Did Tennis Peak Between 2008-2009?

[jl809]

Federer 2009 was returning bad, thats why Roddick took it that far and Roddick himself is no genius at returning on any surface. Djokovic on the other hand is another level, he will beat both.

For me Djokovic from 2011 probably wouldn’t have beaten Fed from 2011 on grass, given that he barely beat him right afterwards on hard court in best of 5 and lost to him on clay just beforehand. They were so different over Bo5 to Bo3

Then 2009 Fed is ≈ similar to 2011 Fed at worst, but most people would say he’s even better, which makes it even more likely that he beats 2011 Djoker

 

[Tweener]

#57

 

[Clay lover]

I think now the trendier declaration of neutrality would be "As a Djokovic and Alcaraz fan"

 

[Razer]

For me Djokovic from 2011 probably wouldn’t have beaten Fed from 2011 on grass, given that he barely beat him right afterwards on hard court in best of 5 and lost to him on clay just beforehand. They were so different over Bo5 to Bo3

Then 2009 Fed is ≈ similar to 2011 Fed at worst, but most people would say he’s even better, which makes it even more likely that he beats 2011 Djoker

Why do you dwell in these hypotheticals so much? You overrate these guys from 2000s who emerged as losers today behind Novak. If their peak levels were so high then they would have clipped Novak's wings in 2011/2015 period itself, these guys were actually lucky he did not mature earlier and had gluten issues. The Federer Nadal peak level hype is nauseating to be honest, these guys just weren't good enough in the long run, their levels are overrated IMO.

 

[initialize]

We still pushing this narrative?

Roger Federer and the Mono Myth of 2008

Mononucleosis is a serious thing, or at least it can be. However, there is a big misconception among most people that having mono means a year-long fight filled with debilitating fatigue, fever, weight loss, etc...

bleacherreport.com

lmao.

Even the "author" admits he doesn't know: "I don't have any real hardcore proof. I don't have doctor's reports, nor anything else that can say definitively that Roger didn't have mono at that time of the year"

 

[jl809]

Why do you dwell in these hypotheticals so much? You overrate these guys from 2000s who emerged as losers today behind Novak. If their peak levels were so high then they would have clipped Novak's wings in 2011/2015 period itself, these guys were actually lucky he did not mature earlier and had gluten issues. The Federer Nadal peak level hype is nauseating to be honest, these guys just weren't good enough in the long run, their levels are overrated IMO.

Im only answering a hypothetical from your original post tbh. And sure, I agree about 09 Fed, I don’t think he was super special… but would he have been good enough to beat 11 Djoker on grass? Most probably, for the reasons I just mentioned. 11 Fed wasn’t peak and he nearly beat Djoker at the US Open.

And I disagree totally that we can say what Fed’s peak would be like vs Djoker because of some results from 2015. Would you say 2021-22 Djoker was peak Djoker just as good as he was in 2011? Djoker was 34 in 2021. Similarly Fed was 34 in 2015. He lost to some mug at the AO that year. Djoker beating that guy tells us nothing really.. Peak Fed was the dude who reached almost every slam final for 6 years

 

[Razer]

Im only answering a hypothetical from your original post tbh. And sure, I agree about 09 Fed, I don’t think he was super special… but would he have been good enough to beat 11 Djoker on grass? Most probably, for the reasons I just mentioned. 11 Fed wasn’t peak and he nearly beat Djoker at the US Open.

And I disagree totally that we can say what Fed’s peak would be like vs Djoker because of some results from 2015. Would you say 2021-22 Djoker was peak Djoker just as good as he was in 2011? Djoker was 34 in 2021. Similarly Fed was 34 in 2015. He lost to some mug at the AO that year. Djoker beating that guy tells us nothing really.. Peak Fed was the dude who reached almost every slam final for 6 years

Peak Fed reached every slam final because of the bad field. He never had to face Djoker or Nadal type candidates in SFs and even in finals his opponents were Roddick and Hewitt.

Peak and Primes are not relevant, Federer could not stop Djokovic and Nadal later on, so that is the only thing which matters.

Yes 2021-2022 Djokovic is not supposed to lose to people 5-6 years younger to him if he is that damn good. No excuse for failure.

Federer is no longer the goat ...Djokovic is...the game is over ....Superman is a loser....General Zod has won ....so time for you to bend the knee to the new ruler of earth

 

[Holmes]

2009 was one of the weakest years in the history of the game, surpassed only by 2006. Once Nadal was out it was essentially free reign for Fed at the slams, showing that the dynamics of the Tour had not really changed.

 

[T007]

Saying No must be djoker Fans for sure.

For then 2018-present is stronk era

 

[Gizo]

2009 was such an embarrassment of riches with high quality tennis at different stages of the year from Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Davydenko, Roddick, Soderling, Davydenko, Verdasco and Tsonga.

And there were so many other highlights for me, such as Ferrero and Hewitt winning titles on the same week in April (Ferrero's first title for 5 and a half years), Melzer winning the title at Vienna (the first time that tournament had been won by an Austrian player for 21 years), and Youzhny winning his home city tournament in Moscow. It started off nicely with Stepanek's 3 set wins over Soderling, Gasquet and Verdasco to win the Brisbane title with very high quality tennis. Monfils could be very frustrating of course, but there was some unreal tennis and insane shots from him at times that year as well.

I also fondly remember the Gonzalez-Gasquet match at the AO, the Murray-Wawrinka match at Wimbledon, and the Dent-Navarro match from the US Open that year.

In addition to superb strength and depth at the top, there were also plenty of lower ranked players who had no shot of coming close to winning a masters series title let alone a slam, that I found a lot of fun to watch.

I use Jarkko Nieminen (one of the nicest players that I've ever met and unsurprisingly one of the most well liked guys on tour when he was active) as a litmus test here. I found him to be quite dull to watch in comparison to many other players around in 2009 and during that era in general, but more interesting to watch than many players around nowadays.

 

[T007]

Peak Fed reached every slam final because of the bad field. He never had to face Djoker or Nadal type candidates in SFs and even in finals his opponents were Roddick and Hewitt.

Peak and Primes are not relevant, Federer could not stop Djokovic and Nadal later on, so that is the only thing which matters.

Yes 2021-2022 Djokovic is not supposed to lose to people 5-6 years younger to him if he is that damn good. No excuse for failure.

Federer is no longer the goat ...Djokovic is...the game is over ....Superman is a loser....General Zod has won ....so time for you to bend the knee to the new ruler of earth

Dude another are you another graduate from TTW troll factory.

Djokovic fans should stop arguing about bad field..as their own idol vulture 11 slams in ultra weak era.

Anderson
Berrettini
Kyrgios
Thiem
Medvedev
Tsitsipas
Zverev
Rublev
Norrie
Shapovalov

Are world beaters Of ultra weak mug era

 

[Razer]

Dude another are you another graduate from TTW troll factory.

Djokovic fans should stop arguing about bad field..as their own idol vulture 11 slams in ultra weak era.

Anderson
Berrettini
Kyrgios
Thiem
Medvedev
Tsitsipas
Zverev
Rublev
Norrie
Shapovalov

Are world beaters Of ultra weak mug era

Nobody cares about 2018+ field when we are discussing 2008-2009 vs 2011-2012

It is you who is trolling here with irrelevant names like anderson, rublev and what not

 

[tudwell]

Wow, 2009 Djokovic > 2023 Djokovic? Impressive.

 

[WeekendTennisHack]

2009 was insane, every tournament was memorable. Big 4 all young, the top 10 was very strong and they all had their moments. The entire top 10 was consistent or semi-consistent throughout the season. Lots os surprises and surprise winners, lots of upsets, lots of drama.

It was the equivalent of 1992, it won't be replicated for a very long time, if ever. Look at 2 examples from 2009:

2009 Miami:

2009 Canada:

That's interesting. So Roddick destroyed Djokovic in 2009 after Djokovic already was a slam winner. No wonder Djokovic couldn't win as much during his peak years and is only able to completely dominate now.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Peak Fed reached every slam final because of the bad field. He never had to face Djoker or Nadal type candidates in SFs and even in finals his opponents were Roddick and Hewitt.

Peak and Primes are not relevant, Federer could not stop Djokovic and Nadal later on, so that is the only thing which matters.

Yes 2021-2022 Djokovic is not supposed to lose to people 5-6 years younger to him if he is that damn good. No excuse for failure.

Federer is no longer the goat ...Djokovic is...the game is over ....Superman is a loser....General Zod has won ....so time for you to bend the knee to the new ruler of earth

PEAK Fed reached slam finals bc of a weak field but not 2023 36yo Novak? Oh dear…..

 

[Razer]

PEAK Fed reached slam finals bc of a weak field but not 2023 36yo Novak? Oh dear…..

Like I said, nobody cares about 36 yr old Novak or the losers whom he plays

2008-2009 vs 2011-2012 is the thread topic

2011-2016 Djokovic reached 19 finals + lost at SF 3 times to Federer, Federer & Nadal + lost at QF to Stanimal who defeated Nadal itself in the final, then of course he had some losses to Nadal and Murray as well in the finals.
2004-2010 Federer reached 21 finals but then he faced lot of weak garbage players in his peak to reach all those finals and even in the finals.... so who cares about 2018 onwards?

 

[REKX]

The point of the thread wasn't just about level. It was everything. Without doubt the level was high, but how high is subjective. But I meant peak in terms of other things as well, like the anticipation, the build up, suspense.

I don't think any other period in tennis history can live up to this. That is what I meant by tennis peaking, not just form.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

2007-13 was the strong era. What year you liked best probably depends on what players and styles you enjoy, there are multiple contenders for best year.

I’m partial to 2009 because of the diversity and the threats from the field - but it did have its downs too. Djokovic was a threat in the clay trilogy with Nadal but overall a step back from 2008. Nadal was a non factor for half the year with injuries. Federer made all 4 finals but was a little uneven in them.

2012 is arguable there too due to the way the big 4 split the slams, and battled each other for all 4 of them. Depth wasn’t as good and Fedal weren’t as good that year but Djokovic and Murray obviously much better.

Wimbledon 2008 is the biggest I can remember tennis being as a media spectacle in a long time though

 

[itrium84]

He was there. A grand slam winner already in an era where Federer and Nadal were setting the records.

He let the top 2 dogs fight it out, and once they were done fighting each other, he cleared up (and continues to do so).

Nah, just two ATGs giving their best, before GOAT awakening in 2011.
Greatest era in tennis is 2011-2012, peak GOAT, peak Nadal, prime Federer. You can't get better than that.

 

[Razer]

He was there. A grand slam winner already in an era where Federer and Nadal were setting the records.

He let the top 2 dogs fight it out, and once they were done fighting each other, he cleared up (and continues to do so).

He did not let anyone do anything, he broke Nadal's legs in 2009, Nadal has never been same since then if we ask Nadal fans. Credit to Djokovic for being so strong physically

 

[Fed_Nole]

This is why weeks at #1 can be so bogus lol. Nadal has so many weeks at #2 that are way higher point totals than #1's.

Nole finished #2 in 2013 and 2016, easily #1 in any other years.
2013 - W, Semi, F, F + 3 masters + WTF
2016 - W, W, 2R, F + 4 masters + WTF F
Any more stellar YE # 2 in Open era?

 

[FedeRadi]

I don't understand the hype on 2009:
Nadal had a great start of the year, but injuries clearly limited him since Madrid.
Djokovic had his worst season in ten years(2007-16).
Murray hadn't a great season too. (Worst season in slam in 2008-16)
Even Federer was good but it's not one of his best seasons. He had his troubles winning RG against Del Potro and even Haas, was close to lose from Roddick at Wimbledon(And Roddick had better years too) and lose the USO from Delpo. With 26 wins in GS tournament the only one against an ATG was against a sub-par Djokovic at USO(And lost against a non-ATG at USO, his only loss against a non-ATG in slam beetwen AO05-RG10).
Del Potro had his best year before injuries derailed his career, but he wasn't a difference maker on the whole year.
Soderling was even better in 2010, Davydenko a non-factor in GS, Roddick, as already said, had better years.

2008 was indeed one of the best OE years. I think 2011-12 was the peak of the OE but 2008 is in the same league, 2009 isn't.

 

[Kralingen]

I don't understand the hype on 2009:
Nadal had a great start of the year, but injuries clearly limited him since Madrid.
Djokovic had his worst season in ten years(2007-16).
Murray hadn't a great season too. (Worst season in slam in 2008-16)
Even Federer was good but it's not one of his best seasons. He had his troubles winning RG against Del Potro and even Haas, was close to lose from Roddick at Wimbledon(And Roddick had better years too) and lose the USO from Delpo. With 26 wins in GS tournament the only one against an ATG was against a sub-par Djokovic at USO(And lost against a non-ATG at USO, his only loss against a non-ATG in slam beetwen AO05-RG10).
Del Potro had his best year before injuries derailed his career, but he wasn't a difference maker on the whole year.
Soderling was even better in 2010, Davydenko a non-factor in GS, Roddick, as already said, had better years.

2008 was indeed one of the best OE years. I think 2011-12 was the peak of the OE but 2008 is in the same league, 2009 isn't.

Good point.

If Fed hadn’t underachieved so disgustingly at AO WB and USO it would look a lot like a weak era year like 2006. An AO final where he crushes a tired Nadal in straights, a Wimby final where he humiliated Roddick once again, and then a 20-year old DelPo in his first Slam final doesn’t look very strong.

Fed’s underperformance alone is what drastically changed the complexion of the year in the way we memorialize it.

 

[WeekendTennisHack]

Peak was probably 2007. But for all similar levels it was 2012.

 

[Third Serve]

Good point.

If Fed hadn’t underachieved so disgustingly at AO WB and USO it would look a lot like a weak era year like 2006. An AO final where he crushes a tired Nadal in straights, a Wimby final where he humiliated Roddick once again, and then a 20-year old DelPo in his first Slam final doesn’t look very strong.

Fed’s underperformance alone is what drastically changed the complexion of the year in the way we memorialize it.

Why do we need to add the 20-year-old qualifier for Delpo? That was inarguably his best performance at at Slam.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Why do we need to add the 20-year-old qualifier for Delpo? That was inarguably his best performance at at Slam.

Age seems to be very important here..

 

[Kralingen]

Why do we need to add the 20-year-old qualifier for Delpo? That was inarguably his best performance at at Slam.

If Fed takes those break points in the 2nd set or doesn’t mug up the TB then it’s a cruising straight sets victory. Then the narrative changes to make Del Potro another Baghdatis or Gonzalez, looked great until he ran into Fed, then the inexperienced kid fell apart.

And then if he can actually land a first serve vs. Nadal in the final, it goes from being peak Nadal to being “baby Rafa who was exhausted from Verdasco match” who was coincidentally also in his first HC slam final.

See how the narrative wildly changes, if Federer just plays better?

 

[Third Serve]

Age seems to be very important here..

Age is very often correlated with form but Delpo is a special case because of his injuries. If he hadn’t had the injuries he was cursed with, he might well have hit his peak in 2011-2013. After 2010, his backhand and movement were never really the same.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

I mean it was better in some years prior but since 2005 at least, 2009 was probably the peakiest year in the ATP in terms of everyone playing well and lots of guys at a high level

 

[Milanez82]

Nah 10-11-12 span had it all, we had Fed open it with AO win then Rafa dominate rest of 2010, then Djoko takes 2011 with that crazy level, hits The shot vs Fed, 2012 AO has those epic sf and f matches, then Rafa stops Djoko on his quest for 4 slams in a row at RG, then Fed plays a vintage Wimbledon and reclaims no1 and it all finishes with Djokovic snatching back no1 at the end of the season. (plus we get Murray getting on board with his 1st slam)

 

[Razer]

Fed’s underperformance alone is what drastically changed the complexion of the year in the way we memorialize it.

Here "we" means Federer fans, right?

I have not seen anyone else glorify 2009.

Even 2008 is overrated outside of those slam encounters.

11-12 is the true peak, half of the crowd are silent on it because Novak dominated Fedal and the cannot believe how that is possible

 

[Robert C]

The difference is staggering.

Yes but when you look back on it in 10 years time, it will be far less so as you’ll have seen all the accomplishments gained in that time. It always looks like this for the current time when there are lots of youngsters, though do agree that tennis was never stronger than that period starting 2009.

 

[Robert C]

2008 -- no because of mono Fed

2009 -- yes: peak Fed, Nole, Nadal, Murray and Del Potro. You could clearly see Fed's peak is higher than the rest, but it was still a very competitive year of tennis overall and very exciting

Nadal was brilliant the first half of the year and dire in the second half.

 

[Milanez82]

Nadal was brilliant the first half of the year and dire in the second half.

Djokovic was rather poor too, getting to only 1 semi in 2009 at USO

 

[Robert C]

Djokovic was rather poor too, getting to only 1 semi in 2009 at USO

Yeah it should be described as a mixed year for the big 3 and a great year for lower in the top 10.

 

[mike danny]

Yes but when you look back on it in 10 years time, it will be far less so as you’ll have seen all the accomplishments gained in that time. It always looks like this for the current time when there are lots of youngsters, though do agree that tennis was never stronger than that period starting 2009.

Yes, but I'm also looking at the number of points acquired. Much less points are needed overall in 2023 compared to 2009.

 

[mike danny]

We still pushing this narrative?

Roger Federer and the Mono Myth of 2008

Mononucleosis is a serious thing, or at least it can be. However, there is a big misconception among most people that having mono means a year-long fight filled with debilitating fatigue, fever, weight loss, etc...

bleacherreport.com

I guess he played through a 10-8 5th set against Tipsarevic for sh*ts and giggles.

 

[mike danny]

I think it has to be 08-12 as a whole, in their totality they were wild.

There were lots of twists and turns:

08 - Fed’s insane dominance ends as first Djokovic and then Nadal take what had been “his” slams up until then, and Nadal grabs World No 1. The way Nadal beat Fed like a drum at RG had people questioning whether Fed would ever win RG in his career

09 - As Nadal reduces Fed to tears by taking the one surface left to him in their slam rivalry, he seemed set to dominate, and Fed looked in real trouble in the spring… then boom, Ned gets injured and before we know it, Fed has 14… at RG! And he’s knocking on the door of 15. Even that had a twist though with that crazy Roddick match. Just as we think Fed is going to do 6 USOs, up pops JMDP, another future ATG, or so it seems…

10 - now it’s Fed who looks set to dominate again as he takes the AO for his 4th slam in the last 5, while Nadal retires vs Murray injured, and JMDP starts to feel the injuries. People are writing a moratorium on Nadal with his injuries stacking up but lo and behold, he rebounds like a MF sweeping clay and RG, and now it’s Fed struggling with injury and not even making it to slam finals anymore. Nadal sweeps 3 slams in 3 surfaces in 3 months, and his own era is set to begin, except…

11 - peak Djokovic just appears. Straightaway. He’s ruining everyone, even Nadal on clay, and is set to win RG… but there’s Fed with the best match of his life on clay outta nowhere??? Damn. But Djoker rebounds to become a multi-surface slam winner. Fed doesn’t even make the SFs of Wimbledon this time as the strong era bites back… is he done on grass? Djoker finishes 10-1 vs Fedal. Has he figured Nadal out? And hang on, is Fed back in prime form as he dominates tournament after tournament to end the year?

12 - all hell breaks loose. This is the peak of tennis.

Nadal beats Fed, who hasn’t lost in ages, at the AO; people think Fed won’t win a slam ever again. Then Ned launches his counterattack on Djoker. First he almost beats him at the AO. But Djoker is a machine, RLA is his court. Then Ned roars back on clay to dominate the entire swing beating Djoker 3x. Wimbledon looks like it’s between the Big 3, probably Djokodal, but there’s ANOTHER twist - Nadal is not only out, he’s out for the year. Djoker suffers his 2nd defeat to Fed in their last 4 slam meetings and suddenly, Fed’s won his 1st slam in 2.5 years and is looking at World Number 1?! Where did that come from? He has a chance to win the Olympics on the same court but THIS IS REAL, MURRAY HAS JUST THRASHED FEDERER 3-0 ON CENTRE COURT. It’s Andy’s world. Fed and Djoker are in a battle for world Number 1 going into the US Open where they’ve played 5 years in a row, but the strong era is here and Fed is out before the SFs AGAIN and suddenly, Murray is beating Djokovic in a slam final. It’s a proper Big 4 now. Year ends with a classic Fedovic tussle down to the last point.

2010 shouldn't feature in there, IMO. It was definitely a weak year that just so happened to be in between strong ones.

 

[StrongRule]

2010 shouldn't feature in there, IMO. It was definitely a weak year that just so happened to be in between strong ones.

At least in 2010 it didn't feel like any of the slams (or WTF) were vultured due to weak competition. They were won with a very high level, and the winner would be able to deal with much stronger competition. It is by no means comparable to what we see in the last few years.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal was brilliant the first half of the year and dire in the second half.

Same thing for 2012 really, yet it still remains praised.

 

[mike danny]

At least in 2010 it didn't feel like any of the slams (or WTF) were vultured due to weak competition. They were won with a very high level, and the winner would be able to deal with much stronger competition. It is by no means comparable to what we see in the last few years.

Obviously it was much better than the CIE.

 

[mike danny]

Nah 10-11-12 span had it all, we had Fed open it with AO win then Rafa dominate rest of 2010, then Djoko takes 2011 with that crazy level, hits The shot vs Fed, 2012 AO has those epic sf and f matches, then Rafa stops Djoko on his quest for 4 slams in a row at RG, then Fed plays a vintage Wimbledon and reclaims no1 and it all finishes with Djokovic snatching back no1 at the end of the season. (plus we get Murray getting on board with his 1st slam)

10 doesn't qualify, sorry.

 

[mike danny]

Good point.

If Fed hadn’t underachieved so disgustingly at AO WB and USO it would look a lot like a weak era year like 2006. An AO final where he crushes a tired Nadal in straights, a Wimby final where he humiliated Roddick once again, and then a 20-year old DelPo in his first Slam final doesn’t look very strong.

Fed’s underperformance alone is what drastically changed the complexion of the year in the way we memorialize it.

We can say the same thing about Djokovic in 2012 really.

 

[GabeT]

When people talk of weak or strong eras, is the focus purely on how the Big 3 see it? Because for the rest of the field this has all been a huge incredibly strong era where almost no one else can win anything

 

[StrongRule]

When people talk of weak or strong eras, is the focus purely on how the Big 3 see it? Because for the rest of the field this has all been a huge incredibly strong era where almost no one else can win anything

In the current tour they don't win not because it's a strong era, but because they are just very bad. Young players are not physically good enough to play BO5.

 

[NatF]

I don't know whether it peaked but it was certainly better than anything we've had for nearly a decade.

 

[Robert C]

Same thing for 2012 really, yet it still remains praised.

I don’t see why it can’t be praised. It just needs realism, I don’t see why 2009 for Nadal should be called either amazing or a disaster, and it wasn’t average either - it was simply a tale of two different halves.

 

[Robert C]

In the current tour they don't win not because it's a strong era, but because they are just very bad. Young players are not physically good enough to play BO5.

This won’t look very clever as some of them become legends.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Like I said, nobody cares about 36 yr old Novak or the losers whom he plays

2008-2009 vs 2011-2012 is the thread topic

2011-2016 Djokovic reached 19 finals + lost at SF 3 times to Federer, Federer & Nadal + lost at QF to Stanimal who defeated Nadal itself in the final, then of course he had some losses to Nadal and Murray as well in the finals.
2004-2010 Federer reached 21 finals but then he faced lot of weak garbage players in his peak to reach all those finals and even in the finals.... so who cares about 2018 onwards?

Where’s the lie?

 

[Robert C]

Yes, but I'm also looking at the number of points acquired. Much less points are needed overall in 2023 compared to 2009.

Yeah sure. The top 5 situation is a clear difference, but I also think that was the best top 5 in history.

Careers make people look better, there was a time when anyone seeing Wawrinka in the top 10 would say it was proof of how weak the tour was. Then he raises his level and now he is looked back on as fairly brilliant.

Views of Alcaraz, Rune and Sinner are going to change markedly. And of course of others like Zverev and Medvedev who have more to accomplish.