Spencer Gore
Legend
That fact alone shows you how poor the era was that Federer started to dominate.
Djokovic ties Federer on 310 Weeks at No. 1 in FedEx ATP Rankings
- Thread starter ABCD
- Start date
Sunny014
Legend
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
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.
[
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".
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".
Last edited:
Sunny014
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 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".
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
Competition arguments can...save Federer? Golly gee, that's a new one.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.
CYGS
Legend
Arbitrary cutoff by you.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
The fact that all of these players are baseliners should make you think.
Beckerserve
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.[
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".
Beckerserve
Legend
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.
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
Sunny014
Legend
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
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 ?
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Poor boy Federer.
The courts, the racket, the age, the mononucleosis... Has an excuse for every loss.
Sunny014
Legend
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.
xFedal
Legend
Djokovic was not active enough for 2017 to count against him, likewise 2019 Nadal being no.1 however can be held against Novak.
NoleIsBoat
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.the real bottom line is nadal doesn't have his era, not djok, 00s is fed, 10s is djo, where's nadal
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
LOL that's not an era.
Beckerserve
Legend
With djokovic though its hard to know how genuine his inactivity is
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
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
Beckerserve
Legend
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.
xFedal
Legend
It was his first major inactivity. He couldn't win matches in 2017-18. There was a time when he was 6-6 lol, unreal! how he turned it around .
Sunny014
Legend
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
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.
Last edited:
Beckerserve
Legend
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
Bionic Poster
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
Nadal was injured in 2009. Missed W and USO. Still won a Major in 2009 and was no.2 YE.
TheAssassin
Legend
^
Nadal missed the US Open in 2009. Good to know.
Nadal missed the US Open in 2009. Good to know.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
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.
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
Well he was injured in it
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Beckerserve
Legend
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
With the joint most Majors of all time he could have added. So modest toni. Great guy.
Beckerserve
Legend
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.
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:
TheAssassin
Legend
So basically he "missed" most if not all Slams during his career.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
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.
Beckerserve
Legend
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.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.
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
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
Beckerserve
Legend
Really do not think a Djokovic fan can bring up injuries. Credibility wise that would score a 0.
TheAssassin
Legend
But YOU brought up injuries.
And really do not think you can bring up credibility at all lol.
Beckerserve
Legend
Nadal was actually genuinely injured. No other pros have ever questioned him. I take the lead from the pros.But YOU brought up injuries.
And really do not think you can bring up credibility at all lol.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
But YOU brought up injuries.
And really do not think you can bring up credibility at all lol.
LOL
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
Pantera vs Djokovic fans these days.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
18th slam and 311 weeks really put my boi Pantera into overdrive.
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?
Similar threads
