Have people finally understood how gigantic the difference between an amazing player and a mediocre generation like this one is?

[Sudacafan]

Yes, of course.

 

[NatF]

I had no idea Ferrer got more sets in those periods you selected. Doesn't feel like it weirdly.

It's a bad faith comparison comparing career h2h versus h2h in Federer's very best years (especially with Hewitt's injuries and missing out on some of Hewitt's). Hewitt actually has some wins too lol.

 

[RS]

Currently Novak is 36 and has had one of the best seasons of his life.

It took Carlos zoning on grass for 4 sets to take him down and even there it was down to Novak missing crucial chances and playing below himself for big chunks of the match.

On clay, his weakest surface he was going toe to toe with Carlos, the guy who was like a 70-30 favourite before the match for most.

This is the same guy who was capable of playing better than this in 2020-2021, even better in 2018-2019 and even better in 2015-2016 and even better in 2011.

Just to understand, this is the worst an in-form Novak has played while still winning Slams and only a zoning performance can take him out in a very close match.

At this point I think people should be blind not to see where players like Medvedev or Carlos reside in terms of level compared to a truly great player from 10 or even 5 years ago.

Then we have Thiem, who played the tennis of his life in AO 20 against an underpar Djokovic and lost, barely beat Windovic in RG 19. This is thr Wawrinka of this generation.

Then the same guy got anihilated by Nadal at RG 19, a guy not even in his prime, which ended by 2014.

Now just backtracking how even the best of this generation does against heavily declined versions of these guys, where exactly does this put them compared to the guys of 2014-2015, or peak Fed's opponents in 2004-2005?

This should really put in perspective both just how incredible a player like Djokovic truly is if he can win Slams without breaking a sweat at 36 and at the same time how unbelievably bad this generation is. And ditto for Nadal and Fed.

I think ever saying player X is at the level of Big 3 should instantly lose someone all credibility, these guys would be low top 10 players at best if they played 10 years ago.

Great thread.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

calm down bro

These guys are basically barbarians tearing down beautiful works in favour of their own crude art, so to speak. Not taking to this kindly, would you be?

 

[The Guru]

You're not and I wasn't trying to imply you were. I'm shocked you think I'm part of the problem I have gone through phases where although I do think this is a hideously weak era, I've tried not to say it too much - at least after a slam win so that you guys (or Nadal fans) can enjoy the win a bit. But I don't always have patience and I can't pretend that my perception of this as an "inferior product" and Djokovic's piling up of wins in the era hasn't made me salty because it has lol.

I mean, achievements are one thing but I'm talking about them as players. The last two Crap Gens could have won some slams in other areas, but I don't think they do them with as much flourish. I also think that the differences between them would be meaningful enough to deny slams - but we had this debate at length before and I cba to revisit it.

Agree to disagree on the last stuff, I don't think Roddick, Stepanek, Blake etc...got better in 2008, Fed was just worse. Nadal and Djokovic were better but I don't think the second tier players of later on were tougher than Newballs personally.

I think you do have moderate respect for the third tier guys of Gold Gen but when it comes to Lost and Next Gen they are punchlines at best and more accurately players to be mocked and sneered at for their incompetence at every turn. When's the last time you talked positively about a match involving Novak or Next Gen guys? Years? All I ever see from you in match threads is how bad the standard or how it's worse than everyone else is saying. That was even the main narrative coming out of the Cinci final. Instead of appreciating what was by any standard a great match the main Fed fan talk was about how it was overrated and that the drama was good but the quality was nothing special. Like even if it wasn't amazing how many matches were better than that one in 2004 in your opinion? Surely less than 5 and yet still the talk about it is negative. Everything you say about the last 10 years of tennis is negative players are bad and overrated etc. etc. Yet you shower praise upon players of a similar calibre from 20 years ago sure Roddick's a bit better than Thiem or whoever else but its fine margins certainly not big enough margins to justify the rhetorical difference. I get you're defending your guy and his era so there's gonna be a lean but it's so drastic. Maybe you feel you're balancing things out but that's a bad approach say things precisely if people try to balance eachother out the rhetoric gets pushed farther and farther away.

 

[RS]

calm down bro

Post got deleted.

 

[RS]

I think you do have moderate respect for the third tier guys of Gold Gen but when it comes to Lost and Next Gen they are punchlines at best and more accurately players to be mocked and sneered at for their incompetence at every turn. When's the last time you talked positively about a match involving Novak or Next Gen guys? Years? All I ever see from you in match threads is how bad the standard or how it's worse than everyone else is saying. That was even the main narrative coming out of the Cinci final. Instead of appreciating what was by any standard a great match the main Fed fan talk was about how it was overrated and that the drama was good but the quality was nothing special. Like even if it wasn't amazing how many matches were better than that one in 2004 in your opinion? Surely less than 5 and yet still the talk about it is negative. Everything you say about the last 10 years of tennis is negative players are bad and overrated etc. etc. Yet you shower praise upon players of a similar calibre from 20 years ago sure Roddick's a bit better than Thiem or whoever else but its fine margins certainly not big enough margins to justify the rhetorical difference. I get you're defending your guy and his era so there's gonna be a lean but it's so drastic. Maybe you feel you're balancing things out but that's a bad approach say things precisely if people try to balance eachother out the rhetoric gets pushed farther and farther away.

If I make a thread on this topic will you engage in it?

 

[The Guru]

If I make a thread on this topic will you engage in it?

Depends what you mean. What is your intended topic? The state of the rhetoric at TTW because that ship sailed a long time ago. Plus I don't want to be in the business of policing others and how they talk. Nor do I think I'm above everyone else and can talk down to them about how things should be.

I'd absolutely prefer it if talk was overwhelmingly positive and that better players would just get praised more and worse praised less. I like most of the players and I want to engage in positive talks about their legacies and this site has poisoned me to some extent. I loved Federer before I got on here and rooted for him in almost every match and back when I was super active I could feel that sometimes I wanted him to lose out of spite which is an incredibly stupid way to feel for so many reasons. I hate that my positive feelings towards Federer have been somewhat tainted by my experience here. Same thing with Hewitt he's my second favorite player of all time and yet I'm sucked into arguments all the time where I'm saying he's not as good as others are claiming. I wish things were different but they're not. This place primarily constitutes of conversations attempting to tear down the achievements of the past 25 years that's just the way it is. Rare to find good stuff on here that's why I stuck up for Raul.

 

[RS]

It was going to be were the quality of 2016-2023 really so much worse than the quality of matches in a on average era or something along those lines but would probably be muddy anyway

I agree though. All we hear all the time is how bad levels are with so much negativity in that time frame even if it's a good match it's still not agreed on and still dumped on in some way. It's everyone who plays part in this not just a single fanbase. That was also going to be added after the title with a poll of options.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Depends what you mean. What is your intended topic? The state of the rhetoric at TTW because that ship sailed a long time ago. Plus I don't want to be in the business of policing others and how they talk. Nor do I think I'm above everyone else and can talk down to them about how things should be.

I'd absolutely prefer it if talk was overwhelmingly positive and that better players would just get praised more and worse praised less. I like most of the players and I want to engage in positive talks about their legacies and this site has poisoned me to some extent. I loved Federer before I got on here and rooted for him in almost every match and back when I was super active I could feel that sometimes I wanted him to lose out of spite which is an incredibly stupid way to feel for so many reasons. I hate that my positive feelings towards Federer have been somewhat tainted by my experience here. Same thing with Hewitt he's my second favorite player of all time and yet I'm sucked into arguments all the time where I'm saying he's not as good as others are claiming. I wish things were different but they're not. This place primarily constitutes of conversations attempting to tear down the achievements of the past 25 years that's just the way it is. Rare to find good stuff on here that's why I stuck up for Raul.

That's like the whole issue, chief (!!1). Worse players get praised more and better players praised less, and you're one of the culprits and don't want to stop. :< Like, Djokovic is worth plenty of praise but I'm not gonna do that when that is gonna be used as ammo to keep putting him above Federer.

 

[NatF]

I think you do have moderate respect for the third tier guys of Gold Gen but when it comes to Lost and Next Gen they are punchlines at best and more accurately players to be mocked and sneered at for their incompetence at every turn. When's the last time you talked positively about a match involving Novak or Next Gen guys? Years? All I ever see from you in match threads is how bad the standard or how it's worse than everyone else is saying. That was even the main narrative coming out of the Cinci final. Instead of appreciating what was by any standard a great match the main Fed fan talk was about how it was overrated and that the drama was good but the quality was nothing special. Like even if it wasn't amazing how many matches were better than that one in 2004 in your opinion? Surely less than 5 and yet still the talk about it is negative. Everything you say about the last 10 years of tennis is negative players are bad and overrated etc. etc. Yet you shower praise upon players of a similar calibre from 20 years ago sure Roddick's a bit better than Thiem or whoever else but its fine margins certainly not big enough margins to justify the rhetorical difference. I get you're defending your guy and his era so there's gonna be a lean but it's so drastic. Maybe you feel you're balancing things out but that's a bad approach say things precisely if people try to balance eachother out the rhetoric gets pushed farther and farther away.

I wasn't able to watch past the first set of that Cincy match so I can't comment on the standard of the match or the thread.

Define positively? Like what positive words can be said about the performances of Tsits, Ruud and Medvedev in those slam finals this year? I'll praise something when it's worthy. I don't even praise matches such as the AO 2017 final besides liking the outcome and the drama of the fifth, but I'm not sure when the last better match was (bar obvious ones like Wim 2018 SF). I guess I could remark on the quality of Djokovic's play in those matches but I've seen a lot better from him. I was calling the era weak as early as 2017/2018 anyway, back when Fed was way out in front of Djokovic so I think it's consistent. I also don't join many Fed fans in calling 2015 weak so 10 years is certainly stretching it, more like 6/7 years from my perspective.

As far as better matches in 2004? Probably more than you'd give credit for

 

[RS]

Depends what you mean. What is your intended topic? The state of the rhetoric at TTW because that ship sailed a long time ago. Plus I don't want to be in the business of policing others and how they talk. Nor do I think I'm above everyone else and can talk down to them about how things should be.

I'd absolutely prefer it if talk was overwhelmingly positive and that better players would just get praised more and worse praised less. I like most of the players and I want to engage in positive talks about their legacies and this site has poisoned me to some extent. I loved Federer before I got on here and rooted for him in almost every match and back when I was super active I could feel that sometimes I wanted him to lose out of spite which is an incredibly stupid way to feel for so many reasons. I hate that my positive feelings towards Federer have been somewhat tainted by my experience here. Same thing with Hewitt he's my second favorite player of all time and yet I'm sucked into arguments all the time where I'm saying he's not as good as others are claiming. I wish things were different but they're not. This place primarily constitutes of conversations attempting to tear down the achievements of the past 25 years that's just the way it is. Rare to find good stuff on here that's why I stuck up for Raul.

Anyway Djokovic fans who used to more relaxed push back on these points more even more since Djokovic passed and got close to equaling Dalerer records raise thus making it even more unfriendly. Every thing gets to a this player vs player in deep context so it looks like everybody is hating.

The vocal posters also give a impression this is the majority wide spread belief on the matches but it's just that they are the most vocal this isn't necessarily what the majority things. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing in every instance since that's debate and one person can direct the way it goes but it causes people to forum negative opinions on players the previously liked more beforehand.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

Ok I don't think I'm part of that problem. Maybe you'd disagree I'd be surprised but I've been surprised before. I do think you're a part of the problem I described. You can make a difference in making that better.

Yeah I don't really find any of this objectionable. I think the New Balls guys are greater than the vast majority of the second and third tier guys of the last 15 years. That being said I still think the biggest difference between them and the little 4, Lost Gen, and Next Gen is the early 00s period to pile achievements in and that while they may fare better against old Djokodal it would not be in any meaningful way. They'd still be 1 and 2 in the world and they'd still win basically everything they won.

Well I think it's both. Fed didn't have the same level tournament in tournament out and the competition got better that's what I was saying. They were compounding factors.

Maybe you can say that about Roddick and Ferrero, but Safin and Hewitt beat Sampras for at least one of their slams. I would actually say Safin is exactly the kind of guy who could catch fire for one match or one tournament and deny an ATG a slam, a la Wawrinka. He really doesn't get enough credit for his 4-2 slam h2h vs Sampras and Agassi. And he actually has a 2-0 slam h2h vs Djokovic himself. The first one was meaningless, but the second one was a complete shocker. I think an early 20's Safin would make more of an impact against old Djokodal than all of lost gen and next gen combined.

 

[Third Serve]

These guys are basically barbarians tearing down beautiful works in favour of their own crude art, so to speak. Not taking to this kindly, would you be?

The tearing down is only verbal, not physical. And so long as it remains verbal and respectful it’s really not worth a heated response. The old works are still there to enjoy even if others don’t appreciate them.

So what do you do? Enjoy them. Perhaps have good faith debates on the merits of the “beautiful” art and the “crude” art. But nothing more.

 

[serbiavic]

Where is the private group chat?

It's a good post, and since I am not known for my brevity (as a writer, I'd love to be paid by the word here), it would be quite hypocritical for me to complain about length.

I guess that we've both put our opinions out there abundantly, and I'm not sure we'll convince one another on areas of which we don't agree. You don't have to convince me of how great Fed was, particularly on grass. And while these things are hard to measure, I would agree ...mostly everyone would...that Fed was a better player at Wimby than Djokovic was/is at the USO. And when Roddick is serving lights-out, it seems that he could beat anybody on HC or grass, with the notable exception of Roger. Not 100%, but you get the point...mostly that I see your point here.

(One of the ironies of this thread is that, usually, various rivals of Big 3 players (we all know the names) are used to either prop up or tear down one Big 3 player or another. and now, it's almost being done in reverse, as not many truly care if Medvedev is judged to be better than Roddick or vice versa. It's all done by proxy. While imperfect, I really try not to do this for anyone, as I respect all these players. Of course, I'm not immune to comparing players, but I try to do it with objectivity and without derision.)

Anyway, there are things upon which we agree, but the point that I've made, almost ad nauseum, about Novak (especially) being about as good as he was 10 years ago (if only at the slams, as he knows how to peak for them) is one that I hold to because that's my honest opinion. There's no way, of course, to prove or disprove this. I do get tired of all the negativity, though. I'm not even that much of a Novak partisan (and have criticized him many times) but it gets tiresome to hear how it's impossible that someone can be just as good...or just as difficult to defeat at slams, just because we haven't seen it before. And of course, Fed had the best 4-6-year run in the OE, so only arguing about level and achievements in a player's prime is self-serving, or "Fed-serving". I tend, in all sports, to look at whole careers, unless there's a compelling reason not to.

Following mostly team sports outside of tennis (and I admit that the dynamic is a bit different), I've simply never heard all the arguments about only/primarily counting what someone achieves in their prime and discounting what they achieve outside of their prime. It's quite reasonable to suggest that the average 26 year-old is better in most sports than the average 36-year-old, but it gets ludicrous when people are slaves to this idea...and mostly in service to a particular player or against another player. And yes, arguing this -- and totally discounting another player's achievements or belittling their achievements (by belittling their opponents) is like playing cards with a stacked deck. Sure, you can win the argument (hand) but if the other side knows that you've cheated (by being intellectually dishonest), is it worth it?

(This is partly a carryover from the private group chat -- the constant negativity and demeaning of players' achievements (let alone the vitriol on these boards) has me a bit on edge.)

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

The tearing down is only verbal, not physical. And so long as it remains verbal and respectful it’s really not worth a heated response. The old works are still there to enjoy even if others don’t appreciate them.

So what do you do? Enjoy them. Perhaps have good faith debates on the merits of the “beautiful” art and the “crude” art. But nothing more.

All we say are just words, after all. What gives? The futility is getting to me though. Can't change minds set in their wrongful ways.

 

[Nole_King]

Because he only started to consistently be dominant once he reached that age.

This putting up of an arbitrary milestone of turning 28 in May 2015 and looking at slam record from just before and ignoring the one immediately after is confirmation bias. If you really want to see his record till 28, see it till May 2016 because he was still 28 before his 29th birthday and his record in slam finals would be 12-8.

If at all the idea is to consider his record in finals till the time both Federer and Nadal were a force at slams, we should look till 2018. I am first to admit that his domination from 2020, going 8-3 in slam finals has a lot to do with the field. At the same time lets not turn blind to the fact that Federer didn't beat him in slams after 2012 and nor did Nadal (outside FO) after 2013.

 

[mike danny]

They sure made it competitive vs Nadal and Federer though. Weird. Why couldn't Fedal in their 30s stop these guys like Djokovic if they are that useless? I mean Tsitsipas has 2 wins against Fedal at AO. Nadal has lost to useless players at the other slams as well. So did Federer.

Federer was older than Djokovic is now when he lost to Tsitsipas. Djokovic himself lost to a guy 16 years younger this year and Tsitsipas is 17 years Fed's junior.

Nadal played a bad match for his standards in what was a very very rare loss from 2-0 up. He was destroying Tsitsipas in the first 3 sets, played a bad tiebreak and then didn't have the physicality anymore the rest of the match.

Without these wins, Tsitsipas literally would have nothing to fall back on and it does say a lot that people still reference these wins from a long time ago even today.

And it's not just Djokovic who's owning Tsitsipas, 19-20 year old Alcaraz also is.

 

[mike danny]

This putting up of an arbitrary milestone of turning 28 in May 2015 and looking at slam record from just before and ignoring the one immediately after is confirmation bias. If you really want to see his record till 28, see it till May 2016 because he was still 28 before his 29th birthday and his record in slam finals would be 12-8.

If at all the idea is to consider his record in finals till the time both Federer and Nadal were a force at slams, we should look till 2018. I am first to admit that his domination from 2020, going 8-3 in slam finals has a lot to do with the field. At the same time lets not turn blind to the fact that Federer didn't beat him in slams after 2012 and nor did Nadal (outside FO) after 2013.

It's not age per se, it's that Djokovic only became dominant again after Nadal declined and Fed got older.

 

[Biotic]

It's not age per se, it's that Djokovic only became dominant again after Nadal declined and Fed got older.

Yeah and Fed dominated when all of them were peak.

 

[MichaelNadal]

But we do know seeing as he was 8-8 in slam finals when he was 28.

Mikey out here taking em down

 

[mike danny]

No it's not it's a fact. He has been far more successful objectively. Yes that has a lot to do with Novak's age but the fact that you can't admit something that's just factually accurate shows how hopelessly biased you are about this whole thing.

I did say he is more successful because he's had it much easier. He's still not way more successful considering he's 1-4 in slam finals against mid 30's Djokodal, including 2 easy losses to Djokovic.

Yep true. I can also say Fed gen only one won slam after Fed showed up and were completely displaced by teenage Djo, Ned, and Murray.

Yes, but you'd be ignoring that Ferrero, Hewitt and Safin were finished by injuries, not by lack of ability.

I can say Oldassi 8 matches vs Fed 0-8 5 whole sets and Roddick 3-21 vs Federer 14 sets won in total. I can say Hewitt from 04-09 was 0-14 with 5 sets won.

Hewitt was done after 2005, so don't look beyond that. And yes, your numbers are correct, but Fed wasn't in his mid 30's when these numbers happened which is my whole point. They were still better than Next Gen and 90's born as a whole.

I can say Safin was 1-7 vs prime Federer only 2 matches where he takes a set. I can say that factually this level of competition is pretty much the same as what Dimitrov, Nishikori, and Raonic provided to Djokovic during his prime and probably even less than Berdych, Cilic, Tsonga, and Ferrer did. Numbers are displayed bare bones. No interpretation necessary.

Trying to say that they offered as much resistance as the Lost Gen is just trolling at this point especially when the Lost Gen didn't win jack squat. Berdych and Tsonga did offer some stern resistance from time to time, yes.

Don't think Carlos played a bad match but agree to disagree. Roddick doesn't have a win that good period.

Again, Carlos played a poor match, otherwise he isn't losing to Medvedev. And despite scoring that win, he still played a sub par final which cancels it out.

He objectively did not. You define Fed's prime as 04-10 AO. Roddick literally won 0 matches in that period. By your definition Med doesn't even have a match against a prime ATG (except maybe Alcaraz) so how could he have a signature one lol.

Exactly, so it's useless to try and compare them since Med has had it much easier. Carlos is not in his prime yet. 2004 Wimb and 2009 Wimb finals are objectively better efforts than any of Med's.

Right so 4R AO 13 was irrelevant and Djokovic wasn't trying. Good to know. Man these are some good arguments.

That's different. Once Djoker saw how much of a threat Wawrinka was, he raised his level accordingly once he was down a set and a break. And even after he did that, Stan still pushed him hard. Med didn't.

Nope

Oh, but yes, considering how he's won half of his slams post prime and 16 slams after 2013 when there were no more prime ATGs around. Fed at best only had 4 easier years, Djoker has had almost 10 and counting, so yeah, it's not particularly close at this point.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah and Fed dominated when all of them were peak.

Where did I say that?

 

[Biotic]

Where did I say that?

You're penalizing Djoko bcoz of it, even tho it's true for Fed also.

 

[mike danny]

You're penalizing Djoko bcoz of it, even tho it's true for Fed also.

Never said it wasn't, just pointing out that Djokovic shouldn't be devoid of this criticism just because his fans are sensitive and don't want to admit it.

 

[Nole_King]

It's not age per se, it's that Djokovic only became dominant again after Nadal declined and Fed got older.

With the same logic can we then say that Federer won his last 3 slams because Djokovic was on decline at that time?

In my view year 2011 domination of Djokovic when Nadal had not declined and Federer was not "old" simply puts to bed these arguments.

Never said it wasn't, just pointing out that Djokovic shouldn't be devoid of this criticism just because his fans are sensitive and don't want to admit it.

What criticism are you really suggesting Djokovic should cope up with? You wanted him to not win these slams to be devoid of the criticism?

All the fan bases are sensitive here and they fail to see any merit in arguments that make other player look better. When Federer and Nadal swept 6 slams between them from AO 2017 and FO 2018 playing against each other only once, I never heard about weak era. But when Djokovic wins the next 3 beating Nadal twice, it is a weak era. Cmon !!!

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

With the same logic can we then say that Federer won his last 3 slams because Djokovic was on decline at that time?

In my view year 2011 domination of Djokovic when Nadal had not declined and Federer was not "old" simply puts to bed these arguments.



What criticism are you really suggesting Djokovic should cope up with? You wanted him to not win these slams to be devoid of the criticism?

All the fan bases are sensitive here and they fail to see any merit in arguments that make other player look better. When Federer and Nadal swept 6 slams between them from AO 2017 and FO 2018 playing against each other only once, I never heard about weak era. But when Djokovic wins the next 3 beating Nadal twice, it is a weak era. Cmon !!!

You didn't listen hard enough then. The Career Inflation Era has been a topic since 2017.

 

[Nole_King]

You didn't listen hard enough then. The Career Inflation Era has been a topic since 2017.

If I listen too hard I may hear 2003-06 as well. It is all BS - just a tool for one fanbase to come at other.

 

[mike danny]

Fun fact Murray has as many wins vs Fed from 04-07 aged 16-19 as Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Agassi, and JCF combined #strongestera #somuchbetterthan90sgen

Fun fact: Hewitt, Roddick and Agassi in 2004 and 2005 gave Fed tougher matches than the mighty Murray and Stan in 2015.

#DjokoGenWeak

 

[mike danny]

Scoreline looks easy but match was tough...but that is djokovic greatness...he can out-battle almost anyone and make comptitive matches look routine on the scoreboard.
he did it to tsitsipas and med before in slam finals.
dude is just a cyborg.

But somehow couldn't do it to Murray and Wawrinka.

 

[mike danny]

With the same logic can we then say that Federer won his last 3 slams because Djokovic was on decline at that time?

Ummm, yeah?

In my view year 2011 domination of Djokovic when Nadal had not declined and Federer was not "old" simply puts to bed these arguments.

2011 was still only one year. He went on to underperform for the next 3. Meanwhile these same people expected Federer to dominate forever after 2004-2007 for his previous wins to be legitimate, but for Djokovic just one dominant year is enough apparently.

What criticism are you really suggesting Djokovic should cope up with? You wanted him to not win these slams to be devoid of the criticism?

No, I'm just tired of double standards and pretending only Federer's era deserves criticism and Djokodal are safe by default because they won most of their slams outside 2004-2007.

All the fan bases are sensitive here and they fail to see any merit in arguments that make other player look better. When Federer and Nadal swept 6 slams between them from AO 2017 and FO 2018 playing against each other only once, I never heard about weak era. But when Djokovic wins the next 3 beating Nadal twice, it is a weak era. Cmon !!!

Even in 2017 people were saying it was a weak era.

 

[mike danny]

I also don't join many Fed fans in calling 2015 weak so 10 years is certainly stretching it, more like 6/7 years from my perspective.

I don't believe 2015 was weak, at least compared to what came afterwards. My only gripe with it is that it's elevated as a strong era year while still putting 2004-2007 down.

 

[RF-18]

Federer was older than Djokovic is now when he lost to Tsitsipas. Djokovic himself lost to a guy 16 years younger this year and Tsitsipas is 17 years Fed's junior.

Nadal played a bad match for his standards in what was a very very rare loss from 2-0 up. He was destroying Tsitsipas in the first 3 sets, played a bad tiebreak and then didn't have the physicality anymore the rest of the match.

Without these wins, Tsitsipas literally would have nothing to fall back on and it does say a lot that people still reference these wins from a long time ago even today.

And it's not just Djokovic who's owning Tsitsipas, 19-20 year old Alcaraz also is.

They still lost to these players. Playing bad is a terrible excuse. It should be easy if they are such weak opponents. Tsitsipas has a combined 2-1 h2h vs Fedal at AO. Nadal lost to Thiem as well. Federer has plenty as well. Do what Djokovic did then if it's that easy, but they couldn't.

 

[mike danny]

They still lost to these players.

But Federer didn't lose when he was Djokovic's current age. Let's wait until early 2025 before we draw any conclusions.

Playing bad is a terrible excuse. It should be easy if they are such weak opponents.

All it proves is that Tsitsipas isn't a challenger level player, but it doesn't mean he is of high quality. Where are his slams and no.1 ranking?

Tsitsipas has a combined 2-1 h2h vs Fedal at AO.

So? Muller is 2-1 vs Nadal at Wimb, big whoop. Gonzalez is 1-1 vs Nadal at the AO, yet he is constantly labeled as weak.

Nadal lost to Thiem as well. Federer has plenty as well. Do what Djokovic did then if it's that easy, but they couldn't.

Federer did dominate the field at 34 and 36, so he did show that he could do it. Nadal last year handled Djokovic's competition just fine.

 

[mike danny]

Fun fact Murray has as many wins vs Fed from 04-07 aged 16-19 as Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Agassi, and JCF combined #strongestera #somuchbetterthan90sgen

At least they didn't lose to a Federer carrying an injury unlike, ahem, Tsitsipas and Med.

 

[World Beater]

But somehow couldn't do it to Murray and Wawrinka.

Misleading. Djokovic is much better in H2H than both guys. He is not going to win every single contest against every great player.
Djoker has also straight setted both guys so it has happened b4.

 

[BrokenGears]

Lmao man. In Federer's worst year in 2013, it still took Murray 5 sets to overcome Federer at AO. But yeah sure, Murray would have got him lol.

AO 2013 wasn't a bad run from Fed at all. He started playing like garbage after he injured his back around Indian Wells.

 

[The Guru]

I did say he is more successful because he's had it much easier. He's still not way more successful considering he's 1-4 in slam finals against mid 30's Djokodal, including 2 easy losses to Djokovic.

Yes, but you'd be ignoring that Ferrero, Hewitt and Safin were finished by injuries, not by lack of ability.

Hewitt was done after 2005, so don't look beyond that. And yes, your numbers are correct, but Fed wasn't in his mid 30's when these numbers happened which is my whole point. They were still better than Next Gen and 90's born as a whole.

Trying to say that they offered as much resistance as the Lost Gen is just trolling at this point especially when the Lost Gen didn't win jack squat. Berdych and Tsonga did offer some stern resistance from time to time, yes.

Again, Carlos played a poor match, otherwise he isn't losing to Medvedev. And despite scoring that win, he still played a sub par final which cancels it out.

Exactly, so it's useless to try and compare them since Med has had it much easier. Carlos is not in his prime yet. 2004 Wimb and 2009 Wimb finals are objectively better efforts than any of Med's.

That's different. Once Djoker saw how much of a threat Wawrinka was, he raised his level accordingly once he was down a set and a break. And even after he did that, Stan still pushed him hard. Med didn't.

Oh, but yes, considering how he's won half of his slams post prime and 16 slams after 2013 when there were no more prime ATGs around. Fed at best only had 4 easier years, Djoker has had almost 10 and counting, so yeah, it's not particularly close at this point.

Again you're cherrypicking by limiting it to slam finals. Medvedev has been considerably more successful against Djokovic than Roddick was against Fed. This is a statement of fact. The interpretation of why is something else entirely. We can't get to interpretations if you just refuse to acknowledge things that are factually true.

And this is somehow a good thing? Instead of providing stronger competition for longer they didn't and that's good?

Ah sorry so 0-9 with 4 bagels consumed in 5 slam matches. Much better. Clearly was a serious challenger to Fed before the hip injury. 90s Gen could never hope to be as competitive.

I mean it's really not. Nishi, Rao and Dimi scored 3 wins and 1 slam win over Djokovic from 11-16 and JCF, Safin, Rod, and Hewitt scored 2 wins and 1 slam win against Fed from 04-09. So factually the resistance they provided was more or less identical. People clown the second and third tier players of the last couple eras for getting bodied by Djokovic (and Nadal) but they got no less owned than the guys of Fed's era only difference is we don't spend all day everyday propping these guys up as true challengers and you do.

Convenient.

Again convenient. I guess Roger's wins over 19-20 year old Rafa don't mean much either. Objectively according to you. Saying objectively is already ludicrous but on something this close it's especially ludicrous.

Again convenient. Clearly you have no bias here.

You're just huffing an inane amount of copium. Every objective measurement there is points to Djokovic facing stronger competition and performing better against it and yet somehow you see a massive chasm in the other direction. I'm willing to admit that at this point it's pretty much balanced out and that the strength of competition numbers are probably slightly flattering to Djokovic. Time for you to take a dose of reality.

 

[The Guru]

Fun fact: Hewitt, Roddick and Agassi in 2004 and 2005 gave Fed tougher matches than the mighty Murray and Stan in 2015.

#DjokoGenWeak

Lol this is literally not even close to true. Stan and Murray got a win two 5 setters and a moderately competitive 4 setter in 2015. In 2004 we have a 5 setter two uncompetitive 4 setters a very competitive 4 setter and a complete beatdown in straights. In 2005 we have three straight setters one competitive 4 setter and one not very competitive 4 setter.

So Stan and Murray averaged winning 2 sets across 4 matches.

Hew Rod and Dre averaged .7 sets across 10 matches.

Stan and Murray got a win. Hew Rod and Dre did not. Stan and Murray won more sets in 4 matches than Hew Rod and Dre did in 10. It's not even close. You're just completely delusional.

 

[RS]

Lol this is literally not even close to true. Stan and Murray got a win two 5 setters and a moderately competitive 4 setter in 2015. In 2004 we have a 5 setter two uncompetitive 4 setters a very competitive 4 setter and a complete beatdown in straights. In 2005 we have three straight setters one competitive 4 setter and one not very competitive 4 setter.

So Stan and Murray averaged winning 2 sets across 4 matches.

Hew Rod and Dre averaged .7 sets across 10 matches.

Stan and Murray got a win. Hew Rod and Dre did not. Stan and Murray won more sets in 4 matches than Hew Rod and Dre did in 10. It's not even close. You're just completely delusional.

Nalbandian AO 04 and Hewitt AO 04 vs Murray and Wawrinka AO 15 who wins H2H?

 

[RS]

You didn't listen hard enough then. The Career Inflation Era has been a topic since 2017.

Didn't get fully wide spread till 2021.

 

[The Guru]

AO 2013 wasn't a bad run from Fed at all. He started playing like garbage after he injured his back around Indian Wells.

Gotta lump in the AO with the rest of 2013 to pretend Murray couldn't beat a good Federer. Narrative over truth always.

 

[DSH]

It's a bad faith comparison comparing career h2h versus h2h in Federer's very best years (especially with Hewitt's injuries and missing out on some of Hewitt's). Hewitt actually has some wins too lol.

US Open 2003 Roddick vs US Open 2023 Djokovic, who wins?

 

[RS]

US Open 2003 Roddick vs US Open 2023 Djokovic, who wins?

Djokovic but he doesn't win every time because it's not 2011 Djokovic. Probably 3/4 times.

 

[DSH]

Djokovic but he doesn't win every time because it's not 2011 Djokovic. Probably 3/4 times.

I want the Federer fan to respond.

 

[RS]

I want the Federer fan to respond.

Sorry thought it was general

 

[DSH]

Sorry thought it was general

Why do you think 36-year-old Djokovic could beat 21-year-old Roddick?

 

[RS]

Why do you think 36-year-old Djokovic could beat 21-year-old Roddick?

Don't know that the degree by exact numbers just playing a bit with numbers there

Djokovic is just favored over most if he his is in good form. Once the ball gets in a rally he is the favorite and the match most likely wouldn't end very quickly. I still think the older version of the big 3 are still above everyone else still just less so to a degree.

 

[Krish0608]

AO 2013 wasn't a bad run from Fed at all. He started playing like garbage after he injured his back around Indian Wells.

Federer lost to Malek Jaziri at Dubai. Before IW. He was crap in 2013. Right from the start,

 

[NatF]

US Open 2003 Roddick vs US Open 2023 Djokovic, who wins?

The guy who leads the h2h 5-4.