Federer fans, be honest...

Is Federer to blame?


  • Total voters
    95
  • This poll will close: .
Wawrinka has beaten Djokovic once he was injured at UO, second time at RG when he was tired, and only once when he was ok - AO quarterfinals.
Yes for same reason Djokovic has never beaten Rafa at RG and even ever on clay as Nadal has only ever lost to Djokovic when he has been injured/tired/personal problems.

And also yes Wawrinka has won every single slam meeting ever between the two. He won USO final, FO final and that AO match. The other slam meetings all went to 5 close sets and Wawrinka only lost those as he was tired/injured/personal problems so technically he won those meetings or at worse those meetings don't count.... so its 100 percent win rate for Wawrinka.
 
hahahahahaha. Yeah and Fed lost to Djokovic those two times at wimbeldon because he was distracted by his twins and also the angle of the sun was wrong.

what happened with the murray straight set thrashing and losing the WTF to murray and Zverev. Did Djokovic break a nail that day?

Why does Djokovic have a losing h2h against weak era mugs safin, roddick, gonzalez, karlovic as well as fed and nadal during that period? Remember it was a super weak era and Djokovic had already reached slam finals at the point and of course nadal of the same age was a triple slam champion around 10 masters, world no 2 phenom then... was djoker to weak for the weak era? Remember age isn;t an excuse either cos then fed was tool old for 2012 onwards for djokovic's few wins
You seem to forget those cases when Nole lost to Wawrinka. I remember it clearly so you don't have to bother, but at the same time you are not in position to contradict me over it.
As for Murray beating Novak at Wimby, I remember that match too. There were few calls from linesmen early in first set that made Djokovic unsure so he started wasting for hawkeye at the end of that same set. He was wrong and after that he just gave up. Maybe because public pressure was immense that Murray should win Wimby that year, as a first UK player to do it after many years. Murray was playing good, but Djokovic didn't push like he used to do.
WTF matches, what about them ? He lost, I have no problems with those losses.
 
Yes for same reason Djokovic has never beaten Rafa at RG and even ever on clay as Nadal has only ever lost to Djokovic when he has been injured/tired/personal problems.

And also yes Wawrinka has won every single slam meeting ever between the two. He won USO final, FO final and that AO match. The other slam meetings all went to 5 close sets and Wawrinka only lost those as he was tired/injured/personal problems so technically he won those meetings or at worse those meetings don't count.... so its 100 percent win rate for Wawrinka.
Your jokes are stale.
 
What all of you don't understand is Federer has 2 ATGs 5/6 years his junior chasing him. Nadal and Djokovic have no one. They are benefiting tremendously from this and hence their slam count is highly inflated.
What a ridiculous statement, this poster should be banned.

By your logic Federer's slam count is also inflated because he had no competition till Nadal and Djokovic arrived.

Nadal had to compete with Federer from the very beginning, and then Prime Djokovic. Federer won a boat load of slams before Prime Nadal and Djokovic.

Honestly, ridiculous posting.
 
You seem to forget those cases when Nole lost to Wawrinka. I remember it clearly so you don't have to bother, but at the same time you are not in position to contradict me over it.
As for Murray beating Novak at Wimby, I remember that match too. There were few calls from linesmen early in first set that made Djokovic unsure so he started wasting for hawkeye at the end of that same set. He was wrong and after that he just gave up. Maybe because public pressure was immense that Murray should win Wimby that year, as a first UK player to do it after many years. Murray was playing good, but Djokovic didn't push like he used to do.
WTF matches, what about them ? He lost, I have no problems with those losses.
Good so now you have opened up the case that silly excuses mean a loss doesn't count with your huge list of funny excuses, then fed losses to Djokovic after 2014 don't count either.

Also BTW, Wawrinka has only ever beaten djokovic in a slam or at worse lost a close 5 setter so Djokovic has barely every won Wawrinka when he has won him and in all other cases lost!! Wawrinka is clearly the better player too as he won the big finals too and Djokovic won 0 of those and the few djokovic slam wins he did have wawrinka he needed 5 sets, he even needed 12-10 last set once!
 
What a ridiculous statement, this poster should be banned.

By your logic Federer's slam count is also inflated because he had no competition till Nadal and Djokovic arrived.

Nadal had to compete with Federer from the very beginning, and then Prime Djokovic. Federer won a boat load of slams before Prime Nadal and Djokovic.

Honestly, ridiculous posting.
Ridiculous interpretation of what was being said.

I'm going to beat the holiday rush and just put you on ignore now.
 
What a ridiculous statement, this poster should be banned.

By your logic Federer's slam count is also inflated because he had no competition till Nadal and Djokovic arrived.

Nadal had to compete with Federer from the very beginning, and then Prime Djokovic. Federer won a boat load of slams before Prime Nadal and Djokovic.

Honestly, ridiculous posting.
Firstly hello, Nadal played and won slams and masters in the "weak era". As soon as Djokovic showed up his win rate plumetted

Nadal won slams by beating Thiem, Thiem, Berdych, Ferrer, Peurta, Soderling, Anderson.... all 0 slam never been world no 1 mugs. As weak era as it gets. How many slams has Fed won by beating players in the final who have never won a slam and who have never been world no 1? I count 7 for Nadal (ferrer, anderson, thiem etc as above)
 
I’m a big Fed fan and I think both Rafa and Nole got into his head and as a result he lost a few tight 5-set Slam finals and semis that he should have won. In my view he should have about 5 extra Slams titles if not for those chokes. Wimpy ‘08, AO ‘09, USO ‘10 and ‘11 and at least one of the Slam finals he played against Djokovic in ‘14 and ‘15
 
I am not saying that Fed didn't find it tough around 2008... after all Nadal entered his peak with 22 (or was it earlier :unsure: ), Nole won his 1st Slam, kids have started to pop out like mushrooms after rain... and yeah, Roddick and Hewitt were just... holding back those pushy kids.
We know when Fed took advantage of weak tour. It was 2004-2007 and he never repeated that. Not bcs of age. We know he is tailor made for weak field situations (2017).

I followed OPs request and I didn't vote. But if you expected that only Fed fans would be writing here...:rolleyes: especially after post #3 in this topic :sneaky: so typical.
Djokovic didn;t benifit from weak era? Lol for started he won his only slam for year there. Djokovic literally played 2004-2010 weak era you mentioned and guess what while federer and nadal cleaned up DJokovic got 1 slam. Thats right lol he was too weak for the weak era. And to add insult to injury he ended up with a losing h2h versus all weak era mugs roddick, safin, karlovic, nadal and federer. Oh dear! Too weak for the weak era!!

And whats worse now even when peak and world no 1 he is losing slam semi's and other finals to Kacahnov, Zverev x 2, Thiem x 3, Murray, Wawrinka etc.
 
What a ridiculous statement, this poster should be banned.

By your logic Federer's slam count is also inflated because he had no competition till Nadal and Djokovic arrived.

Nadal had to compete with Federer from the very beginning, and then Prime Djokovic. Federer won a boat load of slams before Prime Nadal and Djokovic.

Honestly, ridiculous posting.
Nadal was precocious, already prime by 2006. Djokovic by 2007. Fed dropped off after 2012, and Djokodal had a feast with no one younger fighting for slams. It makes a big difference when you have younger guys who are hungry for slams. Djokodal has absolutely no one.

You should be banned for utter stupidity.
 
Good so now you have opened up the case that silly excuses mean a loss doesn't count with your huge list of funny excuses, then fed losses to Djokovic after 2014 don't count either.

Also BTW, Wawrinka has only ever beaten djokovic in a slam or at worse lost a close 5 setter so Djokovic has barely every won Wawrinka when he has won him and in all other cases lost!! Wawrinka is clearly the better player too as he won the big finals too and Djokovic won 0 of those and the few djokovic slam wins he did have wawrinka he needed 5 sets, he even needed 12-10 last set once!
Ok
 
Glad you agree with me and have changed your views so drastically, but just "OK" is a weirdly brief response. What made you realise I was right and you were wrong? Was it the fact that Wawrinka always beats Djokovic OR loses in 5 tight sets? Did that swing it and make you reaslie how wrong you were in doubting wawrinkas superiorty vs novak?
 
Glad you agree with me and have changed your views so drastically, but just "OK" is a weirdly brief response. What made you realise I was right and you were wrong? Was it the fact that Wawrinka always beats Djokovic OR loses in 5 tight sets? Did that swing it and make you reaslie how wrong you were in doubting wawrinkas superiorty vs novak?
It means I must get some sleep first.
So if you are sane enough, you will stop responding since I answered shortly that your posts are no longer interesting to me.
 
It means I must get some sleep first.
So if you are sane enough, you will stop responding since I answered shortly that your posts are no longer interesting to me.
You agree with everything I say and so now no longer find the discussion interesting.... ahh interesting. It is always good to learn new things such as wawrinkas and Thiems (2-1 at slams) superiorty over Novak. These things should not make you bored especially as you have learnt to accept them so easily which is good as often people are resistant to lerning the truth but not you (in this case at least, I dont know what you are like outside tennis forums). Anyway, good night.
 
One can not blame for being born before.
Besides ridiculous and illogical, it's downright stupid.
:rolleyes:
It's not blaming him. It's stating facts.

Some try to argue Fed had it tougher because Nadal and Novak are younger. But that only made it easier for him, since he could go largelly unchallenged for quite a while at most tournaments. It does make it harder for him now. But Rafa and Novak have never been unchallenged by all time greats, except in short spells.
 
Last edited:
It's not blaming him. It's stating facts.

Some try to argue Fed had it tougher because Nadal and Novak are younger. But that only made it easier for him, since he could go largelly unchallenged for quite a while at most tournaments. It does make it easier for him now. But Rafa and Novak had never been unchallenged by all time greats, except in short spells.
The presence of ATGs doesn't mean you face them. Nadal for example has won slams by beating peurta, ferrer, Thiem, Thiem again, berdych, soderling, and of course mugderson

also age either is a factor or it isn't.... make your mind up.... what do you mean young nadal or djokovic? Well in that case nadal and djokovic faced old federer
 
The presence of ATGs doesn't mean you face them. Nadal for example has won slams by beating peurta, ferrer, Thiem, Thiem again, berdych, soderling, and of course mugderson

also age either is a factor or it isn't.... make your mind up.... what do you mean young nadal or djokovic? Well in that case nadal and djokovic faced old federer
I know, what is why I talked about facing them consistently, and said Rafa and Novak have had some spells where they've been unchallenged by fellow all times greats, but they have been less so than what Fed had, who, for example, faces a alot of first time slam finalists. We know what almost invariably happens then: straight sets beat downs.

19 is young. 23 isn't old by any standards.
 
I know, what is why I talked about facing them consistently, and said Rafa and Novak have had some spells where they've been unchallenged by fellow all times greats, but they have been less so than what Fed had, who, for example, faces a alot of first time slam finalists. We know what almost invariably happens then: straight sets beat downs.

19 is young. 23 isn't old by any standards.
So does age matter yes or no?

How many slams did Federer win while Djokovic or Nadal were "19 or so/young" and how many have djokovic and nadal won while federer has been "old/29 or so"

Both Nadal and Djokovic have had many years facing poor competition and weak opponents. In fact Nadal has won far more slams versus guys who have never reached no 1 or won a slam then djokovic and federer combined. Also as per mcenroeartist:

Beating previous slam champions:

Federer - 13
Australian Open - Agassi, Safin, Wawrinka, Nadal
French Open - Moya, Wawrinka
Wimbledon - Sampras, Hewitt, Djokovic, Murray
US Open - Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick,

Nadal - 9
Australian Open - Federer
French Open - Moya, Federer, Wawrinka
Wimbledon - Agassi, Federer
US Open - Roddick, Djokovic, Del Potro

Djokovic - 14
Australian Open - Federer, Nadal, Wawrinka
French Open - Federer, Nadal
Wimbledon - Hewitt, Nadal, Federer
US Open - Roddick, Federer, Nadal, Del Potro, Murray, Cilic

Sampras - 13
Australian Open - Lendl, Courier,
French Open - Bruguera, Courier,
Wimbledon - Stich, Agassi, Becker
US Open - Wilander, Lendl, McEnroe, Agassi, Rafter, Safin
 
No, because I know that 30+ year old Nadal and Djokovic wouldn’t do better against peak or prime Federer than he did against them.

In fact they would do probably much worse.
Well if you are talking about currently, it definitely isnt peak Nadal or peak Djokovic either (maybe prime Djokovic, and even that is iffy, definitely not prime Nadal). Unless you are referring to more the early 2010s period, like say 2011-2015?
 
So does age matter yes or no?

How many slams did Federer win while Djokovic or Nadal were "19 or so/young" and how many have djokovic and nadal won while federer has been "old/29 or so"

Both Nadal and Djokovic have had many years facing poor competition and weak opponents.

But Rafa and Novak are not one player. When they've won while Fed has been 30 or more they've had each other to face.

Also, I have a hard time considering 30 something old, when for example Nadal's recent slam results are: won RG last year, semis at Wimbledon (only stopped barely by Novak), semis at the USO, final at the AO, won RG. That's a player at his prime I'd say. Novak of course had won the last 3 slams. Look at Fed's 2017. We're not talking about a run at a slam, the level of consistency speaks for itself.

Young Rafa and Novak were not getting those results.

Of course "old" age has to being to matter at some point.

In fact Nadal has won far more slams versus guys who have never reached no 1 or won a slam then djokovic and federer combined. Also as per mcenroeartist:

Beating previous slam champions:

Federer - 13
Australian Open - Agassi, Safin, Wawrinka, Nadal
French Open - Moya, Wawrinka
Wimbledon - Sampras, Hewitt, Djokovic, Murray
US Open - Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick,

Nadal - 9
Australian Open - Federer
French Open - Moya, Federer, Wawrinka
Wimbledon - Agassi, Federer
US Open - Roddick, Djokovic, Del Potro

Djokovic - 14
Australian Open - Federer, Nadal, Wawrinka
French Open - Federer, Nadal
Wimbledon - Hewitt, Nadal, Federer
US Open - Roddick, Federer, Nadal, Del Potro, Murray, Cilic

Sampras - 13
Australian Open - Lendl, Courier,
French Open - Bruguera, Courier,
Wimbledon - Stich, Agassi, Becker
US Open - Wilander, Lendl, McEnroe, Agassi, Rafter, Safin
But you're ignoring how many times they've beaten them. Like, you've counted Fed at RG once.
 
No, they faced fellow all times greats at their prime, which is much harder.
Nadal's peak/prime is debatable. I think Nadal 2005 - 2010 would beat post-2010 Nadal on all surfaces.

Still, even if prime Nadal is post 2010, peak/prime Nadalovic only faced each at the slams for 12 months (2011 Wimbledon to 2012 Roland Garros). Since then, they've faced each other only once at Wimbledon (2018), only once at the US Open (2013), and only once at the Australian Open (2019).
 
Last edited:
As I suggested elsewhere, I think all of the Big Three would crush their peak selves if they could magically be given back their peak bodies. All of them are smarter players, know more about how to win, what tactics to use, how to conserve energy.

So right now Fed is the best player he's ever been in all ways except the physical ability to sustain the physical level required to dominate in singles over several sets.

Same thing for the other top guys. But in the end they all fade for the same reason why we all used to be able to stay up all night partying and drinking then shrug off a hang-over the next day. You can do that at 21. Not at 30. By 40 you don't even want to try unless you are an alcoholic. ;)
 
Nadal's peak/prime is debatable. I think Nadal 2005 - 2010 would beat post-2010 Nadal on all surfaces.

Still, even if prime Nadal is post 2010, peak/prime Nadalovic only faced each at the slams for 12 months (2011 Wimbledon to 2012 Roland Garros). Since then, they've faced each other only once at Wimbledon (2018), only once at the US Open (2013), and only once at the Australian Open (2019).
Because Novak has two primes. He had a defensive prime in 2011, and he'll never have another year like that. It's like Nadal in 2008 on clay, 51% of games for the season. That's a young man's level only.

But Novak's serving prime came later, and during the Nole slam he was still on the tail end of that. Most likely that serving prime would still be there, although it's hard to say how the service game would hold up with lesser defensive skills. However, it's very hard to judge the serve now because of his injury and surgery. There is just a wee bit of the altered wind-up left, as if he kept just part of it. The wrist cocks differently before he raises the racket.

No one stays prime over 30 on defense except for maybe Agassi, but in his case he changed to poly and probably had that as an advantage as other people will getting on the poly-train.
 
No one stays prime over 30 on defense except for maybe Agassi, but in his case he changed to poly and probably had that as an advantage as other people will getting on the poly-train.
If that is true, then Nadal MUST have become a better tennis player otherwise, because his last 3 RG wins were equally utterly dominant (if not even more) as those until 2010. He lost no set (2017), one set (2018) and two sets (2019). And on top of that in 2017 he lost the fewest games ever at RG.

Remember in 2006 he lost sets to Mathieu and Hewitt for example, and also the Söderling loss was during his so-called "peak". There must be a reason, and surely not the illogical canard that all the other 127 players in the field were worse in the last few years.
 
Last edited:
If that is true, then Nadal MUST have become a better tennis player otherwise, because his last 3 RG wins where equally utterly dominant (if not even more) as those until 2010. He lost no set (2017), one set (2018) and two sets (2019). And on top of that in 2017 he lost the fewest games ever at RG.

Remember in 2006 he lost sets to Mathieu and Hewitt for example, and also the Söderling loss was during his so-called "peak". There must be a reason, and surely not the illogical canard that all the other 127 players in the field were worse in the last few years.
His opponents simply got worse, not rocket science, c'mon. Thiem can do better but he is apt to letting nerves loose, to the point that Mathieu playing the match of his life is indeed a tougher cookie.
 
This first:
Remember in 2006 he lost sets to Mathieu and Hewitt for example, and also the Söderling loss was during his so-called "peak". There must be a reason, and surely not the illogical canard that all the other 127 players in the field were worse in the last few years.
I agree with you. I find it terribly illogical to believe that the whole tour has declined, and that's the only reason the Big Three are still winning. My idea is that Fed was the first young super talented player to fully exploit poly, and it's ironic that he did not get around to exploiting the bigger racket until well after age 30. I see him as the first guy who fully accepted the changes, and it seems to me that the only old player who fully exploited the changes was Agassi. So Agassi was from the old-guard but also a pioneer and sort of handed off to Fed. Then the other two plus Murray had to solve the Fed riddle. Nadal had the answer already in 2005 on clay, but the rest developed. Then Djokovic had to solve both Nadal and Fed, and Murray had to solve all of them.

As far as I can tell the younger players just tried to be better at what the old guys did without big changes, and almost entirely without success. A breakthrough is eventually inevitable, and I personally don't think Nadal and Djokovic will continue to stay as close to peak as they get older. But I've been wrong about so many things. First of all, I was convinced Nadal would not be grinding away at this age.
If that is true, then Nadal MUST have become a better tennis player otherwise, because his last 3 RG wins where equally utterly dominant (if not even more) as those until 2010. He lost no set (2017), one set (2018) and two sets (2019). And on top of that in 2017 he lost the fewest games ever at RG.
People are going to say he wins without losing a set because the competition is terrible and he gets cakewalk draws. Let's ignore that and look at his seasonal record at RG for all the years he won.

As ridiculous as it might seem, his return points this year were 4 from the botton. 46.87. Anyone else on the planet would kill to have that number, but it's lower. His peak was 50.36 in 2008. Generally points and games are in a ratio, so return games are about the same, 5th from the bottom this year. So his return is declining. This always happens to aging players. The spread is magnified in games, so 2019 he is at 43.92. In 2008 he was at 51.03. The peak in returning remains about the same as it was many decades ago.

In terms of total points he is about in the middle. For total games in the same place. This year is very strange because it was his worse year since 2004 and 2003 until after Rome, so he had for sure one of his strongest finishes. He ended up with just under 70% of games at RG. That's super high even for clay, though not a record. His best was in 2017, 76.82 games. Borg was even higher two years. Borg is the only other guy ever to win with numbers like Nadal's.

The interesting thing is that in almost no case do players peak on service and return the same year. Nadal reached his absolute serving peak in 2010, but it was one of his weakest returning years.

2012 was his most impressive year by stats, 2nd best year for serving and 2nd best year for returning.
 
His opponents simply got worse, not rocket science, c'mon. Thiem can do better but he is apt to letting nerves loose, to the point that Mathieu playing the match of his life is indeed a tougher cookie.
I don't agree. You can discredit any top player in his best year by saying that competition was weak. You can do that for Borg at his peak, or Connors in 74, or Mac in 84. Even Laver in 69.

It's one thing to claim a weak draw in a major, but there are enough matches in a clay season to judge level against the field. At least in this instance I'd have to agree with Fed. There is just no one like Rafa on clay except Borg, long ago. Both made everyone else look horrible on that surface.
 
I don't agree. You can discredit any top player in his best year by saying that competition was weak. You can do that for Borg at his peak, or Connors in 74, or Mac in 84. Even Laver in 69.

It's one thing to claim a weak draw in a major, but there are enough matches in a clay season to judge level against the field. At least in this instance I'd have to agree with Fed. There is just no one like Rafa on clay except Borg, long ago. Both made everyone else look horrible on that surface.
Nadal is still too good but certainly not better than he was in 2006, let alone absolute peak seasons... Him becoming almost more dominant than ever indicates a decline in competition. This specific RG, he had an above average 3R but 4R and QF were subpar and his SF/F opponents were solid but not as strong as up to 2014. Weak or not, the field is weakER than it used to be.
 
and it seems to me that the only old player who fully exploited the changes was Agassi. So Agassi was from the old-guard but also a pioneer and sort of handed off to Fed.
Agassi somewhat started in the wrong era with his style, and when baseline bashing (not meant negatively) became usual after 2000, he was all of a sudden in the right place, even though he was seemingly "too old" then. That’s why his results didn’t decline. I must say I respect him very much for his success in the 90s, because on the other hand there isn’t a serve-and-volley player with any similar kind of success in the modern era.

By the way, I think serve-and-volley was always a bit overrated and would have never been superior against someone like Djokovic, even on 90s grass, but that’s another discussion.

The interesting thing is that in almost no case do players peak on service and return the same year. Nadal reached his absolute serving peak in 2010, but it was one of his weakest returning years.
I think this has both technical and psychological reasons. Surely he analyses his statistics, and if someone has a weakness, he practices it more than a strength. So he improves one thing while merely trusting the other. Of course all that only happens to a small degree. The psychological part emerges during single matches: If someone leads with 2 breaks, then maybe he thinks it doesn’t matter if he holds serve all the time. On the other hand, if the serve is almighty, then a one-break-lead could be enough, even for someone like Nadal who usually fights for every point.
 
Nadal is still too good but certainly not better than he was in 2006, let alone absolute peak seasons... Him becoming almost more dominant than ever indicates a decline in competition. This specific RG, he had an above average 3R but 4R and QF were subpar and his SF/F opponents were solid but not as strong as up to 2014. Weak or not, the field is weakER than it used to be.
But the problem is that we have no objective ways to measure.

The only shot in tennis that is not dependent on reacting to what the guy on the other side of the net does is the serve. Even number of aces is dependent on the skill of the returners. The closest thing we have to something objective is Hawkeye when it shows dots for the placement of each serve. So if we have a speed average, and a measurement of spin, we could then possibly chart each players accuracy in hitting spots. But everything else is dependent on what other players do. There are pictures all the time showing that Fed now stands closer in. I personally accept that as pretty solid evidence that Fed really does have a different position now. I don't believe everyone on average is hitting shorter or slower.

But everything else is the "eye test", and I don't trust that. I don't trust your judgment, or mine, or anyone else's.

It's a bit like talking about the weather, about how much hotter it was last year, or cooler, or last decade, but making that judgment without a thermometer.

It's like talking about rainfall without something to measure it. We're going on assumptions, impressions, intuition, feel, common sense and so on. All these things can be either right or wrong.

In the end you either assume everyone is getting worse, or you reject that idea. Personally I think it is unlikely. I'm talking about skills only, not the art of the game, the beauty and elegance of certain players.

Unfortunately the level of something can go up in terms of skills, consistency, speed and so without anything interesting happening. I find most tennis today rather boring, but that is my reaction to how I perceive the interest of what is going on. I also assume what I don't like is now the only way to win.
 
I personally don't know what to expect from him anymore. He can be brilliant one day, then can be horrible the next day. The simple fact is he is too old to be consistent and we just have to accept whatever results comes to his way. I'm happy to see him this competitive still.
 
If that is true, then Nadal MUST have become a better tennis player otherwise, because his last 3 RG wins were equally utterly dominant (if not even more) as those until 2010.
Perhaps it's because he faced qualifiers, lucky losers, LostGens, fellow oldies who couldn't beat him when they were fellow youngsters, gramps playing in his first RG in four years.....oh, and Thiem.
 
Why would they ? They had no experience of weak era like some.
Djokovic played in the exact same 2003-2007 era and guess what got 0 slams as well as a losing h2h vs weak era mugs roddick, safin, gonzalez, federer, nadal :-D:-D:-D DJOKOVIC WAS TOO WEAK FOR THE WEAK ERA :-D:-D:-D while Nadal who is same age as djoker and also fed were racking up monster slams, masters, wtf, weeks at no 1 and no 2, djoker was too weak for even the weak era!! :-D:-D:-D

He has only manged to have succesful seasons when either fed or djokovic is missing/injured/suregery or poor form has a great season and then goes walkabouts losing to Istomin etc them waits for a dip in fedal to strike again... wait for it hes gonna dip and strike again when fed and ned retire
 
Djokovic played in the exact same 2003-2007 era and guess what got 0 slams as well as a losing h2h vs weak era mugs roddick, safin, gonzalez, federer, nadal :-D:-D:-D DJOKOVIC WAS TOO WEAK FOR THE WEAK ERA :-D:-D:-D while Nadal who is same age as djoker and also fed were racking up monster slams, masters, wtf, weeks at no 1 and no 2, djoker was too weak for even the weak era!! :-D:-D:-D

He has only manged to have succesful seasons when either fed or djokovic is missing/injured/suregery or poor form has a great season and then goes walkabouts losing to Istomin etc them waits for a dip in fedal to strike again... wait for it hes gonna dip and strike again when fed and ned retire
Hey guess what, Fed had 0 Slams in 1998-2003 era :-D:-D:-D
:rolleyes:
 
Top