Federer's Slams where he didn't face younger ATGs

[Deleted member 748597]

I believe that Fedalovic's overall competition is more or less even now. Therefore, this is not me trying to call Federer a weak era champion or whatever.

I was inspired to create this thread thanks to so many posts about Djokodal never facing younger ATGs which is obviously correct. I want to thank @blablavla for making me see the light.

Anyway, let's go...

1. Wimb 2003
2. AO 2004
3. Wimb 2004
4. USO 2004
5. Wimb 2005
6. USO 2005
7. AO 2006
8. Wimb 2006 (Ned was not the true ATG here lol)
9. USO 2006
10. AO 2007 (Djoko was not the true ATG here lol)
11. FO 2009
12. Wimb 2009
13. AO 2010 (Because Murray is not an ATG)
14. Wimb 2017
15. AO 2018

Federer won like 15 Slams without facing the true younger ATGs, roflmao. I guess we can remove Wimb 2006 and AO 2007, but it's still so many Slams, lolz.

We also shouldn't ignore the 01-03 vacuum era where Federer could have won more Slams if he didn't peak when he was like 22. The Swiss lost to many random guys like Hass, Arazi, Ancic, Mirnyi and Horna, lmao.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

I believe that Fedalovic's overall competition is more or less even now. Therefore, this is not me trying to call Federer a weak era champion or whatever.

I was inspired to create this thread thanks to so many posts about Djokodal never facing younger ATGs which is obviously correct. I want to thank @blablavla for making me see the light.

Anyway, let's go...

1. Wimb 2003
2. AO 2004
3. Wimb 2004
4. USO 2004
5. Wimb 2005
6. USO 2005
7. AO 2006
8. Wimb 2006 (Ned was not the true ATG here lol)
9. USO 2006
10. AO 2007 (Djoko was not the true ATG here lol)
11. FO 2009
12. Wimb 2009
13. AO 2010 (Because Murray is not an ATG)
14. Wimb 2017
15. AO 2018

Federer won like 15 Slams without facing the true younger ATGs, roflmao. I guess we can remove Wimb 2006 and AO 2007, but it's still so many Slams, lolz.

We also shouldn't ignore the 01-03 vacuum era where Federer could have won more Slams if he didn't peak when he was like 22. The Swiss lost to many random guys like Hass, Arazi, Ancic, Mirnyi and Horna, lmao.

Very good point often missed. Fed fans often mention if 04-07 is 4 years of weak era then 15-20 is 6 years ...

But Federer had 2001-2003 to win more slams but only managed 1. At the same age Nadal and Djokovic were making multiple slam semi final, finals, masters titles.

 

[MeatTornado]

But USO 2004 and USO 2005 he had to go through an older ATG.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

But USO 2004 and USO 2005 he had to go through an older ATG.

This is just about the younger ATGs because I was told that the younger ATGs are bery tough.

 

[CYGS]

But USO 2004 and USO 2005 he had to go through an older ATG.

Djokovic has to face them since ever. Hypocrite.

 

[metsman]

15 slams for Fed, every single slam ever played for ned and joe. Point seems to have been proven, well done.

 

[MichaelNadal]

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Djokovic/Nadal aged much better than Federer did, and were better young players too.

Federer is only ahead thanks to a very precise vacuum in time (2003-2007) where he vultured most of his slams and time at number 1 against the likes of Bagdhatis, Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, Philippousis, Kiefer etc. As soon as Djokovic/Nadal matured on all surfaces, he was quickly relegated to 3rd place.

 

[NoleFam]

LOL. Good one @Nole Slam.

 

[MeatTornado]

Djokovic has to face them since ever. Hypocrite.

No need to be like that. You think I'm unaware of how many times Novak & Nadal had to play Federer?

Because it's equal to the amount of times Federer had to face them. Plus he had to go through the previous generation of ATGs. So then it kind of becomes a question of do we think early 2000s Agassi was worse than say a late 2010s Thiem, who may or may not end up as an ATG.

 

[CYGS]

No need to be like that. You think I'm unaware of how many times Novak & Nadal had to play Federer?

Because it's equal to the amount of times Federer had to face them. Plus he had to go through the previous generation of ATGs. So then it kind of becomes a question of do we think early 2000s Agassi was worse than say a late 2010s Thiem, who may or may not end up as an ATG.

It is not - there were many slams that Federer won without facing them.

 

[Druss]

@Nole Slam really need to remove 2006 Wimby from the list. Nadal was not much worse than his 2011 self there.

 

[Sport]

Very good point often missed. Fed fans often mention if 04-07 is 4 years of weak era then 15-20 is 6 years ...

But Federer had 2001-2003 to win more slams but only managed 1. At the same age Nadal and Djokovic were making multiple slam semi final, finals, masters titles.

Very good point often missed. Federer lacked the talent to peak sooner. Nadal won his first Slam aged 19 and reached Slam finals on two surfaces aged 20, while Federer reached his first ever Slam final aged 21. Nadal also achieved the Career Grand Slam aged 24 (Open Era record), Federer had to wait till he was 27.

Federer lacked the necessary talent to peak sooner and win multiple Slams in 2001-2003 against non-ATGs and older/declined versions of Agassi and Sampras.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

Very good point often missed. Federer lacked the talent to peak sooner. Nadal won his first Slam aged 19 and reached Slam finals on two surfaces aged 20, while Federer reached his first ever Slam final aged 21. Nadal also achieved the Career Grand Slam aged 24 (Open Era record), Federer had to wait till he was 27.

Federer lacked the necessary talent to peak sooner and win multiple Slams in 2001-2003 against non-ATGs and older/declined versions of Agassi and Sampras.

Didn't have the mental strength

 

[MeatTornado]

It is not - there were many slams that Federer won without facing them.

Federer is always older than Nadal & Djokovic every time they play. Nadal and Djokovic are always younger than Federer when they play. So the number of times Federer played a younger ATG is the same number of times Novak and Djokovic played an older ATG. That's what I'm saying. I'm not just talking about in the slams they won.

 

[MeatTornado]

Didn't have the mental strength

Sad but true. Talent was never the question with him.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Good point, OP.

But you must remember that Fed beat PETE aged 19 at Wimbledon - which is the equivalent of winning 15 slams (since PETE won 14, and Fed beat him, hence 15).

So the net effect is zero.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I believe that Fedalovic's overall competition is more or less even now. Therefore, this is not me trying to call Federer a weak era champion or whatever.

I was inspired to create this thread thanks to so many posts about Djokodal never facing younger ATGs which is obviously correct. I want to thank @blablavla for making me see the light.

Anyway, let's go...

1. Wimb 2003
2. AO 2004
3. Wimb 2004
4. USO 2004
5. Wimb 2005
6. USO 2005
7. AO 2006
8. Wimb 2006 (Ned was not the true ATG here lol)
9. USO 2006
10. AO 2007 (Djoko was not the true ATG here lol)
11. FO 2009
12. Wimb 2009
13. AO 2010 (Because Murray is not an ATG)
14. Wimb 2017
15. AO 2018

Federer won like 15 Slams without facing the true younger ATGs, roflmao. I guess we can remove Wimb 2006 and AO 2007, but it's still so many Slams, lolz.

We also shouldn't ignore the 01-03 vacuum era where Federer could have won more Slams if he didn't peak when he was like 22. The Swiss lost to many random guys like Hass, Arazi, Ancic, Mirnyi and Horna, lmao.

But... but... three of the greatest of all time playing at the same time = no competition - lol

 

[CYGS]

Federer is always older than Nadal & Djokovic every time they play. Nadal and Djokovic are always younger than Federer when they play. So the number of times Federer played a younger ATG is the same number of times Novak and Djokovic played an older ATG. That's what I'm saying. I'm not just talking about in the slams they won.

So who cares about this meaningless point?

 

[Robert F]

We refer to the early 2000's as a weak era letting Fed take a bunch of slams. Yet outside of his peak, and now older and slower with a less powerful serve, inconsistent ground strokes he was still able to pick up slams and stay in the top ten. The same is true for Nadal and to some extent Djoker. These guys where monsters when they were younger in regards to being faster and more powerful. If you use the level of the big 3 as the metric, it would suggest that the current generation is weaker than the 2000's.

I'd rather be Roddick or Hewitt to say I lost to a young Fed than be Sasha or Tsetse fly to say I lost to Grandpa-erer. Or to say I lost to Nadal when he was 22 at the French then to lose to him when he is in his mid 30's and I'm supposed to be at my peak Tennis Age---Thiem.

Yes, the big 3's tennis experience certainly helps with improved confidence and tennis smarts and they have excellent support systems to help keep them elevated, but really these young guns should be the one's protecting Fed's titles not Fed.

I think in the 2000's the guys still had some flaws, so they had to play their strenghts aggressively to win matches and when you play complete players like the Big 3 it is tough to win. I think now the trend has changed, the guys don't have major weaknesses and don't fire their big weapons as often as guys in the early 2000's would. Hence, the Big 3 had great defense against the 2000's and their defense with their ability to use their weapons give them the edge against the current gen.

Maybe that is a general trend in tennis now--building aggressive defense at the expense of all out offense (outside of the serve).

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Hewitt is an ATG no?

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

But USO 2004 and USO 2005 he had to go through an older ATG.

But @blablavla and @Tennis_Hands say otherwise? They must be right when they say young ATG is the pinnacle of all competition

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Fed's worst miss at RG is probably RG 2004. For all the records he owns, he was sort of a late bloomer as compared to Djokodal. Had he dominated 2001-2004 as well, the slam record might have been something else

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Hewitt is an ATG no?

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

USO 2007, I don't think Novak was a young ATG here

 

[Tennis_Hands]

But @blablavla and @Tennis_Hands say otherwise? They must be right when they say young ATG is the pinnacle of all competition

It is because it is true: if you look in the history of the sport, every ATG generation has been displaced by younger such, not older.

These things are not mutually exclusive: Federer had older ATG competition in Agassi, and younger ATG competition in Nadal (first), and then Djokovic.

 

[ChrisRF]

He should have lost a few more Slam matches to Roddick and Hewitt and would have been "better" in that kind of stats. Again, circular logic of the highest caliber.

Also he cannot do anything about how Slam titles are distributed when he doesn't win them, so it's not really within his power who becomes an "ATG" (an artificial and irrelevant construct anyway). Fact is, Federer was the best tennis player in the world during the 2 weeks of a Slam for 20 times. The reason doesn't matter. Either he was the better player or the fitter one or whatever. Everything counts for the same. 20 times he was there and all the others were not. Only Nadal has matched that number and is therefore his equal.

 

[Krish0608]

Djokovic/Nadal aged much better than Federer did, and were better young players too.

Federer is only ahead thanks to a very precise vacuum in time (2003-2007) where he vultured most of his slams and time at number 1 against the likes of Bagdhatis, Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, Philippousis, Kiefer etc. As soon as Djokovic/Nadal matured on all surfaces, he was quickly relegated to 3rd place.

20 is still greater than 17

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

It is because it is true: if you look in the history of the sport, every ATG generation has been displaced by younger such, not older.

These things are not mutually exclusive: Federer had older ATG competition in Agassi, and younger ATG competition in Nadal (first), and then Djokovic.

Djokodal will be replaced sooner rather than later. Somebody has to win the 4 slams played every year. There will be a new crop of ATG's who will win slams,maters, reach #1 etc. They have already started playing Djokodal in the likes of Thiem, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Zverev etc. Sure they haven't won slams as of today, but wouldn't they win in the future? They have to and they surely will

 

[junior74]

Nadal won his 2nd slam in 2006 and reached another slam final.
He had 16 titles by the end of the year, and had been #2 in the world for 1.5 years.

And he was just 20 years old. I think it's fair to say he was already a young ATG.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Djokodal will be replaced sooner rather than later. Somebody has to win the 4 slams played every year. There will be a new crop of ATG's who will win slams,maters, reach #1 etc. They have already started playing Djokodal in the likes of Thiem, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Zverev etc. Sure they haven't won slams as of today, but wouldn't they win in the future? They have to and they surely will

That is not at all the main point. The "window" of every successive generation is roughly in the same ballpark 5-7 years, That is the time between entering your own prime and the arrival of the next ATG generation proving their salt. As I have written elsewhere, that difference with Fed is 5 years, with Djokovic is 12 years and with Nadal is 15 years. Never in the history of the sport that has been the case. The closest was the Sampras/Agassi generation, but no one took advantage of that. Now it is even worse, and both Djokovic and Nadal are taking advantage of that. Both Djokovic and Nadal are old for a tennis player by any reasonable standard. That someone will someday arrive is besides the point. It will not mean anything.

 

[Yugram]

Yes, @Nole Slam , Federer is a weak era champion. Thanks for reminding us.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

That someone will someday arrive is besides the point. It will not mean anything.

Only hardcore fans will remember timelines and age differences. People tend to forget those things. In the success of the new generation, people will brush aside the fact that it took the Big 3 to retire that they got to be #1 or win slams. It is sad, but true

 

[blablavla]

I believe that Fedalovic's overall competition is more or less even now. Therefore, this is not me trying to call Federer a weak era champion or whatever.

I was inspired to create this thread thanks to so many posts about Djokodal never facing younger ATGs which is obviously correct. I want to thank @blablavla for making me see the light.

Anyway, let's go...

1. Wimb 2003
2. AO 2004
3. Wimb 2004
4. USO 2004
5. Wimb 2005
6. USO 2005
7. AO 2006
8. Wimb 2006 (Ned was not the true ATG here lol)
9. USO 2006
10. AO 2007 (Djoko was not the true ATG here lol)
11. FO 2009
12. Wimb 2009
13. AO 2010 (Because Murray is not an ATG)
14. Wimb 2017
15. AO 2018

Federer won like 15 Slams without facing the true younger ATGs, roflmao. I guess we can remove Wimb 2006 and AO 2007, but it's still so many Slams, lolz.

We also shouldn't ignore the 01-03 vacuum era where Federer could have won more Slams if he didn't peak when he was like 22. The Swiss lost to many random guys like Hass, Arazi, Ancic, Mirnyi and Horna, lmao.

you're welcome pal

just a few questions:

1. I am not sure which methodology you used here
as far as I am concerned, Nadal participated in Wimbledon 2003, and reached R3
while Novak participated in AO 2005

2. skipping a bunch of tournaments in-between did Djokodal collectively retired in 2016?
cause I see some 2017 / 2018 titles, a moment in time when Djokodal where already GOAT level, mature competitors
or is Fed guilty that already GOAT level, mature competitors got trashed by the field?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Nadal won his 2nd slam in 2006 and reached another slam final.
He had 16 titles by the end of the year, and had been #2 in the world for 1.5 years.

And he was just 20 years old. I think it's fair to say he was already a young ATG.

I calculate it a bit differently: I calculate between his arrival on tour and really building up towards an ATG career. Considering that 5-6 Majors, depending on what else the player has achieved, is the cutoff for an ATG, I calculate the time between an older ATG achieving his first Major and the next generation ATG building up towards their ATG career. In Federer/Nadal's case, that window is 5 years, roughly. For Nadal himself it is 15 years and counting. For Djokovic is 12 years and counting. The reason why I am not considering directly Nadal as an "already an ATG" in 2006 for example is that, if he stopped winning as much and ended up with subpar career (let's say he won RG 2005 and RG 2006, and then won another two Majors before calling it quits) his competition will have never been considered an ATG competition, so a cutoff about when an ATG becomes an ATG competition is needed.

 

[blablavla]

It is because it is true: if you look in the history of the sport, every ATG generation has been displaced by younger such, not older.

These things are not mutually exclusive: Federer had older ATG competition in Agassi, and younger ATG competition in Nadal (first), and then Djokovic.

you're asking for too much: using a brain, when it's so easy and convenient to use ready cooked nobrainers and take name over form & logic

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Only hardcore fans will remember timelines and age differences. People tend to forget those things. In the success of the new generation, people will brush aside the fact that it took the Big 3 to retire that they got to be #1 or win slams. It is sad, but true

You see, what you call "hardcore", I call "knowledgeable", and I am definitely not interested what the people who have no idea would think. I am interested in the sport, so I do my research and arrive at certain positions.

 

[blablavla]

Djokodal will be replaced sooner rather than later. Somebody has to win the 4 slams played every year. There will be a new crop of ATG's who will win slams,maters, reach #1 etc. They have already started playing Djokodal in the likes of Thiem, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Zverev etc. Sure they haven't won slams as of today, but wouldn't they win in the future? They have to and they surely will

sure pal
go tell this story to Dimitrov or Berdych

since how many years do we keep hearing this ?

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

You see, what you call "hardcore", I call "knowledgeable", and I am definitely not interested what the people who have no idea would think. I am interested in the sport, so I do my research and arrive at certain positions.

True there is nothing wrong with differing opinions

 

[blablavla]

Nadal won his 2nd slam in 2006 and reached another slam final.
He had 16 titles by the end of the year, and had been #2 in the world for 1.5 years.

And he was just 20 years old. I think it's fair to say he was already a young ATG.

apparently, by the OP logic, neither Nadal, nor Djokovic were not ATGs yet in 2017 / 2018

 

[junior74]

apparently, by the OP logic, neither Nadal, nor Djokovic were not ATGs yet in 2017 / 2018

They were still young in 17/18, too, because 30 is the new 20.

The world is as complex as TT.

 

[Biotic]

That is not at all the main point. The "window" of every successive generation is roughly in the same ballpark 5-7 years, That is the time between entering your own prime and the arrival of the next ATG generation proving their salt. As I have written elsewhere, that difference with Fed is 5 years, with Djokovic is 12 years and with Nadal is 15 years. Never in the history of the sport that has been the case. The closest was the Sampras/Agassi generation, but no one took advantage of that. Now it is even worse, and both Djokovic and Nadal are taking advantage of that. Both Djokovic and Nadal are old for a tennis player by any reasonable standard. That someone will someday arrive is besides the point. It will not mean anything.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Who took advantage of that?

 

[blablavla]

Who took advantage of that?

here is the full list:
-
-
-
-
end of the list

 

[Biotic]

Who took advantage of that?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I don't know that baby. How did he/she took advantage of that situation?

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

I believe that Fedalovic's overall competition is more or less even now. Therefore, this is not me trying to call Federer a weak era champion or whatever.

I was inspired to create this thread thanks to so many posts about Djokodal never facing younger ATGs which is obviously correct. I want to thank @blablavla for making me see the light.

Anyway, let's go...

1. Wimb 2003
2. AO 2004
3. Wimb 2004
4. USO 2004
5. Wimb 2005
6. USO 2005
7. AO 2006
8. Wimb 2006 (Ned was not the true ATG here lol)
9. USO 2006
10. AO 2007 (Djoko was not the true ATG here lol)
11. FO 2009
12. Wimb 2009
13. AO 2010 (Because Murray is not an ATG)
14. Wimb 2017
15. AO 2018

Federer won like 15 Slams without facing the true younger ATGs, roflmao. I guess we can remove Wimb 2006 and AO 2007, but it's still so many Slams, lolz.

We also shouldn't ignore the 01-03 vacuum era where Federer could have won more Slams if he didn't peak when he was like 22. The Swiss lost to many random guys like Hass, Arazi, Ancic, Mirnyi and Horna, lmao.

Well, going by that logic, the warrior and the serb have never faced younger ATG in any of the slams they ever played, but thats not how things should work, sir.

 

[blablavla]

Well, going by that logic, the warrior and the serb have never faced younger ATG in any of the slams they ever played, but thats not how things should work, sir.

it's a trolling thread

somebody got triggered by posts that throw arrows at Nole
and yet somebody is fine with Nole trolls trashing other great athletes

 

[Biotic]

I don't know that baby. How did he/she took advantage of that situation?

It grew up. The gif is very old. Ancient. 40 years or so.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It grew up. The gif is very old. Ancient. 40 years or so.

I still don't know what you are talking about.