My friend, in the real world, people don't give a crap about all that stuff. Only the hardcore fans do, most lap up whatever is fed by the media and the sport in general. You and I make up a very very small community of tennis fans who break it down the way we do. The real world does not have the time nor do they care in the same way. And over time, people would care even less about all that, and as new people join the sport, they will see it for what it is, the gold standard.
Djokovic was in his prime ALL THE WAY FROM Jan to June. Anyone can catch fire for one tournament, that is the difference between Prime tennis and out of prime. Even Federer played fantastic in IW and Miami in 2017, but we know that was not his prime. You cannot compare that to the 18 month consistency that Djokovic brought.
You know full well that Djokovic's level was exactly the same from Paris 2014 to RG 2016, that 18 month period is legendary for a reason. You cannot compare it to a one off tournament performance, when he was doing it practically every freaking week.
You should not be adding in 2016 into the same era, is what I am saying. Your statement was about saying from 2016 onwards....that it where I disagree with you, as you straight out took what was a prime year for Djokovic and Murray and grouped it with a year where two guys in their 30s who had not won slams in 3 and 5 years respectively, as the same thing. Sorry, they are not.
You want to say Inflation era and weak achievements, then start from 2017 and count everything after that. Trying to take away from what Djokovic did in 2016, when he was in his prime and was meant to be winning, is something i cannot ever agree with. Weaker than previous years? OK, if you want. But no chance it should be grouped with 2017 and onwards.
