Has Novak Djokovic benefited from a 'weak era' more than Roger Federer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 307496
  • Start date Start date
DJ- said:
Agassi was doing it tough in his late career, getting injections after every game for his back. Fed on the other hand must be doing something right, he looks in good nick ! maybe some undetected doping :) Agassi at this age much better than fed, oldest #1 also.
Click to expand...
Agassi surpassed Federer in that department no matter in what condition he was. So his era must be very weak.
We had old players winning GSs all the time. Newcombe - 31, Laver - 31, Emerson - 31, Rosewall - 38, Connors - 31, Gomez - 30, Korda - 30, Sampras -31, Agassi - 33. All from weak eras. :rolleyes:
What do you think makes Federer running for more ? He knows about this, and in times when medicine and fitness are at their peak, he has every right to hope he will win some more until retirement. Fact that his last slam was with 30 years of age, makes this era with good credentials (age-wise).
 
I've always held the stance that no era is weak. The dominant player makes it look weak. It was true with Federer and it is also true with Djokovic.

The only thing disturbing about this era is the lack of talented upcoming players. Federer had Nadal Djokovic and Murray as youngsters along with his contemporaries...The youngsters in this era have not achieved anything significant and are not showing the hunger either. They are either injured or busy changing girlfriends or pulling cheap publicity stunts.
 
Omega_7000 said:
I've always held the stance that no era is weak. The dominant player makes it look weak. It was true with Federer and it is also true with Djokovic.

The only thing disturbing about this era is the lack of talented upcoming players. Federer had Nadal Djokovic and Murray as youngsters along with his contemporaries...The youngsters in this era have not achieved anything significant and are not showing the hunger either. They are either injured or busy changing girlfriends or pulling cheap publicity stunts.
Click to expand...

Times have changed, long gone are days when youngsters dominate, now it seems peaks start 28-ish ! Even the WTA doesn't seem to have young players with influence as it once did.. I wonder what has changed, tennis culture, motivation, other influences, technology....
 
DJ- said:
Times have changed, long gone are days when youngsters dominate, now it seems peaks start 28-ish ! Even the WTA doesn't seem to have young players with influence as it once did.. I wonder what has changed, tennis culture, motivation, other influences, technology....
Click to expand...

Not asking for youngsters to dominate, but at least reach finals of majors or M 1000's. That's not too much to ask from players in their mid 20's (Dimitorv, Nishikori, Raonic). They should be at their physical peaks right now and haven't done anything. That's strange and cause for concern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ-
Weak eras are real. One cannot tell with a straight face that the HC and grass competition Fed , Sampras , McEnroe and others faced is not better than what it is today.

Clay - it does not matter what the competition is. Rafa wins everything there anyway.

However Novak is not at fault. Even if there were good players, he is going to be winning a lot of majors given his level. However not 10 majors and the insane number of other titles. He would be a clear tier 2 instead of a player trying to be compared to the Borg's and Rafa's.
 
Sabratha said:
I know.

My intention when I joined this forum wasn't to talk about Novak non-stop, it was to discuss tennis, past and present and future.

I don't really agree with weak eras myself (even though I've been professing it) I just get utterly tired of Federer being undermined like @TMF has said earlier in this thread.

I am aware Novak's 2015 surpasses Federer's 2006 statically, I'd be a fool to deny it, but I don't think today is as strong as others make it out to be (others being the vast minority).

Today is probably not the weakest era ever. But it sure is not a strong era either. I'd compare it to Federer's best years (2004-2007) and 2015 is probably comparable to the weakest year of that reign, 2006.

I believe in transitional eras however, but I cannot objectively say 2015 is apart of one given how dominant Novak has been this year.
Click to expand...

Great post, I agree with all of it
 
TMF said:
To be fair, @Sabratha has been busy fending himself from the massive number of Nole fans ******** about weak era to undermine Federer 2006 and the years he dominated the sport. Got to admire his courageous effort for standing his ground since he's totally outnumbered. @CYGS @ABCD @xFedal @Luiz @Achilles82 @5555 @uliks @veroniquem @NoleFam @RF-18 @jm1980 @Djokovic2011 @Nachiket Nolefam @Djokodal Fan @user and a host of other Nole fans ranging from mild to extreme biased against Federer.

To be honest, I'm having a hard time finding neutral Nole fans around here, which is only a few like @Hitman and @Towser83
Click to expand...

To be fair as well that goes both ways, many Fed fans were complaining about the field this year as well undermining Novak's success until the past 7-10 days where the weak era threads have gotten out of control.
 
NatF said:
Why would it have?

17 >>> 10 still. Unless your 'friend' thinks we're all bitter about those Big 3 finals that Novak won?

We are BTW
Click to expand...
Why? Quickening. Only 1.5 years ago it was 17>>6 while now it is 17>>10. Is it possible that at one point (2019 as an example) it will be 17>>19? In my time, when Borg won Wimbledon, people discussed about it as a huge achievement and nobody would mention Laver (Laver was past and Borg was presence; the best player now was the best player). Djokovic has a real problem of being abused when playing to the extend that he had to be protected by umpires. As he is getting more successful abuse is getting worse. Becker admitted that Federer is the best ever and 2006>>2015 just begging, in return, for Djokovic being left alone. Sensing Seles? Federer have no such problems with Djokovic's fans. If you say that this is just about numbers, I would say that Federer played last year DC in Serbia and there was no hostility towards him; none whatsoever.
 
ABCD said:
Why? Quickening. Only 1.5 years ago it was 17>>6 while now it is 17>>10. Is it possible that at one point (2019 as an example) it will be 17>>19? In my time, when Borg won Wimbledon, people discussed about it as a huge achievement and nobody would mention Laver (Laver was past and Borg was presence; the best player now was the best player). Djokovic has a real problem of being abused when playing to the extend that he had to be protected by umpires. As he is getting more successful abuse is getting worse. Becker admitted that Federer is the best ever and 2006>>2015 just begging, in return, for Djokovic being left alone. Sensing Seles? Federer have no such problems with Djokovic's fans. If you say that this is just about numbers, I would say that Federer played last year DC in Serbia and there was no hostility towards him; none whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Good post and point.
 
I really don't see the need to be particularly politically correct here… Yes, 2015 was weak at the top - that is when we compare it to 2012 for instance - but in the same way 2006 was weak when compared to 2012 (both IMO). We can only speak of strong and weak relative to something, as the human mind always works in relatives. To give a simple analogy, we don't attribute the value of a random toaster by looking at it in isolation, but by comparing it to other toasters, their functions and their prices. In that sense, the question of a weak year is a question of whether the field looks weak relative to a dominant player or if a player looks dominant relative to a weak field. Further, does a normal year look weak because it is followed or preceded by amazing years, or is it truly the case of a weak year looking weak relative to a normal year? These are questions we cannot answer and hence this whole debate is rather funny to watch, though meaningless.

Now then, to make a more meaningful analysis, let us look at the respective "weak eras" of these two players.

Before Federer's "weak era" we had a large crop of young talented players who emerged and displaced the older players from the top. Guys like Hewitt and Safin made great waves early on and Roddick too showed great promise. These 3 along with Federer formed what some might call "another big 4" (I actually think somebody here called them that in a very old thread I saw floating around here somewhere). Then, in 2004 Federer suddenly catapulted himself ahead of the field in a rather unexpected display of utter dominance. He stayed there until the next generation of talented youngsters (most notably Nadal) displaced him (or at the very least suppressed his dominance).

This was followed by a brief period of Nadal dominating, after which Djokovic stepped up to the plate and stopped that, commencing his own sort of dominance.

The difference to Federer and Nadal for Djokovic is what comes after… Well, nothing really so far. Djokovic's most significant titles were most contested for by past generations or at best current ones, but future generations are not the main factor contributing to years where he did not dominate.

A debatable, yet interesting way of putting it, is that Federer went ahead of the curve and set a standard which others began to meet after a while, whereas Djokovic met that standard while others began to fail to maintain it. The respective times in which their standard is above others' is what is generally called the weak era.

Now the question is how long can Djokovic sustain this level and how long will it take for younger players to meet it. It is the latter part of that question which truly worries me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gn
tennisaddict said:
Weak eras are real. One cannot tell with a straight face that the HC and grass competition Fed , Sampras , McEnroe and others faced is not better than what it is today.

Clay - it does not matter what the competition is. Rafa wins everything there anyway.

However Novak is not at fault. Even if there were good players, he is going to be winning a lot of majors given his level. However not 10 majors and the insane number of other titles. He would be a clear tier 2 instead of a player trying to be compared to the Borg's and Rafa's.
Click to expand...

Djokovic 2011-2015 faced at least as tough, IMO tougher competition compared to Federer 2004-2007.

old Federer + Nadal + Murray + Wawrinka > old Agassi + Safin + Roddick + Hewitt

Nadal was irrelevant on hard untill 2008-2009, after that, an ATG going by just the HC titles.

Nothing you say can reduce the number of titles Djokovic won, and is yet to win. You should stop being offensive towards him, his level of play is the only reason Nadal is still below your guy.
 
it´s funny like all this mugs talk about weak era of fed and nole, BUT OF THE PATETIC WEAK ERA ON CLAY OF NADAL NOTHING...

NADAL´S BEST RIVALS ON CLAY WERE TWO FAST COURT PLAYERS.....

AND OUTSIDE THE CLAY, HE CAN WON THE GREAT PART OF HIS TITLES OUTSIDE CLAY IN THE ERA OF PAST PEAK ROGER AND PRE PEAK NOVAK
 
user said:
Djokovic 2011-2015 faced at least as tough, IMO tougher competition compared to Federer 2004-2007.

old Federer + Nadal + Murray + Wawrinka > old Agassi + Safin + Roddick + Hewitt

Nadal was irrelevant on hard untill 2008-2009, after that, an ATG going by just the HC titles.

Nothing you say can reduce the number of titles Djokovic won, and is yet to win. You should stop being offensive towards him, his level of play is the only reason Nadal is still below your guy.
Click to expand...

the version of nadal 2015, was patetic man......much worse than old agassi!!!

murray????? this murray wasn´t better than goods safin or hewitt.

wawrinka, is like safin, a genius but depends of his head that day.
 
mavsman149 said:
@Sabratha, 90% of your posts if not more the past week have been moaning about weak era. You are a knowledgeable fan but it's getting really boring.
Click to expand...
You've been here for so long. So you probably know how Federer is accused for taking advantage of weak era. After this year, I thought Novak fans would come to term and admit that there ain't such thing as 'weak era'. But they second guessed it and came up with 'who had tough opponents' thread. So I don't see the reason for Sabratha to hold back after taking the sh*t for years.
 
gnana prakash said:
You've been here for so long. So you probably know how Federer is accused for taking advantage of weak era. After this year, I thought Novak fans would come to term and admit that there ain't such thing as 'weak era'. But they second guessed it and came up with 'who had tough opponents' thread. So I don't see the reason for Sabratha to hold back after taking the sh*t for years.
Click to expand...
In terms taking **** for years, Djokovic is GOAT (which is, by the way, one of the reasons why Djokovic will not stop until he gets the best numbers).
 
I was responding to someone (in a thread that was deleted) about Federer winning a lot against allergic very young Novak and losing a lot against prime Novak. What I found was interesting to me:

Novak was leading 17-10 from end of 2010 to end of 2015. Obvious positive ratio for Djokovic.

Let see other matchups between Federer and Nadal, Murray, Delpo:

Federer - Murray 5-8 before end of 2010 and 9-3 from end of 2010 to end of 2015. Fed was much better in this matchup after 2010.
Federer - Nadal 7-14 and 4-9, it's almost the same.
Federer - Delpo 6-2 and 9-3 it's the same.

Fed in his prime had same or lousier results against his biggest rivals (except Novak) from those in his second youth. Conclusion - it was Novak who significantly got better, not Federer declining that much.
 
SpinToWin said:
I really don't see the need to be particularly politically correct here… Yes, 2015 was weak at the top - that is when we compare it to 2012 for instance - but in the same way 2006 was weak when compared to 2012 (both IMO). We can only speak of strong and weak relative to something, as the human mind always works in relatives. To give a simple analogy, we don't attribute the value of a random toaster by looking at it in isolation, but by comparing it to other toasters, their functions and their prices. In that sense, the question of a weak year is a question of whether the field looks weak relative to a dominant player or if a player looks dominant relative to a weak field. Further, does a normal year look weak because it is followed or preceded by amazing years, or is it truly the case of a weak year looking weak relative to a normal year? These are questions we cannot answer and hence this whole debate is rather funny to watch, though meaningless.

Now then, to make a more meaningful analysis, let us look at the respective "weak eras" of these two players.

Before Federer's "weak era" we had a large crop of young talented players who emerged and displaced the older players from the top. Guys like Hewitt and Safin made great waves early on and Roddick too showed great promise. These 3 along with Federer formed what some might call "another big 4" (I actually think somebody here called them that in a very old thread I saw floating around here somewhere). Then, in 2004 Federer suddenly catapulted himself ahead of the field in a rather unexpected display of utter dominance. He stayed there until the next generation of talented youngsters (most notably Nadal) displaced him (or at the very least suppressed his dominance).

This was followed by a brief period of Nadal dominating, after which Djokovic stepped up to the plate and stopped that, commencing his own sort of dominance.

The difference to Federer and Nadal for Djokovic is what comes after… Well, nothing really so far. Djokovic's most significant titles were most contested for by past generations or at best current ones, but future generations are not the main factor contributing to years where he did not dominate.

A debatable, yet interesting way of putting it, is that Federer went ahead of the curve and set a standard which others began to meet after a while, whereas Djokovic met that standard while others began to fail to maintain it. The respective times in which their standard is above others' is what is generally called the weak era.

Now the question is how long can Djokovic sustain this level and how long will it take for younger players to meet it. It is the latter part of that question which truly worries me.
Click to expand...
Sensible post, but the bolded part is the most important aspect of this discussion IMO. There are few here, and certainly not the OP it seems, who are interested in actually discussing arguments about a "weak era". They see it as a vehicle to pursue their own player-centric agendas. This is no clearer than when you illustrate this cogent point: Is one player so much better than everyone else? Or is everyone else that much worse?

This is impossible to distinguish. Nothing remains constant year-to-year. Not the field, not a player's form and not conditions, schedules and context. This is where a discussion on "weak era" specifically aimed at undercutting the achievements of an athlete fall on it's face. First lets call a spade a spade. When we say "weak era" we are simply using a derogatory term to describe a period when one player has total domination over the field. "Weak era" ascribes blame on competitor's who cannot rise to the level of the dominant force nor challenge him competitively. When in reality, this is no more likely or determinable than the opposite approach where the top-dog is simply that good - in fact it's less likely!

Do I think the field is weaker now than it was in 2013? I do. It's amazing how the lack of Del Potro has hurt the depth on tour, as well as Nadal to a limited extent. Do I think Djokovic is better now than he was in 2013? Yes I do. Now to what extent? Is the field worse than Djokovic is better? By how much? And as the OP's main goal is to diminish the top-dog's achievements by distressing over inferior competition, it ignores how we can even determine if the field is even at fault!
 
  • Like
Reactions: gn
gnana prakash said:
You've been here for so long. So you probably know how Federer is accused for taking advantage of weak era. After this year, I thought Novak fans would come to term and admit that there ain't such thing as 'weak era'. But they second guessed it and came up with 'who had tough opponents' thread. So I don't see the reason for Sabratha to hold back after taking the sh*t for years.
Click to expand...

You are right, Fed fans did have to deal with that too and likely every dominant players fanbase will have to deal with it unfortunately. Perhaps Sabratha does have a reason to get annoyed by it, the only reason I said something is that he generally is a very fair poster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gn
Nadal didn't have weak competition on clay. I have not seen Borg and Becker eras. From what I see on youtube, the guys on grass were quick movers to the net and finishing the vollies. Guys on clay played unbelievable rallies moving side to side. Borg's matches vs Lendl and Vilas at RG were as physical as today's matches.

Now everyone is playing similar game so Roger and Novak are very capable of playing on clay. They are not fast court specialists like I would say about Becker and McEnroe. Rafa had pretty tough competition but none of his competitors are as accomplished. Borg had Vilas who has won 600+ clay matches, but he is I think like 10-0 vs Vilas. Only reason to claim Vilas higher than Roger is he CHOSE to play most of the matches on clay courts. Does that make Borg's competition easy? Nadal has hammered whole field on clay for 9/11 years.
 
tennisaddict said:
Weak eras are real. One cannot tell with a straight face that the HC and grass competition Fed , Sampras , McEnroe and others faced is not better than what it is today.

Clay - it does not matter what the competition is. Rafa wins everything there anyway.

However Novak is not at fault. Even if there were good players, he is going to be winning a lot of majors given his level. However not 10 majors and the insane number of other titles. He would be a clear tier 2 instead of a player trying to be compared to the Borg's and Rafa's.
Click to expand...

this is spot on
 
OhYes said:
I was responding to someone (in a thread that was deleted) about Federer winning a lot against allergic very young Novak and losing a lot against prime Novak. What I found was interesting to me:

Novak was leading 17-10 from end of 2010 to end of 2015. Obvious positive ratio for Djokovic.

Let see other matchups between Federer and Nadal, Murray, Delpo:

Federer - Murray 5-8 before end of 2010 and 9-3 from end of 2010 to end of 2015. Fed was much better in this matchup after 2010.
Federer - Nadal 7-14 and 4-9, it's almost the same.
Federer - Delpo 6-2 and 9-3 it's the same.

Fed in his prime had same or lousier results against his biggest rivals (except Novak) from those in his second youth. Conclusion - it was Novak who significantly got better, not Federer declining that much.
Click to expand...

that's more to do with Federer starting to give a crap outside slams after it was clear he could no longer consistently win slams after 2010-2011 or so. From 2008-2009 it was all about slams to break the record and Murray benefitted from that. It was clear who was boss when Federer cared though as the USO and AO finals show.
 
metsman said:
that's more to do with Federer starting to give a crap outside slams after it was clear he could no longer consistently win slams after 2010-2011 or so. From 2008-2009 it was all about slams to break the record and Murray benefitted from that. It was clear who was boss when Federer cared though as the USO and AO finals show.
Click to expand...
smiley_giggle_by_mirz123.gif
You are telling me that Federer was losing from Murray in his early days because he wanted just slams ??? That makes no sense metsman. Which champion could play with such lackluster effort in his prime ? :confused: And what about his efficiency in slams from those years ? From 12 possible he took 4. :rolleyes: That doesn't sound like concentrating just on slams to me.
 
After Federer beat Djokovic in the RR stage, one of the ESPN journalists said"I don't know if this speaks more about Federer,or the rest of the tour"
Federer did not play the 2015 version of Nadal. Competition in 2015 was a joke.
You had a defending champion that won only 3 games at the US open.

You have Djokovic winning 5 of his 11 titles against a 33/34 year.
I'm sorry but I don't see how anyone can claim this was a strong year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
If Federer dominated a weak era, then so have Nadal and Djokovic
7 8 9
Replies
408
Views
12K
NatF
NatF
Sport
Andy Murray Weak Era
Replies
8
Views
851
Zardoz7/12
Zardoz7/12
P
Myth : Federer thrived in a "weak era"
Replies
28
Views
4K
TMF
T
1
Debasing the weak era nonsense
2
Replies
87
Views
5K
RS
RS
skypadq
If Federer benefited from Weak era, Nadal would benefit too
Replies
6
Views
367
mxmx
mxmx
Back
Top