Federer in the 00s or Djokovic in the 10s - Who was the more dominant player?

[Hitman]

I didn't say Murray won an inflation slam in 16 either. he was playing at a high enough level there.
neither did Wawa (Wawa actually had a more than decent draw and I rate DJoko in USO 16 a little higher than you do)

only inflation slam in those 2 years combined was Nadal's USO 17, IMO.

but the years as a whole were similarly weak, IMO.

Have to disagree with you there. Federer and Nadal coming back to the top after practically doing nothing for multiple years singled the change. 2016 was the last true prime year where the youngest of the bunch were finishing off and leaving their primes.

2017 on, you see the change. Djokovic, Murray vanished at that point. Federer and Nadal playing a final again after nearly six years since their last.

2016 and 2017 cannot be counted together. One is a prime year, so no inflation slams.....one is a year with two 30 year olds coming back from the dead to do something they did seven eight years ago.

 

[abmk]

Have to disagree with you there. Federer and Nadal coming back to the top after practically doing nothing for multiple years singled the change. 2016 was the last true prime year where the youngest of the bunch were finishing off.

2017 on, you see the change. Djokovic, Murray vanished at that point. Federer and Nadal playing a final again after nearly six years since their last.

2016 and 2017 cannot be counted together. One is a prime year, so no inflation slams.....one is a year with two 30 year olds coming back from the dead to do something they did seven eight years ago.

disagree. I've given sufficient evidence to support my point.

for slams:
Even if Djokovic was in his prime in RG 2016, we both know Nadal in RG 2017 was clearly better.
Even Fed in Wim 17 could be argued to be better than Murray in Wim 16 (you can argue both ways)
Same for Nadal in USO 17 vs Stan in USO 16 (you can argue both ways)
Only AO 16 vs AO 17 is clear cut in favour of AO 2016

for non-slams and other stuff also I've given. not gonna copy paste whole thing again.

 

[abmk]

Well because its the truth he always matched fed on outdoor hard even beat him almost all the time whats propaganda about that ? I did not ignore the 2012 IW matchup good win for fed no one said anything against that. But in the meantime rafa won miami 04, dubai 06, AO 09, miami 11, AO 12, and nearly beat him in miami 05 meanwhile fed scores his IW 12 win doesnt look that convincing to me. Of course now you are going to throw around the fed was sick, old, injured , whatever excuse card. Also i didnt ignore 2017 as i said before with one of my first posts thats the only year fed crushed rafa on outdoor hard.

because you chose to ignore than past prime fed also matched prime nadal in 12. that's the propaganda.

again, fed won a higher% points in dubai 06 and had a clear higher. But you also mention Miami 05 as nadal having a shot.
IW 12 was a crushing also.

of course you can chose to ignore facts like fed being sick in Miami 04 and injury year in 2013-early 14 because that's convenient to you.

 

[Hitman]

disagree. I've given sufficient evidence to support my point.

Your evidence is not enough, if you think 2017 were not inflation slams.

Federer doesn't win a slam for 5 years, then all of a sudden, he beats Nadal at AO and then practically destroys everyone at Wimbledon in a way he never did in his peak, by not losing a set....that at nearly 35 years of age? Nadal doesn't does anything for nearly three years, then makes the first two slam finals, was three game away from winning both?

To combine that with 2016 is trying to prop up Federer's slam wins IMO.

If there is an inflation era, then it started with Federer coming back from the dead to win AO 2017, and his buddy Nadal then joining him to practically own the tour and take it back to what it was like back almost ten years ago.

2016, peak/prime Djokovic - The guy is meant to win those slams. So you don't devalue them. Murray is his prime, was meant to win. Wawrinka in his prime was meant to win.....Fedal, dead and buried, weren't.

 

[abmk]

Your evidence is not enough, if you think 2017 were not inflation slams.

Federer doesn't win a slam for 5 years, then all of a sudden, he beats Nadal at AO and then practically destroys everyone at Wimbledon in a way he never did in his peak, by not losing a set....that at nearly 35 years of age? Nadal doesn't does anything for nearly three years, then makes the first two slam finals, was three game away from winning both?

To combine that with 2016 is trying to prop up Federer's slam wins IMO.

If there is an inflation era, then it started with Federer coming back from the dead to win AO 2017, and his buddy Nadal then joining him to practically own the tour and take it back to what it was like back almost ten years ago.

2016, peak/prime Djokovic - The guy is meant to win those slams. So you don't devalue them. Murray is his prime, was meant to win. Wawrinka in his prime was meant to win.....Fedal, dead and buried, weren't.

federer was playing well at Wim 14, Wim 15, USO 15 like he was in AO 17/Wim 17 (not a big difference). just that djokovic at his peak stopped him in those.
federer was also smashing murray/wawa and big chunk of the tour in 14/15

are you going to bet that Murray in WIm 16 was so clearly better than fed in Wim 17 or going to beat him for sure?
wouldn't 17 Wim fed cruise through Murray's Wim 16 draw just like Murray did?

while Djokovic's AO 16 level was so clearly higher than fed's in AO 17, the reverse is true for their competition in those slams.

and yes, nadal came back after 14? so what?
RG 17 level wise is still clearly better than djokovic's RG 16.

USO 17 I already said is an inflation slam and yet you could argue for nadal of USO 17 over wawa of USO 16 level wise (and vice versa)

 

[Hitman]

federer was playing well at Wim 14, Wim 15, USO 15 like he was in AO 17/Wim 17 (not a big difference). just that djokovic at his peak stopped him in those.
federer was also smashing murray/wawa and big chunk of the tour in 15

are you going to bet that Murray in WIm 16 was so clearly better than fed in Wim 17 or going to beat him for sure?

and yes, nadal came back after 14? so what?
RG 17 level wise is still clearly better than djokovic's RG 16.

USO 17 I already said is an inflation slam and yet you could argue for nadal of USO 17 over wawa of USO 16 level wise (and vice versa)

If you're going to start talking about level, you are opening up a big kettle of fish here. Because now I am going to say Djokovic's W 2018 wasn't inflation, his AO 2019 wasn't inflation, his AO 2023 wasn't inflation, and many many more.

You are trying to blur the lines here so it benefits Federer and makes his numbers look better.

Federer shouldn't be winning anything in 2017, if stronger competition had arrived. If Djokovic was not there to stop him, as he did when he was meant to in his prime/peak years, then a younger ATG should have....see the point? I am not saying Federer sucked, I am saying he didn't have that younger force to stop him anymore.

Dude, you keep harping on about RG 2017, when I told you that I am talking about prime level of play, which means week in week out excellence. Do you actually think Nadal would be making AO and Miami finals in 2017, if Djokovic was playing at the level he was in 2016?

So make up your mind here, if you want to start talking about levels, then its a free for all and I will make the case for numerous Djokovic slams, because I will only look at this level. Or you understand that 2017 onwards none of the generation before that time were in their primes....guys like Dimitrov, Raonic, Thiem, Nishikori were, and they didn't get the job done.

 

[RS]

Good disscusion.

 

[Linelicker]

Roger was more dominant in a condensed period over wizards like Mannimarco Agassi, Hewitt Camoran, Roddick Malkoran, and the rest of the Daedric gang. Djokovic scraped by against clowns like Nadal, Murray, Stannis, and of course Roger himself.

Hard to tell if this is sarcasm or not for me, as I don't know the poster, but the clowns listed played against those wizards, too. Djokovic had trouble with wizards Roddick and Safin, for instance. The clowns also played wizards 2.0 like Ruud, Anderson, Berrettini, Thiem, Tsitsipas and so on, and it was less troublesome.

 

[abmk]

If you're going to start talking about level, you are opening up a big kettle of fish here. Because now I am going to say Djokovic's W 2018 wasn't inflation, his AO 2019 wasn't inflation, his AO 2023 wasn't inflation, and many many more.

obviously djokovic's W 2018 wasn't inflation. how on earth is that possible with nadal playing very well in the semi and djokovic playing very well himself?
AO 2019 was not inflation either since djokovic was playing very well.

AO 2023 obviously is inflation. not that high level from djokovic and weak competition

for me inflation slam means both not high level and not decent enough competition.

You are trying to blur the lines here so it benefits Federer and makes his numbers look better.

Federer shouldn't be winning anything in 2017, if stronger competition had arrived. If Djokovic was not there to stop him, as he did when he was meant to in his prime/peak years, then a younger ATG should have....see the point? I am not saying Federer sucked, I am saying he didn't have that younger force to stop him anymore.

Dude, you keep harping on about RG 2017, when I told you that I am talking about prime level of play, which means week in week out excellence. Do you actually think Nadal would be making AO and Miami finals in 2017, if Djokovic was playing at the level he was in 2016?

So make up your mind here, if you want to start talking about levels, then its a free for all and I will make the case for numerous Djokovic slams, because I will only look at this level. Or you understand that 2017 onwards none of the generation before that time were in their primes....guys like Dimitrov, Raonic, Thiem, Nishikori were, and they didn't get the job done.

I already addressed this. last time I am repeating this part.

nadal non-RG clay season 17 also (2 masters+barca+loss to thiem) >> djokovic non-RG clay season 16 (1 masters+loss to vesely+murray), not just consistency wise, but level wise also. isn't that week in week out for the clay season?

fed was week in week out very good, though not prime level. that's what a 54-5 record indicates. AO/IW/Miami/Halle/Wim/Shanghai/Basel
-----------------


Murray wouldn't be winning Wim 16 or Wawa USO 16 with stronger top level competition either. Just because they were younger than fed 17 (and less so nadal 17) doesn't mean they were better.

fed would have lost AO 17 vs stronger top level competition, but not necessarily Wim 17 (Wim 12/18 djokovic would not be enough IMO. Wim 15 djokovic would be. Wim 14 djokovic could go either way)

nadal would have lost USO 17 vs stronger top level competition, but not RG 17.

Murray/Wawa wouldn't be winning Wim 16/USO 16 vs Wim 15/USO 15 djoko either.

so why single out fed of 17, but not Murray of Wim 16/Wawa of USO 16?

------------

your comparision about Miami is not fair since nadal was finalist, not winner in Miami 17. fed's toughest opponent in Miami 17 was Kyrgios, not Nadal. who was djokovic's in Miami 16? Goffin?

16 Miami djokovic was better than 17 Miami fed, but fed obviously faced significantly tougher competition.

ditto 16 AO vs 17 AO

your comparision is like saying:

Do you think Murray would be making AO final in 2016 with fed/wawa/nadal of AO 17? nah.
do you think Murray would be making RG final in 2016 with nadal of RG 17? LOL.


--------------

2017, wawa was in his prime in 1st half (AO, RG, IW). better in RG 17 than in RG 16. AO 17 similar to USO 16, atleast not a significant difference. just that he was not injured in 2016, but he wasn't a big factor in many tournaments.

delpo was better in 2017 than in 2016 (though not in his prime)

 

[The_Order]

Good disscusion.

Typical abmk FEDR > universe and a million excuses/gymnastics to support it that at the end of the day, convinces no one.

If we're going to talk strongest era, really it starts from about half way 2007 (RG) and ends about half way 2014 (WIM). Of course, this doesn't mean every slam was a banger. I've many times said 2010 should be excluded although I don't think US10 can be.

After that, level got progressively worse. It propped up a bit in mid 2018 - 2019 but that's not saying much given we're talking about coming back from 2017 which was the worst from 2015-2019 imo.

Then in 2020 it started to sink to the depths until we hit rock bottom last year imo.

 

[Hitman]

obviously djokovic's W 2018 wasn't inflation. how on earth is that possible with nadal playing very well in the semi and djokovic playing very well himself?
AO 2019 was not inflation either since djokovic was playing very well.

AO 2023 obviously is inflation. not that high level from djokovic and peak competition


I already addressed this. last time I am repeating this part.

nadal non-RG clay season 17 also (2 masters+barca+loss to thiem) >> djokovic non-RG clay season 16 (1 masters+loss to vesely+murray), not just consistency wise, but level wise also. isn't that week in week out for the clay season?

fed was week in week out very good, though not prime level. that's what a 54-5 record indicates. AO/IW/Miami/Halle/Wim/Shanghai/Basel
-----------------

Murray wouldn't be winning Wim 16 or Wawa USO 16 with stronger top level competition either. Just because they were younger than fed 17 (and less so nadal 17) doesn't mean they were better.

fed would have lost AO 17 vs stronger top level competition, but not necessarily Wim 17 (Wim 12/18 djokovic for example may not have been enough. Wim 15 djokovic would be. Wim 14 djokovic could go either way)

nadal would have lost USO 17 vs stronger top level competition, but not RG 17.

your comparision about Miami is not fair since nadal was finalist, not winner in Miami 17. fed's toughest opponent in Miami 17 was Kyrgios, not Nadal. who was djokovic's in Miami 16? Goffin?

16 Miami djokovic was better than 17 Miami fed, but fed obviously faced significantly tougher competition.

ditto 16 AO vs 17 AO

2017, wawa was in his prime in 1st half (AO, RG, IW). better in RG 17 than in RG 16. AO 17 similar to USO 16, atleast not a significant difference. just that he was not injured in 2016, but he wasn't a big factor in many tournaments.

delpo was better in 2017 than in 2016 (though not in his prime)

So you're picking and choosing slams how you will based on your own personal eye test. Well then we have have reached a point of its simply your perceived view versus mine. In my opinion AO 2023 was not an inflation slam, simple as that, that's my opinion, Djokovic wasn't losing that to anyone.

As far as you repeating, you keep missing the point.

Murray in 2016 does not need Djokovic out of the way to win Wimbledon, when he has never lost a set to him. Federer did need Djokovic out of the way in 2017 to win Wimbledon as history showed us what happened the last two time they played.

You keep mixing 2016 with 2017 in regards to level, when you are not addressing the main point. Djokoivc/Murray were in their primes in 2016, they were meant to be winning.....Fedal was not in their primes in 2017, their primes were over, they were not meant to be winning, the younger guns should have been there to stop them.

If you are going to keep going in circles and say, that Federer and Nadal here raised their levels, well I am using that same reasoning for all of Djokovic's wins. Why not, there is no consistency, it's a pick and choose thing happening here, you basically are just watching and deciding for yourself what counts and what doesn't. I'll do the same in that regard.

 

[RS]

Typical abmk FEDR > universe and a million excuses/gymnastics to support it that at the end of the day, convinces no one.

If we're going to talk strongest era, really it starts from about half way 2007 (RG) and ends about half way 2014 (WIM). Of course, this doesn't mean every slam was a banger. I've many times said 2010 should be excluded although I don't think US10 can be.

After that, level got progressively worse. It propped up a bit in mid 2018 - 2019 but that's not saying much given we're talking about coming back from 2017 which was the worst from 2015-2019 imo.

Then in 2020 it started to sink to the depths until we hit rock bottom last year imo.

I don't necessarily agree with everything here but I still find it to be a good disscusion.

That being said there isn't going to be a agreement nobody convinces anyone since nearly everyone goes in fixed on there beliefs.

 

[abmk]

So you're picking and choosing slams how you will based on your own personal eye test. Well then we have have reached a point of its simply your perceived view versus mine. In my opinion AO 2023 was not an inflation, simple as that, that's my opinion, Djokovic wasn't losing that to anyone.

obviously I'm taking it case by case.

As far as you repeating, you keep missing the point.

Murray in 2016 does not need Djokovic out of the way to win Wimbledon, when he have never lost a set to him. Federer did need Djokovic out of the way in 2017 to win Wimbledon as history showed us what happened the last two time they played.

actually Murray Wim 16 would lose to Djoko of Wim 15 for sure. So yeah.
Djokovic of Wim 11/14 would edge him out, but that atleast can be argued.
But if you want to bring in matchup thing, then take fed of Wim 12/15 beating Murray there. Wim 12 fed more than enough to beat Murray of Wim 16, no?
I'd say Wim 17 fed also beats Murray of Wim 16 in a straight matchup, though it would be closer than Wim 15.

You keep mixing 2016 with 2017 in regards to level, when you are not addressing the main point. Djokoivc/Murray were in their primes in 2016, they were meant to be winning.....Fedal was not in their primes in 2017, their primes were over, they were not meant to be winning, the younger guns should have been there to stop them.

If you going to keep going in circles and say, that Federer and Nadal here raised their levels, well I am using that same reasoning for all of Djokovic's wins. Why not, there is not consistency, it's a pick and choose thing happening here, you basically are just watching and deciding for yourself what counts and what doesn't. I'll do the same in that regard.

no, I am not missing. You are. just because prime doesn't mean better, especially with respect to murray vs fed/nadal (djokovic at AO obviously clears fed at AO)

and like I said Nadal in RG 17 > Djokovic in RG 16 (even clay seasons), clearly so. But you refuse to acknowledge that.
and no Djokovic slam level post AO 19 is better than fed's in Wim 17. to equate with clay season 17 and esp RG 17 nadal would be silly.

 

[Hitman]

obviously I'm taking it case by case

actually Murray would lose to Djoko of Wim 15 for sure. So yeah.
Djokovic of Wim 14 would edge him out, but that atleast can be argued.
But if you want to bring in matchup thing, then take fed of Wim 12/15 beating Murray there. Wim 12 fed more than enough to beat Murray of Wim 16, no?
I'd say Wim 17 fed also beats him in a straight matchup, though it would be closer than Wim 15.


no, I am not missing. You are.. Your point maybe valid for Djokovic, but not Murray.

and like I said Nadal in RG 17 > Djokovic in RG 16 (even clay seasons), clearly so. But you refuse to acknowledge that.
and no Djokovic slam level post AO 19 is better than fed's in Wim 17.

Your case by case is the problem here. You are picking and choosing how it should be, and surprise surprise it makes Federer coming out looking that much more stronger.

I'm not missing the point, Murray is top two with Djokovic in 2016. He was meant to be a solid legit contender for the title that year, the guy was in his 20s. Federer shouldn't be at 35 in 2017. You keep mixing levels in to hide the trees from the forest. Had someone of ATG caliber arrived in 2017, Federer wasn't winning anything, same goes for Nadal.

 

[abmk]

Your case by case is the problem here. You are picking and choosing how it should be, and surprise surprise it makes Federer coming out looking that much more stronger.

I'm not missing the point, Murray is top two with Djokovic in 2016. He was meant to be a solid legit contender for the title that year, the guy was in his 20s. Federer shouldn't be at 35 in 2017. You keep mixing levels in to hide the trees from the forest. Had someone of ATG caliber arrived in 2017, Federer wasn't winning anything, same goes for Nadal.

Nadal would win RG in 17 regardless. (and 1 clay masters atleast)
Fed would also more likely than not win Wim 17 (and one of IW/Shanghai atleast). ATG djokovic in 12/18 would also lose to that fed at Wim for example. (though not 15 and 14 is debatable)

had someone of ATG caliber playing well faced off vs Murray/Wawa of 16, they'd have also not won those slams.

You are missing the point. just because prime doesn't necessarily mean better, especially with respect to murray vs fed/nadal (non-ATG vs ATGs)

surprise surprise you are still not admitting Nadal of clay season 17 > Djokovic in clay season 16 (both including RG and without RG)..
nadal wouldn't win RG in 17 if ATG contender arrived? You cannot be serious.

 

[The_Order]

Your case by case is the problem here. You are picking and choosing how it should be, and surprise surprise it makes Federer coming out looking that much more stronger.

I'm not missing the point, Murray is top two with Djokovic in 2016. He was meant to be a solid legit contender for the title that year, the guy was in his 20s. Federer shouldn't be at 35 in 2017. You keep mixing levels in to hide the trees from the forest. Had someone of ATG caliber arrived in 2017, Federer wasn't winning anything, same goes for Nadal.

Nadal only just turned 31 at RG 2017. I don't think he's losing that RG to mid 20's versions of Fed or Djok in that form he displayed. Maybe 2013 Djok could but I doubt it. And I have serious doubts that some other young ATG calibre would have beat him.

Could argue the same goes for Djok in 2019 AO although, a mid 20's Fed would have a decent shot and 2012 Nadal might have a chance too. Still that was a legit win no doubt. Again, I have serious doubts that some other young ATG calibre would have beat him.

 

[StrongRule]

Your evidence is not enough, if you think 2017 were not inflation slams.

Federer doesn't win a slam for 5 years, then all of a sudden, he beats Nadal at AO and then practically destroys everyone at Wimbledon in a way he never did in his peak, by not losing a set....that at nearly 35 years of age? Nadal doesn't does anything for nearly three years, then makes the first two slam finals, was three game away from winning both?

To combine that with 2016 is trying to prop up Federer's slam wins IMO.

If there is an inflation era, then it started with Federer coming back from the dead to win AO 2017, and his buddy Nadal then joining him to practically own the tour and take it back to what it was like back almost ten years ago.

2016, peak/prime Djokovic - The guy is meant to win those slams. So you don't devalue them. Murray is his prime, was meant to win. Wawrinka in his prime was meant to win.....Fedal, dead and buried, weren't.

Prime/peak Djokovic was maybe "supposed" to win AO. But RG? No way. Fact is, he never won it before.

 

[Hitman]

Nadal would win RG in 17 regardless. (and 1 clay masters atleast)
Fed would also more likely than not win Wim 17 (and one of IW/Shanghai atleast). ATG djokovic in 12/18 would also lose to that fed at Wim for example. (though not 15 and 14 is debatable)

had someone of ATG caliber playing well faced off vs Murray/Wawa of 16, they'd have also not won those slams.

You are missing the point. just because prime doesn't mean better, especially with respect to murray vs fed/nadal

surprise surprise you are still not admitting Nadal of clay season 17 > Djokovic in clay season 16 (both including RG and without RG)..
nadal wouldn't win RG in 17 if ATG contender arrived? You cannot be serious.

Again, it is simply your view to bring up Federer's slams as being non inflation, as by proxy that means giving Nadal one also.

I am not missing the point at all, you know full well that the Nadal/Djokovic/Murray generation all were out of their primes by end of 2016. That was it. The end of the so-called golden era where all of them were past their best now. It was time for the younger guys to be on top, but we saw no one coming, had a young Federer or Nadal or Djokovic player arrived in 2017, the old guard wouldn't be winning and you know this very well.

And like I said, if you want to play this game of pick and choose, then I will also. No one was beating Djokovic at AO 2023, he showed insane level and practically killed everyone that stood before him. Not to mention many other slams. Doesn't matter whether you agree or not, because as it is just opinions being discussed here, I'll take those also.

The funny thing is, I am actually going by the notion that once everyone left their primes, it was actually Federer who had the most slams, and Djokovic had the least of the three. 17-14-12.... but of course you want to prop up as many Federer wins as possible, while then saying most of Djokovic's wins were inflated, with the rare exception.

Anyways, it seems to me you want to keep going around in circles, bringing 2016 into the same mould as the years following it, when it is well known that Djokovic's age at the top was 2011-2016.

Nothing more for me to add, if this is simply you telling me that you are just picking and choosing which slams you set fit as good, instead of looking at periods of play.

 

[StrongRule]

obviously djokovic's W 2018 wasn't inflation. how on earth is that possible with nadal playing very well in the semi and djokovic playing very well himself?
AO 2019 was not inflation either since djokovic was playing very well.

AO 2023 obviously is inflation. not that high level from djokovic and weak competition

for me inflation slam means both not high level and not decent enough competition.


I already addressed this. last time I am repeating this part.

nadal non-RG clay season 17 also (2 masters+barca+loss to thiem) >> djokovic non-RG clay season 16 (1 masters+loss to vesely+murray), not just consistency wise, but level wise also. isn't that week in week out for the clay season?

fed was week in week out very good, though not prime level. that's what a 54-5 record indicates. AO/IW/Miami/Halle/Wim/Shanghai/Basel
-----------------


Murray wouldn't be winning Wim 16 or Wawa USO 16 with stronger top level competition either. Just because they were younger than fed 17 (and less so nadal 17) doesn't mean they were better.

fed would have lost AO 17 vs stronger top level competition, but not necessarily Wim 17 (Wim 12/18 djokovic would not be enough IMO. Wim 15 djokovic would be. Wim 14 djokovic could go either way)

nadal would have lost USO 17 vs stronger top level competition, but not RG 17.

Murray/Wawa wouldn't be winning Wim 16/USO 16 vs Wim 15/USO 15 djoko either.

so why single out fed of 17, but not Murray of Wim 16/Wawa of USO 16?

------------

your comparision about Miami is not fair since nadal was finalist, not winner in Miami 17. fed's toughest opponent in Miami 17 was Kyrgios, not Nadal. who was djokovic's in Miami 16? Goffin?

16 Miami djokovic was better than 17 Miami fed, but fed obviously faced significantly tougher competition.

ditto 16 AO vs 17 AO

your comparision is like saying:

Do you think Murray would be making AO final in 2016 with fed/wawa/nadal of AO 17? nah.
do you think Murray would be making RG final in 2016 with nadal of RG 17? LOL.


--------------

2017, wawa was in his prime in 1st half (AO, RG, IW). better in RG 17 than in RG 16. AO 17 similar to USO 16, atleast not a significant difference. just that he was not injured in 2016, but he wasn't a big factor in many tournaments.

delpo was better in 2017 than in 2016 (though not in his prime)

I don't know about the part in bold. Federer was worse in Miami than in IW, but he didn't have anything close to hitting 6 winners and 36 unforced errors in a match. Djokovic's IW and Miami 2016 were some of his weakest ever hardcourt titles.

 

[Hitman]

Nadal only just turned 31 at RG 2017. I don't think he's losing that RG to mid 20's versions of Fed or Djok in that form he displayed. Maybe 2013 Djok could but I doubt it. And I have serious doubts that some other young ATG calibre would have beat him.

Could argue the same goes for Djok in 2019 AO although, a mid 20's Fed would have a decent shot and 2012 Nadal might have a chance too. Still that was a legit win no doubt. Again, I have serious doubts that some other young ATG calibre would have beat him.

But does Nadal lose to a younger version of himself if one had arrived is the question. The next true great on clay.

Ultimately my issue is people need to pick a side here. Either we have a period where every slam after that was inflated as no one was in their prime anymore, or, it is is about levels and quality of play, which in that case, there is no weak era or inflated era, just some slams have had displayed higher quality by the winner than others.

 

[Hitman]

Prime/peak Djokovic was maybe "supposed" to win AO. But RG? No way. Fact is, he never won it before.

And what if a new clay legend had emerged? Stop making it only as if it is meant to fall on Djokovic.

 

[abmk]

Again, it is simply your view to bring up Federer's slams as being non inflation, as by proxy that means giving Nadal one also.

I am not missing the point at all, you know full well that the Nadal/Djokovic/Murray generation all were out of their primes by end of 2016. That was it. The end of the so-called golden era where all of them were past their best now. It was time for the younger guys to be on top, but we saw no one coming, had a young Federer or Nadal or Djokovic player arrived in 2017, the old guard wouldn't be winning and you know this very well.

And like I said, if you want to play this game of pick and choose, then I will also. No one was beating Djokovic at AO 2023, he showed insane level and practically killed everyone that stood before him. Not to mention many other slams. Doesn't matter whether you agree or not, because as it is just opinions being discussed here, I'll take those also.

The funny thing is, I am actually going by the notion that once everyone left their primes, it was actually Federer who had the most slams, and Djokovic had the least of the three. 17-14-12.... but of course you want to prop up as many Federer wins as possible, while then saying most of Djokovic's wins were inflated, with the rare exception.

Anyways, it seems to me you want to keep going around in circles, bringing 2016 into the same mould as the years following it, when it is well known that Djokovic's age at the top was 2011-2016.

Nothing more for me to add, if this is simply you telling me that you are just picking and choosing which slams you set fit as good, instead of looking at periods of play.

I include AO 18 as inflation for fed.
not even one slam win of Djoko pre-Wim 19 (he was playing at a high enough level in Wim 18-AO 19 also) is inflated for me. You are over-estimating and misinterpreting.

and LOL @ AO 2023 ...

 

[StrongRule]

And what if a new clay legend had emerged? Stop making it only as if it is meant to fall on Djokovic.

Not sure what is your point about a "new clay legend".

 

[Hitman]

I include AO 18 as inflation for fed.
not even one slam win of Djoko before AO 19 is inflated for me. You are the one over-estimating and misinterpreting.

and LOL @ AO 2023 ...

Yeah, you include one for Federer, when he was 35.5. While 19 are all good.

Djokovic just turned that now, meaning he won many of the slams at a younger age, but they are inflated. OK. And yeah, I take AO 2023, we can all play this game.

 

[RS]

Who played at a higher level?

1. Hewitt AO 05 SF or Del Potro USO 09 F
2. Murray AO 12 SF or Roddick AO 03 QF
3. Djokovic USO 23 final or Tsonga AO 08 final
4. Nalbandian AO 04 QF or Murray Wim 13 final

 

[Hitman]

Not sure what is your point about a "new clay legend".

My point is, had a Nadal 2005 emerged, in 2017, would you still be so sure what actually transpired?

You often talk about no new ATG or legends arriving post Djokovic. Well suppose they did? Suppose the next Nadal was ready by then.

 

[abmk]

I don't know about the part in bold. Federer was worse in Miami than in IW, but he didn't have anything close to hitting 6 winners and 36 unforced errors in a match. Djokovic's IW and Miami 2016 were some of his weakest ever hardcourt titles.

ehh, Thiem match, right still pre-QF. Djoko strolled through QF-F. fed had to save 2 Mps vs Berdych. Gotta go with djokovic at Miami 2016 here.

 

[Razer]

In the context of this thread, it matters though. Since we are talking about Federer being awarded the player of the decade 2000-2009.


And don't we hear about career inflation era? Meaning Djokovic wasn't in his prime in the last few years of his 2010s either.

If you want to compare 10 years vs 10 years

then compared 2003-2012 vs 2011-2020

 

[Hitman]

If you want to compare 10 years vs 10 years

then compared 2003-2012 vs 2011-2020

That's not how the ATP presented the best player of the decade award. This is about that, who was the best winner of that award.

 

[Razer]

That's not how the ATP presented the best player of the decade award. This is about that, who was the best winner of that award.

If you just do 2000s vs 2010s then it is somewhat even.... I dont think being a bad performer in 00-02 is a big deal... Djokovic himself was in terrible form for 2 years in between, such things dont matter.

 

[StrongRule]

ehh, Thiem match, right still pre-QF. Djoko strolled through QF-F. fed had to save 2 Mps vs Berdych. Gotta go with djokovic at Miami 2016 here.

Was never going to be otherwise if his opponents were Berdych and Nishikori, the two players who will always lose to him, no matter how bad he plays. Winning easier doesn't always mean playing better. AO 2019 Nadal surely wasn't playing better than AO 2009 Nadal, even if he didn't lose any sets before the final.

 

[abmk]

Yeah, you include one for Federer, when he was 35.5. While 19 are all good.

Djokovic just turned that now, meaning he won many of the slams at a younger age, but they are inflated. OK. And yeah, I take AO 2023, we can all play this game.

well federer didn't face that easy competition in 14-15 like djokovic did in 20 and beyond (similar ages)
if I wanted to play a game, I'd have made it tougher.
I'm just stating case by case as I see it.

 

[StrongRule]

My point is, had a Nadal 2005 emerged, in 2017, would you still be so sure what actually transpired?

You often talk about no new ATG or legends arriving post Djokovic. Well suppose they did? Suppose the next Nadal was ready by then.

If that was actual 2005 Nadal, he would have beaten the 2017 version. However, we never saw anything close to young Nadal appearing since then, and we probably never will.

 

[Hitman]

If you just do 2000s vs 2010s then it is somewhat even.... I dont think being a bad performer in 00-02 is a big deal... Djokovic himself was in terrible form for 2 years in between, such things dont matter.

That is why I am having the discussion, they are somewhat even, but what gives one the edge over the other is what I am looking at it.

 

[The_Order]

But does Nadal lose to a younger version of himself if one had arrived is the question. The next true great on clay.

Ultimately my issue is people need to pick a side here. Either we have a period where every slam after that was inflated as no one was in their prime anymore, or, it is is about levels and quality of play, which in that case, there is no weak era or inflated era, just some slams have had displayed higher quality by the winner than others.

The chances of another young ATG showing Nadal's RG prowess appearing is so miniscule it's not worth debating.

Weak eras (to me anyway) shouldn't entail that all slam wins are weak during that period. Like I said earlier, there'll still be some tough wins but mostly they're weak level. Prime example is WIM18.

A slam where 35 year old Djokovic with a supposed torn hamstring mopped the floor with his opponents during that AO says more about the competition than it does his level.

Same with Federer WIM17. A declined Berdych was his toughest opponent and tbh, not without his chances to take the first two sets.

Same with Nadal AO22. We all know had Djok played, short of a major upset/drop in form, Nadal wouldn't have won.

 

[abmk]

My point is, had a Nadal 2005 emerged, in 2017, would you still be so sure what actually transpired?

You often talk about no new ATG or legends arriving post Djokovic. Well suppose they did? Suppose the next Nadal was ready by then.

and what if young AO 2008 djokovic emerged to challenge AO 2016 djokovic?

how is that even very relevant to that RG 2017 and clay season 17 nadal clearly better than 16 djokovic. which is what matters the most in this comparision of 16 and 17.

 

[Hitman]

well federer didn't face that easy competition in 14-15 like djokovic did in 20 and beyond (similar ages)
if I wanted to play a game, I'd have made it tougher.
I'm just stating case by case as I see it.

Again that you view on how tough the competition is. That is part of the game, that is what is allowing you pick which slams mean more in your eyes.

That doesn't work for me.

 

[Hitman]

If that was actual 2005 Nadal, he would have beaten the 2017 version. However, we never saw anything close to young Nadal appearing since then, and we probably never will.

Which kind of is my point in way.

 

[abmk]

Again that you view on how tough the competition is. That is part of the game, that is what is allowing you pick which slams mean more in your eyes.

That doesn't work for me.

that's fine. But that's my way of looking at tennis for anyone. We can agree to disagree on the way.
But its not a game.

 

[Hitman]

The chances of another young ATG showing Nadal's RG prowess appearing is so miniscule it's not worth debating.

Weak eras (to me anyway) shouldn't entail that all slam wins are weak during that period. Like I said earlier, there'll still be some tough wins but mostly they're weak level. Prime example is WIM18.

A slam where 35 year old Djokovic with a supposed torn hamstring mopped the floor with his opponents during that AO says more about the competition than it does his level.

Same with Federer WIM17. A declined Berdych was his toughest opponent and tbh, not without his chances to take the first two sets.

Same with Nadal AO22. We all know had Djok played, short of a major upset/drop in form, Nadal wouldn't have won.

The chances may have been slim, but it was overdue also that a new king would be emerging, It cannot be completely ruled out. Someone with Nadal 2005 speed would have impacted the game, as 2017 Nadal was slower. Anyways, the point is, there was no one following up to legitimately take the mantle, or at least make a case for it. This doesn't mean the result changes for the title win.

I get where you are coming from regarding strong and weak. You know how I actually see them, we had this discussion, that I actually value them all the same, just some wins are more special than others like W 2008 for example.

 

[Hitman]

that's fine. But that's my way of looking at tennis for anyone. We can agree to disagree on the way.
But its not a game.

OK, we will leave it here then.

 

[Hitman]

and what if young AO 2008 djokovic emerged to challenge AO 2016 djokovic?

how is that even very relevant to that RG 2017 and clay season 17 nadal clearly better than 16 djokovic. which is what matters the most in this comparision of 16 and 17.

Yes, what if. The difference is Djokovic was continually playing peak level tennis for 18 months, the outright world number one, won three of the last four slams....Nadal out of his prime for over three years, was never the same after hurting his back in AO 2014, hadn't accomplished anything in slams for a very long time, was getting owned by a player who was even older than him....

 

[The_Order]

The chances may have been slim, but it was overdue also that a new king would be emerging, It cannot be completely ruled out. Someone with Nadal 2005 speed would have impacted the game, as 2017 Nadal was slower. Anyways, the point is, there was no one following up to legitimately take the mantle, or at least make a case for it. This doesn't mean the result change for the title win.

I get where you are coming from regarding strong and weak. You know how I actually see them, we had this discussion, that I actually value them all the same, just some wins are more special than others like W 2008 for example.

Don't think it was overdue... how many players in history have dominated RG? There's Nadal, then Borg, then who? Max Decugis?

2017 Nadal was serving as good as ever at RG. You'd need more than Nadal 2005 speed to beat him imo... you're going to need a copy paste of Nadal himself from 2005 and still I'd favour 2017 Nadal - he wasn't that old. Like I said, it's not happening.

When they're in their mid 30's, yes a younger ATG calibre player should be beating them. None of the big 3 have shown form in their mid 30's that is close to their early 30's. You look at Federer WIM 2012, Nadal RG 2017, Djok AO19 those were the last of each of their true near unstoppable runs at their pet slam imo. That's why I don't think you can lump Fed and Nadal together in 2017 when it comes to their pet slams.

I know you value them all the same, it's not a view that I'll ever be onboard with other than to say they all count for the same in the record books and that's fine. I'm not too fussed about what people in 100 years will think. I've seen the big 3 era unfold with my own eyes and drawn my own conclusions as I'm sure you have too.

 

[abmk]

Yes, what if. The difference is Djokovic was continually playing peak level tennis for 18 months, the outright world number one, won three of the last four slams....Nadal out of his prime for over three years, was never the same after hurting his back in AO 2014, hadn't accomplished anything in slams for a very long time, was getting owned by a player who was even older than him....

how does that change that RG 2017 and clay season 17 nadal clearly better than 16 RG and clay season djokovic respectively ? It doesn't.

secondly, even with all you said, Djokovic went 5 vs Simon with 100 UFEs in the AO 16 4R match and played mediocre vs Nishi in the QF of AO 16 (only Nishi was terrible).
raised his level in SF/F and all that I know, but how much would he able to vs a younger AO 2008 djoko? would you be sure of a win for AO 16 djoko?

 

[The_Order]

Yes, what if. The difference is Djokovic was continually playing peak level tennis for 18 months, the outright world number one, won three of the last four slams....Nadal out of his prime for over three years, was never the same after hurting his back in AO 2014, hadn't accomplished anything in slams for a very long time, was getting owned by a player who was even older than him....

2016 Djok would have beat 2008 Djok at AO if they met in the final imo.

As for Nadal, 2017 clay season he wasn't getting owned by anyone and had Federer played he would have been beaten soundly. I even think 2016 RG he was returning to form before injury ruled him out. It was really only RG15 where he played terrible.

 

[Hitman]

Don't think it was overdue... how many players in history have dominated RG? There's Nadal, then Borg, then who? Max Decugis?

2017 Nadal was serving as good as ever at RG. You'd need more than Nadal 2005 speed to beat him imo... you're going to need a copy paste of Nadal himself from 2005 and still I'd favour 2017 Nadal - he wasn't that old. Like I said, it's not happening.

When they're in their mid 30's, yes a younger ATG calibre player should be beating them. None of the big 3 have shown form in their mid 30's that is close to their early 30's. You look at Federer WIM 2012, Nadal RG 2017, Djok AO19 those were the last of each of their true near unstoppable runs at their pet slam imo. That's why I don't think you can lump Fed and Nadal together in 2017 when it comes to their pet slams.

I know you value them all the same, it's not a view that I'll ever be onboard with other than to say they all count for the same in the record books and that's fine. I'm not too fussed about what people in 100 years will think. I've seen the big 3 era unfold with my own eyes and drawn my own conclusions as I'm sure you have too.

I get your point at the start, but truth is we simply don't know and we will never know, and that goes for all of them. What would have happened if a young Federer, young Nadal and young Djokovic showed up will always be the million dollar question.

I think we are both clear where we both stand on this era and that is fine. I understand how you value slams, and I see the the merit in that, and can see many seeing it that way also. I've always seen it one way after watching it long before the big 3 were around, so I cannot change my way of viewing now. And there are some who agree with me, and some who don't, ultimately, it doesn't matter. These are just opinions we have.

 

[Hitman]

how does that change that RG 2017 and clay season 17 nadal clearly better than 16 RG and clay season djokovic respectively ? It doesn't.

secondly, even with all you said, Djokovic went 5 vs Simon with 100 UFEs in the AO 16 4R match and played mediocre vs Nishi in the QF of AO 16 (only Nishi was terrible).
raised his level in SF/F and all that I know, but how much would he able to vs a younger AO 2008 djoko? would you be sure of a win for AO 16 djoko?

Tell me, what physical attributes did Djokovic lose in AO 2016?

Now tell me what changed the match up in 2017 between Federer and Nadal? It was his neo backhand and Nadal's loss of footspeed. Nadal losing his footspeed is one of the biggest things that existed in 2017. Now, if someone was around like a Nadal 2005 who had that footspeed to cover that court and expose Nadal's biggest weakness, we don't know how things would have been. Nadal in 2017 was able to hide his biggest weakness on clay, but it was getting exposed on hard, if a player came around to do it on clay, who know what could have happened.

Yes, Djokovic hit 100 UE, did Federer put in bad performances at AO 2006 also, when he was at his peakiest? Djokovic when he went up against his real rivals in AO 2016, which were Federer and Murray became the actual Djokovic with a snap of his finger.

 

[SonnyT]

to disagree with you there. Federer and Nadal coming back to the top after practically doing nothing for multiple years singled the change. 2016 was the last true prime year where the youngest of the bunch were finishing off and leaving their primes.

2017 on, you see the change. Djokovic, Murray vanished at that point. Federer and Nadal playing a final again after nearly six years since their last.

2016 and 2017 cannot be counted together. One is a prime year, so no inflation slams.....one is a year with two 30 year olds coming back from the dead to do something they did seven eight years ago.

I have to disagree with you that Federer did nothing for many prior years. He got beat by Djokovic at 14WB, 15WB, 15UO and 16AO (the first three in finals, the last one in SF). If Djokovic wasn't there, Federer almost certainly bagged those slams, for Murray was the next serious contender. And Federer straight-setted him 5 5 4 with extreme ease at 15WB (I remember the Saturday before the match I was very nervous). That's 4 slams that the two contested, and of course the 5th was 19WB.

Hitman, do you recall at the time that Fedfans were calling for Djokovic to let Federer win? Their reason: Djokovic had plenty of time, and Federer was running out of time. I remember those times distinctly. I'm glad Djoko didn't listen to those guys. Because if he let one slam slide, who knows what'd happen! By that time, I don't think Fedfans had come up with the age disadvantage yet. You know it's all a hoax, since Djoko was the only player to have that advantage. By '15-19, Federer had an ax on all other players, with the nouveaux BH.

 

[Hitman]

2016 Djok would have beat 2008 Djok at AO if they met in the final imo.

As for Nadal, 2017 clay season he wasn't getting owned by anyone and had Federer played he would have been beaten soundly. I even think 2016 RG he was returning to form before injury ruled him out. It was really only RG15 where he played terrible.

Yes, Nadal owned the field in 2017, I don't think that anyone questions that. I was actually very impressed and was cheering him on like a Nadal fanboy in the final, you can see my posts in the RG final match thread.

 

[Hitman]

I have to disagree with you that Federer did nothing for many prior years. He got beat by Djokovic at 14WB, 15WB, 15UO and 16AO (the first three in finals, the last one in SF). If Djokovic wasn't there, Federer almost certainly bagged those slams, for Murray was the next serious contender. And Federer straight-setted him 5 5 4 at 15WB. That's 4 slams that the two contested, and of course the 5th was 19WB.

Hitman, do you recall at the time that Fedfans were calling for Djokovic to let Federer win? Their reason: Djokovic had plenty of time, and Federer was running out of time. I remember those times distinctly. I'm glad Djoko didn't listen to those guys. Because if he let one slam slide, who knows what'd happen! By that time, I don't think Fedfans had come up with the age disadvantage yet. You know it's all a hoax, since Djoko was the only player to have that advantage. By '18-19, Federer had an ax on all other players.

Regarding your first point. Yes, I know, but you know how some like to bring down those Djokovic wins because Federer was old and past it, and no one young was around to take over....

Yes, I remember. A lot of what you see on these boards is al after the fact, and I don't say that just of Fed fans, but posters in general. Changing or altering historical events to make a certain player look better and a certain player look worse. This is actually more of a common thing on these board now than ever before, because now we look back the slam race in a more historical sense, if you get what I am saying.