Djokovic ties Federer on 310 Weeks at No. 1 in FedEx ATP Rankings

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
That fact alone shows you how poor the era was that Federer started to dominate.
Nd Sampras was even poorer that he was KICKED OUT by these guys.

Sad, isn't it ?

Your hero looks trash when you trash an era where he was a part of as well....haha
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
No simply does not work like that. Tennis did not start in 2011. To have an era a player must be the best if his generation. Djokovic is 2nd to Nadal.
The eras in open era are as follows and this is indisputable really.
Borg
Lendl
Sampras
Federer
Nadal

Now then obviously within those eras there have been amazing players. Mcenroe and Connors, becker edberg wilander (actually never rated wilander but his record is what it is) agassi courier hewitt safin kuerten murray wawrinka and of course Djokovic.
However the 5 above were the best of their generations.
Why would that be the case ?
Every decade has a set of youngsters in their prime and peak and the guy who is the most dominant in 1 in it is the favourite in 2 or maybe 3 out of 4 slams every year.

Sampras -> Federer -> Djokovic is the sequence
286 -> 310 -> 311 is the sequence

In that order

If Nadal was so good then he would have 300+ weeks as 1 and Djokovic would be on 200 but the bulk of those 10*52 = 520 weeks in the decade was taken by Djokovic.
 

Jai

Rookie
[
Never mentioned last decade bud. I said Nadal became the alpha after Federer began to decline as he was the one with the most Majors of his generation.
I am genuinely perplexed how Djokovic fans think 18 carries more kudos than 20 when two players are only a year apart age wise.
Well, I don't think anyone disagrees that 20 is more than 18! The issue is that you are constantly doing a flip-flop. You are sometimes stating (correctly) that Rafa and Novak are the same generation. At other times you claim (wrongly, and without any basis in fact), that Novak had to "wait" till Rafa "declined" before ascending to the top. Ask yourself, how can 2 players be in the same generation, and yet you claim one terminally "declined" so much earlier than the other? Whose legacy are you really disparaging by stating this? Besides, many including myself don't buy into this neat pigeonholing you do that Fed is a whole generation above Djokodal. Yes, he is older by 5/6 years, and there is an argument to be made that he is not exactly their peer rival; but to a large degree their careers have overlapped. Their generational delineations aren't so sharp as you would like to portray.

You allude occasionally to the fact that Novak is 11 months younger to Rafa and therefore they are the same generation, but then state their present GS tallies as if they are set in stone, ignoring the fact that both are still playing and that these totals may well change. So deciding "which of this generation had the higher GS tally" has to wait till both/all of them have hung up their boots. You are making calls prematurely, is what most people are saying. Also, you sometimes claim that Rafa's form markedly declined after his 2012 injury layoff, but then go on to say that 2017--2020 "he has been the man". How you can fit so many inconsistencies into your logic is a marvel by itself.

When the glaring errors are pointed out, you go into tangents and claim that others are speaking in hypotheticals, whereas you merrily go on a hypothetical trip about how many and which grand slams as per you "could have been won" if the players you mention "had not been injured". o_O
 
Last edited:

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
[
Well, I don't think anyone disagrees that 20 is more than 18! The issue is that you are constantly doing a flip-flop. You are sometimes stating (correctly) that Rafa and Novak are the same generation. At other times you claim (wrongly, and without any basis oin fact), that Novak had to "wait" till Rafa "declined" before ascending to the top. Ask yourself, how can 2 players be in the same generation, and yet you claim one terminally "declined" so much earlier than the other? Whose legacy are you really disparaging by stating this? Besides, many including myself don't buy into this neat pigeonholing you do that Fed is a whole generation above Djokodal. Yes, he is older by 5/6 years, and there is an argument to be made that he is not exactly their peer rival; but to a large degree their careers have overlapped. Their generational delineations aren't so sharp as you would like to portray.

You allude occasionally to the fact that Novak is 11 months younger to Rafa and therefore they are the same generation, but then state their present GS tallies as if they are set in stone, ignoring the fact that both are still playing and that these totals may well change. So deciding "which of this generation had the higher GS tally" has to wait till both/all of them have hung up their boots. You are making calls prematurely, is what most people are saying. Also, you sometimes claim that Rafa's health markedly declined after his 2012 injury layoff, but then go on to say that 2017--2020 "he has been the man". How can you fit so many inconsistencies into your logic is a marvel by itself.

When the glaring errors are pointed out, you go into tangents and claim that others are speaking in hypotheticals, whereas you merrily go on a hypothetical trip about how many and which grand slams as per you "could have been won" if the players you mention "had not been injured". o_O
Generations in Tennis

1950-1954
- Connors, Vilas, Pannetta, Tanner & Gerulaitis
1955-1959
- Borg, McEnroe & Kriek
1960-1964
- Lendl, Wilander, Noah, Leconte, Mercir & Gilbert
1965-1969

- Becker, Edberg, Stitch, Cash, Muster, Korda & Pioline
1970-1974

- Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Bruguera & Kafelnikov
1975-1979

- Kuerten, Moya, Rios, Blake, Haas, Costa & Gaudio
1980-1984

- Federer, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Ferrero & Nalbandian
1985-1989
- Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic, Berdych, Tsonga & Nishikori
1990-1994
- Thiem, Raonic, Dimitrov, Goffin, Sock, Pablo Carreño Busta
1995-1999
- Kyrgios, Medvedev, Zverev, Stefanos, Shapovalov, Rublev, De Minaur & Berretinni
2000-2004

- Felix, Sinner, Carlos Alcaraz

Generations colored Green all grew up and turned pro on the fast turfs.
Generations colored black grew up (teenager years) on the slow courts since their amateur years and played on that ever,

Federer's generation was the generation who suffered because of this change from Green to Black, anyone in their place would also have suffered, Rafa or Novak or Pete or Borg or anyone, there are no exceptions.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
A Djoker fan knows that only 2 more Slam titles are needed for the Serb to pass the truly heroic figure for good.

Only the competition arguments can save Federer at this point. And they are too subjective.

Competition arguments can...save Federer? Golly gee, that's a new one.
 

CYGS

Legend
Generations in Tennis

1950-1954
- Connors, Vilas, Pannetta, Tanner & Gerulaitis
1955-1959
- Borg, McEnroe & Kriek
1960-1964
- Lendl, Wilander, Noah, Leconte, Mercir & Gilbert
1965-1969

- Becker, Edberg, Stitch, Cash, Muster, Korda & Pioline
1970-1974

- Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Bruguera & Kafelnikov
1975-1979

- Kuerten, Moya, Rios, Blake, Haas, Costa & Gaudio
1980-1984

- Federer, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Ferrero & Nalbandian
1985-1989
- Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic, Berdych, Tsonga & Nishikori
1990-1994
- Thiem, Raonic, Dimitrov, Goffin, Sock, Pablo Carreño Busta
1995-1999
- Kyrgios, Medvedev, Zverev, Stefanos, Shapovalov, Rublev, De Minaur & Berretinni
2000-2004

- Felix, Sinner, Carlos Alcaraz

Generations colored Green all grew up and turned pro on the fast turfs.
Generations colored black grew up (teenager years) on the slow courts since their amateur years and played on that ever,

Federer's generation was the generation who suffered because of this change from Green to Black, anyone in their place would also have suffered, Rafa or Novak or Pete or Borg or anyone, there are no exceptions.
Arbitrary cutoff by you.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
[
Well, I don't think anyone disagrees that 20 is more than 18! The issue is that you are constantly doing a flip-flop. You are sometimes stating (correctly) that Rafa and Novak are the same generation. At other times you claim (wrongly, and without any basis in fact), that Novak had to "wait" till Rafa "declined" before ascending to the top. Ask yourself, how can 2 players be in the same generation, and yet you claim one terminally "declined" so much earlier than the other? Whose legacy are you really disparaging by stating this? Besides, many including myself don't buy into this neat pigeonholing you do that Fed is a whole generation above Djokodal. Yes, he is older by 5/6 years, and there is an argument to be made that he is not exactly their peer rival; but to a large degree their careers have overlapped. Their generational delineations aren't so sharp as you would like to portray.

You allude occasionally to the fact that Novak is 11 months younger to Rafa and therefore they are the same generation, but then state their present GS tallies as if they are set in stone, ignoring the fact that both are still playing and that these totals may well change. So deciding "which of this generation had the higher GS tally" has to wait till both/all of them have hung up their boots. You are making calls prematurely, is what most people are saying. Also, you sometimes claim that Rafa's form markedly declined after his 2012 injury layoff, but then go on to say that 2017--2020 "he has been the man". How you can fit so many inconsistencies into your logic is a marvel by itself.

When the glaring errors are pointed out, you go into tangents and claim that others are speaking in hypotheticals, whereas you merrily go on a hypothetical trip about how many and which grand slams as per you "could have been won" if the players you mention "had not been injured". o_O
Nadal was not same player after FO2012. Federer not the same after 2008. Djokovic was still being usurped by Nadal in 2013. He has been usurped by Nadal 2017-2020. Djokovic had periods of being the alpha. Never sustained though. Trails Nadal still. Therefore he never broke through.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
Why would that be the case ?
Every decade has a set of youngsters in their prime and peak and the guy who is the most dominant in 1 in it is the favourite in 2 or maybe 3 out of 4 slams every year.

Sampras -> Federer -> Djokovic is the sequence
286 -> 310 -> 311 is the sequence

In that order

If Nadal was so good then he would have 300+ weeks as 1 and Djokovic would be on 200 but the bulk of those 10*52 = 520 weeks in the decade was taken by Djokovic.
Sorry bud weeks at no.1 are not the criteria. Otherwise Connors would be in place of Borg.
Nadal has been the alpha of his generation.
 

Jai

Rookie
Nadal was not same player after FO2012. Federer not the same after 2008. Djokovic was still being usurped by Nadal in 2013. He has been usurped by Nadal 2017-2020. Djokovic had periods of being the alpha. Never sustained though. Trails Nadal still. Therefore he never broke through.
So basically, as you have just admitted in your post above, 2 players of roughly the same age have taken turns (as per you) in periods of being the "Alpha" between 2008 till date. And somehow, you draw extrapolations from this as to which one "owns" the other, and which one "never broke through". Sigh, Double Sigh. Dude, give it a rest. Seriously. Your logical fallacies and inconsistencies beggar belief, and I actually have Rafa as my close 2nd favourite. By your own logic, one could say that Novak "eclipsed" Rafa in 2011--2016, and therefore he"owns" him. The fact that you keep saying Rafa declined much earlier than his chief rival, despite being just 11 months apart in age, is not a plus for Rafa. Please stop doing this.

"Trails Nadal still" in what? In No. of Slams, right? Because in h2h, weeks at no.1, year ending No.1, Masters and YEC, Novak is ahead. As you yourself tirelessly say, Novak is 11 months younger. Let us wait to see how many slams they each finally land up with, no?
 
Last edited:

GoldenMasters

Semi-Pro
So basically, as you have just admitted in your post above, 2 players of roughly the same age have taken turns (as per you) in periods of being the "Alpha" between 2008 till date. And somehow, you draw extrapolations from this as to which one "owns" the other, and which one "never broke through". Sigh, Double Sigh. Dude, give it a rest. Seriously. Your logical fallacies and inconsistencies beggar belief, and I actually have Rafa as my very close 2nd favourite. By your own logic, one could say that Novak "eclipsed" Rafa in 2011--2016, and therefore he"owns" him. The fact that you keep saying Rafa declined much earlier than his chief rival, despite being just 11 months apart in age, is not a plus for Rafa. Please stop doing this.

"Trails Nadal still" in what? In No. of Slams, right? Because in h2h, weeks at no.1, year ending No.1, Masters and YEC, Novak is ahead. As you yourself tirelessly say, Novak is 11 months younger. Let us wait to see how many slams they each finally land up with, no?
It is pointless to argue with him. He is quite messed up.
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
The fact that all of these players are baseliners should make you think.
Federer is a SNV guy with the game to play in the 90s too, he adopted a baseline game as per the courts. have you seen how Federer used to play at the 03 or 04 wimbledon ? scary footspeed ..... Fast as vampire from the Vampire Diaries and when he came to the net he was like a demon. .....Djokovic used to look clueless whenever Federer came forward to the net in 08 or 09.

Slowing of courts never favored Federer, it weakened him as well as his rivals like Hewitt/Safin/Roddick who relished the faster courts.
 
Last edited:

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
Sorry bud weeks at no.1 are not the criteria. Otherwise Connors would be in place of Borg.
Nadal has been the alpha of his generation.
Borg won most slams... sameway Novak also had 15 slams in the 2010s, was ranked 1 in the world for most of the decade..... has won 3 slams out of 4 on multiple occasions ....

How exactly is Nadal the alpha of his generation ? By winning clay every year and looking clueless at the world tour finals ?
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Federer is a SNV guy with the game to play in the 90s too, he adopted a baseline game as per the courts. have you seen how Federer used to play at the 03 or 04 wimbledon ? scary footspeed ..... Fast a vampire from the Vampire Diaries and when he came to the net he was like a demon. .....Djokovic used to look clueless whenever Federer came forward to the net in 08 or 09.

Slowing of courts never favored Federer, it weakened him as well as his rivals like Hewitt/Safin/Roddick who relished the faster courts.
Poor boy Federer.

The courts, the racket, the age, the mononucleosis... Has an excuse for every loss.
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
Poor boy Federer.

The courts, the racket, the age, the mononucleosis... Has an excuse for every loss.
Yes.

ATP did not want a GOD on 32 Slams and the next best guy on 12-13 slams (all on the same turf) and then everyone else on 3-4 slams like that.

So the created this situation so that Nadal could win outside clay and Novak could win everywhere, had to weaken Federer for that.

I think this damaged Tennis, the weak gen we see in youngsters is because of the dull slow courts.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Yes.

ATP did not want a GOD on 32 Slams and the next best guy on 12-13 slams (all on the same turf) and then everyone else on 3-4 slams like that.

So the created this situation so that Nadal could win outside clay and Novak could win everywhere, had to weaken Federer for that.

I think this damaged Tennis, the weak gen we see in youngsters is because of the dull slow courts.
So you think Federer is a god.

That explains the fanatism.
 

xFedal

Legend
Nadal was not same player after FO2012. Federer not the same after 2008. Djokovic was still being usurped by Nadal in 2013. He has been usurped by Nadal 2017-2020. Djokovic had periods of being the alpha. Never sustained though. Trails Nadal still. Therefore he never broke through.
Djokovic was not active enough for 2017 to count against him, likewise 2019 Nadal being no.1 however can be held against Novak.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Federer is a SNV guy with the game to play in the 90s too, he adopted a baseline game as per the courts. have you seen how Federer used to play at the 03 or 04 wimbledon ? scary footspeed ..... Fast a vampire from the Vampire Diaries and when he came to the net he was like a demon. .....Djokovic used to look clueless whenever Federer came forward to the net in 08 or 09.

Slowing of courts never favored Federer, it weakened him as well as his rivals like Hewitt/Safin/Roddick who relished the faster courts.
Otha Machan ... found the following 2 points from your post hilarious-

1. Federer is a SNV guy

2. Djokovic used to look clueless whenever Federer came forward to the net

:-D
 

Beckerserve

Legend
Borg won most slams... sameway Novak also had 15 slams in the 2010s, was ranked 1 in the world for most of the decade..... has won 3 slams out of 4 on multiple occasions ....

How exactly is Nadal the alpha of his generation ? By winning clay every year and looking clueless at the world tour finals ?
So you answered your own question. Nadal is alpha as he won the most slams.
Djokovic was a pro before 2010. He was just not good enough against Nadal and Federer.
World Tour Finals is not part of a GOAT discussion never has been and never will be. Reason? Its not a Major.
As for your derogatory remark about clay, well again for a Djokovic fan its self defeating nonsense. The same could be applied as to how does keep winning in Melbourne help his legacy.
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
Nadal era is 2008-2010, and second half of 2013., with 2009 cut short by injuries and since 2011 Djokovic took over.
Don't show your Federer hate everywhere.

2008 French-2010 Aus open ..... Federer made the finals of all the 8 slams (despite being ill in 2008) and won 4 of them.

Federer's era ended in the 1st half of 2010 and Djokovic's began in the 1st half of 2011.

So Nadal had no era, some months in 2010 when he picked up 3 slams won't be counted as an era.
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
So you answered your own question. Nadal is alpha as he won the most slams.
Djokovic was a pro before 2010. He was just not good enough against Nadal and Federer.
World Tour Finals is not part of a GOAT discussion never has been and never will be. Reason? Its not a Major.
As for your derogatory remark about clay, well again for a Djokovic fan its self defeating nonsense. The same could be applied as to how does keep winning in Melbourne help his legacy.
What is the meaning of Alpha ?

Being a fav in 1 out of 4 slams = Alpha or being a fav in 3 out of 4 = Alpha ?

R u serious ?

2010s was ruled by Novak, the period of 2017 Aus-2018French when Federer (old) and Nadal picked 3 slams each was because of the absence of Novak, no sooner did he arrive, the balance was restored.

He has been the alpha since 2011 and Federer has been the alpha till 2010, Nadal was just the alpha in 2010, 1 year is not enough for anything.
 
Last edited:

Beckerserve

Legend
What is the meaning of Alpha ?

Being a fav in 1 out of 4 slams = Alpha or being a fav in 3 out of 4 = Alpha ?

R u serious ?

2010s was ruled by Novak, the period of 2017 Aus-2018French when Federer (old) and Nadal picked 3 slams each was because of the absence of Novak, no sooner did he arrive, the balance was restored.

He has been the alpha since 2011 and Federer has been the alpha till 2010, Nadal was just the alpha in 2010, 1 year is not enough for anything.
Nadal is fav for 2 of 4 slams bud. Your argument is suggesting Djokovic is a mental midget basically. Nadal has dominated his generation. More Majors. More titles. It is as simple as that. Why are you randomnly selecting 2011? You are wrong anyway. If you want to get really technical then actually its like this.
Federer 2003-2007
Nadal 2008-2010
Djokovic 2011-2016 (although 2013, 2016 he was not YE1)
Nadal 2017-2020.
So sorry but your entire argument fails on many levels.
 

Hitman

G.O.A.T.
Nadal is fav for 2 of 4 slams bud. Your argument is suggesting Djokovic is a mental midget basically. Nadal has dominated his generation. More Majors. More titles. It is as simple as that. Why are you randomnly selecting 2011? You are wrong anyway. If you want to get really technical then actually its like this.
Federer 2003-2007
Nadal 2008-2010 (although 2009 he was not YE1)
Djokovic 2011-2016 (although 2013, 2016 he was not YE1)
Nadal 2017-2020. (although 2018, 2020 he was not YE1)
So sorry but your entire argument fails on many levels.
Just adding the bold to give the fuller picture bud, interesting how you point out the years Djokovic wasn't year ending number one during his time, but fail to do the same for Nadal, at least now we have a clearer picture.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
Just adding the bold to give the fuller picture bud, interesting how you point out the years Djokovic wasn't year ending number one during his time, but fail to do the same for Nadal, at least now we have a clearer picture.
Nadal was injured in 2009. Missed W and USO. Still won a Major in 2009 and was no.2 YE.
 

Hitman

G.O.A.T.
Nadal was injured in 2009. Missed W and USO. Still won a Major in 2009 and was no.2 YE.
So? He doesn't get brownie points for it. Being healthy is part of the sport. Nadal has NEVER had back to back year ending number ones, even in his period of dominance. Either provide the data for all of them, or none of them, but don't disingeniously provide it for one, because at face value your statement makes it looks like Nadal had three straight year endings at number one from 2008 to 2010 and then had 4 four straight from 2018 to 2020, which you know is not correct.
 

Jai

Rookie
Nadal was injured in 2009. Missed W and USO. Still won a Major in 2009 and was no.2 YE.
So per you, why is Rafa the "Alpha" in 2018 when he won less majors than Novak, finished the year ranked below
him, and lost their GS match that year at Wimbledon?
 

Beckerserve

Legend
So per you, why is Rafa the "Alpha" in 2018 when he won less majors than Novak, finished the year ranked below
him, and lost their GS match that year at Wimbledon?
So now you lose the debate about periods of time you want to revert to individual years lol. Again that does not bode well for the Djokovic dominated a decade argument. You are tying yourself up in knots.
The level of frustration among the Djokovic fanbase on here that he has less Majors than Fedal is actually astonishing.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
So? He doesn't get brownie points for it. Being healthy is part of the sport. Nadal has NEVER had back to back year ending number ones, even in his period of dominance. Either provide the data for all of them, or none of them, but don't disingeniously provide it for one, because at face value your statement makes it looks like Nadal had three straight year endings at number one from 2008 to 2010 and then had 4 four straight from 2018 to 2020, which you know is not correct.
No bud i have corrected the false narrative Djokovic dominates for an entire decade. He did not. If Djokovic fans want to randomnly select periods then i have helpfully selected periods of time. They are in fact not debatable. Oh and your post is contradictory since i am sure you or other Djokovic fans have claimed but for 2017 and Djokovic alleged injury he would have got the Slam record by now.
 

Jai

Rookie
So now you lose the debate about periods of time you want to revert to individual years lol. Again that does not bode well for the Djokovic dominated a decade argument. You are tying yourself up in knots.
The level of frustration among the Djokovic fanbase on here that he has less Majors than Fedal is actually astonishing.
Ok this is my last response to you on this thread, because you clearly are debating in bad faith. You are not interested in discussing
rationally, but merely in having the last word, even when you misrepresent facts or logic. And the pity is, we actually have our
fandom for Rafa in common (I am a Djokodal fan).

I will say for the last time - their careers are not yet over. Let them hang up their boots before you cast in stone, how many
majors each of them land up with. In the meantime, one of the key signs of your discussion style is that you are not only displaying
logical inconsistencies galore, you are deliberately misstating actual facts - like when you insisted Novak's favourable h2h versus Rafa was
owing to 250 events. Or when you claimed Novak had to "wait" for Rafa's "decline" after 2012, before
ascending to the top.

I will give you the satisfaction of having the last word. Pity it is such an illogical one from you.
 
Last edited:

Hitman

G.O.A.T.
No bud i have corrected the false narrative Djokovic dominates for an entire decade. He did not. If Djokovic fans want to randomnly select periods then i have helpfully selected periods of time. They are in fact not debatable. Oh and your post is contradictory since i am sure you or other Djokovic fans have claimed but for 2017 and Djokovic alleged injury he would have got the Slam record by now.

I love the bait and switch you love to do when you get called out, any way to take it off the actual topic that is being discussed when your statement gets exposed for not being fully truthful. The thing I am calling you out on is not presenting the full information, you stated Djokovic was not number one every year during his period of dominance, but you purposefully don't do the same for the periods of Nadal's dominance, making it look like on face value that Nadal was indeed uninterrupted world number one every year during those periods, which is false.

Then when you get called out, it is Rafa was not healthy, well, tough, you don't get brownie points for that, being healthy is a part of sport, or I can say Del Potro was on his way to taking over in 2010 before he got injured.

Look, some friendly advice, when you want to present data, do it so that you don't get destroyed on facts and figures that then forces you to do the bait and switch and make it about a completely different topic, when your original post gets shredded. If you provide the correct info, then your arguments will hold more water. Anyways, hope that helps. :)(y)
 

Hitman

G.O.A.T.
Ok this is my last response to you on this thread, because you clearly are debating in bad faith. You are not interested in discussing
rationally, but merely in having the last word, even when you misrepresent facts or logic.
And the pity is, we actually have our
fandom for Rafa in common (I am a Djokodal fan).

I will say for the last time - their careers are not yet over. Let them hang up their boots before you cast in stone, how many
majors each of them land up with. In the meantime, one the key signs of your discussion style is that you are not only displaying
logical inconsistencies galore, you are deliberately misstating actual facts - like when you insisted Novak's h2h versus Rafa was
higher owing to 250 events. Or when you claimed Novak had to "wait" for Rafa's "decline" after 2012, before
ascending to the top.

I will give you the satisfaction of having the last word. Pity it is such an illogical one from you.
Pretty much this. (y)
 

Beckerserve

Legend
I love the bait and switch you love to do when you get called out, any way to take it off the actual topic that is being discussed when your statement gets exposed for not being fully truthful. The thing I am calling you out on is not presenting the full information, you stated Djokovic was not number one every year during his period of dominance, but you purposefully don't do the same for the periods of Nadal's dominance, making it look like on face value that Nadal was indeed uninterrupted world number one every year during those periods, which is false.

Then when you get called out, it is Rafa was not healthy, well, tough, you don't get brownie points for that, being healthy is a part of sport, or I can say Del Potro was on his way to taking over in 2010 before he got injured.

Look, some friendly advice, when you want to present data, do it so that you don't get destroyed on facts and figures that then forces you to do the bait and switch and make it about a completely different topic, when your original post gets shredded. If you provide the correct info, then your arguments will hold more water. Anyways, hope that helps. :)(y)
You keep saying destroyed when i routinely correct you. My data is spot on. Using your logic i have stated which periods belonged to whom. No need to get salty about it.
Djokovic fans simply have nowhere to go with this. The reason is he is the same generation as Nadal. Less majors less titles is just how it is. If we start looking at periods of time then it is as i previously stated. No ifs no buts.
Thank you for the advice. I consider it misguided advice so i respectfully decline your invitation.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
Ok this is my last response to you on this thread, because you clearly are debating in bad faith. You are not interested in discussing
rationally, but merely in having the last word, even when you misrepresent facts or logic. And the pity is, we actually have our
fandom for Rafa in common (I am a Djokodal fan).

I will say for the last time - their careers are not yet over. Let them hang up their boots before you cast in stone, how many
majors each of them land up with. In the meantime, one the key signs of your discussion style is that you are not only displaying
logical inconsistencies galore, you are deliberately misstating actual facts - like when you insisted Novak's favourable h2h versus Rafa was
owing to 250 events. Or when you claimed Novak had to "wait" for Rafa's "decline" after 2012, before
ascending to the top.

I will give you the satisfaction of having the last word. Pity it is such an illogical one from you.
I have always said such debates should be had when careers are finished. As have most federer and other rafa fans. It is Djokovic fans who have engaged in hypothetical whataboutery then when their own arguments are used against them they get irate.
You are right. Lets see what happens. As of today we know the position. Agreed
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
I don't believe in weak eras but for argument sake, let's say Federer racked up his records during a time of p*iss poor competition. Even so, his records are being broken now so the wrong is being righted. In less than 7 days, Novak Djokovic will become the most celebrated No .1 player taking over from Federer at the top! Why complain? :)
 
Top