Federer is a player of the 00's, Djokovic is of the 10's , Nadal Belongs to both.

[The_Mental_Giant]

Roger Federer in the 00's (2000-2009)

Grand slams: 15 (15-6 in finals)
Master 1000: (16-9 in finals)
YEC : 4 (4-1 in finals)
Atp titles: 61 (61-24 in finals)

Roger Federer in the 10's (2010-2014)


Grand slams: 2 (2-2 in finals)
Master 1000: 6 (6-7 in finals)
YEC: 2 (2-1 in finals)
Olympics: 0 (0-1 in finals)
Atp titles: 19 (19-17 in finals)

Rafael Nadal in the 00's (2003-2010)

Grand slams 6: (6-2 in finals)
Master 1000: 15 (15-6 in finals)
Olympics 1 (1-0 in finals)
Atp titles: 36 (36-11 in finals)

Rafael nadal in the 10's (2010-2014)

Grand slams: 8 (8-4 in finals)
Master 1000: 12 (12-7 in finals)
Yec: 0 (0-2 in finals)
Atp titles: 28 (28-17 in finals)



Novak djokovic in the 00's (2005-2009)

Grand slams: 1
Master 1000: 5
YEC: 1
ATP titles: 16


Novak Djokovic in the 10's (2010-2014)

Grnad slams: 6
Master 1000: 14
YEC: 2
ATP titles: 29


Rafa is the only player of the 3 who has a big legacy in both decades, he won 6+ slams in both , double digit m1000, and lot of titles.

He also has YE1 in both decades.
I'm not saying that nole wasnt a great player in the 00's or Fed in the 10's but they clearly have their prime and succees in one of those decades..



And in terms of legacy and achievement Federer has done more in the first halve of 10's than nole ever did in the second one of the 00's

 

[mike danny]

Well it depends very much when they were born.

Obviously Nadal would do well in the 2010's, since he turned 24 at the start of the decade. Federer was 28-29, big difference. Nadal wouldn't be winning 8 slams post 28.

Age matters, so you can't ignore it. Federer would have also won more than 2 majors had he been 24 instead of 29 at the start of the decade.

 

[gambitt]

How long did it take you to compile this data? Do you find it fulfilling?

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

How long did it take you to compile this data? Do you find it fulfilling?

don't forget he's a mental giant... i'm sure it only took him several month to perform this breathtaking study.

 

[TMF]

You either a player of a decade or not. As it stands today, the player of the 2000s decade is Roger Federer, and the 2010s decade is remains to be seen.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Well it depends very much when they were born.

Obviously Nadal would do well in the 2010's, since he turned 24 at the start of the decade. Federer was 28-29, big difference. Nadal wouldn't be winning 8 slams post 28.

Age matters, so you can't ignore it. Federer would have also won more than 2 majors had he been 24 instead of 29 at the start of the decade.

It was not a thread with the intention to degrade federer or Nole, I just wonder if federer fans feel that Fed belongs more to the Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and Nalbandian era, or he is more of the new generation? Because despite winning the vast majority of his titles in the earlier period of his career he has played a lot of years after his prime... which according to some fans ended in 2009, no?

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

You either a player of a decade or not. As it stands today, the player of the 2000s decade is Roger Federer, and the 2010s decade is remains to be seen.

At this right moment is nadal, considering he has 8 slams in the 2010's compared to 6 of nole.

 

[mike danny]

It was not a thread with the intention to degrade federer or Nole, I just wonder if federer fans feel that Fed belongs more to the Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and Nalbandian era, or he is more of the new generation? Because despite winning the vast majority of his titles in the earlier period of his career he has played a lot of years after his prime... which according to some fans ended in 2009, no?

His prime ended after 2009, it is true.

And of course he isn't part of the new generation. 6 years difference between him and Djokovic + Murray is a lot. I don't see how this is even debatable anymore. The guys you mentioned were the same age as him, so of course he is more part of that generation.

All I am saying is that if Federer were the same age as Nadal maybe he would be the one competing for player of the decade vs him, not Djokovic. So age matters

 

[TMF]

At this right moment is nadal, considering he has 8 slams in the 2010's compared to 6 of nole.

You will have to argue with Chico about this. According to him, Nadal has only 6 slams.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

You will have to argue with Chico about this. According to him, Nadal has only 6 slams.

Chico has issues, not someone to be taken seriously :lol:

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

His prime ended after 2009, it is true.

And of course he isn't part of the new generation. 6 years difference between him and Djokovic + Murray is a lot. I don't see how this is even debatable anymore. The guys you mentioned were the same age as him, so of course he is more part of that generation.

All I am saying is that if Federer were the same age as Nadal maybe he would be the one competing for player of the decade vs him, not Djokovic. So age matters

My point is ... how he cannot be considered part of this generation (even if his achievements are not comparable to the prior one) he managed to get weeks at 1, he won 2 grand slams (4 grand slam finals) and even up to his age he rarely loses to someone not called Nadal or Djokovic (and even with djokovic the h2h in 2010's has been pretty close).

For me Federer is part of this generation aswell, prime or not, He compete at high level.

And I do agree with you, prime federer would be competing with rafa as the best of this current decade (not djokovic) because prime federer is like a better version of this djokovic, compared to rafa who brings a completly different thing to the table.

 

[ultradr]

You don't always have to go by 10's.

 

[Strobe Lights]

We have reached a new low when people try to use winning Majors primarily within certain years (2000-09) over another same-length stretch (2005-2014) as some sort of achievement. As if one means more than the other.

Poor Fed. In the new homogenised world of tennis, someone is likely to break his Major record. But Pete will always have the most Majors (not counting Pro) of the 1900s or the 20th century (take your pick). Sampras is a set-in-stone PLAYER OF THE CENTURY. Fed currently is but could be overcome.

Oh wait, none of this matters.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Chico has issues, not someone to be taken seriously :lol:

I'd take Chico more seriously than I'd take you when it comes to this kind of thing.


Djokovic can also be considered a "player" of the 00s. He won his first Grand Slam in 2008. Andy Murray is the only true player of the "10's" by your statistical criteria.

 

[The_Order]

I'd take Chico more seriously than I'd take you when it comes to this kind of thing.


Djokovic can also be considered a "player" of the 00s. He won his first Grand Slam in 2008. Andy Murray is the only true player of the "10's" by your statistical criteria.

Do you also believe the decade started in 2011?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Do you also believe the decade started in 2011?

Nope. The decade started in 2010.

 

[The_Order]

Nope. The decade started in 2010.

Well that's what TMF was referring to with regards to Chico's opinion.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Well that's what TMF was referring to with regards to Chico's opinion.

It was more about this particular person talking about another posters "issues" when they are creating thread(s) intended to rile up fanbases..

 

[The_Order]

It was more about this particular person talking about another posters "issues" when they are creating thread(s) intended to rile up fanbases..

Fair enough.

With Chico though, nearly every post of his is designed to rile up fanbases or sulk that Novak is being disrespected because he's not rated as highly as Nadal or Federer.

 

[jg153040]

Yeah, this decade thing is useless. It's a matter of luck when you are born and how late you bloom.

Right now Fed has the greatest longevity. He was able to stay on top for 12 years across 4 generations.

Although Rafa's longevity is also not so bad. He remained on top for 10 years. But, the only difference is, that he never dominated entire season, except for 2010.

 

[Chanwan]

It was not a thread with the intention to degrade federer or Nole, I just wonder if federer fans feel that Fed belongs more to the Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and Nalbandian era, or he is more of the new generation? Because despite winning the vast majority of his titles in the earlier period of his career he has played a lot of years after his prime... which according to some fans ended in 2009, no?

He belongs to both.
As for the 'weak era' that seems right beneath the surface here, I would say this - had Fed been a part of the Rafole + Andy generation, he wouldn't have had as dominant a time as he did in 2004-2007. But neither would Rafa have had his 2010, Nole his 2011 etc.
Fed has had it harder with the next generation (Rafole + Andy), meaning he's won significantly less the moment he wasn't at his very best anymore.
Who's to say he wouldn't be the one winning the majority among the Big 4 when they were all aged 28-33? He's done decently well vs. their best years in his post-prime years after all.

Rafole don't have the same problem as there is no emerging new generation - the "challengers" are already 23-25 now - the period, where great players typically have their best years.
Meaning that their biggest rivals won't have an age advantage on them as Nole will probably remains Rafa's biggest rival and vice versa for the next couple of years -> meaning they don't have to compete vs. younger, fitter all-time great rivals in their very prime as they get old.

 

[mike danny]

He belongs to both.
As for the 'weak era' that seems right beneath the surface here, I would say this - had Fed been a part of the Rafole + Andy generation, he wouldn't have had as dominant a time as he did in 2004-2007. But neither would Rafa have had his 2010, Nole his 2011 etc.
Fed has had it harder with the next generation (Rafole + Andy), meaning he's won significantly less the moment he wasn't at his very best anymore.
Who's to say he wouldn't be the one winning the majority among the Big 4 when they were all aged 28-33? He's done decently well vs. their best years in his post-prime years after all.

Rafole don't have the same problem as there is no emerging new generation - the "challengers" are already 23-25 now - the period, where great players typically have their best years.
Meaning that their biggest rivals won't have an age advantage on them as Nole will probably remains Rafa's biggest rival and vice versa for the next couple of years -> meaning they don't have to compete vs. younger, fitter all-time great rivals in their very prime as they get old.

With peak Fed around, Djokovic probably doesn't win W and USO in 2011