Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Sky Fire, Apr 28, 2013.
Djokovic, because he has Federer in his era.
Edit: and Nadal
Edit 2: I'm not insinuating Federer played in a weak era
Federer's era had more surface variation, apparently that makes era's harder
Well the answer's not Djokovic anyway, not with a Federer who's approaching 60 and requires a titanium back brace 24/7, a Nadal who severely declined his way to 7 consecutive ATP finals and 3 Major Finals in 2011, a Murray who until last September was still working on his wind controlling abilities for his audition for The X-Men, and a Ferrer who's sole purpose in life is to lay cartoonish traps along the tracks of the ATP wacky races to clear the way for Novak and the other 3 to take the lead.
Fed is 31 when djoker hit the prime, young federer would have annihilated djoker
what djokovic era?
no he wouldn't.
Novak BY FAR! Novak had to deal with Peak Fed, Peak Nadal, Peak Murray...the list goes on.
Who did Fed have? Goran Ivanišević. :lol:
Peak Del Potro.
(For me, the REAL fifth ranked player after the Big Four)
That is really easy to answer. Fed had it piece of cake on all surfaces until 2005 and on hard court until 2007 (that's all his peak years). Djoko has had it super hard from day 1.
Exactly, Delpo is better than most of the competition Fed faced back in the day.
Peak Hewitt/Roddick would struggle to beat Simon. :lol:
Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Agassi and Davydenko are a piece of cake? Ironically past prime Roddick leads the h2h with Djokovic lol.
LOL Roddick would NEVER beat Novak from 2011 onwards.
It's a good thing he retired when he did.
this is joke thread.
Federer's opponents included only pigeons like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin + some mental midgets who were not even close to Fed's ground game
Look who Joker is playing against....he is toe to toe against 2 other greats like Fed , Nadal in terms of ground game and a equally tough physical opponent like Murray.
IS this even a debate? Fed just capitalized on a weak weak era. The real competition started only in 2008 and we all know the great Fed started becoming a lap dog for Nadal once he faced small pressure
2004 Roddick on grass would have a good shot against Novak. Even fast hardcourts if Djokovic was off his game he could be in trouble.
Apparently Roddick only faced baby Djoker. There is a reason why Roddick has 1 slam Vs. 6 slams for Djoker.
Roddick cannot do jack against a primed djoker. Infact Djoker will beat him playing in wheelchair!
Do you want me to throw the list a non names who have a winning h2h against Fed? Here is one for you against Patrick Rafter 0–3 ..... a fair comparison!
Federer. Novak has zero competition besides Nadal, Murray and Federer. 2 of those 3 are past their peak years.
Federer was 26 when he loose three straight sets :
top 4, djokovic era, rest of the field federer era.
Oh please... 35 year old Agassi was every bit as piece of cake as Fed himself will be at that age (and his fans are already using his age as excuse #1 for losing despite the fact he is only 31). Nalby has never had the slightest consistency on any surface, Safin was at his peak in 2000 (long before the Fed era), Hewitt burned out early (and both of these amassed injuries), Davydenko was by all definition average until the late 2000s and could never handle best of 5 (inferior to Delpo). Roddick was a limited player who was far in talent from a guy like Murray (who is only mid-career and has twice as many masters and more slam finals than retired Roddick).
Djoko has had from the start: 2 GOAT contenders. Massive lol at the comparison
There is also Del Potro. He can be threatening in Grand Slam.
Federer in 2
We will never know because they both never at their prime when they play.
Had Davy never play Nadal, would one predict Davy lead Nadal 6-1 on hard court? No, people would laugh at that idea.
Pretty reasonable and objective like all your posts here...
Yes Federer had it easier because he didn't have to face Federer.
One word - mileage. Federer currently has only 50 matches less under his belt than Agassi in his entire career, so that's a 4 year difference in mileage for you.
Easily Djokovic because Fed didn't have to play Fed
If Federer never exist at all, it's hard to tell which era was stronger, because slams titles, WTF, and ranking statistics are distributed throughout the field.
Agree. Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero and even Nadal could have a couple more slams. Perhaps Nalbandian, and even a final slam for Agassi. Federer just dominanted with insane consistency.
It's not age it's form that's important, Agassi played very well at the US Open both years he faced Federer. He was also #1 in 2003 the year Federer destroyed him in the final of the YEC. If Agassi was playing badly I would say it was understandable that he was, however that doesn't deny the fact that he still had good spells of form.
Nalbandian made several deep runs, did well in the indoor season 07, won the YEC in 2005. He was a talented player. lol at Davydenko being average, your head is so far up Rafa's backside you can't see that he's beaten him 6 times on hardcourts. Safin's peak was when he was 20? Pretty sure he made finals and had good results after that. Hewitt was extremely consistant and very good from 2004 - 2005. Roddick had enough power to blow past Murray at Wimbledon 2009. Roddick from 2004 was a much stronger player.
It doesn't matter. Murray has the better records of the 2. About Davy, I said: until the late 2000s (which was after Fed's peak years). He was not great beween 2004 and 2006. Fed had it quite easy on hard until Djoko/Murray matured and Nadal got better on the surface (around 2008).
Ehmm since when a couple of slam quarters and semis in 2005/2006 is "not great"?
He was top 5 for something like 5 years. Even this year he straight setted Ferrer. Peak Davydenko was a great player, he just couldn't get it done versus Federer.
Roddick still has a better career than Murray at this point anyway. More time in the top 10, year end #1. It's close though.
Disagree. More master titles and more slam finals are more important than years in top 10. Murray has more potential period. Davy could not get it done in slams of his own admission. 0 slam final to his name. Even Berd and Tsonga have done better.
Davydenko has a WTF, let's not pretend Berdych or Tsonga have vetter careers than Davy. Never said Murray didn't have more potential. Roddick has a year end #1. I'll take that over losing an extra slam final.
Fred was 31-year old at the AO 2011?
Federer had to deal with Roddick and Hewitt (who never even showed up on clay). He also had to deal with Nadal.
Djokovic had to CONSISTENTLY deal with Federer and Nadal....across ALL surfaces.
I think the answer is quite clear.
"The era you play is always seems weak until it is over".
True, Djokovic massacred Roddick in the last two matches
Federer's age varies depending on the subject.
That's broken English, but I couldn't agree more.
Will you ever be objetive? in another thread you said slam finals didn't matter and it was only about winning titles (comparing RG runner ups to clay master titles). You also said something along the lines that runner ups weren't "great champions".
Easy. Djokovic has it harder because he is not as good as Federer was relative to the rest of the field.
Without being disrespectful, Novak is merely a great tennis player at this stage. Federer, on the other hand, was a genius until the tour and age caught up with him. Novak plays essentially the same style as Murray, Nadal, Ferrer and almost everybody else, just a little bit better. If you watched tennis in 2003-2006 you knew immediately that Federer had (and still has) a style all his own.
Here it is a matter of comparing 2 players who have only won 1 slam, so of course, in that case I have to look at finals. + Murray has won more master TITLES.
I agree. And because you have to go through the top 4 to win slams that makes winning slams much more difficult today.
If the current Novak was playing pre-Nadal he would still beat Roger most of the time and would be winning slams everywhere, probably the GS too. But the question isn't fair of course because the way Novak plays is because he had Roger and Rafa to inspire him.
I was refering to davy vs tsonga/berdy, sorry if i didn't make it clear.
Davy won 0 slam (same for Berd or Tsonga), so the only thing I can look up next is: how many finals.
I could add to the bargain that both Tsonga and Berd have upset big names in slams (Nadal, Fed, Djoko), Davy, not so much.
Davy has won 3 masters and the WTF, while berdy and tsonga won 1 master title.
I don't think 1 slam final and a couple of upsets are more than over 3 master titles (since wtf is more than 1 master title) but i guess that's subjetive.
No of course they're not (Davy has a much better record in best of 3 than Berd or Tsonga, especially Berd). My only point was that he wasn't very competitive in slams, hence not a big threat there during Fed's peak years.
Oh, i agree with that. Back then the top 4 (except federer obviously) was more prone to upsets by the field than now.
Separate names with a comma.