Did the career inflation era start with Wimbledon 2016 or Australian Open 2017?

I think there is some inflation and some these guys just being superior vs any generation.

For Federer the inflation seems lowest only because he was already aged 35.


I don't understand why Nadal and Djokovic should suffer the tag of inflation. Especially Djokovic who is playing as good as ever.
 
Let's see the same pre 2016 as well.

Was big 3 era the only inflation we saw? What was the 2000 2001 and 2003 AO for Agassi ? This is the guy who showed more hardware post 28 in an era without medical advances to such degree.
 
When did it start? I’m not entirely sure.

I recall Djokovic having 12 slams in the latter part of the past decade, and then realizing he had doubled that tally by the end of 2023.

I believe the so-called inflation era should be understood as spanning between those two points.
 
Let's talk about slam inflation! Starting in '04-07 at AO, WB and US, there were only 2 slam winners who would win more slams during those years: Safin & Federer. Federer would win 11 more slams, and Safin one.
 
SonnyT said:
Let's talk about slam inflation! Starting in '04-07 at AO, WB and US, there were only 2 slam winners who would win more slams during those years: Safin & Federer. Federer would win 11 more slams, and Safin one.
Click to expand...

Federer effectively prevented Safin from becoming an all-time great and reaching double digits in slams.

Here’s how it played out: Safin feared Federer so much that he often folded before even facing him. The only truly significant match Safin managed to win was that Australian Open semifinal—pulled off less to chase the title than simply to make a statement.
 
Murray was the first beneficiary of the inflation era when half the top 10 fell off a cliff in the middle of 2016 and he cleaned up.
 
Most people say since mid 2016. Some people go back as far as 2014 and others say it started after first COVID saga.
 
NatF said:
Murray was the first beneficiary of the inflation era when half the top 10 fell off a cliff in the middle of 2016 and he cleaned up.
Click to expand...

Thats right, it should have been a young guy to dethrone Djoko as it has always been in tennis, instead it was Murray collecting the pieces after all of the big 3 fell off the rails, then fedal bounced back, then djoko himself started his 6 years long loot of titles...90s gen were nowhere to be seen.

To answer @Hitman ... post the downfall of Novak in 2016 till the rise of Sinner at the end of 2023 (davis cup) is the inflation era...

gamelovergold said:
Novak absence in 2017 started CIE.
Click to expand...

Nope, murray rising to 1 was the start. A guy who never became 1 in Fed's and Novak's primes had no business collecting the scraps in their absence, a youngster should have been the one to become 1.
 
Imo it happened gradually as it was becoming more and more evident that top 90s players were missing. Dimitrov, Nishikori, Raonic, Goffin, they all failed to break through. Then it continued with the mid/late 90s guys.

Its also wrong to say Big4 were the only beneficiaries, Sincaraz might end up the biggest winners of the weak 90s gen.
 
RS said:
Most people say since mid 2016. Some people go back as far as 2014 and others say it started after first COVID saga.
Click to expand...
Id say you saw the signs earlier. Players usually break through at 20-24y. So when Nishikori, Dimitrov, Raonic etc reached that age and never managed to break through, it became more and more evident the younger players couldnt challenge the old guard.
 
Jonas78 said:
Imo it happened gradually as it was becoming more and more evident that top 90s players were missing. Dimitrov, Nishikori, Raonic, Goffin, they all failed to break through. Then it continued with the mid/late 90s guys.

Its also wrong to say Big4 were the only beneficiaries, Sincaraz might end up the biggest winners of the weak 90s gen.
Click to expand...

We cannot say Sincraz are benefiting

01. They have each other to block them if needed and they are of the same age
02. They have old man Novak to test them, they are beating him, so at some level they are proving their mettle.
03. They are swatting the 1990s gen who are still in their 20s, this is a proof to Sinnceaz being better than them.
04. Last but not the least, they will face younger set of players in some years, that time it will be a bigger test for them.

So Sinncraz are not like 90s gen, they are generational talents with ability to get better and better with time. If they win 20+ slams then it will be because they are great, not because of any 90s gen.
 
RelentlessAttack said:
Wimbledon 2016. No peak/prime ATGs
Click to expand...

Third Serve said:
Wimbledon, right when Djokovic left his prime. Now, none of the Big 3 were in their primes, and this has continued to today without a player of even remotely similar ability to replace them.
Click to expand...

It’s either Wimbledon 16 or USO 16.

I get the comments above but ultimately Murray at Wimbledon 16 was at his peak all round game and clearly playing prime (not necessarily peak) Djokodal level tennis on grass. He brought a level that would have competed well with any of the preceding 5 Wimbledon winners (I don’t really get his matchup issue on grass with Nadal either and am wondering if it’s a consequence of being all pre Lendl Murray). 16 Murray wins at least a couple of matches against those opponents.

However the difference to say, AO or RG 16 is that he didn’t have to play a postprime / meh day ATG tier player as his opponent (he got Raomug). So it was a drop off in competition clearly. Even in 2014 Cilic needed to blast through an OK Fed to get to the final

Now USO 16 was a further drop off, because it didn’t even feature one of the two finalists playing decent / mid ATG tier level tennis. Djoker was already in his slump at this point.
 
jl809 said:
It’s either Wimbledon 16 or USO 16.

I get the comments above but ultimately Murray at Wimbledon 16 was at his peak all round game and clearly playing prime (not necessarily peak) Djokodal level tennis on grass. He brought a level that would have competed well with any of the preceding 5 Wimbledon winners (I don’t really get his matchup issue on grass with Nadal either and am wondering if it’s a consequence of being all pre Lendl Murray). 16 Murray wins at least a couple of matches against those opponents.

However the difference to say, AO or RG 16 is that he didn’t have to play a postprime / meh day ATG tier player as his opponent (he got Raomug). So it was a drop off in competition clearly. Even in 2014 Cilic needed to blast through an OK Fed to get to the final

Now USO 16 was a further drop off, because it didn’t even feature one of the two finalists playing decent / mid ATG tier level tennis. Djoker was already in his slump at this point.
Click to expand...

Djokovic had no business making that final, and I say that as a Djokovic fan, it would have been daylight robbery if he won that.
 
jl809 said:
It’s either Wimbledon 16 or USO 16.

I get the comments above but ultimately Murray at Wimbledon 16 was at his peak all round game and clearly playing prime (not necessarily peak) Djokodal level tennis on grass. He brought a level that would have competed well with any of the preceding 5 Wimbledon winners (I don’t really get his matchup issue on grass with Nadal either and am wondering if it’s a consequence of being all pre Lendl Murray). 16 Murray wins at least a couple of matches against those opponents.

However the difference to say, AO or RG 16 is that he didn’t have to play a postprime / meh day ATG tier player as his opponent (he got Raomug). So it was a drop off in competition clearly. Even in 2014 Cilic needed to blast through an OK Fed to get to the final

Now USO 16 was a further drop off, because it didn’t even feature one of the two finalists playing decent / mid ATG tier level tennis. Djoker was already in his slump at this point.
Click to expand...

Why isn't French Open 2016 the beginning of the inflation era ?

Thats the second straight year when there is no Nadal in the final, Djoko's best opponent is Murray whose best appearance there was the SF a few times, he made the final and lost, so thats when there is clearly a step down in level.
 
Razer said:
Why isn't French Open 2016 the beginning of the inflation era ?

Thats the second straight year when there is no Nadal in the final, Djoko's best opponent is Murray whose best appearance there was the SF a few times, he made the final and lost, so thats when there is clearly a step down in level.
Click to expand...

Nadal was injured, injuries can happen. Djokovic was slated to play him in the semis not final.

Djokovic himself was still in peak form.
 
Hitman said:
Djokovic had no business making that final, and I say that as a Djokovic fan, it would have been daylight robbery if he won that.
Click to expand...
Exactly and it’s why I don’t like people using post RG stats when bringing up stats about Djoker’s 2011-16 prime. The prime ended at RG 16 when he climbed the mountain.
 
Razer said:
We cannot say Sincraz are benefiting

01. They have each other to block them if needed and they are of the same age
02. They have old man Novak to test them, they are beating him, so at some level they are proving their mettle.
03. They are swatting the 1990s gen who are still in their 20s, this is a proof to Sinnceaz being better than them.
04. Last but not the least, they will face younger set of players in some years, that time it will be a bigger test for them.

So Sinncraz are not like 90s gen, they are generational talents with ability to get better and better with time. If they win 20+ slams then it will be because they are great, not because of any 90s gen.
Click to expand...
I didnt mean the 90s guys were ever close to Sincaraz, and they should not be compared. Sincaraz are clearly ATGs, none of the 90s players were.

I meant that Sincaraz never had any older players to dethrone (except Oldovic), and like Big4 profited from weak younger players, Sincaraz are profiting from weak older players. Zverev, Meddy, Tsits etc arent even 30, and should have been able to challenge the 2000s players a little more than they do.
 
jl809 said:
Exactly and it’s why I don’t like people using post RG stats when bringing up stats about Djoker’s 2011-16 prime. The prime ended at RG 16 when he climbed the mountain.
Click to expand...

I think most see his absolute best coming to an end at RG 2016. It was a night and day difference after that for the rest of 2016. He was ruling with an iron fist up to RG and then transformed into something else.
 
Razer said:
Why isn't French Open 2016 the beginning of the inflation era ?

Thats the second straight year when there is no Nadal in the final, Djoko's best opponent is Murray whose best appearance there was the SF a few times, he made the final and lost, so thats when there is clearly a step down in level.
Click to expand...
Murray at RG 16, having just won Rome vs Djoker and reached the Madrid final, and having just destroyed Stan in the SF, is a different calibre of opponent to Raonic, washed Djokovic, blister-y Cilic, Anderson, Tsitsipas, Berrettini etc
 
Hitman said:
Nadal was injured, injuries can happen. Djokovic was slated to play him in the semis not final.

Djokovic himself was still in peak form.
Click to expand...

I agree but Nadal at 29 and 30 is declining for 2 straight years, there is no young clay courter in sight to even take the initiative. Thats a problem too. Federer and Djokovic themselves were not clay courters, so if the 90s gen does not have an emerging clay courter then that is a big problem. Djokovic and Murray both are 29 themselves in 2016, is Clay an old man's surface? Where were the youngsters?

I am not even questioning Novak's slam, he was clobbering Nadal brutally at that time and he deserves the slam in his absence, similar to Federer beating Soderling and picking the slam... but the doubts can always be asked on where were the youngsters instead of 2 guys who turned 29 fighting a final.

Jonas78 said:
I meant that Sincaraz never had any older players to dethrone (except Oldovic), and like Big4 profited from weak younger players, Sincaraz are profiting from weak older players. Zverev, Meddy, Tsits etc arent even 30, and should have been able to challenge the 2000s players a little more than they do.
Click to expand...

Nobody except Boris Becker, Ivan Lendl type guys had older players to dethrone, same aged ATGs and then younger ATGs all in their careers, lol....thats a lot to ask... not even Djokovic had that.
 
Razer said:
I agree but Nadal at 29 and 30 is injured for 2 straight years, there is no young clay courter in sight to even take the initiative. Thats a problem too. Federer and Djokovic themselves were not clay courters, so if the 90s gen does not have an emerging clay courter then that is a big problem. Djokovic and Murray both are 29 themselves in 2016, is Clay an old man's surface? Where were the youngsters?

I am not even questioning Novak's slam, he was clobbering Nadal brutally at that time and he deserves the slam in his absence, similar to Federer beating Soderling and picking the slam... but the doubts can always be asked on where were the youngsters instead of 2 guys who turned 29 fighting a final.



Nobody except Boris Becker, Ivan Lendl type guys had older players to dethrone, same aged ATGs and then younger ATGs all in their careers, lol....thats a lot to ask... not even Djokovic had that.
Click to expand...

Nadal wasn't injured in 2015. He was just crap.

in 2016, he got a wrist injury. He was slated to play Thiem in the quarters, who took his place against Djokovic in the semis. Keep in mind Wawrinka was defending champion and he made it to the semis, though I do think Wawrinka struggles with being defending champion.

Djokovic being in his peak cannot said to be inflating anything, because the definition getting used around here is, when a player is past his prime is winning titles, not while in their peak/prime.

And while I agree Djokovic isn't a clay courter in the truest sense, he is an all surface player, and winning RG wasn't that surprising. He was too good not to win it at least once.
 
Hitman said:
Nadal wasn't injured in 2015. He was just crap.

in 2016, he got a wrist injury. He was slated to play Thiem in the quarters, who took his place against Djokovic in the semis. Keep in mind Wawrinka was defending champion and he made it to the semis, though I do think Wawrinka struggles with being defending champion.

Djokovic being in his peak cannot said to be inflating anything, because the definition getting used around here is, when a player is past his prime is winning titles, not while in their peak/prime.

And while I agree Djokovic isn't a clay courter in the truest sense, he is an all surface player, and winning RG wasn't that surprising. He was too good not to win it at least once.
Click to expand...

Ok fair enough... 2016 French Open win was as respectable a win as 2009 French Open win... so that can be considered as not inflation.
 
Razer said:
I agree but Nadal at 29 and 30 is declining for 2 straight years, there is no young clay courter in sight to even take the initiative. Thats a problem too. Federer and Djokovic themselves were not clay courters, so if the 90s gen does not have an emerging clay courter then that is a big problem. Djokovic and Murray both are 29 themselves in 2016, is Clay an old man's surface? Where were the youngsters?

I am not even questioning Novak's slam, he was clobbering Nadal brutally at that time and he deserves the slam in his absence, similar to Federer beating Soderling and picking the slam... but the doubts can always be asked on where were the youngsters instead of 2 guys who turned 29 fighting a final.



Nobody except Boris Becker, Ivan Lendl type guys had older players to dethrone, same aged ATGs and then younger ATGs all in their careers, lol....thats a lot to ask... not even Djokovic had that.
Click to expand...
Many slams are won by players aged 25-early 30s. Djokovic surely would have won more slams 2008-2012 if Federer/Nadal wasnt around.

I definetly think Sincaraz are and have been profiting from weak older players. Dont get me wrong, they would be ATGs anyway, but if the 90s guys were a little stronger they should have been able to pick up more than 2 slams in total.

Its an insane stat, maybe the least likely to ever be beaten, 10 years of players only winning 2 slams, and the youngest 90s guys are still only 25-26y old.
 
Last edited:
Hitman said:
Djokovic being in his peak cannot said to be inflating anything, because the definition getting used around here is, when a player is past his prime is winning titles, not while in their peak/prime.

And while I agree Djokovic isn't a clay courter in the truest sense, he is an all surface player, and winning RG wasn't that surprising. He was too good not to win it at least once.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is a good point ofc. Although there were signs of the 90s guys missing already in mid 2010s, they wouldnt beat Djokovic pre W16 anyway, I agree.

I think both Big4 and Sincaraz have (and are) profited from the 90s gen, but its impossible to say exactly which slams they might lose. Federer definetly wouldnt win 3 slams 2017-2018 with peak Djokovic aorund.
 
Jonas78 said:
Yeah this is a good point ofc. Although there were signs of the 90s guys missing already in mid 2010s, they wouldnt beat Djokovic pre W16 anyway, I agree.

I think both Big4 and Sincaraz have (and are) profited from the 90s gen, but its impossible to say exactly which slams they might lose. Federer definetly wouldnt win 3 slams 2017-2018 with peak Djokovic aorund.
Click to expand...

I'm just going with how CIE was defined here.
 
Hitman said:
I'm just going with how CIE was defined here.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know.. Imo its impossible to say exactly which slams are "inflated", but i definetly think the 90s gen would win more than 2 slams if they had a few top players, or even if players like Medvedev and Thiem lived up to their potential.
 
Jonas78 said:
Yeah I know.. Imo its impossible to say exactly which slams are "inflated", but i definetly think the 90s gen would win more than 2 slams if they had a few top players, or even if players like Medvedev and Thiem lived up to their potential.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, it all happened the way it happened.
 
Jonas78 said:
Imo it happened gradually as it was becoming more and more evident that top 90s players were missing. Dimitrov, Nishikori, Raonic, Goffin, they all failed to break through. Then it continued with the mid/late 90s guys.

Its also wrong to say Big4 were the only beneficiaries, Sincaraz might end up the biggest winners of the weak 90s gen.
Click to expand...
The weak era continues.
:)
 
SonnyT said:
Let's talk about slam inflation! Starting in '04-07 at AO, WB and US, there were only 2 slam winners who would win more slams during those years: Safin & Federer. Federer would win 11 more slams, and Safin one.
Click to expand...
Federer, Safin, Nadal(clay) were at the peak of their power so it's the norm that they are true winners. They are the one who took over the tour and put the 90s players into retirement. No 30+ players won a slam in Federer's era. Too stiff competition.

Unfortunate for the CIE, the big 3(Tsitspas, Medvedev, Zverev) are weak and hopeless, they should be the one taking over the tour and prevent OLD Djokovic from inflating 12 slams. The 90s born players are a bunch of losers. They had to wait for the 2000s born(Sincaraz) to arrive for help
 
2017 Wimbledon I'd say. The first two slams of 2017 were really good runs. And then, Crying Cilic and Kandy USO.
 
MissileBackHand99 said:
then you must've missed the 2018 USO the very next year. Djoko had a cakewalk draw to the Finals (where he didn't have to face defending champ Nadal either, who retired in the SFs)
Click to expand...
That’s fair, I suppose. I was answering the original question of where the career inflation began.

The ‘weakest draw’ part I just did off the top of my head because I haven’t watched it back since.
 
Last edited:
Federer & Nadal battled through a 5-set match in '17 AO. Nadal & Djokovic battled through a 5-set match in '18 WB. Federer & Djokovic battled through a 5-set match the following year at WB.

Those 3 guys battled tooth and nails through those matches, among the most exciting in tennis.

Did those matches remind anyone of the inflation era, or the weak era? They reminded me of the most exciting era in tennis!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TMF
  • Poll Poll
How many slams Federer is likely to win during the career inflation era (2018 - present) ?
Replies
17
Views
914
DSH
DSH
Red Rick
  • Poll Poll
We're living the Career Inflation Era
3 4 5
Replies
249
Views
21K
Breakpointerer
Breakpointerer
D
Who on TTW can take credit for the "Inflation Era Theory"?
Replies
26
Views
2K
Red Rick
Red Rick
The_Order
The career inflation era argument is utter propaganda
40 41 42
Replies
2K
Views
94K
junkieballer
J
zvelf
ATP 2017 through early 2018
Replies
0
Views
377
zvelf
zvelf
Back
Top