Did Tennis Peak Between 2008-2009?

[Aussie Darcy]

Where’s the lie?

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?

Completely accurate. Nobody is watching right now. I'm over in the Wimbledon match threads and it's dead. Day 4 of a slam and nobody cares. Some amazing matches on play but the tennis fans just aren't there. Men's tennis is dying, and it seems to be happening quickly.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Completely accurate. Nobody is watching right now. I'm over in the Wimbledon match threads and it's dead. Day 4 of a slam and nobody cares. Some amazing matches on play but the tennis fans just aren't there. Men's tennis is dying, and it seems to be happening quickly.

Im currently watching a ranking of DragonBall Z fights on youtube

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Im currently watching a ranking of DragonBall Z fights on youtube

I'm watching Wawrinka v Etchverry but I think you know why

 

[MichaelNadal]

I'm watching Wawrinka v Etchverry but I think you know why

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

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?

And we're talking marginally better. In some cases, single shots different by inches better. Not only would the narrative change - undoubtedly remaining anti-Fed as you suggest - but the stats would obviously change, too. A butterfly in 1999 could so much as fart and Fed is the slam leader. Yet these margins, whilst utterly integral to every standard, nuance, story and indeed potentially borne of the elements of why we even watch a sport in the first place, are simply used as stepping stones to board and fuel the bandwagons of binary thought. And it's apparently never about the level in any persistent sense, but about the opportunities presented by relative level and whether or not they are seen through. Hence we have the absurd situation where Fed is getting more flak for just losing W19 than Djo ever does for getting rolled over at W13.

 

[MichaelNadal]

And we're talking marginally better. In some cases, single shots different by inches better. Not only would the narrative change - undoubtedly remaining anti-Fed as you suggest - but the stats would obviously change, too. A butterfly in 1999 could so much as fart and Fed is the slam leader. Yet these margins, whilst utterly integral to every standard, nuance, story and indeed potentially borne of the elements of why we even watch a sport in the first place, are simply used as stepping stones to board and fuel the bandwagons of binary thought. And it's apparently never about the level in any persistent sense, but about the opportunities presented by relative level and whether or not they are seen through. Hence we have the absurd situation where Fed is getting more flak for just losing W19 than Djo ever does for getting rolled over at W13.

Exactly

 

[Kralingen]

And we're talking marginally better. In some cases, single shots different by inches better. Not only would the narrative change - undoubtedly remaining anti-Fed as you suggest - but the stats would obviously change, too. A butterfly in 1999 could so much as fart and Fed is the slam leader. Yet these margins, whilst utterly integral to every standard, nuance, story and indeed potentially borne of the elements of why we even watch a sport in the first place, are simply used as stepping stones to board and fuel the bandwagons of binary thought. And it's apparently never about the level in any persistent sense, but about the opportunities presented by relative level and whether or not they are seen through. Hence we have the absurd situation where Fed is getting more flak for just losing W19 than Djo ever does for getting rolled over at W13.

Now we’re getting somewhere.

It’s never been about actual playing level. For some (most) they didn’t even watch the matches. It’s about narrative.

 

[Razer]

Completely accurate. Nobody is watching right now. I'm over in the Wimbledon match threads and it's dead. Day 4 of a slam and nobody cares. Some amazing matches on play but the tennis fans just aren't there. Men's tennis is dying, and it seems to be happening quickly.

Where’s the lie?

Well Djokovic winning is good, people do care, the haters want to see him fail and they want alcaraz and other fellows to mature, the fans want Novak to keep on winning, so people do care (for now), not sure what will happen after he goes down, then Tennis might face an identity crisis.

That having said, the thread is about 08-09, so the answer is no 2011-2012 was the strongest phase, donno why we are diverting from that.

 

[mike danny]

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.

I agree with you. But I'd say that up until the second half he was playing great.

And I can't think of a better year than 2009 after 2008, 2011 and 2012. I'd still consider it strong even if below these other 3.

 

[mike danny]

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

The ship has already sailed for the Next Gen. The 2000's gens still have a chance though.

But even after Carlos becomes a legend, it won't retroactively make his RG performance better.

 

[mike danny]

Now we’re getting somewhere.

It’s never been about actual playing level. For some (most) they didn’t even watch the matches. It’s about narrative.

I mean, yes, you have a point that Fed's 2009 level fluctuated, but I'd still say that overall he played at a high level given that he reached all 4 slam finals, won 2 and narrowly lost the other 2 in 5 sets. From an objective standpoint, that's a high level, even if not his peak.

And we also watched him play.

 

[metsman]

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.

Hmm so players underperforming can make their opponents and eras look stronger...an interesting concept to be sure...

 

[Kralingen]

Hmm so players underperforming can make their opponents and eras look stronger...an interesting concept to be sure...

And the transitive property of this is how players’ extremely high level and dominance can make opponents and eras look weak.

 

[bro]

Peaked in 2008-2009?! No way. Tennys only started being pro in 2011.

 

[mike danny]

And the transitive property of this is how players’ extremely high level and dominance can make opponents and eras look weak.

I mean, sure, but then, if we go in more depth, how do we know 2015 AO/USO/FO Djokovic played at a higher level than 2009 AO/USO/FO Fed? I don't think it's an easy assessment to make.

Wimb could go to 2015ovic, but then there's the Anderson match. Is going 5 against prime Roddick worse than going 5 against Anderson?

 

[Kralingen]

I mean, sure, but then, if we go in more depth, how do we know 2015 AO/USO/FO Djokovic played at a higher level than 2009 AO/USO/FO Fed? I don't think it's an easy assessment to make.

Wimb could go to 2015ovic, but then there's the Anderson match. Is going 5 against prime Roddick worse than going 5 against Anderson?

I don’t think 2015 Djok did play at a higher level tbh.

 

[TheNachoMan]

I don’t think 2015 Djok did play at a higher level tbh.

Early 2016 Djokovic is the highest level Djokovic ever played imo.

 

[StrongRule]

Early 2016 Djokovic is the highest level Djokovic ever played imo.

 

[RS]

Why do you take everything so serious lol

 

[StrongRule]

Why do you take everything so serious lol

Serious? This guy is very funny.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Watch in awe, bud.

 

[StrongRule]

Watch in awe, bud.

He played much better in 2011, against stronger opponents.

 

[RS]

Serious? This guy is very funny.

You maybe responded because you hated the take though even though it had a clear imo there

 

[Mivic]

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?

The question remains: which narrative is more closely aligned with the truth?

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Kendrick Perkins narrative continues to take a hell of a beating.

 

[ChaelAZ]

07-12, though the era GOATs Fed and Nadal held things to a good standard until, like, 2018.

 

[mike danny]

Early 2016 Djokovic is the highest level Djokovic ever played imo.

That's still 2011 Djokovic to me.

 

[MichaelNadal]

That's still 2011 Djokovic to me.

But DOHA!!!!!!!! lol

 

[TheNachoMan]

But DOHA!!!!!!!! lol

RAFA himself said it was the best performance he’s ever seen.

 

[MichaelNadal]

RAFA himself said it was the best performance he’s ever seen.

Nadal was ASS in 15 and 16.

 

[GabeT]

Completely accurate. Nobody is watching right now. I'm over in the Wimbledon match threads and it's dead. Day 4 of a slam and nobody cares. Some amazing matches on play but the tennis fans just aren't there. Men's tennis is dying, and it seems to be happening quickly.

Posters here are more interested in trolling and endlessly debating GOATs and weak eras than in watching actual tennis. I wouldn’t take TTW to be an indicator of tennis health. More important is that all these tourneys continue to grow and be sold out. That’s the only real indicator.

 

[Robert C]

I agree with you. But I'd say that up until the second half he was playing great.

And I can't think of a better year than 2009 after 2008, 2011 and 2012. I'd still consider it strong even if below these other 3.

Yeah Nadal was fantastic the first half, and partly he was so good that it made him seem so much worse in the second half. But there were some reasons for that. Everyone has some low points in their career.

 

[Robert C]

That's still 2011 Djokovic to me.

If you ignore the serve I agree. But should you? It’s a big part of the game and he really improved it.

 

[Robert C]

The ship has already sailed for the Next Gen. The 2000's gens still have a chance though.

But even after Carlos becomes a legend, it won't retroactively make his RG performance better.

His performance was incredible, no one else in the world could come close to matching Djokovic like he did. That’s an obvious fact.

The disappointment of the cramps is a one-off that he didn’t know was going to happen and will likely never again happen in his career. The level in the match was phenomenal and it was so disappointing that we never got to see how it played out.

 

[mike danny]

His performance was incredible, no one else in the world could come close to matching Djokovic like he did. That’s an obvious fact.

The disappointment of the cramps is a one-off that he didn’t know was going to happen and will likely never again happen in his career. The level in the match was phenomenal and it was so disappointing that we never got to see how it played out.

I've seen many players push Djokovic for a couple of sets. Carlos's effort wasn't that impressive.

 

[bostontennis]

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.

that's the time that djokovic conquered the tennis.

 

[Robert C]

I've seen many players push Djokovic for a couple of sets. Carlos's effort wasn't that impressive.

You’ve not seen them push Djokovic while he was playing at that level. What we saw was absolutely incredible from both men. Would have been by far the best match of the year if not for the cramp.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

That poll should have been made public to expose the clowns.

 

[President]

Early 2016 Djokovic is the highest level Djokovic ever played imo.

Djokovic's competition was so much tougher in 2011 than 2016 that it is very difficult to compare. I am personally much more impressed by 2011, given what he did against a peak/near peak Nadal and a Federer and Murray playing at a very high level. 2016 was a much weaker field.

 

[Thetouch]

Some people confuse the peak of the Fedal rivalry in 2008/09 with the peak of tennis. Tennis got much better and more intense afterwards when Djokovic and Murray also matured up while Nadal and Federer kept their level or improved too. Nobody was really challenging Fedal 2006-09 and those who did ocassionally couldn't follow up.

 

[SonnyT]

It's absurd to say tennis peaked in '08-09. How many slams did Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka have? They were too young!