby SFs
—Connors lost to McEnroe, 1980 USO SFs
—Connors lost to Borg, 1981 USO SFs
—Connors lost to Borg, 1981 Wimby SFs
—Connors beat Lendl, 1982 USO F
—Connors beat Lendl,1983 USO F
—Connors lost to McEnroe, RG 1984 SFs
—Connors beat Lendl, 1984 Wimby SFs
—Connors lost to McEnroe. 1984 Wimby Fs
—Connors lost to McEnroe, 1984 USO SFs
—Connors lost to Edberg, 1985 RG QFs
—Connors Lost to Lendl, 1985 RG SFs
—Connors Lost to Lendl, 1985 USO SFs
—Connors Lost to Becker, 1987 RG QFs
—Connors Lost to Lendl, 1987 USO SFs
—Connors Lost to Agassi, 1988 USO QFs
—McEnroe Lost to Edberg, 1989 Wimby QF
—Connors Lost to Agassi, 1989 USO QFs
—Lendl Lost to Edberg, 1990 Wimby SFs
—Lendl Lost to Sampras, 1990 USO QFs
—McEnroe Lost to Sampras, 1990 USO SFs
—Lendl Beat Edberg, 1991 AO SFs
—Lendl Lost to Becker, 1991 AO Fs
—Connors Lost to Courier, 1991 USO SFs
—Lendl Lost to Edberg, 1991 USO SFs
—Lendl Lost to Edberg, 1992 AO QFs
—McEnroe Lost to Agassi, 1992 Wimby SFs
—Lendl Lost to Edberg, 1992 USO QFs
—Agassi Lost to Federer, 2004 USO QFs,
—Agassi Lost to Federer, 2005 AO QFs,
—Agassi Lost to Federer, 2005 USO F
—Federer Lost to Djokovic, 2011 USO
—Federer Lost to Nadal, 2012 AO
—Federer Beat Djokovic, 2012 Wimby SFs
—Federer Beat Murray, 2012 Wimby Fs (if you count Murray)
—Federer Lost to Murray, 2013 AO, SFs
—Federer Beat Murray, 2014 AO QFs (if you count Murray)
—Federer Lost to Nadal, 2014 AO SFs
—Federer Lost to Djokovic, 2014 Wimby Fs
—Federer Beat Murray, 2015 Wimby SFs (if you count Murray)
—Federer Lost to Djokovic. 2015 Wimby Fs
—Federer Lost to Djokovic, 2015 USO Fs
—Federer Lost to Djokovic, 2016 AO SFs
—Federer Beat Nadal, 2017 AO Fs
—Federer Lost to Nadal, 2019 RG SFs
—Federer Beat Nadal, 2019 Wimbledon SFs
—Federer lost to Djokovic, 2019 Wimbledon Fs
—Federer lost to Djokovic, 2020 AO SFs

Which of these match ups has a 16 year age gap?

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Dude Rafa 2007 and even Rafa 2006 are far better than anyone Djokovic has faced in last 3 Wimbledon triumph.

EXACTLY. Laughable for anyone to try and seriously say that any of the players Djoko faxed in these last 3 Wimbys is on the same level as 2006 and 2007 Nadal. They ALWAYS come up with the excuse "so and so wasn't playing their best" to try and pretend Rafa didn't learn how to play on other surfaces until 2008 (even though he had been winning M1000s on HC since 2005). They can never admit Rafa has always been an all surface player

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Definitely not the case as Rafa only became a real threat in other surfaces starting from Wimbledon 2008. Yes he gave Roger 5 set match in 2007 but that was more down to Fed playing well below his best as Rafa was already getting in his head.

The rest of the field was pretty weak. You just have to go back and look at ATP top 10 for those years to see that.

As Mike Danny said earlier in this thread, that first paragraph is complete BS

Did you actually watch tennis in the 2000s?? Because I damn sure did. I'd take Gonzalez, Hewitt, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Soderling, Ferrer, etc over this younger gen of players today...in a heartbeat. Particularly when it comes to mental strength, they are MILES ahead of almost every 20-something player today (minus Carlos and Meddy)

 

[mike danny]

As Mike Danny said earlier in this thread, that first paragraph is complete BS

Did you actually watch tennis in the 2000s?? Because I damn sure did. I'd take Gonzalez, Hewitt, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Soderling, Ferrer, etc over this younger gen of players today...in a heartbeat. Particularly when it comes to mental strength, they are MILES ahead of almost every 20-something player today (minus Carlos and Meddy)

Meddy is not in Carlos's category. AO 2022 does show what his mental strength really is made of.