Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Lew, May 15, 2018.
Hell yeah we did because Gen x is goat
I am Federer's age. He, Nadal and Djokovic can thank me for deciding not to pursue tennis as a career or none of them would have ever won a slam
In 1959-1971 these ATGs were born: McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Sampras.
Highest Grand Slam winning percentage in the Open Era.
In bold players born in 1959-71
In capital italics players born in 1972-84
Underlined players born in 1985-90
29) Del Potro
Winning % isn’t the be all and end all and doesn’t tell us how certain players played on the day.
Your ATG Murray with his high win % for examples had quite a few stinkers vs both Federer and Djokovic in slam finals...
Also Federer had to face 2 peak/prime ATG 5 years younger from age 26-34. These things even out.
Not to mention 04 Roddick at Wimbledon, 04 Agassi at USO for example are no worse than 2011 Nadal at USO or 2013 Djokovic at USO in level those tournaments. Form matters too not just name.
Well, Sampras was neither peak nor prime at that time.
Besides, 1999-2001 Agassi (he won half of his Slams during those years) was quite different from 2003-2005 Agassi.
Look at the winning percentage of the big4 in finals or semifinals (rounds that express top form) against other players. It's something like 90% or even more.
Consistency and peak go together. The skills to be consistent and to have a high peak are the same.
He wasn't that different on HC IMO, he was still able to play prime'ish tennis here and there. His grass and clay game were gone though.
They are? How did you work that one out? They're fundamentally different, consistency is more average level over a period of time - peak is how well you play when everything is clicking.
Murray has 28 wins and 2 losses in finals since 2008 against non-big3. If everyone can have a high peak, and Murray's peak is nothing special, I wonder why these players lost nearly every single final.
Finals against non-big4:
murray 31-5 (86.1%)
nadal 52-9 (85.2%)
djokovic 31-6 (83.8%)
federer 76-21 (78.4%)
As i have said earlier, if you think Fed got It easy, then you are indirectly saying he would do worse In another period. And i really dont see what could make him win less.
Born 5 years earlier? Come on, he would be peaking from 1998, and still have 2004-2007. 5 years later? He would still be In his early thirties, with Murray injured, Djoker playing like crap, and Rafa at the end of his career.
Thing is, Fed didnt have It easy, he was facing the rest of peak Big4 from his late twenties.
Don't care about time travel tennis. I analize what happened in reality, and in my opinion reality is that he won mostly in a weak era.
Well then what you are doing is pretty meaningless. You say Fed had it easy, but he would have It easy no matter which era be played? . Which players didnt have "easy years?" Rafa 2008, 2010, 2013? Djoker 2013-2016?
According to most polls, the strongest years are 2009,2011,2012, and even in those years Roger won 3 slams.
This doesnt disprove what I say.Djokovic main competition was 6 year old player than him. Meanwhile for most of the time Federer competition have been younger players.Djokovic in 2015 played 4 GS finals,3 of them was with older players than him.
According to your logic, Krajicek must have won 10 Wimbledons.
Murray has 33 wins and 4 losses in finals and semifinals of slams/YEC/masters/olympics against non big-3
Hee didn't even feats on them that much. In arguably the best season of his career, in 2015, he didn't have to face a single player 25 or younger in a GS semi or final.
What completely shuts the door on this discussion is that after the AO 2009 final, when Nadal was deemed as a complete player on all surfaces, Federer has still won more non-clay slams than Nadal, 6 to 4 and after 2009 AO, when Fed's prime was approaching its end, he has won as many non-clay slams as Rafa in his entire career. Basically after age 27, Fed has won as many non-clay slams as Rafa in his entire career, despite Rafa becoming a complete player on all surfaces, who also had the age advantage to win more, yet didn't.
Indeed Murray is very good at beating the players he's supposed to beat.
In slam matches when the best aim to peak Murray is 5-20, losing 9 of them in straight sets. Beating Berdych or Ferrer isn't indicative of a high peak level IMO.
Does it really perplex you? The reason is obvious. Federer still ended up with 3 slams that year despite good efforts from Nadal and Djokovic. If he had lost 1 or both of the slam finals that he won vs Nadal and Djokovic in 2007, the strong era would have commenced then. Conversely, the weak era would have extended until 2010 if Fed had won the Wimb 2008 and AO 2009 finals.
Wait, you're telling me that Federer has had a better H2H against Nadal since 2009 than before?
Weak era myth busted.
Novak has never played a slam final against a younger opponent if one wants to consider Murray older due to being a week older than him. He's had a younger opponent in 6 master finals out of all his GS/YEC/Master finals.
Djokovic and Nadal are in their 30's and they have yet to face a young player in a slam final
Nadal is always erased from discussions involving Fed's era. It's nothing new. Instead, Baghdatis is always mentioned.
If Hewitt and Roddick are jokes compared to Murray, then Djokovic is also a joke compared to Federer.
He didn't even try to cover it by saying things like "Delete" or "Double".
All 4 were with players older than him Murray is a week older than Novak.
So? A player's peak is in his late20s/early30s.
Djokovic doesn't even play slam finals anymore, and Nadal reached only 3 semifinals in the last 15 slams. If there's a weak era again, Federer is the one who's taking advantage.
Yeah i forgot about that.If Djokovic lets say returns to decent form for the HC season one of his main rivals there will be 37 year old Federer - so lucky.
Results are influenced by many factors.
There was no technological advantage between Sampras/Agassi and say, Becker, who also grew up with graphite.
The only turning points in tennis history were 1984-1985 and 2000-2002 regarding technology.
I won't list you all the possible factors which can influence results, I don't even think I know or remember them all.
Factors like generally players being closer to their peak in their mid 20's than early 30's?
Should start a new thread:
"How much did Federer born in 1981 help Nadal and Djokovic?"
Separate names with a comma.